Every right has its responsibilities. Like the right itself, these responsibilities stem from no man-made law, but from the very nature of man and society. The security, progress and welfare of one group is measured finally in the security, progress and welfare of all mankind.
-- Lewis B. Schwellenbach (1894-1948), American lawyer, politician, and judge.
Headline: 17-year-old Girl Killed In Accidental Shooting at Alabama School.
How many times have you seen a similar headline?
How many? A dozen times? A hundred? A thousand times over the years?
An accidental shooting.
Gun advocates like to say guns don’t shoot people by themselves. Guns don’t point themselves. Guns don’t just go off and kill people by accident.
People kill people. It’s not the guns.
That’s what they tell us.
And yet, every single time something like this happens, it’s an “accident.” The gun accidentally fired. It was an accidental shooting.
Nobody is responsible, it was an accident.
The Associated Press tweeted out their headline: Another young person killed by another accidental shooting. And someone who follows me on Twitter responded to the AP by quoting a point from my (this) Bang Bang Crazy series:
As @Stonekettle has so aptly put it, 'There are no accidents with guns. There. Are. No. Accidents. It's a killing machine. You're responsible. Period No exceptions.
That’s a correct quote. Those who follow me here, those who were trained in firearms and combat arms by me on the range and in the classroom, have heard me say this many times. There are no accidents with guns.
There are no accidents with guns.
Guns are killing machines. When you pick one up, you and you alone are responsible for happens next. No excuses. No exceptions.
And if you don’t understand that in your bones, then you will never be allowed on my range or at my back. Ever.
There are no accidents with guns.
Of course, it didn't take long for the first ammosexual to arrive:
So when someone is cleaning their rifle but they forgot to check the chamber...it goes off and kills him...that wasn't an accident?
Because they quoted me and used my Twitter handle in the exchange, I saw the conversation in my feed. So I answered Mr. Loomis.
That’s what I said. Simple. Direct.
That’s not an accident. No.
Brad’s comment isn’t a counter argument, it’s an excuse.
There are no accidents with guns.
No matter what the training, no matter whose rules, police, military, Boy Scouts, 4-H, NRA, civilian shooting range, the very first cardinal rule of safe weapons handling is this: ALWAYS ASSUME THE GUN IS LOADED AND TREAT IT AS SUCH.
Always treat a gun as if it is loaded. All subsequent gun rules depend from this basic primary rule.
No excuses. No exceptions. You always assume the gun is loaded. Always.
And thus by extension, the corollary: Assume all weapons are loaded until you yourself have personally checked and cleared the firearm. Every single time. No exceptions.
What this means is that even if I witness you unload the weapon in front of me, I will still assume that the weapon is loaded when you hand it to me – until I personally check it clear and safe myself.
You check the weapon every single time you pick it up.
Every. Single. Goddamned. Time.
You. You personally. You’re responsible. YOU. Nobody else.
The order of the remaining rules vary depending on where you're getting your training, but they always include the following: Keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction, Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire, Keep the weapon unloaded until ready to use, Always check to ensure the weapon is in proper operating order.
"So when someone is cleaning their rifle but they forgot to check the chamber...it goes off and kills him...that wasn't an accident?"
No. It’s not an accident.
We don't have a legal term for negligent suicide or manslaughter resulting in your own death, but that's what this is.
Brad's hypothetical dead man (and not so hypothetical, since this happens with alarming frequency) died specifically because he disregarded the cardinal rules of safe gun handling.
That's not an accident.
When a child finds a gun and picks it up and kills another child with it, that's not an accident.
That's negligent homicide and should be treated as such. No, not the child who found the weapon, the person who left the gun loaded, unattended, unlocked, unsecured, and accessible to a child. It’s your gun. YOU’RE responsible. YOU. Nobody else. If you leave a gun where an unauthorized person can get ahold of it, especially a child, then you are responsible for what happens after that. And you should be tried for negligent homicide and child endangerment and sent to prison and never, ever, under any circumstances be allowed to handle firearms again.
There are no accidents with guns.
You are responsible, no exceptions.
Now, I know what you’re going to say: it is possible for a weapon to malfunction and fire inadvertently.
It is possible. Yes. No matter how careful you are, for unforeseen things to happen. Sure, your hunting dog knocks over your rifle that you leaned up against a tree while taking a piss.
You drop your loaded pistol while pulling it out of the holster to unload it.
You can throw "what abouts" at me all day. But if you follow the rules of safe gun handling, then an inadvertent discharge only sends the bullet in a safe direction. Your dog knocked over your weapon, but because you'd cleared the chamber and took the gun out of battery before setting it down, all that happened was your scope got knocked out of alignment. Because you maintain your weapon in good operating condition and keep the safeties engaged when holstered, dropping the weapon onto concrete did nothing more than scratch the finish. And so on.
Calling negligence an accident is an excuse.
It's an excuse gun nuts like Brad use to dismiss responsibility and nothing more.
Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.
-- John F. Kennedy
If you have any doubt about what I'm saying, when confronted with his nonsense, like all gun nuts, Brad moved the goalposts rather than accept responsibility:
Yet hammers kill more people annually...you all are a special kind of dense.
Ignoring that last bit where Brad quotes some Old West hanging judge as if he was pronouncing an execution, this a standard NRA canard. A standard response used to dismiss responsibility. Hammers kill more people than guns.
No they don’t.
This is easily proven wrong. And not just wrong, but pitifully wrong. Massively wrong. Utterly wrong. The FBI maintains data on violent deaths by cause. In 2013, for example, 8,454 Americans were murdered by firearms. Four hundred and twenty-eight were murdered by blunt objects (including hammers). You can look at statistics for other years, it’s about the same ratio. 8,454 to 428. About 20 to 1. Roughly twenty people are murdered with a gun for every person murdered by blunt force trauma.
When confronted with that fact, Brad predictably again attempted to avoid taking responsibility for his own statement, for his own obviously wrong information, for his own argument:
Yeah, late and you all jump because I misspoke. Now...if we just banned abortion in cases not involving rape, incest, or if the mothers life is in imminent danger, we would be saving way more lives than guns in total take…
The go-to trump card of the pro-gun, pro-life fanatic.
Abortion, ha HA!
He tried to shift the argument to some controversial subject, figuring everyone would jump into that screaming match and just forget all about his nonsensical statements. He helpfully included a graph showing more murders are committed with knives than "assault weapons." Your basic non sequitur logical fallacy.
This is what happens when you use NRA talking points and shallow arguments traded among gun nuts instead of actually understanding the subject in any depth.
He tried to move the goalposts.
He tried to change the subject by diverting the conversation into a kneejerk shitfight over abortion or the definition of "assault weapons" or anything but taking responsibility for his own statements, his own actions, his own ideology.
But what he’s really doing here is literally attempting to excuse willful violation of every primary rule of safe gun handling resulting in death. And he’s trying to do that by dismissing it as an "accident."
This is why gun "accidents" continue to happen.
This guy, this reasoning, this dismissal of responsibility, right here.
I would not allow this guy on my range. Ever.
I would not allow this guy to handle a firearm anywhere near me or mine. Ever.
He’s not willing to accept responsibility for his own words, how could he accept responsibility for a gun?
You must take personal responsibility. You cannot change the circumstances, the seasons, or the wind, but you can change yourself. That is something you have charge of.
-- Jim Rohn (1930-2009), writer, speaker, entrepreneur.
Brad was (heh heh) hammered for hours by my Twitter followers.
He tried insults.
He tried moving the goalposts.
He tried playing the martyr.
He tried playing the victim.
He tried playing the patriot.
He tried everything except for taking responsibility.
In the end, he couldn't shoot his way out of the corner he'd painted himself into and he didn't have the moral courage to admit he was wrong, and so he retreated and locked his account. That way he didn't have to face his own bullshit, he didn't have to admit his errors, and he could again avoid responsibility.
Why pick on Brad Loomis, pro-golfer, regular Joe, gun advocate?
Because Brad chose to make an example of himself.
Because Brad is a metaphor for a larger problem. Because, in thumbnail, this is the entire problem with guns in America.
This, right here, is the entire problem with the Second Amendment.
The utter failure to take responsibility.
And that, my friends, is no accident.
That’s negligence on a national scale.
You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.
-- Abraham Lincoln
Addendum 1: Every time I write one of these, I hope it's the last. But it never is, there's always another massacre. Always.
The Seven Stages of Gun Violence
The Bang Bang Crazy Series:
Part 1, What we need, see, are more guns, big fucking guns
Part 2, Gun violence isn't the exception in America, it's who we are
Part 3, Sandy Hook, the NRA, and a gun in every school
Part 4, More dead kids and why we have laws
Part 5, Gun control and a polite society
Part 6, The Christopher Donner rampage, they needed killin'
Part 7, Still more dead kids and let's print our own guns!
Part 8, Let's try blaming the victim, shall we?
Part 9, Armed soldiers on post, sure, nothing to go wrong there.
Part 10, Big Damned Heroes!
Part 11, Two in the Bush
What do we do about it? How do we change our culture of gun violence? Bang Bang Sanity
Addendum 2: As noted elsewhere, I’ve been around guns my entire life. My dad taught me to shoot when I was a kid – in fact the very first gun I ever fired was my dad’s prized black powder .75 caliber smooth bore Civil War trench piece when I was about four years old. I still own my very first gun, bought from Meijer’s Thrifty Acres in Jenison, Michigan, for me by my dad when I was fourteen years old – a lever action Winchester 30-30. I got my first deer with that gun. I grew up shooting, at home, in the Boy Scouts, hunting, target shooting, plinking, with friends and with family. Thirty years ago I joined the military and spent my entire life there. I know more than a little about guns. I’m a graduate of the Smith & Wesson Rangemaster Academy, the nation’s premier firearms instructor school. I’m a certified armorer and gunsmith. I’ve attended pretty much every boarding officer and gun school the military has. I hold both the Expert Pistol and Expert Rifle Medals. I’ve taught small arms and combat arms to both military and civilians for nearly thirty years now. I’ve fired damned near everything the US military owns, from the old .38 revolver to a US Navy Aegis Guided Missile Cruiser’s 5” main battery – and everything in between. I can still field strip a Colt .45 M-1911 pistol and put it back together in under a minute, blindfolded – I happen to own several of them, along with numerous other semi-auto pistols and a number of revolvers. I used to shoot professionally and in competition. I helped to design, test, field, and fire in combat US Military weapons systems. I’ve spent my entire life in places where gun usage is extremely, extremely, common. I have a Concealed Carry Permit. I spent much of my life in Alaska and I typically carry a gun in the bush on a regular basis. I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun, a gun is a tool, nothing more. If you feel that I’m ignorant of guns, or that I’m anti-gun, or unAmerican, well, you’re welcome to speak your piece – just so long as you can live with what comes after.
For Brad (and other non-recovered Gun-aholics) I offer this:ReplyDelete
You would think it was part of the official training curriculum for the NRA.
YES! This is my go to as well.Delete
LMAO omg that is so funny....I watched it on youtube.Delete
I work in road safety marketing, and we use similar language regarding car "accidents." They may not have been intentional, but they were usually the result of some human error (whether in automotive design, operation, or infrastructure).Delete
Tom Megginson: I used to work in occupational health and safety, and I'd like to remind you that if you stop incident analysis at "human error," you'll never fix the systems that allow incidents to happen. Likewise, if you keep blaming gun non-accidents on individual, falliable human beings (Schroedinger's Responsible Gun Owner, as it were), you'll never debug the cultural systems that allow people like that to get guns and use them badly in the first place.Delete
Thanks for the laugh, anon. Effin' hysterical. The very first time I watched Python I must have been 16, chanced upon it and had no idea what I was watching - was horrified at first.Delete
I became a lifelong fan.
Thank you for something I rarely see in the social media gun debate:Delete
Excellent piece, Jim. As always.ReplyDelete
The moral of the story is "Don't be Brad."ReplyDelete
Don't be Mustard Man!Delete
And all we want are responsible gun laws. Loved your piece and wonder what you think about gun owners being licenced and insured? I don't own a gun but don't have any reason to oppose with the exception of military grade weapons.Delete
It's always a case of bad luck or someone else's fault. I find it kind of strange that these people often talk about the importance of personal responsibility.ReplyDelete
Agreed. Remember the Dick Cheney incident. The guy apologized to Dick Cheney although it was Cheney that didn't use situational awarenessDelete
I won't even look through a barrel from the muzzle to check it is clean. I look through the lock end of the action.ReplyDelete
Damned thing is loaded after all.
Yes to this. My grandfather taught me to shoot at the age of 6 ('cause, Texas) and he taught me three rules:Delete
1) A gun is always loaded,
2) A gun is always loaded until you check it yourself, even if the other person checked it in front of you.
3) Never point a gun at something you don't want to destroy.
I've always presumed that #3 applied to me as well.
Bravo! Another example of impeccable logic applied to the illogical.ReplyDelete
I think the key here is that no one takes responsibility for anything anymore...from thoughts and prayers to it was an accident. EVERY action is a choice. and to quote Rush (the rock band, not the idiot)...if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.ReplyDelete
No answer, is your answer. --German proverbDelete
Jim, every time I read one of these, I'm convinced that you could collect them together and publish them as your next book ("Bang Bang Crazy: A Collection of Essays on America's Firearms Insanity" [h/t Ronald John Lugge on Facebook]). Unfortunately, the way things are going, I fear that you'll be writing so many more of these that it would never be finished. :(ReplyDelete
Personal responsibility? No excuses? What innovative concepts! Thanks for this take down of the accidental shooting fallacy.ReplyDelete
Wow, this is exactly what I think. Only you said it so much better than I ever could. Thank you for this. This is the way I believe, and by the way, raised to believe that there are no accidents with guns I don't know why people argue about this. If the trigger is pulled, if the gun is loaded, if it is pointed at a live person or animal, it will probably kill it.ReplyDelete
As a mother living in Ohio I feel like an outcast surrounded by gun loving, God fearing (the irony) people who believe a gun is some sort of shield. I feel you are a voice of reason within our paranoid, dillusional, self centered, old west wannabe society.ReplyDelete
I was mugged years ago carrying mace (in an easy access pocket of a book bag). My assailant surprise me from behind, there was no opportunity to grab the mace. Later that night another woman was assaultef by the same man using mace. I refuse to carry any weapon because of that incident but I am constantly told “John Wayne” type stories about what I could have done with a gun��.
Tonight I will attend a school board meeting to resist the idea of arming the teachers in my daughters’ school. Your words will hello me find my own. Wish me luck.
Good Lord! When you were four years old!? How far back did it knock you? 😂ReplyDelete
My first thought too. My guess is that dad didnt have young Jimmy brace it on his tiny, tender shoulder. But yeah, what an introduction to the power of a deadly weapon!Delete
One of the things about a muzzle loading, black powder weapon is that you can yourself determine how much powder you put down the barrel.Delete
My dad has passed on, so I can't ask him, but I suspect he didn't load a full charge, or a full sized round (a trench gun of that era is a like a shotgun, smooth bore. Meaning you could load it with a variety of shot).
And yes, that huge heavy gun was resting on a shooting bench, not my shoulder. With dad holding the stock and in full control.
I got to fire a muzzle loader at a camp when a Boy Scout, and yeah, kicked like a mule. But I was old enough to know proper stance, and it was loaded light, so no bruise, no toppling.Delete
But the kick from those, like the caliber, could vary widely. I've seen some monster calibers in rifles that were shoulder fired.
One of the standard ploys of NRA clones is pedantic focus on the wrong word. "You said clip when it was really a magazine," or "It's a semi-automatic rifle, not an automatic," or the worst one, "It's not really an assault rifle just because it looks like one." The reality is that when a writer says "clip," "automatic," or "assault rifle," everyone in the discussion knows exactly what they meant by the words, and the other side needs desperately to deflect the topic to pedantry.ReplyDelete
Like you, Jim, I have a background that gives me experience with firearms. I had a school letter on the varsity rifle team, fired on the ROTC rifle team as well as the Army's FORCECOM rifle and pistol team. Although my primary MOS was medic, I also cross-trained as a small arms repairman, graduating at the top of my class at Aberdeen Proving Ground, and used to teach a unit armorer course. I also held the 2nd Infantry Division's record for field-stripping and reassembling an M-14 rifle while blindfolded (14 seconds).
Unlike you, I don't own any firearms and have no desire to do so. Nonetheless, we agree that shootings are out of control here in the US, and the ongoing proliferation of guns endorsed by the main spokesmen for the gun industry -- the NRA -- is only making things worse. You may have already addressed this in an essay that I missed, but I wonder if you're as troubled as I by the repeated suggestion that part of the solution to school shootings is to give guns to combat veterans and place them in schools. As a member of that group, I recognize that we have an incredibly high suicide rate and a lot more PTSD than anyone wants to admit. It's not a good group to be arming and stationing in school settings.
Well said. I work in a school and just said the same thing to someone wanting armed vets in schools. While not all vets have PTSD you simply don't know what putting them in an active shooter situation might trigger. And most of those who make that suggestion haven't been inside a high school in years if not decades. It's loud and chaotic between classes on a normal day.Delete
A semi-auto with a bump stock BECOMES a full auto in use, and I refuse to argue with ammosexuals that say otherwise.Delete
I may be able to fire any of my firearms rather quickly, but not as fast and as regularly as with a bump stock.
Talonts - as a (British combat veteran) mate of mine put it in a recent (pro-gun control) post "A Beirut unload rarely hits anything; if you want to kill someone or lots of people use it on semi auto"Delete
This is pretty much my reply whenever someone brings up the 'well actually it's not an assault rifle..." Full auto is useful in bursts for covering fire, but if you're really planning to up the body count, rapid aimed semi-auto is the way to go. You'd think any ammosexual would know that...
(also - original assault rifle's selectable fire modes: full or semi auto. M16A2: semi-auto or 3 round burst. If the latter is an assault rifle, then the definition of "assault rifle" has changed very slightly from its first incarnation. If language could change to accomodate the M16A2, it can change again to accommodate the popular vernacular (even if it's just 'semi-automatic assault rifle'.)
I am so glad I checked out of that conversation early. I thought he recognized his mistake and had given up. Apparently not!ReplyDelete
I appreciate the thought and time you dedicate to these essays. I also appreciate when you share these experiences. I prefer a more rapid use of the airlock, but then I see why you let them hang around. There is usually a lesson in those enraging “conversations”.
Thanks for the information. Thanks for taking the time to be here when you could be with the newlyweds. I hope you and your family have a wonderful visit.
Every thing Jim stated about handling guns *used* to be pushed by the NRA, back when I was a kid with my first shotgun.ReplyDelete
I can't help but notice that these ammosexuals, the ones that supposedly belong to the party of personal responsibility, NEVER take responsibility for this bullshit they perpetuate.
Jim, as a long-time Scouter, the FIRST thing we teach our Scouts when handling firearms is that EVERY gun is loaded and must be pointed downrange. Mostly, we shoot targets with bolt-action .22s or clays with shotguns. When you're at the rifle range, you fire your 5 shots and place the gun on the bench pointed downrange with the bolt open before you step away. Shotguns are loaded one round at a time and handed back to the instructor, pointed downrange. Guns don't scare me. Idiots who handle firearms carelessly, especially around a group of people, scare the hell out of me. I agree totally with you that there is only negligence, not "accident" involved in "accidental" shootings. Misfires and other malfunctions happen with firearms, just like any mechanical device. That firearm stays pointed downrange and you wait before clearing the misfire.ReplyDelete
As to "Brad's" counter-argument, you could also say it's fucking stupidity.ReplyDelete
Americans won't give up their guns for one simple reason: because America was founded on, and remains steeped in, tribal warfare. It was guns that allowed America to be created in the first place, and which give Americans a sense of security against enemy tribes. And since most human beings don't operate in a world of ivory tower abstractions, and are motivated by primal fears, you are really just flapping your lips here to no purpose (except to make yourselves feel like the good guys).ReplyDelete
Americans won't give up their guns for one simple reason...Delete
Standard dodge. Nobody, least of all me, suggested any such thing. In fact, it should be obvious from the post and accompanying footnotes that I am a gun owner. And firearms instructor.
Nowhere in this essay did I suggest Americans give up their guns. But, just like the subject of the essay, you attempt a non sequitur logical fallacy in a poor attempt to divert the conversation from RESPONSIBLE gun ownership to this bullshit NRA buggaboo.
Your statement isn't an argument, it's an excuse.
...because America was founded on, and remains steeped in, tribal warfare. It was guns that allowed America to be created in the first place, and which give Americans a sense of security against enemy tribes. And since most human beings don't operate in a world of ivory tower abstractions, and are motivated by primal fears...
This is just bilge. Soundbites and nonsense pasted together into an incoherent run-on sentence. You heard a bunch of words that you thought sounded vaguely intelligent and you put them together into a paragraph that makes no sense whatsoever. Though I'm certain it sounded good to you.
...you are really just flapping your lips here to no purpose (except to make yourselves feel like the good guys).
And yet, here you are. Trying to make yourself sound important.
Shove off now, Shadowman. Don't come back.
And this is how you know "Shadowman" didn't actually read what Jim wrote.Delete
"Americans" don't need to "give up their guns" They just need to be RESPONSIBLE about gun ownership and use.Delete
Google "Brad Loomis PGA", he is bashed everywhere, even the golf gaming sites. Also, if you are in Miami find him at the golf course and yell at him to his face.Delete
Most humans don't have to excuse themselves with "tribalism" for being brutish and terrified ... because they're not.Delete
I've had a few of these go-arounds, and I think it's worth looking at their logic: essentially they shift from a moral argument to a political one, going from "what's the best thing for the country" or even "what can we do within our legal framework" to "You can't make me because I have numbers." The danger here is, if you're not appealing to some commmon ground, moral or legal, then when you lose you're more likely to not give up, and retreat into factions. This is what happened with white supremacy after the Civil War: instead of following the moral and legal consequences of giving freed slaves the same rights as other Americans, we went down the path of giving "because we have numbers" the deciding vote. Are we going to do that here? Are we going to let the Dana Loesch et al veiled threats carve out their own little version of reality? I mean, it's already carved out. Are we going to let that stand?Delete
Absolutely spot on. I am a 71 year old grandmother with a carry permit. I accept full responsibility with what happens with my guns. I don't shoot anymore but still maintain my permit for safety only. I live alone in the country. I got my permit because my late husband and I used to take a lot of road trips seeing the USA. There were times that having a gun in my pocket made me feel safer. Never pointed a gun at anyone, hope I never have to but I would if I or my loved ones were threatened. I enjoy your articles and twitter page. Keep speaking your mind. It's refreshing to this old grandma.ReplyDelete
"No matter what the training, no matter whose rules, police, military, Boy Scouts, 4-H, NRA, civilian shooting range, the very first cardinal rule of safe weapons handling is this: ALWAYS ASSUME THE GUN IS LOADED AND TREAT IT AS SUCH."ReplyDelete
Quite interesting that the NRA Family safety video doesn't mention this in the description or the video, until the very end as seen on a display in the last seconds of the video. https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2016/5/25/video-know-your-gun-safety-rules/
In case anyone balks at "you should always unload and clear a gun, even if you just saw someone else check it" - one, what if you don't know how? Then either get the person who's trying to hand it to you to show you how to do it on that gun, or else just don't touch it.ReplyDelete
Two, why do it if you just saw someone else do it? Habit. "Always unload and clear any gun, no exceptions" is a good habit. If you allow yourself exceptions, then the habit will be less effective. The same applies to "never point it at anything you don't intend to destroy" and "keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you intend to fire" - these apply even if you just cleared the gun, because you want to establish those habits.
The first time I was handed a firearm, it was a revolver. The owner opened the cylinder, checked the chambers, then handed it to me. He then said never to accept a gun unless the other person makes sure it's unloaded in front of me.Delete
Jim, have you ever been asked to debate the NRA?ReplyDelete
Spot on, Jim. Rule 1, first, last and every one in between, assume the damn thing is loaded. There are no accidents. This is why I've almost given up recreational shooting; too many idiots at the range.ReplyDelete
You are correct on all counts, Jim. First three rules in a gun safety course: (1) Always assume every gun is loaded. (2) It doesn't matter if you watch your mother unload a gun. When she hands it to you, check to see if it's loaded. Check the chamber as well. (3) Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Ever.ReplyDelete
I was buying a gun at a national chain once. There was a guy standing next to me while my background check was being performed. He asked to see one of the then new Taurus "Judge" handguns. The clerk, being properly trained, checked the gun to make sure it wasn't loaded, then handed it to the man. He took a step back and POINTED IT AT ME. I took my arm and hit his forearm up and asked him what the hell he thought he was doing. "It's not loaded," he said, annoyed. I said, "How do you know? Did you look?" He replied, "This guy right here checked it and it obviously wasn't loaded. I didn't need to look." I then replied, "With all due respect, sir, you need to take a gun safety course. I don't care if this gentleman here is your best friend in the whole world. When someone hands you a gun, you LOOK to make sure it's not loaded, and you never point it at anything you don't intend to shoot." The clerk looked at him, shrugged, and said "She's absolutely right, sir. And you need to point that thing up at the ceiling."
Most people today have no clue what to do with a gun when they purchase one. They have even become a fashion accessory for some women - I've seen them in pink and blue zebra stripes. It's a killing machine. It's not a handbag or a pair of shoes. Killing is what it was designed for.
I think gun safety courses and mandatory range time with a certified instructor should be the law in every state before you can purchase any gun. Period. There are no accidents with guns. Ever.
Keep it up. Maybe someday, sanity will prevail and our governmental officials will listen to those with experience about firearms and the damage they do when not adequately regulated. However, I'm not holding my breath. I worked in politics in Florida for almost 15 years, so I know what happens there and on the federal level as well. Still, I hold out hope, which may say something about my own sanity.
John Oliver did a piece on NRATV and their special shows for women that show how your gun can be like any other accessory. Have several for every outfit. Be sure you have a bag with for each outfit fitted so your gun is always ready. It was so cute and all, my wife was laughing at its absurdity. The NRA is a marketing machine. A very well heeled one.Delete
Family educated, then the NRA Hunter Safety Course, then scouts, then Army... Yeah, everything agrees. Shared.ReplyDelete
As a non-American I watch with horror when these events occur AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.ReplyDelete
For me, part of the problem seems to be that there is (and apparently can be) no dialogue - both sides of the argument are entrenched with their beliefs that they are 'right'.
Sadly, as Jim says, amongst the 'Ammosexuals' there is an utter refusal to take responsibility for their actions; they are totally trammelled in to the Beavis and Buthead: "Hur, Hur, Hur, Guns make me a man" bollocks. I have (had) friends in the States who buy totally in to the NRA propaganda and have quoted it at me when I have queried the idea that the answer to gun crime, or gun related deaths, is more guns.
Now, afore anyone gets any silly ideas about me being a 'Leftist' (as a feckin’ eejit on Facebook called me when I queried him about Firearms), I am a Retired Air Force Officer with some 2 decades of Military Service; I am now a Reserve Officer and currently hold qualifications as a Range Conducting Officer (RCO) and Skill At Arms Instructor (SAAI). I’ve used Military Firearms for real. I have also shot Military Firearms (and Military Grade Firearms) in Competition, especially Service Pistol, Practical Pistol and Service Rifle. Additionally I am an accredited Target Rifle Coach. As such I am pretty 'direct' in my attitude to firearms and firearm safety.
I travel to the States on a fairly regular basis, having friends and family in upstate NY.
Let me give you an example of the Discipline / Indiscipline I have witnessed around weapons there.
This Xmas just gone I was over for a few weeks and was asked by my friend's husband and her father-in-law if I would like to accompany them to the local range where I could get to fire a Moisin-Nagant rifle, an AR-15, and an M1 Carbine.
The range was disciplined; I’ll admit to finding it a little ‘odd’ that there wasn’t an RCO running the range, but range discipline could not be faulted.
Compare this with a trip over to the USA a few years back. Me, my friend, her husband, and her sister-in-law went out to a piece of land known as the ‘State Lands’ where one could fire full bore weapons. There, there are a series of berms or bunds that act like stop butts, around 100 – 200 metres from the road, where one can set up targets. We were planning on firing the Moisin, an SKS, a Saiga built AK-47 clone chambered in 5.56mm and a 9mm Carbine.
When we got there the next ‘range’ over was occupied by what I can only describe as your classical ‘red necks’. No that’s me being too reasonable, these people were fucking morons. As we arrived there was one fellow blasting away with an automatic pistol (I believe it was an M1911) just as fast as he could. The chances of this cretin actually HITTING what he was aiming at were about the square root of damn all.
While this is going on we are NOT going ‘down range’ to set up our targets – as far as I am concerned there is no Safety Template in place and it’s just too damned dangerous.
Next up there is a ‘Good ol’ boy’ with what looks like a cut down version of an AR-15 (ie M4 style). This wanker figures he’s Rambo and is going to fire off a magazine as if the weapon were capable of firing fully automatic.
I watched the bullet splash. Or rather I didn’t – I saw 4 maybe 5 strikes on the bund and then the idiot had the weapon pointed at such an elevation that the rounds went over the top; going who knows where. As it turned out, the angle of elevation was such that the rounds impacted the ground some 500m away starting a major grass fire (scrubby grass at the height of summer).
The shootists tried to blame us (!) and then fucked off in fully fine pitch.
Until the USA addressed the problem of COMPLETE TOSSERS being allowed to own firearms, until it gets to grips with the idea that, despite the 2nd Amendment, some people are just too bloody STUPID to be allowed to own a firearm, then events like Parkland will continue to happen.
You did fuck all after Sandy Hook. I fear you will continue to do fuck all.
I would love to contradict you. So DEARLY love to contradict you.Delete
But the steam blows out immediately every time this latest "crisis actor" shitgibbonry rings thru my ears. What society sending death threats to teenage survivors of the latest massacre - for daring NOT to prostrate themselves as sacrificial lambs to our ingrained firearm fetishism, no less - is even capable of reaching the second letter of fuck-all?
My sons' brother-in-law is educated at a master's level, did his tour in the Army and is a Concealed Carry person. He knows everything there is to know about guns (?). That's how he managed to clear his CCP pistol and then put the magazine back in the gun and then drop the slide. He put a round into the chamber and then into the dining room table with his two little children and my two little granddaughters in the house. On his way home one night, under the influence, he hit a deer with his motorcycle. The deer is flopping around on the highway so he takes out his CCP pistol and dispatches the deer, (probably the right thing to do, but not while under the influence nor on a county road nor immediately after an accident, with the police on the way.) He lost his CCP and pistol. Of course, as a Libertarian, he decided the police and court were wrong so he carries without a permit. This was the man who was INCENSED when I said that when I saw a man in Target with a .45 on his hip, "it gave me pause." This is what I have been posting in response to many comments on Facebook. I encourage the use of the term "negligence". An accident implies that the person responsible couldn't help a gun firing. An accident implies that it was unavoidable or that no one was at fault, as if the gun fired itself. It diminishes the seriousness of an act that could have or did cause personal injury. Stupidity implies not thinking or not being able to think. It also implies that the person is not responsible and that the discharge was unavoidable. Negligence states that a person is responsible for the gun firing and either did something inexcusable or failed to do something reasonable or practical that would have prevented the firing. You cannot prosecute someone for stupidity but you can prosecute someone for negligence. Negligence says that a gun owner IS KNOWLEDGEABLE AND AWARE AND SAFE BUT DID NOT TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THE FIREARM WAS SAFE. If you left the fire arm where the dog can knock it over, or left it where your three year old can get their hands on it that may be stupid, but if you left a round chambered in it that is negligence.ReplyDelete
No, sorry, leaving a gun where a toddler can get it isn't stupid, it's negligent. Round in the chamber or not. Kids see enough guns on TV to chamber a round, especially on a revolver.Delete
I'm a writer, editor and proofreader. Although English is my second language, I pride myself in having attained a decent level of proficiency. But today I became aware of something - the important distinction between "accident" and "negligence".Delete
In the road safety field, we have stopped using the term accident because it implies an unavoidable or unforeseeable event. That's not the case. Crashes always have causes or contributing factors. I can't see how unintentional firearm discharges would be any different.ReplyDelete
Thanks for laying it out once again, and I'm sorry you *have* to lay it out again. And again.ReplyDelete
My two uncles taught me to shoot as a kid, both competition shooters with walls of trophies. Nothing was pounded into me harder than "The gun is always loaded." It doesn't matter if the clip is removed, or the cylinder is out, and you can see daylight in the chamber shining in from the muzzle. It's STILL loaded. It's never NOT loaded. Ever.
If only it would be possible to connect you with the movement started by the kids in Parkland, FL.ReplyDelete
If only you could be given a larger stage than your blog, facebook, twitter and whatever else you use.
Here again is what I think is the root of all our problems. We are animals with the intellect to justify. (Like Jim said, excuses) The smarter you are, the better you are at justifying. If you are not smart you can always get rich and hire smart lawyers when needed. We also avoid discussing the root cause. We only tend to discuss symptoms of the problems.ReplyDelete
Jim -- You once posted about the idiocy of arguing with irrational people. Just remember one of the "Ten Pretty Good Rules: Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it."ReplyDelete
I hope you'll let "Brad" wither on his electronic vine.
All Talk, No Bolt-Action: Gun Injuries Drop During NRA ConventionsReplyDelete
A study pokes holes in the idea that experienced firearm users are less likely to injure themselves. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/all-talk-no-bolt-action-gun-injuries-drop-during-nra-conventions/
Good post. I wish the article had mentioned the CDC and their unsuccessful attempts at researching gun violence. I suppose the Centers for Disease Control might seem seem an odd agency to do such research (beyond their purview, perhaps?), but it's been stymied at every attempt.Delete
Brad Loomis, that sorry excuse for a PGA professional golfer and weak NRA surrogate just set his Twitter feed to "Protected". Boo hoo.ReplyDelete
Mr. Loomis doesn't realize that freedom isn't a single thing. Freedom is two things; power and limits on power.ReplyDelete
That is what the Constitution is about, saying who gets power and what limits there are on that power. Even the Second Amendment limits gun ownership by specifying 'a well regulated militia.'
And this is why Brad along with the other aristocrats and barbarians masquerading as conservatives try so hard to avoid responsibility. Taking responsibility would limit their power.
So they deny responsibility in order to keep their power.
Rights without responsibility is an abuse of said right.Delete
It's the same for free speech too. Those Nazi Trumpians want to spout their hate without taking responsibility for the consequences of such. They hide under the banner of free speech while abusing it this way.
I learned range and firearm safety from Marines at Camp Pendleton in 1961. Let's just say that while I would insist upon a refresher before handling firearms again, I have *not* forgotten the essence of the message. The gun is always loaded.ReplyDelete
An excellent piece Jim. I wish we could condense this logic and inject it into certain gun rights folks veins, somehow. When I was 14, the NRA taught gun safety and gave a certificate. That was the only way I was allowed to have a shotgun. That was 50 years ago and things have changed a lot. I still have a couple shotguns and shoot sporting clays in various configurations. It amazes me the number of goofballs who walk around with their O/U's locked,(not broken open) load before they get to the station in position and point muzzles in any which direction. I get away from them as fast as I can. It seems to be getting worse every year? Thank you for posting these thoughts.ReplyDelete
Met range safety instructors like you. I took them deadly seriously. Only ever fired M16s in my short Army stint. I enjoyed shooting, I was a good shot.ReplyDelete
MrZ's friends invited us to go paintballing. I thought, hold a weapon, aim it at someone? I can't. MrZ thought a second and agreed he couldn't either, not after BRM. No. Just. No.
I am a retired peace officer. I carried a firearm on and off duty, in and out of uniform for 30 years. I had training in firearm retention every time I requalified. I have often thought that it was more likely that a bad might use my gun on me rather than me using it to stop the bad guy. Just saying.ReplyDelete
LOL. Woke up this morning to 98 notifications and a note from Twitter asking if I wanted to set up a filter. Poor Brad didn't help his cause any when he posted a graphic from Infowars comparing knives and assault weapons. Some fine cherry-picking there!ReplyDelete
I read the same article to my Critical Thinking class last week, by the way. Some lively (and thoughtful) discussion followed. Four of my students approached me after class to ask for your blog's URL.
After reading the original Bang Bang Sanity post, I actually wrote my Congressional representative to expose him to your ideas. I’ve written him before and received responses, but not this time. It was Todd Rokita, so I shold have expected that, I suppose. Ditto with the Honorable Joe Donnelly.
I continue to link to that post whenever it’s relevant in the other venues I frequent, to usually tepid response, if anything.
Well, I’ll keep trying, and I’d urge everyone else who knows about your idea to do the same, because it’s just fucking brilliant.
Glad to see you’re still kicking. I know you’re a busy man, but as I'm Facebook and Twitter-free, long absences cause a certain furrowing of the brow…
Religion, rifles (and other guns) and republicans...a very dangerous mixReplyDelete
"Check out the BIG BRAIN on BRAD!" (Samuel L. Jackson, 'Pulp Fiction.')ReplyDelete
Sadly, though, I have some ex-friends who became ex-friends because they were perfectly in sync with 'ol Brad's thinking.
New boss at work. Conservative, GOP state government appointee's minion. Former USAF F-15 pilot. Wears an eye patch. He scheduled meetings with everyone in the department. During my meeting, I called out the elephant in the room. "Hey, why the eye patch?" He responded, "I was cleaning a shotgun and shot myself in the face. Lost an eye, career as a fighter pilot was over. Should have checked the thing to see if it was loaded, but didn't. My own damned fault." He had no qualms over my question, in fact seemed to welcome my curiosity. He accepted full responsibility for his actions. I always appreciated his frank response.ReplyDelete
In terms of deflection, the Trumpian gun humpers always do this, it's a deliberate and almost reflexive form of "defense" for people like them who don't want to talk about guns because they basically can't, not without conceding to issues they don't want to. This is to the extent where they don't care about the implications of what they say in reflex. This leads to them coming off as completely imbecilic and maliciously biased.ReplyDelete
I had this fool once over on MJ who came up all accusatory and brought up of all things, DUI, to challenge the gun discourse going on and implying that it is somehow taking away the attention and discussion that DUI SHOULD have (and also because DUI kills more people than guns each year), and because we are not talking about it, we are talking about guns, somehow that meant that none of us cared about DUI. NONE OF US CARED. Because we didn't talk about DUI, we don't care about it. And so we are somehow hypocrites for being concerned over guns. He kept pushing that over and over.
Well first off, by this idiot's account, because we don't talk about something, it shows we don't care about it, applying that standard to him, since he didn't talk about things like the world, his family, his children, heck, HIMSELF, by that standard I guess he doesn't care about any of those things either.
Putting aside this stupid bit of stupid however, we come to the other implication that somehow this discourse over guns is taking away much deserved and due attention from discourse on DUI. In response to THAT accusation, I asked him the following:
"You say that discourse on guns is taking away attention from discourse, much needed discourse, on DUI. DUI is something that is ever present, a problem that happens on an almost daily basis. Because of that it stands to reason that there is never a time when DUI should not be talked about. However discourse on guns isn't ever-present. it only flares up after a mass shooting or so. During the times when people are NOT talking about guns, they should, ostensibly according to you, be talking about DUI since you claim that talk on guns is drawing away attention from talk on DUI. Do they? Do they talk about DUI when they are not talking about guns? What about you? When was the last time you discussed DUI seriously and pushed for others to do the same apart from now?"
I didn't receive a reply to this as expected, but the answers could not be more obvious. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that DUI discourse isn't particularly poignant in society because there's nary a great incident to make it so. It has become so normalized it's practically a part of life. That's not to say it isn't a problem and we shouldn't talk about it, however due to the nature of DUI itself being normalized, the claim that "discourse on guns takes away from attention to DUI" is utterly false because people aren't looking at or talking about DUI even when there's no discourse on guns going on.
And while I can't speak for him, I'd bet my life savings that this fool only ever brings up DUI and the like in attempts to deflect from discussions on guns.
Whenever such people bring up "other problems" as a form of deflection or to accuse people discussing guns of hypocrisy, it's a safe bet that these people care about the issues they bring up only as far as their worth as a suitable means of deflection or of laying the claim of hypocrisy on those that talk about guns.
Elsewhere I am known as Tim D. Former 76y20 (armorer)ReplyDelete
Welcome to my Arms Room, if you have not removed your magazine, please go outside to the discharge barrel, place the muzzle into the barrel; drop the magazine then pull the trigger. Once that is done, you are to place the weapon on safe then pull the bolt to the rear and lock it in place. Once that is done you may get back in line to turn in my weapons. I will inspect for cleanliness, proper lubrication and any abuse. If I see any wear and tear that can not be explained, I will write the weapons serial number down for further inspection. I will be ensuring each and every weapon that you turn into me will be EMPTY of rounds by looking into the chamber. I also expect 7 empty magazines from each and every one of you. Now, LINE UP! .. that was fun.. always assume a weapon is loaded....always assume a weapon is loaded.
Followed a Facebook link to your blog and all I can say is "GOD YES!" I'm a serving member of the RCN, currently tasked as a recruit instructor. This is one of the precepts I hammer my recruits on DAILY. There's a REASON an "accident" with a service weapon is called a negligent discharge and that an ND is a chargeable offense, even if it happens in the clearing bay.ReplyDelete
Jim, as an ex- military man, shouldn't the appropriate response be, "STFU, Carl!" ��ReplyDelete
I'm going to turn this around and throw it in someone's face next time they bring up an "accidental" shooting.ReplyDelete
"Oh, so you *do* believe that guns kill people!"
If you imagine that it is a flaming torch (or flame thrower) instead of a gun it makes more sense to the deliberately dense goalpost movers...ReplyDelete
My apologies if this is a duplicate comment. I don't know if my original one was successful (I didn't get the usual message that comments are moderated).ReplyDelete
Thanks, again, for an exquisitely articulated post. Your entire "Bang, Bang Crazy" series should be required reading in every high school (and not just in the U.S.).
I don't consider any of my friends on Facebook or in real life as stupid (ignorant may be another matter), but how some can't seem to distinguish between an "accident" and an "unintended consequence" is beyond me. I think emotions get in the way.
A couple of typos:
- Paragraph beginning, "Guns are killing machines. When you pick one up, you and you alone are responsible what happens next. ..." Missing the word "for."
- Paragraph beginning, "What this means is that even if I witness you unload ... I will still assume that the weapon is loaded when you hand it to me - until I personally check it clear and safe myself." Should it read, after the dash, "until I personally check that it is clear ..."?
- Paragraph immediately following the one above, "You check the weapon ever single time you pick it up." Should read "every."
See, you have to think of guns and other dangerous man made objects as toys. Toys don’t invoke responsibility, they just *are*.ReplyDelete
[context: I'm Australian, and thus don't actually have a dog in this fight]ReplyDelete
I'm starting to think what the USA really needs is a counter-voice to the NRA - a RGOA (Responsible Gun-Owners Association). A voice which basically points out: owning a gun may be a constitutionally given right, but it needs to be treated as a responsibility as well. Gun ownership and use needs to be taken at least as seriously as car ownership and use in the USA, and I think at least part of what might swing the trend back in that direction is having the responsible owners of guns getting together and openly saying on a regular basis: the NRA is not speaking for me.
If nothing else, it will start to diminish the authority of the NRA as "the voice of American gun owners".
That said, I'm totally in agreement with everything you said here. If people want to own guns, they have to be aware they're taking on the responsibility of owning a deadly weapon, and exercise due care and attention. Which means keeping the gun unloaded unless it needs to be loaded. Which means keeping the damn things in a locked safe when they're not in use. Which might even mean keeping them in the safe at a gun club or firing range rather than in your private home if you're living in a densely populated area, or a rental property where a safe can't be fitted. (As an Australian, I have somewhat... divergent views to many folks in the USA as to whether the right to home gun ownership is a necessary thing for people who are urban dwellers, but I'm willing to live and let live on that one. Different contexts, different circumstances and all). My opinion is if your weapon causes the death of ANYONE (even if it's as a result of having the blinkin' thing stolen from you) then you should be at least investigated for negligent homicide as a result. It's a deadly weapon, just like a car. It needs to be treated as such.
The NRA may offer membership and tout itself as a lobby for gun owners, but in reality it is a lobby for gun manufacturers.Delete
In which case presumably gun-owners need a voice in the first place. It might be interesting to see what happened if there was one.Delete
well I'm a gun guy too . . . and I been around longer than you . . . and I gotta say . . . you are correct . . .ReplyDelete
This has been the mantra in public safety for a couple of decades: if it's predictable it's preventable. If it's preventable it's not an accident. No where is this more applicable than firearm handling.ReplyDelete
I'm becoming convinced that armaphile works better in conversation than ammosexual. The gun fetishists can figure out what ammosexual means but most of them cannot fathom dense verbiage like armaphile. The longer it takes them to work out whether they are being insulted or not, the longer it takes them to hit reply and respond. It is that gap in time where enlightenment might occur. Might.ReplyDelete
Of course, I remember when you could be a gunnut and be proud of that fact. Now they get mad at even the hint that their fannish behavior towards weapons isn't the most logical response to all problems. They've lost all humor and all sense of proportion. Proof that they are actually too unstable to be trusted with guns in the first place.
I didn't know of your blog until I saw it in a FB comment tonight. Thank heavens you exist and write with clarity, humor, emotion, and morality. I'm now officially a rabid fan.ReplyDelete
Thank you Jim, for also bringing up your Bang Bang Sanity article, if even in a link at the bottom. I've shared that a few times. The most frequent objection to the proposals there seems to hinge on accidents. So many people can't seem to accept that the person responsible for the machine, is also responsible for any damage or injury caused with that machine.ReplyDelete
As another commenter has already mentioned, failure to accept a no accidents mindset, gives the lie to our assertion to the anti-gunners that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I do find it strange that folks who advocate loudly for personal responsibility seem to backtrack on that when it comes to taking full responsibility, including for accidents, with their own firearm.
There are three actions our government can take that I could support. That is because they don't violate the 2nd amendment, or the several protections of due process in the constitution.
1. The NRA safety rules as federal law, as you proposed in Bang Bang Sanity.
2. Well crafted gun violence restraining orders enacted at the stare or local level.
3. Raising the age limit for gun ownership to 21. I'm still on the fence a bit on this one, but the age restriction on handguns has stood for years without any constitutional challenge.
Once again - excellent article. Logical and well stated. Thank you for being a voice of sanity in an ever increasing deluge of desperately hysterical nonsense from those brainwashed by the NRA.ReplyDelete
Agreed. Totally. I live in a state that has excused "accidental" shootings, where you can leave a loaded gun in an unlocked car and then cry foul when it's stolen. If you're too stupid to treat a gun as always being loaded, and too stupid to keep it secured, you're too stupid to own a gun.ReplyDelete
Even if your unloaded gun is stolen from your locked car, you are too stupid to own a gun!Delete
"Jerry CritterMarch 12, 2018 at 2:03 PM
Even if your unloaded gun is stolen from your locked car, you are too stupid to own a gun!"
I would disagree with Jerry Critter. There are reasonable precautions. Have a look at Jim's Bang Bang Sanity article. In his proposals, there is room for weapons accessible for home and personal defense, as well as other reasonable precautions for exercising the right.
I've transported weapons for range firing, hunting, and historical reenacting. Often, the only secure place, other than on your person, when the weapons were not in use is a locked car.
State and local laws differ in how to legally store a weapon in a car, so folks have to pay attention.
You are assuming that a locked car is secure. It is not!Delete
I'm not talking about 100%. I'm talking reasonable precaution. Neither are most homes 100% secure. But to exercise the right, you take reasonable precautions.Delete
If I'm transporting a gun, I'm doing so in accordance with the laws of the state I'm in. I don't advertise the presence of the gun. I park in an area where the vehicle is less likely to be broken into or stolen. Reasonable precautions.
Sorry, but in my opinion, “reasonable precautions” is another term for “plausible deniability”.Delete
Or, to put it succintly, if anything bad happens to you, it's YOUR fault!Delete
Get mugged? Your fault. Get cancer? Your fault. Meteor strikes your home? Also your fault.
After all, your bar of culpability is at the "if it happens it's your fault" and disregards any and all measures taken to mitigate or prevent such (because you know, sometimes, even with the best of preparations to prevent shit, shit still happens)
"Jerry CritterMarch 13, 2018 at 10:12 AMDelete
Sorry, but in my opinion, “reasonable precautions” is another term for “plausible deniability”."
What would that person be denying? That they were lawfully exercising a constitutional right?
Do you have any suggestions then? Suggestions that accommodate the lawful exercise of second amendment rights?
Say you were transporting a rifle, shotgun, and a handgun to an out of state target competition that involved multiple days of travel. I'll give you discretely removing the weapons into the hotel room overnight as a reasonable measure that would keep the weapons out of the unattended car overnight.
“what would that person be denying?” They are denying responsibility.Delete
“Suggestions...” The fact that you have a gun accommodates the lawful exercise of second amendment rights. The 2nd amendment does not address the responsible ownership of guns.
“Or, to put it succintly, if anything bad happens to you, it's YOUR fault!“Delete
I, and this post, are discussing guns, not “anything”.
Still lurking so won't register, but spot on:ReplyDelete
NY Post Teacher accidentally fires while teaching gun safety
Actually, two individuals 'accidentally' fired guns in schools yesterday. One of the individuals was a police officer.Delete
CS in Fl
It's insulting to anyone who has fallen victim to gun crimes for it to be categorized as an "accident". I think more people need to speak up about their outrage, no excuses, because guns are not a joke, and they need to be more heavily regulated. Even with my cracked phone, I can't be stopped from speaking my mind, and expressing my anger in this topic. Responsibility needs to be taken and acknowledged.ReplyDelete
Have you read this article in Scientific American?ReplyDelete