Here's the best part:
I meant the part about no charges, but the part about having a concealed carry license is pretty good too.
Wickersham said the man has a concealed pistol license. He said the girl and the father were in the same room inside the house when the shooting occurred. Other people also were home at the time. No charges have been filed.
What's your opinion? How is it possible for a trained person, who has fulfilled numerous (draconian) requirements to own a gun and acquire a CCW permit, to not know there's a round in there? How is that possible?
How is it possible for places like Michigan to not file charges against someone like that?
And, finally, why do gun owners who are not as irresponsibly dangerous as this guy, defend him? Are you who speak on his behalf afraid someday you'll have such a mishap? If not, you should throw this guy to the wolves and support the newest suggestion in gun control theory, ONE STRIKE YOU'RE OUT.
Please leave a comment.
"What's your opinion? How is it possible for a trained person, who has fulfilled numerous (draconian) requirements to own a gun and acquire a CCW permit, to not know there's a round in there? How is that possible?"
ReplyDeleteWell, let's see.
You and your ilk have been pushing against mandatory safety training for years.
You and your ilk are against hunting (generally).
You and your ilk have tried everything you can think of to reduce gun ownership across the board.
Now, when a man gets a gun, he is far less likely to have learned about guns and gun safety from his dad. He is far less likely to have gone hunting with his father, gaining invaluable knowledge about gun safety and proper gun handling at a young age. He is far less likely to be knowledgeable about guns, and know certain safety basics, like not pointing the gun at anything he doesn't intend to shoot, or keeping a finger off the trigger, or checking to confirm that the weapon has been unloaded.
But, he had a concealed carry license, you protest!
And those classes teach about the requirements of the CONEALED CARRY LAW, not gun safety! You could take that class and pass it, if you wanted to. But the responsibility of carrying your firearm safely still falls on you. Some states require that the person pass a basic handgun course that teaches the bare minimum of handling a gun safely and then shooting a target to show proficiency. Even this won't help the complacent, though.
If this man thought he knew gun safety because he took a 4 or 8 hour class, but was complacent about carrying it out, his daughter paid the price for it.
"How is it possible for places like Michigan to not file charges against someone like that?"
There are numerous possibilites, but the two most likely are that
1) he already is paying for it. That man will forever live with the knowledge that he shot his daughter and could have killed her, all because he didn't follow the four rules of gun safety. Want to bet that he NEVER does that again?
and
2) the state doesn't think it'll get a conviction for what amounts to an accident, and since the daughter didn't die, they let it go. Besides, being Michigan, they'll likely pull his permit over this.
Mikey W makes a number of misrepresentations, here. I'll address a few.
ReplyDeleteYou and your ilk have been pushing against mandatory safety training for years.
No. In fact, we have been pushing for real mandatory training for all would-be gunowners. It's your masters at the NRA who claim none is needed or--even better--that they get it from some NRA course which is probably worse than having none at all. Most NRA trainers barely know which end is which on a firearm.
You and your ilk are against hunting (generally).
Again, no. In fact, the NRA is very much anti-hunter.
Now, when a man gets a gun, he is far less likely to have learned about guns and gun safety from his dad.
No. Studies show that gunowners are overwhelmingly from family's who owned guns.
But, again, learnining "gun safety" from your old man may not be a great idea if your dad wasn't a safe gun owner.
"No. In fact, we have been pushing for real mandatory training for all would-be gunowners."
ReplyDeleteNo, in fact you haven't. What you've been pushing for isn't gun safety training, but a roadblock to prevent people from becoming gun owners by making them prove that they are eligible and good enough to buy the gun.
See, as an example, in Wyoming, they still teach hunter safety in high school. They teach basic gun safety in grade school. But, there is no requirement to show that one took the class, or passed it, to buy a gun. If you and your ilk had your way, everyone would have to show some form of ID that says they passed it. That's going too far.
"Again, no. In fact, the NRA is very much anti-hunter."
Please elaborate. Show your work. If anything, the NRA is far more concerned with hunters and hunters' rights than people merely owning guns. At least, they always seemed that way to me.
"No. Studies show that gunowners are overwhelmingly from family's who owned guns."
Yeah, that would generally be true, and logical. There are also significant numbers of people getting their first gun, and they know nothing about them. They have no idea how powerful a gun could be, or how to safely handle one.
"But, again, learnining "gun safety" from your old man may not be a great idea if your dad wasn't a safe gun owner."
The ONLY correct thing you've said so far. Good job, Guy! You're on schedule to be right twice today, just like a broken clock.
Poor Mikey W.
ReplyDeleteWhen I sagely note how wrong he is--he merely doubles down.
If you want to own a gun--you should demonstrate proficiency. And you ought to be tested periodically.
You call this a "roadblock."
Why? Because you're merely toeing the NRA partyline that says no training, whatsoever, is needed.
"...sagely..."
ReplyDeleteAgain, you've used that word. Utter comedy, coming from you, Guy.
"If you want to own a gun--you should demonstrate proficiency."
If you want to own a gun, you don't have to prove anything. At worst, it should be up to the government to prove that you aren't fit to own one. That's how freedom works. I know, that's a tough concept for statist like you.
"And you ought to be tested periodically."
Leave my sex life out of this.
"You call this a "roadblock.""
Yup, because I can speak without lying, unlike you. I would even go so far as to say I sagely called it a roadblock.
"Why? Because you're merely toeing the NRA partyline that says no training, whatsoever, is needed."
No, I'm not toeing the "Negotiate Rights Away" line on anything. But, they are correct if they agree with me that mandatory training (and proof thereof) in order to be able to purchase is unconstitutional. However, training is always a good idea, and they do support that.
I noticed that you didn't answer this, Guy:
"Again, no. In fact, the NRA is very much anti-hunter."
Please elaborate. Show your work. If anything, the NRA is far more concerned with hunters and hunters' rights than people merely owning guns.
"Why? Because you're merely toeing the NRA partyline that says no training, whatsoever, is needed."
ReplyDeleteDidn't you do a whole post on how the NRA is all about forcing training so they can fill their pockets??
Good grief, we know you are full of shit but you would think you would at least keep your shit consistent.
Anonymous asked, "Want to bet that he NEVER does that again?"
ReplyDeleteNo, not me. I'd want to put him on the disqualified list as soon as he got out of jail. Of course that's wishful thinking because in Michigan, he gets to do it again if he wants.
"...if he wants."
ReplyDeleteI don't think he wanted to do it the first time. Like most UD, he failed to follow basic safety precautions and simply did something stupid. And his daughter will forever suffer from it. And I suspect he will too. I also suspect he will learn from it, which is why I asked if you want to bet he never does it again.
Experience is the best teacher.
"I'd want to put him on the disqualified list as soon as he got out of jail."
That's because you're a busybody statist who thinks he has to try to control everyone else's lives. That's the only way you'd ever be happy.
Fortunately, you don't get to do that, and all you can do is sound off impotently here on your little blog.
Anonymous: "That's because you're a busybody statist who thinks he has to try to control everyone else's lives. That's the only way you'd ever be happy."
ReplyDeleteWrong. If I had my way the worst 10% of you would be disarmed. That's all.
Why do you object so strongly?
Wrong. If I had my way the worst 10% of you would be disarmed. That's all.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you object so strongly?
Quite frankly, we don't believe you. We don't believe that you would stop there. We find you to be untrustworthy.
To further the other Anon's comment, just a bit, I would add:
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when that doesn't solve the "problem?" Why, another 10% must be disarmed, and another and another.
No thanks.
All right, speaking on behalf of all the gun control folks, if I could promise you that if you gìve up the 10% who are making all the trouble, we'll be completely satisfied and stop bothering you. Would you do it?
ReplyDelete