Monday, May 27, 2013

Oklahoma 15-Year-old Critical

Local news reports 

A 15-year-old girl was taken by helicopter to Tulsa after she was accidentally shot in her home Sunday afternoon in the Tucker community in northwest Le Flore County.

Le Flore County Sheriff Rob Seale said the girl and her 12-year-old sister were handling a .380-caliber semi-automatic handgun when one of the girls placed the gun on a counter. When the 15 year old reached down to get her cell phone, Seale said the gun discharged.

Seale said the girl’s mother was outside when the accident happened. He said an investigation is ongoing but it appears to be an accidental shooting.

“It looks pretty clear-cut accidental,” Seale said.

Did ya get that part, the "pretty clear-cut accidental" part?  In backwards gun-loving states like Oklahoma, that's code for "we're not gonna hold the irresponsible gun owner accountable."

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


15 comments:

  1. Do you enjoy your bigotry, Mikeb, or does it pain you as much as it does me?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean my bigotry against self-serving irresponsible gun owners who look the other way when offenses are committed and the blog warriors who support them?

      Delete
    2. No, against states that aren't benighted rabbit warrens.

      Delete
  2. I wish there were more of you, Mikeb.

    Know why? Because one person, no matter how bigoted and full of rage and hatred, cannot really be considered a "hate group."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mom goes outside for some reason leaving a firearm access able two kids. Kids start messing with the gun. Gun goes off with no one touching it and just sitting on the counter. My first thought is to call bullshit. Guns don't just "go off".

    "LeFlore County Sheriff Rob Seale says a .38 caliber handgun discharged inside the home. He says no one was touching the gun when it went off."
    http://www.newson6.com/story/22429077/sheriff-leflore-county-teen-shot-in-head-was-an-accident


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reporters of these two articles are just the kind of tools that Mikeb's kind need. We have a .380 semi-automatic, or was it a .38, that goes off by itself. That kind of reporting leads the uninitiated to believe that guns are magical objects that must be feared, but never understood.

      Delete
    2. That's interesting. I see that poor reporting use of the passive voice as a trick that serves your side. It takes the onus off the person, it aids in the non-accountability that we so often see in these stories.

      Delete
    3. Part of it, as I've told you before, is a fear of being sued. But people fear on a unique level what they don't understand. Hollywood and the news media create the impression that guns have magical powers.

      I know this from a variety of sources. Look at how often an error appears on the screen or in a newspaper about guns. The Mythbusters routinely test and debunk those. In my own experience, guns to me were like rattlesnakes until I started studying the matter.

      Knowledge is dangerous to your cause, Mikeb. The more people know, the harder it is to control them.

      Delete
    4. That's interesting. I see that poor reporting use of the passive voice as a trick that serves your side.

      Then why do gun rights advocates tend to object to press reports of "the gun went off"?

      It takes the onus off the person . . .

      What's our incentive for taking "the onus off the person"? It's that person's fault. No reflection on us, of course.

      Delete
    5. Greg, I really don't believe the gun control argument depends on misinformation for its strength. If anyone benefits from the poor reporting it's your side. You're not responsible, it was only an accident. You're not responsible, the front door was locked, how could you know someone would climb in the window and take the gun from under the pillow. You're not responsible, you sold the gun privately to a guy who convincingly said he was legit.

      That's how YOU fit into it, Kurt. YOU = gun owners or gun rights activists or whatever other group you belong to. Greg likes to claim kinship with the entire 100M, you I suppose, would belong only to the fringe <3%. But whatever the group, you are the ones continually feeding the criminal world with guns. That's why you love to take the onus off the negligent or (hidden) criminal gun owner.

      Delete
    6. That's why you love to take the onus off the negligent or (hidden) criminal gun owner.

      And I keep telling you I don't "love to take the onus off the negligent or (hidden) criminal gun owner."

      I'm merely refusing to accept any blame for the actions of others, because I'm both intelligent and ethical enough to utterly reject collective punishment. If you're not, that's your problem, not mine.

      Delete
    7. Mikeb, why can't you stick to one topic at a time? The topic here is the sloppy way that guns and events connected to them get reported in the media. That reporting makes guns look powerful on their own, which increases the fear among people who don't know better.

      Those other things are different matters. A thief is at fault for stealing. I've suggested a background check system that would work, but not threaten gun rights, but you insist on excessive control.

      Delete
    8. Greg, please refresh my memory about the background check system you've suggested.

      Delete
    9. Violent criminals and those adjudicated as being dangerous to others due to a mental illness should be on a list. Anyone who wants to buy a gun can log in to a website and get a go/no-go certificate that will indicate if the person is prohibited or not. That gets presented to the seller, who then can match the certificate with the person's ID, and the sale can proceed.

      We can discuss the particulars, if you wish, but the key points here are that the system would be free to use, available to anyone (even employers hiring for secure positions--it doesn't have to be limited to gun sales), and no record of the firearm in question would be made or kept.

      Delete
    10. That sounds like a true expansion of background checks to me- and not a bill which expands nothing but rather just creates new crimes. It is purely about background checks. Those who are against this are against background checks.

      Delete