A man died after accidentally shooting himself Monday night at a residence in southeast Oklahoma City, police said.
When police arrived, representatives from the Emergency Medical Services Authority were treating a man, identified as John Calk, 32.
Calk had a gunshot wound to his lower abdomen and was not responsive, police said. He was taken to Presbyterian Hospital, where he was later pronounced dead.
Police said Calk had been handling a .40-caliber pistol in a bedroom. He had the gun pointed at his abdomen and the gun discharged, police said.
Evidence suggests the incident was an accidental shooting, police said.
It appears that in this case, the one strike you're out rule has been applied.
ReplyDeleteMy theory is that when gun owners are caught violating the safety rules, it's rarely their first time. This bumbling idiot might be alive today if he'd been disarmed in the past on one of his previous fuck-ups.
Delete[The tragically departed] might be alive today if he'd been disarmed in the past on one of his previous fuck-ups.
DeleteUm . . . one of what "previous f**k-ups"? One of the ones about which we have exactly zero evidence ever happened?
Keep those blinders on, Kurt. That's how you do it.
DeleteUm. "blinders," Mikeb? What, specifically, have you seen here, that I haven't? Keep in mind that I said "seen"--not speculated on without factual basis.
DeleteYou know it occurs to me, Mikeb, that "one strike you're out" doesn't accurately describe what you're demanding here. If you want someone forcibly disarmed for life before he or she is known to have committed any of the vast (and ever-growing) number of sins that justify such a fate, what you're actually demanding is "zero strikes you're out."
DeleteIn fact, the "zero strikes you're out" concept would seem to fit very well with the position you outlined here (bold emphasis added):
DeleteBack up what? Take back what? That you probably have and [sic] a misuse incident?
Let's see, that could be something as mild as having muzzled someone even for a moment, or fingered the trigger when you shouldn't have or having forgotten you left a round in the chamber for a moment. Of course, you may have had a negligent discharge or you may have dropped a gun. Hell, for all we know you may have done something much worse.
No, I take nothing back. Anyone who owns a gun for any length of time is likely to have had one of these incidents, but just like your false-DGU shooters, they would never admit it.
Think about that: "Anyone who owns a gun for any length of time is likely to have had one of these incidents . . . ." Now, "any length of time" is rather ambiguous. A Planck time unit is, after all, a "length of time." I'm not seriously suggesting that you contend that anyone who has owned a gun for 53.9 quattuordecillionths of a second is likely to already have behaved badly with that gun. Still, it would be useful to know just how much time would pass after becoming a gun owner, before you believe that the bad behavior rate would reach, say, 50%. How long, in other words, before we should conclude even in the utter absence of known incidents of bad behavior with a gun, that the owner actually probably has secretly done something deserving of the harsh penalty of lifetime forcible disarmament, as per the "zero strikes you're out" doctrine?
But however long it is, it would seem that you are arguing that lengthy ownership of a gun is itself grounds for reasonable suspicion that the owner has behaved dangerously irresponsibly with his or her gun--"probable cause" for lifetime forcible disarmament. You appear to be arguing, in effect, for the population of gun owners to be made to grow proportionately less experienced--for "safety."
Kurt, it's really a tedious pain in the ass when you throw us back to earlier arguments that have been beaten to death. My idea, which I have clarified numerous times, is that there would be judicial review. So, no, it wouldn't be zero strikes you're out. And like all judicial determinations, the milder infractions would not merit the maximum sanctions, but, when someone violates the safety rules and injures another, there would be no question of surrendering the gun rights for all eternity.
DeleteSo, no, it wouldn't be zero strikes you're out.
DeleteIf you say so. Can't help but wonder if your position might "evolve" at some point, though.
And wait a second--"judicial review"? You've advocated disarming the late Mr. Calk without any documented evidence of prior wrongdoing on his part, let alone his having "injure[d] another." So how would this "judicial review" process play out? Here's what I see:
DeleteThe "Honorable" Judge Mikeb: Mr. Calk, this court recognizes that you have owned a gun long enough that by now, you just gotta have done something wrong with your gun. No guns for you! It's for your own good, you bumbling idiot [Judge Mikeb's favorite term for gun owners].
Is that kinda what you have in mind?
Do you think there is enough judges to handle the 30-50 million judicial reviews you are calling for?
Delete"You've advocated disarming the late Mr. Calk without any documented evidence of prior wrongdoing on his part, let alone his having "injure[d] another."
DeleteI did not. I said IF there had been a strict one strike you're out policy in effect, he probably would have been disarmed before.
I said IF there had been a strict one strike you're out policy in effect . . .
DeleteWhich is precisely the policy you demand. In other words, "IF" the policy which you have advocated so long and shrilly had been in place, "he probably would have been disarmed before."
How does saying "IF the policy I want were in effect, he probably would have been disarmed," differ from advocating his disarmament?
I've consistently called for the disarming of people who prove their incapacity to handle guns safely. You accused me of something else quite different.
Delete"You've advocated disarming the late Mr. Calk without any documented evidence of prior wrongdoing on his part,"
But, you're honesty and integrity are beyond reproach, right, Kurt?
But, you're honesty and integrity are beyond reproach, right, Kurt?
DeleteWell you've certainly not found a valid reason to attack them.
You say, "I said IF there had been a strict one strike you're out policy in effect, he probably would have been disarmed before." That's the policy you have long advocated.
There are no documented (as far as I can find) prior incidents of dangerous behavior on Calk's part. Therefore, I can only conclude that even without such a record, you believe he should have been disarmed. If that conclusion is incorrect (by some mechanism I still can't imagine), it will of course not be my first mistake of that sort, but it is certainly not an indictment of my integrity.
You first left this part out: "without any documented evidence of prior wrongdoing on his part,"
DeleteWhen I called you on it, you fell back on this, another lie: "I can only conclude that even without such a record, you believe he should have been disarmed."
Please explain how you could possibly think that since I've repeatedly and continually said people WHO MISUSE their gun get disarmed.
Please explain how you could possibly think that since I've repeatedly and continually said people WHO MISUSE their gun get disarmed.
DeleteBecause of this:
[The late Mr. Calk] might be alive today if he'd been disarmed in the past on one of his previous f**k-ups.
Apparently, we are to assume that he already had misused a gun (more than once).
Before I can "fall back on . . . another lie," we're going to need to find the first "lie"--and I gotta tell you, that search ain't going too well.
Cute SS. The same disregard you show for innocent lives lost to gun shot. Make a joke out of it, or better yet pull out your stats-how many gun loons have killed themselves by their own stupidity using their own guns?
DeleteIf he had followed simple safe gun handling rules he would still be alive. I wonder if he even knew simple safe gun handling rules?
ReplyDeleteStories like this cheer me up immensely. One more gunsuck out of the picture.
ReplyDelete