Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker) The Rolling Stones

The police in New York City
They chased a boy right through the park
In a case of mistaken identity
They put a bullet through his heart

Heartbreakers with your forty four
I wanna tear your world apart
You heart breaker with your forty four
I wanna tear your world a part

A ten year old girl on a street corner
Sticking needles in her arm
She died in the dirt of an alleyway
Her mother said she had no chance, no chance
Heartbreaker, heartbreaker
She stuck the pins right in her heart
Heartbreaker, a pain maker
Stole the love right out of you heart

Oh yeah
doo, doo doo doo doo
Oh yeah
doo doo doo, doo doo
I wanna tear that word apart

Oh yeah
doo, doo doo doo doo
Oh yeah
doo doo doo doo doo
I wanna tear that word apart

Heartbreaker, heart breaker
You stole the love right out of my heart
Heartbreaker, heartbreaker
I wanna tear your world apart

Heartbreaker, heartbreaker
Stole the love right out, stole the love right out

Doo, doo doo doo doo doo
Ah yeah, you shot the kid, he had no chance
Doo doo, doo doo do
Ah yeah, Ah yeah, you stuck pins right in her heart
Doo doo, doo doo do
You heartbreaker, I wanna tear your world apart
Doo doo, doo doo do........

Arkansas Cop Charged with Manslaughter

Police One reports

A police officer who fatally shot a 15-year-old Arkansas boy was charged with felony manslaughter Friday after investigators determined his account of the incident didn't match up with evidence at the scene, Little Rock police said.

Officer Josh Hastings, who has a history of disciplinary issues with his department, shot Bobby Moore Jr. while responding to a suspicious persons call at an apartment complex on Aug. 12. 

Hastings claimed the car Moore was driving was heading toward him, prompting him to fire through its windshield, but the police chief said evidence shows the car was either moving in reverse or stopped several feet away from Hastings when he fired.

"I have reviewed this matter and have concluded that the incident did not occur in the manner represented by the officer and that the use of deadly force did not conform to departmental orders," Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said, adding that prosecutors agreed "the use of deadly force was not justified."

The 26-year-old officer, who had been suspended six times in five years prior to the August shooting, was booked into jail Friday but later released on $15,000 bond. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The old "car was coming at me" trick. We've heard that one before, in fact we've seen it work as justification for police shootings. I've always had my doubts.

One interesting thing about this cop is his previous problems were not of the trigger-happy variety.  Remember Officer Peters from Scottsdale, well Hastings sounds like a different type, general fuck-up who should have been disarmed long before, but I guess there wasn't really cause enough for that.

Too bad for Bobby Moore.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Lawful Nevada Gun Owner Loses It

The Washington Post reports

A man has been arrested on suspicion of shooting and wounding a golfer after an errant ball broke a window at his home.

Jeff Fleming, 53, is accused of firing at a pair of golfers at the 16th hole on Thursday, striking the one who hit the home in Reno. The golfer was treated for minor injuries to an arm and both legs.

Imagine how angry you'd have to get to do something like that. It's frightening to think that people like that, volatile and unpredictable people, can own guns so easily.

The fact is they can.  And the fact is those who own guns suffer from the same ills as everybody else.  That's why gun ownership needs to be better controlled.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

Lawful Kentucky Gun Owner Shoots up the Place

The Washington Post reports

A Louisville man accused of opening fire at a homeowners association meeting, killing one and critically wounding another, was ordered held on a $1 million bond Saturday at an initial court hearing where a prosecutor called him “the epitome of danger to the community.”

A not guilty plea was entered on behalf of 55-year-old Mahmoud Yousef Hindi to charges of murder, assault and wanton endangerment in the Thursday evening shooting at a church.

Just another of the daily stories we read about in which lawful gun owners go wrong. What would have prevented this, the pro-gun crowd loves to ask.

Well, it's impossible to know what could have prevented this specific act of violence.  But one thing for sure is, a general tightening of gun laws and a raising of the bar as to who can own guns would prevent some of these acts.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Message from Frail Liberty on the 4 Rules

Copied in its entirety from an e-mail I received from our frequent commenter Frail Liberty:

You continue to try to make a case that there should be zero tolerance for gun-owners who negligently discharge their weapon.  You cited Jeff Coopers Gun safety rules in one post presumably as evidence to support your zero tolerance policy.  You refuse to even consider analogies of other irresponsible behavior that results in many times more injury and death and whether or not other zero tolerance rules would be appropriate.

So, I thought perhaps a brief primer on the 4 gun rules may be in order to help put thing into perspective.  This is not an effort to excuse any negligent discharge.  It is, however, intended to show that not all ND's are equal and to highlight just one reason why your dream of instant stripping of all gun-rights for any infraction is just a silly, nonsensical wet-dream fantasy.

The four rules are (the most common version):

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it.

The first three rules deal with safe gun handling until the point in which you are ready to fire.  The fourth rule deals with collateral damage when firing - it really does not come into play for safe gun handling when not intending to fire.  So for the purposes of this discussion, we will cover the first three rules.

The thing about these rules is that they are not universally absolute. Now that I threw that bomb our there for you - I anticipate you, or one of your cronies, will take it out of context. So please, let me explain.

For the purposes of general gun handling (i.e. nearly all the time) they are 100 percent absolute.  But, there are times in which the rules must be modified in letter but not violated in spirit.  Several examples include:

All guns are always loaded: Well, this is true - except that every-time a gun is disassembled for cleaning, this rule must be modified to become "All guns are always loaded - until proven otherwise". (Actually, this modification is written as the rule in some places.)  We check and double check our guns to ensure they are not loaded so that they can be disassembled and cleaned. But, the other rules are strictly obeyed even while modifying this one.

Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy: You know those cool shoulder holsters that you see detectives use on TV? Did you know that the muzzle of their loaded gun is nearly horizontal and thus constantly pointed directly at people everywhere they go? Is this a violation of the four rules? By the letter, yes.  But they are not handling it at the time.  The trigger is covered as thus it is impossible for anything, including fingers, to be in the trigger guard. So in spirit it is not considered a violation. But extra care has to be used when drawing the weapon as it is impossible not to sweep the area during the draw.

Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target: If only this rule were religiously followed, the number of ND's would shrink to a mere fraction of current levels. And yet, this is one of the rules that frequently must be modified in the course of normal gun care and training.  After cleaning, the re-assembly of some guns require the trigger to be pulled to reset the hammer or striker mechanism.   Also, repeated dry-firing (or using a snap cap) is an excellent tool used by competition shooters and others wanting to become familiar with particular trigger feel on a gun. So, after verifying (many of us do this twice) that a gun is unloaded and while obeying the other rules, we will repeatedly cycle the trigger mechanism.

But none of these instances violate the spirit of the rules, and in fact are necessary activity specific modifications of the rules.

So, why do I highlight all of this? The point is that in order to have an ND inflict injury to anyone - all three of the rules must be simultaneously broken. I would never excuse any violation of the rules - but the reason that all three are important is that we are, in fact, human beings.  Mistakes WILL happen.  Just like they do when we humans drive 4,000 pound vehicles on the road. We miss stop signs and red lights and turn in front of oncoming traffic and veer on the roads and follow to close behind another mistake prone human driver. Human error is a part of the human experience. The three rules are designed, not only to prevent ND's when properly followed, but to minimize damage when a mistake causes one (or even two) of them to be violated.

If 1 and 2 are broken no shot is fired because no finger is on the trigger.

If 2 and 3 are broken (assuming the rule 1 modification is accepted and the gun is verified unloaded) no shot is fired because there is no ammunition.

If 1 and 3 are broken a shot might be fired (an ND to be sure), but no one is harmed because the gun was pointed in a safe direction.

In fact, while nearly all ND's could be prevented by being strict about rule 3 - rule 2 is, in my opinion, is the more critical rule. If it were followed religiously - no one would ever be hurt by an ND. And yet it is the one that, when violated by itself, never results in a call to police and therefore no opportunity to apply your draconian dream. So you would be unable to consistently punish the most flagrant violators.

Let me close by highlighting a way in which silly gun-control laws and regulations force diligent gun owners to actually break the rules - on a daily basis. I work at university and am, by law and university policy, prohibited from carrying my gun into the buildings in which I work. So, every day, I must disarm when I arrive at work and rearm as I depart. In order to make it difficult for my gun to be stolen from car while at work, I lock it in a Nanovault gun vault secured by cable to the underside of the passenger seat. So while parked, I un-holster the weapon and lay it horizontally in the case, close the lid, lock it, and slide it under the seat.

During this procedure, I treat the weapon as if it were loaded, because it is - and I keep my finger WAY off of the trigger. But, I cannot keep it pointed in a completely safe direction. It has to be horizontal to go into the vault. The best I can do is keep it pointed in "as safe a direction as possible". Depending upon where I am parked and who is around, sometimes (most of the time) that is toward my engine block while other times it is toward the passenger door where it would strike other parked cars.

And all of this must be done because I cross an arbitrary boundary to perform my role at work. I go to off campus events armed with the same students that I cannot be armed around while working with them. And thus, at least 10 times a week, I am forced to bend the critical rules of gun safety in order to stay in compliance with the law.  Will I have an ND because of this? No. But do these laws mitigate any real risk on campus? No - they just force me to engage in slightly riskier behavior for no real benefit.

After a couple of overtures by e-mail, I'm still not sure what his point it. When I asked if it was that his gun-free zone at work was a bad thing, he just repeated the paragraph beginning with "So, why do I highlight all of this?"

It seems to me that, as he rightly points out, it takes the violation of 3 of the 4 Rules simultaneously to have a serious accident, my "zero tolerance" policy makes even more sense.

Now, the words "zero tolerance" are loaded with negative connotations. The fact is I'm very tolerant.  Often I feel that a jail sentence for an act of gun negligence, even when someone dies, is excessive.  I do however feel that the loss of gun rights has to be strictly upheld.

What's your opinion?  What do you think Frail Liberty is getting at with that lengthy message?

Please leave a comment.

Arizona Man Shoots Himself Accidentally

Local news reports

A Prescott Valley man was flown to a Phoenix hospital early Thursday after he accidentally shot himself in the leg.

"A 64-year-old man said he was sleeping with his handgun under his pillow," Prescott Valley Police Officer Paul Dunn said. "When he woke up and tried to put the gun away, the gun accidentally discharged into his knee."

Keeping a "gun under the pillow" has got to be about the stupidest thing a gun owner could do. It's hard to be more irresponsible than that, and for what?  Do they think it gives them quicker access?

The other incredibly stupid thing, in spite of the wording of the story, is shooting oneself in the leg. The gun didn't just "discharge" by itself.  As our friend Frail Liberty explained, at least three of the 4 Rules had to be violated simultaneously for this to happen.

What's your opinion?  Would disqualifying a man like this from owning firearms make things better or worse?  Would his friends and neighbors be better off or not?

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

Ohio Man Gets One Year for Accidental Shooting Death

Local news reports

A New Philadelphia-area man will spend the next year in prison for the accidental shooting death of Max McGuire on Sept. 19, 2011.

Seth M. Smith, 21, was sentenced during an emotional hearing Thursday in Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court.

A county grand jury indicted Smith on one count of reckless homicide with a gun specification. In July, he changed his plea to no contest and was found guilty by Judge Elizabeth Lehigh Thomakos.

Investigators said McGuire was shot once at close range with a high-powered rifle he owned. Smith had not checked to see if the rifle was loaded before he pulled the trigger.

McGuire, 23, died after being shot in the head, according to county Coroner Dr. James Hubert.

New Philadelphia police have said it appeared “that this was a nonintentional shooting” that occurred while several people were at McGuire’s residence.

During the hearing, Smith emotionally repeated how sorry he is. He didn’t explain the details of what happened that night. He indicated he was aware there would be punishment and he was willing to accept what the judge decided, Ernest said. Six people appeared on behalf of Smith.

Justice would have been better served if the entire prison sentence had been suspended. I don't see what good it does putting a guy who is obviously repentant in jail.

Yet, this is a better outcome than the many "accidents" we see that go unpunished.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.