No Accidents: Firearms, Wishful Thinking, and Reality

[Tiassa]

Imagine That

Every responsible gun owner is a responsible gun owner until he or she isn't.

This example is brought to us by Associated Press:

A vendor accidentally shot a woman in the leg while demonstrating a gun and holster at a central Pennsylvania gun show, police said.

The Columbia County district attorney's office will determine whether the vendor, Geoffrey Hawk, will face criminal charges stemming from the shooting Saturday at the Bloomsburg Fairgrounds, Officer Brad Sharrow said.

Hawk, 44, of Warminster, didn't immediately return calls Sunday to his cellphone and business, In Case of Emergency Enterprises. He was manning a booth for his business at the Eagle Arms Gun show at the time of the shooting.

Hawk told police he thought the gun was unloaded when he demonstrated a concealed-carry wallet holster to the woman, Krista Gearhart, 25, of Orangeville. Gearhart was treated and released for a thigh wound at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville.

Hawk told police he had done the same demonstration about 20 times without incident before the shooting, "racking" the gun's slide to clear it of bullets each time, Sharrow said. Somehow, the gun was loaded when Gearhart was shot.

Police said Hawk told them he had left the gun on display when he completed background checks on some customers and believes it's possible someone loaded the gun when he was busy.​

No accidents. It's a nice suggestion, but is anyone willing to make it a rule?
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Gun Show Shooting Injures Woman And May Lead To Charges Against Vendor, Police Say". The Huffington Post. June 30, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. June 30, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/gun-show-shooting_n_5542670.html

 

[cosmictraveler]

Well if the victim didn't press any charges then the gun owner shouldn't go to court.

 

[Tiassa]

As you see it ....

Well if the victim didn't press any charges then the gun owner shouldn't go to court.

Is that a general legal principle or a particular aspect of firearm "accidents"?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Depends on the situation. If the person who was shot knew that it was an accident then they won't USUALLY press charges.

If the person that was shot got paid to not press charges then that's another way.

 

[iceaura]

No accidents. It's a nice suggestion, but is anyone willing to make it a rule?

Lots of people, all of them billing themselves as advocates of sane gun regulation. Which well-poisoning is why the opposition to sane gun regulation appears so inflexible and actually is so damagingly adamant.

No political candidate suspected of harboring something like that as their actual agenda will get my vote, for example - and I'm no fan of the NRA or the rest of that crowd. You are dealing with 27% wingnut Fox-informed neo-Confederates, for starters - you need the left libertarians, all of them.

And instead, you confirm the suspicions of everyone who has ever been pulled over for a seat belt violation they had not in fact committed, or been stopped on the freeway at random and had a dog run through their car piled with Christmas presents, or received a citation for growing trumpet vines on the wall of their garage, or had their bicycle impounded from under them five miles of night walking from their friend's house because it did not have a license for that city, and so forth. Never mind the drug law enforcement absurdities.

 

[billvon]

No accidents. It's a nice suggestion, but is anyone willing to make it a rule?

A rule for all mishaps, or just for gun mishaps?

 

[Bells]

Lots of people, all of them billing themselves as advocates of sane gun regulation. Which well-poisoning is why the opposition to sane gun regulation appears so inflexible and actually is so damagingly adamant.

No political candidate suspected of harboring something like that as their actual agenda will get my vote, for example - and I'm no fan of the NRA or the rest of that crowd. You are dealing with 27% wingnut Fox-informed neo-Confederates, for starters - you need the left libertarians, all of them.

And instead, you confirm the suspicions of everyone who has ever been pulled over for a seat belt violation they had not in fact committed, or been stopped on the freeway at random and had a dog run through their car piled with Christmas presents, or received a citation for growing trumpet vines on the wall of their garage, or had their bicycle impounded from under them five miles of night walking from their friend's house because it did not have a license for that city, and so forth. Never mind the drug law enforcement absurdities.

Why was the gun loaded? If he is using the gun for display purposes, how and why did he leave the gun unattended, presumably with bullets nearby or within reach? Unless of course there was someone walking around with bullets and waiting for an opportunity.

But it defies logic that the gun was loaded and was apparently loaded by someone who was not the owner of the firearm, in a public and well attended gun show? How is this responsible? Is this what responsible gun owners do?

Geoffrey Hawk, 44, of Warminster, should face a reckless endangerment charge, Bloomsburg police Officer Brad Sharrow said Monday. The Columbia County district attorney still has to approve the charge.

---

Krista Gearhart, 25, was shot in the thigh on Saturday at the Eagle Arms Gun Show at the Bloomsburg Fairgrounds in central Pennsylvania. She was treated at a hospital and released.

Gearhart told the (Bloomsburg) Press Enterprise on Sunday that the vendor was "doing his job" and her heart goes out to him for what she called the "horrible accident."

But Sharrow told The Associated Press on Monday that Hawk displayed "gross negligence."

"He admitted it was his fault and certainly feels bad about what took place. But the guy's a firearms instructor so he should've known better than to pull the trigger on a weapon" without checking to make sure it was unloaded, Sharrow told the AP.
​

Thankfully the woman did not have a child standing near her or in front of her when she was shot in the thigh. But still, it doesn't make sense that someone leaves a gun on display and unattended and unwatched so much so, that apparently someone was able to load it.

 

[Kittamaru]

If he left the weapon unattended at all, he should have checked it to ensure it was not loaded and there was not a bullet in the chamber... gun safety 101 fer Christs sake...

I dunno if criminal charges are warranted, but he certainly deserves a dummy smack for it

 

[iceaura]

Why was the gun loaded? etc etc etc - -- -

You posted that as if it were a response to a quote from my posting. Was there a connection, argument,something? Is some of your post missing?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

How about a no accident policy for automobiles? Is anyone willing to make it a rule?

 

[Tiassa]

On Function and Effect

How about a no accident policy for automobiles? Is anyone willing to make it a rule?

Well, I think the functional problem there is that we've built our economy so that isn't feasible.

And there's also a question of the difference between effect and purpose. You might as well pass a no-accident policy for the tankless water heater.

It's easier to evade charges if you accidentally injure or kill someone with a gun than a car.

Think of it this way: If I am distracted enough to attempt to start the car again after it's already running, sure it's annoying and embarrassing and a godawful sound, but that's the end of it. Nobody is going to die as a result.

The difference, of course, is that killing is the purpose of a gun. Some people find this difference irrelevant, but there is a difference between effect and purpose, and some people actually do consider that relevant.

When you ride a pencil to work, foil a home invasion by killing the intruder with your car, or rob a store by threatening to fry up some eggs and make the clerk eat them, let me know.

In theory, you can kill a person with a telephone. But that doesn't mean you're taking the old Bell rotary out to hunt deer.

Or let us know if you do. Bludgeon or strangle? Make sure to send us the celebratory poser photo.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Well, I think the functional problem there is that we've built our economy so that isn't feasible.

And there's also a question of the difference between effect and purpose. You might as well pass a no-accident policy for the tankless water heater.

It's easier to evade charges if you accidentally injure or kill someone with a gun than a car.

Think of it this way: If I am distracted enough to attempt to start the car again after it's already running, sure it's annoying and embarrassing and a godawful sound, but that's the end of it. Nobody is going to die as a result.

The difference, of course, is that killing is the purpose of a gun. Some people find this difference irrelevant, but there is a difference between effect and purpose, and some people actually do consider that relevant.

When you ride a pencil to work, foil a home invasion by killing the intruder with your car, or rob a store by threatening to fry up some eggs and make the clerk eat them, let me know.

In theory, you can kill a person with a telephone. But that doesn't mean you're taking the old Bell rotary out to hunt deer.

Or let us know if you do. Bludgeon or strangle? Make sure to send us the celebratory poser photo.

With the number of people killed each year & the number seriously injured & the enormous cost & the obvious fact that the vast majority of humans are simply not fit to drive safely, the original purpose is not very important. It is at least as serious & horrible as the gun problem yet it seems far fewer people think much of it.