2 separate accidental shootings at gun shows today

Molinaro · 19th January 2013, 07:45 PM

I am particularly perplexed by this description of one of the accidents from CNN:

Quote:

Meanwhile, in Indianapolis, a man walking out of the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife Show shot himself in the hand as he was loading his .45-caliber semi-automatic firearm, Indiana State Police said in a statement.
The 54-year-old Indianapolis man was sent to Wishard Hospital for treatment after being "slightly" injured.
"The investigation determined the shooting to be accidental, and no charges will be filed," police said.

It seems very odd to me that loading your gun while walking around in a public place, and having it go off while doing so, does not entail any crime having been committed.

*edit*
The CNN article has been updated to describe 3 separate shootings at 3 different gun shows today.

BStrong · 19th January 2013, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Molinaro

I am particularly perplexed by this description of one of the accidents from CNN:

It seems very odd to me that loading your gun while walking around in a public place, and having it go off while doing so, does not entail any crime having been committed.

The cops fingered the suspect, what more do you expect?

Seriously though, unless he had injured another party or damaged public or private property, the most the guy would possibly face is a charge of unlawful discharge, and if he did enough damage to himself, the locals probably feel he's going to suffer enough as it is.

lionking · 19th January 2013, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Molinaro

It seems very odd to me that loading your gun while walking around in a public place, and having it go off while doing so, does not entail any crime having been committed.

"Odd" isn't the right word. Nor is "perplexing". "Lunacy" is far better.

volcano · 19th January 2013, 08:50 PM

I'm not as vehemently anti-gun as many other liberals, but I was still shocked to see some of my friends' postings on Facebook this evening-- they were excitedly describing what they bought at today's gun show at Wasilla High School.

Seriously, a gun show at a high school? Even if the risks are no higher than holding a gun show elsewhere, it still seems to be in terrible taste.

Checkmite · 19th January 2013, 09:59 PM

Wow, sounds like today was just not the right day to be at a gun show.

Just how common are accidents at gunshows? I'm surmising that nonlethal incidents such as these have happened before, but until the current climate of debate never merited more than brief local coverage.

triforcharity · 19th January 2013, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

"Odd" isn't the right word. Nor is "perplexing". "Lunacy" is far better.

Guy was a dumbass for for trying to apparently walk and load a weapon at the same time, agreed.

But, an accidental discharge, even while doing something pretty dumb, doesn't fall into a crime category that I am aware of. Unless of course that states laws includes "Stupid ****" ......

lionking · 19th January 2013, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Guy was a dumbass for for trying to apparently walk and load a weapon at the same time, agreed.

But, an accidental discharge, even while doing something pretty dumb, doesn't fall into a crime category that I am aware of. Unless of course that states laws includes "Stupid ****" ......

Did I say it was illegal? The fact that it isn't makes this whole incident completely surreal.

Cain · 19th January 2013, 11:04 PM

Those were not accidental gun shots. Liberal media.

Those were freedom stings.

Brian-M · 20th January 2013, 12:00 AM

I'm confused as to how he could have shot himself in the hand while loading it. Presumably he'd be holding the gun in one hand and the ammunition in the other, so how could he shoot himself in the hand unless he had his hand covering the end of the muzzle? (And it seems to me like that would be a very awkward way to hold a gun.)

ETA: Shooting himself in the foot would sound much more plausible.

SezMe · 20th January 2013, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

I'm confused as to how he could have shot himself in the hand while loading it. Presumably he'd be holding the gun in one hand and the ammunition in the other, so how could he shoot himself in the hand unless he had his hand covering the end of the muzzle? (And it seems to me like that would be a very awkward way to hold a gun.)

ETA: Shooting himself in the foot would sound much more plausible.

I'm gonna guess that the "while loading it" part is not altogether accurate.

rikzilla · 20th January 2013, 02:08 AM

the bullet, being endowed by its creator with freedom, shall not be infringed on it's way outta the barrel...

casebro · 20th January 2013, 06:08 AM

I suspect the anti-gun hysteria of prompting more inexperienced individuals to rush out and get one while the getting is good. Blame Feinstein and Obama.

And note that the spirit of this thread is that "guns don't shoot idiots, idiots shoot themselves".

Bikewer · 20th January 2013, 06:37 AM

With two reported incidents over the weekend, I wonder if gun shows are attracting a lot of new participants, perhaps fueled by "gun grab fever"?
Gun shows go on across the country on a weekly basis, and accidents are vastly rare....

Prior to the '68 Gun Control act, I used to go to a big one "across the river" in Illinois, and they were for the most part very calm affairs, even in that very loose atmosphere.
Of course, it was said that there was more action in the parking lot than on the showroom floor. "Psst... Hey buddy, wanna see a bazooka?"

MRC_Hans · 20th January 2013, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by casebro

I suspect the anti-gun hysteria of prompting more inexperienced individuals to rush out and get one while the getting is good. Blame Feinstein and Obama.

And note that the spirit of this thread is that "guns don't shoot idiots, idiots shoot themselves".

Which is exactly the problem with lack of rigid gun restrictions: Far too many idiots get to own guns.

(creeps back under stone)

Hans

triforcharity · 20th January 2013, 07:53 AM

Far too many idiots own cars too.....

Mr. Purple · 20th January 2013, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by casebro

Blame Feinstein and Obama.

Yeah, definitely blame anyone other than the idiot that wasn't in control of his weapon.

BStrong · 20th January 2013, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

I'm confused as to how he could have shot himself in the hand while loading it. Presumably he'd be holding the gun in one hand and the ammunition in the other, so how could he shoot himself in the hand unless he had his hand covering the end of the muzzle? (And it seems to me like that would be a very awkward way to hold a gun.)

ETA: Shooting himself in the foot would sound much more plausible.

Semi-auto pistol, guy goes to "press-check" to see if the piece is loaded, had finger on trigger.

That's my bet.

A whole bag of mistakes all in one place.

Elypsis44 · 20th January 2013, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Far too many idiots own cars too.....

And pools. Don't forget those.

Elypsis44 · 20th January 2013, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

Those were not accidental gun shots. Liberal media.

Those were freedom stings.

Yep.

If only there had been one good, God-fearing, NRA card-carring CCW'er nearby to prevent this.

BStrong · 20th January 2013, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

With two reported incidents over the weekend, I wonder if gun shows are attracting a lot of new participants, perhaps fueled by "gun grab fever"?
Gun shows go on across the country on a weekly basis, and accidents are vastly rare....

Prior to the '68 Gun Control act, I used to go to a big one "across the river" in Illinois, and they were for the most part very calm affairs, even in that very loose atmosphere.
Of course, it was said that there was more action in the parking lot than on the showroom floor. "Psst... Hey buddy, wanna see a bazooka?"

Didn't need to go any farther than a magazine rack pre-'68, the Destructive Device classification in the NFA hadn't yet been established.

I All sorts of things that would make a strong anti-gunner faint was sold through the mail, no questions asked.

No ammo (at least legally) but the live mortars, bazookas, cannons, AT guns etc. where easily purchased and dirt cheap.

Flamethrowers were my personal favorite.

Molinaro · 20th January 2013, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Far too many idiots own cars too.....

And when you have an at fault accident with your car you can find your license to use one suspended.

Why does this not happen with your gun license when you demonstrate carelessness?

000063 · 20th January 2013, 08:56 AM

Depends on the degree of offense. Shoot yourself in the foot, little penalty. Shoot through a wall and hit someone on the other side, and you goin' to jail.

Checkmite · 20th January 2013, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

With two reported incidents over the weekend, I wonder if gun shows are attracting a lot of new participants, perhaps fueled by "gun grab fever"?

Well that's the other side of the coin. Gun fans have taken pleasure in pointing out that the current uptick in the gun control debate has led to many more new gun owners, usually saying things along the lines of "Obama is the best gun salesman there ever was". But the fact is, all these people who are buying guns are buying them because they've fallen for the rhetorical claim that "Obama wants to ban all guns" - in other words, mostly unintelligent people. Unintelligent people with guns do things like accidentally shoot themselves and each other - this is the result. All these proud new gun owners that gun fans might be smugly gloating over now, might ultimately prove to help create the best argument ever for stricter gun control.

We can conveniently avoid dealing with that reality through misdirection, however. I'll go first: isn't it convenient for the anti-gun lobby who wants to ban private gun sales that there were accidents at 3 gun shows in different states on the same day?

triforcharity · 20th January 2013, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Elypsis44

And pools. Don't forget those.

And keys too. I haven't forgot those.

triforcharity · 20th January 2013, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Molinaro

And when you have an at fault accident with your car you can find your license to use one suspended.

Why does this not happen with your gun license when you demonstrate carelessness?

That's not true. An at fault accident typically only results in a small fine, unless you're displaying gross negligence. Like, drinking and driving, or driving 120 MPH.

When people start losing their licenses for 1 accident, then you might have a point. But, since that's not true, it's bad logic.

Molinaro · 20th January 2013, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

That's not true. An at fault accident typically only results in a small fine, unless you're displaying gross negligence. Like, drinking and driving, or driving 120 MPH.

When people start losing their licenses for 1 accident, then you might have a point. But, since that's not true, it's bad logic.

That's a very dishonest misrepresentation of what I said.

I did not say, YOU WILL lose your license. I said YOU CAN. There's a big difference between the two that you decided to ignore when you opened with the assertion that my statement was not true.

You then point out that you in fact can lose it, showing that what I said was in fact true.

If a million people had their license application denied last year in the US based on the potential for misuse, why shouldn't it be taken away from people who actually demonstrate misuse?

triforcharity · 20th January 2013, 10:25 AM

Yes, you CAN lose your license for an at fault accident. However, you're going to, 95% of the time, receive a fine.

Gross negligence, such as reckless driving, or DUI, will usually result in at minimum a short suspension, however not always.

When you state carelessness as a reason to remove a persons right to own a firearm, you've failed to take into consideration that the hugely vast majority of accidents are the result of a careless action. Run a red light, not slow down during rain or snow, not maintaining your vehicle, etc. All careless actions. Almost all result in a fine.

Do you understand how comparing the two is silly? I hope you do.

However, I do agree that if you exhibit gross negligence (leaving a loaded weapon in the cup holder with kids in the car certainly qualifies) or repeated negligence in general, you should have to pay stiff penalties. However, it's going to have to rise above just one incident.

Molinaro · 20th January 2013, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Do you understand how comparing the two is silly? I hope you do.

Thank you. You finally get it.

You were the one who brought cars into this discussion.

It is such a sad state of affairs in the US the way so many bring in such irrelevant and silly comparisons as they attempt to excuse irresponsibility.

triforcharity · 20th January 2013, 11:12 AM

Yes, I did. Mockingly. I should have added a sarcasm smiley.

Who said anything about excusing responsibility? The idiot who shot himself, should have to pay his medical bills, and any lawsuit brought by the victim he should have to defend himself too. Oh, wait.....nevermind.
(Nobody claimed that someone else was responsible for the idiot's actions.)

I'm glad you said that though. So you agree that personal responsibility is important, right?

So, we can stop the whole discussion on gun control, because, in reality, the most important part, correct? Start holding criminals responsible.

Molinaro · 20th January 2013, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Who said anything about excusing responsibility?

I would call the very 1st reply to this thread an example of making excuses for irresponsibility.

PhantomWolf · 20th January 2013, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Far too many idiots own cars too.....

While it is true that too many idiots do have cars, at least we try and mitigate that by..

a) Licencing Users
b) Forcing Users to meet a minimum standard to gain that Licence
c) Registering vehicles and forcing users to have insurance
d) Having strict rules about the operation of that vehicle and a dedicated enforcement system to make sure those rules are followed
e) Revoking Licences of those that seriously offend with said vehicle
f) Removing the vehicle from some of those offenders
g) Ban serious offenders from the use or ownership of vehicles.

Do you agree the same things should be done with guns?

Charlie Wilkes · 20th January 2013, 11:58 AM

It's unfortunate that the stupidest and most reckless members of American society are precisely the ones who are most obsessed with guns. Often the results are merely humorous...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ef=mostpopular

But not always.

Halfcentaur · 20th January 2013, 02:00 PM

It's actually three, not two.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...6pLid%3D259483

steve s · 20th January 2013, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by 000063

Shoot through a wall and hit someone on the other side, and you goin' to jail.

Don't be so sure. Apparently you can kill your own son and not get charged with anything.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2489451.html

Steve S

Unabogie · 20th January 2013, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by steve s

Don't be so sure. Apparently you can kill your own son and not get charged with anything.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2489451.html

**** happens.

ETA: Wait a second, dude. Your link is full of bad information.

Quote:

"I own a number myself," the statement said. "Further, with the reduction of public safety forces firearms ownership may be becoming more necessary.

"Persons who make the decision to own a firearm for personal protection must realize that their primary purpose in owning the firearm is to kill someone or something. They have an obligation to know how the firearm works not just on the day they purchase it but on every occasion that they touch it and always remembering its purpose."

Guns have no purpose! Or if they did, it's for sport shooting paper targets.

DavidJames · 20th January 2013, 05:14 PM

Gun shows could also be called Darwin Award contests.

BenBurch · 21st January 2013, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Gun shows could also be called Darwin Award contests.

The Constitution was not meant to be a suicide pact.

Xulld · 21st January 2013, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Guy was a dumbass for for trying to apparently walk and load a weapon at the same time, agreed.

But, an accidental discharge, even while doing something pretty dumb, doesn't fall into a crime category that I am aware of. Unless of course that states laws includes "Stupid ****" ......

I am not so sure, I have never lived in an area that did not have at least ordinance against public discharge within a certain distance of a dwelling.

As everyone knows . . a million laws could make everything illegal, but enforcement is what really matters.

Quote:

It's unfortunate that the stupidest and most reckless members of American society are precisely the ones who are most obsessed with guns.

Do you have any data to back this up?

Can you show that gun owners are prone to accidents more so than non-gun owners while controlling for other risky behaviors?

Can you show a statistically significant difference in IQ while controlling for other factors?

I dont think you can.

PhantomWolf · 21st January 2013, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Xulld

Can you show that gun owners are prone to accidents more so than non-gun owners while controlling for other risky behaviors?

Well that data does show catagorically that gun owners are statistically more likely to be shot than non-gun owners.

Nihilianth · 21st January 2013, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Guy was a dumbass for for trying to apparently walk and load a weapon at the same time, agreed.

But, an accidental discharge, even while doing something pretty dumb, doesn't fall into a crime category that I am aware of. Unless of course that states laws includes "Stupid ****" ......

"Accidental discharge" could just as easily result in a bullet stuck in another person's brain, as it did in his hand.

Seems to me that the charge of "accidental discharge" needs to be strengthened. A lot.

You know that police officers have to go through years and years of training, and strict background checks and psychological profiles before they are ever able to even touch a gun.

Likewise, teachers have to go through the same rigorous background checks and psychological profiles in order to teach.

Yet, there is this ongoing "debate" about stricter gun laws and background checks for ordinary citizens to be able to walk around with machines built for one specific purpose: To kill.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Far too many idiots own cars too.....

True that! There should also be much stricter laws about who can drive as well. Age limit for drivers need to be raised, perhaps to at least 18. And far too many people get busted for DWI far too many times.

19th January 2013, 07:45 PM	#1
Molinaro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,032	2 separate accidental shootings at gun shows today I am particularly perplexed by this description of one of the accidents from CNN: Quote: Meanwhile, in Indianapolis, a man walking out of the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife Show shot himself in the hand as he was loading his .45-caliber semi-automatic firearm, Indiana State Police said in a statement. The 54-year-old Indianapolis man was sent to Wishard Hospital for treatment after being "slightly" injured. "The investigation determined the shooting to be accidental, and no charges will be filed," police said. It seems very odd to me that loading your gun while walking around in a public place, and having it go off while doing so, does not entail any crime having been committed. edit The CNN article has been updated to describe 3 separate shootings at 3 different gun shows today.
	__________________ 100% Cannuck! Last edited by Molinaro; 19th January 2013 at 08:41 PM.

19th January 2013, 08:42 PM	#3
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,675	Originally Posted by Molinaro It seems very odd to me that loading your gun while walking around in a public place, and having it go off while doing so, does not entail any crime having been committed. "Odd" isn't the right word. Nor is "perplexing". "Lunacy" is far better.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

19th January 2013, 08:50 PM	#4
volcano Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 337	I'm not as vehemently anti-gun as many other liberals, but I was still shocked to see some of my friends' postings on Facebook this evening-- they were excitedly describing what they bought at today's gun show at Wasilla High School. Seriously, a gun show at a high school? Even if the risks are no higher than holding a gun show elsewhere, it still seems to be in terrible taste.
volcano Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 337

19th January 2013, 10:01 PM	#6
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,233	Originally Posted by lionking "Odd" isn't the right word. Nor is "perplexing". "Lunacy" is far better. Guy was a dumbass for for trying to apparently walk and load a weapon at the same time, agreed. But, an accidental discharge, even while doing something pretty dumb, doesn't fall into a crime category that I am aware of. Unless of course that states laws includes "Stupid ****" ......
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th January 2013, 10:06 PM	#7
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,675	Originally Posted by triforcharity Guy was a dumbass for for trying to apparently walk and load a weapon at the same time, agreed. But, an accidental discharge, even while doing something pretty dumb, doesn't fall into a crime category that I am aware of. Unless of course that states laws includes "Stupid ****" ...... Did I say it was illegal? The fact that it isn't makes this whole incident completely surreal.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

19th January 2013, 08:19 PM	#2
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,829	Originally Posted by Molinaro I am particularly perplexed by this description of one of the accidents from CNN: It seems very odd to me that loading your gun while walking around in a public place, and having it go off while doing so, does not entail any crime having been committed. The cops fingered the suspect, what more do you expect? Seriously though, unless he had injured another party or damaged public or private property, the most the guy would possibly face is a charge of unlawful discharge, and if he did enough damage to himself, the locals probably feel he's going to suffer enough as it is.

19th January 2013, 09:59 PM	#5
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,896	Wow, sounds like today was just not the right day to be at a gun show. Just how common are accidents at gunshows? I'm surmising that nonlethal incidents such as these have happened before, but until the current climate of debate never merited more than brief local coverage.

19th January 2013, 11:04 PM	#8
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,939	Those were not accidental gun shots. Liberal media. Those were freedom stings.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

20th January 2013, 12:00 AM	#9
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,282	I'm confused as to how he could have shot himself in the hand while loading it. Presumably he'd be holding the gun in one hand and the ammunition in the other, so how could he shoot himself in the hand unless he had his hand covering the end of the muzzle? (And it seems to me like that would be a very awkward way to hold a gun.) ETA: Shooting himself in the foot would sound much more plausible.
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim Last edited by Brian-M; 20th January 2013 at 12:01 AM.

20th January 2013, 12:27 AM	#10
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,367	Originally Posted by Brian-M I'm confused as to how he could have shot himself in the hand while loading it. Presumably he'd be holding the gun in one hand and the ammunition in the other, so how could he shoot himself in the hand unless he had his hand covering the end of the muzzle? (And it seems to me like that would be a very awkward way to hold a gun.) ETA: Shooting himself in the foot would sound much more plausible. I'm gonna guess that the "while loading it" part is not altogether accurate.

20th January 2013, 02:08 AM	#11
rikzilla Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,001	the bullet, being endowed by its creator with freedom, shall not be infringed on it's way outta the barrel...
	__________________ "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon." -Chancellor Gorkon "inside Mr .Skinny lives a big man" -pillory (18 Jan 2007)

20th January 2013, 06:08 AM	#12
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,799	I suspect the anti-gun hysteria of prompting more inexperienced individuals to rush out and get one while the getting is good. Blame Feinstein and Obama. And note that the spirit of this thread is that "guns don't shoot idiots, idiots shoot themselves".
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,799	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

20th January 2013, 06:37 AM	#13
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,536	With two reported incidents over the weekend, I wonder if gun shows are attracting a lot of new participants, perhaps fueled by "gun grab fever"? Gun shows go on across the country on a weekly basis, and accidents are vastly rare.... Prior to the '68 Gun Control act, I used to go to a big one "across the river" in Illinois, and they were for the most part very calm affairs, even in that very loose atmosphere. Of course, it was said that there was more action in the parking lot than on the showroom floor. "Psst... Hey buddy, wanna see a bazooka?"

20th January 2013, 07:48 AM	#14
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,602	Originally Posted by casebro I suspect the anti-gun hysteria of prompting more inexperienced individuals to rush out and get one while the getting is good. Blame Feinstein and Obama. And note that the spirit of this thread is that "guns don't shoot idiots, idiots shoot themselves". Which is exactly the problem with lack of rigid gun restrictions: Far too many idiots get to own guns. (creeps back under stone) Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

20th January 2013, 07:53 AM	#15
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,233	Far too many idiots own cars too.....
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

20th January 2013, 08:12 AM	#16
Mr. Purple Some Other Guy on Some Other Job Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,424	Originally Posted by casebro Blame Feinstein and Obama. Yeah, definitely blame anyone other than the idiot that wasn't in control of his weapon.
	__________________ Everything above is a lie.

20th January 2013, 08:16 AM	#17
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,829	Originally Posted by Brian-M I'm confused as to how he could have shot himself in the hand while loading it. Presumably he'd be holding the gun in one hand and the ammunition in the other, so how could he shoot himself in the hand unless he had his hand covering the end of the muzzle? (And it seems to me like that would be a very awkward way to hold a gun.) ETA: Shooting himself in the foot would sound much more plausible. Semi-auto pistol, guy goes to "press-check" to see if the piece is loaded, had finger on trigger. That's my bet. A whole bag of mistakes all in one place.

20th January 2013, 08:19 AM	#18
Elypsis44 Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,456	Originally Posted by triforcharity Far too many idiots own cars too..... And pools. Don't forget those.
Elypsis44 Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,456

20th January 2013, 08:20 AM	#19
Elypsis44 Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,456	Originally Posted by Cain Those were not accidental gun shots. Liberal media. Those were freedom stings. Yep. If only there had been one good, God-fearing, NRA card-carring CCW'er nearby to prevent this.
Elypsis44 Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,456

20th January 2013, 08:21 AM	#20
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,829	Originally Posted by Bikewer With two reported incidents over the weekend, I wonder if gun shows are attracting a lot of new participants, perhaps fueled by "gun grab fever"? Gun shows go on across the country on a weekly basis, and accidents are vastly rare.... Prior to the '68 Gun Control act, I used to go to a big one "across the river" in Illinois, and they were for the most part very calm affairs, even in that very loose atmosphere. Of course, it was said that there was more action in the parking lot than on the showroom floor. "Psst... Hey buddy, wanna see a bazooka?" Didn't need to go any farther than a magazine rack pre-'68, the Destructive Device classification in the NFA hadn't yet been established. I All sorts of things that would make a strong anti-gunner faint was sold through the mail, no questions asked. No ammo (at least legally) but the live mortars, bazookas, cannons, AT guns etc. where easily purchased and dirt cheap. Flamethrowers were my personal favorite.

20th January 2013, 08:54 AM	#21
Molinaro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,032	Originally Posted by triforcharity Far too many idiots own cars too..... And when you have an at fault accident with your car you can find your license to use one suspended. Why does this not happen with your gun license when you demonstrate carelessness?
	__________________ 100% Cannuck! Last edited by Molinaro; 20th January 2013 at 08:55 AM.

20th January 2013, 08:56 AM	#22
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,738	Depends on the degree of offense. Shoot yourself in the foot, little penalty. Shoot through a wall and hit someone on the other side, and you goin' to jail.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

20th January 2013, 09:37 AM	#23
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,896	Originally Posted by Bikewer With two reported incidents over the weekend, I wonder if gun shows are attracting a lot of new participants, perhaps fueled by "gun grab fever"? Well that's the other side of the coin. Gun fans have taken pleasure in pointing out that the current uptick in the gun control debate has led to many more new gun owners, usually saying things along the lines of "Obama is the best gun salesman there ever was". But the fact is, all these people who are buying guns are buying them because they've fallen for the rhetorical claim that "Obama wants to ban all guns" - in other words, mostly unintelligent people. Unintelligent people with guns do things like accidentally shoot themselves and each other - this is the result. All these proud new gun owners that gun fans might be smugly gloating over now, might ultimately prove to help create the best argument ever for stricter gun control. We can conveniently avoid dealing with that reality through misdirection, however. I'll go first: isn't it convenient for the anti-gun lobby who wants to ban private gun sales that there were accidents at 3 gun shows in different states on the same day?
	Last edited by Checkmite; 20th January 2013 at 09:39 AM.

20th January 2013, 09:38 AM	#24
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,233	Originally Posted by Elypsis44 And pools. Don't forget those. And keys too. I haven't forgot those.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

20th January 2013, 09:45 AM	#25
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,233	Originally Posted by Molinaro And when you have an at fault accident with your car you can find your license to use one suspended. Why does this not happen with your gun license when you demonstrate carelessness? That's not true. An at fault accident typically only results in a small fine, unless you're displaying gross negligence. Like, drinking and driving, or driving 120 MPH. When people start losing their licenses for 1 accident, then you might have a point. But, since that's not true, it's bad logic.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

20th January 2013, 10:12 AM	#26
Molinaro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,032	Originally Posted by triforcharity That's not true. An at fault accident typically only results in a small fine, unless you're displaying gross negligence. Like, drinking and driving, or driving 120 MPH. When people start losing their licenses for 1 accident, then you might have a point. But, since that's not true, it's bad logic. That's a very dishonest misrepresentation of what I said. I did not say, YOU WILL lose your license. I said YOU CAN. There's a big difference between the two that you decided to ignore when you opened with the assertion that my statement was not true. You then point out that you in fact can lose it, showing that what I said was in fact true. If a million people had their license application denied last year in the US based on the potential for misuse, why shouldn't it be taken away from people who actually demonstrate misuse?
	__________________ 100% Cannuck!

20th January 2013, 10:25 AM	#27
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,233	Yes, you CAN lose your license for an at fault accident. However, you're going to, 95% of the time, receive a fine. Gross negligence, such as reckless driving, or DUI, will usually result in at minimum a short suspension, however not always. When you state carelessness as a reason to remove a persons right to own a firearm, you've failed to take into consideration that the hugely vast majority of accidents are the result of a careless action. Run a red light, not slow down during rain or snow, not maintaining your vehicle, etc. All careless actions. Almost all result in a fine. Do you understand how comparing the two is silly? I hope you do. However, I do agree that if you exhibit gross negligence (leaving a loaded weapon in the cup holder with kids in the car certainly qualifies) or repeated negligence in general, you should have to pay stiff penalties. However, it's going to have to rise above just one incident.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

20th January 2013, 10:31 AM	#28
Molinaro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,032	Originally Posted by triforcharity Do you understand how comparing the two is silly? I hope you do. Thank you. You finally get it. You were the one who brought cars into this discussion. It is such a sad state of affairs in the US the way so many bring in such irrelevant and silly comparisons as they attempt to excuse irresponsibility.
	__________________ 100% Cannuck!

20th January 2013, 11:12 AM	#29
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,233	Yes, I did. Mockingly. I should have added a sarcasm smiley. Who said anything about excusing responsibility? The idiot who shot himself, should have to pay his medical bills, and any lawsuit brought by the victim he should have to defend himself too. Oh, wait.....nevermind. (Nobody claimed that someone else was responsible for the idiot's actions.) I'm glad you said that though. So you agree that personal responsibility is important, right? So, we can stop the whole discussion on gun control, because, in reality, the most important part, correct? Start holding criminals responsible.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

20th January 2013, 11:22 AM	#30
Molinaro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,032	Originally Posted by triforcharity Who said anything about excusing responsibility? I would call the very 1st reply to this thread an example of making excuses for irresponsibility.
	__________________ 100% Cannuck!

20th January 2013, 11:55 AM	#31
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,965	Originally Posted by triforcharity Far too many idiots own cars too..... While it is true that too many idiots do have cars, at least we try and mitigate that by.. a) Licencing Users b) Forcing Users to meet a minimum standard to gain that Licence c) Registering vehicles and forcing users to have insurance d) Having strict rules about the operation of that vehicle and a dedicated enforcement system to make sure those rules are followed e) Revoking Licences of those that seriously offend with said vehicle f) Removing the vehicle from some of those offenders g) Ban serious offenders from the use or ownership of vehicles. Do you agree the same things should be done with guns?
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

20th January 2013, 11:58 AM	#32
Charlie Wilkes Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,013	It's unfortunate that the stupidest and most reckless members of American society are precisely the ones who are most obsessed with guns. Often the results are merely humorous... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ef=mostpopular But not always.

20th January 2013, 02:00 PM	#33
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965	It's actually three, not two. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...6pLid%3D259483
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965

20th January 2013, 02:24 PM	#34
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,667	Originally Posted by 000063 Shoot through a wall and hit someone on the other side, and you goin' to jail. Don't be so sure. Apparently you can kill your own son and not get charged with anything. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2489451.html Steve S
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,667	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken

20th January 2013, 02:33 PM	#35
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,860	Originally Posted by steve s Don't be so sure. Apparently you can kill your own son and not get charged with anything. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2489451.html ** happens. ETA: Wait a second, dude. Your link is full of bad information. Quote: "I own a number myself," the statement said. "Further, with the reduction of public safety forces firearms ownership may be becoming more necessary. "Persons who make the decision to own a firearm for personal protection must realize that their primary purpose in owning the firearm is to kill someone or something. They have an obligation to know how the firearm works not just on the day they purchase it but on every occasion that they touch it and always remembering its purpose.**" Guns have no purpose! Or if they did, it's for sport shooting paper targets.
	Last edited by Unabogie; 20th January 2013 at 02:35 PM.