NM man cleaning gun accidentally shoots mom, son

[divideandconquer]

NM man cleaning gun accidentally shoots mom, son
By Associated Press

Investigators in New Mexico say a Chaparral man who was cleaning his handgun Saturday morning accidentally shot his 4-year-old son and the bullet passed through the boy and hit the man's mother.

Dona Ana Sheriff's Department investigator Bo Nevarez says both are in critical condition but their wounds aren't believed to be life-threatening.

He says the bullet struck the boy in his stomach and continued through to the grandmother and hit her in the abdomen.
--------------------------------------------------
<http://www.salon.com/wires/us/2010/10/16/D9IT0QH01_us_bullet_hits_family/index.html>

A good reason not to own a gun, You might shoot your toddler through the stomach and hit your mom!

[undeterred]

1. Damn gun.

[MrScorpio]

3. Don't blame the gun...

Blame the damn bullets

[DrDan]

29. damn gun

[Radical Activist]

2. Time to take his toys away.

[DrDan]

4. an all-too-often story . . . . here is another from yesterday's Local session

A 12-year-old Deerfield Beach boy died Friday, five days after police said a teenage friend shot him in the face.

The friend, Jose Torres, 17, a self-professed weapons fetishist who lives across the street from the victim, now faces charges of manslaughter and tampering with evidence in the death of Anthony Alejandre. Torres originally was charged with attempted manslaughter.

Alejandre had been on life support at Broward General Medical Center since the Monday night shooting at Torres' home in the 600 block of Northwest First Way. Sheriff's detectives said the two were in Torres' bedroom when Torres pulled a suitcase from under his bed containing at least two pistols.

The door was locked and Torres' mother was in another part of the house, investigators said.


Police later found a cache of weapons in the bedroom, including five handguns, a pump shotgun, exotic swords and knives, brass knuckles and Japanese throwing stars.

Sheriff Al Lamberti quoted Torres as saying: "I have a fetish for weapons."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/fl-teen-charged-shooting-folo-2-20101015,0,5447555.story

[divideandconquer]

9. No biggie, Torres was just excersizing his 2nd amendment freedom

[lawodevolution]

34. wrong, he is under aged and not allowed to own a gun

Looks like that little bit of gun control didn't work, just like how the total gun and ammo ban in Nigeria isn't working

[SteveM]

92. And you are...

passing gas (under the guise of the First, of course).

Why do you keep supporting the GOPers with the issue that made Milwaukee (and Karl Rove) famous?

[Ineeda]

13. Is it legal in Florida for a minor to buy guns? n/t

[divideandconquer]

21. People don't obey laws, why have them?

Kids need to be packing in school and church anyhow. Can't have any 'gunfree" zones or unarmed citizens.

After it's guns that make men free, not laws.

[PavePusher]

31. Aren't you out of straw yet?

You must be killing the agricultiural needs for that resource.

[ZombieHorde]

84. Funny. nt

[SteveM]

94. Ha! Poor cattle herds, should they suffer a blizzard.

[lawodevolution]

35. Give someone a limited number of good laws to obey

and there's a chance he will, but if you make a complicated web of laws, mostly unnatural in which an object can be legal in one place and then illegal in another place ten miles away, and you give people good reason to not only ignore those laws but other good laws as well.

[cleanhippie]

45. I guess your statement means your argument has nothing less.

Straw men like usually indicate that you no longer are able to defend your position.

Funny, how you divided and conquered yourself on this post.

[divideandconquer]

51. Just ridiculing the 2nd misamendment crowd

It's the gun crowd that is against the regulation of guns the rest of the civilized world enjoys. It's the gun crowd that thinks selling gun to those on terrorist watch lists is ok.

[rrneck]

54. From the ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/watch-lists

Our country's watchlist system is grossly bloated and unfair with over a milllion names -- including many unlikely suspects -- and not effective as a security measure.

To be effective, and to be fair, terrorist watch lists must be tightly focused on true terrorists who pose a genuine threat.

The uncontroversial contention that Osama Bin Laden and a handful of other known terrorists should not be allowed on an aircraft is being used to create a monster that goes far beyond what ordinary Americans think of when they think about a "terrorist watch list." If the government is going to rely on these kinds of lists, they need checks and balances to ensure that innocent people are protected.

* Bloated. In May 2009, the Inspector General of the Justice Department found that 35% of the nominations to the lists were outdated, many people were not removed in a timely manner, and tens of thousands of names were placed on the list without predicate. Instead of clogging the system with over a million names, we should significantly pare down the number of people on the list so that potentially dangerous individuals are consistently stopped before they board planes.
* Unfair. We can't have terrorist watch lists that affect people's rights without due process -- the right of innocent people to challenge their inclusion through an adversarial proceeding and get off the lists. But no such system has been created. A September 2009 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security found that the process for clearing innocent travelers from the list is a complete mess. The consequences of being mistakenly added to a terror watch list can be more severe than simply missing a plane. Law enforcement routinely run names against the watchlists for matters as mundane as traffic stops, and innocent individuals may be harassed even if they don’t attempt to fly.
* Bad for security. Bloated watch lists waste screeners' time and divert their energies from looking for true terrorists. In a report from the Virginia Fusion Center leaked in April 2009, it was revealed that at least 414 encounters between suspected al-Qa’ida members and law enforcement officials were documented in the Commonwealth in 2007. Few believe there are actually more than 400 al-Qa’ida members in Virginia; more likely there were just 400+ false alarms related to bad watch list data -- which wasted innocent Virginians’ time and distracted law enforcement from their mission.

[cleanhippie]

62. Yeah, thats it exactly.

:sarcasm:

[spin]

70. Do you understand anything about the terrorist watch list?

I could take the time to post numerous articles explaining that many people are placed on the watch list because of error and it's almost impossible to get off. But I doubt that you would bother to read them.

But let me pose a possible scenario. A woman is being stalked by an ex-boyfriend who has indicated that he intends to murder her. She decides that the restraining order she has will not deter him and she needs an adequate method of self defense. When she attempts to buy a shotgun, she is told that her background check has tagged her as being on the terrorist watch list. Her ex-boyfriend murders her before she can straighten the situation out.

Ensnared by Error on Growing U.S. Watch List
Published: April 6, 2010

Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford University doctoral student, arrived at San Francisco International Airport with her 14-year-old daughter for a 9 a.m. flight home to Malaysia. She asked for a wheelchair, having recently had a hysterectomy.

Instead, when a ticket agent found her name on the no-fly list, Ms. Ibrahim was handcuffed, searched and jailed amid a flurry of phone calls involving the local police, the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security. Two hours after her flight left, Ms. Ibrahim was released without explanation. She flew to Malaysia the next day.

But when she tried to return to the United States, she discovered that her visa had been revoked. And when she complained that she did not belong on a terrorist watch list, the government’s response came a year later in a form letter saying only that her case had been reviewed and that any changes warranted had been made.

*snip***

Now, five years after Ms. Ibrahim’s arrest at the United Airlines ticket counter, a lawsuit she filed is chipping away at that wall of secrecy. While judges have dismissed many similar cases, a federal appeals court let hers proceed, endorsing a new legal strategy for challenging placement on the watch list. In December, a federal judge scoffed at the government’s claim for secrecy and ordered it to release files on Ms. Ibrahim’s detention.

Ms. Ibrahim’s case has also raised legal questions about detaining people whose names appear on the no-fly list, and it casts light on the role of private contractors in deciding whether someone should be held. The police in San Francisco said they had acted on the instructions of a contractor working for the Homeland Security Department.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/us/07watch.html

[one-eyed fat man]

83. Hey, wait a second

Aren't these the terrible secret war-criminal Bush-Cheney watch lists? How did you all of a sudden become their biggest fan?

Oh, that's different?

Now they're gone but the lists are still there. Perfect for you to use to further your plans against people you hate. Now that's progressive!

:crazy:

[SteveM]

95. Ummm, more punking from 5CR/3RD.

[68cobra]

113. So according to your logic

Ted Kennedy should have been banned from owning a firearm, after all, he was on the no fly list which I assume also means the terror watch list.

[Glassunion]

114. How does your language sound when applied to other civil rights?

Just ridiculing the 1st misamendment crowd - Stalin?
Just ridiculing the 3rd misamendment crowd - I'm actually with you on that one... http://www.theonion.com/articles/third-amendment-rights-group-celebrates-another-su,2296/
Just ridiculing the 4th misamendment crowd - Hitler?
Just ridiculing the 5th misamendment crowd - A page out of the old Afghan handbook
Just ridiculing the 6th misamendment crowd - See: Iran 1988
Just ridiculing the 7th misamendment crowd - See: Russia pre 1993
Just ridiculing the 8th misamendment crowd - I think you might like Somalia... http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/somalia-girl-stoned-was-child-13-20081031
Just ridiculing the 9th misamendment crowd - I'd recommend Sudan in the winter
Just ridiculing the 10th misamendment crowd - Your right, people have no right to health care. None!
Just ridiculing the 12th misamendment crowd - See N. Korea
Just ridiculing the 13th misamendment crowd - David Duke
Just ridiculing the 14th misamendment crowd - Again David Duke... Should we just reserve the power to determine who is and is not a citizen to you?
Just ridiculing the 15th misamendment crowd - David Duke again...
Just ridiculing the 18th misamendment crowd - I would ridicule them as well!!!
Just ridiculing the 19th misamendment crowd - Mel Gibson?
Just ridiculing the 21st misamendment crowd - Ooooh, this one makes me mad.
Just ridiculing the 24th misamendment crowd - Maybe this is why David Duke never got elected...

You may not like it, but the 2nd Amendment is a civil right of the people and it is not any more or less important than any of the other civil rights that we as Americans have guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights. There are those in this country that hate other civil rights that you may hold dear, however, they would sound to you, like you sound to me. Personally, I like all of the Bill of Rights and Amendments, they don't always work, but overall we are much better off as a country for having them, than not having them.

I would hate to live in a country with state run media/press, no right to a trial, since I'm black; my freedom and right to vote, my wife's right to vote and my right to see to my own safety as I see fit.

The problem is that you don't like the 2nd. So what? Don't exercise it.

As to your comment on the terrorist watch list... See: the 5th and 6th.

[SteveM]

93. 5CR/3RD?

BTW, can you point to a gun-free zone? How do you know?

[Euromutt]

107. Steve, could you explain what that means?

You use that "5CR/3RD" thing a lot, often as the only content of a post, and I think quite a few of us would like to know (well, I would, anyway) what it's supposed to mean. Is it some "leet" spelling of "scared"?

[Glassunion]

111. Same here... nt

[ManiacJoe]

115. Fifth column Republican/Third rail Democrat

[Euromutt]

119. Ah, that makes sense; thanks for clarifying (n/t)

[oneshooter]

58. It is a violation of Federal Law for a person, under the age

of 18 to purchase a long arm(rifle and /or shotgun) and for a person under the age of 21 to purchase a handgun.

State laws vary.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

5. I'm not a gun owner and in fact

wish the laws around acquiring same were stronger. However, I did spend some time in the Marines and learned that you don't clean a weapon when it contains a round! :wtf:
It's negligence, not an accident and he ought to be charged....

[Merlot]

7. Not cleaning a loaded gun sounds like common sense

I know nothing about guns, but it makes sense to: 1. not clean a loaded gun, or 2. not clean a gun with a toddler in the vicinity.

[Andy823]

24. I am a gun owner

And I never have understood why anyone would not make sure the gun is not loaded before cleaning it! If you are going to clean a gun the first thing any sane gun owner would do is make sure the chamber is clear and there are no clips or bullets in the gun! I never have a load gun in the house. I always make sure the gun is empty after shooting it, and double check it before I put it in the gun safe, and I always check it before I clean them to make sure they are empty!

[lawodevolution]

36. if you were in the marines I assume you would know that it is

not possible to strip down your firearm and have a round in it afterward because the act of moving the bolt back will send it out flying across the room. Simply not possible. Perhaps this guy's idea of cleaning a gun is to wipe the outside of it while it's still in one piece and loaded, or perhaps a worse kind of negligence occurred and they are blaming it on an accident.

[oneshooter]

59. if you were in the Marines

There fixed it for ya.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

96. Agree completely. But D&V above has quite another agenda.

[Upton]

6. It's not the gun's fault

I haven't seen a gun yet that jumps up and shoots people all by itself. This guy was a fool...

[Buns_of_Fire]

8. Anyone too damned stupid to unload a gun before they clean it...

...I dunno. Words fail me. They always do, after reading about some idiot shooting himself (or worse, someone else) "while cleaning their gun."

[hlthe2b]

12. There is little we can do to ban "morons"....

so, while guns may not kill, the truth is that morons, idiots, the arrogant, and the irresponsible kill with guns (not JUST the criminals). So, what is our answer again?

[Upton]

15. Lots of unsafe drivers out there

many of them real morons. perhaps we should ban cars...whatta you think?

[hlthe2b]

22. True.. but the comparison is not equivalent...

Drivers must be tested and licensed; recorded car-related acts of irresponsibility, including accidents, DUI, speeding, failure to follow safety laws, etc. can be tracked and result in a loss of license BEFORE the motorist mows down one or more people with their car. So, there are ways to try to prevent a disaster with a moron behind the wheel of a car. Not always effective, granted, but still a possible way (and a proven way) to prevent the worst car-related catastrophes.

The same can NOT be said for guns.

[PavePusher]

32. And yet they kill themselves and others at a much higher rate than guns.

So, how's that licencing and testing working out?

And since there is a system in place for tracking crime, already covered there.

[hlthe2b]

38. And, we continue to modify interventions to prevent MV accidents...

Yet, some gun owners don't even wish to TRY to develop interventions to prevent unintentional injuries, accidents, or gun crime. Your defensiveness is a case in point.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. You haven't demonstrated that your proposed "interventions" are necessary

You've asserted they are- but not shown it.

Since the number of deaths and injuries due to guns is declining, you'll have a difficult time proving it.


And what he said is true, whether you like it or not.

Despite a well developed system for licensure and registration, deaths and injuries from motor vehicles still outnumber

those from guns. And there may be more guns in the US than motor vehicles

[hlthe2b]

43. It is this insensitivy to preventable deaths that makes many

who are generally supportive of gun rights become so appalled. You do your cause no favors to be so rigid and indifferent to trying to intervene to prevent needless suffering from gun accidents or related incidents. No one would ever be able to prove to you to your satisfaction because you are simply unwilling to consider anything other than your own objectives. No room for compromise or flexibility on the issue. And that is a pity, because it may well be someone you care about who falls victim at some point in their life.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. You may prefer moralizing , I prefer facts, and what I said is true

And another fact is, you have no idea what my objectives are.


As a matter of fact, I would like to see preventable gun deaths and injuries fall even further, and I would point out

that the most effective organization that promotes gun safety is the National Rifle Association.


If you want to promote gun safety and reduce tragic accidents, you could sponsor a scholarship or two for someone

to attend an NRA-sanctioned gun safety class. They work, and work well.

[hlthe2b]

63. No, sadly, you only proved my point. n/t

[PavePusher]

76. What point?

That you can tap-dance like Astair?

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. That, and the incovenient truth the only people effectively promoting gun safety are the NRA.

The prohibitionists can't, as that would entail acknowledging that guns can, in fact, be handled safely.

And that's a severe no-no, of course....

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. You'd like to prevent tragedies like the events in the OP? So would I.

Handwringing and blatant moralizing will not achieve that end, nor will .orgs like the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Council.


They have no gun safety programs, as their aims are purely prohibitionist in nature. They recognize no legitimate use for

guns by civilians, and have zero credibility amongst the majority of politically aware gun owners.


The NRA, by contrast, does have a well-regarded gun safety program.


Do you side with the flawed NRA, who in fact do quite a lot to promote gun safety, or the Brady Bunch and VPC - who talk a great

game but do nothing except say "guns are bad".

[divideandconquer]

44. Next, smart people will want to ban using phones in cars

[one-eyed fat man]

87. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!

Next, smart people will want to ban using phones in cars

Texting-While-Driving Bans Actually Increase Crashes

The bans aren't having the intended effect because drivers - opting to text in spite of the bans - are holding their phones below the dashboard so police can't see them, taking their eyes and attention even further from the road.

The nanny staters strike again! Your 'smart' people are getting exactly the opposite effect. Even better, the first thing the ambulance chasers and insurance companies are doing is subpoenaing the phone records of the drivers in a crash.

The plaintiff's attorney will have you by the short hairs if you were texting when you rear ended the school bus, and that's a fact!

[cleanhippie]

48. Like what?

What measures would you propose to reduce the number of accidental firearm injuries and deaths?

[hlthe2b]

50. I have proposed none... though others have tried to imply otherwise

I commented in my original post that there is little we can do to ban "morons" so, while guns may not kill, the truth is that morons, idiots, the arrogant, and the irresponsible kill with guns (not JUST the criminals). So, what is our answer again?

So, cleanhippie, I ask YOU. What is our answer again?

[cleanhippie]

67. Enforce the laws we already have.

We agree that we will never be able to prevent morons, but that is no reason to punish everyone else.

[PavePusher]

75. Moving goal posts again?

Well, I guess it's good exercise.

You were talking about registration and licencing, neither of which has a proven effect on crime or accidents.

Now you switch the topic to "interventions"?

Team foul, 10 yard penalty.

[divideandconquer]

103. 30,000 gun deaths vs 40,000 car deaths

[Pavulon]

105. You counting suicides? Thats 55% 16,000 homicides

I would say most people dont INTENTIONALLY crash cars. Where 55% of your number in intentional action.

And it could be 300,000 it is not relevant to my right to own a gun. You sound like the people who use abortions a year to attack roe v wade.

your done, go home. There is no fight left here. You are standing on an empty battlefield and your side lost.

[cleanhippie]

46. Thats a good question.

With a very unclear answer. I do think that prevent perfectly capable non-morons from exercising their constitutional rights is NOT the answer, though.

What do you suggest?

[hlthe2b]

52. I suggest first, bringing the more moderate factions of the

gun rights movement together to discuss, even fund unbiased research into possible interventions. That will require moving from "no way no how" when the issue of guns ownership is brought up, to suggesting there may be ways to make them (and their owners) safer while respecting rights to own guns.

Sadly, whenever a post like this that details an unfortunate event at the hands of a very NON-responsible gun owner, the instinct of most who post in this forum is to close ranks, become defensive, and accuse all who question what might have been done to prevent such a tragedy of wanting to take their guns and rights away. It is as though instinct has blocked any ability to even acknowledge the tragedy--even for a moment--for some, before reacting so negatively towards others. That is a very negative trend imo.

[rrneck]

55. I don't see that happening here.

Got a link to a post that exhibits that phenomena?

[hlthe2b]

64. How does one link to an entire forum...

One never sees what they refuse to see. :eyes:

[rrneck]

73. Like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118


But that doesn't get one anywhere does it?



One could link to posts that prove one's point.

One could do a bit of actual research instead of making baseless accusations.

One could show a bit of intellectual honesty.


Of course, if one actually wanted to display even the semblance of intellectual honesty, one would would at least copy the link location of the guns forum.

:rofl:

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. There's a well-documented history of 'safety' being used as pretext for 'control'.

I will be charitable and assume you are unaware of these.


However, many gun owners are well aware of the chicanery employed by the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, and others

of their ilk. Their idea of compromise is along the lines of "What new restrictions on the law abiding can we get away with now?"


I think the latest and most prominent examples being the assertion that the near-total ban on handguns in Chicago and DC were

helping to keep those cities safe.


Thankfully, they are no longer in control of the political narrative.

[cleanhippie]

65. You are right.

And the reason for that "closing ranks" is because single, isolated incidents like this get used to broad-brush ALL gun owners by the gun grabbing crowd.

[hlthe2b]

66. And that crowd refuses to even acknowledge any compassion...

which makes many wonder how any kind of progressive values may be reconciled with those that take not even a moment to acknowledge suffering. No matter how strongly held our views, it simply amazes me that some don't even pause to take note of the tragedy before launching a very angry diatribe.

[cleanhippie]

68. Well, I don't see it that way.

When these stories get posted, I see many express concern and sympathy, however, I think what you may be seeing are RESPONSES to those who use these stories as excuses to try and further an anti-gun agenda.

Maybe we can all just agree, right here and now, that these accidents are tragic and that we all feel compassion and sympathy when they happen. I know I do.

Now we can move on to the real issue, right?

[hlthe2b]

69. I agree on that... n/t

[Euromutt]

88. Just as a matter of interest...

...could you point me to where, in this thread, you expressed compassion or sympathy with the victims of this negligent shooting? Because I seem to have missed where you actually did that. For that matter, I also seem to have missed where you upbraided divideandconquer for failing to do so before embarking on the snark.

Say, do I smell a whiff of hypocrisy?

[Euromutt]

82. I'm not sure there are any "moderate factions of the gun rights movement" left...

...and for that, you can thank the prominently activist members of the gun control lobby who pursued prohibitionism under a fig leaf of public safety. You can thank every chief law enforcement officer who ever abused his "executive discretion" to refuse firearm permits to blacks, Jews, immigrants, etc. or turned a permit system into a de facto ownership or carry ban except for those with political influence. You can thank every pro-gun control politician, activist and/or other public figure who was revealed to have wangled a carry permit, often in jurisdictions where such permits were nigh on impossible to acquire (e.g. Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Sean Penn, Arthur Sulzberger Jr.), thereby confirming their hypocrisy ("It's perfectly fine for me to own and carry a handgun, but not for commoners.").

The fact is that the gun control lobby was instrumental in creating the gun rights movement; in turning the NRA into a political organization, and prompting the creation of the more extreme Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (and if you think the NRA is intransigent, you should check out those latter groups!). When gun owners have made concessions in the past, they've been shafted, and the concessions they made used to leverage further concessions.

The position of gun rights organizations is akin to the seemingly unreasonable attitude of groups like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, when they sue to have Christmas trees and Nativity displays removed from publicly owned locations (municipal parks, city halls, airports, state capitols); they are uncompromising on these issues because if they do concede, those who want to use government to impose their particular brand of religion on the rest will seize upon that very concession as a basis on which to demand further concessions. When confronted with an opponent who tries to make a mile any time you give an inch, you quickly learn not to give an inch.

[Euromutt]

91. I'm open to suggestions

Do bear in mind that stuff like limits on magazine capacity, bans on so-called "assault weapons," "safe storage" requirements and the like aren't going to do much to prevent a regrettable incident like this occurring. It can happen with any cartridge-firing weapon, regardless of magazine capacity or whether or not it has a muzzle flash hider.

A loaded chamber indicator and/or a magazine disconnect might have helped avert this incident, but a lot of firearms aficionados don't care for those, arguing--not unreasonably--that such devices are an attempt to use hardware to side-step a bad habit (namely, failing to check whether there is a round in the chamber) without actually addressing that deficiency.

[aikoaiko]

10. Banished to the gungeon

[divideandconquer]

11. Banished to the gungeon!

Banished?

banished
past participle, past tense of ban·ish (Verb)
1. Send (someone) away from a country or place as an official punishment: "they were banished to Siberia".
2. Forbid, abolish, or get rid of (something unwanted): "all thoughts of romance were banished from her head". More »
Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

<http://www.google.com/search?q=banished+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a>

[aikoaiko]

14. was that a new word for you?

:shrug:

[divideandconquer]

18. Just pointing out to everyone that "banished" has a perjorative connotation

Like a "coverup" of an embarrassing incident.

[aikoaiko]

23. Well, you did post in the wrong forum. ...

...and a mod corrected you.

Its more a comment on you than the forum.

[cleanhippie]

49. Oh, SNAP!

[proteus_lives]

16. Ban accidents. It's the only way we'll be safe.

[hlthe2b]

26. Reminds me of those referring to terrorist acts as "accidents" .....

something I encountered during time spent in Egypt. It may just be an idiosyncrasy in translation to refer as an accident, rather than an "incident", but it was always jarring to hear intentional acts of endangerment referred to in this way.

Similarly in your use of the term, not all accidents are the same. Some point to high degree of culpability on someone's part, some are highly preventable, and others reflect an extreme level of irresponsibility. A child picking up an unlocked gun and firing it is an "accident." The adult who left it unlocked and available to the child was culpable. His act, was far more than a "mere accident." Arguably, so to would be the person who failed to ensure the gun was unloaded before cleaning, knowing there were people around.

[gristy]

28. I agree. It never ceases to amaze me how many headlines qualify an incident with the term "accident"

That would seem to be something a district attorney or maybe a jury would have to decide. How a reporter or editor could ever consider themselves authorized or qualified to make this judgment is beyond me.

[Euromutt]

78. I wouldn't belabor that point too hard

I don't like to swing a dictionary to make a point, but the Random House dictionary defines an accident as "an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss." More significantly, we routinely refer to motor vehicle collisions as "accidents" even though those occur almost entirely due to negligence on the part of one or more drivers. Lane drift, for example, is the leading cause of fatal collisions on highways, and that's not because there's something wrong with the steering mechanisms.

Though that said, you can make a fair distinction between plain old negligence and criminal negligence. As a rule of thumb, I'd say having the gun unintentionally discharge was negligent; having it discharge while the muzzle was covering two family members was criminally negligent.

[seabeyond]

27. +1. nt

[seabeyond]

17. i am so thankful both will make it. nt

[divideandconquer]

19. Yeah, the victims really "made it through"

Wonder what it would be like to revisit this family every year on the anniversary of this shooting, just to see how they "make it through".

[seabeyond]

20. thankful that they are alive? nt

[lawodevolution]

37. if they are smart they will

still enjoy their guns, have learned their lesson and still be disgusted by the gun control crowd. If they are weak minded idiots, they'll join your cause. I'd put money on the first. Many people have car accidents but still drive.

[SteveM]

97. And I'm sure you would like to be there, all lurid-like with quick breathing. nt

[rrneck]

25. An important lesson.

Guns are dangerous technology and should be handled with caution. Bullets can't be called back.

[slackmaster]

30. Basic gun safety should be taught in public schools

:hi:

[divideandconquer]

47. Yeah, do it on "send your daughter to school with a gun day"

Just another indicator on third world America, as we rapidly fall behind Europe, Oceania and the rest of an advancing world.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. Ah, another fan of "abstinence only" gun control.

How will not telling kids about gun safety make them safer? I'd like to know how that's supposed to work....

[Pavulon]

61. Yep lets use the UK's criminal justics system too.

It is so much better.. For the state.

[slackmaster]

72. Thank you for your constructive, thoughtful reply

:dunce:

[PavePusher]

77. Since no-one suggested what you claim in your subject line...

you are either mightily confused or lying.

Which is it?

[SteveM]

98. I don't think he cares. It's just anonymous punking to him/her.

[Katya Mullethov]

99. That might have been me .

[Xenotime]

100. Bullshit.

[slackmaster]

101. Consider it a joke at your own risk

The next person who gets negligently shot by some fucktard who doesn't follow the basic rules of gun safety could be you.

[lawodevolution]

33. Less people own pools and there's a higher chance a child

will drown than die in a gun accident. Also not the lack of fatalities in this anecdote.

also, accident fatality trends

[gristy]

71. Can you give us a source for the data in that plot?

And when you say "Rate", what do you mean? Deaths per citizen? Deaths per 1000 citizens? Deaths per 1000 registered firearms? Deaths per 1000 registered+unregistered firearms? Deaths per Pumpkin Pies Eaten? What?

[lawodevolution]

74. This again

Per 100,000 people in the US. I already checked this with the CDC and posted it in a different thread.

NRA owns the copyright to the graph.

[gristy]

79. my bad!

I should have searched for all your other posts to find that information. Sorry to bother you!

[sharesunited]

39. Nothing to see here.

The thing which was designed and intended to cause great bodily harm did so.

Gosh, the poor guy didn't mean to hurt his family.

The gun was in the house to protect them and keep them safe. Or some such horseshit.

[slackmaster]

41. Because sharesunited has such a talent for making bad guesses, I'll make a prediction here

The shooter will turn out to be a police officer or security guard of some kind, and the gun is his service weapon.

;-)

[slackmaster]

102. "A U.S. Army veteran who served in Iraq, Eliserio identifies himself as a corrections officer..."

...at a detention center on his MySpace profile online. One of his photos, in which the father of four shows one of his sons how to hold a small handgun, is titled, "never to early to play with guns."

http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_16359815?source=most_viewed

He's a dumbass who failed to learn basic firearm safety.

[Glassunion]

104. Not as good as the shooting where there was no gun.

But predictable none the less.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. Meanwhile, the things that are intended to provide transportation harm more people

Do those victims hurt less than the ones in the OP?

[Pavulon]

60. I can post a pic of a baby seat under the rear tire of a Ford SUV

except that kid is dead. Still has nothing to do with my ability to own a car.

[Katya Mullethov]

89. A lot of people dont know this either

Horse shit doesn't stink . I always chuckle when I see the big diapers .



You're thinking of cows . And a police state .

[Remmah2]

85. Stupid people

Stupid people own cars, handtools and even post in the Internet too.

[slackmaster]

86. "The shooter is believed to be a 26-year-old man who identifies himself as..."

:...a U.S. Army veteran who served in Iraq and a corrections officer..."

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16357527?nclick_check=1

Looks like I called it in reply #41, if this turns out to be correct and the weapon a duty gun.

Of course sharesunited will NEVER acknowledge his bad guess about the man's purpose for owning the handgun.

From reply #39:

The gun was in the house to protect them and keep them safe. Or some such horseshit.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. Bull.

Calling 'not an accident'.

Completely impossible. Especially for a serviceman.

[one-eyed fat man]

106. Maybe

Negligent certainly. Just because he was a veteran who served in Iraq doesn't mean he was more than minimally competent with any weapon. There are tons of staff weenies, cooks, clerks, jerks and fobbits for every combat arms type who really goes eyeball to eyeball with the enemy.

Spending a year stacking basketballs in the gym on Camp Falcon doesn't not promote the same level of competence with weapons that a year of operational missions in SOCOM does.

Even among line infantry, weapons training is marginal. No better evidence than the ordinary line infantryman is issued an M4 carbine with "3 round burst" feature, a mechanical substitute for proper fire discipline.

His Special Ops counterpart gets real "full auto" because he has sufficient training that his trigger finger is all the burst control he needs.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. yeah, I get that

but they all get minimal weapons training. Like 'don't point the gun at people and pull the trigger'.

He had 360 degrees of possiblities to point it in, in 3 dimensions, and he managed to point it in such a manner it hit 2 people critically in the abdomen? I think it was intentional, or criminally negligent. Like 'Don't worry it's empty, look' *points gun at kid* *pulls trigger*.

[burrfoot]

108. I can see this as an accident...

a stupid, criminally negligent one; but an accident.

I don't know if we know what kind of handgun it was, but I do know that (for example) with a Glock, the trigger has to be in the rearward position in order to strip it for cleaning. If you drop the magazine but don't check the chamber and you have a round in, you pull the trigger to start breaking it down and there you have it. Negligent discharge.

[slackmaster]

109. I suspect that alcohol played a role

;-)

[Glassunion]

112. Negligent discharge... Funny, that's what brought me into the world...

[jazzhound]

117. SPLAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!

:spray:

[Pavulon]

116. Cant stop stupid. The newer glocks have a loaded chamber indicator

so you can see if it is "loaded". It would take a true idiot to use this as the primary check vs racking the slide. Still I have stripped many handguns without incident, including glocks.

Failure to follow the 4 rules makes an embarrassing incident a potentially lethal one.

[slackmaster]

118. "Chamber-loaded" indicators first appeared on some German handguns a long time ago

For example, the Walther P.38.

The original purpose was to allow the shooter verify that the gun has a round in the chamber, without racking the slide (which makes noise and can waste a round).

The idea of using that feature to verify that a gun is NOT loaded is a perversion.

[one-eyed fat man]

121. Go back over a century.

It was standard on the Luger in 1900. "Geladen" (German for loaded) is visible on the extractor when there is a round in the chamber.



Anleitung zur Kenntnis und Behandlung der Pistole 1900/06

[burrfoot]

120. Damn straight.

I didn't mean that to sound like an excuse for the guy. This was totally negligent, and in my opinion criminally negligent. Just wanted to explain how it "could" happen.