Delbert Huber, an 81-year old Kandiyohi County Minnesota man, got into a verbal argument with 43 year old Timoth Larson. Huber settled the dispute by blasting Larson with his gun. Larson is dead. Larson was a special ed teacher at St. Michael-Albertville Middle School West.
Twenty Two year old Mattisha Houston killed Joseph Wells in Houston. She was shooting at a tree in her back yard, missed the tree, and Wells was killed while watching his TV.
Timothy Huber, the son of Delbert was also arrested. [source]
This is not the usual sort of thing I like to point out, but since it was close to home I thought I’d mention it .
______________
Johnnie Flow armed herself with a handgun last February, because she felt her family was being threatened. The gun was not legal, and apparently there was no attempt at safety training.
Then, her 3 year old son go thold of the gun and shot her other kid, 2-year old Payton, in the stomach.
Johnie says:
“I’m not a bad mother,” Flow said. “Anybody who knows me knows my babies mean the world to me. That was just a freak accident.”
Ah, Johnnie, sorry, no. You are a bad mother. That was not a freak accident. That was you having a loaded gun that was not locked away. You turned one of your kids into a victim of gun violence, and the other into a perp. That does not mean that you can’t be a good mother, but just saying that you are a good mother because you want it to be true is a stupid as leaving a loaded gun in reach of your toddlers.
Also, you are reproducing too fast. Slow down.
The victim was release from the hospital on Saturday.
______________________
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
The pro-gun faction seems to treat guns mostly as a positive aspect of their cultural expression. I grew up in rural upstate NY, and my sister is married to a self-described redneck who loves hunting, and my brother enjoys shooting guns at the range, so I know whereof I speak. My brother also carries and handgun around “just in case.” A firearm as a security blanket. My brother is not going to get mugged.
The thing is, in urban settings, guns are so much more likely to shoot and kill someone.
Thus, it seems that in the gun control debate, you’ve got one group’s cultural expression/security blanket competing with another group’s actual physical safety.
Psychic/cultural benefits should take precedence over the actual lives of fellow citizens.
There’s racism there. The people who get psychic and cultural benefits from guns tend to be white, while the people who bear the cost of easy gun availability tend to be black. Not a coincidence.
“I’m not a bad driver – I was just driving on the wrong side of the road with my eyes closed. Anybody who knows me knows my car means the world to me. It was a freak accident.”
Sheesh…
A question that’s been on my mind regarding these issues, but which I am unable to answer here in the UK due to sample size limitations: I was taught to shoot by gamekeepers – i.e. guys who earn their livings with guns, for whom a gun really is just a tool like a shovel or a sledgehammer, and who all have stories about that time so-and-so got a bit careless and accidentally shot his own truck. You know the sort… Anyway, those guys were all really serious about gun safety, and they drilled it into me non-stop. Is this a common experience? By which I mean, do others find that people who routinely handle guns as part of their day-to-day working lives take the issue of safe gun handling much more seriously than people who only handle guns occasionally, or for recreation? I know a few military types who have nothing but disdain for the way armed police (a minority over here) handle their weapons, and I’m curious as to whether it’s more widespread…
Dunc – I’m a federal law enforcement officer and we get quite a bit of firearms training. We have to qualify on the range a minimum number of times per year or we get our commissions pulled (can’t work). We regularly review incidents and safety’s pretty much drilled into us.
I have three firearms issued by my department. I carry them because virtually everyone I deal with is armed. I have to be able to respond to protect other people from gun violence, and that means responding with a firearm. If I lived in a country where firearms were rare, I would happily be an un-firearmed officer. I didn’t take this job so I could carry firearms, I took it for the investigative and other aspects.
When I retire, I will hand my firearms back in to the department and I will have none. I have no plans to have firearms once I’m not an officer. I actually know quite a few officers who feel this way. I’ve rarely been in any situation off-duty where I felt I needed a firearm in my home, my car, or while walking around alone in the woods (I’m female, by the way).
Being shot is not like it looks on TV. It is a good-god-almighty hideous destructive mess. On the job, I put on body armor every time I put on a firearm – rated for my own firearm’s caliber, in case I get shot with it. Off the job, I don’t wear body armor, and I don’t carry a firearm, either…
Tiktaalik – because most of our police are unarmed, the few specialist officers are possibly something of a self-selecting sample, and they almost certainly don’t get as much training and day-to-day experience as you do. Even those officers trained for firearms duties spend most of their time unarmed, and it seems to show… Far too many fingers on triggers. Makes me nervous as hell just seeing them.
Every time I’ve picked up a firearm, it’s been with a very recent (like about five minutes previous) safety lecture ringing in my ears. I’ve given the safety lecture a time or two myself.
Too many idjits seem to think the safety lecture isn’t for them. Like the frequent flyer on his fifty-something flight, he just ignores it and carries on. Both the frequent shooter and the frequent flyer are all too often lost when something goes wrong.
My brother-in-law the police officer, thinks it is okay to leave his loaded department issued gun within easy reach of his children, and no argument I have ever made dissuaded him of this hairbrained notion. So far, no injuries, but I think it is pure luck on his part. Even in the 1950s, my dad NEVER left his gun within our reach, and we certainly never knew where the ammunition was located.
I’ve said this before, there are some serious logic issues with the crowd that likes the idea of things such as concealed carry.
First, the only reason to conceal your weapon is to get the drop on someone. If you carry a gun loud and proud then no mugger will approach.
But no, they say, then muggers and rapists will go after those without guns.
Problem with that is that, then, is your carrying a gun increases the danger for those of us who choose not to have one.
The other problem is that when two people are armed any argument goes high-stakes. And the Heinlein notion that people would be careful is just stupid. Why? I teach martial arts. I learned a very important lesson from one of my instructors. He would take us out for beer. Make sure we got a couple in us. Then he would say “let’s do kata.” The point? a) we discovered that you get kind’a sick and b) most of the time when you are in a fight situation you will be drunk. Situation b) means you are not thinking clearly and tend to forget things. You ever try doing anything that requires precision after a couple of beers?
If you have been drinking, what do you think happens to your judgement?
The other issue is relative likelihoods. Home invasions are rare. Very rare. It isn’t like a movie where you hear a bunch of baddies banging on the door and have time to load up.
Muggings don’t look much like they do on TV either.
Then there’s another problem, more serious: to shoot someone you have to be a sociopath. As one cop put it to me: are you willing to blow someone’s head off, to get their blood all over you, to shoot to kill in cold blood? No, not if you aren’t a psycho. There is a reason it takes some time to train people in the military to do just that. (And a reason any soldier or Marine will tell you that if there is an absolutely fearless guy in your unit, the kind who isn’t bothered by combat or killing, he will get all of you killed).
I am not against owning guns. Want one? Fine. Carry it loud and proud. Demonstrate you can hit a 10-inch target at 50 yards, with any weapon. (Preferably as small a caliber as possible). Show you can take apart and put together the gun you want to own. In 2 minutes. Show you know all the safety protocols. In fact, I’d be for having people tested by the same criteria they use in the military and police forces to qualify on specialized weapons. And having to renew and retest every year.
And losing your license if you so much as sniff a beer with a gun on your person.
This.
There is some small probability that you could be the target of an attack where having a firearm would make a big difference in the outcome. There is also some irreducible risk (to yourself and others) involved in having that firearm around. If the former outweighs the latter, then it is a sensible decision to carry a gun.
The problem with guns is that people are notoriously bad at estimating risk. The problem with regulating guns is that the government isn’t necessarily any better – witness the security theatre we get from the TSA.
Jesse: Right. The effects of C&C are totally ruined by the simple fact that the vast majority of people feel strongly that they don’t want to do it.
Keep this in mind: When new C&C laws have gone into place, anti-gun people worried that there would be more shootings. Pro-gun people claimed it would reduce crime. But when the laws actually go into place, and some time goes by, NEITHER happens. The pro gun people’s claims do not pan out.
So, Greg, the glass is half full either way, and that makes only the pro-gun people wrong? I don’t think that argument would pass peer review.
As for the influence of gun control laws, looks at this list:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
DC tops the list, Hawaii is at the bottom. Those are the States with the most stringent fire arm laws, totally opposite effects.
I still haven’t seen a gun control measure that promise an effective removal of illegal guns with reasonable access to guns for the rest of the nation.
To the LEO above, don’t tell me you don’t know which apartment blocks to raid in your neighborhood and arrest 20 felons with guns. You can’t do that because the 4th amendment says you need a warrant. Do you think stricter gun control measures will remove one gun in those blocks, and make your job one bit safer? Whom are you afraid off, the guy with the CCW or the guy who knows he’s looking at 5 years minimum if you find the gun?
Even overturning the 2nd amendment doesn’t solve your issues, you need to get rid of the 4th too to actually get the guns.
, and that makes only the pro-gun people wrong?
I don’ know. Who said they are wrong?
I don’t think that argument would pass peer review.
You did know you are reading comments on a blog post, right?
Interesting link, thanks for that . Of course, there are a few other variables that track on that list other than gun laws.
The truth is that changing gun laws rarely changes anything. Making it easier for people to have guns does not do what you gun nuts say, and restricting guns does not stop most gun violence.
But we weren’t talking about that, were we? (mostly)
I don’t think I qualify as gun nut, as I support reasonable gun control. Reasonable defined as the decision is not handed over to some bureaucrat’s whim (aka as long as it goes by “if you fulfill the criteria a- e, you shall be issued a permit etc.).