Whoopsie-daisy!: Kentucky State Rep. Accidentally Discharges

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
4,652
Location
In a house
Website
vincentmorrone.com
Yeah, that's sortof the point - people tend to vastly overate their degree of responsibility at times, whether it's via magical thinking ("I'm careful so accidents won't happen to me") or being just plain in need of a cerebellum transplant (like the woman here.)

In other news, necro-thread is necro.

I guess that's part of the point, although I'll admit to being confused by the who necro cerebellum. You shouldn't use big words with me.

The other point is that no matter what we're talking about, there are people who aren't as responsible as we think they are. But we should judge all parents, drivers or gun owners by the ones who make headlines. Because it's the exceptions that make the headlines.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
I guess that's part of the point, although I'll admit to being confused by the who necro cerebellum. You shouldn't use big words with me.

The other point is that no matter what we're talking about, there are people who aren't as responsible as we think they are. But we should judge all parents, drivers or gun owners by the ones who make headlines. Because it's the exceptions that make the headlines.

I think that's exactly the wrong message to take - this woman is a supreme example of a twit, certainly, but an accident or moment of carelessness can happen to anybody. So in that sense, yes, whether it's something capable of discharging deadly projectiles or a 2 ton speeding hunk of metal, it's good for all of us to be reminded of the 'there but for the grace of <deity-or-entity-of-choice> go I' aspect of things.
 

scifi_boy2002

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
540
Reaction score
24
Location
Pikeville, KY
Since this thread has been resurrected, my response to the quoted above:

Her flaky behavior excuses her phenomenally dangerous dumbass error???????????

I DON'T THINK SO. And neither should she, and neither should you.

caw

I wasn't making excuses for her. I think it s an incredible stupid thing to do. My point was just to say she is crazy enough to say something like that after doing such an incredibly stupid thing. I know that this is an older post but I did not see it until now and since I know her fairly well, I thought I'd put my two cents in.

She has had some DUI issues in the past as well. What I don't understand is that, in Kentucky, it is against the law to bring a firearm in a state office building. Why wasn't she charged? I know if I brought a firearm to work and got caught just having it in my possession, I would probably be fired.
 

milkweed

Abuses commas at will.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
2,119
Reaction score
151
Location
Somewhere between here and there
What I don't understand is that, in Kentucky, it is against the law to bring a firearm in a state office building. Why wasn't she charged? I know if I brought a firearm to work and got caught just having it in my possession, I would probably be fired.

Congress critters, and their security, are exempt from these laws. ;)
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
I don't buy the argument that responsible gun owners never, ever screw up. They are never inattentive, never make a mistake, never do things that we disapprove of.

I don't like that we are to assume everyone is responsible, but as soon as someone screws up, there is a dark, thick line drawn between them and everyone else, and their mistakes or transgressions should in no way be taken as any sort of cautionary tale about or reflection on those still on the other side of that line. They screwed up, ergo, they are in a different category. The responsible ones NEVER screw up.

However, we can't take someone's gun license based on one "little" mistake like this. They may forever be a "irresponsible gun owner," but hey, whatcha gonna do?

This particular lady... I would say she's irresponsible not because she messed up, but because of the way she shrugged it off afterwards. On the other hand, we don't generally determine "responsible" vs "irresponsible" based on people's attitudes alone, or a gun range called "Bullets and Burgers" that does kids parties while promising a "Dessert Storm atmosphere" would be considered irresponsible just on the face of it.
 

BenPanced

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
17,874
Reaction score
4,667
Location
dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts

slhuang

Inappropriately math-oriented.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
1,140
Website
www.slhuang.com
I think that's exactly the wrong message to take - this woman is a supreme example of a twit, certainly, but an accident or moment of carelessness can happen to anybody. So in that sense, yes, whether it's something capable of discharging deadly projectiles or a 2 ton speeding hunk of metal, it's good for all of us to be reminded of the 'there but for the grace of <deity-or-entity-of-choice> go I' aspect of things.

I don't buy the argument that responsible gun owners never, ever screw up. They are never inattentive, never make a mistake, never do things that we disapprove of.

I don't like that we are to assume everyone is responsible, but as soon as someone screws up, there is a dark, thick line drawn between them and everyone else, and their mistakes or transgressions should in no way be taken as any sort of cautionary tale about or reflection on those still on the other side of that line.

I'd usually be on your side -- see parents leaving their kids in hot cars or something, which apparently is remarkably and tragically easy to do -- but in this situation? No. Nuh-uh.

Of course responsible gun owners screw up sometimes. Of course we make mistakes.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE REDUNDANCY.

The rules of gun safety are designed so that if you violate any one of them, or even multiple ones of them, everything is still safe. So an accidental discharge like this one? It's not her screwing up once. It's her screwing up at least four times simultaneously.

Four big screwups. Not four "oopsie" screwups -- four "you do not do this thing EVER because if you do not follow these rules you could kill someone with that thing you are holding" screwups. At. The same. Time.

Guns are dangerous. If you're a "responsible gun owner," you follow the rules of gun safety because you know that you might err at some point. You know that you're human and that your brain might short-circuit someday and you might do an unsafe thing. But because you are simultaneously doing 2-3 OTHER things to keep you and everyone else safe, everything will still be all right.

That's why we have multiple rules of gun safety instead of just one. That's why we make them all habits.

That's why discharging a firearm accidentally in a government building is NOT, and SHOULD not be, "oh, this woman made a mistake, there but for the grace of God is every gun owner."

No.

I will buy that there could be a perfect storm of a bad situation + human error + malfunctioning firearm + whatever that could cause a "there but for the grace of God go I" moment for firearms owners. But this is not it.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
Not what I'm saying - she's an egregious case of doing everything (well, at least four things) wrong. But even for someone who follows the safety rules, accidents happen. The rules can only make it less likely. I see no harm in remembering that.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
cmhbob said:
You can't take it because most states don't require a license to own a gun.

She didn't just own it. She used it. And not on her own private property.

See earlier conversation re: guns vs automobiles.

Raburrel said:
But even for someone who follows the safety rules, accidents happen. The rules can only make it less likely. I see no harm in remembering that.

I agree. Also, there is no universal standard for what constitutes responsible gun ownership. You feel she did at least 4 things wrong, but I know a police officer - SWAT trained - who lectured me quite a few times on gun safety but who, at one point, accidentally fired off a round while cleaning his gun. His final precaution, the last thing he did before cleaning his gun but after checking to make sure the gun was empty and whatever else, was to pull the trigger a couple of times with the gun facing in a safe direction. Turned out to be a wise choice, I guess, but he did have to do some repairs to his home.

Some people think you are not responsible unless you have your guns locked in a safe. Others feel it responsible to have a gun in a nightstand, so long as only adults are around and the gun is unloaded. I am close with a family who feels it is responsible to have an unloaded gun pretty much anywhere, so long as the bullets are stored far away from it and in a "safe place" - this family has children.

Who is right? The way we currently judge things, all gun owners who have never had an accident (that we know about) are to be assumed to be "responsible," whereas any gun owner who has had something scary or tragic happen is "irresponsible." If something terrible happened, they clearly are not a "responsible gun owner," unlike all those people who never had something tragic happen.

But reality is, any of us can have a moment of inattention. Any of us can screw up. And some gun owners who have never had an accident, who follow all the rules, will choose to do something completely terrible all of their own accord, and not because they didn't understand something or other about gun safety.

The line between "responsible" and "irresponsible" gun owners seems to be drawn based not on habits - which are too hard to know and judge from the outside - but on results, which leads to a "No True Scotsman" attitude about "responsible gun owners." It leads to this idea that no responsible gun owner ever screws up or does something wrong, so we shouldn't try to legislate anything at all regarding their ownership, carrying, or safety risks to themselves or others. They are infallible. If someone was not infallible, they were not a responsible gun owner, and therefore their actions should not reflect on anyone still in that category.

It's crap. And also, let's not forget that guns are meant to kill and they do malfunction, such as the firefighter in our town killed by a gun in a fire (it overheated and went off, shooting him in the chest,) or such as Kuwi's experience where he took the safety off a gun and it immediately fired without him touching the trigger (defect.)
 
Last edited:

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
This'd be a much funnier thread title if the Kentucky State Rep had been a man.

Just sayin'...
 

slhuang

Inappropriately math-oriented.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
1,140
Website
www.slhuang.com
I am judging her on habits -- the habits that led to the accidental discharge. If she had gone into a government building and waved a weapon around with her finger on the trigger with no discharge, I'd have the same reaction.

And I do not think every gun owner who has never had an accidental discharge is responsible. I judge on habits among people I know, too. And yes, I do draw a big black line between the people who handle guns safely (the vast, vast majority of people I know) and the people I know who don't (who should be in jail).

All the people I am friends with and shoot with regularly are very attentive to safety. And if I saw them accidentally do something unsafe or inattentive I would call them out. They would do the same for me. One of the places I teach, one of our rules is that "safety belongs to everybody" -- we enforce upon the students that they are supposed to call us out too if they see an instructor violating a safety rule. Because, again, we know anyone can have moments of human error or inattention. We're very, very conscious of that. And we therefore do our damnedest to plan for it.

Do the people I consider responsible ever make a mistake? Of course. Rarely, but it happens. But because they were being safe in all other ways, everything was fine. And if a responsible gun owner makes any accidental safety mistake, they're really goddamn grateful to the person who points it out and they take it really fucking seriously.

And yes, people's safety rules sometimes differ -- I said "four" not because I personally think that but because the "four rules of gun safety" is basically the gold standard, but some people differ (I was actually originally taught a different set myself, but close enough to make no practical difference). But yes, I would say any "responsible" gun owner follows a very similar set of rules in their gun-handling habits.

Does that mean nothing bad can ever happen ever? Of course not. Like I said, I buy that there is a perfect storm of circumstance that would lead to tragedy, because guns are dangerous. I mean, say you're an electrician -- it's possible something bad could happen, because you're dealing with electricity, but (I hope) you take that fact goddamn seriously and you follow whatever safety procedures electricians have, because you know that you aren't going to get second chances on someone getting hurt. (I mean, I assume -- I don't know anything about that type of electrician, but I hope they would!)

And sure -- it's useful for gun owners to remember that they can have moments of inattention and that circumstances can conspire and bad things can happen, and yes, I think it's useful to remind people of that, but this is not the incident to hang that hat on. :) This is the incident I point to when I'm teaching people and say that it should never happen, that it was totally and entirely preventable. To go back to people's car analogies for a second -- this isn't akin to a moment of inattention that led to a fender bender. This is akin to pointing a vehicle at a building, putting it in drive, and flooring the gas. And then, when you wreck the building, saying, "Haha, I thought the car was broken!" when you had no reason at all to assume that, and telling the building's owner, "Well, sh!t happens!" I mean, yes, sometimes shit happens in cars, but certain shit takes a phenomenal level of stupidity and disregard for basic automobile safety!

Bad things can happen. But they shouldn't happen this way. And they certainly shouldn't be capped with a cavalier attitude of, "Oh, well, it happens!"

You may think it's a dangerous attitude for gun owners to feel they're responsible -- but I think the much more dangerous attitude for gun owners would be to believe that this sort of thing isn't preventable. I would never espouse to a student what you're saying (with regards to this particular incident) because I don't want that student to enter a mindset of "oh, human error, we'll all do that eventually." I want the student instead to have the mindset of "this is why we have the safety rules -- this is why they're important -- this is why I'm going to follow them all the time with no exceptions -- so this sort of thing NEVER happens, not on my watch." Could something bad still happen? Yes, but it becomes much, much less likely. Also, in many gun communities, not only is everyone very safety-conscious, but there is intense cultural pressure to continue to be (which I consider an excellent thing), and I would never, ever, ever want to see that change.

In other words, I want there to continue to be a "no true Scotsman puts his finger on the trigger unless he's ready to fire" and "every true Scotsman always treats a gun as if it's loaded" and "every true Scotsman always points a gun in safe direction" etc., and "if you violate any of these habits you are not being a TRUE SCOTSMAN" attitude. :D I consider that a good thing.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,202
Reaction score
3,256
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Question, does a true Scotsman oppose smart weapons?
It seems to me that if the hallmark of responsible gun ownership is the use of multiple redundant methods to reduce the risk of mishap, then there should be massive support behind the idea of a gun that requires more deliberate preparation without slowing down ones actual ability to fire it if one has responsibly prepared.

But there seems to be serious opposition to such an object. Does that make the opposition (including the NRA) not true Scotsmen?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/opinion/joe-nocera-the-messy-world-of-smart-guns.html
 

slhuang

Inappropriately math-oriented.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
1,140
Website
www.slhuang.com
Question, does a true Scotsman oppose smart weapons?
It seems to me that if the hallmark of responsible gun ownership is the use of multiple redundant methods to reduce the risk of mishap, then there should be massive support behind the idea of a gun that requires more deliberate preparation without slowing down ones actual ability to fire it if one has responsibly prepared.

But there seems to be serious opposition to such an object. Does that make the opposition (including the NRA) not true Scotsmen?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/opinion/joe-nocera-the-messy-world-of-smart-guns.html

I'm not the person to ask about the NRA's stances -- I'm not a member and disagree with much of what they do politically.

I'm also going to step out of any discussion about legislation. :D Not because I object to conversing about it with you fine folks, but because for me it's too complicated and time-consuming for forum posts. My "no true Scotsman" response pertained to the culture surrounding guns that exist and are being handled in the moment, and I stand by saying that these intense safety attitudes are very good things. Whether or not they are consistent with political views those same handlers of firearms might or might not simultaneously hold, I believe is a separate (and legitimate) question, but I'll bow out of that part of the conversation myself. :)
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,934
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I think that's exactly the wrong message to take - this woman is a supreme example of a twit, certainly, but an accident or moment of carelessness can happen to anybody.

If an unplanned bullet discharge really could happen to anyone that is a huge argument for banning guns IMHO. Otherwise we are saying 'whoops you're dead but it's not really anybody's fault' is something we should just accept.

If it was negligent conduct that led to the firing then you can say guns are basically safe when owned by responsible people, rather than inherently dangerous and so unacceptable in our midst.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
If an unplanned bullet discharge really could happen to anyone that is a huge argument for banning guns IMHO. Otherwise we are saying 'whoops you're dead but it's not really anybody's fault' is something we should just accept.
.
There are some models in wide circulation with known defects which make unplanned discharges very possible - list here. (The last time I shared this list, someone objected to the Glock being included, on the basis that it has a very light trigger pull by design. Fine for the owner who knows that, but it's so light that even a toddler can pull it, and children have died or accidentally killed others this way.

The Remington is another - there are a ton of them out there, often passed down in families.

I'm not sure I'd agree it's an argument for banning guns, but it does underlie the idea that accidents can happen to anyone. And the part in the link which says Remington knew the guns could fire without the trigger being pulled and never issued a recall or fixed the design is just depressing.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
Question, does a true Scotsman oppose smart weapons?
It seems to me that if the hallmark of responsible gun ownership is the use of multiple redundant methods to reduce the risk of mishap, then there should be massive support behind the idea of a gun that requires more deliberate preparation without slowing down ones actual ability to fire it if one has responsibly prepared.

But there seems to be serious opposition to such an object. Does that make the opposition (including the NRA) not true Scotsmen?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/opinion/joe-nocera-the-messy-world-of-smart-guns.html

Hm, how this topic is wending reminds me of the seatbelt fiasco with the car manufacturers.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
My "no true Scotsman" response pertained to the culture surrounding guns that exist and are being handled in the moment, and I stand by saying that these intense safety attitudes are very good things.

Just to be clear, I don't think its' an "intense safety attitude" to draw the line between "responsible" and "irresponsible" the way it is currently done in the mainstream. I see it as just the opposite - a way to fight any regulation based on the idea that accidents and screw ups and deliberate but evil use could not and would not happen to the "vast majority" of gun owners. As soon as something like that does happen, there is no moment of reconsideration. There is no thoughtful acknowledgement. Instead, it's, "That doesn't count! They did something bad, ergo, they cannot reflect on the rest of us!"
 

asroc

Alex
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
293
There are some models in wide circulation with known defects which make unplanned discharges very possible - list here. (The last time I shared this list, someone objected to the Glock being included, on the basis that it has a very light trigger pull by design. Fine for the owner who knows that, but it's so light that even a toddler can pull it, and children have died or accidentally killed others this way.

Why did those children have access to the gun? You can blame the trigger pull all you want, but toddlers should never be in any position where they are able to handle a firearm. Kids kill themselves with different guns, too, including those that have an external safety and a heavy trigger pull.

The Remington is another - there are a ton of them out there, often passed down in families.

I'm not sure I'd agree it's an argument for banning guns, but it does underlie the idea that accidents can happen to anyone. And the part in the link which says Remington knew the guns could fire without the trigger being pulled and never issued a recall or fixed the design is just depressing.

It was fixed years ago. The bolt lock problem was fixed in the early 80s. And every 700 sold in the past eight years has a completely new trigger system.

There are about 5 million Remmies out there, both civilian and law enforcement/military. I own one, and my father had it before me. It has the offensive trigger system, but was made after the bolt lock issue was fixed. In fifteen years it’s given me nothing but reliable service. I’ve never had an accidental discharge, even though my trigger is modified. Neither has anyone else I know who owns this rifle.

Nevertheless, the way Remington handled this seems pretty shady.

Question, does a true Scotsman oppose smart weapons?

[...]

But there seems to be serious opposition to such an object. Does that make the opposition (including the NRA) not true Scotsmen?

IMO yes.

I agree. Also, there is no universal standard for what constitutes responsible gun ownership. You feel she did at least 4 things wrong, but I know a police officer - SWAT trained - who lectured me quite a few times on gun safety but who, at one point, accidentally fired off a round while cleaning his gun. His final precaution, the last thing he did before cleaning his gun but after checking to make sure the gun was empty and whatever else, was to pull the trigger a couple of times with the gun facing in a safe direction. Turned out to be a wise choice, I guess, but he did have to do some repairs to his home.

I wouldn’t consider those situations comparable. He dry-fired the gun against a backstop before he started working on it, which is exactly what you’re supposed to do to make sure that, in case you somehow didn’t unload it properly, you notice it before anybody can get hurt. Those are the redundancies slhuang mentioned. I’d consider not thoroughly checking the chamber or whatever he did to miss it, to be an honest mistake. I bet he didn’t just shrug it off, and nowadays is extra careful when cleaning his gun.

But what the state rep apparently did goes beyond an honest mistake. Not only did she not make sure her gun was unloaded, she messed around with it while people were in the immediate vicinity, in an unsafe—public—place, and then she pretended it was no big deal. That’s not a mistake, it’s negligence.

A gun is only as safe as its user.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
Why did those children have access to the gun? You can blame the trigger pull all you want, but toddlers should never be in any position where they are able to handle a firearm. Kids kill themselves with different guns, too, including those that have an external safety and a heavy trigger pull.
Couldn't agree more :(