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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

~

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?

@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.