Another day's "tragic accidents"

[seamusTX]

All these incidents took place late Thursday, May 28, or on Friday:

Jackson County [Kansas City, Missouri] prosecutors on Friday charged a 24-year-old man with involuntary manslaughter after he allegedly shot his girlfriend in the chest while he was trying to clear his gun.

Prosecutors also charged Pervis D. Smith Jr. with armed criminal action in the death of 23-year-old Takiya L. Love on Thursday at their home in the 2000 block of Walrond Avenue. The couple has two children.

Witnesses told police that Smith was handling his gun when Love asked him to “stop playing with it and put it up,” according to court records. Smith ejected six rounds from the gun, then — apparently thinking the gun was empty — pointed it in Love’s direction and pulled the trigger.

Her sister and Smith drove Love to a hospital, where she died.

He told police the shooting was an accident and he “was very distraught” while talking to detectives, according to court records. According to the records, a man who possibly owned the gun took it away.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/1224076.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2009/05/kil ... h_jr_c.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (AP) — Police in central California say a 2-year-old boy has died after being accidentally shot by his 3-year-old sister.

Bakersfield police Sgt. Greg Terry says the girl apparently found a .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun under her parents' bed Wednesday afternoon and accidentally shot her brother.

The wounded boy was taken to Kern Medical Center where he was later pronounced dead.

Police say the children's mother was in another area of the apartment at the time of the shooting. Their father was at work.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD98F20JO1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Orlando, Florida area] Dillon Charles, 16, sustained a gunshot wound to the head after accidentally shooting himself while handling a revolver, but his condition is unknown at this time.

The Deltona teen was alive but not responsive to deputies when they arrived at the scene. He was taken by helicopter to the Halifax Health Medical Center in Daytona.

Charles was at a friend's house when the shooting occurred. The revolver belongs to the mother who lives at the residence.

"The mother told us she kept it hidden in her bedroom," said Gary Davidson, a spokesperson for the Volusia County Sheriff's Office. The mother was not home when the shooting occurred.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loc ... ?track=rss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ONEIDA COUNTY, N.Y. -- An Oneida County man is in the hospital after he was shot during a hunting accident.

Oneida County Sheriff Deputies say William Wehnke was hunting a turkey Friday in the woods near his home in the Town of Annsville. Wehnke fired a shot at what he thought was the turkey and instead hit Matthew Brady, 26.

Brady, a private investigator, had been sent to the area to investigate Wehnke's worker's compensation case and had been laying [sic] in the woods doing surveillance. Deputies say that neither man knew the other was in the area.

Brady is in serious condition at St. Elizabeth's Hospital.

Wehnke has been charged with second degree assault.

http://news10now.com/content/all_news/4 ... -hospital/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



- Jim

[A-R]

Many different interpretations of this - legal, moral, and otherwise - but I do not believe there is any such thing as an "accident" involving guns. The words "accident" or "accidental" are almost right in many cases, as they imply an occurance that is unintentional, unfortunate, and unforeseen. However they also imply an occurance happening by chance and without fault, which not correct about any "accidental" shooting I've ever heard/read.

The proper term, IMHO, is "negligent" or "negligence". All cases cited above were a result of negligence on someone's part.

By using the term negligent, we put these incidents the proper context and perspective. Every single gun "accident" I've ever known was PREVENTABLE if someone had simply done what they were supposed to do. By eliminating from our vocabulary the term "accident" when discussing guns, we instill the necessary responsibility for gun safety that all must follow.

The term "accident" lets the irresponsible off the hook for their negligence.

[KD5NRH]

Brady, a private investigator, had been sent to the area to investigate Wehnke's worker's compensation case and had been laying [sic] in the woods doing surveillance. Deputies say that neither man knew the other was in the area.

Conveniently, he shoots the PI that's investigating him. Meanwhile, the PI, doing surveillance, is completely unaware of his target's presence. Just a bit heavy on the coincidences there, IMO.

[74novaman]

Witnesses told police that Smith was handling his gun when Love asked him to “stop playing with it and put it up,” according to court records. Smith ejected six rounds from the gun, then — apparently thinking the gun was empty — pointed it in Love’s direction and pulled the trigger.

WHY would you EVER break one of the basic rules?

Seems to me if you're pointing a gun at your girlfriend and pulling the trigger, even if you "think" its empty, somewhere in your head you're entertaining thoughts of getting rid of her.



My girlfriend comes from a non gun family, but I insisted on teaching her basic gun safety if shes going to be around where my guns are. Even she, who's only shot ONCE in her life, understands you never a) point the gun at something you care about and b)never pull the trigger on an "empty" gun if its not pointed in a safe direction.

I would just never pull a trigger on an empty gun, but its part of the takedown procedure for my pistol, so I have to. After about 3 checks that it is, indeed, empty I'll do it. And even then, its done pointing at the floor...

[dicion]

So we have 2 Violations of the 'basic 4' rules

2 Violations of not securing your firearms from children

And one hunting 'accident'.. Although, if you were investigating someone, while they were hunting, laying down in the woods near them, while they are hunting, is Probably NOT a smart idea.

[LittleGun]

These reports are reinforcement to me to always practice safety. In my house, the gun is always loaded. No exceptions.

[ClarkLZeuss]

(1) never point the gun at something you care about

That just became my new favorite way to explain that rule.

[Purplehood]

Brady, a private investigator, had been sent to the area to investigate Wehnke's worker's compensation case and had been laying [sic] in the woods doing surveillance. Deputies say that neither man knew the other was in the area.

Conveniently, he shoots the PI that's investigating him. Meanwhile, the PI, doing surveillance, is completely unaware of his target's presence. Just a bit heavy on the coincidences there, IMO.

LOL. So if he didn't know his subject was there, what was he surveying?

[Mike from Texas]

Many different interpretations of this - legal, moral, and otherwise - but I do not believe there is any such thing as an "accident" involving guns. The words "accident" or "accidental" are almost right in many cases, as they imply an occurance that is unintentional, unfortunate, and unforeseen. However they also imply an occurance happening by chance and without fault, which not correct about any "accidental" shooting I've ever heard/read.

The proper term, IMHO, is "negligent" or "negligence". All cases cited above were a result of negligence on someone's part.

By using the term negligent, we put these incidents the proper context and perspective. Every single gun "accident" I've ever known was PREVENTABLE if someone had simply done what they were supposed to do. By eliminating from our vocabulary the term "accident" when discussing guns, we instill the necessary responsibility for gun safety that all must follow.

The term "accident" lets the irresponsible off the hook for their negligence.

I agree 100%.

We used to have a safety director at a company I used to work for. His philosophy was exactly the same. No such thing as an accident, just cause and effect. No matter what the situation is something can always be traced back to negligence somewhere.

[srothstein]

The words "accident" or "accidental" are almost right in many cases, as they imply an occurance that is unintentional, unfortunate, and unforeseen. However they also imply an occurance happening by chance and without fault, which not correct about any "accidental" shooting I've ever heard/read.

I agree 100%.

I personally disagree. I have seen this point debated in the AD/ND frame of reference and in the car crash frame also. In both cases, I strongly disagree and see no implication of chance or without fault. I have always thought an accident was something that happened unintentionally, though i will also stipulate to the unfortunate and unforeseen parts of the definition above.

But, for about 30 years I have been asked to list the causes of vehicle accidents I investigated and determine who was at fault. I have not yet written one, but the DPS troopers did write tickets for negligent collision at accident scenes. We all grew up knowing that at any car accident, someone would be found at fault and have to pay for their negligence.

Yet, a couple years ago the state changed the name of the form from an accident report to a crash report because they claimed the word accident implied no fault and there are people doing the same thing with the unintentional discharge of a firearm.

This strikes me as just being more political correctness and I decline to go along. I still call them car accidents and I still call them accidental discharges. In no way do I think they are unavoidable or not caused by negligence. I simply think they are the unintentional results of someone's actions.

[Oldgringo]

srothstein wrote:

I still call them car accidents and I still call them accidental discharges. In no way do I think they are unavoidable or not caused by negligence. I simply think they are the unintentional results of someone's actions.

Steve, wouldn't

the unintentional results of someone's actions

just about meet definition 1 b: below?


Main Entry:neg·li·gence
Pronunciation:\ˈne-gli-jən(t)s\
Function:noun
Date:14th century
1 a: the quality or state of being negligent b: failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances
2: an act or instance of being negligent

[srothstein]

Yes, it certainly does. And they certainly are negligent discharges also.

But, I do not see why we cannot call them accidental since it also allows for negligence. The constant post that they are not accidental but negligent is my complaint of our own version of political correctness.

[A-R]

Steve,

I'll respectfully disagree and offer up this reasoning.

We - gun owners - love to recite the phrase "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." And I believe this phrase absolutely. So if it's true that guns don't kill people, then it must also be true that they don't just "go bang" for no apparent reason. Because if they did, they would have the capability of killing someone all by themselves.

To me, it's inconsistent and hypocritical to say that "guns don't kill people" but there can be such thing as an "accidental discharge". For a gun to become dangerous, the human element MUST be involved. Otherwise, a gun is just an expensive paper weight.

We - as a group fighting for our rights from those who seek to take them away - NEED to stay consistent with our message. Guns don't kill people. Guns don't fire themselves. There is no such thing as a gun "accident". Because guns - in and of themselves - are not the inherently dangerous inanimate objects that the media and liberal fear-mongers want everyone to believe.

If this - staying true to our beliefs with a consistent message to protect our cause - is what you meant by "political correctness" then I'd rephrase it "political survival".

[KD5NRH]

Guns don't fire themselves.

Properly maintained guns don't fire themselves. I've seen two that would fire themselves just fine when left chambered and cocked. One has been repaired, the other has been disabled (bolt removed and locked up separately with a note as to why) until I get around to repairing it.

[Mithras61]

Yes, it certainly does. And they certainly are negligent discharges also.

But, I do not see why we cannot call them accidental since it also allows for negligence. The constant post that they are not accidental but negligent is my complaint of our own version of political correctness.

I can certainly see your point, but I would arue that there are accidental discharges (for example, those caused by mechanical failure), and negligent discharges (for example, those caused by failure to follow the four rules).

I consider mechanical failure to be when a properly maintained firearm fails to function as designed (for example, the sear breaks and won't hold the hammer back). The breakage can't normally be prevented by routine cleaning, nor the weak spot identified before the failure. If the firearm has been kept in such poor condition that it is damaged top the point of failure, then failure to maintain is the cause of the mechanical failure, and the discharge is more properly listed as through negligence, just as if the four rules were not followed.

I believe most accidental discharges are caused by negligent behavior, but not all are, and I think its fair to call those that are through negligence differently than those that are not.