Authorities in Salem say a man who heard a prowler grabbed a rifle to investigate and ended up accidentally shooting himself in the jaw.
The sheriff's office says the 71-year-old Salem man, Frank Moore, is expected to survive.
Moore told deputies he was awakened by someone moving outside his recreational vehicle about 4 a.m. Tuesday.
He said he took a .22-caliber rifle out into the dark and tripped. Wounded, he knocked on a window to awaken his wife.
Deputies said they found the rifle where Moore told them he'd dropped it, but there was no sign of the prowler.
I suppose this is one of those true accidents that Tennessean is talking about? What do you think?
Please leave a comment.
But, of course, your one size fits all "one strike" policy would leave this fellow disarmed and unable to defend himself for the rest of his life due to his clumsiness on this night.
ReplyDeleteYes, and during the rest of his life, chances are he won't ever need the gun to save his life, but just imagine all the damage a guy like this could do.
Delete"chaces are" neither will happen, Mike.
DeleteBased on what? Slipping and falling? Oh no! This guy tripped! He's too clumsy for a gun!
DeleteClumsiness leads to frustration...frustration leads to anger...anger is the path to the dark side.
Please. There is nothing here to indicate that this guy is a danger, and the fact that you would imply that he is, and that he should be disarmed for it just shows that you're happy to disarm anyone on any pretext because that suits your goal. You may not want total disarmament, but you clearly want as many people disarmed as practicable.
I only want the heavy drinkers, the drug users, the mentally challenged, the handicapped, the stupid and the clumsy to be disarmed.
DeleteThe very fact that you want to take a Constitutional right from people because they're clumsy shows that nobody should take your seriously. Beyond that, after listing the mentally challenged, you also list the stupid. So apparently we're not talking about a mental handicap, just someone you think is stupid. This can, of course, be handled by a may issue permitting scheme in your utopia.
DeleteOf course, what's to keep someone like Laci or Dog Gone from getting in charge of that permitting and declaring that everyone who wants a gun is making such an asinine decision that they're too stupid to get a permit?
The answer, of course, is Nothing.
Chalk up another reason we refuse to give in to your goals, even incrementally.
Without knowing the specific rifle involved, it's hard to say exactly what happened here, but it doesn't matter. The only person injured was the owner, so it's no one else's business but him.
ReplyDeleteAlways excuses. Every incident Mike posts day after day (and he does not post all incidents that happen) you gun nuts have some idiotic reason why that should not be considered in changing gun laws. Amazing to see people accept 30,000 deaths a year by gun shot in order to protect their (nonexistent) right to a gun.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of those deaths are death by choice--in other words, suicide. Of the remaining, many are criminal-on-criminal violence. There are around 600 deaths per annum due to firearm accidents.
DeleteThe right to own and carry guns is real. What is in doubt is your analysis of the numbers.
Anonymous,
DeleteWhy do you accept all of the highway fatalities just to be able to own a car and drive it above 30 miles per hour?
Think of the children that could be saved if no car could go over 30.
The facile car comparison doesn't even make sense. Car fatalities have already been reduced due to common sense regulations such as speed limits, seat belt requirements, licensing of drivers, etc. If gun use were similarly regulated, their fatalities would also be reduced, but they're not.
DeleteThat pat answer is getting tired, Mike. Especially since emphasis on safety within the gun culture has reduced accidents over the past decades.
DeleteMoreover, ins spite of the regulations of cars and your claims that guns are barely regulated (something we've shown to be a misrepresentation) the fact remains that Death's are still caused by cars, just as they are by guns.
Anonymous keeps on talking about how we have NO right to a gun--which implies that he wants to get rid of them all. (He rarely comes back for follow up comments, so we don't know what he really wants.) I keep bringing up cars because he keeps demanding that we relinquish guns because of all of the death they cause and states or implies that there is no way to justify gun ownership when guns kill people.
I'm just applying his logic to other pieces of property that cause as much or more death.
Accidental gun deaths have been reduced some 90% over their peak. Even homicides with guns have declined quite a bit. Mike, are you really going to say if something bad is trending down we should leave it alone?
DeleteTo Tennessean's point, if common sense regulations like speed limits reduced fatalities than lowering it to 30 mph would save even more lives, right?
DeleteBy the way, speed limits have increased since the 70's and 80's...
That's a good point, TS. The reduction in speed limits had to be balanced with the rights of the people to get around in a timely manner. Similarly, gun controls would be balanced with people's rights to own and operate guns. Greg and some others have accused me of lying about my true motives, they say I really want to ban all civilian ownership of guns, but it's not true. I try to say what I mean.
DeleteMikeb, I'm willing to believe that you are insufficiently bright or sufficiently delusional so as not to recognize what your schemes would do.
Delete