Wade's Eastside Gun Shop in Bellevue, pictured in a seattlepi.com file photo. Photo: Grant M. Haller, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Seattlepi
A man shot in both arms during an accidental shooting at a Bellevue gun range has sued the range and the man who shot him, claiming both failed to take appropriate care.
In a lawsuit filed July 11 against Wade’s Eastside Guns, attorneys for the man contend he was hit in the arms after a bullet fired by another Wade’s customer blew through a divider separating two shooting booths.
According to the lawsuit, the offending customer was firing a Smith & Wesson pistol that was “rather new” to him in a neighboring lane at Wade’s range. As the man raised his arms to shoot, the other customer accidentally fired through the foam lane divider.
The 9 mm bullet struck the man in the right arm, powered through it, then tore through his left arm as well, leaving him seriously injured, according to the lawsuit.
The offending shooter was certainly a lawful gun owner who may have had a concealed carry permit for all we know. No one checks these things. That's how they keep the stats down in order to make the ridiculous claim that concealed carry permit holders are safer than cops.
The other ridiculous claim they often make, in order to make gun use seem more mainstream, is that there are more and more women involved. Check the picture.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The absence of evidence here allows you to draw no conclusions other than there's no evidence.
ReplyDeleteWhat no evidence? You use that bullshit to excuse all kinds of unsafe behavior on the part of fellow gun owners.
Delete"The data is [sic] incomplete." Mikeb, you draw wild conclusions from no or little evidence. In an argument, when someone says that a conclusion is common sense, that's proof that the person is too lazy to find evidence or recognizes that none exists. You've been shown time and again that carry license holders have a good record of not committing crimes, but you reject those data, despite being given out by state police and related agencies. What is unsafe here is your method of coming up with nonsense.
Delete"On The Guardian’s Datablog, editor Simon Rogers argues in favor of the singular, pointing to this pithy ruling from the paper’s style guide:
DeleteData takes a singular verb (like agenda), though strictly a plural; no one ever uses “agendum” or “datum”."
That makes you a pedantic idiot, taking your cue from Kurt, for using the [sic] notation. This is the petty victory you guys can't overlook, except in your case common usage makes you wrong. At least Kurt is correct when he uses it.
Said paper is responsible for its own sloppiness. The word, data, is plural. Datum is singular. I work every day to hold back the tide of ignorance that your kind washes over us, but I cannot prevent every error.
DeleteBut tell me, do you really want to get into an argument over the English language with a professor of English?
Obviously I do. You keep fighting the tide of of ignorance, man. Keep teaching your students that "datum" is a word we commonly use in modern English.
DeleteIntelligent speakers of modern English use "data" like they use "information." But, not you. You're fighting the good fight every day.
The problem here is illustrative of a broad one, namely the laziness that sucks down all societies. That's what post-modernism is, whether we're talking about morality or grammar.
DeleteCan't argue with Greg on the merits?
DeleteAttack his grammar!
Minnesota does keep track of crimes committed by permit holders, including those not involving a firearm. And the data here shows that permit holders are much more law abiding than the general population.
ReplyDeleteThe Minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension is required by law to publish a yearly report on this data.
As to whether permit holders are safer than police officers, I really havent seen any data on that. Does anyone check those things? Anyone know where that data might be?
The data is incomplete. That's why the percentages look so good.
DeleteMore assertions without proof, cherry picked photos offered as proof, implications that we're liars...
ReplyDeleteYep, standard, repetitious fare.
You're boring me.