On December 26, 2013, an unidentified man was checking out at a Home Depot, in Brighton, Michigan. When reaching for his wallet, he accidentally grabbed his gun instead. The gun went off in his pocket, shooting the man in the butt. http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...-buttocks-Brighton-Home-Depot-gun-he-carrying The man was taken to the hospital to receive treatment for the butt hurt. The police were called and the responsible gun owner was taken to the University of Michigan Hospital, where he was able to have the bullet removed from his butt. As it turns out the man had a permit, and the loaded gun in his pocket was perfectly legal. Since no-one else was injured and no damage was done to the store, police say they wont be pressing charges against the 32-year-old gun owner. Like the Nevada man who shot himself in the butt, after accidentally dropping a loaded gun in a movie theater. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/moviegoer-shoots-self-in-butt-bourne-legacy_n_1778182.html The gun landed under his own seat, sending the bullet upward, into his own rear end. While such incidents are becoming more and more common, the reason that story drew national media attention was because the incident occurred in a movie theater, less than a month after the Aurora theater massacre. Nothing says responsible gun owner, quite like a self-inflicted bullet wound to the butt. It doesnt have happen because you mistook your gun for your wallet or because it fell out of your pocket, either. As it turns out there are a whole lot of ways to get yourself shot in the butt. For instance, an Arizona man thought taking a three-year old out target shooting was a good idea. He left the loaded rifle where the toddler could then pick it up, and shoot him in the butt. Hes lucky that kid didnt kill him or accidentally harm himself.http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/pol...cle_bb77f81e-03cd-11e3-beca-0019bb2963f4.html Then there was the responsible hunter who left a loaded weapon lying around on a hunting trip. The man was shot in the butt by his hunting dog. http://www.wltx.com/video/1306901787001/1/Dog-Hits-Gun-Man-Shot-in-Butt The real problem is that innocent bystanders get shot too. While its fortunate that no-one else was injured during the Home Depot catastrophe, there have been many similar incidents which did result in injury to others. For example, last year a Walmart shopper in Waco, Texas accidentally mistook his gun for his wallet, just like the Home Depot guy. The 23-year-old shopper shot himself in the butt too. During that incident however, after the bullet went through the butt of the responsible gun owner, it ricocheted off the floor, hitting a woman and two children. http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/19096461/man-misfires-gun-in-walmart-checkout-line Common sense gun measures can help reduce the number of responsible gun owners who shoot themselves in the butt and elsewhere. In spite of the NRA hype over the presidents plan for sane gun control measures, its clear that putting some of the proposed policies into effect would reduce the number of accidental gun injuries in the US. The plan would include money to be used for educating gun owners on how to safely store, handle and carry guns. It would require gun manufacturers to improve safety features, maybe even making them so that they dont go off when dropped and cant be fired by three-year-old kids or Labrador Retrievers. Instead of putting more guns in the hands of more morons, we need to pass these and other common sense measures.
Did you hear about the shooting in the FLORIDA theatre. . .where a VERY RESPONSIBLE gun owner, a "pillar of society" got frustrated by someone texting during the PREVIEWS, and started an argument. . . which ended by the guy texting throwing some pop corn in the "responsible gun owner's" face, which gave the gun owner "every right to defend himself". . .by shooting the father of a 3 year old child (which, by the way, he was checking on through texting, BEFORE the movie started)? 3 shootings in 3 days in this country, where "the second amendment" gives us the right to carry a gun for our "safety!"
Golly Gee http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/study-using-guns-for-defense-leads-to-fewer-injuries
God I love these threads....Thanks OP http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent Makes me LOL
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm A gun owner got shot in the butt...Golly gee I am glad women can use old sam colt to defend themselves eh?
Did you read your own quote? This does in NO WAY cover the GREATEST number of firearm death and the number of shooting accidents. . .INCLUDING all the children an innocent people who die every year from gunshot wounds. And, YES. . .crime is going down. . . so, that would simply mean that. . .there is even LESS need for honest people to fear being attacked! ESPECIALLY when owning a firearm INCREASES the owner's chance to die (often through suicide), or to see a member of his close family be hurt or die by that firearm!
The bulk of the gun death statistics belong to criminals and gang bangers. If you are truly interested in saving lives due to guns, you will focus on this element of society.
So a man injures himself accidentally and some jump on that as another launching point for their personal crusade? Yep, it's no wonder people have a hard time taking some of this serious.
LOL yes...did you? None of this was mentioned in my quotes...DID YOU READ? I suspect not and I suspect you are making stuff up eh Fear from being attacked is not the reason crime is going down...increase in gun ownership is...guess that means more guns means less attacks eh? OH BTW did you have some stats as to gun ownership increasing gun owners chances to die or was that just a gun haters talking point?
Referring to Gleck's study I see... isn't that the same guy who confirms that gun trafficking is largely irrelevant to the arming of America's criminals, and that high-volume trafficking is virtually nonexistent? Kinda destroys the whole "criminals will always have access to guns because of the black market" myth... Of course, you choose to cherry pick his statements, while ignoring the fact that another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually. The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crimes: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, non-business larceny, and motor vehicle theft. That accounts for the discrepancy in the two results. A National Research Council report said that Kleck's estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that "some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others"... You also ignore the fact that fewer criminals would be capable of committing criminal acts in the first place if they did not have easy access to firearms. You also ignore the fact that the average US citizen is unlikely to ever face a situation that requires lethal force to defend themselves, and that they would be less likely to face these situations if fewer criminals found it so easy to obtain firearms. In short, you ignore any fact that doesn't support your preconceived notions.
Which incident are you referring to? Certainly not the ones in which bystanders were injured...? Oh, you're talking about the one where a man defended himself by shooting himself and luckily managed to avoid hitting anyone else... Got it.
http://rense.com/general76/mths.htm Shot in butt or shot criminal...I'll take #2 Again Thanks OP...your point is well taken
Sooooo, I'm supposed to be taking you serious right? Even though you behave like everyone with a gun is going to shoot someone? I'm having a little difficulty swallowing that.
That study has been proven BS so many times that it's amusing you still reference it. http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck "DOJ study reported 83,000 annual defensive gun uses from 1987-1992. During same period, there were more than 135,000 total gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. annually. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf As for the notion that those using firearms to fend off attackers were more effective in avoiding injury than those using other weapons or no weapons, the DOJ study makes the following exclaimer: "Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to victims' injury outcomes." What is also interesting is that the study notes that "In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms." Specifically, only 35% of those who used a firearm in self-defense actually faced an offender who had a gun. DOJ makes no judgments in this study on whether the level of force employed by these individuals was appropriate or consonant with the threat they faced. It may very well be that the presence of firearms in many of these incidents escalated what otherwise might have been non-violent (or non-fatal) encounters. According to the DOJ study, gun owners also provided criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: "From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year."
Everyone who chooses to carry a firearm does so in order to maintain the ability to shoot someone. Just like everyone who carries a credit card does so in order to maintain the ability to make purchases, or anyone carrying car keys does so in order to maintain the ability to access and drive their vehicle. What you choose to swallow in your own time is really irrelevant to the reality presented. - - - Updated - - - That's the weirdest strawman I've ever seen. Seriously, you should win some kind of prize.
And is that a bad thing? Everyone has a right to be able to defend themself if they need to. I don't know why I should sacrifice my own sense of security for anyone else's comfort. And your attempt at trying to be clever and cute fell short. Try harder. Otherwise I'll actually be tempted to report you for a half assed attempt to insult.
So now you're contradicting post #18... interesting. What do people need guns to defend themselves from? Other people with guns? That sounds convenient only for the industry manufacturing and distributing guns... Unlike some, I don't need to try to be clever. The fact that you misinterpreted of my response to your comments over what you would swallow, does not mean there was an insult implied - half assed or otherwise. Interesting point of note though, you have swallowed what you previously claimed you wouldn't... (post #18 vs post #21).
Accidents happen, whether it be a gun or a car or anything. Gun manufacturers are already making guns that wont fire unless the owner has it in their hand. Those accidents are nothing compared to the 2 million lives they save each year.
And just how did I contradict myself exactly? And people don't need a gun to do damage to someone. You must not be to familiar with the knockout games. Their have been numerous victims that have been severely injured and even killed from it. Or someone breaking into the home of and elderly person or while a child is alone? Their have actually been instances of children who were properly trained in handling a firearm defending themselves from home invaders. Violent crimes aren't secluded to just those who have a gun. You conveniently left all that out.
First you claim that that you can't "swallow" the notion that gun owners are preparing to shoot someone (post #18 ), then you claim that it's not "a bad thing" that they do (post #21). How, exactly, is that not a contradiction? Yup, some morons do stupid stuff to harm each other... How is that improved by giving them easy access to tools designed to inflict lethal damage with minimal effort? Ah yes, the old "equalizer" argument. A weak person with a gun can defend themselves from a threat that would normally overpower them... There's truth to that, if you're willing to ignore the fact that it also allows a weak person to commit crimes that they would otherwise be incapable of. Actually, my OP had nothing to do with violent crimes at all. It had to do with people who shot themselves in the ass in their effort to defend themselves from random criminals that their paranoia has them convinced lurk in every shadow.
