He thought he saw a deer and fired his pistol. Now his neighbor is dead.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Nope. Even stupid people have a right to guns. I don't know of any required IQ testing.

a reply to: Phage

I'm not sure IQ tests will make a difference, I'm betting a lot of accidents have alcohol as a factor.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Probably. But you only mentioned stupid so I went with that.

a reply to: Phage

True, I should learn to be a far more constructive smart ass.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Phage

I'm not sure IQ tests will make a difference, I'm betting a lot of accidents have alcohol as a factor.

I don't know of any gun related accidents personally, but I know people who have often had a couple of beers then decide to do some car maintenance (attached charging cables to the battery, then started the engine to see if the battery had been charged, only to have to have the cables get tangled in the cooling fan), or home DIY (turned off the mains power to the wrong room, while the washing machine was in full load, and blew it up), attempted to bake cous-cous and set off the fire-alarms.

a reply to: stormcell

Yeah, alcohol is great at a party, not so good dealing with tasks that requires engaging some grey matter.

The article states he thought he saw a deer in his "backyard". If the woman was on his private property this changes the narrative.

Not trying to take away the fact someone died. But that would give the shooter more leverage if he assumed HIS private property down range was unoccupied. I have seen numerous people willfully try and ruin a hunt by placing themselves down range from hunters.

Most likley. Both people were being idiots and the media threw their antigun spin to it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Probably. But you only mentioned stupid so I went with that.

Stupid, coupled with alcohol, and firing a pistol at 200 yards I would wager = this situation. smh

There are a lot of people that fall under these categories while hunting, 2 out of the three are legal, but any combinations are lethal for others.

I'm truly sorry for the loss for the family involved, prayers and sympathy to the loved ones left behind.

originally posted by: mymymy
I don't think this is a gun issue. You can just never underestimate the stupidity of people.

This most certainly is a handling a gun safely issue when idiots are involved.

a reply to: seattlerat

i believe in gun ownership and also hunting but i also believe in firearm and hunting safety classes.
i never had either i had someone teach me how to shoot and when not to. a true hunter is not going to fire unless he knows exactly what he aiming at and he will aim to kill with that shot. you hit a prey animal in the wrong spot prey mte run off or you may run the meat. this guy was a clown at the least or he using hunting accident excuse to cover up a murder.

Maybe he wanted to kill her?

a reply to: InTheLight

A rifle would have been a better plan.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: InTheLight

A rifle would have been a better plan.

Not if he was a crack shot.

a reply to: InTheLight

Yeah. 200 yards with a handgun. Late twilight. Lucky shot, maybe.
Not saying it can't be done.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: InTheLight

Yeah. 200 yards with a handgun. Late twilight. Lucky shot, maybe.
Not saying it can't be done.

Sure, he shot a shot in the sky, where it landed he did not care where.

Claim on ATS: The majority are responsible gun owners.

Reality: Majority of gun owners probably shouldn't own a gun.

But heck.. YOU know how to handle a gun.. so obviously there is no problem!

a reply to: fleabit


I made no such statement.

However, since gun ownership is a Constitutional right laws can only be passed to punish unlawful behavior. After the fact.

You can be as proactive as you want with things like cars/cellphones/McDonalds though.

Since there are millions of legal gun owners and only a small number of negligence related deaths I'd say that's not even a close comparison.

a reply to: JBurns

However, since gun ownership is a Constitutional right laws can only be passed to punish unlawful behavior. After the fact.

The Supreme Court seems to disagree with your assessment somewhat. Has done so for a while now.

1886,

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States."

en.wikipedia.org...

It doesn't say that cities (or states) cannot regulate gun ownership.

a reply to: carewemustno he shot him in face with shot gun. luckily guy survived what made it interesting they tried to cover it up.

a reply to: Phage

Thats not exactly true anymore the supreme court decided every citizen has the right to own a gun. So t is now protected ame as the first amendment. States can regulate rights however they cant remove them. This is why the gun ban in DC was overturned by the supreme court and they can now purchase guns again.


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense ...