This is a disgraceful report for two reasons. The gun didn't accidentally discharge. It was negligently fired. And secondly, the automatic default of not filing charges when it's determined to have been an "accident" is wrong. People who do that are a menace to themselves and others. To think that all or even most of them learn from their mistakes is a dangerous, and I believe a losing bet.Kuna Police Chief Cody Aldrich told KTVB that two men in their 20s were inside a pickup truck preparing to go hunting. The passenger was holding a pistol when it accidentally discharged, striking him in the leg.
His injury is said not to be life threatening. The man was transported to a local hospital for treatment.
Aldrich says this was an accident and no charges will be filed.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Waaaaaaahhhhhhhh!
ReplyDelete"...the automatic default of not filing charges when it's determined to have been an 'accident' is wrong."
ReplyDeleteOkay, so what Washington statute would you charge him under?
Gun accidents are still very rare occurrences. That day 80 million guns were not discharged negligently.
Yeah right. If you divide by all the stars in the galaxy, they're even rarer.
DeleteApples and oranges.
DeleteI am now thinking I should ask... you don't have to answer if you don't want to, I will understand... but... are you or someone you love or know a victim of a crime where a criminal misused a firearm?
Respectfully --A.
You're right I don't have to answer and the reason I won't is because I don't play along with silly attempts to get inside my head.
DeleteFWM, he should be charged with reckless endangerment or some such.
How come none of these guyz ever stupidentally shoots a 12 point buck?
ReplyDeleteOne day at a range near Nashville, TN, a buck ran in front of the hundred-yard berm. All of us shooters stopped and watched it pass, since it wasn't in season.
DeleteThat's not why you stopped and watched. You were too shocked to act. Same thing happens when you happen to be present when a gun incident occurs, remember the Gabby Giffords shooting. Same thing.
DeleteYou can say that because you were present? Or perhaps it's because you understand me so well? The possibility that we were paying attention and acted appropriately just doesn't enter into your thinking, does it.
DeleteThe reasons people stop and behold any suddenly divergent event in their midst are as varied as the individuals themselves. Human behaviour is complex and predictable. It is not usually a healthy idea to attribute reactions to merely one or two reasons, or the most cynically so. If I recall correctly, at least one Arizonan was lawfully armed, who heard the shots, clicked off the safety on his semi-auto in his pocket, and was preparing to intervene when at the moment of no return, an event attendee jumped Loughner and disarmed him, with the armed citizen's instant cooperation, having re-clicked the safety. When we raise better humans, healthier humans, intercede when we regard each other with un-tinted glasses and render compassionate aid to the mentally ill with the same vigor and speed we do those we see physically wounded, then we will see such freakish outbursts with firearms plummet beyond its already tiny fraction. But to disarm hundreds of millions of lawful citizens, Constitutionally entitled citizens, based on the lunatic or irresponsible acts of a very tiny few comparatively is to boil the water with the baby still in.
DeleteRegards --A.
My contention has always been that there were several others nearby with concealed guns, given that it was in Arizona where no permit is required and lots of people have guns and some of them surely would carry them to a political event.
DeleteNot a one of them was able to intervene in a timely manner.
Then a contention is all it is, without citation. But let's pretend it's true. So, the vast majority of the other armed people did NOT start shooting irresponsibly or murderously? So, the vast majority of them elected NOT to draw down on Loughner because they judged it imprudent? What, are you mad that time did not allow Loughner's take-down by firearm? You are all over the place Mike, and it is because you are emotional. I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. --A.
DeleteI'm no more emotional than you are. And all your observations about my being "all over the place" and my not making sense and you not being able to take be seriously are bullshit put-downs. They have nothing to do with the argument.
DeleteYou guys often claim that concealed carry is good for interrupting the bad guys when they do their thing. The Loughner case is an example of how that's just not true. Is it typical? I don't know for sure, but I think it is.
I encounter many tech diffs trying to comment at any Blogspot blogs using either my Open ID or WordPress profiles, so I'll try Anon here.
ReplyDeleteIf only those people who accidentally kill others with their cars, while impaired by drinking, toking or texting, *or not*, would be automatically charged with a felony, with a hefty bond, I would give your proposition more credence. Far, far more people are killed with a deadly weapon--a car--every day than by lawfully owned weapons or, for that matter, unlawfully owned.
The 2nd Amendment should enjoy the same liberal interpretation as the 1st. After all, the founders knew, from personal experience, that without the 2nd the 1st would perish.
If we are willing to live with the death toll exacted by lousy drivers, though driving is not a right, then we certainly can and should live with the death toll exacted by lousy shooters, the vast majority of whom (in the US) do have a Constitutional right to bear arms, see Heller v DC. Humans kill each other, accidentally and otherwise. We always have and always will. Should we give up trying to reduce that? Of course not. But will we ever get close to an "acceptable" level? Respectfully, what do you think?
Thanks for asking. I come by way of TYWKIWDBI. --A.
One thing I'd like to clarify is that there are not "Far, far more people are killed with a deadly weapon--a car." The yearly totals are about 30,000 compared to 40,000.
DeleteWhen you consider that the average car owner uses his car a lot more than the average gun owner, even those numbers are skewed.
Also consider that the restrictions on cars already has the death toll down. If cars were as unrestricted as guns, there'd be 100,000 deaths a year.
If cars were as unrestricted as guns? I can own a vehicle on my private property and do with it as I please. I have to have a license if I'm going to drive it in public, but those licenses are easy to get and there's only a test at the first application. After that, it's just a way for the government to raise money. The same is true about vehicle registration. And think about the people who drive without any paperwork. You're going to have to provide evidence for your 100,000 claim.
DeleteIn reply to Mike's reply to me: I think perhaps there is misunderstanding: I am referring to the US. "The yearly totals are about 30,000 compared to 40,000" immediately struck me as far too low--for the US, and certainly world-wide. Which country does your statistic pertain to and what is the source? A quick re-check of the PDF at the Census Burueau confirms my assertion: in 2009, there were 10.9 million deaths due to motor vehicle accidents. Of course, world-wide that number would be much higher. Outside of war, death by fire arm in the US is considerably lower. According to the CDC, firearm homicides in 2008 totaled 11,493 persons. I would post links but that usually angers the comment bots.
DeleteMy question remains: how many deaths by accident will be acceptable to everyone such that we are satisfied that everything we can do to prevent all such deaths has been done? I believe we all know that such a figure or consensus is beyond human achievement, most certainly thus far. That given, the human right to triumphant self-defense is more existentially essential than even our Constitutionally guaranteed right.
(BTW, I did try to click a Reply directly to your reply Mike, but saw no link for such.)
Cheers. --A.
I meant to add, it is critical for the safety of women, the elderly and disabled, that their 2nd Amendment Right be exercised regularly (by way of owning, handling, and target practice). If you do not use your right, you WILL lose that right. See History. If anyone can keep it from being abolished, even in its currently gutted state, it is women, able elderly and able disabled. Those groups are over-represented in victim populations because criminals are cowards and pick on those who will not likely successfully stop them in their tracks.
ReplyDeleteLet's say I am a woman, alone, facing a man intent on harming me. I am unarmed. Who will win?
Now put a gun in my hand.
If you attempt to add facts that do not exist in the hypothesis, you are dodging the question.
Good day --A.
Thanks for your comments A. I'm not sure where those figures come from but I've read them several times, 40,000 plus deaths from cars while 30,000 plus from guns.
DeleteObvious differences exist. Half the gun deaths area suicide, while very few of the car deaths are. Most of the car deaths are accidents while very few of the gun deaths are.
My position is we need to raise the bar for who can own guns. The 2A is already infringed, we need to decide where's the right place to draw the line.
Please stop spouting figures without supporting citation. It hobbles your arguments. I have provided supporting evidence, you have not and apparently routinely do not. This makes you sound irrational. Raising the bar? That's called raising better citizens. Citizens who are trained to handle a firearm at an early age so they master it and know when to use it and when not to use it. As with any tool. The 2A is "already infringed"? So, you are suggesting it be infringed even more? Imagine if such a suggestion were made about 1A. Is it still not true that the pen is mightier than the sword? If so, which is more lethal, then?
DeleteWhy else would you wield a blog, eh?
If you are ok with living with the slippery slope of outrageous abuses of 1A (de Sade depth depravity in pr0n, Westboro Baptists, interwebs trolls, etc.), then you have to be ok with the same slippery slope of outrageous abuses of 2A by criminals and fools. And all the other As.
I'm still waiting for you to make a logical rebuttal, rather than dropping in terse rejoinders that merely dodge my questions.
Cheers. --A.
Terse rejoinder: we're not talking about the 1A.
Delete