The Seattle Times reports
The 10-year-old daughter of a veteran Spokane police officer was in stable condition after shooting herself in the leg on Easter with her father's duty weapon, authorities said.
Officer Barry O'Connell, an 18-year veteran of the Police Department, has taken time off to care for his daughter. When he returns, he will be assigned to desk duty while an investigation by Spokane County sheriff's detectives is under way, police said.
It's hard to see the degree of recklessness that must go into a story like this in a picture. Maybe if you talked to the guy it would show. How could ANY gun owner EVER allow something like this to happen? I honestly cannot fathom it.
As inexplicable as it is, one thing we can conclude is that it does happen, and that it happens too often.
The solution is certainly not to throw up our hands and say accidents will always happen and there's nothing we can do about it. That's what the gun-rights folks want. The solution is twofold, first we need better screening and training and secondly we need to swiftly and severely punish those found wanting.
Loss of gun rights is the first thing that should happen, after due process of law, of course. Although some may learn from their mistakes, those who have proven to be capable of such stupidity should never have a chance to repeat it.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Agreed. One strike and you're out. Inexcusable.
ReplyDeleteMan from Oregon, since the person here is a police officer, he'd lose his job under a one-strike-and-you're-out policy. Will the Brady Bunch hire him? They and other gun grabber organizations appear to be a welfare system for people with no marketable skills beyond bloviating.
DeleteOf course, the same could be said for the Office of the President of the United States lately.
This man is a cop. That means that he's been through all the checks that your side advocates, and he's regularly evaluated. Can you see why we know what you really want? That's total disarmament. You're not fooling anyone.
ReplyDeleteNo, not all the checks that I advocate, not by a longshot.
DeleteOh, I see. If we just pass one more law, just one more, we'll be in paradise. The fact that gun control hasn't worked yet here isn't evidence that it won't ever work. We just need one more law.
DeleteNo, Greg, not just one more law. What we need is a comprehensive set of gun control laws which apply to all the states.
DeleteAnd that's not going to happen. What will you try next?
DeleteIs it just me or does that guy look like Tom Hanks?
ReplyDelete"This man is a cop. That means that he's been through all the checks that your side advocates, and he's regularly evaluated."
ReplyDeleteYou have a copy of the Spokane PD's firearms regulations and training documents; or are you just stating as a fact something that's an assertion. I know that in your mind what you view as truth HAS to be truth, damn the facts, but those of us who are rational don't think that way.
"Can you see why we know what you really want? That's total disarmament. You're not fooling anyone."
A complete non sequitir. It amazes me that you teach ENGLISH.
Disregarding your apparent ignorance in how to properly construct a sentence, we're still left with you making the same idiotic complaint that you always wind up mewling about.
mikeb302000 has said dozens of times, at least, that he's not for confiscating people's gunz. So, you call him a liar, every time you say something as stupid as the above. And yet, you love to whine about people not showing you or your arguments any respect. Get used to being laughed at.
Next time you try to teach me how to construct English sentences, don't split an infinitive in doing it. Also, you neglected to identify where I made an error in grammar or composition. But clearly, English isn't your first language. Are you literate in another?
DeleteDemocommie, demanding proof for generally known facts is tedious. It's standard for prospective police officers to be put through a background check, and once hired, they have to qualify with their firearms periodically. Depending on the community that they serve, they are also monitored in their performance to varying degrees. Must I find you sources for these statements? They're not really in dispute, are they?
But the gun control side always tells us that the police are one of two approved groups for having firearms. If cops can't stop themselves from accidents or negligence, doesn't that suggest that gun control doesn't do the promised job? Since the standard proposals for gun control don't work, what's to stop gun grabbers from arguing for a total disarmament?
That part of my comment was an interpretation. Looking at the evidence of your side, I see a goal of disarming private citizens. I don't know about every specific control advocate, but the general movement gives plenty of reasons for me to conclude that, and as we all know, when you run around with bad people, even if you're good yourself, you get lumped in with the rest of the crowd.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYour original stupid comment.
ReplyDelete"This man is a cop. That means that he's been through all the checks that your side advocates, and he's regularly evaluated. Can you see why we know what you really want? That's total disarmament. You're not fooling anyone."
"A fallacy in which a conclusion does not follow logically from what preceded it." (http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/nonseqterm.htm)
And then:
"Next time you try to teach me how to construct English sentences, don't split an infinitive in doing it. Also, you neglected to identify where I made an error in grammar or composition. But clearly, English isn't your first language. Are you literate in another?"
Actually, Greggie, I've been speaking the language since a while before you were born--and I'm not teaching it for a living. Doubling down on teh burnin' stoopit doesn't make it less stoopit.
"Demanding proof for generally known facts is "tedious"?
Look it up, sport, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Which "facts" are you whining about?
"That part of my comment was an interpretation. Looking at the evidence of your side, I see a goal of disarming private citizens."
Well, the fact is that you're completely full of shit when you're talking about me.
"I don't know about every specific control advocate, but the general movement gives plenty of reasons for me to conclude that, and as we all know, when you run around with bad people, even if you're good yourself, you get lumped in with the rest of the crowd."
I've repeated enough times, that even someone as stupid as you should be able to get it, that I don't HATZ teh gunz. When you say that "my side" wants to do that--not even knowing where mikeb302000 and I disagree on gunz controlz--even after you've been told, more than once--by me--that I don't have any interest in taking teh gunz away, even from a gunzloon like yourself? That would be a LIE. Lying is something you seem quite happy to do, in that "deliberately telling a falsehood" sortaway.
You want to lump me or anyone else in with who? The Brady campaign folks or PETA or what? Lumping people together is something that you perceive as being okay?
Alrighty then. There's a lot of people killed every year by fucked-up insecure assholez wit teh gunz; therefore all gunz ownerz are fucked up assholez who want to murder people. Okey dokey, if that's how you see the world, good for you.