You may have noticed that there seem to be an increase in so-called "accidental shootings" being reported in the media lately. While I am uncertain whether the actual number is increasing it seems to be getting more media attention, at least in my view.
And in these media reports there seems to be a common phrase being repeated: "The gun discharged." This phrase, whether intentional or not, incorrectly places the blame on the shooting on an inanimate object. It also implies that guns themselves are dangerous. Especially when discussing modern firearms, this is completely inaccurate. But even if we're talking about antique firearms the blame is almost certainly to be lain at the feet of the person handling the firearm. In most cases I would wager that the responsible party ignored one of the four basic safety rules when handling firearms, which is why "negligent discharge" is a more appropriate description than "accidental shooting." The four basic rules, of which the first three are more applicable to negligent discharges, are:
1. ALWAYS treat every gun as if it is loaded until you have verified that it is not.
2. NEVER point the muzzle of a firearm at something or someone you do not intend to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Know your target and what is beyond it.
Recently I was made aware of an article on Yahoo! News about a woman who was fatally shot in a gun store by a 9mm pistol "when it discharged." (Article here) There's that phrase again. "[I]t discharged." Much more likely the relative who shot her ignored all of the first three safety rules. Without a doubt he ignored number 2, as it is not possible to shoot something at which you are not aiming, intentionally or not. Whether he knew the gun was loaded is not clear from the article but if he had treated it as such, or better yet, cleared the weapon when he took control of it, this unfortunate tragedy would have been easily avoided. It is also very likely he had his finger on the trigger as it is very unlikely that the gun discharged without the trigger being pulled.
Further research reveals that the gun in question was a Kel Tec 9mm. (Source) Kel Tec makes two 9mm pistols: the PF-9 and PF-11, both of which implement safety features to prevent accidental discharge. Common to both is a double-action only (DAO) trigger system. For those unaware, a double-action pistol is one where pulling the trigger performs two actions (or a double action, hence the name). The first is to cock the pistol by moving the hammer to the rear; and the second is to fire the pistol by releasing the hammer, which then strikes the firing pin, igniting the primer, and finally firing the projectile from the gun. The reason a DAO trigger is considered to be a safety mechanism is that they require a much sturdier pull on average than single action pistols, and therefore it is extremely unlikely that you would ever pull the trigger without actually intending to do so.
The second safety feature on the PF-9 is a hammer block. A hammer block prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the trigger is actually pulled. It is a mechanical safety which is very unlikely to fail. The PF-11 accomplished the same thing through a lightweight hammer and spring loaded firing pin. A muzzle down drop of the PF-11 should not create enough pressure for the firing pin to ignite the primer. In other words, it is almost guaranteed that the gun did not simply "discharge," causing the unnecessary death of Beverly Dively Klepic. And even if it did, if the the basic safety rules had been followed, there would simply be another hole in a target or a wall somewhere and Beverly would be alive.
All this to say, very rarely does an accidental shooting happen. More often than not the shooter ignores safety rules and as a result shoots himself or some other innocent person. The media would do well to take these things into account when reporting these incidents and leave out such phrases as "the gun discharged" as they do not accurately portray the events that lead to the injuries or loss of life that result from them.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Monday, July 12, 2010
Chicago politicians think you're stupid.
Recently the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's 28 year-old handgun ban as unconstitutional. While the outcome surprised few, Chicago's reaction to the ruling has raised a few eyebrows, especially among the pro-liberty crowd.
In response to the ruling, the city of Chicago has moved to revise its handgun ownership laws. Among the new laws, which are already being challenged, with support from the NRA, are a restriction to one gun per household and a continued ban on sale within the city limits of Chicago. None of this is surprising to anyone following the continuing saga of gun ownership rights in Chicago and across the nation. What is surprising, is the notion, promoted by "city leadership" that these tough new restrictions are necessary to prevent an outbreak of handgun violence in the city.
Hello! Planet Earth calling. This is Chicago, Illinois we're talking about, right? The same city that earlier this very year was contemplating calling in the National Guard to help with the outbreak of violence in the city? The very type of outbreak about which they are warning us now? Is that really the position they are taking?
This wouldn't be so sad if they weren't serious and the stakes weren't so high. There have already been at least 152 murders with a firearm in Chicago (as of June 15) and more are sure to follow. The city has become so dangerous that an 80 year-old Korean war veteran, a month before the ban was lifted, shot and killed an intruder who first fired at him. This, despite it being against the law at the time to own a handgun. But being 80 years old with your wife and grandson in the home leaves you few realistic choices for self defense. Luckily for this family one person made the right choice and it saved lives.
So why do I suggest that Chicago politicians think their constituents are stupid? The same reason most politicians think the same about their constituants. They present scary sounding facts to their adoring public and count on you to not read between the lines, or worse yet, not read what is right in front of them. And in most cases, they are correct. Case in point, directly from the text of Chicago's new ordinances:
Let's look at this deeper, since this is part of their reasoning for limiting Chicagoans' right to defend life to the inside of their residence (not even the front porch or yard is legally defendable under the new laws). They argue that self defense must be limited to the home because of statistics like those above. And what they count on you to NOT notice, is the facts staring you right in the face, namely that over 95% of the aggrevated batteries mentioned took place OUTSIDE the home, as did over 87% of the murders. They are also counting on you to be grateful to them for making you a whopping 5% safer from aggrevated battery, or 12% safer from murder. Of course that's not true either.
Since, according to their own numbers, you are about 20 times more likely to be assaulted with a firearm outside your home, or about 8 times more likely to be murdered, to the astute observer this comes as very little comfort. As long as you cower within your home with your one, and only one, properly registered firearm at the ready, you will be safe. If, however, you choose not to live the life of a hermit you must leave that firearm at home, unlike the criminals in the above offenses who will have no fear taking your property, or your life, or both.
Chicago politicians supporting this bill also point out other obvious pitfalls of higher gun ownership, like increased danger for paramedics and other first responders, even though this has not been shown to be an issue in the other 48 states. But Daley and his cronies have never been known for their use of facts in support of gun control, so I guess this latest news really comes as no surprise. More to follow as facts, and the next court case, unfold.
In response to the ruling, the city of Chicago has moved to revise its handgun ownership laws. Among the new laws, which are already being challenged, with support from the NRA, are a restriction to one gun per household and a continued ban on sale within the city limits of Chicago. None of this is surprising to anyone following the continuing saga of gun ownership rights in Chicago and across the nation. What is surprising, is the notion, promoted by "city leadership" that these tough new restrictions are necessary to prevent an outbreak of handgun violence in the city.
Hello! Planet Earth calling. This is Chicago, Illinois we're talking about, right? The same city that earlier this very year was contemplating calling in the National Guard to help with the outbreak of violence in the city? The very type of outbreak about which they are warning us now? Is that really the position they are taking?
This wouldn't be so sad if they weren't serious and the stakes weren't so high. There have already been at least 152 murders with a firearm in Chicago (as of June 15) and more are sure to follow. The city has become so dangerous that an 80 year-old Korean war veteran, a month before the ban was lifted, shot and killed an intruder who first fired at him. This, despite it being against the law at the time to own a handgun. But being 80 years old with your wife and grandson in the home leaves you few realistic choices for self defense. Luckily for this family one person made the right choice and it saved lives.
So why do I suggest that Chicago politicians think their constituents are stupid? The same reason most politicians think the same about their constituants. They present scary sounding facts to their adoring public and count on you to not read between the lines, or worse yet, not read what is right in front of them. And in most cases, they are correct. Case in point, directly from the text of Chicago's new ordinances:
"Whereas, between the beginning of this year and June 15, 2010, there were 742 aggrevated batteries with a firearm, of which 36 took place inside a residence, and 152 murders with a firearm, of which 19 were inside a residence;"
Let's look at this deeper, since this is part of their reasoning for limiting Chicagoans' right to defend life to the inside of their residence (not even the front porch or yard is legally defendable under the new laws). They argue that self defense must be limited to the home because of statistics like those above. And what they count on you to NOT notice, is the facts staring you right in the face, namely that over 95% of the aggrevated batteries mentioned took place OUTSIDE the home, as did over 87% of the murders. They are also counting on you to be grateful to them for making you a whopping 5% safer from aggrevated battery, or 12% safer from murder. Of course that's not true either.
Since, according to their own numbers, you are about 20 times more likely to be assaulted with a firearm outside your home, or about 8 times more likely to be murdered, to the astute observer this comes as very little comfort. As long as you cower within your home with your one, and only one, properly registered firearm at the ready, you will be safe. If, however, you choose not to live the life of a hermit you must leave that firearm at home, unlike the criminals in the above offenses who will have no fear taking your property, or your life, or both.
Chicago politicians supporting this bill also point out other obvious pitfalls of higher gun ownership, like increased danger for paramedics and other first responders, even though this has not been shown to be an issue in the other 48 states. But Daley and his cronies have never been known for their use of facts in support of gun control, so I guess this latest news really comes as no surprise. More to follow as facts, and the next court case, unfold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)