Soldier from Temecula Dies In Shooting Accident

[tucsonlib]

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_E_hero29.3e99e51.html

Relevant to anything? Only this: For every news article proclaiming "Good Guy Shoots Bad Guy", I can give you 20 reports of accidental shooting deaths.
I'll stop if you'll stop. 'kay? No? 'kay:


http://www.bolivarmonews.com/articles/2009/01/28/news/doc497f87bddef5f944348629.txt
http://www.ktts.com/tabid/4882/xmid/29305/Default.aspx
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090201/NEWS0107/902010445
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2009/jan/15/rossville-shooting-accident-turned-suicide/?breakingnews
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_142626.asp
http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=123038
http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/crestview_shooting_accident_takes_boys_life/mbb7713915/

etc. etc. and on and on and on..........

[Maat]

1. Oh, I remember this story.

Tragic.

I live on the Murrieta/Temecula border in SoCal.

This is why I marched against the invasion in 2002/2003 (as one started to hear the drumbeats to war getting louder and louder); Hubby and I just knew that we, as a society, were setting ourselves up for one tragedy after another - and tragedies resulting from tragedies). No one but my fellow progressives listened.



:(

[blue sky at night]

2. thanks for the post........

I am interested in doing something about this kind of thing, but alas.....there is nothing that can be done. Guns are more popular now than ever....more and more folks that don't know proper safety are buying them every day. The chances of dying by gun violence continue to climb every day along with them. At least the NRA is right about one thing, everyone who owns a gun should take the classes needed to properly use and maintain them...locking it up might be a start?

[slackmaster]

4. Accidental shooting deaths have been on a downward trend for about 100 years

The chances of dying by gun violence continue to climb every day along with them.

Not true. Roll your own query at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

[slackmaster]

3. There were 789 accidental shooting deaths in the USA in 2005

Most defensive uses of firearms never get reported because no shots are fired.

[tucsonlib]

6. Re: "Most defensive uses of firearms never get reported"

And you know this is true how, exactly?
And if, as you claim, accidental firearm deaths are on a downward trend, why is this relevant to anything? If there were 10 thousand accidental shootings in 1910, and only 9 thousand last year, then according to you what does this tell us?
Personally, I think blue sky at night is right on target.

[slackmaster]

7. They don't get reported because there is no crime to report

And if, as you claim, accidental firearm deaths are on a downward trend, why is this relevant to anything?

It's relevant because it contradicts your claim that there are 20 times as many accidental shooting deaths as there are defensive uses of firearms.

If there were 10 thousand accidental shootings in 1910, and only 9 thousand last year, then according to you what does this tell us?

It tells us that you are being dishonest, because I provided a precise figure for the number of accidental shooting deaths for the most recent year for which statistics are available.

[tucsonlib]

9. Re: "They don't get reported because there is no crime to report"

So I ask you again - If they don't get reported, how can you claim they ever happened? Who's being dishonest here?
And have you any response to blue sky?
And BTW, I never "claimed" that there are 20 times as many accidental shootings. I'm just saying that justifiable shootings are the exception. Tragic death is the rule.

[slackmaster]

11. There are estimates available, if you would only bother to look for them

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hvfsdaft.htm

And BTW, I never "claimed" that there are 20 times as many accidental shootings. I'm just saying that justifiable shootings are the exception.

In a meaningful discussion of the use of firearms for self-defense, the number of justifiable shootings isn't relevant. Most of the time when people use firearms defensively, nobody gets shot.

And have you any response to blue sky?

Yes, I think it was a thinly veiled personal attack.

[tburnsten]

30. Oh my lord it's you

Why did you get kicked?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. That's impossible there were 344 justifiable homicides using firearms.

344 x 20=6880. So either you or fingrpik is full of crap?


David

[guntard]

5. O rlly?

There are fewer than 1,000 accident shooting deaths in America, and I'll betcha a fair proprotion of those are actually suicides.

Good luck trying to 20 news articles about them for every righteous use of a firearm.

[tucsonlib]

8. Okay, So Ya Got Yer "Righteous" Shootings....

killing a bad guy, that is. Then ya got yer "not-so-righteous" shootings, which, I think we can all agree, include murder, suicide and accident.

"According to federal government figures, for every time a citizen used a firearm in 1996 in a justifiable homicide, 160 lives were ended in firearm suicides, murders, and accidental shootings."

It's a sad truth, my friend. If you have a firearm in the house (and I have several), it is far more likely to kill you or a family member than some criminal intruder. Just sayin'.

[guntard]

13. But firearms are rarely even discharged when they are used for self defense

It's a sad truth, my friend. If you have a firearm in the house (and I have several), it is far more likely to kill you or a family member than some criminal intruder. Just sayin'.

Probably true, since the likelihood of me ever killing a criminal intruder is vanishingly small.

No one has ever yet explained to me why that is a bad thing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. That's not what you said though, you said there were 20 accidental shootings for every defensive use

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Interesting point.

I've heard tell one way to get around 'no suicide' clauses in life insurance policies is to go to the range, shoot a little, sit down at a bench, lay out a rag, a can of break-free and maybe some hoppes oil, and then shoot yourself.

Shitty situation, but this sort of 'accident' is hard to quantify numbers, if it is in fact, happening. That moves bodies from the suicides column to the accidental deaths column.

[guntard]

26. It's a controversial theory I have

See, I simply do not believe anyone can shoot himself while "cleaning his gun," unless he is very drunk. It's like putting a convertible through a car wash with the top down: it's not done, the very first thing you do is put up the top.

The VERY FIRST THING anyone does to clean a gun is clear the chamber. You can't get very far in gun-cleaning without doing that. Even if you are a dumbass and your preferred method of clearing the chamber is pulling the trigger, how many people do this while pointing the gun at themselves? Pulling the trigger while pointing the gun at yourself is actually slightly difficult, it's not something that happens accidentally.

Now, I guess it is easy for people who know nothing about guns to believe they are hideously dangerous objects and that anyone can be accidentally killed simply by handling one in any manner whatsoever.

But as an experienced shooter and collector, I simply cannot imagine how anyone can accidentally shoot himself while cleaning his gun.

So I do believe that almost all such accidents aren't accidental at all, but were reported as such to spare the feelings of survivors, and maybe to assist with the insurance. I bet this happens a lot more often in small towns, where the first responders often know the victims, than in big, anonymous cities.

Shitty situation, but this sort of 'accident' is hard to quantify numbers, if it is in fact, happening. That moves bodies from the suicides column to the accidental deaths column.

Yes, and given the officially compiled firearm accidental fatality figure is fewer than 1,000 annually, a vanishingly small rate in a population of 300 million, if my theory is correct the real fatal accident rate might be statistically insignificant.

[tburnsten]

31. I've always thought/heard that "accident" was usually a euphimism

for suicide. Usually, not always, but usually. It is both a way to allow life insurance claims to be processed and a way to spare the family some of the heartache involved when a close loved one decides they want out.

I also heard that here in Maine we don't have murders, we just have hunting accidents.

[spin]

10. News reports focus on shootings and often ignore...

stories in which a firearm was used to prevent a crime, but no one was shot.

"If it bleeds it leads."

My daughter stopped an intruder from making entry to our house by pointing a large caliber revolver at him. The incident generated a police report but wasn't the type of story the Tampa newspaper would publish. Had she shot and killed the intruder, or had she shot and injured him and he was arrested by the police, the story might have made it to print. Had she accidentally shot herself in the encounter it would have had an excellent chance of being in the Tampa Trib and might even have caught national media attention.

[jmg257]

12. Accidental shooting deaths? A small number compared to other accidental deaths, like #15 on the list

Hopefully it will continue to be small, .5-.7% of accidental deaths, even as the number of guns increases.

[gorfle]

14. What should we do about negligence?

The simple fact is, people will be careless, and they will die or be injured as a result.

The question continues to be, do we abandon or restrict the right to keep and bear arms as a result? In an effort to protect people from their own carelessness, do we abandon their ability to defend themselves?

Like old Ben said, you can't abandon liberty in the pursuit of safety. So we will just continue to have to live with the abuses of liberty.

[guntard]

27. People seem to be perfectly happy with 30,000-40,000 deaths per year . . .

. . . from the criminal or negligent operation of automobiles.

[iverglas]

15. we used to have a feature here

A weekly "guns in the news thread", a format imposed by moderators to avoid this clutter of bad story about guns / good story about guns in the forum.

I'd just been thinking it was evidently time for a return to that format, for those who wish to post and discuss such reports ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. I disagree with censorship.

[iverglas]

19. lordy jeezus

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. I thought you were an atheist.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. Okay I posted a defensive gun post from January 27th, you post the 20 accidental deaths....

that happened that day. Go ahead I'm waiting.

David

[guntard]

21. Hey look, this from one of our own members

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=199739&mesg_id=199739

[iverglas]

23. so won't you answer, then?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=199739&mesg_id=199998

[AtheistCrusader]

25. That doesn't look like a question?

Possibly some confusion? Are you suggesting that in many cases, when a firearm is used defensively, and no shots are fired, they used, or possibly used, the wrong tool for the job?

[iverglas]

28. about right

The fact that someone asserts that s/he "used" a firearm to ward off a bogeyman doesn't mean that a firearm was needed in order to do that, or that the outcome would have been any different had there been no firearm in the equation.

Conversely, of course, we do know of situations in which outcomes would have been very different had there been no firearm in the equation, i.e. people engaged in no criminal conduct who were killed or injured, or criminally victimized in another way (such as robbery), would not be dead or injured or victimized.


p.s. I didn't really imply it was a question; it was a post addressed to the poster to whom the preceding post was addressed; people commonly "answer" posts addressed to them.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Problematic I suppose.

The fact that someone asserts that s/he "used" a firearm to ward off a bogeyman doesn't mean that a firearm was needed in order to do that, or that the outcome would have been any different had there been no firearm in the equation.

I can understand the concern, but I tend to give the victim the benefit of the doubt in selecting the level of force required to protect themselves. I do pay close attention though, to see if the use is reasonable, because if it is not, the 'victim' status moves to the other party, and possibly a crime has been committed.

[iverglas]

33. pay attention now

I tend to give the victim the benefit of the doubt in selecting the level of force required to protect themselves.

That was not responsive to what I said.

I didn't say that once someone was in possession of a firearm, I would second-guess his/her decision to use it to ward off an apparent attempted assault.

I said that the mere fact that s/he was in possession of a firearm and did choose to use it for that purpose does not mean that the outcome of the situation would have been any different if there had not been a firearm in the situation.

Once the firearm is there, the question of whether its use was justified arises.

That is an entirely different question from the one I raised: what would have happened had there been no firearm present?

I can't say that everything would have been fine.

But in situations like the one in question, the individual who used the firearm can't say that everything would not have been fine.

And quite obviously, once there is a firearm in play, a whole new set of risks arises that are not present if it is not there.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. It appears that tucsonlib won't answer either, what's up with people?