Wednesday, January 23, 2013

It's Official - No Charges for Negligent Discharge in NC Gun Show

Local news reports on what we predicted.
Wake County's district attorney says he can find nothing to indicate laws were broken in an accidental shooting at a gun show.

District Attorney Colon Willoughby said Tuesday that no charges will be filed against 36-year-old Gary Lynn Wilson of Wilmington.

State Fairgrounds Police Chief Joel Keith said a 12-gauge shotgun discharged while its owner removed it from its case at a security checkpoint at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show last Saturday. A retired sheriff's deputy and two bystanders were hurt.

Wilson brought the weapon to the show to find a private buyer. 

The shooting prompted organizers to close for the rest of the day, but the show reopened Sunday without private gun sales.

It was one of three accidental shootings at gun shows across the U.S. last Saturday.
Gun rights fanatics love to accuse us of "fearing inanimate objects" or "blaming the gun," but when it serves their purpose of treating gun negligence nonchalantly, they don't mind blaming the gun one bit themselves. Case in point: "a 12-gauge shotgun discharged." What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. Since I wasn't there, I can't comment on the exact specifics. It is likely that the owner of the gun did something wrong, and he'll be liable for civil damages. That's as should be with an accident. The key point is to note how rare accidents are in comparison to the total number of gun owners and the total number of gun shows and gun show attendees.

    1. You're all for individual responsibility - except when it's time to support one of you fellow gun owners who acted negligently. Then, oh I wasn't there. Bullshit. Negligent discharges should be taken more seriously.

    2. Why do you take issue with what Greg said? He said it is "likely" that the owner did something wrong, in which case they can be held liable. That sounds like individual responibility to me. Is your problem the use of the word "likely"?

    3. I have the responsibility not to make definitive statements without evidence. As I said, in all likelihood, the gun owner is at fault. I also identified the remedy.

    4. No, TS, I took issue with the "liable for civil damages. That's as should be with an accident."

      There are no accidents with guns. There are violations of the 4 Rules and people should be held responsible for that.

    5. Of course there are accidents with guns. If not an accident, then it was intentional. That is not to say that accidents dont involve negligence or are preventable, but you are misusing the word here. And of course people need to take responsibility for their accidents.

    6. By preferring to call them negligent acts, I'm putting the emphasis on the gun owner. By calling them accidents you're doing the exact opposite.

    7. One of my points was that without knowing the details of the case, I can't say for certain what happened. It sounds like an act of negligence. My understanding of the law says that since no one died, this will be handled as a civil matter, since there was no intent.

      The system works. The gun owner is likely to pay a lot in damages. He might even have to sell his guns to raise the money. There you go.

  2. Mike, my use of the word "accident" in no way shifts blame away from the person who caused the accident. You are redefining the word to try and say I am wrong, but the reality is we agree that if someone caused an accident, they should be responsible for their actions.

    Look up "accidental" in the dictionary if you have to. An antonym for it is "intentional". "negligent" is not an antonym.