Social Question

elbanditoroso's avatar

Suppose that, instead of bouncing off the floor and into the chair, the bullet had hit someone and killed them. What rationalization would gun advocates use to defend this guy?

Asked by elbanditoroso (22237points) January 3rd, 2014

We hear all this folderol about how responsible gun owners are and so on. And in Georgia, we do have open carry laws. So this guy was totally within his rights to carry.

Suppose that the bullet had not embedded into the chair, but rather into the person sitting on the chair. And the person was injured or possibly killed.

How would gun advocates try to get the guy off?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

10 Answers

flip86's avatar

It’s too bad he didn’t shoot off his manhood. At least that way he couldn’t reproduce.

elbanditoroso's avatar

The thing is, I have actually been to the restaurant where this took place – it’s about 45 minutes from where I live. I’m wondering if I want to go back there.

GoldieAV16's avatar

They won’t have to do anything to defend him. Charges are rarely filed in accidental discharge cases, and when they are, it’s something relatively benign, like “negligence.”

We love our guns, and if a dozen or so accidental casualties a week (half of them children) is the price of that love, we’re willing to pay it.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

They’d probably blame the construction of the floor. It should have contained the shot.

bolwerk's avatar

You’ll have to elaborate on the scenario. In this hypothetical scenario, does the bullet hit a Negro, or an upstanding white Georgian citizen?

livelaughlove21's avatar

They’d probably say that gun laws shouldn’t punish law abiding gun carriers because of an accident, or because of the few gun owners that are stupid. Cars are legal to have, but car accidents kill a lot of people. Should we outlaw cars because some drivers are careless?

I’m not a gun advocate, but I’m sure that’s what some of them would say.

@elbanditoroso “I’m wondering if I want to go back there.”

Because something bad could’ve happened there? It has nothing to do with the restaurant.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Getting him off on charges, I would say that his INTENT was not to fire the weapon or kill the hypothetical person.

That being said, if he was carrying like that at age 22 (which is very young to be carrying imo), outside of a holster and with his safety off, his gun should be taken for a year or so and he should take another gun safety course imo.

To be very clear, again, gun owners who are responsible are just as irritated and dismayed at people like this as the rest of the general public, it’s not just gun owners versus the rest of society.

CWOTUS's avatar

We wouldn’t defend him or his right to be armed. We would do exactly what we do whenever someone mishandles a car, for example, and demand that cars be more tightly regulated and that people should be prevented from owning, possessing or operating one at any time. Cars are dangerous. Leave driving to the professionals.


Seek's avatar

Hm. @CWOTUS We require people to maintain a valid insurance policy against the damages caused by their mishandling of the vehicle.

Perhaps people should be required to maintain firearm insurance against damage to life, limb or property caused by the intentional or accidental discharge of said firearm?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr Unfortunately the only ones who would be penalized/ insured are those of us who prefer to stay legal. I’m not sure that my home owners wouldn’t cover an incident, I’ll have to check.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther