Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should people who accidentally shoot other people still be allowed to own firearms?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:43 PM
Original message
Poll question: Should people who accidentally shoot other people still be allowed to own firearms?
For the purpose of this poll, I am not including people who accidentally shoot themselves.

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Should people who accidently incite violence through speech still retain their 1st amendment rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. You Don't See A Difference? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. No, people are responsible for their own actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. Since "accidentally" i.e. negligently shooting someone can result in a felony conviction
Then of course someone who does that should not be permitted to own firearms in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. How about people who accidently shoot themselves?
Cuz I now two cops and a cops' wife who did that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I put the text in blue hoping it would stand out. I guess that I need to make it bigger. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. While we're taking their guns away, should we take away their right to vote? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Either take neither, or take both
For consistency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. I say neither. I'm not big on denying even the stupid their rights. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Because of felons? I am trying to see the connection. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. No, I don't an obvious connection between those two things. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. Only Cheney should be forbidden from owning firearms
When I was 14 I was shot by my brother in a hunting accident. It was #7 shot from probably 25 yards away and it grazed my forehead. I have a sizeable dimple there that was invisible for many years until my hairline receded enough to expose it.

I certain would not advocate that my brother forfeit his right to own firearms as a result of this incident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. Kinda depends on how "accidentally" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raimius Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
13. It depends
Was it a criminally negligent act?

There are too many scenarios for a straight yes/no answer.

I would place ones like these in the "no" column:
1. Mechanical failure of the firearm (very rare, but it happens occasionally)
2. Overpenetration/ricochet from a legitimate target
3. Felony Murder situations (i.e. defender misses attacker, but hits someone in the background)
4. Where victim's stupidity is at least a partial cause (hikers wander into the impact zone of a shooting range, etc)

In the likely "yes" column:
Negligent homicides would probably be the prime one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Belial Donating Member (503 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
15. I would prefer they didn't..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yes, they should still be allowed to own firearms. Provided...
they are still allowed by law to possess a firearm.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. What if they shot 20 different people on 20 different occasions?
All on accident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I would imagine at least one of those would result in a felony charge and a plea.
A felony conviction or plea would take care of it.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Define accident.
Almost all of the "accidental shootings" you hear about are not accidental, they are negligent shootings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Unintentional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #17
47. I would hope the local DA would see the pattern
Even if the person couldn't be tagged on anything more serious, at least throw a bunch of reckless endangerment chargeshis way, and if every single time was an honest-to-god accident, maybe the person should be declared mentally unfit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
19. This poll
did not make me a better lover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Sorry, I should have tried harder.
(pun intended)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
20. Should people who cause driving accidents ever be allowed to drive again?
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 07:18 PM by jody
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. I am assuming you are referring to people who are driving while causing traffic accidents.
If the accident was caused by stupidity, and people were injured, then they probably should not be driving.

Perhaps after 10 years or so, we can give them another chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. Do you put similar conditions on your poll question? If so, the accidental death number involving
firearms would be much less than 788 I cited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. The poll was not about accidental deaths, just accidental shootings.
I don't accept those numbers anyway. Way more people drive than shoot, and time spent driving is generally longer than time spent driving. Comparing driving accidents to shooting accidents is like comparing the number of murders in a small town versus a major city. Straight numbers will not tell the whole story. There needs to be a ratio, percentage or some other way to view the numbers.

Do you put similar conditions on your poll question?

No, but I should have, I did not consider situations such as the firearm malfunctioning when I created my poll. I was thinking about people drinking while hunting, Cheney, people cleaning their weapons without checking to see if it is loaded, and other situations of this ilk.

I should have made a poll which asked; "Is drinking while operating a firearm as bad as drinking while operating a motor vehicle?"

This still would not have covered everything I was thinking of, but would have been closer to my intent. Poll creating is a skill I am still developing, this won't be the last awkward poll you will see from me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. You focused on accidental shootings but the same problem exists with MV accidents.
You say "I don't accept those numbers anyway" presumably the numbers I cited.

Please prove the numbers are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. "Please prove the numbers are wrong."
I never considered them wrong, so the request seems strange. I considered the numbers unfair to compare to MV accidents for the reason I gave.

Better numbers would be something like; 1/x MV owners have a MV accident where a person is hit and 1/y firearm owners have a firearm accident where a person is shot.

The best numbers would instead compare how much time is spent doing each activity, number of MV accidents vs. time spent interacting with a MV and number of firearm accidents vs. time spent interacting with a firearm. These numbers would be extremely difficult to come up with though.

If a person interacts with their firearm for two hours per week, but interacts with their MV eight hours per week, then that person has four times the opportunity to have an accident with their MV.

I would personally guess, that with the above numbers, the number of MV accidents would still be higher than the number of firearm accidents, but they would be much much closer. I would guess this because I don't believe the firearms or the MV to be inherently bad, but some (or all at some point) people are inherently dumb. Some people drink and drive, some people drink and shoot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Why do you single out accidental shootings when they are insignificant compared to other accidents?
See #37 for non fatal accidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. The real reason I will give below, but I will first give 'debate like' reasons.
Debate like reasons -

There were 20 accidents listed, with most of those, there is nothing to remove.

Fall, take away heights?; struck, take away any object?; overexertion, take away activity?; MV, take away cars; cut, take away all sharp objects?, bite/sting, take away all with mouth or stingers?; other specified, I don't even know what that is; unknown, take away mystery?, poison, take away all cleaners and other poisons?; other transport, take away all trains and space shuttles?; foreign body, take away foreigners?; cyclist, take away bike; Fire, take away matches, etc.

Besides, these accidents most likely hurt the person who had the accident, which my poll excluded with the blue text.

Real reason -

My sadistic desire to punish Cheney.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. Thanks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AthiestLeader Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Good point except...
Except unintentional firearm accident are easier to prevent. E.G taking bullets out of the gun and putting it on safety. So those that have an accident with a firearm are less capable then those driving. (However the odds may change considering the amount of times people get into a car and drive)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
26. I voted no.
I said no.

I am of the opinion that there are very few "accidental" firearm accidents. Nearly all firearm accidents are the result of negligence, and I'm not very tolerant of negligence with firearms.

I have been an active shooter and hunter for nearly 30 years and I have never once had an accidental firearm incident.

I would not have a problem revoking the right of firearm ownership for people who shoot someone through negligence. I may support restoration of those rights after very extensive training and testing to demonstrate competence.

I, also, am leery of restricting rights based on intellect. But when the consequences can be deadly, some leeway in the restrictions is deserved.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Was Cheney's accidental shooting negligence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #27
28.  Some hunters I know felt it was...
indeed negligence. And they were Republicans!

I did find this interesting articles:

Based on the public accounts of last weekends shooting, thered be a good case to be made that Cheney was negligent. A person is negligent per se when he violates a statutory standard of care, such as the requirement to establish a clear line of fire and confirm a defined game. (This puts aside the fact that Cheney was hunting without a proper state stamp.)

Cheneys is a classic case of buck fever. There was nothing particularly confusing or unexpected about an individual rejoining a hunting line, as Whittington reportedly did. Rather, it was likely the euphoria of seeking and shooting game that blinded Cheney to the fact that he was aiming at a 78-year-old attorney rather than a six-ounce bird. Medical studies show that hunters often experience a type of physiological frenzy in the presence of game or its illusion. When shooting a deer, a males heart can reach 118 percent of the maximum heart rate. Given Cheneys heart condition, hunting would seem a poor recreational choice for the vice president.

http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/18/buck-fever-dick-ch... /

Cheney apparently wasnt as certain as he should have been about what was beyond his target, said David Hoyle, president of the Chandler Rod and Gun Club, a familyoriented organization with about 300 members.

Cheney might have gotten caught up in the moment, Hoyle said.

You just have to react so fast and things can happen so fast and youve just got to be absolutely sure where that muzzle is and where youre pointing it and whats down range, he said.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/59190

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. I think so.
I don't know that I ever knew the particulars of that particular event, but unless there was some mechanical malfunction of the weapon beyond his control, then yes, Cheney discharged the weapon, so he was negligent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. I would say so, yes.
Always be aware of your target, and it's backstop. Yes, it's easy to do, with a shotgun, tracking a lateral, fast moving target. It happens all the time. It's probably the most dangerous form of hunting for this reason. (Still an extremely safe sport) For these reasons, we must exercise the utmost care and adherence to the basic rules of firearms. Tunnel vision is no excuse.

Now, was it criminally neglegent? No I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
41. Yes, I believe it was
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
31. How many accidental shootings...
do we have in the U.S. every year?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Some shooting statistics for you ...
Key Facts: In 1997 more than 32,000 Americans were killed with firearms

* 17,566 in firearm suicides,
* 13,522 in firearm homicides,
* 981 in unintentional firearm deaths,
* 367 in firearm deaths of undetermined intent.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wher2gen.htm


In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004)
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNST...

You can view a table that shows a breakdown of firearm deaths from 1991 o 2001 at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Those numbers seem to only show deaths from accidental shootings.
Cheney's accidental person shooting, and others like it, would not be a part of those numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Non fatal accident stats below
Edited on Thu Jan-22-09 03:56 PM by jody
Rank Age Groups 0-85
1 Unintentional Fall 8,035,206
2 Unintentional Struck by/ Against 4,553,663
3 Unintentional Overexertion 3,542,663
4 Unintentional MV-Occupant 2,654,484
5 Unintentional Cut/Pierce 2,123,831
6 Unintentional Other Bite/ Sting 1,044,784
7 Unintentional Other Specified 1,021,042
8 Unintentional Unknown/ Unspecified 697,400
9 Unintentional Poisoning 679,399
10 Unintentional Other Transport 672,284
11 Unintentional Foreign Body 625,773
12 Unintentional Pedal Cyclist 494,294
13 Unintentional Fire/Burn 400,054
14 Unintentional Dog Bite 309,630
15 Unintentional Machinery 293,764
16 Unintentional Motorcyclist 288,234
17 Unintentional Pedestrian 165,587
18 Unintentional Inhalation/ Suffocation 45,997
19 Unintentional Natural/ Environment 42,891
20 Unintentional BB/Pellet Gunshot 17,050

SOURCE: Year 2007, 20 Leading Causes of Nonfatal Unintentional Injury, United States
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #34
42. ZH, allow me to turn you on to a wonderful source for all kinds of injury and mortality stats
Roll your own, and question any numbers you think someone might have pulled out of, uh, thin air.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/WISQARS/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Thank you for the link, but I did not accuse anyone of pulling numbers out of the air.
I stated that the numbers painted a biased picture for the reasons I gave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. I did not mean to suggest that you made any such accusation
I'm just giving you a tool to use for any purpose you choose.

I have found it extremely handy for dealing with bullshit. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Oh sorry, and again, thanks for the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
48. Should people who have auto accidents
still be allowed to drive? Same answer for both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC