Dad shoots 11-year-old daughter in head...

[MineralMan]

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/04/22/daughter-accidentally-shot-in-head-by-father/

----------------------------------
"An 11-year-old girl is in the hospital after an accident with a handgun that involved the girl’s father pulling the trigger.

It happened at the family’s home near Braham, Minn., in Pine County.

The father was using a 22-caliber pistol for target practice outside when the gun jammed. He took it inside to try and fix the problem and that’s when the gun went off.
A bullet hit his daughter, Maddy Montanye, in the head. She was sitting on the other side of the room at the time."

----------------------------------

The kid's in the hospital, condition unknown. Another moron with a firearm...

Folks - When you're clearing a jammed pistol, pay attention to the direction it's pointing, OK?

[Old Codger]

1. Idiot

Should lose gun rights, no excuse for this type of incident.

[MineralMan]

2. I just hope the kid survives her father's stupidity.

Unbelievable!

[DrDan]

3. how sad . . . .

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

5. No, that's not why.

But a nice try. Think of the recent history at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, and the word "militia." That's why. You don't seem to understand the reason for that whole phrase any better than the people you're mocking. You're not helping.

[aikoaiko]

6. Or is that the part that the pants shitting Brady Bruch types willfully distort?

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

7. Both sides distort the meaning of that language.

And both do it knowingly and deliberately.

[aikoaiko]

8. Ok then, what do you think the term "well-regulated" is referring to in the 2nd Amendment?

[MineralMan]

9. Nope. I'm not getting into that discussion in this thread.

This thread is about stupid people, not the 2nd Amendment. It's also not about firearms laws, RKBA, or any other topic. It is about a stupid man who shot his own child because of his stupidity. If you'd like to talk about that and how to prevent stupid people from shooting their children, I'll be happy to discuss those things.

If you want a semantics discussion about the language in the 2nd Amendment, start a thread about it. If it's coherent, I may comment. If it's not, I'll ignore it. This is the thread I've started, and it's not about that in any way.

[RC]

14. The misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment is responsible for the daughter getting shot.

[petronius]

18. A very very stupid decision by a thoughtless parent is responsible for this girl's injury

Hope she recovers quickly, and that appropriate steps are taken to ensure her safety at home...

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Still beating that dead horse? N/T

[rrneck]

27. Had to dig it up fitst. nt

[cleanhippie]

29. WRONG! An idiot is responsible.

[Atypical Liberal]

48. In what way?

In what way has the second amendment been misinterpreted, and how does it bear on this girl being shot?

[Upton]

15. If you don't want to discuss firearms

then what's the point of posting this thread in the Guns Forum? Just out of curiosity, do you go around posting about car accidents in the Automobile Group too?

[MineralMan]

26. Uh, I posted this because it's a firearms safety issue.

You may have noticed that there was a firearm in the article I quoted, along with a very, serious firearms safety error, which lead to a man shooting his own daughter in the head.

Firearms.
Safety.


That, my DU friend, is a post that fits in the Guns forum. I posted it to start a discussion on firearms safety. I do want to discuss firearms. This has nothing to do with RKBA or any other hot-button issue. It has to do with firearms safety. Is that OK with you? Do you have a problem of posting such threads in a firearms forum? If so, perhaps you'll explain what that problem might be.

As for your cars example, you can search for my posts about automotive topics. I often comment about auto safety issues, as well.


Thanks for your concern with my reasons for posting. I'm always happy to explain.

[aikoaiko]

33. Fair enough, but you've already weighed in on this by saying both sides distort the term.

It seems to me you entered the semantic discussion of the 2nd Amendment in this thread.

I agree, this thread is about a stupid person who shot his own child.

[MineralMan]

39. That was just a side comment, since others raised the issue.

[RC]

12. Isn't is quite obvious "well-regulated" meant

the NRA? They regulate their members pretty well, don't you think?

[Old Codger]

16. meaning of "well regulated"

Based on modern translation of language used at the time it was drawn up.


Well-Regulated: This term has nothing to do with regulation by government officials. In the eighteenth century, "well regulated" meant an efficient or properly running mechanism. In a military context, it referred to a standard of training and preparedness which we now call "combat readiness."

[aikoaiko]

34. I agree. That's the pro-rkba position but the OP says thats a distortion.

:shrug:

[jberryhill]

21. It relates to the historical usage of the term "regular" in connection with military forces

See, e.g. the term "regular army":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_Army_%28United_States%29

Or the discussion here:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

That page provides several citations to historical usage that you may find helpful, such as:

"I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))"

The Second Amendment was not written at a time when words like "regulation" or "regulated" were understood to be some kind of reference to a (then non-existent) body of federal statutes or administrative codes.

In the quote above, Washington wasn't suggesting the recruitment of troops that came with a bunch of restrictions on gun ownership.

[aikoaiko]

35. I agree. That's the pro-rkba position but the OP says thats a distortion.

:shrug:

[jberryhill]

46. Uh, no... that the RKBA is qualified to a "well regulated militia" is not a "pro RKBA position"

The point in this subthread was the definition of "regulated" in the larger phrase. No, it's not talking about "regulations" in the sense that the term is commonly used in American English anymore. Yes, the larger phrase is "well regulated militia".

[aikoaiko]

49. I did not say the RKBA is qualified to a well regulated militia.

I said your description of what well-regulated meant in the 2nd was the common position taken by pro-RKBA folks.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

72. I suppose you didn't see how it was parallel to the comments made by the person I was responding to.

And you post will likely be deleted for calling out the mods.

[DrDan]

11. we can certainly thank the NRA for successfully working to poke as many holes in this as possible

[cleanhippie]

55. Uh, no.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and are fabricating things.

[cleanhippie]

28. Such a display of ignorance.

[rrneck]

32. The militia is well regulated.

The PEOPLE have a right to keep and bear arms.

And father's who love their daughters never get over hurting them. A horrible family tragedy.

[eqfan592]

41. You keep saying that phrase...

..I do not think it means what you think it means.

[lawodevolution]

45. "well regulated" is in the dependent clause

if you want to make gun ownership "well regluated" based on what the founding fathers wanted, then we need required marksmanship and gun safetly classes in school for all children.

Otherwise we can continue to focus on the second clause, the independent one.

[Atypical Liberal]

47. Think poop, not rules.

This is why the Founders put the "well regulated" part in the 2nd Amendment.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the negligent discharge of a firearm.

In 18th century vernacular, if something was "well-regulated", it meant well-functioning. Very accurate clocks of the day, such as those used to set other, less-accurate time pieces, were known as "regulators". Even today, when your digestive system is working properly you are said to be "regular". This does not mean that clocks or your intestines operate under a set of rules and regulations. Rather it simply means "well-functioning".

Unless you meant that firearms should be well-functioning, I guess.

[armueller2001]

10. Ban cars and swimming pools.

You can't legislate away stupid.

[DrDan]

13. you can certainly attempt to bring a bit of control over the risks

oh yeah - never mind. Priorities - protect the arsenal first - public safety follows.

[Upton]

17. Indeed..,.

but the nanny stater prohibitionists think they can legislate away anything..

[MineralMan]

19. Both cars and swimming pools are covered by

a whole freaking bunch of laws. So are firearms. I don't want to ban any of them. Where did you get the idea that I did from my post?

Somehow, the moron in this article missed learning how to safely clear a jam in his little .22 pistol - a fairly common situation with most .22 semi-autos unless they are meticulously maintained and operated. Somehow, he missed learning the basic rules of safety, too. Why is that, do you think?

You're reading something into my post that simply isn't there. This was a firearms safety post, not a firearms banning post.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. The antis will jump upon any gun mishap to turn it into a gun banning thread. N/T

[MineralMan]

25. So? I'm the one who started the thread, and I started it to point

out a specific thing. Some people tried to turn it into a gun-banning thread. Others want it to be a general 2nd Amendment thread.

Who cares. My point was something very specific. What others do is beyond my control.

[rl6214]

61. OK, so legislate required firearm safety in schools

Is that what you are looking for?

[MineralMan]

63. That's one possible way to go, although kids tend to forget what

they learn in school, and I doubt they'd teach the proper techniques for clearing a jam.

There are other possibilities, like requiring proof of firearms safety knowledge before purchasing a firearm. That would be a good thing, too.

What I was looking for is a discussion of the issue of morons who don't know anything about safety owning firearms. I didn't get that discussion. What I got was a lot of stock RKBA talking points. Too bad, I think.

Oh, well. I have all the necessary training. I got it in several ways. Nothing like what happened in this incident would ever occur with me around or with my own firearms. Why? Because I have that training and put it into practice.

There are lots and lots of untrained people and even complete idiots with firearms. What about them?

[rl6214]

70. I understand what you are saying but if we would just do

something like public service announcements such as the 4 rules of firearm safety:

The 1st Law - The Gun Is Always Loaded!


The 2nd Law - Never Point The Gun At Something You Are Not Prepared To Destroy!



The 3rd Law - Always Be Sure Of Your Target And What Is Behind It!



The 4th Law - Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger Until Your Sights Are On The Target!

I know it's rather simplictic but if run often enough maybe the dipshit would have it in his head and not have had a gun discharge into his daughters head.

[MineralMan]

73. I don't think that's at all adequate.

Sorry.

[slackmaster]

20. Basic gun safety should be taught in public schools

The poor girl's father apparently was not properly trained on how to handle a weapon.

[MineralMan]

22. Well, it should certainly be taught somewhere, that's for sure.

It's not, though, a requirement for firearms ownership. Perhaps it should be.

Maybe showing your certificate of basic firearms training should be a requirement for every firearms purchase. Or your DD Form 214, or something that demonstrates that you actually know which end the bullet comes out and in what direction it goes. Just maybe. This incident was caused by an owner who didn't understand the two things I mentioned, apparently.

For example, I can't show a certificate from all the training my father gave me, but I do have the one issued to me in 1957 when I was 12 years old, from the mandatory firearms safety class I had to take to get my first hunting license. I still have it. It's in a scrapbook full of hunting and fishing photos. I have my DD Form 214, too, which even documents my Expert Marksman ribbon from the USAF. I'll be happy to bring those things to the local place where I buy my firearms and ammo.

What's more, if I buy a .22 semi-auto pistol, I'll do research to see if users have reported jamming behavior for that model. I'll read the nice little book that comes with whatever one I buy, too, and do a full field-strip before I ever fire it the first time. Then, I'll religiously clean and service the little pistol after every use. If I have any questions about its operation, I'll get the information before using it. That's how I do it.

[slackmaster]

36. .22 rimfire semiauto pistols have an inherent problem with jamming

The rimmed cases are not ideally designed to feed reliably in that kind of mechanism. If you get a high-quality one like a Browning Buckmark or a Ruger, you will have a lot fewer problems than with a cheap one such as a Jennings or a Raven.

The jam potential of .22 rimfire may be the only reason that .25 ACP still exists.

[MineralMan]

38. Yes, just as I said. They do, which means that

proper attention has to be paid to those firearms. I don't have one, since I can't see much use for one. I have a 22 auto-loading rifle, a Marlin, but it has never jammed or otherwise failed to feed properly. I keep it scrupulously maintained.

But even Ruger semiauto pistols can have these issues. There are many posts about out it on the web. As you say, it's the nature of the ammunition. I have little use for that particular ammo, so I only have the one weapon, which was a childhood gift.

[slackmaster]

44. I have a Ruger Mark II, purchased brand new with two magazines

One magazine feeds 100% reliably with some brands of ammo, the other does not. I can't tell the difference by looking at them.

The gun is pretty picky about what ammo it will shoot reliably. My 10/22 rifle will shoot anything that chambers in it.

[MineralMan]

52. Check the lip opening with a micrometer. Betcha one is

a few thousandths smaller. It doesn't take much. Not much force to work with with .22LR. Anything that adds a little friction can cause problems.

[rl6214]

62. I've got the browning buckmark

I never have a fail to feed but do have occasional problems with ammo not firing even though there is a distinct impact mark from the firing pin.

[MineralMan]

64. Does that happen with all brands of ammo?

If so, a trip to the gunsmith seems in order. If it only happens with certain brands, the solution is obvious. Some people do experience problems with cheap, bulk .22 ammo, but not with a little higher quality stuff. .22 ammo is so inexpensive that I never buy anything but high-quality stuff.

[rl6214]

71. No it tends to happen with the cheaper 'block bulk' type ammo

Quality stuff, never a problem.

[MineralMan]

74. Looks like you have your answer, then, for that

particular firearm. The difference in cost isn't really that great.

[gejohnston]

40. that might be a worthy discussion

Took a CCW class full of suburbanites that were umm, let's say I would not go in the woods with. I was going to trade my Single-six for an auto. Changed my mind.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. +1

[MineralMan]

66. Quick....what's the capitol of North Dakota and Rhode Island.

You learned that in school, but it's not probably relevant to your life as an adult. School is probably not the best place for the kind of training I'm talking about. It's too likely to be forgotten.

I'm talking about training for adults who are buying firearms. Real training, including maintenance, issues with misfires and similar problems, and proper handling of firearms under many conditions. You know...actual training that every owner should have, teaching information every firearms owner should know.

In reality, I'd go so far as to suggest that people should be trained in the specific weapons they own, if they don't already have that knowledge. For example, if you went into a store to buy a pistol, you couldn't take it home until you had been trained in its use and maintenance. Very practical, hands-on demonstrations and learning until you can properly use and maintain that particular weapon.

That's what they do in the military, you know. You have to qualify with each weapon type. It involves both classroom and hands-on teaching. It's not all that difficult, but it's something that's considered necessary by the military, so you can use the weapon effectively and safely.

[slackmaster]

67. Not everyone who encounters a firearm in the "wild" is buying one

Any person could at some time encounter a firearm that was stored in a negligent manner, lost, or intentionally ditched. Every person should know the basics of how to safely take control of and unload common types of firearms. You don't have to do it quickly, you probably won't be under any real pressure, you just need to know about things like muzzle control and keeping your finger off the trigger.

[MineralMan]

68. Yes, that information should be taught in schools. No question

about it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. ...clearing a jammed pistol...

"Folks - When you're clearing a jammed pistol, pay attention to the direction it's pointing, OK?"

-- Better yet... Point it down range and don't leave the range with a loaded malfunctioning weapon until it's been cleared.
-- Carrying a jammed weapon is like carrying a grenade with the pin pulled.

[Logical]

50. And maybe don't go in the house either. n-t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

51. don't go in the house

"And maybe don't go in the house either. n-t"

I think we're saying the same thing. You can't go in the house if you "don't leave the range".

[Logical]

53. true! My bad! n-t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. Einstein said...

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.”

It sounds like this guy was an example of that.

[Logical]

60. LOL

[Straw Man]

76. Yes, that's fundamental.

-- Better yet... Point it down range and don't leave the range with a loaded malfunctioning weapon until it's been cleared.

That's pretty much gospel from the NRA Range Safety Officer course. (Yes, the evil NRA...) Even if you have to strip the gun completely to clear the jam, you do it right there, always keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. It can't be said enough times.

Thanks.

[petronius]

37. I like this journalist: "An accident ... that involved ... pulling the trigger."

Sounds like the writer found a tasteful way of saying 'remarkable dumb-ass' without actually spelling it out... :thumbsup:

[Logical]

42. "took the gun inside the house".......stupid and dumb. n-t

[MineralMan]

43. Stupid and dumb is pretty much it for this guy.

[SammyP]

56. Gun controll!

We need gun control in this country. Republicans think that they pose no threat to anyone but there's an accidental shoot at least once a week and an intentional shoot at least once a day. People like to hunt I understand that, I came from a family who likes to hunt as well but we need to have a better understanding of the harm that comes from theses weapons. I also think that there should be an age limit on who can be around firearms. Our lives our more Important than republicans need to hunt.

[DonP]

57. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting - try again.

We already have 22,000 Federal, State and local laws governing the ownership, sale and use of firearms. Ignoring your "do it yourself" statistics on shootings what laws do you think would help, since the criminals already ignore the ones we already have?

BTW every state already has specific age limitations on gun ownership and use, generally 18 for a long gun and 21 for a handgun.

[rrneck]

58. Welcome to DU

Do you have a firearm free self defense solution against someone using a knife, club, fists or feet?

[Upton]

59. On the other hand..

I don't hunt. I believe in the fundamental right of self defense. For my life and those of my loved ones, is more important than any anti who wishes to put restrictions on my civil liberties..

[MineralMan]

65. The only gun control this thread is about is proper handling of

firearms. The moron who shot his daughter had extremely poor control of his pistol. That's why she's in the hospital right now.

What you're talking about is something else, entirely, and is off the subject of this thread.

You can start your own thread about "gun control," if you like. This one is not about that.

[Euromutt]

75. Legally mandated training requirements ARE gun control

In fact, they've also been used to impose de facto gun bans by the expedient of making the required training nigh on impossible to get (unless you're a golfing buddy of the mayor, sheriff or chief of police). And therein lies the rub. There are quite a few gun control measures that are, on their face, perfectly reasonable--and I personally think demonstrating ability to safely handle at least the class of firearm in question (e.g. "single-action semiautomatic handguns" as opposed to specifically an M1911 or a Browning Hi-Power) before being able to possess one is perfectly reasonable--but there are plenty of examples of (seemingly) reasonable restrictions that have been applied in unreasonable ways, which is why gun rights organizations vigorously oppose them.

[AzNick]

77. 4 rules of gun safety

1. Treat firearms as if they are loaded
2. Point the muzzle away from non-targets
3. Keep fingers off the trigger
4. Be sure of your target and of what is beyond it

Let's see... Rule 1... broken. Rule 2.... broken. Rule 3... broken. Rule 4... broken.