Monday, June 24, 2013

Lawful Maryland Gun Owner Accidentally Shoots Cyclist Passing By his House

Local news reports

The shooting happened at about 7 p.m. in the 1200 block of Summerfield Drive when a man was loading his gun inside his house when it accidentally fired, Herndon police said. 

The bullet exited the house and struck a passing cyclist in the abdomen area. The cyclist was transported to the hospital.

The man who discharged the weapon has been identified as 49-year-old John Albers, of Herndon. Police said Albers didn’t know the cyclist and that the shooting was accidental. 

Albers has been charged with willfully discharging a firearm in a public place resulting in bodily injury.

This is a good example for Kurt, who seems to be having a hard time understanding that the world isn't simply divided between good guys and bad guys. Up until the moment of this irresponsible and criminal act, Mr. Albers was one of the many law abiding responsible gun owners, the ones who make us all safer. Then, suddenly he became a criminal.

It's not fair to him, to Albers, to say that because he committed a criminal act he was a criminal. Even now he's only charged with a crime. But, before the negligent action, he was one of the good guys.

As I've explained many times, the group called "good guys" is plum full of irresponsible and negligent idiots as well as out-and-out law breakers who just haven't been caught yet.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

24 comments:

  1. If innocent people must be considered dangerous due to a minute chance of potetail criminality, then presumably we must live in a utopia (relatively) free of crime, as if ordinary citizens are to be considered a threat to public safety, then we must have run out of real criminals to catch.

    It is also good to know that Mike is a pre-criminal, ready to snap at a moment's notice. No wonder you fear guns. By your own logic, you would likley misuse firearms if you had access to them, and you are apparently incapable of envisioning anyone of a different predisposition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The internet is so full of stories of those "minute chances" that I can't keep up with them all.

      Why would you defend the actions of a negligent and dangerous gun owner who has proven himself incapable of safely owning guns?

      Delete
  2. 1. Since the news article gave no information about Albers's history or record, you can't say one way or the other whether he was a criminal or law-abiding before this incident.

    2. By your definition, all of us could be hidden criminals--every person in this country. And you claim that you're not looking for total civilian disarmament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By my definition everyone is a hidden criminal? What a self-pitying, victimist, lie that is. A lie, something you know fucking well ain't true.

      Delete
    2. Telling the truth isn't a lie. You say that there are a lot of hidden criminals among gun owners. Your definition of hidden criminal is someone who hasn't been caught and convicted yet. That's all of us without a criminal record, gun owners or not. You're trying to base gun control on what we might do wrong in the future.

      But it comes as no surprise that you toss insults at me because I stand up for basic rights. You hate those. You also have banned insults against you, but apparently the same courtesy doesn't extend to the rest of us.

      Delete
    3. You're pretending to not understand what a hidden criminal is. That's because your argument is such bullshit that you can't do it straight up.

      "Your definition of hidden criminal is someone who hasn't been caught and convicted yet."

      Actually, my definition of a hidden criminal is someone who BREAKS THE LAW, and hasn't been caught and convicted yet.

      You left out that little part, Greg. Was that an honest mistake, or after all this time do you really not know what the fuck I mean by hidden criminal?



      Delete
    4. Actually, my definition of a hidden criminal is someone who BREAKS THE LAW, and hasn't been caught and convicted yet.

      Except, of course, when your definition of a "hidden criminal" is someone who OBEYS THE LAW.

      "Was than an honest mistake, or after all this time do you really not know that the fuck [you] mean by hidden criminal?"

      Delete
    5. There are many flavors of hidden criminals. But the one Greg was talking about does not exist because he left out an important qualifying phrase.

      Delete
    6. No mistake at all. If I use the word, criminal, do I have to repeat that the person has broken the law? That's implied in the term. The problem is that your attitude about gun owners is that many of us are criminals--hidden or otherwise.

      There is no beauty in your proposals, and no value, either. What you want would turn this country in to a nation of compliant sheep, waiting for some tyrant to come along and take advantage.

      Delete
    7. It's too late. You're already "compliant sheep" obeying the speen limits and seat belt laws.

      Delete
    8. You're already "compliant sheep" obeying the speen limits and seat belt laws.

      Driving safely doe not make one a "compliant sheep," and certainly does not indicate willingness to kneel to tyranny.

      Besides, how do you know about the driving practices of anyone here?

      Delete
  3. Up until the moment he does something wrong, he should not be punished for something he didn't do. After he does something wrong, he can be punished for doing that thing. Not a difficult concept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it certainly is not a difficult concept.

      When someone forgets there's a round in the chamber and then goes on to break one or two other safety rules, he should be punished in such a way that he never ever can do that again.

      I know we can't anticipate who might do something like this in the future, but we can damn well ensure they never do it twice.

      Delete
    2. . . . but we can damn well ensure they never do it twice.

      No, "we" can't, since gun laws cannot make guns unobtainable to any "prohibited person" who really wants them as it is, and that situation just continues to get even better, as home fabrication of firearms becomes more and more accessible to the forcibly disarmed masses.

      You. Fail. ;-)

      Delete
    3. Isn't your whole philosophy that these people can be weeded out before they do something like this? How are you expecting to disarm half the gun owners without imparting judgement that they are likely to do something wrong (but they haven't yet). 50% of gun owners have not done something like this.

      Delete
    4. Kurt, you're right again. We couldn't ensure that because these guys could always turn completely criminal and get guns illegally. But what we could ensure is that they never have a second chance to be lawful gun owners who do wrong with their guns. That's the beauty and value of the one-strike-you're-out program.

      Delete
    5. How do you get to 50% disarmament using only “one-strike-you’re-out”?

      Delete
    6. TS, have you forgotten my other gun control measures, especially the "may issue" for gun ownership licenses? Even before the local authorities have a whack at it, under my program, medical and psychological testing would be required as well as an eye and physical exams.

      That, combined with the one-strike-you're-out would do the trick.

      Delete
    7. That, combined with the one-strike-you're-out would do the trick.

      If "the trick" is to provoke massive non-compliance, and making a mockery of the rule of law.

      Delete
  4. A lie, something you know fucking well ain't true.

    And I know it is true. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is a good example for Kurt, who seems to be having a hard time understanding that the world isn't simply divided between good guys and bad guys. Up until the moment of this irresponsible and criminal act, Mr. Albers was one of the many law abiding responsible gun owners, the ones who make us all safer. Then, suddenly he became a criminal.

    What kind of pre-purchase screening would eliminate (or even substantially reduce the number of) gun buyers who clumsily/irresponsibly/negligently/stupidly injure or kill someone by shooting unintentionally?

    Glad to see you're still so obsessively focused on me that I continue to be mentioned by name in your blog posts. Can't find a hobby, eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The one-strike-you're-out rule would diminish the violence considerably, at least if you agree with me that these clumsy and irresponsible idiots are often repeat offenders.

      Plus, by requiring gun owners to adhere to a higher standard in the first place, many of the less-responsible ones would never have the chance to make their first mistake.

      Delete
    2. The one-strike-you're-out rule . . .

      Oh--silly me. It didn't occur to me that we were taking a hypothetical journey through your fantasy world, in which there is any chance, of anything like that becoming law, in any state, ever.

      "One-strike-you're-out rule," indeed (still chuckling).

      Delete
  6. This is Mike B's hobby. He lives in Italy and doesn't have anything better to do than look for pro gun control stories, instead of going out and seeing the country and seeing the history of the world as it was in ancient times.

    I did a lot of traveling when I was in Europe when I was able to, even on a weekend.

    ReplyDelete