Arkansas gun range is now a Muslim Free Zone.
I’m pretty sure that’s not legal.
Here we have someone deer hunting who shot a 5 day old baby in his own home:
“District Attorney Patrick Dougherty said the bullet went through the newborn’s skull and exited through his eye socket area…Investigators say the shot came from the rifle of someone who was across the street, hunting deer on private property. Joe Bosch, a farmer, said it was his property, and his son-in-law who fired the shot…“They seen a deer. They seen a couple of them there, and they fired, and they said they seen the dirt flying in the ground, but you can’t tell, you know. It might have ricocheted,” said Bosch…The DA says the case is being treating as a criminal investigation, but all evidence points to an accident.”
You fire a gun at someone’s house and it’s just an accident? Or it is believable about a bullet ricocheting off dirt with this much force?
The N.R.A.'s stand on this kind of situation is pretty clear. That man’s son-in-law was Standing His Ground and Protecting His Castle against all invaders, vertebrate and invertebrate.
The newborn is one dead kid- WELL within the Collateral Damage Guidelines of Acceptable Losses.
-Shrug- They’ll make another baby.
God bless the N.R.A.
Right? That’s the mindset that keeps everyone free, armed and Merrikan.
:smack:
Not dirt, no, but given a high-power rifle and a stray rock and a fontanelle…
Um… so you think people shouldn’t own or use hunting rifles? Plain old ordinary 5-round manual action hunting rifles? With a hunting license?
I don’t know if this was a case of negligence (hunting too close to a residential area) or just a freak accident. But this apparently had nothing to do with “Stand Your Ground”, handguns, assault rifles, concealed carry, or any of the other usual bugbears.
In my experience, even at shallow angles dirt will quickly absorb a bullet’s kinetic energy in a spray of clods, but weird things can happen at high speeds. A ricochet is absolutely not out of the question. Either way, firing a gun even vaguely towards someone’s house is criminally irresponsible.
They probably had a swimming pool *and *a car at that house. The kid was doomed to die anyway. Besides, “they seen a deer” and what else wuz they s’posed to do?
Anyone who uses a firearm with such negligence that results in injuring someone else should forfeit the right to own a firearm. Forever.
It was an only slightly sarcastic take on the N.R.A.'s official stance- which is that nobody, for any reason, under any circumstance, may ever criticize a person discharging a gun in the U.S.A.
I think that people who shoot rifles within striking distance of a domicile where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans will be inside belong in jail. That is what I think. You want to carry around death on a stick, fucking learn to be responsible enough with it. It should be pretty simple. I admit I do not know the true number here, but let us say only for example that the rifle used to kill this infant can fire a bullet that maintains a forward speed fast enough to penetrate, say, the soft skull of a 5 day old infant for 2,000 yards. Any intelligent thinking human would think, fuck man, that house is all of 75 yards away. I shoot in the general direction of it- the bullet could well penetrate thin vinyl siding, sheetrock and a human inside. Best not !
Intelligent. Thinking. Nope, nope, nope. Ya gotta gun, yer not much of a real man if you don’t shoot it off every fuckin’ chance you get. Dude had a chance, dude shot it off. He wasn’t thinking. Off to jail he should go.
Simple, right?
I used to live in Orange County, New York. When the population density passed a certain mark, the laws were changed. It became a “Shotgun Hunting County”. Sullivan County, right next door, is still a Rifle Hunting County. It’s not capricious, though it is a big weird. Sullivan County is now exploding population-wise. Wonder when they will re-examine that county’s laws. Point here is, was the county where this firearm was discharged a rifle hunting county in that state? If not, off to the pokey with him. If so, then the parents of what is left of that newborn child are free to go after the killer…uh… citizen in civil court.
Not much question who will be paying his legal bills. With hundreds of millions at their disposal, the N.R.A. is ready to whip out the checkbook.
I hadn’t heard that the N.R.A. was involved at all. Cite?
I mean, I get it: the death by gunshot of an infant is a tragedy; you hate stupid yahoos with guns; and you hate the N.R.A.‘s opposition to gun laws. The thing is in this case at least, I’m not seeing any lines connecting the dots, other than a general "gunz r th’ eevils". As I said before, this is either a tragic accident or a case of negligent homicide. Strictly speaking, there doesn’t appear to be any larger issue.
It was purely speculation on my part, I cannot provide a cite. Besides, it’s too fresh a story yet.
Agreed as to my stance. And, agreed that there’s certainly no proof that the shooter intended to do any harm to anyone other than a deer. Fair enough.
As for the larger picture? I detailed that in my last post. This study from Bloomberg is chillingly informative. By 2015, there will be more death from guns than from automobile fatalities.
The whole " you want to outlaw guns, but cars are sooooooo much more dangerous- why don’t you anti-gun nuts want to outlaw cars?? " meme will disappear next year. Because guns will kill more Americans than cars next year.
This isn’t a :(. It’s a sign that automotive deaths have been declining, which is definitely a :).
But the car analogy (sweet, sweet car analogies) was never meant as an absolute comparison (X causes more death than Y, therefore if we ban Y, we must ban X!!) Instead, it’s a reminder that we’re collectively willing to accept quite a lot of death in exchange for some convenience and personal autonomy. In other words, it’s mostly a counter to the repeated attacks that suggest that anyone who supports gun rights also implicitly supports murder, i.e., that it’s abominable to factor acceptable risks into public policy.
For the record, I do advocate banning or at least heavily restricting private automobiles, at least in cities.
That was from late 2012 so I searched for a more recent cite. This one from Feb 2014 focuses on death of children and youths, and it comes to the same conclusion- but only because the gunshot death rate is more or less flat while auto deaths have declined dramatically (and both are down from historical highs).
For what it’s worth I agree that deaths resulting from firearms negligence should be held to a high standard of culpability.
Yes. In fact we forced a bunch of teenagers to go to vietnam and carry a gun for about a decade in the late 60’s early 70’s.
I shot my first rifle in the boy scouts at 10. I’ve seen boys go on hunting trips with their dads at 14. Audie Murphy (one of our nation’s greatest heroes) hunted to feed his family when he was younger than that.
The issue is not a matter of public opinion. My rights do not depending on your approval. I’m sorry but its true.
Its mostly hoplophobia.
I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with you.
Of course there is a question. Name one case where the NRA has defended someone who killed someone (outside of self defense).
How many of those gun deaths were committed by people who lawfully possessed those guns? Most of those deaths were committed by people who are not lawfully allowed to possess the gun they used to kill someone.
Well. We’ve got a newborn here whose skull has exaxtly two more holes than it had 5 days before when it was born.
You suggesting the killer was not a legal owner? If he was,…um…that makes this okay?
I seem to recall things not working out so well for a significant number of those teens.
No, I’m saying taht thenumbers you should be comparing is not “all gun deaths” vrsus “all car deaths” when making an argument for the beneficial impact of making guns illegal. not when the majority of those gundeaths are committed by people who already proibited from possessing the gun by law.
I generally don’t find the car analogy helpful
Sure, but we as a society don’t really think teenagers are too young to be armed. The shock that was being expressed at the notion of an armede 17 year old is out of place.