Even with proper training, accidents do happen.We just had one of these the other days. If this keeps up I'm gonna start believing the gun-rights fanatics that civilians are safer than police.
At 10:44 Tuesday morning, emergency units responded to the Hatfield Township Police Department shooting range on the 300 block of County Line Road for an injury caused by the accidental discharge of a firearm.
According to Hatfield police, Sgt. Stephen Gillen of the Upper Gwynedd Township Police Department was conducting annual firearms training at the range when a round fired into his left foot while he was removing the weapon from his holster.
There were also three officers present for the firearms training, Duffy said.
Describing police work as a “dangerous” job, Duffy said that although it’s rare, accidents can occur even in a controlled environment such as a police range.
I love the opening line of the article. "Even with proper training, accidents do happen (when irresponsible and clumsy gun owners are involved).
The gun rights folks have a lot invested in downplaying accidents, as if they're a part of the deal. The truth is, no accidental shooting is possible unless the gun owner breaks two or more of the Four Rules of Gun Safety.
Why are they so reluctant to take responsibility?
Please leave a comment.
And yet we keep telling you that yes, people are responsible for most unintended discharges. But you keep using "they," as though no one on our side ever says that. Where we differ is in the appropriate response to an incident.
ReplyDeleteJudging, evaluating and defining people based upon group membership or affiliation is pretty common and I think that's part of what we see with the unqualified use of words like "they". It's easy to do because of the mind's ability to draw general conclusions based on relatively little information. It's convenient as it saves us the time and effort of dealing with people as individuals. The fact that it's also lazy and can lead to objectification and the infringement of the rights of a large number of people based upon the action of a relative few is easy to overlook if you're convinced of the rightness of your cause or belief. We can see it in recent and not so recent history. In this country we can look at the status or view held of 1)women, 2)slaves, 3)American Indians, 4)union members and 5)modern day muslims to name just a few. In each case, while there were those considered exceptional for their group ("he/she is pretty smart/well-educated/reliable/hard-working/trustworthy for a...") it was membership in the group that was the criterion for judgement.
DeleteThe alternative is to judge people as individuals. This requires much more work, takes more time and requires constant attention to make ensure avoiding slipping back into judging based upon group affiliation. It has, of course, its own hazards, one of which might be ignoring the fact that sometimes, members of a given group do share some characteristics. Still, I think this is a better approach.
I don't want to over-simplify, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that the differences in these approaches is a big part of the difficulty in finding any sort of common ground. The underlying world views are so different as to make a mutually acceptable answer very difficult to find. We aren't helped by politicians of almost every description who so willingly pander to one demographic or another in an attempt to win support and votes.
The concept of establishing a civilized society dictates that the state actors charged with enforcing the legal codes and maintaining order in the society, are reasonably capable of doing so. When a group of individuals forms a civilized society, those individuals forgo individual protection of their own life, liberty, and property, in favor of collective protection which manifests itself in the form of a professional police force. For a society to function without frequent disorder (crime, riots, and civil war) the mere citizen must not be endowed with coercive power, in the form of small arms, unless said citizen is acting under a function of the state. Also the professionals who are endowed with coercive powers must be appropriately equipped (better armed than the citizen) for the purpose of maintaining public order, enforcing the legal codes and customs, ensuring the continuity of government against potential insurrection (armed or hopefully unarmed). A civilized society manifestly requires both the armament of the state as well as the (complete) disarmament of the mere citizen.
DeleteAs the phenomenon of mutual codependency for the benefit of the collective society (the concept of Civilization) is a concept alien to mankind, true peacetime can only exist within the structure of despotism.
Individual responsibility requires that the negligent be held accountable.
DeleteMikeb, they already are.
DeleteWow not a word on the lack of training or discipline around the two separate shootings connected to the hunt for a leftist gun banning, Obama supporter....
ReplyDeleteNot a word....why is that?
Just one more feather in their morally and intellectually dishonest cap.
Deleteorlin sellers
Still not a peep out of Mikeb about the Piers Moran fan that went on a shooting rampage and has eluded capture for days.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
yep...cops are way more trained and responsible than us lowly civilians...even the one's in the lapd that put 50+ bullets into a truck driven by 2 latina women that looked nothing like the suspect vehicle..or the other lapd cops that rammed and then fired on a vehicle that was the same color as the suspect vehicle...different make and model but let's not let that get in the way...yea...let's let them be the only one's that are armed.
ReplyDeleteAnd according to a recent Consumer Report, gun accidents are down while other household accidents are up. Figure the odds, eh?
ReplyDelete