Do you have your guns locked up? Do you only bring them out when you have a very specific purpose, like target shooting at a range or hunting? Do you own fewer than a handful? Then you might be OK. I might look at you suspiciously, but I won’t actively despise you, like I do the obsessed gun-fondlers.
What brings on this peevishness is another dead kid. Nathan Clark, 13 years old, was attending a soccer tournament, and he went to bed in a hotel room. Next thing, his parents are desperately trying to resuscitate him and staunch the bleeding from a head wound.
Police quickly determined that Clark had been shot, and located Randall Louis Vater, who was in a nearby room and in possession of firearms. They said that Vater accidentally discharged his weapon, and that the round traveled through the wall and into Clark’s room, where it fatally struck him.
I also fucking hate that phrase, “accidentally discharged his weapon”. There was nothing accidental about it. He was intentionally carrying around a device with the purpose of killing, and it operated exactly as it was designed to do, throwing a metal slug at high velocity to punch holes in people.
I can’t even imagine how Nathan’s parents feel. And I have no sympathy at all for the Vater’s of the world.
What will happen to Vater? In the UK he would get at least 5 years for Manslaughter – Culpable Homicide in the US?
There are no “accidental” discharges, unless lightening sets off the bullet. There are negligent discharges, due to not following gun safety rules, which should be handled as crimes.
Ownership of any firearm should be a crime.
Madtom, this varies state by state in the US. So the charges depend on North Carolina’s laws.
From the RawStory article:
Oh wait, turns out he wasn’t a responsible gun owner so it’s not a gun issue. Without the gun, he would have just threw a stapler through the wall and still killed the kid because people kill people, 2nd amendment, forefathers or some shit like that.
madtom1999 @1:
From the article:
Since he’s a felon (and hence, an “other”), I expect he’ll be convicted. As a longtime NC resident, though, I have to say that, if the murderer had been an “upstanding preacher” or some such–I’ve known of several similar cases myself–the crime would be chalked up to a tragic accident and he would walk free, the police lamenting that the burden of his acts serve as punishment enough.
I made the mistake of visiting some of the local new sites, and naturally, that lovely cross-section of region and gun fanaticism has conspired to post comments of three varieties: 1) promises to “pray for the victim” (so fucking helpful), 2) preemptive complaints against “libs” who would “abuse” the incident to score anti-gun points, or 3) people latching onto the “felon” aspect (because non-felons never do this type of thing).
If you hear about a person being killed by a gun, and your first concern is for your guns instead of feeling sympathy for the victims, you’re an absolute asshole.
A completely unnecessary firearm results in an “accidental” death? Must be a day that ends in y.
carbonfox, #6
I nominate this as a replacement for the Second Amendment.
I’m having trouble figuring out why this guy brought a loaded gun to a hotel room in the first place. Did he think he might have to defend himself against an over-zealous maid? Or maybe it’s just that he was so casual about guns that it never occurred to him not to bring it with him wherever he went.
***
I just took a look at the ATF FAQ. It’s remarkable how few restrictions there are for private sales of firearms.
Apparently, the only real restriction is that you can’t sell to out-of-state residents. But then, there’s no mention of how you’re supposed to check if they are residents, nor are there any other requirements for checking if the buyer can legally own a firearm. Unless they actively state their intent to knock over a store, you’re good. Once the weapon is sold, there’s no requirement for keeping track of where it went or even reporting that you’ve sold it.
No fucking wonder guns are everywhere in America. You can legally buy a gun with less paperwork than it takes to apply for a job at burger king. Literally.
Every gun owner is a responsible gun owner. Right up until the gun is fired.
I’ve had internet conversations with gun fondlers who insist they have a gun because they have a right to defend their house or whatever. OK, for the sake of argument, grant that. But then why do they have seven guns, which they will tell you about in lurid detail at the first opportunity. Just how many guns can you handle in the vanishingly improbable scenario where bad guys decide to invade your home? And of course, being a responsible gun owner, you keep your guns unloaded and in a gun safe.
I wonder how many “law abiding” US gun owners are actually in possession of guns they shouldn’t be, due to the patchwork of gun laws in the US. And how many of them are in possession of those guns by deliberate act, instead of ignorance of the laws where they live.
carbonfox @6:
I’m having trouble resolving conflicting implications. The fact that they’re leaving comments at a news site implies that they read the news. The implication that the shooter was a felon has something to do with it implies they don’t read the news.
I went on a hike in the Grand Canyon last year, and one of the other hikers brought his handgun, along with many pounds of ammunition. He didn’t bring enough water, of course; I guess he was planning to rob the rest of us. It IS illegal to shoot anything in the Grand Canyon. WHAT are they thinking?
jaybee@11: I’ve had that same question. If you want your gun for useful home defense, it has to be loaded and accessible. Burglars or whoever aren’t going to give you a lot of time to open the gun safe and load the weapon.
Which means unless you live alone and never have visitors, the odds of someone else getting hold of your gun and doing something stupid are high. Yet people who have children living in their home leave loaded weapons in their bedside table, apparently in the belief that kids will never open a drawer.
This weekend in Newark, New Jersey, a 9YO girl was shot by her 12YO brother with a gun their mother’s boyfriend kept in the house. The mother has been arrested and charged, and charges are pending against the boyfriend. So that’s a decent approach (though I have to wonder if they would be quite so zealous if the adults in this scenario were white and married).
@frog, #15:
While it’s certainly true that people do keep guns in/on their nightstand, citing this reason, the fact is that it’s not necessary. They make gun safes that are designed to be opened very quickly for just such a purpose. The most common design has a “handprint,” with buttons where the fingertips go, so you can basically slap down your hand, press the correct fingers, and take out your firearm.
That wouldn’t help you if someone were standing in your room with a gun in his hand, but in that scenario nothing will help you anyway; you’d also be shot before you could grab your gun off the nightstand. The kind of home-invasion scenario in which firearms could be used defensively is where you hear the invader downstairs rummaging, and you basically hole up in your room, with a firearm in case the invader comes in after you. In those scenarios, a bedside safe gives perfectly adequate access.
Rambo wannabes, living in an adolescent macho fantasy world.
I think it’s useful. ‘Responsible gun owners’ believe that their weapons could never kill someone they didn’t want to kill. Shaking that belief is necessary to make any moves politically. Of course, since this killer, as a felon, was already legally banned from owning guns, this tragedy gets filed in the “enforce existing laws” pile in their heads.
Poor kid and parents.
If only there’d been a good guy with a gun to protect them.
No discharge is accidental, somebody had to put that bullet there. I prefer the phrase “Unplanned Discharge”. It says the gun going off wasn’t my idea, just loading it and putting it in a position to be fired. The “Responsible” gun owner still bears the entirety of the consequences, just like an accessory to a crime, and we eliminate the idea that there are any “accidents” where a bullet flying out of a gun barrel is involved.
Unplanned is also implied by “negligent discharge”, which it is.
There is no excuse for a gun going off in an unplanned circumstance with normal handling. There are only explanations as to why it did so, which don’t mitigate the problem, or responsibility of the owner for safe gun handling practices. Any abnormal handling is due to negligence, especially if it happens with other people around.
#6
That’s what happened when I read about it yesterday on rawstory. One person kept mentioning that he was a felon and never explained what his criminal record had to do with him firing the gun. As you said, he acted as if non-criminals never kill people by “accident”.
This is where the “law abiding gun owner” claim fails. How long after you’ve served your time are you considered “law abiding” again? Does it stay with you for life or is there some kind of statue of limitations where if you keep your nose clean for X years you’re accepted into the “law abiding” club again?
The most basically fucked up thing about US society, and easily the biggest difference between the US and Canada. 10 9/11’s worth every year, dead by firearm, yet strangely the fearmongers focus on NOT having guns as the scary option.
My sympathy to the family of the poor lad. :/
@3 Phillip Hallam-Baker:
From the unqualified nature of your statement, that criminal status would include the police and military. I suspect this isn’t what you meant — after all, I don’t think most people would ever agree with that statement. Let me explain my position:
Society, in rejecting the Hobbsian “war of all against all”, provides non-violent means for conflict resolution. Whenever someone chooses violence they are violating all of society’s rights, not just any direct (injured) victims; therefore, someone must be empowered by society to respond to these violations. A flat “no guns” statement denies society any ability to respond when people reject all non-violent systems. Likewise, the opposite extreme–“tanks and automatic rifles for everybody”–denies the very non-violent nature of society. The proper social response toward violence must lie somewhere in between, but this is such a broad spectrum of possibilities that (seemingly) rational arguments can be raised for nearly any position.
I wonder how long it will be before the gun fondlers go to their fall back position and start attempting character assassination of the victim?
*Sarcasm*
Just lying there in the next room over… not making a sound… clearly suspicious behaviour… practically asking for it really…
*/Sarcasm)
As observed by other commenters, Vater will go down beacuse he is a felon, and so can be witten off easily as an undesireable, and so no one should be surprised that he is an irresponsible gun owner. Of course, the exact same set of circumstances in all regards except that the gun owner was considered to be an ‘upstanding citizen’ (read white, male, heterosexual and relatively wealthy) would be treated very differently, and would have a very different outcome with no prison sentence attached at all.
The problem is the gun culture of the US that creates so many gun fondlers who consider it their inalienable right to own firearms and carry them about wherever they go, not whether or not the particular gun fondler in question has a criminal record.
LykeX@9 – there are some people who seem to feel that it’s useless to have a gun if it’s not loaded and ready to use. I was dismayed and flabbergasted about three years ago to discover that one of our karate instructors keeps a loaded gun in his duffle bag at class. You know, the class with children down to age 8 running around the room? The bag goes everywhere with him, and he sees nothing particularly wrong or unsafe with having it, since he’s “right there”.
Unfortunately, I’m not senior enough in the dojo to do more than register my dismay with the owner. I will admit to more than a minor feeling of relief that this particular dude seems to have vanished (keeps saying he’ll come back, but life is busy, etc.) and hasn’t been around in six-plus months.
It makes me glad that Australia went down a different route with gun policy.
Also, not to be too off-topic, but the correct phrase is “stanch the bleeding”, not “staunch the bleeding”.
Another shooting. I continue to be baffled by this aspect of the US.
Even if you are not entirely in your right mind, why would you possibly object to the necessity of training before you get to use a firearm? Ignorant you may just as well shoot yourself, so even if you don’t give a damn about anyone else surely you’ll be interested to know just how to avoid that particular mishap. Surely the word has spread around ‘certain circles’ by now about how unmanly it is to take off your own foot while playing you toy-that-isn’t-a-toy.
Not that it is particularly difficult not to kill yourself or anyone else even if you do suffer from the compulsion of being armed at all times. No round in the chamber, safety catch and anything that happens after that probably is an accident.
Mind you, I seem to recall that some weapons apparently don’t have a safety catch. What I don’t get is who would use, make or buy such a thing given the alternatives.* Do these people see the missing safety as a feature, a bonus? Or is it just that some ‘iconic’ firearms with this defect refuse to disappear?
Perhaps the same people would also like to see the original (non-safety) match reintroduced. The sort that occasionally catches fire without you wanting it to…
*Including an empty holster.
@komorov
What makes you assume that this guy had no training? Do you also assume that every impaired driver, text-and-drive-r, speeder, red-light-runner, and roadway bully has never had driver training and never passed their licence test?
It’s often the people most trained in something that feel they’re above following the “rules”.
I’ve played Doom enough to know what happens to guns that get left laying around. (Sorry, I got nothing.)
As for ‘why’ someone would take a gun to a hotel: I know people who pretty much are always armed. So if they happen to be going to a hotel, there’s a gun. When they show up for dinner…armed….at a restaurant, movie, etc…armed.
Lots of assholes like that around here.
Even though it’s against company policy, I would be willing to be that 75% or more of the cars in the company parking lot have a firearm in them.
komarov, a lot of guns don’t feature a user settable safety because they feature some other operating characteristic that is supposed to keep them from firing without user intent. For example pretty much every double action revolver ever made is not equipped with a manual safety, the heavy trigger pull of the uncocked revolver being seen as sufficient to prevent it from firing without the trigger being pulled, along with whatever internal safety devices it might have.
“Do you have your guns locked up? Do you only bring them out when you have a very specific purpose, like target shooting at a range or hunting? Do you own fewer than a handful? Then you might be OK.”
Well … glad I meet your, as tentative and provisional as it may be, approval. It means so very much to me.
A little more detail on the guy with the gun:
http://www.wral.com/alleged-hotel-shooter-has-long-criminal-history/14188724/
There’s two reasons to carry loaded firearms around with you. The first is that you believe that there’s a legitimate safety issue that requires it, and that sucks and is a terrible way to live your life. The other reason is that you’re hoping that there’s a reason that you’ll get to shoot someone and you’re always prepared for it (and might be willing to provoke someone into giving you a reason), and that makes you a horrible person and you’re the last person who should be allowed to own firearms.
Yeah, Lorn… only criminals have “accidents.”
timgueguen@31 When i was in the Army I fired every auto and semi-auto weapon in common military usage (as well as rocket launchers, mortars, etc). I was stunned the first time I handled a double-action revolver many years later. It was hard to wrap my head around the lack of a safety.
“… the heavy trigger pull of the uncocked revolver being seen as sufficient to prevent it from firing without the trigger being pulled.” Obviously there is something wrong with this approach as I assume revolvers are the cause of many of the unintended gun deaths that occur in this country every year.
Proper gun safety protocols are very easy, even 40 years later they are still second nature to me (i haven’t owned or fired a gun in at least 20 years). There is no excuse for this type of negligence (as I’m sure you agree).
Two thoughts:
1. Despite the NRA’s best efforts, there’s a whole stack of research that says that you’re more likely to kill your friends, relatives, or self accidentally (or otherwise) with a firearm than to defend yourself successfully against an intruder.
2. I have a phone in my bedroom. Despite my reservations about the cops, I feel a whole lot more secure with the plan “call 911 if I hear someone rummaging around downstairs” than I do with the plan “get ready to shoot the invader”. Actually, if the person downstairs didn’t come upstairs or hurt the dogs but simply quietly took a few electronics and wallets downstairs and left, I’d probably just let them go.
Alexander24
Mentioning the police and military in response to Philip’s statement is a red herring; individual soldiers/law officers do not own their issue weapons, nor do I see any reason why they ought to be allowed to own firearms nor carry them while not on duty. In point of fact, I support disarming the police for the most part as well; patrol officers don’t need and shouldn’t have sidearms, issued or otherwise. On top of that, the U.S. can, and should, dissolve all of it’s armed forces save for the National Guard, Air Guard, and Coast Guard
“I also fucking hate that phrase, “accidentally discharged his weapon”.”
The correct phrase is “exercised his Second Amendment rights.” As in, “Randall Vater exercised his Second Amendment rights in a hotel room, resulting in the death of a 13 year old boy in the next room.”
(credit to Dan Savage)
lorn 32 :
Meet carbonfox at 6:
lorn 32:
Meet Saad at 5:
And Bronze Dog at 13:
I assume you were too busy having your Gun Fee-fees hurt to actually read. Or you really are just self-important enough to not only whine about how personally insulted you are, but then ignore other comments and pretend you are the first one to bring up that article. One way, or the other.
@2: Amen to that (no religion intended). Personal preliminary judgement: Negligent discharge and criminally negligent manslaughter. IMHO not much different than if the guy had run over the kid with a car while talking distracted on mobile phone.
Responsibility is exactly that: Responsibility. Which is why the jackass is cooling his heels in jail awaiting trial, as he should be. He, not the gun, caused this tragedy. He should bear the consequences, not the innocent 3rd parties who handle their weapons without endangering anyone.
Keep in mind that the opposition to gun control laws is firmly founded in racism.
Prior to the 1960s, conservatives were firmly on the side of gun control–after all, the existing power structure was more than sufficient to deal with any “uppity” blacks.
But after the civil rights movement and the collapse of Jim Crow, conservatives pulled a 180 and began supporting unrestricted gun ownership. Because now every white family needed an arsenal to protect themselves from the black mobs.
Oh, the NRA is (usually) careful to avoid openly racist language, but make no mistake, when they talk about gun rights, they mean “white” gun rights.
And until white conservatives (aka racists) lose their grip on power, any efforts to curb gun ownership will fail.
Jafafa Hots @ 34:
It is always a joy to read comments about my comments that make such deep assumptions about what I mean that they could hold the debate in their own head without my having to post anything at all. Like watching a person dance to the music in their own head.
anteprepro @ 39
It is also a joy to have someone presume to tell me all about my thoughts and feelings. The term ‘arrogance of ignorance’ comes to mind.
@3 Phillip Hallam Baker:
@24 Alexander
That’s a pretty smug and condescending response.
It’s one thing to simply disagree by saying “I disagree”. You can even say “I’m right; you’re wrong” but to say “Well, obviously you didn’t mean to say that because, ha ha, nobody would actually believe that. What you meant to say was this; let me correct that for you” is patronizing as hell.
You may not agree with “Gun ownership should be a crime” but it’s a perfectly tenable position for someone who doesn’t happen to be you.
@37 Dalillama
good point. Really, really good point.
lorn
What do you get out of posting here?
Do you really enjoying having people yell at you?
Ibis3, #29:
Yes, I skipped ahead there a bit and you’re right. I don’t know how much training, if any, the individual had in this case. I was thinking more broadly because proper training outside professional groups (law enforcement, military) seems to be so rare in the US. Anyway, that was my mind being adrift.
Timgueguen, #31:
Thank you for explaining. Personally, I find that attitude towards safety absolutely horrifying. Here we are designing an instrument capable of inflicting grievous and fatal injuries but hey, it can be sort of tricky to pull the trigger so its fine. Heck, the power button on my laptop is safer than that, at least I have to hold it down before something happens. Whatever internal safeties a weapon may possess, I think I would always go for a separate safety catch which physically blocks the firing mechanism. On top of training.
My own weapons training is limited; I used to be a cadet in the UK and we’d occasionally go to a shooting range or do exercises with blank rounds. Most of our training was devoted to weapon handling and safety and, like Marcus said, the rules are so simple and universal they are difficult to forget.
Check the safety catch, check the chamber, always point in a safe direction, don’t have a loaded weapon and never touch the trigger unless you are about to fire. And always, always, always stop and ask for help if you don’t know what you’re doing (that last part might not work too well when you’re unsupervised)
The same rules have cropped up on previous discussions here on pharyngula before and that’s why I am so baffled by the attitude to guns in the US (not that everyone shares it). How people can arm themselves without anyone checking if they even understand the most basic precautions is beyond me.
The ‘convicted felon’ issue people are jumping on now is a problem, but not in the way they seem to think. Somehow ‘convicted felons’ seem to manage to shoot quite a few people, which is a bit weird in a country where everyone except said felons apparently entitled to be armed.* Now one wonders when people opposed to gun legislation figure out that if people who are unarmed by law still manage to shoot other people, maybe just an itty bit of control might be useful after all.
*And I’m not even accounting for the supposed Crime-Repelling Aura of Protection that envelops you once you have armed yourself.
Yeah, there’s a magic talisman element to a lot of talk about guns in the US, and amongst people elsewhere influenced by US gun culture. The gun somehow turns you into a more capable version of yourself, who will know instantly that trouble is afoot, and will react without fear or hesitation when the time comes to pull the trigger, which will never be pulled at the wrong time with the gun aimed at the wrong target.
Lorn, my post showed your complaint was already shown as ridiculous 20 or more comments before you showed up, and your sole point, a link, had already been brought up also 20 comments before, in the first fucking half dozen of comments.
And all you have left is more whining. Nothing else. No content.
Just piss off.
Too horrible to contemplate. Will the US government ever be able to seriously address the country’s gun issues? I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime. What a dreadful thing for those parents to live through. No fucking idea how you endure that kind of thing. Too horrible to think about.
congenital cynic wrote:
I can pretty much guarantee that it isn’t over for them, either. Inevitably someone will insist that this is a false flag operation to take away teh gunz!!! and that their child never existed and start a harassment campaign against these folks. Just when you think things couldn’t get worse, they will…
Well, because he was a felon, he was not legally entitled to own the gun. This, for the gun lobby, absolves them of any blame for what happened. After all, they are only in favor of “responsible” gun ownership (“responsible” being defined as never misusing the gun, in much the same way that a responsible drunk driver is the kind who never wrecks.)
Of course, it was undoubtedly trivial for this guy to get a hold of a gun because our society is awash in them, there are no background checks for person-to-person transfers, there is no liability assigned to whomever sold or gave him the gun, etc. All thanks to the efforts of the gun lobby, who have waged a scorched earth campaign against any form of gun control on the dubious theory that even the tiniest of inconvenience is just one small step away from complete prohibition.
Area Man #50:
a responsible drunk driver is the kind who never wrecks
Funny.
Banning convicted felons from owning guns is a good place to start, but also completely useless if you don’t do anything to actually prevent them from getting their hands on one. Personally I would never want to live in a place where guns are as easily accessible as in the US, and I like guns.
But all my guns are registered, I cannot buy or sell them without permission from the police. I need a reasonable reason to own them (self protection isn’t even a topic), I need to maintain a club membership where they can be used and store them in a gun safe. And it doesn’t take much too loose the permit, which is fine by me. They’re not a right, they are a privilege for people that have proven themselves to be responsible adults.
It seems like US gun owners look at registration as the first step towards a ban, for me it’s the best insurance against a ban I can imagine. It’s a bit inconvenient at times, but it also does a great job of keeping the streets free from guns.
Ahhh, he’s a felon, he should never have had a gun in the first place!
What do those people think how felons get their guns? Apart from buying them at Walmart, of course…
Yep, they steal them from all those responsible non-felon gun owners. Because contrary to US popular beliefs, most criminals don’t want to kill you. Thieves and burlargs would very much like you not to notice their deed until they’re at a safe distance, that’s why they prefer stealing your stuff while you’re not at home. Or just grabbing your dufflebag in the dojo (how on earth is that not illegal?)
Happens all the time here, a continent away.
After gun safes become mandatory here the number of guns stolen has plummeted. While it was a significant expense for people with perhaps only a single gun it’s hard to argue against the results. It didn’t cost me anything extra though, I bought my safe a decade earlier. The last thing I’d want is for my guns to end up in the wrong hands. It’s also a great place to store other valuables and things like backup disks.
You know what? Fuck it.
YES, MOMMY AND DADDY ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR BANG-BANGS AWAY, AND YES, IT IS BECAUSE THEY’RE MEAN.
Now toddle off.
3rd parties? Are there as many as 3 of those unicorns?
Anybody carrying a loaded weapon in public is endangering people. It is an intrinsical unsafe act, and against all reasonable gun rules.
And he would probably have said exactly the same thing the day before he shot this kid. Most gun owners do. That’s why we can’t rely on peoples own judgment about how responsible they are. That’s why guns need to be tightly regulated.
Back again to what carbonfox said at #6: