At least this loony only injured himself

[kallend 1,649]

OVERGAARD, Ariz. (AP) -- A 23-year-old Phoenix man is in critical condition after shooting himself in the head while trying to show that a handgun could not be fired while he had the safety mechanism engaged.

The Navajo County Sheriff's Office said Christen Reece fired his handgun Wednesday while shooting with six other people outside Overgaard in eastern Arizona.

Friends took Reece to the local fire department, where he was treated before being airlifted to a Scottsdale hospital for surgery.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

So now we add "stupid" to the list of descriptors we wish to conflate with "insane", "not normal", "sociopathic", and "mean/evil" by referring to all of the above as "loonies" or "nut jobs"

Fantastic display of problem decomposition skills.

[yoink 321]

the more interesting question is did he not set the safety properly, or is it faulty?

Incident analysis please!

[headoverheels 291]

yoink

the more interesting question is did he not set the safety properly, or is it faulty?

Incident analysis please!

Yeah, he will probably be suing the gun manufacturer.

[rushmc 18]

champu

So now we add "stupid" to the list of descriptors we wish to conflate with "insane", "not normal", "sociopathic", and "mean/evil" by referring to all of the above as "loonies" or "nut jobs"

Fantastic display of problem decomposition skills.

MEH

It what allarmists do!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,649]

champu

So now we add "stupid" to the list of descriptors we wish to conflate with "insane", "not normal", "sociopathic", and "mean/evil" by referring to all of the above as "loonies" or "nut jobs"

Fantastic display of problem decomposition skills.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Shakespeare

Call them what you like, some people are unfitted to own lethal weapons. Fortunately Darwin seems to have dealt with this one before he hurt someone else.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

From another article...

Phoenix New Times

“You know, there's not really a lot to the story other than don't drink and shoot guns,” explains Jim Molesa, chief deputy of the Navajo County Sheriff's Office link

Even disregarding that, and not knowing what gun it was, I can conclude he didn't set the safety properly because "not subsequently disregarding the four rules of firearms just because you engaged a safety feature" is the last and most important step of engaging any firearm safety feature.

[rehmwa 2]

kallend

OVERGAARD, Ariz. (AP) -- A 23-year-old Phoenix man is in critical condition after shooting himself in the head while trying to show that a handgun could not be fired while he had the safety mechanism engaged.

this one seems to have worked itself out
thankfully this one hurt himself before someone else

training is a big deal

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[champu 1]

kallend

***So now we add "stupid" to the list of descriptors we wish to conflate with "insane", "not normal", "sociopathic", and "mean/evil" by referring to all of the above as "loonies" or "nut jobs"

Fantastic display of problem decomposition skills.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Shakespeare

Call them what you like, some people are unfitted to own lethal weapons. Fortunately Darwin seems to have dealt with this one before he hurt someone else.

A rose by any other name would certainly smell as sweet, but if you simply call it a "plant" and instruct someone to bring you one, you're unlikely to get what you want.

[Coreeece 2]

champu

From another article...

***“You know, there's not really a lot to the story other than don't drink and shoot guns,” explains Jim Molesa, chief deputy of the Navajo County Sheriff's Office link

Even disregarding that, and not knowing what gun it was, I can conclude he didn't set the safety properly because "not subsequently disregarding the four rules of firearms just because you engaged a safety feature" is the last and most important step of engaging any firearm safety feature.

Hey everybody...I put my seat belt on, so let's drive like an asshole and smash into a brick wall!

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[turtlespeed 212]

champu

******So now we add "stupid" to the list of descriptors we wish to conflate with "insane", "not normal", "sociopathic", and "mean/evil" by referring to all of the above as "loonies" or "nut jobs"

Fantastic display of problem decomposition skills.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Shakespeare

Call them what you like, some people are unfitted to own lethal weapons. Fortunately Darwin seems to have dealt with this one before he hurt someone else.

A rose by any other name would certainly smell as sweet, but if you simply call it a "plant" and instruct someone to bring you one, you're unlikely to get what you want.

Unless you tell the police to plant a plant on you, then you may very well get what you want.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[yoink 321]

champu

From another article...

***“You know, there's not really a lot to the story other than don't drink and shoot guns,” explains Jim Molesa, chief deputy of the Navajo County Sheriff's Office link

Even disregarding that, and not knowing what gun it was, I can conclude he didn't set the safety properly because "not subsequently disregarding the four rules of firearms just because you engaged a safety feature" is the last and most important step of engaging any firearm safety feature.



But maybe the anti-gun legislation guys might agree on this - if someone is demonstrably unfit to own a gun, then they should have that right revoked.

We're not talking about semantics of 'insane' or 'depressed' - this guy broke what I think everyone would agree is a cardinal rule of gun ownership. - Don't point a gun at something unless you're intending to shoot it.

Even I know that one!

[champu 1]

yoink

But maybe the anti-gun legislation guys might agree on this - if someone is demonstrably unfit to own a gun, then they should have that right revoked.

In principle, I agree with you. In cases like the story here, it wouldn't be difficult to charge/convict him of a crime that would result in him being disqualified from owning firearms for 10 years if not for life. If this guy survives (I haven't looked into updates on his condition) I'm all for it as it doesn't run afoul of the 14th amendment.

Unfortunately, officials in California (namely county sheriffs with whom such authority often lands) are demonstrably unfit to make subjective determinations about the ability to exercise firearms rights. Extending such subjective determination authority to ownership is something I'm adamantly against.

As an aside, I've been reading a lot of court opinions and amicus briefs recently, and I think people in the media and casual Internet debaters on both sides of the argument take the "the second amendment enables the others" argument too literally. I don't think armed revolt is the picture people should get in their heads. The picture people should get in their heads is the crowd of Brady Campaign and other groups' supporters cheering on a circuit court that decided that the popular perception of safety was enough of a public interest to justify laws that restrict individual rights.

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

champu

***But maybe the anti-gun legislation guys might agree on this - if someone is demonstrably unfit to own a gun, then they should have that right revoked.

In principle, I agree with you. In cases like the story here, it wouldn't be difficult to charge/convict him of a crime that would result in him being disqualified from owning firearms for 10 years if not for life. If this guy survives (I haven't looked into updates on his condition) I'm all for it as it doesn't run afoul of the 14th amendment.

Unfortunately, officials in California (namely county sheriffs with whom such authority often lands) are demonstrably unfit to make subjective determinations about the ability to exercise firearms rights. Extending such subjective determination authority to ownership is something I'm adamantly against.

As an aside, I've been reading a lot of court opinions and amicus briefs recently, and I think people in the media and casual Internet debaters on both sides of the argument take the "the second amendment enables the others" argument too literally. I don't think armed revolt is the picture people should get in their heads. The picture people should get in their heads is the crowd of Brady Campaign and other groups' supporters cheering on a circuit court that decided that the popular perception of safety was enough of a public interest to justify laws that restrict individual rights.

Nicely put.

To address a couple points you made:

I'm only aware of a couple situations that take away the RK&BA for a period of time. Most of the time, a felony conviction or "finding of mental shortcoming" is a permanent disqualifier. Getting that ban lifted is a long, arduous and iffy prospect.

The only temp ban I know of is probation - often times a condition of that probation is not possessing guns (among other things such as no drinking, not associating with certain people, ect). And for that condition of probation to really be a temp ban, the crime has to be a misdemeanor.

I would guess that the idiot in the OP, if he survives without any serious long term disability, could easily be charged with a variety of different crimes. Intoxicated possession of a firearm, conduct regardless of life, reckless use of a firearm, and so on.

And I agree that in principle, training requirements, "stupidity disquals" and such would be a good idea.

In the same vein, intelligence tests for voters are a good idea too.
But those have been barred by the Supreme Court, for pretty good reason.
Those reasons apply to gun rights as well.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[yoink 321]

wolfriverjoe

In the same vein, intelligence tests for voters are a good idea too.

I've long held the belief that people need to pass a basic intelligence test before being allowed access to the internet, too!

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

yoink

***

In the same vein, intelligence tests for voters are a good idea too.

I've long held the belief that people need to pass a basic intelligence test before being allowed access to the internet, too!

Naaaah.

Posting on the internet is by itself a pretty good intelligence test. I had no clue how gullible, or prejudiced or hateful some of my friends were until I saw the garbage they posted on FB.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[champu 1]

The 10-year thing is probably just a California construct. It's something they're fiddling with again this year. (Note the linked bill isn't a complete list of misdemeanors that result in a 10 year revocation, just changes.)