Sunday, January 20, 2013

UPDATE VI: 5 people shot at 3 different gun shows on Gun Appreciation Day

Looks like the final tally is 5 people shot at gun shows today. I sincerely hope they're all okay. (4 more non-gun-show reportedly accidental shootings occurred today; 2 dead.)

Sorry again for my errors. I was moving way too fast.

* * * * *

Raleigh, North Carolina:
At least two people were injured Saturday afternoon in an apparent accidental shooting at the gun show being held at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds. 
Emergency crews responded to the scene shortly after 1 p.m., and two people were loaded into ambulances. 
A witness told WRAL that a gun went off after being checked by an official at a safety check-in location, hitting a man in the hand and a woman in the side.
• Update: This has been updated to 3 people injured.

• And it was a cop.

Medina, Ohio:
The Medina Police Department said one man was shot at the Medina County gun show in Medina Saturday afternoon.
The man was transported by EMS to a nearby hospital and his condition is unknown at this time. 
Update II: Holy crap - another one:
INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) - A person who was loading a gun outside of the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife Show at the State Fairgrounds was accidentally shot when his gun discharged Saturday afternoon.
The incident was reported shortly after 4:15 p.m. Saturday.
Indy 1500 Gun and Knife Show PIO Ashley Varner says the man had been inside at the gun show before the incident.
He was walking back to his car, was loading his semi-automatic pistol and accidentally shot himself in the hand, Varner says.
Update VI: 4 more non-gun-show reported accidental shootings today:

• Just horrible.

Another

Another

Ugh

•••••••••

Updates III, IV, and V not from today.  Too sloppy. I am very sorry. 

Update III: NOT TODAY. FROM JANUARY 9. 1 more, in Ohio again:

Update IV: ALSO NOT FROM TODAY! FROM OCTOBER.Two more:

Update V, from yesterday 2009 - Oh, Christ:
A man who thought there was an intruder in his house shot and killed his fiancee the day before they were to be married, police said Friday. (Related: From October, 2 retired cops shoot and kill own sons thinking they're intruders.)

32 comments:

  1. idjets and guns..what a great combination.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not just idjets - accidents happen even with highly trained people. Which is why arguing for more guns - in schools especially - is nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And yet, LT, all of the deadliest mass shootings in the US have happened in gun-free zones. Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I agree, especially that mass murder at Fort Hood in '09. Another gun free zone shot up. All those soldiers were just fish in a barrel. The 12 dead and 31 wounded.

      Delete
    2. Saxman, There were guns galore at Fort Hood. Virginia Tech has zits own police department. At Columbine High, an armed guard engaged the shooters in gunfire. Please, dude, grab some actual facts before beginning to type.

      Delete
    3. If people actually fact checked themselves they would have nothing to type.

      Delete
    4. JBSaxman's argument is not necessarily the best counterargument to LT, but LT's assertion is even more baseless. to Anonymous #2, read JBSaxman's later posts explaining why there actually weren't many guns at Fort Hood. Also, Police Departments and Armed Guards have two entirely different duties. An armed guard, by definition, guards an area or building for the duration of his shift, regardless of whether there is an active threat or not. Police only respond to active threats, usually with a substantial delay, rendering them ineffective in most mass-shooting scenarios.

      At Columbine High, saying armed guard (Deputy Gardner) was ineffective is not well substantiated. Yes, students were killed, but Gardner put up resistance that allegedly allowed other students to escape while he occupied the attention of the killers with gunfire. Whether or not Harris and Klebold would have killed more students without the intervention of Gardner is purely speculation, but as an armed guard, Gardner did his job by suppressing Harris and Klebold for an appreciable amount of time.


      Please dude, fact check yourself before fact checking others.

      Delete
  4. JB - too damn stupid for a response - but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

    ReplyDelete
  5. The one in Marietta happened last week, fwiw.

    ReplyDelete
  6. LT - Contrary to popular belief, military installations are not rampant with firearms. Unless one is an MP, in fact, or on training duties, nobody carries their weapon and they are typically secured in the weapons depot.

    But what do I know? I was only stationed at Ft Benning and Ft Sam Houston.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But it makes your "gun-free zone" nonsense nonsense just the same.

    ReplyDelete
  8. How so? Military posts are gun-free unless you are authorized to carry. Exactly like ... say ... a federal building or court house.

    Look at the state of Utah. It is legal for concealed carry permit holders to conceal-carry inside of public schools and universities. How many school shootings have occurred in Utah?

    In fact, there are numerous reports of incidents all over the US where a would-be gun-man went to a school (using that as an example, though there are many reports of other public locations) with the intent of committing mass murder only to be stopped or put down by another person who was legally conceal-carrying.

    The reality is, much to blind-eye of the gun-control lobby, the presence of legal firearms is a deterrent to shootings, whether completely discouraging them or minimizing the number of casualties.

    All it takes is an apples-to-apples comparison and and unbiased view.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There were armed MPs there! Good god almighty! It was not a "gun-free zone"!

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Military posts are gun-free unless you are authorized to carry. Exactly like ... say ... a federal building or court house."

    MP's are just like any other police force. They're not omni-present.

    Just like any other gun-free zone, the victims were sitting ducks/fish in a barrel until authorities were able put him down.

    And no, there were no armed MP's at the scene. The two respondents were civilian police officers.

    But to further make my point, here is a direct quote from the wiki article that you posted:

    "According to testimony from witnesses, Hasan passed up several opportunities to shoot civilians, and instead targeted soldiers in uniform.[28] ****These soldiers were not allowed to carry personal firearms on the base due to military policy.****"

    Here is some light reading for you:

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=military+bases+are+gun+free+zones

    ReplyDelete
  11. Exactly the point - nobody's freaking omnipotent. Armed guards at schools would be the same.

    Too damn stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LT, even though I agree that guns are actually part of the problem, this is an invalid argument. Armed guards are first and foremost deterrents to crime, violent or otherwise, and they are not always effective in stopping a crime in progress. That being said, they statistically stop more crimes than if there were none present.

      Just as a thought experiment, say you are a jewel thief. There are two jewelry stores- one with armed guards, and one without. Would you rather rob the store with, or without armed guards?

      Now, imagine you are a jewel thief who does not care whether he dies in the commission of his crime, but considers success to be stuffing as many jewels in his bag before dying. Which store would give you the greatest chance of success? (and therefore be more likely to rob?)

      I'm not necessarily agreeing with JBSaxman's position on guns- there are plenty of counterarguments against his position, but yours is not a valid one. "Too damn stupid." reflects more on your inability to form a good argument, rather than on JBSaxman.

      Delete
    2. I don't to treat an infinitely stupid argument as anything but just that. This is a defense of guns - period - and one that works for them forever. If we had armed guards in every goddamned school in the U.S. and there were still shootings these guys would say the problem was that there weren't enough armed guards.

      There are more than 300 million guns in America. At what point do people like you finally say, Uh, well, maybe it isn't about more guns?

      Delete
  12. My point: With the exception of the Kathy Giffords shooting, every mass shooting has occurred in GUN-FREE zones.

    In zones that were open, shootings have been minimized to 3 or fewer casualties, excluding the malicious gunman, by the presence of a civilian conceal carry permit holder. You just don't hear about them as frequently because there is nothing to sensationalize about it.

    As stated. Gun-free zones create a sitting-duck/fish in a barrel scenario. The facts speak for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, that's a load. Almost every single "civilian" concealed carry permit-holder that stopped a shooting was an off-duty police officer or ex-military. In other words, someone who has actually been trained for combat.

      Delete
  13. That isnt because they were gin free zones, but because thats where the targets were. Dont confuse incidental facts, with cause and affect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To Anonymous #1:

      Saying "that's where the targets were" is a completely empty argument. Generally the "targets" of mass shootings are relatively indiscriminate within the area of the shooting, and generally not limited to a specific demographic within the population of the area. Targeting behavior is more accurately attributed to serial killers.


      To author LT:

      Although JBSaxman's reasoning does not make for an airtight argument, he is presenting you with (true) facts that you summarily dismiss based on an opinion you hold. Fighting facts with "nuh-uh that's nonsense" is childish and displays an unwillingness to even consider facts that disagree with your pre-solidified viewpoint. Fight facts with facts, otherwise you are simply spouting unsubstantiated dogma.

      Here's a more coherent argument against gun ownership: Mass murders are tragic, but pale in comparison with the 15,000 who die annually in the U.S. from gun violence, and ~50,000 more who are injured from intentional gun violence. Focusing a debate on mass murders detracts from the main issue that 65,000 people are being intentionally shot every year in the U.S. . Reducing the number of guns available to civilians will correspondingly reduce the availability of guns to criminals. This has been proven in Australia (I'm a U.S. citizen, fyi), where, after a government-mandated gun buyback, gun-related deaths have dropped even as violent crime rates have increased. The facts show that with less guns, you get less deaths.

      Are gun rights supporters willing to continue pushing their "no new legislation" agenda even in the face of 15,000 annual deaths? As the old platitude goes: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." If you do nothing, then you tacitly admit that 15,000 gun deaths per year is fine.

      If you aren't willing to go as far as disarmament (which may be unrealistic in the USA), at least consider this: why are we required to be licensed to operate motor vehicles we own? Why do we have to buy car insurance? It's simple. Cars are inherently dangerous. You aren't even supposed to sell a car to another individual without properly transferring registration. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to realize that the same should be true of guns. Current laws prohibit straw purchase, but allow undocumented private sale. This, in essence, makes straw purchase simply a matter of intent, and therefore unenforceable. Gun owners are not held liable for damages caused by firearms they own, etc. etc. There are common sense legislative measures that can make guns safer, without banning "Assault Weapons" or "high capacity magazines". Regulation doesn't mean the death of guns, it is just a means to encourage individuals to take responsibility for the negative aspects of gun ownership. If there were no negatives, trust me, we wouldn't be trying to regulate them at all.

      Delete
  14. The one about the man who shot his fiancee, thinking she was an intruder in the house, was published October 2009, so that's a little more than 3 years old... but still, Gun Appreciation Day = awful, dismal failure, and it only proved that stricter gun control laws are needed in the US!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn it - that one was on Twitter and the twitterer said yesterday. I should have checked closer. Fixed.

      Delete
  15. Here in CT, not far from Sandy Hook, we had a father shoot his son, not knowing who he was.
    At the Empire State Building this past summer, there were 9 innocent bystanders injured by police officers as they attempted to apprehend someone who shot 2 others. The gunman killed himself.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Live in fear and cary a gun. Or live somewhere where nobody carries guns and live without fear. I used to live in the southern U.S. but now live once again in Canada. I worry about old people driving more than I worry about guns.

    ReplyDelete
  17. We can discuss gun controll and mental illness all day and come to no answer. The truth is, if people did not life in fear they more than likely wouldn't have guns for the mentally ill to come steal and use to shoot up elementary schools.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Destin, that is stupid. The UK has some of the toughest gun laws in world, that doesn't stop people from getting murdered, it just changes the means.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It also statistically reduces the number of deaths per violent crime. Less guns = Less deaths. Worldwide statistics support this. For example, at the time of the Sandy Hook shooting, there was a similar attack at a Chinese school by a man wielding a knife. He injured a bunch of people, but none died.

      I'm not necessarily for or against the removal of guns from civilized society, I'm just pointing out the invalidity of your argument, and suggesting you use a better one.

      Delete
  19. People who use guns to kill kids or large groups of unarmed people are cowards. I am fairly certain that most of them would not go after a large group with a kitchen knife.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This was not a "gun-free zone."

    "ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—A 15-year-old boy fatally shot two adults and three children at a home near Albuquerque, authorities said Sunday...

    Investigators also were trying to determine who owned several guns that were found at the home, one of which was a semi-automatic military-style rifle."

    http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22414092?source=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    ReplyDelete