Driver Accidentally Shoots Self Attempting Self Defence, Dies

[Pert_UK]

"CLOVIS, N.M. -- Police said a Clovis man bled to death after accidentally shooting himself in an apparent attempt to ward off potential attackers.

Authorities said Daniel Stockton, 52, was in his pickup truck with his wife when a car sideswiped his vehicle in Clovis Sunday. Police said Stockton followed the car until it stopped. Officers said the car's driver and two male passengers appeared to be getting out to come toward his truck.

Stockton's wife told police her husband retrieved his pistol from the center console, cocked the gun, and it fired. The gunshot severed an artery in his leg, and he tried to drive to a hospital, but only made it a few blocks. "

Link:

http://www.local6.com/traffic/2418049/detail.html

[Old and In the Way]

1. Well, he certainly had the right to accidently shoot himself.

nt

[jody]

2. More information at the following link

ON EDIT: Repair link

"Shooting accident kills one"

If Daniel Stockton had been killed in his truck when he was sideswiped, it would just be an unfortunate vehicle accident caused by a drunk driver. But because a gun was involved, the anti gun crowd will mess their diapers while conjuring all sorts of evil spirits acting for the evil GUN-DEMON.

[billbuckhead]

3. Diapers?

There can be no rational debate with the gun "rights" crowd. Just remember that far, far more Americans die from domestic gun terrorism and gun stupidity than from Al Queda terrorism.

[MrBenchley]

23. Evidently

the idea that this idiot could have taken down the license plate and called the cops doesn't occur to RKBA "enthusiasts."

[Spoonman]

24. Lets see some "numbers"

"far more Americans die from domestic gun terrorism"

Find a credible source and post up.
And please, don't forget to qualify the definition of terrorism in your reply.

[MrBenchley]

25. Frankly, Bill IS a credible source, spoon... (nt)

[Spoonman]

26. Yea, WE SEE THAT......(nt)

"domestic gun terrorism" what a fucking joke.
A tragic stretch to reach a viable point.

The term terrorism is the latest "catch word" people with baseless arguments use in a vain attempt to substantiate their position.
Come on, at least be original in your attempts to mislead.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Spoonman]

32. As well as

NO THANKS

[iverglas]

27. what shall we call this?

What was said:

Just remember that far, far more Americans die
from domestic gun terrorism and gun stupidity

What Spoonman quotes:

"far more Americans die from domestic gun terrorism"

Golly.

I'm seeing a difference.

Why would anyone even consider responding to the demand to "Find a credible source and post up" for something s/he DID NOT SAY?

Of course, the real questions are:

Why would anyone represent someone else as having said something that s/he DID NOT SAY, by misrepresenting what s/he did say and then demanding that s/he "Find a credible source" for what s/he did not say?

Why would anyone demand that someone else "Find a credible source and post up" for something that the person to whom the demand was directed DID NOT SAY?

.

Here's one, that I've just made up especially for you and I'm quite sure would be correct:

Just remember that far, far more Americans die from drowning in toilets and gun stupidity.

Now, you just go right ahead and misrepresent me as having said:

Just remember that far, far more Americans die from drowning in toilets.

by asking me to find a credible source for *that* statement, which I DID NOT MAKE.

I never cease to be amazed at the time and effort that some people are so eager to expend in the attempt to portray people as being and saying things that they are not and did not say. I do know what I call such attempts, though. But I'm afraid you'll just have to guess; I'm not telling.

.

[Spoonman]

33. Golly gee, we shall call it bullshit

Because that is exactlly what it is.

I never cease to be amazed at the time and effort that some people are so eager to expend in the attempt to over analyze the statements of others into an illogical foundation for an argument.

A failure to read the entire thread, and follow it’s progression is the problem at hand.

What was actually said was Just remember that far, far more Americans die from domestic gun terrorism and gun stupidity than from Al Queda terrorism.

I would venture to say that 99% of the English-speaking world would interpret the above statement to mean something along the lines of this.

Domestic gun terrorism and gun stupidity combined are responsible for more deaths in America than from Al Queda terrorism.

Either way the meaning is the same; the author is claiming X + Y is greater than Z. This is a simple mathematical statement for anyone who passed basic grade 4 math.

Why would anyone represent someone else as having said something that s/he DID NOT SAY

Although many people love to claim someone lied about or misquoted something about him/her or themselves, in general it is obvious to everyone what the question was.

I’ll rephrase it in much simpler terms.

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE KILLED EACH YEAR BY domestic gun terrorism?
WHAT IS domestic gun terrorism?

Please demonstrate with credible sources how you came to this brilliant conclusion.

Somehow, the format in which I first presented the above questions were too complicated for some people to interpret, thank you for pointing that out.

Your own example leaves some unclear questions as well.
Just remember that far, far more Americans die from drowning in toilets and gun stupidity.
You failed to make a complete statement. Than die from from what, hic-ups?
Let’s try it
Just remember that far, far more Americans die from drowning in toilets and gun stupidity than from hic-ups.
Had you made that assertion which we all know you did not, the question I would have would be; how many people die from toilet drownings and hic-ups?
Understand now, I don’t think I can explain it any simpler.

Then again, regardless of whether I could or not, you will somehow find some fallacy in it valid or not.
No matter, I would put that somewhere in the same vicinity as those who “drowned” in your statement.

[iverglas]

34. hmm

You just don't seem to have explained why you chose to misquote the poster as having said something s/he did not say. I'd think that this would be a simple enough task, for the person who did it.

"Your own example leaves some unclear questions as well.
Just remember that far, far more Americans die from drowning
in toilets and gun stupidity.
You failed to make a complete statement. Than die from from what, hic-ups?

Erm (is that how it goes?). I'm afraid that you'll have to look to yourself for the source of this problem. You're the one who didn't quote the complete statement made by the poster whom you misquoted, after all. Me, I was just modelling. Since the statement I was modelling was your own, I foolishly assumed that you'd know what you had been talking about.

Like I was saying ... can anybody here hold a thought for more than two posts?

Rhetorical question. Not directed to anyone in particular.

But oh look, you did!

What was actually said was Just remember that far,
far more Americans die from domestic gun terrorism
and gun stupidity than from Al Queda terrorism.

Quelle surprise that one might assume that my statement, modelled on thine own, would then have been:

Just remember that far, far more Americans die from drowning
in toilets and gun stupidity than from Al Qaeda terrorism.

I've never understood the urge to play dumb.

"I would venture to say that 99% of the English-speaking world
would interpret the above statement to mean something along the
lines of this.

Domestic gun terrorism and gun stupidity **combined** are responsible
for more deaths in America than from Al Queda terrorism."
(emphasis added)

And I'd call that stating the obvious. But you do an excellent job of it.

So what I'm still wondering is why you would ask someone to find and post a credible source for the statement

Just remember that far, far more Americans die from domestic
gun terrorism

-- that being, of course, what you did do (omitting the "than ..." clause as you did).

You have now managed to accurately express the meaning of the statement originally made.

You previously misquoted the statement as if it meant something else, and then demanded substantiation for it.

I'm sure you do understand the meaning of the word "combined". And the meaning of the word "and". What I don't understand is why you would have ignored what you understood, and asked something that only someone who did not understand those things could have asked ... with a straight face.

"Either way the meaning is the same; the author is claiming X + Y
is greater than Z. This is a simple mathematical statement for anyone
who passed basic grade 4 math."

Like I said, you have obviously "got it".

I'd just point out that I would not expect anyone who had passed grade 4 math to ask someone who said "X + Y is greater than Z" to prove that X is greater than Z.

Hmm. Maybe omitting that "than ..." clause, as you did when you quoted that truncated bit of the statement that was made in the first place, was a slyer move than I had thought ... except that yes, that does then leave us with just a meaningless shred of a thing: asking someone who had said "X + Y is greater than Z" to prove that "X is greater" -- asking someone who had said Just remember that far, far more Americans die from domestic gun terrorism and gun stupidity than from Al Qaeda terrorism to prove that far more Americans die from domestic gun terrorism. Which is what you did.

I'm sure I wouldn't want to assume that *you* had said something completely meaningless. But perhaps the evidence does point in that direction ...

Especially given your now attempted explanation:

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE KILLED EACH YEAR
BY domestic gun terrorism?
WHAT IS domestic gun terrorism?

Please demonstrate with credible sources how you came
to this brilliant conclusion.

'Cause that just doesn't make a lick of sense.

In case you missed *my* point, I'll try to lay it out.

Far, far more Americans die from domestic gun terrorism and gun stupidity than from Al Qaeda terrorism. This, I submit, would be true if we substituted "picking their nose" for "domestic gun terrorism", with the notable exception of 2001 (if we assume that quite a few people died in that year from Al Qaeda terrorism).

The statement is TRUE even if NO Americans die "from domestic gun terrorism". So your demand for substantiation was just a big old smelly fish.

.

[Spoonman]

35. You have suceeded

in rambling on extensively without ever recovering from your initial post.

Eventually you need to come to the realization that your breakdowns of sentence structure and out of context interpretation do not work in the real world.
Save them for the courtroom where you are need to confuse people in order to win you case.

You can try as hard as you like to distort what was said, but the bottom line is "open mouth insert foot".

[-..__...]

4. I knew someone...

who died in a skiing accident when he severed his femoral artery. He was dead within minutes.
What does this have to do with guns? Well, nothing really except that accidents do happen regardless
of the implement or situation. Gun accidents just make for more scathing headlines and Brady propaganda.

With regards to Mr. Stockton's unfortunate accident, it sounds like he probably had his finger on the
trigger when he shouldn't have.

[Pert_UK]

6. I'll say it again.....I'm not really anti guns but your comment is odd....

"What does this have to do with guns? Well, nothing really except that accidents do happen regardless of the implement or situation."

Well in this instance the guy accidentally shot himself dead, therefore it has a lot to do with guns.

I'm NOT criticising the guy and feel that this is a tragic incident. However, having just SURVIVED an auto accident in which someone smashed their car into him, he then CREATED a situation which placed him in danger and which ended his life.

I don't want to second guess or be a genius using hindsight, but what about taking the guy's registration plate and calling the cops? You get smashed into by another driver who doesn't stop. You then chase him until he stops and then are surprised and scared when he pulls over and gets out of the car??? What were you expecting him to do? If you're that scared, why not drive on rather than risk a confrontation?

No, clearly the best course of action is to remain in a place of danger and CONFRONT the person, having first armed yourself with a deadly weapon.

Look, I'm really NOT anti gun, but in this specific situation if no guns had been present then nobody would have died.

[Pert_UK]

5. Look, I'm not really anti-gun but your comment makes no sense....

You're saying that if he hadn't accidentally shot himself to death then people wouldn't be discussing ways to prevent a fatal gun accident?

Wow......astounding logic.

You're right, if he'd have been killed by a drunk driver then maybe the story wouldn't have surfaced on DU, or maybe it would have and people would start talking about how to stop DUI - I started a discussion on that topic the other day, and lots of people joined in to talk about it.

However, in this instance someone killed themselves accidentally with a gun. And we're not allowed to talk about it?

Odd.

P.

[RoeBear]

7. OK, let's talk about it...

The four rules of gun safety:

Rule # 1
Treat all guns as if they are loaded.


Rule # 2

Never let the muzzle of a gun point at anything you do not want to destroy or kill.

Rule # 3

Keep your finger straight and off the trigger.


Rule # 4

Be absolutely sure
of your target, and
what is behind it.

If the fellow had followed rule #2 he would still be around today.

[Pert_UK]

9. I agree with your comment, but not sure about the point.

If he'd have obeyed that rule about handling guns then he wouldn't have shot himself in the leg.

However, he didn't follow that rule and he died.

If he hadn't had a gun with him then there would be no way he could have shot himself, with human error playing no role in whether he lived or died.

Alternatively, if he DID have the gun but had decided NOT to pull it at that stage, then he wouldn't have shot himself.

If he hadn't have had a gun in the car, would he really have chased down an unknown perpetrator and placed himself in a position of danger where he felt he had no choice but to pull the gun in self-defence?

I don't know about you, but if someone crashed into me then refused to stop I might follow them for a while but I WOULD NOT then get out to remonstrate with them if they looked unstable of violent.

Did the gun give him false confidence which then put him into a position of being threatened, which he felt required pulling the gun?

I don't know, I really don't.

My basic point here is that every time someone gets accidentally shot then the "pro gun" people always highlight the rule that could have saved their life. The sad fact is that these rules are repeatedly ignored in the heat of confrontation and that there are many accidental shootings.

I'm playing devil's advocate, but it's like addressing the problem of burglary by saying "But if everyone obeyed the law which prohibits theft then there wouldn't be any burglary" and then taking no further action on it. Having a law or rule does not necessarily solve the problem, there needs to be focus on the enforcement.

[RoeBear]

10. Did he have a right to...

...own the gun, carry it in his car, pull it out to defend himself? If the answer is yes to all questions, then the only thing he needed was a lesson in gun safety.

[Pert_UK]

14. Theoretically, perhaps......

But would you be prepared to claim that there would be virtually NO gun accidents if everyone who used a gun understood the rules of gun safety?

I understand that I shouldn't put my fingers under the knife while I'm chopping chicken, but I still cut myself from time to time.

(Please don't suggest that we therefore ban knives, I have not suggested a ban on guns and drawing a parallel is farcical anyway).

I suppose my point is that no matter how well you understand the rules and regulations there will always be accidents - you just cannot eliminate chance and human error from the equation. The problem is that with a gun, a minor lapse in concentration of judgement is liable to have a far more serious impact than a similar lapse with anything else.

In this specific instance (and to return to your questions)...did he have those "rights"? Well as an American, he may well have done.....but was it sensible to EXERCISE any of those rights?...There's another question.......OK, carry a gun in the car for self-defence - why not, eh, for the sake of argument.

But he put himself in a position where he felt he needed to defend himself with a gun.....that's foolish. Why do it? If his thought process in any way resembles "I'll chase that guy and when he stops I'll pull my gun out to defend myself" then he put himself in a situation which killed him. It's tragic, but ultimately avoidable.

[RoeBear]

22. Nobody can claim...

...that education can prevent all accidents. This persons accident was sad and unfortunate. We teach people to swim and people drown. We teach people to drive and there are car deaths. People parachute and their chutes don't open. It's part of the cost of the freedoms we all hold dear.

I've always shook my head about daredevils who jump over cars with motorcycles, climb mountains, jump out of perfectly good airplanes (sky diving), etc. It's nothing I want to do but they have the freedom to do it and I support that.

[iverglas]

28. and how about

... if he had pulled out the gun and "accidentally" shot HIS WIFE in the leg rather than himself, and it had been HIS WIFE who died rather than him?

I'm sure you know the answer. If he had just followed those four rules or whatever they were, his wife wouldn't be dead.

If the dog hadn't stopped to pee, it would have caught the rabbit.

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

If some idiot hadn't broken the rules of firearm safety, somebody else wouldn't be dead.

The damned thing is, somebody always seems to be dead -- very often not the person who broke the bloody rules.

A lot of people seem to want to overlook that little problem. Person A broke the rules -- PERSON B DIED. People who break the rules of firearm safety very often are not risking their own death or injury, THEY ARE RISKING OTHER PEOPLE'S.

But hey, if somebody else dies, it's the dummy's fault. That's all we need to say, as I understand it. We've figured out where to lay the blame, and that is all that matters. Don't you watch Jerry Springer??

So I vote that we make anthrax generally available, at a low price, to anyone who wants to experiment with it. If somebody breaks the rules of safe anthrax handling and dies as a result, well, it's his/her own damn fault. If SOMEBODY ELSE dies as a result, well, it's the dummy's fault. Why should anybody else care?

Forgive me. I'm sure they all care, truly and madly and deeply. Just not enough to agree to do anything about it. No, their "rights" are just so much more important than other people's lives. And that's the bottom line.

.

[jody]

8. If my simple comment doesn't make sense to you, then I guess we

have a failure to communicate.

An accident is simply an accident although in this case it was provoked by criminals and caused a citizen to exercise his inalienable right to defend self and property and accidentially killed himself in the process.

It's big news only because a gun was involved. In Clovis, it's definitely just a sad, unfortunate accident.

What about the "Man who scalded son arrested" case? Is the anti-gun group going to demand a ban on hot water because it can be used as a deadly weapon?

[Pert_UK]

12. Again, the argument doesn't seem to follow.....

Sorry, I understand you and actually agree with some of your opinions, but the underlying logic is inconsistent.

The deliberate use of hot water in an assault is totally unrelated to an accidental shooting incident.

Hot water has a myriad of uses and is commonplace in every home and a basic necessity of human life. Of course it can be used as a weapon, but it rarely is, and almost anything else can be used as a weapon if you put your mind to it. Hot water's purpose is to cleanse, bathe, cook, make drinks etc.

A gun's purpose is to propel a small amount of lead very fast and very hard to impact a target. It is uniquely suited to causing damage and injury, although you could argue that this isn't it's purpose. A small mistake with a gun is hugely more likely to cause severe injury and death than a small mistake with almost any other common object.

In this instance a man survived an accident over which he had no control then chose to pursue an unknown person who had caused the accident. Would he have done this without the "false courage" that having a gun provides? Would I go chasing after someone I didn't know unless I was armed? NO WAY! He placed himself in a situation of potential danger, and then when he perceived that danger he decided to confront it with a gun rather than driving away or confronting it unarmed. Unfortunately something went wrong and the gun discharged, killing him.

My basic point is that he probably wouldn't have placed himself in that dangerous position if he hadn't had a gun, and he certainly wouldn't have shot himself in the leg if he hadn't had a gun.

I'm NOT saying that guns should be banned, I'm merely making a few conclusions from the details provided.

Whilst I agree with some of your points, I think that your "arguments" are just standard responses that have no relation to this specific situation or, indeed, logical debate.

[jody]

15. Many or most of the anti-RKBA group take every incident in which a

ON EDIT: Correct spelling
firearm is used, whether crime, accident, or suicide and immediately label the gun as the causal agent. Criminals are ignored, the mental state of suicide victims is ignored, and the various activities-events leading to an accident are ignored.

After beating around the bush for an inordinate amount of time, they usually reveal their true goal is to ban 100% of all firearms. It is true that some claim to want only gun-control, but when asked for specific ideas about new gun laws, they either remain silent or ask for selective banning where selective banning may as well be a 100% ban on all firearms.

As regards accidents, there are many causes of accidential deaths that far outrank firearms. My favorite government site WISQARS is down so I will not give stats for accidents.

As regards suicide, guns are a favorite in the US but in other countries poisons and leaping are favorites. In the US the anti-gun crowd blame the gun and shout hysterically that if we could ban the gun, those unfortunate suicide victims would still be alive.

As regards crime, the majority of criminals get their guns from a friend or a street purchase or other illegal source. There is zero evidence that preventing law abiding citizens from possessing firearms will decrease by a single gun the number owned by criminals.

Bottom line is the chap in Clovis had an unfortunate accident and he could have died just as easy in a truck wreck as by a gun accident.

Accidents happen and that's just life. I know that others have suggested that the victim caused the accident but, it is probable that as a competitor, he had customized his trigger for a light trigger pull. If the handgun was a semi-automatic, then when he pulled the slide back and realsed it, it could have fired. I would not rule that out at this point although I hope that's not the case.

:hi:

[Pert_UK]

16. Much more logical......but most doesn't apply to me!

Fair points (most of them), and I appreciate you taking the time to make them. However, I believe it weakens your own case if you start posting the traditional mantras of "pro gunners" every time someone posts a story about a gun accident.

It would actually help, rather than hinder, your case if just occasionally admitted that the presence of a gun in an incident actually did contribute to the severity of the outcome.

"Bottom line is the chap in Clovis had an unfortunate accident and he could have died just as easy in a truck wreck as by a gun accident."

True, true, but ironically in this instance he SURVIVED a vehicle accident.....it was by reaching for his gun that he died. Denying that the presence of a firearm played any role in his death would be bizarre.

Certainly there are fatal accidents involving many everyday objects, but as I've mentioned before, most everyday objects are not so uniquely well-suited to wreaking death and damage. In addition, the idea is that we minimise the risk presented by everyday objects e.g. don't keep poison next to the sugar in the kitchen. A minimised risk with a gun is still hugely more dangerous than, for example, a minimised risk from something else.

[jody]

17. Every point you make about safety is supported by any intelligent pro-RKBA

person. There are absolute nuts in both the pro-RKBA and anti-RKBA camps so I will not comment about their beliefs.

Bottom line is that criminals cause crime, not guns or knives or some other arm and careless people cause accidents, not guns.

If one does something long enough, then an accident will eventually happen. Here's one, a clay target used for skeet shooting is relatively hard. It's possible for a single pellet to strike inside the target body, turn 180 degrees and exit back to strike the shooter. The energy of the pellet is almost gone, so the pellet will not penetrate the skin, but it could damage an eye. That's why every skeet range, and other types of ranges, require shooters and spectators to wear safety glasses.

I was aware that a shot pellet might do a 180 and strike me, but after firing several hundred thousand shells at targets without being hit, I thought the odds were pretty low, but I never took off my glasses. Then I was hit twice in one day during a skeet match. Now I know why we wear shooting glasses.

I believe there is a report showing the number of law enforcement officers who injure themselves or others while using their firearms, primarily handguns. I'll try to find a link and post it for you and others.

We had a thread several months ago about an officer who accidentially shot himself in the butt. He could easily have severed an artery and caused his death. Reaction to that officers accident and to the Clovis accident should be the same. Find out why the accident occured and try to prevent it in the future.

In the US, we had to many hunters injured or killed when hunting. Over the pst 50 years, states have passed mandatory hunter safety requirements and significantly reduce hunting accidents. Still, people do dumb things. A few years ago, a bow hunter was waiting for his teen age son to come back to their vehicle when he saw a deer in the shadows. He nocked an arrow and shot the deer only to find that he had killed his son.

People do dumb things. I know because I've taught hunter safety courses for several years. :shrug:

[Pert_UK]

18. Again, thanks for the response.

I would like to be able to come out hunting with you one day and learn all about it in practice.

P.

[Spentastic]

20. Oxymoron

"where selective banning may as well be a 100% ban on all firearms."

How can you in good faith write this?

[iverglas]

31. yeah, eh?

"where selective banning may as well be a 100% ban on all firearms."

How can you in good faith write this?

And here I was just being told somewhere else (as if I didn't know, and as if it had anything to do with the point in issue there) that 1/4 of Canadian households have firearms (a rough fraction I'll accept as roughly accurate).

Canada has "selective banning". One quarter of Canadian households own firearms. "<S>elective banning may as well be a 100% ban on all firearms."

Go figure.

.

[iverglas]

30. try asking jody

(I do believe she is 'ignoring' me)

... what "inalienable right to defend self and property" means. I'm not sure whether she's managed to look "inalienable" up in the dictionary of her choice yet, although I've offered her what mine says.

There are various "inalienable" rights. "Inalienable" means "may not be transferred" -- no one may sell, give up, or otherwise dispose of his/her life, liberty, and so on. That's what it means. That's all it means.

There are also various reasons for which the exercise of rights may be justifiably interfered with (or, in shorthand, for which "rights may be violated"). The "inalienability" of the right has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is justification for the state interfering with its exercise. Absolutely nothing. If the state can show justification for interfering in a right -- for instance, if imprisoning someone is "necessary" in order to protect the public, then that person's ability to exercise his/her inalienable right to liberty *may* be interfered with -- then it may do so.

Jody doesn't like thinking about this. I suspect that jody doesn't understand it.

One could also try asking jody to substantiate this:

"Many or most of the anti-RKBA group take every incident
in which a firearm is used, whether crime, accident, or
suicide and immediately label the gun as the causal agent."

... by naming one.

Perhaps she could rewrite her sentence to read "... *A* causal agent". Then she could consider learning about "necessary" and "sufficient" causes. And contemplate the possibility that many people would indeed say that, in many tragic deaths and injuries, not that "the gun <was> THE causal agent", but that while the firearm involved WAS NOT a SUFFICIENT cause, it WAS a NECESSARY cause. (You have cited a few ways in which the firearm in this case may indeed have been a necessary cause, quite apart from the fact that the fatal bullet was fired from it: e.g. would anyone have given chase and then stopped, as he did, if the firearm had not been present).

Perhaps if she and a few others were to address their minds to THAT claim, i.e. to a possibly real claim and not one she or they have made up for the occasion in order to knock it down, she or they might actually say something relevant sometime.

.

[Spentastic]

19. Avoidable incident?

I'm not polite as Pert. There's only so far that I'm willing to believe that things are accidents. For example "I was juggling hand grenades and accidentally blew my arm off" won't stand.

"inalienable right to defend self and property"

His property had been damaged in a collision, but I believe we have insurance companies for this kind of incident. Now at what point was this guys life in danger? Well, it looks like at "no point" until he decided decided he would get his gun out. Lets get this straight, he was involved in an RTA, he chased the car down (presumably being able to see the guys plates at all time), the guys finally stopped (did he not look in the care before?) and unsurprisingly got out of their car. This guys immediate reaction was to grab a gun. This decision cost him his life. There are so many points in this story that he could have taken a different course of action. Was the fact that he knew he had access to a gun affecting his decision making process?

Ignoring the fact that a gun was heavily involved must entail some pretty fancy mental gymnastics.

[Spentastic]

21. Broken link Jody n/t

[-..__...]

11. No one has posted that you're not allowed to talk about it.

The pro RKBA people here do discuss firearms safety all the time.

There are posters here who search the Web and cut'n'paste any gun related tragedy they can find.
In the majority of cases, they serve little or no purpose other than to heat things up in here.

It gets tiresome and repetitive but, such is life in the "Gun Dungeon" :). I'd just like to see
some other opinions from other less close minded and volatile DU members posted here.

[Pert_UK]

13. Agreed, but....

I hope you're not counting me as either close-minded or volatile.

I can see that this sort of thing becomes tiresome. What is tiresome to me is that on this topic rational debate seems impossible. People just trot out all the old cliched phrases without actually looking at the situation or whether their arguments are even internally logically consistent.

If I say "Here is a gun accident which could have been avoided" and someone replies "Well X can be used as a weapon so why shouldn't we ban X?" then it's frustrating because the person has really looked at what I've said and replied, but merely posted a mantra.