Suddenly, I feel a fit of inspiration.
Could just be the bourbon, though.
You’ve got some set of oysters on ya, to accuse us of being blinded by an agenda when you posted this clearly partisan hack-job of an OP which, “sarcastic” or not, tries desperately, pathetically, to torture some anti-NRA message out of this article about a negligent discharge (which the NRA explicitly tries to prevent through safety education, no less.)
Would the NRA support legislation reflecting this? As in, you let your 6 year old bring a loaded weapon to school where it’s discharged, harming 3 kids, are you charged with a felony? Because I sure as hell know if I walked into a school with a loaded weapon and discharged it, harming 3 students, I’d be spending a whole lot of time in prison.
Or, by “responsible” do you mean a slap on the wrist “naughty naughty gun owner, take a safety class and be on probation for a year” type of responsibility?
Umm, I think the sarcasm part is Cartooninverse mocking people who usually blame the NRA for everything. It was pretty clear to me, I don’t see why it’s not apparent to anyone else…
How the hell does a gun drop and shoot three people? I thought they were safer than that?
How the hell does a kid get a hold of a loaded gun in the first place?
People run from you as soon as they see you!
Kinderbortion - 'cause 8 is too late./Stunned Sarcasm
No. No way in hell is this what he was doing.
The more reputable companies do make safer guns than that. In fact, about 3 years ago when Ruger first marketed their LCP, there were circumstances where the weapon would fire if it were dropped, albeit highly unlikely. They immediately recalled all of the weapons to be fixed and gave everybody a free magazine for their trouble because in today’s world a problem like that, left unfixed, will destroy a company’s reputation virtually overnight.
There are some guns that do not have drop safeties, though. Military weapons like the SKS have what are called floating firing pins, so if they are dropped just right the pin will shift in the channel and set off a round in the chamber. Other companies take the idea of safety very loosely, like the remnants/offshoots of the “Ring of Fire” companies. You can still get a brand new Jennings if you want to (though God knows why you would), only it’s made by Jimenez Arms. Those are so poorly made that you’d be safer throwing them at an attacker than shooting them, and safety is something they pay mere lip service to.
The same way they get hold of alcohol or cigarettes or dad’s porno magazines. Kids are very resourceful when they want to be. The parent probably left it under the bed or some other place where the child wasn’t to go, and the child went and did it anyway. A weapon intended for self-defense doesn’t do you any good if it’s locked away in a safe that’s difficult to access. It’s a trade-off that every gun owner has to come to grips with.
Of course, making the child afraid of guns or denying them even so much as a look at them and making them exceptionally curious doesn’t work either. The goal is to make them just another object in the house, and it requires one to address the subject of what they are, what they do, how to be safe with them, and why they should not be touched without adult supervision.
Eddie the Eagle? Surely not this guy?
Meanwhile, there’s this surprisingly relevant Onion article from some years ago.
No, I’m pretty sure he/she is simply one of those people.
I think there are people who are so convinced the NRA is cartoonishly evil that they’re not even being sarcastic, they really think the NRA is pro crime and pro randomly shooting people. It’s pretty weird.
My initial reaction to the story was that part was bullshit, but I don’t know if a news story could lie about such a significant thing. I would estimate that over 98% of firearms made in the last century or so have no chance whatsoever of discharging when dropped. That 2%, I guess, leaves a few extremely cheaply made guns - but even then I’m not sure if those cheap models will do that. The engineering of making a device that won’t discharge except when you pull the trigger is very well known and extremely solid.
So then why would the story be wrong? Well, the media says this sort of thing all the time. “So and so pulled out a gun and it went off”. Generously, you could say they don’t want to assign blame to a crime that hasn’t been tried yet, refusing to claim the shooting was negligent or deliberate. Less generously, you could say they have a general agenda of making guns look like little hunks of evil that go and shoot up little kids all by themselves somehow.
But in this case there’s not much room for “and the gun went off” - if the little kid pulled it out and started shooting I’d imagine they’d say that. But it’s also pretty implausible that the kid had a gun that went off after dropping a few feet - and also happening to randomly have a magic bullet angle that hurt multiple people (although I guess in a classroom this isn’t too implausible).
Still weird. I guess maybe the kid had a $70 Jennings or something, but even then I’m not sure those things don’t have basic things like a device that blocks the firing pin when the trigger isn’t pulled.
This is Texas. We load all our guns with magic bullets.
The linked article does say the school district had 3 incidents of kids in elementary school bringing a gun into a classroom last year. I wonder how that compares per capita nationwide.
Sure it can. Or if not lie, my experience has been most journalists are not only anti-gun, they’ve never fired or even seen one closer than their TV screen. Couple this with the typical science and engineering illiteracy of the average person, and it’s probably more likely they didn’t lie, they just heard something and reported it as true without going through the logical thought process. I remember clearly in the Clinton Gun Ban days of 1993-1994 where I was ready to throw things through my TV on a nightly basis, as I saw lie after mistake after fuckup on TV, and not just by journalists but by cops. I distinctly remember a cop holding up a Ruger Blackhawk and calling it a “semi-automatic” handgun, and another holding a 10-22 with folding stock and 30-round Ram-Line magazine and calling it an “AK-47 assault rifle, the primary tool of the drug dealer!” I remember the chief of police who solemnly reported that “every day in the US, a brother officer[sup]TM[/sup] is killed by an Uzi”, despite the fact that it was a blatant and outrageous lie which nowadays could be verified within 10 seconds by Google, but back then if you wanted to refute it you had to spend all afternoon in the library or on the phone.
I will go ahead and call bullshit - I doubt very highly a simple dropped gun could somehow accidentally fire three shots, let alone shoot three people. It’s much more likely to assume the kid shit shot three people and then dropped/threw the gun.
With respect to kids bringing guns to school, however, I will depart from most of my pro-gun sisters and brothers on here and say that I believe that yes, the parents do need to have some criminal liability. I’m sorry that they chose to have children and I’m sorry they can’t control their children, but that’s just too goddamn bad that they made those choices in life. Allowing access to a firearm which is used in a criminal act or by a child or which results in injury or loss of life via accident should be a misdemeanor on the first offense, and a felony on the second and (God forbid) subsequent offences. With a defense that the gun had some sort of security device, was locked up, or had the ammunition separate from it at the time.
You know, I could believe, barely, that a dropped gun fired and hit someone. It’d take a hell of a coincidence, but statistics state that coincidences do happen. But three times? And all three bullets hit people? That’s too much to believe. There is no way that the trigger wasn’t pulled.
It doesn’t say it fired 3 times, but that 3 were injured. I guess you could have a bullet strike a desk or something, fragment, and then give very minor wounds to 3 people.
The article and others I Googled states the gun fired one and only one time. It was bullet fragments that hit the 3 separate kids, 2 in the foot and 1 in the leg.
From Officer.Com: One bullet was fired about 10:35 a.m. in the Ross Elementary School cafeteria, spraying fragments at the students, said Houston Independent School District Assistant Police Chief Robert Mock.
Cool, I bet if we meditate on our ideology really hard, we can even come up with an explanation why it never actually happened at all! Let’s be sure to add some potshots about journalists, then when some liberal comes around and tries to prove it happened, we can just say “Well, that’s the lamestream media for you!”
One question though: What if they say something like, “Maybe journalists are not gun experts, but the wire service reporter likely at least reviewed the police report and probably even called a few people, which means they’re in a better position to know what happened than some quote-unquote firearms enthusiasts pontificating on the internet.” What do we tell the egghead commie pinko fags who bring up that point?!?
If I were to read a report that a small aircraft were taken down by a car which spontaneously launched 300 feet into the air, I’d be skeptical of the story, because that’s generally not how cars work. So there was either a bizarre, freak occurance, or a misreporting.
A gun that fires upon being dropped is not quite as bizarre, but still very unusual. The media also has a very clear history of writing “the gun went off” when in reality someone shot it.
Your mockery also makes no sense. Ok, let’s say I’m right, and the gun didn’t discharge when dropped, but the kid shot it instead. Okay, have I somehow scored points? Is the OP somehow refuted in that case? Does it even help my case at all?
I’m only interested in it because it seems factually incorrect and doesn’t really add up. Whether the gun went off accidentally or not doesn’t really hurt or bolster anyone’s argument either way.
Please think through your next straw man a little more.
My second question was rhetorical, sorry (how did a kid get the loaded gun in the first place…unfortunately I know exactly how.)
But the other is a little ridiculous. I could maybe buy if it had dropped and shot one person. Somehow. You know, a faulty something or other - maybe the kid had the safety off and the hammer down…or something. But three? Maybe it shot a desk, yes, I could see that.
Ah, I see lieu’s update. That makes more sense.
I missed it - did it say what kind of gun it was?
And of course this is 100% the parents’ fault*. I am no fan of the NRA or the gun rights’ folks at all, mostly because a healthy percentage of them are crazy** but I am completely convinced the NRA and gun rights’ folks are 110% against little kids shooting each other with guns.
*Well. I am actually willing to spread a little blame to people who seem to want to bury their heads in the ground on this issue. Guns are like sex. They are both here to stay, they can both be very very dangerous, and they both need to be educated about. A lot.
**But then a healthy percentage of most people are crazy, IMo.
I’m an NRA member, and while I don’t know about their position I’ve consistently advocated on these boards for “if your gun is acquired by an unauthorized party or a party who is not legally allowed to own a gun, and you don’t report it stolen before a crime is committed, you are jointly liable for the gun aspects of that crime.”
Easily amended to “even if the actual perpetrator is NOT liable due to incapacity”. So yeah, I’m perfectly happy with this gun’s owner of record being charged with three counts of whatever we’re calling this–it looks most like negligent assault, but that’s a weaksauce penalty. Plus whatever the penalty is for providing firearms to people who are not legally allowed to possess them (which, mind you, should IMHO be a felony)
[quote=“Argent_Towers, post:23, topic:579010”]