How do you "accidentally" shoot three people at school?

[Electric Monk]

You accidentally bring a loaded gun, and it accidentally goes off three or more times?

I thought the saying was "Guns don't kill people, crazy people with guns kill people", though.

I must be confused. Help me understand. Which is it?

[villager]

1. They're scrambling now for spoon-fed NRA talking points about why gun safety features are terrible

terrible ideas, an assault to their very sense of person-hood and well-being, et al...

[lawodevolution]

83. This is a very ignorant thing to write, villager

Only the NRA pushes gun safety. Gun control groups fight against adopting the eddie eagle program in schools.

[hlthe2b]

2. now now...

A certain amount of "collateral damage" is just the price of the NRA utopia.... How can any of us argue with that?









:sarcasm: (if I really need it)

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hlthe2b]

8. Only if you see the issue in such absolute terms...

with no consideration for rational restrictions made necessary with the very different environment we live in and technological changes--compared to the 1700s.

If you want unfettered access to a 1776 musket, I'll be right there to support that. As many as you want. The latest military hardware? I'm going to question that. Insulting those who believe it necessary to look at rational protections as situations change does nothing to win you advocates. Quite the opposite. And when kids or other innocent bystanders are hurt or killed by those who bring guns to places where they don't belong--by those who take no basic precautions towards their handling, there needs to be discussion on what measures might prevent such episodes in the future.

[Statistical]

29. "If you want unfettered access to a 1776 musket"

Such a stupid stupid statement.

Any country in which your rights are locked by the technology of time is not a place I would want to live. Have you considered how that works?

Police need a warrant to search your home but they can search your phone, computer, and car because the 5th only protects things that existed at that time.

You have a right to free speech (manual printing press, and town crier) however modern methods can be curtailed by the government at will.

"The latest military hardware?"
The latest military hardware is unavailable to civilians.

[hlthe2b]

34. Don't start Statistical. You know I support rational gun ownership

I am annoyed at the accusations in the previous post-- their posting was so dripping in condescension and disrespect, they deserved a smart-ass response.

I've had productive and reasonable discussion with you in the past. So, don't demean that fact now. I'm not playing.

[CreekDog]

81. Though you got no answer I see the way you were treated

:hi:

[lawodevolution]

84. the tactic you are using now is: empathy

The Lovejoy (by X-digger): No matter what the restriction is, it's justified by a plea to save the children.

Distraction: “no one is trying to ban your guns” is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban “assault rifles”. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.
Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends..""

Shame: If there is a shooting they will try to exploit that tragedy against whatever NRA meeting or gun show or event that will occur in the near future. They will say such things as, "is it appropriate to have the event so soon after the shooting" which would require that the pro-gun event is somehow wrong or bad in the first place. This also requires an implied loose association between the pro gun event and something bad which is listed below as another tactic.

loose association: Trying to associate guns, gun events, gun rights activists or pro gun groups with something they are not associated with in any way that people in general may consider to be evil or bad such as Evil Banks, Evil people, bad events or anything negative even though many people don't view guns in a negative way or gun owners as being evil. An attempt to label guns, gun owners or pro gun groups as evil by loose association with that which is considered evil.

Hate/Fear/Anger: They try to use disparaging names against gun owners just like any bigot would do against a culture or a person’s view that is different from their own. Perhaps the gun owner will be affraid to support the second amendment after being exposed to this anger.

Lies, deception, manipulation, sensationalism: I have never seen a gun control debate in which the folks supporting gun control did not use a significant amount of false information, lies, and deception. They will talk about “assault weapons ban” while showing full auto guns that will not be effected by any AWB. Every part of the ignorance of firearms that they perpetuate is part of the tactic. They can’t seem to figure out the difference between a “magazine” and a “clip”.

Exploitation of tragedy: They have prepared legislation in advance with the purpose of waiting for a tragedy, so that they can introduce that legislation rapidly after a tragedy. They are like vultures waiting for the kill.

Throwing up smoke: Yet when you try to argue against their plan, they try to shame you into thinking you are wrong for posting your views in light of the tragedy and they accuse you of attempting political gain and being insensitive to the victims even though they initiated the attempt at political gain via the tragedy. They distract you from their own disgusting exploitation of the tragedy by claiming you are exploiting it.

Harass gun owners: The laws they pass are not designed to make society more safe, they are designed to only effect law abiding gun owners by threatening or harassing them via legislation. Their goal is to reduce the number of people who own guns and therefore the number of people who fight for the right to own firearms. They try to make gun laws complicated and they try to use intimidation via legislation to try to get people to sell their firearms. They also try to attack gun ownership from every angle including making it more difficult for people to go target shooting, acquire ammo or go hunting.

Forced justification (beevul): This occurs when a gun control supporter suggests that it is necessary to have a "good reason" to own a gun or accessory, if you don't have a "good reason" to own such objects than they conclude they should be banned. The "good reason" will be defined by the gun control supporter, so any reason you present will be dismissed as incorrect. The best response to this is to simply explain that you don't need to express a reason in order to practice a civil liberty.

[Atypical Liberal]

49. In 1776, muskets WERE the latest military hardware.

In 1776, muskets WERE the latest military hardware. They were the small arm appropriate for infantry use. There were reasons why the founders wanted civilians armed similarly to the infantry of the day.

Why would those reasons not be true today?

[TriMera]

3. Magic Bullet? n/t

[Blue Owl]

4. Just become a Republican named Dick Cheney

and all is forgiven.

[32571]

6. Let me see if I can help you.

Do you own a knife, a hammer or a baseball bat? Have any of these items ever crawled out of their storage locations under their own power? Have any of these ever attacked you on their own without human intervention? I doubt seriously that the gun in question crawled into this jerk's backpack on its own. I doubt seriously that it hopped out of the backpack and began spraying bullets on its own. It generally takes a human being to operate a gun. I say generally because I suppose gravity has, on occasion, caused a gun to go off without human intervention but, then again, gravity can cause many objects to operate with a less than desired affect.

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. Yes and

Pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons made Oprah fat.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

14. and no one is trying to control the production of

spoons or pencils...i do however agree that you should be licensed to own/operate a weapon...just like a car.

sP

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. I almost always agree with you.

This would be one of those times.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

36. so...unfettered access to spoons for everyone?

i will never understand why people will argue for no licensing no training for deadly weapons. hell, you need a license (in my state) to cut hair! we look right past any common sense (heck, on both sides of this and) because of the 2nd Amendment...i don't get it.

sP

[Starboard Tack]

72. Cutting hair is not covered by 2A

You could kill people with those scissors. Why would you need a license for a gun? To shoot tin cans?

[lawodevolution]

85. So you pretend to be pro gun and pro 2A then you mention that it is

"common sense" to pass licensing and registration of firearms. Duhhhh, I can't see through the BS!


The Lovejoy (by X-digger): No matter what the restriction is, it's justified by a plea to save the children.

Distraction: “no one is trying to ban your guns” is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban “assault rifles”. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.
Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends..""

Shame: If there is a shooting they will try to exploit that tragedy against whatever NRA meeting or gun show or event that will occur in the near future. They will say such things as, "is it appropriate to have the event so soon after the shooting" which would require that the pro-gun event is somehow wrong or bad in the first place. This also requires an implied loose association between the pro gun event and something bad which is listed below as another tactic.

loose association: Trying to associate guns, gun events, gun rights activists or pro gun groups with something they are not associated with in any way that people in general may consider to be evil or bad such as Evil Banks, Evil people, bad events or anything negative even though many people don't view guns in a negative way or gun owners as being evil. An attempt to label guns, gun owners or pro gun groups as evil by loose association with that which is considered evil.

Hate/Fear/Anger: They try to use disparaging names against gun owners just like any bigot would do against a culture or a person’s view that is different from their own. Perhaps the gun owner will be affraid to support the second amendment after being exposed to this anger.

Lies, deception, manipulation, sensationalism: I have never seen a gun control debate in which the folks supporting gun control did not use a significant amount of false information, lies, and deception. They will talk about “assault weapons ban” while showing full auto guns that will not be effected by any AWB. Every part of the ignorance of firearms that they perpetuate is part of the tactic. They can’t seem to figure out the difference between a “magazine” and a “clip”.

Exploitation of tragedy: They have prepared legislation in advance with the purpose of waiting for a tragedy, so that they can introduce that legislation rapidly after a tragedy. They are like vultures waiting for the kill.

Throwing up smoke: Yet when you try to argue against their plan, they try to shame you into thinking you are wrong for posting your views in light of the tragedy and they accuse you of attempting political gain and being insensitive to the victims even though they initiated the attempt at political gain via the tragedy. They distract you from their own disgusting exploitation of the tragedy by claiming you are exploiting it.

Harass gun owners: The laws they pass are not designed to make society more safe, they are designed to only effect law abiding gun owners by threatening or harassing them via legislation. Their goal is to reduce the number of people who own guns and therefore the number of people who fight for the right to own firearms. They try to make gun laws complicated and they try to use intimidation via legislation to try to get people to sell their firearms. They also try to attack gun ownership from every angle including making it more difficult for people to go target shooting, acquire ammo or go hunting.

Forced justification (beevul): This occurs when a gun control supporter suggests that it is necessary to have a "good reason" to own a gun or accessory, if you don't have a "good reason" to own such objects than they conclude they should be banned. The "good reason" will be defined by the gun control supporter, so any reason you present will be dismissed as incorrect. The best response to this is to simply explain that you don't need to express a reason in order to practice a civil liberty.

[Atypical Liberal]

50. Did you know?

i do however agree that you should be licensed to own/operate a weapon...just like a car.

Did you know that in most places firearms are already licensed just like a car? That is, to operate a car on private property you don't need a license, nor registration, nor a tag, nor insurance. Only if you want to operate it public do you need those things.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

52. this was a comment regarding my unfettered access to spoons

and pencils...i didn't want the other poster to believe that there should be unlimited access to guns as i do not believe that is a good idea. as far as using a weapon on private vs public property...well, i am sure my analogy doesn't extend to infinity.

sP

[Atypical Liberal]

60. But your analogy is perfect.

as far as using a weapon on private vs public property...well, i am sure my analogy doesn't extend to infinity.

But your analogy was perfect. Firearms today are regulated much like cars are. If you want to use one in public, you will need state permission. If you want to use one on private property, you don't.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

62. i think, however, and maybe i was unclear

i do believe that before operation of a firearm commences, you should at the very least have training on its use and safety precautions. how those would be enforced on private property i am not sure...example, hunting purposes. i think you should have to be licensed to carry...in public (that includes in your vehicle IMHO).

sP

[Atypical Liberal]

67. Oh, I understand...

Oh I understand what you meant. Lots and lots of people have used the "guns should be licensed like cars" argument with me before. I know that you mean that you should have to have a license to get a gun period. I'm just pointing out that in fact guns are licensed very similarly to cars today. You don't need government permission to own or use either one on private property. And I'm fine with that. Just as I don't have to demonstrate any competence to use a car on private property, because it only affects me, likewise firearms ought to be the same way.

I disagree with carrying in your vehicle. A vehicle ought to be protected from search and seizure just like your home. In that vein, it is private property. For many people, their vehicle is their home.

[GreenStormCloud]

89. Of cars and guns.

Are you aware that anybody can buy a car if they have the cash? No NICS checks.

Are you aware that you DON'T need a license to drive a car on private property, nor does the vehicle even need to be registered or safety inspected? Those are only needed if you take the car on public roads.

Guns are generally the same. No registration if it stays on private property, but you do need a license to carry in public. (Most states.)

[32571]

21. I've got a drawer full of those ^&%&*% spoons.

n/t

[PavePusher]

63. Are they high-capacity "assault spoons" capable of...

feeding multiple mouths with every load?

Or are they "normal sporting spoons" capable of only stuffing one pie-hole at a time?

[jobycom]

25. I accidentally hit my sister with a baseball bat as a kid.

She said "ow." She's in her forties now, and probably doesn't even remember it. Now, my friend Joel Culpepper who was accidentally shot by a gun by his best friend is dust and dirt, and the probably even the brain matter splattered over his mother's bedroom wall has disappeared.

There is no difference at all between a baseball bat and a gun. Not one single thing is different. Not at all.

[shadowrider]

43. Nope, no difference

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_did_Al_Capone_murder

And that was before aluminum.

[hack89]

68. More people are murdered with bats than rifles. nt

[SteveM]

7. Sounds like this person killed others using a gun...

Since he is dead, he won't be tried. Neither will the gun.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. Who's dead? The boy in question has already been transported to the Police Station...

[Electric Monk]

15. They must've been thinking of some other shooting, not this latest one.

It's understandable, considering how many there are.

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. How many are there?

[polmaven]

44. At least two..

One in California, where a student brought a gun in his backpack, and the story is saying the gun fired when he dropped the back pack. I am having trouble understanding how three people can be shot in that manner.

The other is in Vermont (I think), where a student was found dead of a self inflicted gunshot wound.

[Lucian]

9. But it's the kid's right to own a gun!

Oh, wait...

Nevermind.

How is the NRA going to spin this one?

[32571]

18. Not if he/she is under the age of 21 in most states.

And, since 1991, it is against the law to bring a gun within 1000 feet of a school.

[Lucian]

30. That's what the "Oh, wait...Nevermind" means.

;)

[32571]

40. My bad, please accept my apology.

n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. "Since 1991, it is against the law to bring a gun within 1000 feet of a school."

Is this true? Can you cite the particular law?

[X_Digger]

45. Sorta..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

The original 1990 law was struck down, and President Clinton signed a new one in 1995 specifically tailored to address the problems identified in the earlier challenge.

Read the wiki article, the notes at the bottom are especially interesting, as well as this..

[32571]

48. Try here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

Voided in 1995 by the U.S. Supreme Court but re-enacted by William Jefferson Clinton by the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 after minor modifications. All of the details can be found at the provided link.

[Euromutt]

86. California Penal Code, section 626.9

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/626.9.html

Firearms kept on one's own property are exempt (if one lives within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school), as are firearms being transported unloaded in a locked container.

Oh, and that law went into effect in 1995, not 1991.

[slackmaster]

54. Under federal law the minimum age to buy a handgun from a gun dealer is 21

Don't let facts, and all that.

(I understand the "Oh wait, nevermind" BTW.)

[GreenStormCloud]

90. Most likely the kid was a gang member.

I was already illegal for him to have the gun. I suppose you want to make it double-illegal.

Certainly a gang-banger will respect and obey double-illegal laws? /sarcasm

[shadowrider]

91. Careful dude, I was called a racist for using the word "gang" n/t

[Johonny]

10. gun accidentally shoot people all the time

so not impossible

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. a gun acting alone has never shot a person

there is always an outside force acting on the gun (OK, modern guns). either someone used it on purpose or someone used it by accident.

sP

[Statistical]

31. Really?

How exactly does a gun (putting the action on an inanimate object) accidentally shoot someone.

[kctim]

16. Guess we have to fight to outlaw backpacks now

:scared:

[Pancho Sanza]

24. It's for sure a few very concerned people will hysterically call for a ban on SOMETHING

I think they pray for more gun mishaps so they can keep their outrage from cooling off.

[Glassunion]

56. That's not a bad idea. Think about it. You can't hide anything in a backpack you don't have.

But if you can't stand the thought of having our little snowflakes carrying loose books. How about we mandate that all backpacks be clear plastic, like those bags that you get at the Duty Free in the airports.

[RamboLiberal]

65. Some schools do

Though I think they'd be a bit flimsy.

Let's get them on ebooks & eliminate the need for backpacks.

[Glassunion]

69. Or we could let the TSA do "Freedom Pats" and "Patriot Scans" at the schools.

Then we will be 150% certain that no gun will ever ever ever never get into a school again.

[snooper2]

17. were they standing in line?

nt

[bluedigger]

19. Well, if you were targeting four or more, three could be an accident.

[RamboLiberal]

20. Sounds like 1 shot that hit 2 people

Miguel Lopez, 17, said he was in his health class when a gun went off as a male classmate was reaching into his backpack. The student, whose name Lopez did not know, was not pointing the gun at anyone, he said.

Two students sitting next to him in the rear corner of the room were shot, Lopez said. A boy was grazed in the shoulder. A 15-year-old girl next to him was shot in the temple.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/eyewitness-describes-gardena-high-school-shooting.html

On edit:

Update: KCAL9 reported a female shot in the head was critical and that the other victim in serious condition was a male struck in the neck.

The station reported that both injuries were the result of only one round having been fired.

Earlier reports of three people having been shot by a black-clad gunman on the loose on-campus appear to be untrue.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/01/gardena_high_school_shooting_1.php

[Zephie]

23. The question still remains: Why did he have a gun at school?

Thats what I want to know.

[Pancho Sanza]

26. The story can't possibly be true: schools are gun-free zones.

.

:shrug:

[32571]

39. I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS JERK

Crime stats for 90248 zip code.

http://www.clrsearch.com/90248_Demographics/Crime_Statistics

Not the safest neighborhood in the country.

[RamboLiberal]

42. A lot of reasons - some kids are bullied

And at home parents & others in household don't keep them locked away.

[slackmaster]

53. Maybe he's a stupid piece of worthless, sub-human ghetto trash

Or maybe he had a good reason.

I heard on NPR that the school has metal detectors, and "authorities" were mystified as to how he could have gotten the gun past them.

[shadowrider]

55. Wait, you're telling me this guy out-thought the "authorities"?

Kinda like bad guys do to get around gun laws that only the law-abiding obey?

Say it ain't so.

[BrightKnight]

77. Maybe he is just a dumb kid.

Lots of kids make bad decisions.

[thecrow]

38. Why is the fashion description for gunmen always black?

Why not green or red or pink?
Plaid, anyone?

[Euromutt]

57. Because it's scarier, and the news media want you to be scared

We're evolutionarily hardwired to want to gain information about things that may form a threat to us, which is why the news media can hold our attention by scaring us. And of course, the news media want us to keep watching to improve their advertising revenue. That's why a news report on worrying levels of arsenic in a reservoir in south-west Georgia gets played as "Coming up after the break: a threat to our nation's water supply. Find out how you could be affected."

[Glassunion]

58. Don't try and pull that crap...

A few years ago, Pink was the "New Black"... Then Gray was the "New Black"... More recently "Green" is the "New Black"http://www.scienceline.org/2010/02/green-is-the-new-black-at-fashion-week/

But to me. Black will always and forever be the "New Black"...

[pintobean]

22. How do you "accidentally" post in the wrong forum?

[Electric Monk]

28. Is this not "General Discussion"? I wanted a general discussion of this.

The Gungeon attracts a different demographic.

Go ahead and hit alert if you think I've violated some DU rule by posting it here.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[32571]

35. Yeah, that'll work.

Can't get prescription drugs anywhere but a pharmacy and only with a doctor's order. Yeah, that'll work

[slackmaster]

37. By being a stupid piece of worthless trash who takes a gun to school

And doesn't even have the decency to put it in a holster.

[shadowrider]

46. Dude

It's so he can use the gun after school, then dump it, with no indication he had one. A holster would certainly give that away.

[Atypical Liberal]

47. What incident is this in reference to? n/t

,

[Electric Monk]

51. Three people injured in Gardena High School (Los Angeles) school shooting today.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jpcpmhNR55s0USJzRghd7RmB3w9Q?docId=CNG.c3508a59918bec0abfc50242b9cc6e90.541

[dmallind]

59. You don't. You, at best, negligently do so.

added of course to criminally having the gun as a minor in the first place, criminally taking it to school and either criminally or negligently, depending on local laws I cannot be bothered to check since this was a confirmation-bias rhetorical "question" anyway, storing it.

What extra gun law would have stopped him when these ones did not?

[shadowrider]

61. The short answer is "none"

but that won't stop the anti's from passing more because 22,000 isn't enough.

That way, they can walk away, pat each other on the back, shake each others hand on a job well done, until the next one, when they pass more laws.

Shampoo
Rinse
Repeat

[Starboard Tack]

74. What extra gun law would have stopped him when these ones did not?

Only the one it seems nobody has the balls to discuss. The total, absolute ban on handguns and any other weapon designed and manufactured exclusively to kill or maim humans. This really is a no brainer. But way too hot for any politician to touch. Eventually the threshold will be met and common sense will prevail, as it did in the UK.

[dmallind]

75. Heroin is so banned. Can it be obtained? Booze in 1925? nt

[Starboard Tack]

78. What do heroin and booze have to do with it?

They are not designed to specifically kill or maim.

[X_Digger]

79. Banned items are quite obtainable.. drugs now, alcohol during prohibition..

If you missed the point, I don't think you were looking very hard.

[dmallind]

82. Ermmm...because you seem to favor the same failed useless approach we apply/ied to them?

Blanket prohibitions on things easily - or even POSSIBLY - makeable by the general public and for which there is a demand will always, always, inevitably and disastrously fail to put an end to them. It will merely enrich and empower criminals who supply them and reduce civil liberties in the name of trying to control them. There is a reason Capone became rich and powerful in the 20s, and Escobar in the 70s-80s. Try this same, and your suggested, approach to guns and the only mystery is the name of the vicious criminal mastermind who will become a billionaire supplying guns on the black market and killing off his competition. It's no mystery that there will be one, and that guns, easily made in a modest machine shop, will continue to flow to those who want them. All you would do is add deaths to the, now criminalized and unregulated, actual trade in guns rather than the safe and regulated trips to gun stores now.

[lawodevolution]

87. "The total, absolute ban on handguns and any other weapon designed and manufactured exclusively "

my guess is a civil war would not help things out much and a total gun ban with confiscation will bring about a civil war, then after the gun owners win the civil war, we can imagine how the new constitution will be.

[RamboLiberal]

64. Why he brought the gun to school

The Gardena High School student who police believe accidentally discharged a gun and wounded two other students had brought a weapon to campus “a couple times” before, one of his friends said Tuesday.

Andrea Tibbs, who described herself as a “good friend” of the student, said that he started bringing the gun to campus to protect himself after he had been in a fight outside of school –- an incident, she said, that made him fear for his safety.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/student-had-brought-gun-to-school-before-for-protection-after-fight-friend-says.html

Doesn't make it right but we do have too much fighting & bullying in schools.

[Katya Mullethov]

66. Same way you accidentally get pregnant three times

It's a state of mind .

[benEzra]

70. It's exceedingly unlikely, IMO. For a civilian-legal gun to fire three times...

the trigger has to be pulled three separate times. Pull, release, pull again, release, pull again, with a five to twelve pound pull every time. I don't see that happening due to setting down a backpack; that would seem to require a human hand pulling the trigger.

It is possible that if the gun were a pistol or revolver loaded with FMJ target ammo (doesn't open up and stop, just keeps going and going) and three people happened to be lined up just so, it could happen.

A sawed-off shotgun could certainly have enough spread to hit three people with one shot, but I thought the media reports said it was a handgun. Obviously, if the kid had an illegal full auto machine pistol/subgun smuggled in from Mexico or something, a single trigger pull could have fired three rounds, but that is exceedingly unlikely.

Personally, I suspect this may have been an intentional shooting, but the investigation will probably be able to determine that.

[RamboLiberal]

71. There was one shot

Hit one kid in the neck, went on to hit second girl in the head not entering her head but fracturing the skull.

Yes this can happen with one bullet.

[benEzra]

73. Ah...and only two hit? That makes much more sense.

That's what I get for going off initial reports; they're almost always baloney.

[Kennah]

76. There are darned few truly accidental shootings

Most are acts of negligence.

Perhaps the words negligence, negligent, and negligently are just too harsh for our media to report.

[Merchant Marine]

80. Now hold on one second.

California requires handguns sold in the state be on a list of approved "safe" designs. Part of that testing is supposedly a drop test. Did the state fail us?

[lawodevolution]

88. all those gun laws in california

and yet this happens. Here in El Paso, this never happens, we also have very few gun laws. We also have a murder rate of 0.65 per 100,000 in 2010. I thought the point of gun control was to actually reduce these types of things, looks like it doesn't work.