Indiana has among the laxest gun-permitting statutes in the nation. One restriction even a lot of staunch pro-gun advocates support, sensibly, is a firearms-instruction requirement. You can get a carry permit here without knowing diddly about how to actually use a gun safely. Such instruction might have been a help here:
A fatal shooting on the Eastside was an accident, according to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.
Roosevelt Griffin, 57, was declared dead at Wishard Memorial Hospital after he was shot about 3:30 p.m. Monday near his home in the 300 block of Eastern Avenue.
The incident happened after one dog attacked another dog on the residential street.
Police said Griffin and Carolyn Walker, 49, who lived together, left their home to help after a neighbor asked them for assistance with the fighting dogs.
A police statement said Walker was carrying a gun when she tripped and fell. The gun discharged, and a bullet struck Griffin in the face.
Firearms instruction would not have included anything as specific as "Don't run toward fighting dogs with a loaded gun," but it might have made the woman more cautious about when and how to brings guns into a situation.
Although 48 states allow citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public, not all that many have good, or any, instruction requirements. Shouldn't tame old Indiana in the middle of the Heartland be as safety conscious as cowboy-redneck-yahoo-infested Texas, which even has two levels of practical qualification for its Concealed Handgun License, one for semi-automatics and one for non-semi-autos.
Comments
What should be painfully obvious is the simple fact you can't legislate the stupidity out of people. Call me callous but, natural selection is a wondrous thing and in this case firearms training most likely wouldn not have extended the life of this poor soul. As Forrest Gump so eloquently said "stupid is as stupid does".
Sad fact of life, there are just a lot of instances where stupid people die sooner than non-stupid people. Who'd a thunk it?
What's more dangerous is a government that actually believes it has the right and responsibility to somehow protect every moron from himself. Welcome to America 2011 where (thanks to lawyers & democrats, I know that's redundant) we actually have regulations that require disclaimers like:
Caution: Beverage may be hot (when you order hot coffee.)
Caution: Never use this appliance in the shower. (hairdryer)
Caution: Keep away from flame (gas can)
The examples are legion.
My guess is there will be a bevy of lawsuits emanating from the shooting suing everyone from the city, state and county to the gun manufacturer, the ammo maker, the manufacturer of the shoes she was wearing, the shoe lace company, the owner of the property on which she tripped, the owners of the dogs for starting the ruckus to begin etc etc etc...
In short, there is always somebody else responsible and always somone else to sue and blame for your own stupidity.
I've taken the mandatory gun-safety course (in another state, obviously). Like most, it was run by the NRA. After a few pointers (Always assume the gun is loaded; never point a gun at something you're not willing to shoot), it quickly disintegrted into a pro-NRA, anti-Democratic Party tirade. I was already accustomed to using firearms and didn't need the pointers, and the political stuff was beside the point, at best. The biggest problem with our current system is so few other states recognize our carry permits. And Tim's right - idiots will be idiots when it comes to guns, cars or anything else.
And or course a literal reading of the Second Amendment suggests permits shouldn't be required anywhere in the country under any circumstances. "...the right of the people ... shall not be infringed."
Funny thing...there were NEVER any instructions about SCISSORS SAFETY, but Mom ALWAYS told you NEVER to "run with them"...
Knowledge & wisdom can always be learned (and taught), but STUPID just has to be genetic!
And if that makes them (the idiots) croak sooner...fine by me.
Wonder what Darwin would say?
;)
I appreciate the point all three of you allude to, that you can't protect people from their own stupidity. We could make the same point about stupid drivers, but that wouldn't negate the fact that the roads are probably much safter because people have to initially demonstrate they know the rules and can handle a car before they get a license. We can't say in retrospect whether a training requirement would have prevented a particular tragedy, only that it would tend to make the environment safer in the long run.
As for the Second Amendment, there's nothing in it to prevent any state or local jurisdiction from having permits or training requirements, since it, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was intended only as a limit on congressional action. The process of incorporation, making the Bill of Rights applicable to the states and enforceable by the federal government, came in the wake of the 14th Amendment.
So if a training requirement wouldn't have affected this particular incident, why use it as an excuse to trot out your particular preference for it? From what I read (after I corrected for the expired link) there isn't enough detail to even begin to suggest training had anything to do with it.
That the 14th amendment needed to be made only indicates that the state governments needed their limits more expressly spelled out, not that those limits didn't previously exist or weren't intended.
It was a conversation starter, Michael; thanks for validating its use as such.
In other words, using tragedy as an excuse to put forth your personal preference. Great.
Well, in the editorial business we have always thought of it as referencing the news to add relevance when advancing a point of view, but I suppose "character flaw" is shorter and punchier. Feel better now?
Well, just because editorialists at dinosaur dead-tree distributors have been doing something tasteless and half-ass for a long time, doesn't make it any less tasteless or half-ass. If you're going to reference news, fine, but at least make it news that's actually logically relevant.
Michaelk42, I like communication with people, learning their point of view. Without Communication, we would be what? We agree or disagree. Many of the things I read on this blog I are new to me. Leo does a fine job of bringing news to the attention of people. Leo is just one of many who I am sure have different content. Keep up the great reporting Leo!
Communication can be achieved without grabbing a headline to barely hang an editorial on and taking a cheap shot at the victims in the process.