Sunday, September 8, 2013

North Carolina Man is Dead - He Forgot the One in the Chamber and Handed the Gun to His 11-Year-old Step-Daughter

GPF7TKJI3.3
Bryan and Pamela Reno


An 11-year-old Cleveland County girl accidentally shot her 19-year-old stepfather to death Friday with a handgun he had just acquired, county Sheriff Alan Norman said Saturday.

When they arrived, they found Bryan Scott Reno dead from an apparent gunshot wound to the chest, Norman said.

Authorities determined that Reno had purchased the gun either through a trade or purchase within 24 hours of the incident, Norman said.

He said that on Friday evening, while his 35-year-old wife Pamela Reno slept, Bryan Reno showed the gun to his stepdaughter. At one point, Reno removed the magazine slide from the firearm and handed the .380-caliber gun to her to examine, Norman said.

“During the course of her looking at the firearm, it’s apparent that she pulled the trigger of the firearm and it discharged,” Norman said. “It just appears he failed to check the chamber to make sure there was not a bullet in the chamber, and it turned fatal.”

Neighbor Patty Saltares said the Renos had moved into their single-wide mobile home on Lemmons Road within the last couple of weeks.

At least we finally have a proper description of the unintentional discharge. What was that ridiculous pro-gun justification about using the passive voice? This way, attributing the mistake to a human person instead of the gun, doesn't seem to create any problems.

Trailer-trash red-necks, and everyone else for that matter, should have to pass a simple test in order to be qualified to own firearms.  Many of them would be screened out right there.  Those who pass should be required to have some minimal training during which they could learn that taking out the magazine is not enough to make the gun safe. I mean, how fucking stupid do you have to be to even need that lesson? Yet, how often do we read about negligent discharges that happen for that very reason?



Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/07/4294301/11-year-old-girl-accidentally.html#.Uiwho8anrmM#storylink=cpy




Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/07/4294301/11-year-old-girl-accidentally.html#.Uiwho8anrmM#storylink=cpy

26 comments:

  1. Note, the paper didn't go out on that limb themselves. The sheriff gave them a quote that they used rather than making the call themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What limb? Is it really risky to describe the negligence more accurately?

      Delete
    2. Yes it is. If they describe something as negligent and it turns out not to be, they can be sued.

      Delete
    3. If two people are involved and it's not clear who pulled the trigger, yes. If the gun was dropped and it's not clear if the trigger was pulled, or the gun went of on impact, or who dropped it, yes.

      As we've told you time and again, they don't want to risk a defamation suit for saying who negligently discharged the gun without proof.

      This is the same as their use of "allegedly". The same as their reporting on vehicle accidents thusly: "The pickup crossed into the opposite lane and hit the minivan head on, killing its driver. The pickup driver, John Smith, survived and is in the ICU at Catholic Hospital. Police say alcohol may have been a factor." They don't say "John Smith killed a man when he hit is minivan head on after driving into his lane, either drunkenly or intentionally."

      Delete
    4. You guys are so full of it. You'd go to any lengths to defend this odd use of the passive voice in the media because it minimizes the responsibility of you gun owners.

      It's not gun control advocates who are leaving our guns around for the granddaddies to play with or "accidentally" dropping them in the local family restaurant or handing them to our 11-year-old trailer-park step-daughters.

      Delete
    5. Mike, look at non-gun stories, just as the example Tennessean gave. They use the same language.

      Your insistence that the media has special pro-gun language meant to protect the culture might be your most ludicrous thought of them all.

      Delete
    6. No, gun control advocates just hire armed guards to protect themselves or carry illegally. Rosie O'Donnell and Donne Trotter come to mind here.

      Delete
    7. No, TS, I never said it was a conspiracy between the media and you gun nuts. I attribute it to sloppy reporting, nothing more, but it does a disservice by assisting your continual attempts to minimize the individual responsibility of unfit gun owners.

      Delete
    8. Actually, you have said that the media was right wing and was manipulating its reporting to minimize the responsibility of gun owners.

      A direct conspiracy between Us nuts here and the media? No, you haven't alleged that. But you've suggested that the media was in our (all gun owners/the gun rights movement/some nebulous right wing, pro gun group you haven't defined clearly) collective pocket.

      Delete
  2. "everyone else for that matter, should have to pass a simple test in order to be qualified to own firearms. Many of them would be screened out right there. Those who pass should be required to have some minimal training during which they could learn that taking out the magazine is not enough to make the gun safe."

    Yes, I took the trailer trash term out because it really isn't germane. So you want to screen people with a skills test before they get the training? That seems a bit backward. If the what you wrote was intentional, it would seem to suggest that the test would be solely to keep people from owning firearms.
    I think I've mentioned before that a good long term fix for this would be implementing this kind of safety training into schools, much the same way as we now have training in safe sex.
    Teaching kids to be safe around firearms would help further reduce the number of accidents that occur with firearms and as they age, the reduction in accidents would move into the higher age groups.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing I suggest is "solely to keep people from owning firearms." You sound like Greg now.

      All my ideas are to keep unfit people from owning firearms. As a gun owner you should be totally on board with that.

      Delete
    2. It's your definition of unfit that we have a problem with.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, like this North Carolina genius and all the blind people in the world. For you they're all fit.

      Delete
    4. Mikeb, I don't favor punishing people in advance.

      Delete
    5. "Those who pass should be required to have some minimal training during which they could learn that taking out the magazine is not enough to make the gun safe. I mean, how fucking stupid do you have to be to even need that lesson? Yet, how often do we read about negligent discharges that happen for that very reason?"

      It doesn't matter who pulled the trigger; the negligence belongs to the one who did not check to make sure there was not a bullet in the chamber. So simple, that one who does not check that, is not responsible enough to own a gun; and the results are all that's needed to prove how negligent that person is.

      Delete
    6. " the negligence belongs to the one who did not check to make sure there was not a bullet in the chamber. "

      I have to disagree with you on this one Jim. The one who didn't check the chamber was 11 years old. The responsibility rests with the father, who paid for that error with his life. If you hand a gun to a kid, you're responsible for what happens, so you have to properly supervise.

      Delete
    7. I thought Jim was referring to the father who didn't clear the chamber.

      Delete
    8. In most places I go to, proper gun etiquette is the person handing you the piece clears the weapon and hands it to you with the action open. If he hands you a loaded weapon intentionally, he tells you. After you have the weapon, you immediately check that it is either clear or loaded and in the condition he told you.
      In the case of a child, the adult is responsible for properly supervising. So, in my world, Jim's statement could have referred to the child. That is what my kids are taught, yet that doesn't release me from my responsibilities.

      Delete
    9. "I have to disagree with you on this one Jim. The one who didn't check the chamber was 11 years old."
      I was referring to the father, that's obvious and to twist that shows dishonestly.
      THE OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE
      THE ONE HANDING A GUN TO A CHILD IS RESPONSIBLE
      ANYONE DUMB ENOUGH TO HAND A LOADED WEAPON TO A CHILD IS RESPONSIBLE
      EVEN IF IT WAS NOT BEING HANDED TO A CHILD, THE ONE GIVING A GUN TO ANYONE IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THE GUN IS SAFE TO HANDLE
      I guess I have to scream at these idiots

      Delete
    10. Mike,

      The gun was in two hands. Both people should have cleared the chamber. This weekend, my brother and I were showing some handguns to a friend who was considering buying one of his own. I dropped the empty magazine out of one, opened the action, showed clear, dropped the slide, and handed it over to him. The guy immediately checked the chamber himself; I looked at my brother and he winked--apparently he's hammered this rule into the guy's head enough that even as a non-gun-owner (so far) he knows that it's his responsibility to double check.

      Everyone has the responsibility to check, and yet, as Sarge says, the parents/experienced parties have the responsibility to be extra vigilant because they're teaching children/noobies who are still learning the rules and having them drilled into their heads.

      Delete
    11. "I was referring to the father, that's obvious and to twist that shows dishonestly. "

      Chill man. It wasn't my intent to to dis you. This is an area of safety that is easy to assume something and when you do will bite you. As Tennessean related so well in his example, yes, the person handing you the weapon is responsible to ensure its safe. But the person who accepts the weapon always checks too. Doing so in front of the person who handed it to you is a good thing.
      My intent was to ensure there was no misunderstanding, not to ding you. When it comes to firearm safety, there is no room for slights or hurt feelings.
      This is doubly true when children are involved. Kids at times put too much trust in the parent, and in this case need to be taught that in this case checking again is not only acceptable, but required.

      Delete
    12. Jim the Screamer:

      Did you not read all of Sarge's comment? Or read it and not understand it?

      He was saying that everyone who touches the gun should check the chamber, and that, therefore, the father should have checked it and then the son should have checked it. He was, therefore, opposing a rule that simply stated that the last person to not check the chamber was responsible since that would have placed the ultimate responsibility on the child rather than the parent.

      In other words, you just screamed at him about how the father was the one responsible for this as a response to Sarge making an argument that while the kid bore some responsibility, the Father was the one ultimately responsible.

      Chill a bit and think before you flame.

      Delete
    13. The minor is not responsible. The owner is. I know you disagree because everyday you NRA dudes write these things off as "accidents" when most of them are negligence. A gun stored and handled safely does not end up killing "accidentally."

      Delete
    14. T., you're just being contentious because it galls you to agree with Jim.

      "The gun was in two hands." you insist.

      One of those hands belonged to an 11-year-old, fer fucks sake.

      Delete
    15. Mike,

      Pot, Kettle. Nice to meetcha.

      Seriously, dude--I'm being contentious because it galls me to agree with Jim? Sarge and I just freely admitted that you and Jim are right that the Father bears the ultimate responsibility!

      You two are the ones who can't stand us not taking up a completely opposite position, so you are focusing on our statement that there is any responsibility on the child.

      Yes, he's a 11 year old. That doesn't change the fact that he didn't check the chamber, and pulled the trigger, breaking several of the four rules.

      Were he an adult--especially one with training--he would be the responsible party. However, since he's a kid, fer fucks sake, we're AGREEING that the father bears the greatest share of responsibility because he was either negligent in his supervision, didn't teach the kid well enough, or both.

      Delete
    16. "we're AGREEING that the father bears the greatest share of responsibility"

      I had to practically beat you to death to get that admission. You started out with this:

      "The gun was in two hands. Both people should have cleared the chamber."

      Delete