It’s another of those stories.
Det. Sgt. Troy Gilleylen of the Battle Creek Police Department said Babick and her 25-year-old boyfriend, whose name was not released, were in their upstairs bedroom at the time of the shooting, lying on their bed watching television. The boyfriend’s .45-caliber handgun was on the bed, after it had just been cleaned and loaded.
Babick got up from the bed to answer the telephone, the boyfriend told police, and when she got back in bed, the gun discharged, sending a bullet through her left rib cage.
She staggered downstairs and collapsed in the living room, where she died.
That’s tragic and terrible. But this is what also makes me furious.
The man told police she may have lain on top of the gun, or somehow hit it with her hand when she got back on the bed, causing it to discharge. Gilleylen said the distraught man has been “100 percent cooperative” with police and he has not been charged in the incident.
Wait. He’s lounging about with a loaded handgun in bed, and it goes off and kills a woman, and the police do nothing? Isn’t there a charge like negligent homicide that would be appropriate here?
This man is an idiot who killed another human being with stupidity. At the very least, he ought to have his privilege to carry guns around taken away, especially since there are two children living there. Do we have to wait until an ‘accident’ kills one of them?
Nah. As we all know, a gun-fondlers right to be a danger to others may not be infringed.
From a training point of view, this was the first mistake. A more pragmatic approach forces me to conlude, however, that the real problem lies here:
Why the fuck do people have guns? Why the fuck do they mess around with them in bed? And why the fuck does your constitution still have that amendment?*
And I should be amazed at the reaction from the police, I really should, but somehow I just don’t feel it. I guess I have reached the point where I ask myself, ‘what might the proper response from law enforcement be?’, and then assume the exact opposite is going to happen. Works like a charm. Or curse, as the case may be.
*Rhethorical question, I know, I know…
Surely he has demonstrated that he is an Irresponsible Gun Owner, and therefore completely different from any Responsible Gun Owner. Doesn’t the gun lobby generally approve of revoking the privileges of people who negligently kill [non-minority] people with their guns?
Im a gun owner and they should throw this idiot under the jail. Taking away his firearm is the least that should happen. I am not a member of any ‘gun lobby’ nor the NRA or anything remotely resembling such. As for the police reaction, they think its okay when they kill people, why is anyone surprised that they did nothing in this case? What a travesty.
Don’t agree with everything in this link, but this part is right on the money:
(Emphasis added.)
I own firearms (and have worked in law enforcement–don’t get me started on cops’ incompetence with firearms).
And speaking as a gun owner, I find this unconscionable. Giving the man every benefit of the doubt, this is identical to my parking the car on a hill without setting the parking brake, and my wife getting run over when she opens the trunk to get something and the car rolls backward over her. I expect I would not get off scot-free in that scenario, and neither should this guy.
But that’s giving the benefit of the doubt. I object still more to this attitude because it means I could shoot my wife (or vice versa) and get away with it by claiming it went off accidentally while cleaning it. Any such death is suspicious to me, because it’s much harder than people imagine for a handgun to “go off.” You have to pull the trigger. Even guns without the old fashioned “safety” (which immobilizes the trigger or disconnects it) have several safety devices that guarantee it will not discharge when dropped, sat on, hit with a hammer, or otherwise manhandled. The trigger must be pulled.
The most common accidents of this type are caused by sticking one’s finger in the trigger guard, or by something else getting in there. That’s why most accidents involve the person shooting himself in the leg: they usually involve fingers or clothing hitting the trigger while holstering, or guns placed loose in one’s pocket where keys or other articles get into the trigger guard. (The most common gun-related injury cops suffer is self-inflicted: they shoot themselves while holstering their own gun.)
So it’s possible that the gun was sitting on the bed with some pencils, batteries, and other objects, one of which pressed the trigger, but it’s sufficiently doubtful to merit investigation.
The fucking traffic code is strict liability law: running a stop sign is punished without regard to whether you meant to, whether it was an accident, or anything else. It’s not even a defense that your brakes failed or that you couldn’t see the sign[*]. If you pass the sign, you pay the ticket, period. It’s more than reasonable that shooting someone should work the same way.
[*] The only exception is if the sign was improperly posted, such as behind a tree or facing the wrong way, because then legally speaking the stop sign didn’t exist and you can’t have run it.
How did she end up downstairs? Wasn’t he with her immediately after the gun went off, trying to care for her injury?
I was curious about what restrictions there were in Michigan, and whether Michigan even required the most basic safety training before purchasing a firearm, and it seems they do not. They used to require people to fill out a little questionnaire, but as of 2012, even that tiny roadblock was removed:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Public_Act_377_406542_7.pdf?20130604173228
Even when they did have that anemic restriction in place, you only had to get 70% of the questions correct. I find it amazing how little is required of gun owners in many US states. It is not hard to get a firearms here in Canada, but at least one has to pass the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, and for restricted firearms, the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course, and they include a practical component where you have to handle multiple types of weapons and demonstrate at least a basic amount of competency in front of those giving the test.
Okay FYI, this is what a negligent homicide statute looks like in a very pro-gun state:
Utah Code
Page
1
76-5-206 Negligent homicide.
(1) Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide if the actor, acting with criminal negligence,
causes the death of another.
(2) Negligent homicide is a class A misdemeanor.
(3)
(a) In addition to the penalty provided under this section or any other section, a person who is
convicted of violating this section shall have the person’s driver license revoked under Section
53-3-220 if the death of another person results from driving a motor vehicle.
(b) The court shall forward the report of the conviction to the Driver License Division in
accordance with Section 53-3-218.
Amended by Chapter 157, 2010 General Session
So, he would be on the hook for a Class A, which carries a max of a year in county jail, a $2500 fine, and any restitution the court finds appropriate. However, prosecutorial discretion is allowed. The prosecutor may decline to prosecute the offense if submitted by the police on the grounds that the man was cooperative with the investigation, or for some other reason.
With so few laws in place to ensure even the most basic competency, I don’t know how people can talk about most firearms owners being “responsible gun owners”. There is no way to tell whether they are responsible, absolutely no evidence they are. It is just assumed, and they are responsible up until the moment they do something stupid, and suddenly they are not, and never were responsible.
Well, reading the headline I thought you were reporting on this charming gentleman
Note that the bar is low for cops, as well. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally speaking a passing score in firearms training is around 75%. In my jurisdiction, with its course of fire, that means I can shoot up to 15 bystanders and still pass my firearms qualification.
Also note: plenty of cops fail the first time around, and squeak by when they do pass. So “hitting 15 bystanders” is about what their qualifying target looks like in many cases.
Dang, this happened in my home town. I checked the map, and I’ve been through the area many times, as it is near the Post Cereal plant. The area is called the Post Division for that reason. Small middle class homes built by C.W. Post for his workers.
This was obviously a case of negligent homicide. There is no accidental discharges of guns, unless caused by something like lightening. There are negligent discharges, like this, where a loaded gun was not under the direct control of someone and being prepared to fire at a target. No gun should be stored loaded, or left unattended anywhere. The gun nutters forget about safety rules while complaining that their rights are being violated if they can’t act like total fuckwits with their weapons.
It sounds like the girl in Giliell’s link (#10) is extremely lucky to be alive, if perhaps less so for having the headless asshole who shot her for a neighbour. Apparently that wasn’t his first stray bullet and is using his backyard to practice shooting on a regular basis despite the facts.
But this quote from the article seems to fit perfectly to the shooting in the OP:
‘Oh, terribly sorry, let’s just move on.’
Oddly reminiscent, too, of the MRArsewipes who like to claim that rape isn’t a crime (or actual rape) unless it’s been reported to the police. Birds of a feather flock together.
for a pistol to discharge it needs to be loaded check
if it is a single action revolver it needs to have the hammer pulled back to the cocked position
if it is a semi-auto it also needs to have a bullet in the chamber and the hammer in the cocked position.
double action pistols will pull the hammer back with the trigger but that takes a little more prolonged force to pull back the hammer against the pressure of the spring then just to let the already cocked hammer fall with the trigger.
story sounds to pat on first glance to me I think I would need to know a little more before I could agree that it was “an accident”
uncle frogy
Basic gun safety rules should be legislated with appropriate penalties in all states. The rationalization, we aren’t banning the guns, just making sure that people handle guns in a safe manner, which includes penalties for not having your gun under control so other people aren’t hurt, and have no chance of being hurt. Leaving a loaded gun anywhere is negligence.
@James Heartney #4: I found myself thinking along those lines.
Why aren’t more Responsible Gun Owners (TM) actually lobbying to make Irresponsible Gun Ownership and related behaviors criminal?
Somehow I don’t believe this was an accident.
you may have your right to bear arms, but you may not be free of the consequences of exercising that right negligently.
In New Zealand the Arms Code provies these seven basic rules:
1. Treat every firearm as loaded
2. Always point firearms in a safe direction
3. Load a firearm only when ready to fire
4. Identify your target beyond all doubt
5. Check your firing zone
6. Store firearms and ammunition safely
7. Avoid alcohol or drugs when handling firearms
In addition it is an offence to fire a weapon in or near a dwelling. It is more than likely that the person in OP would face a charge of manslaughter (facing life imprisonment, probably with parole after 10 years) and revocation of their firearms licence.
Accidental shootings during hunting happen too often in this country, but accidetal shootings in the home are very very rare, despite a high level of gun ownership (generally hunting, target and shotguns – for hunting or skeet shooting). Ownership of pistols and MSSA type weapons is tightly controlled and at very low level. In short, there are better ways to own and manage guns.
I’d need to look at Michigan case law, but after looking at the statues it doesn’t look like a crime unless the gun owner pointed or fired the gun. M.C.L. Sec. 750.329. Not every negligently caused death is a crime. I kind of wonder what the reaction would be here if the police had charged him under the same set of facts given the race of the gun owner and victim. Local news article.
Okay, I was way off with my comparison of Utah’s statute. In Michigan, negligent homicide only applies to killing someone with your vehicle negligently. This actually goes up to Involuntary Manslaughter in Michigan. So, 15 years and a $7500 fine, as well as restitution paid to the family.
@14 unclefroggy
From PZ’s link, it looks like it was a Springfield semi auto pistol. Best guess from the fact pattern is a double action, since it goes off after girlfriend flops down on the bed. If the victim was anything like my sister or some of my girlfriends, she’s announcing she’s back by making the bed bounce him around. That would mean coming down with enough force to potentially cock and fire the pistol. It would require a round to be chambered, though.
But here’s why I was suggesting prosecutorial discretion plays a part here. The Michigan statute on this refers to criminal negligence. Negligence in Michigan requires the usual 5 elements. Duty and Breach are satisfied by having a loaded gun on the bed. Damages is a given. Cause in Fact and Proximate Cause are potentially muddied, though. Unlike a child, an adult is assumed to be acting more or less responsibly and in their own best interests. So, if victim knows there is a loaded gun on the bed and jumps on the bed anyway, a case could be made for at least some of the blame falling on her. If a prosecutor decides that is enough to constitute a reasonable doubt, he may decide not to bring it to trial. Any good defense attorney is latching on to that idea almost immediately. Also, if he’s claiming this gun is used strictly for home defense and is not a concealed carry weapon, he might get away with having a round in the chamber. (A lot of states require concealed carry weapons to be at least 2 actions away from firing. If there’s no safety or the safety isn’t set this weapon might be in violation of CCW laws meaning boyfriend is automatically negligent).
Michigan also has contributory negligence, meaning for damages that are not economic in nature, 50% or more of negligence on the victim’s side eliminates those damages, but leaves intact any economic damages like loss of wages or support to be reduced by whatever amount. So a wrongful death lawsuit might also not recover much.
I think PZ’s anger is warranted. There’s a lot of slipperiness in local law here whereby this act is needless and incredibly stupid, but does not incur any meaningful punishment. As a former, (and perhaps future), gun owner I don’t see this at all as the act of a responsible gun owner.
@qwints 20
I’m looking at Findlaw’s summary on MI: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/michigan-law/michigan-involuntary-manslaughter-law.html
and Hilf and Hilf’s website (practicing MI defense attorneys): http://www.hilfandhilf.com/blog/Murder—First-Degree-Murder-Second-Degree-Murder-Felony-Murder-Voluntary-Manslaughter-Involuntary-Manslaughter_AE81.html
These are both referring me to M.C.L. Sec. 750.321. I think you might be right for intentional aiming, but it does sound like unintentional acts like above might still be involuntary manslaughter. It doesn’t really read like M.C.L. is giving us the full statute.
@brian radovich, you’re right that there may be criminal liability under the manslaughter statute. A quick glance at the case law suggests that criminal negligence is sufficient mens rea for “common law” involuntary manslaughter.
well if it was a double or single action semi-auto pistol if he pulled the slide back to chamber a round and did not ease of the hammer off nor engage the safety and it had a fairly light trigger it could have easily gone off accidentally. If that is what happened it was certainly stupid negligent dangerous behavior
if they were high or had been drinking more so.
uncle frogy
I don’t think the mechanics of the pistol are the real point here, but several people are getting the facts a bit garbled.
Springfield makes several firearms, so the link in the OP doesn’t tell us anything useful. Their most popular line is the XD models, which are striker-fired: they do not have a hammer, and so are neither single- nor double-action in the usual sense. Instead of a hammer, they have a straight firing pin loaded with a spring. Whenever a round is chambered, the striker spring is also set under tension, so they are always “cocked” whenever they are loaded. In that sense they behave similarly to single-action pistols.
The majority of autoloading pistols are striker-fired anymore. They have no hammer, can’t be cocked, and usually don’t have a “safety” of the sort you’re picturing, that immobilizes the hammer. They have a trigger pull between 3 and 6 pounds, where 3 pounds feels like a “hair trigger,” and 6 pounds feels like a double-action revolver. Glocks are around 5 pounds; the XD id around 4 pounds. That’s a fairly light trigger, and objects that find themselves in the trigger guard can pull the trigger pretty easily.
Their other handgun is the M1911, which does have a hammer, and also has a safety that immobilizes the trigger, along with an additional safety that also immobilizes the trigger unless you are holding the handgrip. It’s unlikely that the gun in question was a 1911, so the gun is most likely neither single- nor double-action, but striker-fired, and has no hammer at all.
The safeties in modern autoloaders generally serve only to prevent it firing at all unless the trigger is pressed, but not to prevent the trigger from being pressed in the first place. For this reason, a modern autoloader is designed to stay in a holster whenever it is loaded–it’s not designed to put under your pillow, or in your nightstand, or worst of all in your pocket or your waistband. It’s intended to reside in a holster, and modern holsters cover the trigger so nothing can get at it.
Loading the gun would not be considered negligent, if the gun is intended for self-defense, but it must immediately be placed in a holster (or a case, or a safe). Guns are not kept unloaded when intended for defense. The notable exception is Israel, where most citizens are in the reserves, and a wide variety of gun types are owned: they teach everyone to draw, chamber a round, and fire, all in one motion, because it’s the only method that works for pretty much every type of gun there is. Any other method is unsafe for at least one type of gun that a reservist might own.
The bottom line is that putting a loaded gun of any kind on the bed is negligent, full stop.
@A Masked Avenger #25
I thought Springfield XDs all have grip safeties in addition to their trigger safety, while Glocks (which the linked article says it is “similar to”) only have one on the trigger, not counting its internal safeties to protect against drops. Obviously the advantage is to have more immediate fire as soon as you grip the pistol, at the risk of a shooter not handling the weapon safely and having very little, mechanically at least, to stop it from firing once the trigger is depressed, whether by a person or object. It may be more the latter in this case, but no less tragic.
I have a relative who lives in a somewhat secluded rural area, at the end of a long private drive. Though I didn’t see it myself, he once showed my dad how quickly he could grab a pistol and magazine out of his nightstand and load it (without firing, BTW). I’m not sure how necessary or expedient this really is–I have enough trouble just turning off my cell phone or alarm clock in the morning–but even with his pro-gun stance I was never under the impression that he kept a loaded weapon in his nightstand.
Being surrounded by weapons in the army, I was near plenty of negligent discharges, mostly rifles and carbines but also a few errant machine gun bursts that amazingly only shot some nearby unlucky walls and hillsides. But if you’re going to create an environment with loaded weapons and don’t train constantly, it’s almost inevitable that they will eventually be fired, whether negligently or accidentally.
I believe the girl was shot. I don’t believe any other part of the guy’s story.
The trigger must be pulled.
He killed her because he wanted to kill her.
I’ll give you Giliell’s firearms safety rules. Very easy to follow and very efficient.
#1: Don’t. Own. A. Fucking. Firearm.
That’s it. Thanks for paying attention.
It’s a pretty good question (thread title). If you accidentally kill somebody with your car (especially through negligence), you will probably still be held responsible. But guns apparently most often lead to “Who could’ve seen this tragedy coming!? Nobody is to blame, clearly!”-style accidental killings.
Apart from the little fact that there are damn good reasons why you have and drive a car, but none whatsoever why you have a gun
He was CLEARLY a responsible gun owner – he had it cleaned and loaded.
.
This is just another case of ‘stand your ground.’
Giliel 29+31: from which follows —
Rule #2: Don’t have friends who don’t take Rule #1 seriously.
It would be great if PZ fully read the articles he links to. The police did not “do nothing”; they are investigating.
to put it simply I too do not believe anything other than that the woman got shot and died
I hope the accident does not destroy what ever good there is in him and he gets some help.
and stays away from guns in the future
uncle frogy
Giliell, #29
Yup. It boggles the mind how everyone owning firearms is just axiomatically considered to be a basic human right. The discussion is not even on the table. It’s like saying we’re going to have a lion in the nursery. We just need to figure out the proper leash for it.
Also, parking a car on a hill is okay. Having a gun in bed is not.
It looks like it was probably an Springfield .45 XDS (I have the same weapon), in which case it has a set-striker, not a double-action (in practice it’s closer to a single-action, as trigger pull cannot set the striker). Obviously a round was already chambered, though, so that is all moot anyway. However, the Springfield has two primary safeties. There is a lever on the trigger and on the rear of the grip that prevent the striker from engaging and lock the slide unless depressed (ok, only one of them locks the slide, but that’s beside the point). This makes it very hard to fire without having a proper grip on the weapon. It is very, very unlikely that this gun would have gone off from someone sitting on it, even if they did so vigorously. Which makes it all the more baffling that they aren’t pursuing an investigation. Unless it was out-and-out deliberate murder that’s being covered up, I suspect that he was probably playing with the damned thing. Seriously, “she may have lain on top of the gun” flies? Setting aside how one would set off the gun, how on earth was it pointed in a direction to deliver a fatal wound “through her rib cage”? Was she laying on it end on? The whole story stinks.
But putting everything else aside and assuming that his story was the absolute truth, what kind of idiot leaves a loaded gun laying in bed with them? Seriously! Accidental discharges should be aggressively handled, to do otherwise suggests that it’s ok to cause someone else’s death through neglect or recklessness so long as you didn’t mean to kill them.
…which apparently is the case, so I don’t know why I bothered to complain about it.
@ James Hartney #4
The big problem with the NRA’s guidelines is that they are f’n nonsense. The way it was taught to me
1) No gun is ever considered to be unloaded.
2) If you think it is unloaded you’re wrong, even if you have just cleaned and can see through the breech it because rule 1
3) No safety catch is ever “On” – see rule 1
4) Never let any gun point at something you do not want to be damaged because rule 1
Subsidiary to that is that no gun is ever completely in your control and unless it is in a locked gun cabinet; if you do not own a secure lockable gun cabinet then you should not own a gun. If a gun is not in a locked gun cabinet then it should either be in a secure, fitted full size holster or case or in both hands, if you cannot fulfill these last 3 conditions then the gun should be in a locked cabinet.
What else? Oh, yeah. It’s not a clip it’s a magazine … (Wonkette reference)
Saganite @30, absent intoxication, racing or similar reckless behavior, most traffic fatalities aren’t criminal. In the US system, civil responsibility (I.e. a lawsuit) can exist without criminal guilt.
Own a pool, and you have to make sure that shit is secure and the neighborhood kids won’t drown in it. Own a gun…Shit happens.
HolyPinkUnicorn
You are absolutely right. Thanks for correcting the record.
I revise my opinion from “worth investigating” to “probable murder.” Yes, it’s possible that you can mash such a gun, on a soft bed full of other random objects, in such a way as to simultaneously depress the grip safety and the trigger, but it’s a pretty fucking amazing coincidence. It’s not any more likely than that he decided to shoot her and then claim “it just went off.” Which, as we’ve established, has a decent probability of success, especially with the added delightful twist of, “I dunno what she did, but she did somethin’ an’ it went off. Chicks and mechanical things, amiright?”
To defend oneself against an attacker may be an inadequate reason, but it is, strictly speaking, a reason.
When people say there is “no reason,” they usually assume casually that there is a reason for cops or soldiers to have guns, and this gives me pause. In most cases there is absolutely no reason for cops to have guns, and the world would also be better off if 80% of the world’s armies were disarmed (and disbanded). Just imagine a United States with just barely enough military to defend its borders, and no excess for projecting power all around the globe.
Anyway, the point of my reply is to say that I hope when one says “no reason to have a gun,” one is not implicitly accepting the assumption of a two-tiered society in which cops (and soldiers) are armed to the teeth, and it’s only everyone else that has “no reason.”
I’m not a lawyer… but my credentials as a person with access to Google are impeccable… shouldn’t this be considered manslaughter at the very least?
williamgeorge,
IANAL either (although I have training in a slice of the law in a single jurisdiction), but generally speaking manslaughter is the unintentional killing of someone that results from doing something you shouldn’t. Here “that you shouldn’t” specifically means that it either illegal or else negligent or reckless. And in turn “reckless” is contextually defined as something a “reasonable” person would not do that has “reasonably” foreseeable consequences. And “reasonable” is in turn defined in terms of the ambient culture.
So in this setting merely having a gun is not considered reckless, because the average person might do it. Laying on the bed loaded where someone can sit on it very much could be deemed reckless–but whether or not it’s reckless is a question of fact for a jury to decide. If the jury feels that they’re liable to do the same thing, they will deem it reasonable rather than reckless. And if the cops and/or prosecutor already think that, then they won’t even bother putting the question to a jury.
Nothing he did is actually illegal, so everything turns on whether cops, prosecutor, and a jury of his peers all agree that it’s negligent or reckless. (No need to specify where I fall on that question.)
So, because a huge proportion of the American public thinks it’s reasonable and safe to have a loaded gun with you in bed, you cannot say that accidentally (if so) killing your girlfriend with a loaded gun in your bed is not reckless. Makes total sense.
If only there was an instrument we could use that would make such an act prosecutable regardless what a large amount of idiots think, like using your mobile phone while driving…
there’s a not too many in that sentence…
More or less, but the devil is in the details. A sufficient proportion thinks it’s reasonable to own a firearm. Does a significant proportion think you should load it, and then toss it on the bed where your significant other is liable to sit on it? I have no idea, but I’d like to think not.
I don’t even know whether these cops think that. All we know is that they got a good vibe because the guy was “totally cooperative,” so they’re inclined to give him the benefit of every doubt. How much of that is because they think guns on beds are fine? Versus how much of that is because they’re ready to believe that a woman is untrustworthy and accident prone? Versus how much of that is because they simply like the guy, and they “trust their gut”? Beats me.
@Matrim
Apparently doing so violates the Second Ammendment
Except even the NRA doesn’t actually advocate rule #3. Or rather, they consider “carrying” (whether open or concealed) to be “in use”.
In addition to the comments others have made about the likelihood (or lack thereof) of this gun just going off because the victim sat on the bed, it’s a bit strange that she would run downstairs –away from her boyfriend– if she wasn’t trying to get away from him. I know people react to shock and trauma differently, but it seems to be worth investigating more seriously at the very least.
Travis @9:
Quoted For Truth.
And I’m sure the gun lobby opposes any measures to require any such competency requirements of gun owners.
Toska @ 50:
I had the same thought. Going down stairs after being shot in the chest seems more an act of fear and desperation than shock to me.
@Matrim
Matrim, there are no accidental gun discharges, unless they are caused by lightening, or some other situation totally out of the control of the gun owner (act of god in most insurance policies). There are only negligent discharges otherwise, where the gun owner is not following proper safety protocol, and making sure the gun is intrinsically safe around other people unless they are ready to fire it at something.
I used to be into guns and one thing stands out – it is damn hard for a gun to fire accidentally. That is, unless it’s in your hand and your finger is in the guard. I have to wonder why they just took this guy’s account and no charges were filed because he was cooperative. Is that all it takes to blow off a potential murder?
Everyone seems to think that a gun is either a tool to be used for protection or a means of hunting animals for sport or food.
Guns are not either of these things.
In America, guns (especially handguns or assault guns) are exterior manifestations of your patriotism and dedication to the Cause of American Gun Ownership.
Similar to Orwell’s concept that the point of power is power, the point of Gun Ownership is Gun Ownership. Why do we climb mountains? Because they are there. Why do American’s own guns at ridiculous rates and under moronically lax rules? Because we can. And anyone who says there is any circumstance under which we may NOT own a gun is an ENEMY of the GUN OWNERS of AMERICA, and must be shouted down.
Gun Ownership is the right of every Gun-Fearing, Right-Thinking True Gun-American, and it shall never be taken away, so help us Gun!!
While that’s the case for plenty of people, it’s far from the case for many others. And no, I don’t own a gun and yes, I’m American.