Thread: "Accidental" shooting in church

Originally Posted by Porras

In my opinion, any accidental discharge that results in a person being struck above the knee is criminal negligence. You don't point a gun at anything you're not willing to shoot.

He wasnt pointing it at anything but the wall, which he didnt intend to shoot. There just happened to be another person on the other side of the wall when the gun fired.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Let's look at the "accidental" nature of this shooting.

Before the shot was fired:

• The gun was taken out of the hoster / case. Deliberate act.
• The gun was improperly cleared. Negligent act.
• The gun was pointed in an unsafe direction. Deliberate act.
• The trigger was pulled. Deliberate act.
• The pistol discharged. Negligent act.
• The round passed through the wall and struck the victim in the head. Accident.

The fact that the round hit the victim was an accident. Every step leading up to that was either a deliberate act or a negligent act, IMHO.

Matt

We dont actually know some of that, or the motivation behind it.

Originally Posted by RDK

Fewer guns available in circulation the fewer guns available idiots and criminals will be able to get a hold of.

The thing about the pro unrestricted gun ownership crowd is that they cannot see that while having gun controls in place will not keep every gun out of a criminal and or idiot’s hands it will reduce the number available for idiots and criminals resulting in many of the 81 Americans a day who die by gun.

That is all wishful thinking at best. For one, there are plenty of "gun free" zones and there is plenty of crime in them. Second, fewer guns in circulation is not realistic. We have been through that lesson many times now (for many different reasons applied to more than just guns.) If there is demand, someone will handle it with supply. Third, we do not have unrestricted gun ownership now. Not even close. Idiots will always be out there, your foolish solution is to punish those that are not willing to break the law is at best a vain effort.

Originally Posted by jviehe

He wasnt pointing it at anything but the wall, which he didnt intend to shoot. There just happened to be another person on the other side of the wall when the gun fired.

Responsible gun handlers know that bullets travel through walls and would never pull the trigger while pointing at one unless they intended to shoot someone in the next room. Frankly, I never dry fire my guns at all....the guy was a moron, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Responsible gun handlers know that bullets travel through walls and would never pull the trigger while pointing at one unless they intended to shoot someone in the next room. Frankly, I never dry fire my guns at all....the guy was a moron, plain and simple.

Agreed, no reason to dry fire the gun anyway.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Responsible gun handlers know that bullets travel through walls and would never pull the trigger while pointing at one unless they intended to shoot someone in the next room. Frankly, I never dry fire my guns at all....the guy was a moron, plain and simple.

Its a valid opinion. Im simply rebutting the implication that he was pointing the gun at something he didnt intend to shoot. All the evidence shows that he didnt intend to shoot anything.

Originally Posted by jviehe

We dont actually know some of that, or the motivation behind it.

Before the shot was fired:

The gun was taken out of the hoster / case. Deliberate act.
The gun was improperly cleared. Negligent act.
The gun was pointed in an unsafe direction. Deliberate act.
The trigger was pulled. Deliberate act.
The pistol discharged. Negligent act.
The round passed through the wall and struck the victim in the head. Accident.

What part don't we know to be fact?

Originally Posted by jviehe

Its a valid opinion. Im simply rebutting the implication that he was pointing the gun at something he didnt intend to shoot. All the evidence shows that he didnt intend to shoot anything.

No one is saying that he "intended" to shoot anything. What we are saying is that his irresponsible actions injured an innocent party and he shouldn't get off scot-free.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Its a valid opinion. Im simply rebutting the implication that he was pointing the gun at something he didnt intend to shoot. All the evidence shows that he didnt intend to shoot anything.

Yet clearly did, in a haze of stupidity. Someone's life is on the line because of it, the moron should face the most harsh criminal charge possible for it.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Before the shot was fired:

The gun was taken out of the hoster / case. Deliberate act.
The gun was improperly cleared. Negligent act.
The gun was pointed in an unsafe direction. Deliberate act.
The trigger was pulled. Deliberate act.
The pistol discharged. Negligent act.
The round passed through the wall and struck the victim in the head. Accident.

What part don't we know to be fact?

That the gun had a safety?

He's just being a typical liberal. People aren't responsible for their actions and guns are evil.

Originally Posted by Texan

That the gun had a safety?

He's just being a typical liberal. People aren't responsible for their actions and guns are evil.

Execept Im a libertarian who loves guns. Feel stupid?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

No one is saying that he "intended" to shoot anything. What we are saying is that his irresponsible actions injured an innocent party and he shouldn't get off scot-free.

And Im saying that if we want guns to be common, then we have to accept that accidents are going to happen. And that wont need to resort to severe punishment when they do.

Originally Posted by jviehe

We dont actually know some of that, or the motivation behind it.

Which part do you contend we do not know?