I pit gun fetishists who have accidents due to dumbass gun safety practices

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=Dervorin]
So in this context, it could mean merely someone who is unquestioningly devoted to guns, which I presume one would have to be go hunting with an assault rifle.

[/QUOTE]

He almost certainly didn’t. Almost every weapon you see a US civilian holding that looks like an AK-47 is not. They’re modified not to be able to fire in a fully automatic manner (and also so that you can’t modify it to do so). This lets them retain their famous ruggedness, inexpensiveness, and any other qualities you find valuable in them - but they don’t function like assault rifles. So when you hunt with one, it’s functionally the same as hunting with any other semi-automatic hunting rifle.

[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
I have to disagree. According to the CDC, in 2005, 789 people were unintentionally killed. Thats 2 a DAY! Nonfatal injuries for 2005 was 15,388. that’s 42 people a day.

cite
[/QUOTE]

That’s unfortunate, but ultimately small in a country over 350 million people. Anything will seem like a bigger danger than it is if it isn’t viewed in that context.

I remember back in 2001 the media decided it was a boring summer, and after one or two shark attacks started sensationalizing it as “SUMMER OF THE SHARK!!”. There were a typical number of shark attacks that summer, but because the media decided to give excessive coverage to each one, a lot of the viewing public thought an epidemic was happening.

If they covered drowning deaths in a home pool as much as they cover gun deaths, a lot of people would get the perception that pools were a menace that needed new laws to regulate them.

For what it’s worth, I have no problem charging this guy with criminal negligence. It was an accident, but it was an accident that almost certainly required negligence to occur. I would be wary of enacting any new laws to address this issue because they might be used as a vehicle to harass or further restrict gun owners who hadn’t done anything negligent. But if any current laws apply, go for it.

62

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
He almost certainly didn’t. Almost every weapon you see a US civilian holding that looks like an AK-47 is not. They’re modified not to be able to fire in a fully automatic manner (and also so that you can’t modify it to do so).
[/QUOTE]

Cite?

I got the impression (from CNN) that the kid was hit by multiple rounds.

63

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
If they covered drowning deaths in a home pool as much as they cover gun deaths, a lot of people would get the perception that pools were a menace that needed new laws to regulate them.
[/QUOTE]

Like here, where the US Consumer Product Safety Commission Reports;

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Young children are irresistibly drawn to water, and tragically, about 350 children under age 5 drown in swimming pools each year. But even if you don’t have a pool, your young children may not be safe from drowning. At next month’s World Congress on Drowning, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) presented data showing that about one-third as many children (an average of about 115 annually) drown from other hazards around the home as do in pools. CPSC has received reports of 459 young children who drowned in bathtubs, buckets, toilets, spas, hot tubs and other containers of water in a 4-year period between 1996 and 1999.

And

*Buckets

Many parents and caregivers may not realize the danger buckets pose. From 1996 through 1999, CPSC received reports of 58 children under age 5 who drowned in 5-gallon buckets. Even a small amount of liquid can be deadly. Of all buckets, the 5-gallon size presents the greatest hazard to young children because of its tall, straight sides. That, combined with the stability of these buckets, makes it nearly impossible for top-heavy infants and toddlers to free themselves when they fall into the bucket headfirst.

Toilets

Toilets can be overlooked as a drowning hazard in the home. The typical scenario involves a child under 3-years-old falling headfirst into the toilet. CPSC has received reports of 16 children under age 5 who drowned in toilets between 1996 and 1999. *

An average of four kids a year (that they know of) drown in their own fucking toilets! Obviously we need to mandate special toilet covers and seats for small children, punishable by stiff fines if not in place and subject to home inspections by CPS.

Now imagine if every single one of these cases, four times a year on average, was hounded to death all over the media, with talking heads and “experts”, and discussions about what we need to do about this tragedy.

64

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
If they covered drowning deaths in a home pool as much as they cover gun deaths, a lot of people would get the perception that pools were a menace that needed new laws to regulate them.

For what it’s worth, I have no problem charging this guy with criminal negligence. It was an accident, but it was an accident that almost certainly required negligence to occur. I would be wary of enacting any new laws to address this issue because they might be used as a vehicle to harass or further restrict gun owners who hadn’t done anything negligent. But if any current laws apply, go for it.
[/QUOTE]
There are laws and regulations surrounding public and private swimming pools. You know, having to have a fence around the pool to prevent drownings and so on. And if you don’t follow those rules you can indeed be punished…usually a monetary fine to go with the remorse felt for a neighbor’s child drowning or whatnot.

I agree with the OP that there should be some type of penalty for gun accidents, and I’m all about the fining of idiots to teach them through the wallet. People seem to learn better when it costs them money.

65

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Cite?

I got the impression (from CNN) that the kid was hit by multiple rounds.
[/QUOTE]

CNN wouldn’t know an “assault rifle” from a chainsaw. The wording of the original article indicates a single round discharged. And unless Gramps has a Class 3 firearms license, and was massively violating any number of hunting regulations, then he was carrying a semi-automatic AK clone. One snag, one shot.

He’s still an idiot.

[QUOTE=stretch]
I agree with the OP that there should be some type of penalty for gun accidents, and I’m all about the fining of idiots to teach them through the wallet. People seem to learn better when it costs them money.
[/QUOTE]

Somehow, I think killing his grandson will have a greater impact than a fine. :rolleyes:

66

[QUOTE=lieu]
As an avid hunter who’s often in the company of others, the notion someone wouldn’t employ whatever caution is necessary to insure that even a checked weapon is never allowed to swing toward another is disturbing. But he was doing this with a round chambered? With the safety off? That IS NOT what can be characterized as a “freak accident”, nor is he being “extremely cautious.”

Obviously, his weapon was very loaded. Obviously, his consideration for safe practices was very indiscriminate.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that. I only bird hunt, and walking around with a loaded shotgun is quite common in that setting. Walking around with a loaded rifle on the way to your destination is another story.

What were they hunting, anyway?

67

[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that. I only bird hunt, and walking around with a loaded shotgun is quite common in that setting. Walking around with a loaded rifle on the way to your destination is another story.

What were they hunting, anyway?
[/QUOTE]

Probably just posing for an L.L. Bean catalog.

68

Just to address the “Whatever would you hunt with an AK-47?” question:

AKs are normally chambered in 7.62x39 Russian. This round is the same calibre, and a little lower powered than the famous .30-30 Winchester, perhaps the most common “deer rifle” chambering. Thus the round should be considered a bit underpowered and short ranged for deer…possibly useful for whitetail deer, but certainly inadequate for the larger and tougher mule deer. (both, along with black tail deer are found in Texas). 7.62 x 39 would be fine for pronghorn (antelope) at up to ~100 yds. or so, but pronghorn are seldom taken at such close range.

Given the brush responsible for the accident, I’d guess that either white tailed deer, or Javalina (AKA peccary)or Razorback was the game being persued. Either of the pigs can be fairly dangerous, and are seldom taken at long range. Thus a semi-auto is significant safety advantage, (quick follow-up shot if needed) and the low power and reduced range of the 7.62 x 39 is not an issue.

I have personally used an SKS (fairly AK like) chambered in 7.62 x 39 on Javalina, and aside from a little excess weight, found it to be nearly ideal for the task.

69

[QUOTE=Cluricaun]
There shouldn’t be criminal penalties for an accident, and that’s exactly what this was. An accident. An accident where a man killed his child’s child. Hunting is an activity that comes with a certain degree of risk. Did the man make a horrible mistake that will haunt him for the rest of his days? Of course. Was it careless? You bet. Should he be sent to prison or whatever criminal penalty you have in mind because of it? Absolutely not. This incident and the one with the judge and the hand gun have almost nothing in common besides firearms.
[/QUOTE]
This seems a ridiculous argument. Obviously, there are often criminal pentalties for an accident. If I drive my car at 120 mph, lose contol of it and plow into six pedestrians, it’s an accident; I didn’t intend to hurt anyone; but I’m still pretty sure I’ll be charged with something.

ETA: The penalty is not for having an accident; it’s for doing stupid reckless things that made such an accident vastly more likely. You can be charged with reckless endangerment even if, by chance, nobody gets hurt.

70

[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that. I only bird hunt, and walking around with a loaded shotgun is quite common in that setting. Walking around with a loaded rifle on the way to your destination is another story.

What were they hunting, anyway?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I think there’s a huge distinction to be made between chambering shotguns and rifles. My guess would be feral hogs, as they’re certainly common in the area, would necessitate the use of a larger caliber rifle and aren’t regulated by a hunting season.

71

[QUOTE= Baldwin]
This seems a ridiculous argument. Obviously, there are often criminal pentalties for an accident. If I drive my car at 120 mph, lose contol of it and plow into six pedestrians, it’s an accident; I didn’t intend to hurt anyone; but I’m still pretty sure I’ll be charged with something.

ETA: The penalty is not for having an accident; it’s for doing stupid reckless things that made such an accident vastly more likely. You can be charged with reckless endangerment even if, by chance, nobody gets hurt.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, your argument is incorrect from both a legal and a logical standpoint.

If you drive 120mph, you have what is called “implied malice” or “hardness of heart,” you are affirmatively doing something that you are substantially certain poses a danger to the lives of others. By willfully doing so, you are assuming the risk of their deaths. Granted, there are foreseeability issues (you won’t be liable for someone who suffers a heart attack at seeing a Hyundai Sonata wagon doing 120), but if you plow into a schoolyard and kill children, it most certainly was NOT an accident. The affirmative doing of the thing that has the substantial risk is as good as intent.

Walking along in the forest with a chambered round, not so much.

72

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
If you drive 120mph, you have what is called “implied malice” or “hardness of heart,” you are affirmatively doing something that you are substantially certain poses a danger to the lives of others.
[/QUOTE]

That’s hardly a given; driving 120mph on a city street and driving 120mph on an empty freeway are two entirely different things. It’s not like there’s a rule in jurisprudence that says, “speed X = reasonable certainty of danger”…

73

In the spirit of the OP…If the grandfather had been, instead of hunting with his grandson, driving with him and lost control of the car around a sharp curve because he was still driving at 65MPH rather than the recommended 25MPH, what would the result have been?
To compare. And before anyone says “that doesn’t count! The guy in teh link was drunk!” I don’t give a shit. Irresponsible, neglectful behavior is irrisponsible, neglectful behavior. Hell, at least a drunk person’s judgement is expected to be impaired. AFAICS, the grandfather was sober, and expected to be on his toes, no matter if the gun was automatic, semi-automatic or made of explosive cheese.
another case, where a driver is charged with involutary manslaughter, even though conditions beyond his control contributed to the accident.

I’m very sorry for the grandfather who (I assume) loved his grandson very much. My heart also goes out to the boy’s parents and loved ones.
But it seems to me to be a case of manslaughter, whether voluntary or involuntary, it doesn’t matter. Criminal charges are regularly filed for both. The grandfather didn’t follow all reasonable safety precautions while hunting (reasonable being defined by me as what the majority of posters in this thread are discussing as common…not being a gun owner/fanatic/fetishist myself, and not being a hunter, I don’t know what’s commonly accepted by the NRA*) and should be prosecuted. Even if he had kept a round in the chamber, the safety should have been off, and he should have been able to prevent the barrel of the gun from pointing at his grandson’s back (I was 8 when I learned how to walk with a sharp axe so that I wouldn’t hurt myself if I tripped. Surely there’s a way to carry a gun which would have prevented this)

*and why isn’t the NRA coming out and reassuring the anti-gun crowd that what the grandfather did was an avoidable tragedy, if only he had followed the standard safety procedures? Or are they more of a “shit happens, oh well, constitution blah blah blah” mentality?

74

This instance is tragic for the family and is what prompted this thread, but, yanno, this is not the only accident that’s happenned with a gun. I tend to look at the larger picture and think that if people knew they’d be fined for shit, they might pay better attention to what they are doing.

Of course, I knew a lady who carried ‘concealed’ and left her fucking loaded weapon in her purse for my 3-year old cousin to grab (fortunately the safety was on). Maybe if giving her a fine and taking away her gun had been an option, she wouldn’t have had another kid do the same thing the next week. Gah, she was a stupid bitch and I didn’t keep up with her to find out if someone ever got killed for her negligence.

75

[QUOTE=Swampwolf]
And before anyone says “that doesn’t count! The guy in teh link was drunk!” I don’t give a shit. Irresponsible, neglectful behavior is irrisponsible, neglectful behavior. Hell, at least a drunk person’s judgement is expected to be impaired.
[/QUOTE]

Just so we’re clear, impaired judgment due to inebriation is not a defense to a criminal charge. Just as you’d expect a drunk person’s judgment to be impaired, a person can reasonably expect their own judgment to be impaired if they become drunk.

76

[QUOTE=stretch]
This instance is tragic for the family and is what prompted this thread, but, yanno, this is not the only accident that’s happenned with a gun. I tend to look at the larger picture and think that if people knew they’d be fined for shit, they might pay better attention to what they are doing.

Of course, I knew a lady who carried ‘concealed’ and left her fucking loaded weapon in her purse for my 3-year old cousin to grab (fortunately the safety was on). Maybe if giving her a fine and taking away her gun had been an option, she wouldn’t have had another kid do the same thing the next week. Gah, she was a stupid bitch and I didn’t keep up with her to find out if someone ever got killed for her negligence.
[/QUOTE]

Again, I don’t think fear of a fine is going to be any more effective than fear of a loved-one’s death.

77

[QUOTE= Really Not All That Bright]
That’s hardly a given; driving 120mph on a city street and driving 120mph on an empty freeway are two entirely different things.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t fight the hypothetical. There were pedestrians. :smiley:

And secondly, while it’s not a given, it’s closer to reality than not that doing 120 would get a jury to a “hardness of heart” conclusion.

78

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Cite?

[/quote]

The media is not only ignorant of the differences, but deliberately misleading. They lie regularly about the nature of scary looking guns.

That the guy had an actual AK-47 is exceedingly unlikely. There are only a relative handful of them in the country.

What gives you that impression?

[QUOTE=stretch]
There are laws and regulations surrounding public and private swimming pools. You know, having to have a fence around the pool to prevent drownings and so on. And if you don’t follow those rules you can indeed be punished…usually a monetary fine to go with the remorse felt for a neighbor’s child drowning or whatnot.

[/quote]

And there are 20,000 gun laws. I don’t understand your point. As I said, I’m not opposed to prosecuting this guy under existing laws. He was clearly negligent.

Does the NRA have to hold a press conference every time something bad happens involving a gun?

79

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]

Does the NRA have to hold a press conference every time something bad happens involving a gun?
[/QUOTE]

No, they don’t have to. But as the most vocal defenders of second amendment rights, and as an organization that is frequently demonized for their views, it’s always a good idea for them to distance themselves from the things that put guns in a bad light.

80

And what should trigger a press conference? A kid getting shot? Only if it’s an accident? Anyone getting injured? They’d be holding hundreds of press conferences a year to reiterate stance that anyone with half a brain knows they have.

The anti-NRA types are so absurd in how they view the NRA - often suggesting that the NRA is pro-gun-violence and laughing at the idea that the NRA is supposedly pro-gun safety that there’s nothing they can do.