A Greeley man who said he accidentally shot his friend in the head while they were checking fantasy football scores Sunday has been charged with second-degree assault and attempted manslaughter by the Weld District Attorney's Office.
The incident occurred Sunday evening in northwest Greeley, and Robert Knorr, 28, was shot with a handgun. The bullet entered the back of his head, went through the left side of his jaw and exited just below the lips on the right side of his face. He was taken to North Colorado Medical Center, then to a Denver hospital. His condition was not available Wednesday, but the injury was not life-threatening.
This unfortunate incident took place in gun-friendly Colorado. Do you think it's so rare that gun owners get drunk and do stupid things with their guns? Wouldn't it be true that as the number of guns in the country increases, the numbers of incidents like this will too?
On Wednesday, the district attorney's office officially filed the assault and attempted manslaughter charges against Pollard, in addition to felony menacing and prohibited use of a weapon. The weapon charge is due to Pollard being legally drunk and having a gun in his possession.
Does that mean that any gun owner who ever gets legally drunk while in possession of his gun is a criminal? I suppose all the guys who claim to never have seen a shot-up road sign will also claim to never have drunk enough to break this law either. What do you think?
My idea is the world is not divided into two neat and separate groups, good guys and bad guys. I can better imagine it as good guys, bad guys and people in the middle who are a little of both. I call that the gray area. My point is people in the gray area should not have guns, even if they've not yet been convicted of any felonies. The guys who get good and drunk once in a while, or frequently, the guys who shoot up road signs whenever they get the chance, the guys who can't control their tempers with their wives and kids. I think everyone knows what I call these people.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
There is no gray area. You either commit a crime or you don't. This guy obviously committed a crime and charges were filed against him.ReplyDelete
"The guys who get good and drunk once in a while, or frequently, the guys who shoot up road signs whenever they get the chance, the guys who can't control their tempers with their wives and kids."
To me, those are all bad people.
Where is this gray area that you see? What is remotely good about drunkards, people who destroy other people's property, and people who abuse their wife and kids? How can they be in the middle (as you say) when those things are clearly bad and in most cases illegal?
AztecRed is correct that those things are clearly bad and in most places illegal.ReplyDelete
No one wants bad people to have guns but if they are not guilty of felonies, how do you know what heir intent or drunken potential is?
What do you propose? How about we add a question to form 4473 that says "do you intend to use this gun in an unsafe manner?" or "do you intend to shoot at road signs?" and if they answer "yes" they can't buy a gun?
Bad people shouldn't have guns but until someone proves to a jury they are bad, what could be done?
I know MikeB's answer already: ban all guns from everyone, problem solved.
Wouldn't it be true that as the number of guns in the country increases, the numbers of incidents like this will too?ReplyDelete
Except that it isn't true. The number of guns per person has increased steadily in this country while the number of accidental deaths AND injuries from firearms has decreased. So no, the number of incidents like this is not increasing. If they were they would be more common and less likely to make the news. As it is now, nearly every single accidental shooting makes the news.
BTW mikeb, do you consider yourself a Good Guy or a Gray Area Guy based on your definition of the terms?ReplyDelete
Yes, of course there are 'gray areas', but that's true everywhere. The issue is, do you want to presume guilt, or presume innocence? In OUR country, we (are supposed to) presume innocence.ReplyDelete
The slippery slope is how to pass judgment. In the past (and still in many countries), people KNEW that women women were not competent enough to vote. Or that certain races shouldn't have a vote. I sometimes meet people that I am simply scared that they can vote based on their wildly unbelievable basis for choosing candidates...but it's not my place to pick and choose who should have rights and who should not.
You want to separate the good and bad...the best general 'good' separator I know of for firearms is the process for obtaining a concealed weapons permit. Yet as you've shown, even THAT has problems with the process, as felons obtain permit, or occasionally a permit holder does something awful (but you'll run into outliers in any large enough group). So where does that leave you in terms of making such decisions without leaning towards despotism?
The issue is, do you want to presume guilt, or presume innocence? In OUR country, we (are supposed to) presume innocence.ReplyDelete
CJ - MikeB has said on NUMEROUS occasions in the past that he does not believe in "innnocent until proven guilty" or "due process of law."
I don't want future child molesters and rapists left on the streets. Would that justify preemptively taking them out of society? How about potential drunk drivers?ReplyDelete
Mike W. exaggerating as usual says, "MikeB has said on NUMEROUS occasions in the past that he does not believe in "innnocent until proven guilty" or "due process of law.""ReplyDelete
Aren't you embarrassed to say things like that? You should be. I've never said any such thing. You are the one who says I say that when, in your words I "coddle" criminals and "call for the revocation of your rights."
All exaggerated nonsense on your part, Mike W.
Reputo innocently asks, "BTW mikeb, do you consider yourself a Good Guy or a Gray Area Guy based on your definition of the terms?"ReplyDelete
Now, do you really think I'm going to reveal any personal information about myself with guys like Weer'd, Bob S., and Linoge around the place?
These guys take whatever information they can gather about me to mount personal attacks that are quite interruptive. You can't imagine what has been screened out by my commenting policy.
At least Linoge includes serious debate of the issues every time he insults me, which is more than I can say for the other two.
Besides, when discussing the "gray area" we're talking about the millions of gun owners in America, not about me.
Besides, when discussing the "gray area" we're talking about the millions of gun owners in America, not about me.ReplyDelete
Except that you have said you owned guns in the past. So, when you were a gun owner, were you a Good Guy or a Gray Area Guy?