Aberdeen has one more leadfoot—someone got shot at the Millstone Sunday morning:
The party was “securing guns in a vehicle when one went off and struck a person in the foot,” McNeil said. “There was some confusion but indications were that the incident happened in the Millstone parking lot.”
…”There’s no danger to anybody at the time,” Morgan Black, patrol officer with Aberdeen police said today [Kelda J.L. Pharris, “Accidental Gunshot Injury Reported in Restaurant Parking Lot,” Aberdeen American News, 2018.01.08].
No danger at all? Sure, tell that to the idiot with a hole in her foot… and to anybody else in the Millstone parking lot or driving by who could have been hit by an unsecured bullet.
Reckless discharge of a firearm is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
I wish authorities were more inclined to prosecute these reckless discharges of firearms. Maybe then people would show more respect for firearms if they knew they would get in trouble for stupid stuff like this. I get tired of hearing about “unfortunate accidents”.
Now come on Cory. If you are in the Millstone parking lot, and due to carelessness on your part, you back up over someone , it would just be called an “unfortunate accident”. Why are you picking on the gun nuttery? (smirk)
I hope you are understanding my sarcasm here. I agree with Nick. People are not handling firearms with due care anymore. There are no consequences when they don’t. And it is setting up many “unfortunate accidents”. Thank goodness (and I don’t mean this lightly) that it was “only” a foot injury.
wow, just wow.
Dana,
Accidents don’t become crimes unless there is some form of negligence. Shooting yourself in the foot due to adjusting a conceal carry pistol is no different then hitting someone in the parking lot that you didn’t see while backing out. Unless you are under the influence or distracted in some fashion, it is just that, an accident.
I’ve never shot myself, but I have almost ran over a 3 year old who ran behind my truck while I was backing out. I could imagine the fear wasn’t much different. Accidents happen. What the object is that the accident happens with shouldn’t have bearing on whether we punish them or not. More people die from cars then guns. Your “many unfortunate accidents” is nothing more than an emotional plea with no logical backing.
Negligence would be not having one’s guns secure in the first place, wouldn’t it?
How did the situation arise that an individual needed to secure guns, plural, in the parking lot? Why were the guns not secure in the first place?
I would need to know what the definition of secure is. It seems to be all subjective.
My gun would be secure on my hip. If I am pulling into a bar/restaurant, there is a chance I may take that gun from my hip and place it into my vehicle holster. Especially, if the establishment is more like a bar than a restaurant. If I do that and accidentally fire the weapon because I placed my finger in the trigger guard, I would call that an accident because it can happen to the most advanced weapon carrier. I would guess those who don’t like guns would call that negligent.
My point is, accidents can happen with a gun just like they do a car. If it involves another party, they will determine if it was negligent. Shooting yourself is no more negligent than if you ran over yourself. If they want to press charges against the shooter, then you should press charges against grandma who forgot to put it in park.
I agree with Daniel Buresh, but there are certainly details missing that could point this toward truly being an unfortunate mistake or could make it criminal negligence.
I would assume whoever first used the words “securing guns” was probably just looking for fancy-sounding words and wasn’t necessarily being as descriptive as our language would allow.
Daniel, thank you sooo much for “explaining” ?? what accidents are and aren’t to me. And what negligence is and isn’t. I’m very much well aware of the difference between the two. (after making many arrests for negligent this or that in my career)
Accidents “happen”. yes they do. Police officers investigate traffic accidents every single day, and if they find a driver at fault, they cite that driver. Even if it was “just an accident”. “Sorry officer, I didn’t see the stop sign. It was accident.” “Yes, and here is your summons Dana”
And thank you also Daniel, for explaining that “shooting yourself in your own foot” is not a crime. Well aware of that also. Sigh.
I can also imagine what you may have felt when you almost ran over a child that you didn’t see behind your vehicle. I can’t imagine. I’m so glad that situation turned out ok. But I can also imagine that you were being a very astute and safe person behind the wheel and doing your utmost best to ensure/minimize the chances that that did not occur. Yay! We can hope that ALL operators of vehicles would be that way. As well as, I would hope that ALL gun owners would use due care to ensure that they safely handle their firearms. This person (and other bystanders) are damn lucky that the ONLY person that was injured was self inflicted. That person is also lucky that it was ONLY their foot. If the bullet went astray or there was a richochet that severely injured or killed someone, I’m sure we would all be relieved that it was “just an accident”.
If, in my example, Cory runs over someone in the parking lot, by accident. A responding officer would check his status (like you mentioned, was he drunk?) If sober, the officer would also be looking into if this person should be behind the wheel. (examples – elderly, shouldn’t have license anymore. Operating vehicle in reckless manner, etc) “We” just don’t treat guns like that. Why not?
In this incident in Aberdeen, the person was handling weapons inappropriately and carelessly. Otherwise, the weapon wouldn’t not have discharged. Period.
When you man-splain to me and talk about “emotional plea with no backing”. Sigh. I saw for many years the results of car accident carnage and gun violence carnage. They are both horrific. Things that were accidents, and things that were preventable. For you to say the old stand by “more people die from cars than guns”. Alright then, I guess all is good!! Again more talking points that are ridiculous. Police officers have to demonstrate multiple times a year that their proficiency and ability to handle a weapon meets certain standards. Why not everyday citizens? I am certain that this citizen in Aberdeen that has “multiple weapons” would minimize the chances of an “accidental discharge” if they were required to practice and show the safe handling of weapons on a routine basis.
Again, people that were in the Millstone parking lot……were lucky. Very lucky.
Glad I don’t live in Aberdeen if one needs multiple fire arms just to go to a Millstone! How about Denny’s? Any safer? :-)
Those who “don’t like guns”. Again, that’s just silly. I own guns. I respect guns. And I treat them with even a higher amount of alert than I do when I get behind the wheel.
Yes, even the most “advanced weapon carrier” may not have “indexed” (I’ll use the terminology for your Daniel) and cause a discharge. If I had had a discharge while on the job, or if any of my colleagues had done that? (and no one was injured) We would have immediately been put on a “light duty” status and had to go to the range for remedial training until I demonstrated to a range master that my handling of my firearm met a certain standard. Plus, I may have bought a day or two suspension, or at minimum, a nasty letter to file for my evaluation. (We had one officer that DID have an A/C in the parking lot and went through just that) Luckily, we did massive amounts of training to minimize the possibility of that happening. It works! Training and requirements work!! Why don’t we want that for those that own guns? Odd.
Thank you Loren!! I think you have summed this up better than anyone.
Dana,
Your continued attempts to discredit my opinion by making you look like a victim of “mansplaining” is ridiculous. It is the most pathetic attempt I have ever seen to discredit a response.
You obviously don’t know what an accident is because you base it off of unfounded claims such as: ” People are not handling firearms with due care anymore. There are no consequences when they don’t. And it is setting up many “unfortunate accidents”.”
I could argue that people are handling them with more due care than before as the number of guns rises, the number of accidental shootings does not correlate.
““We” just don’t treat guns like that. Why not?”
Really? If you hurt someone with a weapon, I can guarantee you will be giving up blood, a hefty explanation and it will be followed up by the state’s attorney to determine if charges are warranted. Gun accidents that involve others are treated much more seriously than a car accident involving others.
“In this incident in Aberdeen, the person was handling weapons inappropriately and carelessly. Otherwise, the weapon wouldn’t not have discharged. Period.”
You seem to know a lot about this situation but I don’t see how I could make any conclusion based on what info is known.
“When you man-splain to me and talk about “emotional plea with no backing”. Sigh.”
Quit trying to make yourself out to be a victim. It only makes you look bad. You are making emotional statements that the facts don’t back up. When I point that out, it has nothing to do with being a man or woman. Again, playing the victim only makes you look even more dumb.
“Alright then, I guess all is good!! Again more talking points that are ridiculous.”
All is not good, but all is not as bad as you are trying to make it be.
“Police officers have to demonstrate multiple times a year that their proficiency and ability to handle a weapon meets certain standards. Why not everyday citizens?”
hmmmmm….Maybe because police officers are involved in high stress situations much more often that require more control of a weapon when they have to point them at possible suspects while minimizing danger to civilians.
“I am certain that this citizen in Aberdeen that has “multiple weapons” would minimize the chances of an “accidental discharge” if they were required to practice and show the safe handling of weapons on a routine basis.”
How do you know they don’t? I know a lot of conceal carry holders that do more shooting and have better control than a lot of officers. That doesn’t mean accidents won’t happen.
I agree that anyone that owns guns should have annual mandatory gun training. It’s disheartening to know that the numbers of guns in this country keep rising. It just makes the police officers more paranoid and stressed and then accidents happen with innocent victims being killed like Philando Castile and Justine Damond in MN.
The word “accident” is overused. Even in the realm of automobile “accidents” there is a movement to use the phrase “crash” instead. Somehow when we say “accident” then it is OK, there is nothing to worry about – it just happens. But that is NOT the case. Guns go off (just as cars hit things) intentionally or unintentionally, but some level of negligence exists with EVERY “accident.”
Daniel: “My gun would be secure on my hip. If I am pulling into a bar/restaurant, there is a chance I may take that gun from my hip and place it into my vehicle holster. Especially, if the establishment is more like a bar than a restaurant. If I do that and accidentally fire the weapon because I placed my finger in the trigger guard, I would call that an accident because it can happen to the most advanced weapon carrier. I would guess those who don’t like guns would call that negligent.”
That is worth re-reading. When gun owners take the position that my gun might go off without me intending it to, there is a problem. Knowing that risk, knowing the magnitude of the catastrophic consequences of that risk, takes us right out of the realm of “accident.”
O, I was being sarcastic with the two MN cases I mentioned above being ‘accidents’. There’s no reason these two victims should have been killed by their local police. Perhaps if there weren’t hundreds of millions of guns of all kinds floating around the country that would help make officers not prone to shoot so quickly.
Ok Daniel. Ok. Whatever you say.
Yes, because police officers are involved in more high stress situations. Yes, that is why they need to train. Yes. However, people who carry are doing so because they want to be the “good guy with the gun” in a situation—- in what would be, I would think a “stressful” situation, wouldn’t you? Thank you for proving my point.
Making myself out to be a victim? Wow. Not even close. Just have gotten tired and weary of preventable tragedies due to guns. I’m tired and I’m a little crabby for THOSE victims. I’m not a victim, but, there are many people out there that shouldn’t have been victims. All of us should be tired and weary FOR those victims. That you are reading that I’m making myself out to be a victim? Hilarious.
Yes, you are right. Training/weapon handling won’t 100% guarantee that an accident won’t happen. Sure. But it helps to minimize that possibility (and that is exactly what I had written) You know the ole saying, “practice makes perfect”? Won’t prevent totally, but will help to minimize that possibility.
Not as bad as I make them out to be….. I know, I know. People dying, especially children, when it is preventable. I know, 1300 children a year. Not as bad as I am making it out to be. I guess if you are the parent of that child, you would just shrug and say – “if I had only……but at least it isn’t as bad as Dana is making it out to be”
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html
Good convo Daniel. When you use the terms, “emotional plea” “makes you look dumb” “playing the victim” “emotional statements”……. hilarious.
I was going to respond in full to your odd quoting of me and responses, but I won’t. Having a rational convo with someone who just parrots out the NRA propaganda in defense of guns? Despite 28 years of witnessing the opposite of what guns do and don’t do? yeah, ain’t worth the time.
Jenny, the “accident” criticism was not pointed specifically at you, but at our larger society. We use “accident” language to hide the explicit danger when we have something we need to prop up in sales.
This is how we got a “consensual” prezident.
Dana: “Yes, you are right. Training/weapon handling won’t 100% guarantee that an accident won’t happen. Sure. But it helps to minimize that possibility (and that is exactly what I had written) You know the ole saying, “practice makes perfect”? Won’t prevent totally, but will help to minimize that possibility.”
Why are you conceding this point? If a gun goes off without the intention of the shooter, then why cannot we say that is either 1) the fault of the shooter, or 2) the fault of the manufacturer (the weapon itself had a defect)? Why are we are letting responsibility slide?
Dana,
You make several assumptions in your comments, accuse Daniel of “man-splaining” (which is, to me, among the most worthless and childish accusations being thrown around these days), you generalize the behavior of several distinct populations of people, and your examples contradict your apparent opinions. You obviously have personal feelings about gun safety and the obligations gun owners have to the general public, which is fine, but they are still just your personal opinions. There may have been a time that a career in law enforcement would have given some weight to your opinions in the eyes of a plain ol’ civilian, but I think the current public sentiment toward the training, expertise, and effectiveness of the police has reduced that quite a bit.
Your attempts to be condescending were successful, though, so you got one of your messages across loud and clear.
It seems to me that carrying a firearm with a bullet in the chamber means you are in danger of accidentally discharging that weapon. Sort of like when you drive drunk this means you are in danger of wrecking. In both cases no one intended to harm anyone else, but due to the potential unintentional harm you may cause to others it would seem that both should be discouraged.
In other words, put a bullet in the chamber only when you intend to fire the weapon, otherwise you are being just as negligent and dangerous as a drunk driver.
O makes a great point about the risk gun owners put as at when they start fiddling with their loaded guns. I find that risk unacceptable. If your gun goes off, it’s your fault. The price of gun ownership, not to mention gun toting, is constant care and vigilance for the enormous responsibility you are assuming and the mortal danger in which you are placing every unwilling person around you.
I believe fault is separate to whether gunfire is considered accidental vs a reckless discharge. I believe in both instances, unless there is a malfunction, the fault always lies with the shooter. Whether or not that fault warrants consequences determined through law, that seems to be where the debate lies. To me, it depends on if the result is a direct cause of negligent behavior. There will always be things that are outside of our control that may cause undesirable results, whether it is with vehicles or guns.
Daniel, I still object to the use of “accidental”; why not use the more accurate “unintentional?”
I would need to know what you believe is the difference between accidental and unintentional?
I suppose it comes down to responsibility. Accident to me means there is no responsibility; unintentional still has the element of responsibility.
To me, unintentional means that I intended to shoot, but I hit the wrong person. Accidental is when I don’t intend to shoot, it does shoot, and I hit someone.
I think both require responsibility of the shooter, but I believe one requires a higher level of negligence to be achieved.
I don’t think that is an accident: you are in possession of the gun, you have made it ready to shoot (loaded, cocked, safety disengaged . . .) it shot while in your possession. All of those events and the conclusion stem from your decisions (even if the end result was not your decision). I am not going so far as to say you have committed a crime, but you certainly are at some level responsible for what has happened. “Accidental” to me says devoid of ALL responsibility.
A defect in the firearm shifts to the manufacturer the responsibility of the shot.
A meth lab blows up and hurts others in an apartment building. The owner never intended to blow up the building, but certainly is responsible for that explosion. That explosion is not an accident.
Ryan – huh? If my use of the term “man-splaining” or other things I said came across condescending (but DB’s comments didn’t come across that way?) Thank you also, for proving my point. That you don’t give background in LEO any credence anymore – well that’s a whole ‘nuther topic I won’t get into right here. Certainly I have personal opinions about this topic/guns/gun safety – certainly – but I have those opinions based on so much that I witnessed. Too much. Mr Buresh telling me I’m making myself out to be a victim, that I’m dumb, etc – but I’m the one that is condescending? Ok, moving on and back to topic at hand…..
O – I hear exactly what you are saying. I do, I really do. I wasn’t trying to let responsibility slide. Not in the least, and you are correct. I guess I was just trying to help out those that are trying to minimize the huge responsibility that it is to carry a loaded gun. HUGE. Practice/training does reduce risk, but doesn’t eliminate it. That does not give anyone a pass. It does make me wonder why people are resistant to mandatory training? Odd, isn’t it?
Because it was a self inflicted injury and that no one else got hurt, some just want to dismiss as “one of those things”. I don’t. It makes me shake my head that people dismiss or diminish how serious this is.
o,
I understand what you are saying, even though there are a lot of variations. I don’t carry with a round in the chamber, much like most officers and more experienced gun owners do. That’s quite a debate even in our community and it comes down to comfort and experience. Most guns are cocked when chambered and that may or may not be visible. A lot of the carry guns you will see won’t indicate whether they are “cocked” because it is all internal. As for safeties, that can vary as well. Out of the 5 pistols I have, maybe 1 has an active safety on it. Most are passive safety mechanisms that require a grip or a human finger to pull the trigger.
To me, if the weapon is loaded and cocked, that alone does not disqualify it as being an accident.
That meth lab owner caused unintentional harm. Accident would be putting those chemicals under the sink and one tipping over and causing an explosion.
To me, unintentional means that I intended to shoot, but I hit the wrong person.
Sounds like intentional unfortunate turn of events. You had the intent to shoot and you need more training in accuracy.
Imagine intending to shoot a ne’er do well and hit a cop trying to arrest that person. Now you might have an unintended fire fight on your hands.
Accident, unintended, mishap, mistake, etc., what is difference in how it is labeled.
The fact is that a reckless lead foot discharged a firearm in public and fortunately only shot himself in the foot. It could of have been a lot worse for this person.
He should be prosecuted for discharging a firearm in public and reckless endangerment.
Aberdeen Police tell us our self-shooter mishandled her deer rifle:
Roger, the difference in language forms a mindset on how we view firearms and those who handle them. I want to put as much responsibility on the owner (AND manufacturer) as possible for ALL of the consequences – intended and unintended – for having this product in the hands of so many.
It sounds like the rifle was loaded, cocked and ready to fire with any bump to the trigger. It had not been properly stored after being used (here I assume its intended use was not related to a visit to the restaurant). Dismissing it an an “accident” removes the responsibility of this person from all the conscious decisions made that went in to this discharge.
Accidents are out of the hands of those involved to prevent. This was absolutely preventable at so many levels.
Shot in the foot by a deer rifle that she was moving inside the car? OK this opens another conversation, I’ll assume the rifle wasn’t for protection but rather was for hunting. When you are done hunting and stow the rifle why wouldn’t you unload it? This woman and whoever last handled the rifle are reckless gun owners. I’m not as aware of rifle types as some on this forum but I have owned a rifle since I was a teenager and I am a military veteran and every rifle I have ever handled had a mechanical safety. A round should never have been in the chamber and the safety should have been engaged.
Deer rifle can send a bullet flying a lot farther than a pure pistol. Imagine if this gun had gone off in a fender bender or over a pothole.
Nick’s right: what was a bullet doing in the chamber in the first place? As O says, this injury and the threat to public safety were entirely preventable.
However, said APD Captain Jay Tobin yesterday, no ticket or citation was issued.
I would agree this was a reckless discharge. Hunting rifles should not have a round chambered in a vehicle. If this were a conceal carry, I would feel differently. I am guessing she probably wasn’t familiar with the weapon and the owner should not have left it unattended like that while loaded. Chalk that one up to complete stupidity on someone’s part.
Unidentified lady, you really done it now! OBAMA is coming for yer GUNS!!!!!
Seriously, if you aren’t going to charge someone whose handgun goes off accidentally?, how can you charge another when the weapon of choice is a long gun? Smells like discrimination against long guns.
You see how deregulating stuff shows the need for more regulations?
I agree with bearcreekbat. Carrying a gun with a bullet in the chamber is tantamount to drunk driving. Doesn’t mean there will necessarily be a crash (or unwanted discharge of a round), but such behavior sure increases the probability of tragic consequences.
Whether or not anyone is charged criminally in an incident like this, authorities should name the person whose gun went off in town in a public place and injured someone.
“Seriously, if you aren’t going to charge someone whose handgun goes off accidentally?, how can you charge another when the weapon of choice is a long gun? Smells like discrimination against long guns.”
You probably can’t. I just believe there is more of a justification of having a loaded pistol then a loaded deer rifle. I’m not using a deer rifle in a vehicle as a method of self defense so having it loaded is just stupid. I get that it is completely legal, just completely irresponsible.
All those police officers out there drunk driving all day long with those loaded weapons. That sounds like you are trying to appeal to emotion rather than logic.
I didn’t accuse police officers of drunk driving, but you sure are appealing to emotion by twisting my comment that direction. Here’s the logic that you won’t acknowledge. Someone can carry a loaded gun without a round in the chamber, and that gun will not shoot someone unintentionally.
If I were to carry a concealed gun, as my permit allows me to do, I would carry it without a round in the chamber for that reason. If I had the job of a police officer it would be different. Surely you are capable of understanding that the risk of sudden violent confrontation faced by a police officer because of the nature of that job is far greater than the risk of sudden violent confrontation faced by members of the public in general.
You just said that driving drunk is comparable to carrying with a chambered round. I’m telling you that is a BS emotional comparison.
Driving drunk and carrying a chambered round both pose substantial and unnecessary risks of unintended harm. That is exactly what I’m saying. You’re letting your emotional attachment to gun owner rights cloud your judgment about gun owner responsibility.
Guns don’t kill people, bullets do. Leaving a bullet in the chamber of a gun seems pretty reckless unless you are ready to discharge the weapon. Such behavior increases the risk of harm to others, just as driving after imbibing in your favorite alcoholic beverage increases the risk of harm to others. These are simply facts, regardless of anyone’s “emotional” attitude about such facts.
In my personal experience with semi-automatic pistols, it takes less than one second to chamber a round when needed or desired. There is simply no rational reason for a private person to chamber a round unless he intends to fire the weapon shortly thereafter.
You are 100% correct BCB. Absolutely. Rorschach is also. If it’s “emotional” to want to prevent unnecessary injury or death due to carelessness, recklessness, or the inappropriate handling of a deadly weapon — then I’m guilty of being emotional.
one in six adults walking around in SD is carrying. see similar thread
“There’s no danger to anybody at the time,” Morgan Black, patrol officer with Aberdeen police.
That’s what’s wrong with law enforcement and Navy Seals flying Trump flags. Brainwashed.
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/senate-bill-allows-guns-on-school-grounds/article_fe3a5045-9c0e-5ed3-8bf5-4207ae6824c8.html
One sponsor sez loading and securing guns is dangerous and likely to lead to accidental shootings. It is a felony to get caught with a loaded gun now. Iowa is quickly trying to be the next South Dakota/ Mississippi clone.
Yer Tomi Lahren called Kennedy a “limp dick” and was forced to kinda apologize. Apparently she didn’t like his rebuttal to SOTU.
Speaking of rebuttals- wingnuts in congress want to read classified memo on house floor to limit the FBI’s chance to rebut what they claim is omission of facts in memo.
I’ve handled and hunted with firearms since I was eleven years old. In that time I have owned only one pistol and only for a short while.
From owning it I came to agree with my dad who always told me that pistols were only good for shooting people at close range and usually someone you didn’t want to shoot.
I personally know three people that have accidentally shot themselves with a pistol. They are by their nature a very dangerous item to have on your person. Unlike a long arm they are almost always pointed at your person or in some other dangerous direction. A long arm on the other hand is very easy to keep pointed in a safe direction.
Apparently, the wisdom of my dad doesn’t exist in the state of South Dakota though since, by my calculation, one in six of the residents of the state have a concealed carry permit! Scary!!
If guns don’t kill people, then why do soldiers need them in War? :)
Wow, I hadn’t read enough of the comments before commenting. Sorry, but my opinion on pistols still stands.
Shooting yourself in the foot with a long arm is just complete irresponsibility. When I learned to handle firearms I learned to never have them pointed at myself or anyone else and have excused myself from hunting with people who didn’t handle guns the same way.
She should have been ticketed.
Good point about the practical danger, Clyde. Even people who own guns and support the Second Amendment need to recognize that incontrovertible risk assessment.