Ravenwood - 08/15/03 06:00 AM
It's no secret that GFW groups twist and distort statistics to make them fit their argument. Gun banners routinely count 24 year old gang members as "children" who "accidentally" shoot each other. Speaking of "accidents", check out these reports. (emphasis mine)
An ABS-CBN news report (Philippines) contains this passage:
investigators learned from witnesses that Amor accidentally shot himself when he pulled the trigger of his Protector .38-caliber revolver, which was pointed at his right jaw.That's right, the guy was playing "Russian Roulette" and "accidentally" shot himself. Duh!
Meanwhile, back in the States, the Salt Lake Tribune has this tragic story.
A Salt Lake City boy, 14, accidentally shot himself with a handgun Monday while attempting to holster the gun in his pants with his finger on the trigger.This kid was shoving a loaded gun down his pants with his finger firmly on the trigger, but they still call it an "accident". Both "victims" are listed as hospitalized.
Here is an "accident" of a different flavor. A Colorado Springs police report tries to cover up an officer's incompetence in the loss of a loaded AR-15 rifle.
It appears the trunk lid came open and the rifle slipped out of the trunk while the vehicle was moving.So now the car is getting in on the act too. Not only did the rifle just jump out of the trunk, but now they are blaming the car for opening the trunk by itself. That is far more plausible than the officer having been negligent in securing his vehicle, isn't it?
In reality, most gun "accidents" aren't accidents at all. Modern firearms don't just go off, and cars don't just open their trunks. Most firearms produced today will not discharge, even if cocked and then thrown down on the floor hammer first. (Even so, I wouldn't try that at home, or anywhere else.)
Each of these incidents represents an underlying willingness of people to personify inanimate objects, just to keep from placing the blame on where it belongs; on a person's negligence.
Maybe Andy had the right idea, if this dope had only one bullet (in his pocket) at least the finder would have to acquire ammo before committing his/her first crime. Can the officer be held liable for losing a weapon in such a stupid fashion?
Posted by: Michael at August 15, 2003 12:26 PMProbably not criminally, but certainly a civil suit could be filed if someone were to be injured or killed.
You would think his employer would be a bit miffed at losing a $1000 piece of hardware that has the potential to be extremely embarrassing to the department, and lethal to the public.
Maybe this is what gun grabbers talk about when they say they want to get guns "off the streets".
Posted by: Ravenwood at August 15, 2003 12:38 PMI was shot by a gun that was on safety and fell from a shelf discharging when it hit the ground. Your statements are offensive and untrue. You say guns today will not discharge when thrown on the ground and hammered that is bull.
Posted by: christina at September 15, 2003 10:12 AMChristina,
Modern firearms are built with numerous safeties, to prevent them from being "accidentally" fired. I am interested in knowing just what year and model of gun it was, and just how it fell. Was the gun cocked or uncocked?
Regardless, the "accident" is a result of human negligence. The firearm was obviously improperly stored if it was tetering on the edge of a shelf where it could be knocked off.
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 15, 2003 11:44 AMThis article blames "gun accidents" on negligence of the gun owners, but that comment is saying that every accident (gun related or not is based on negligence). If I'm walking and trip, then i was negligent to look where I was walking. Negligence is a weak argument because humans are naturally negligent.
Posted by: Brandon at March 9, 2004 7:58 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
