What a Preventable Gun death looks like....

[PhantomWolf]

The wife of former Eagles band member, bassist Randy Meisner, was killed when a rifle she was handling accidentally discharged and shot her in the head, Los Angeles police say.

Police said on Monday officers found 63-year-old Lana Rae Meisner dead on Sunday from a single gunshot wound at the couple's home in the San Fernando Valley.

Investigators say Lana Rae Meisner lifted the rifle from a storage case when another item inside shifted and hit the trigger, causing the gun to fire.

This needless death could have been prevented so easily....

"As she lifted the rifle in the case, another item within the case shifted and hit the trigger of the rifle causing it to fire and fatally injure Mrs Meisner," the LAPD said in a statement.

Gun should not have been loaded in the case!

Officials say police had responded to the home earlier Sunday and took a domestic violence incident report.

Lana Rae had called 911 to report domestic violence, claiming Randy was waiving a BB gun and "acting erratically".

One and a half hours later, Randy phoned the police to say he heard a gun shot after his wife went into another room and closed the door.

This call and his behaviour should have been enough to have temporarily removed any guns from the home.

In 2015, Randy was placed under court-ordered 24-hour supervision after he allegedly threatened murder-suicide with an AK-47 and pills.

Which should have been enough to have had any guns removed from him for longer than a year at the least.

This is where gun control and the ability of the police to remove weapons from those that are seemingly a threat to themselves or others would have saved a life. Now yes, in this case it wasn't murder or suicide according to the police...

"There was an accidental discharge of the firearm," LAPD spokesman Gus Barrientos told the New York Post. "It was completely accidental, there is nothing indicative of a murder, homicide or a suicide ... It's a weird accident, that's all I can say."

... but had the guns been removed because of the owner's behaviour, the death would never have occurred. Heck even if they had just be stored unloaded and the ammo separately, this never would have happened.

Too many tragic incidents like this, but still people say it's the price of freedom right, that's the pretty high price if you ask me.

 

[WildCat]

You do realize that California already has all the laws you just claimed would have prevented this, don't you?

You're proving something all right, but for the other side.

 

[Cain]

OP: You conveniently omit all the times guns were used to save her life.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You do realize that California already has all the laws you just claimed would have prevented this, don't you?

You're proving something all right, but for the other side.

If California has these laws then why weren't they enforced?

 

[WildCat]

If California has these laws then why weren't they enforced?

Why are you asking me? I'm not a California law enforcement official.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why are you asking me? I'm not a California law enforcement official.

Well if they have laws and they should have been enforced and weren't, I guess her family has a really good lawsuit against the police for not taking the weapons and against Randy Meisner for keeping a loaded weapon in the case.

 

[WildCat]

Well if they have laws and they should have been enforced and weren't, I guess her family has a really good lawsuit against the police for not taking the weapons and against Randy Meisner for keeping a loaded weapon in the case.

The police are under no legal obligation to enforce any particular law. And as I have pointed out ad nauseam on these forums these are laws that are unenforceable until an incident occurs. And btw laws requiring all guns in the home to be unloaded have been ruled unconstitutional.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The police are under no legal obligation to enforce any particular law.

If they fail to enforce a law and then a death or injury occurs, they should be liable.

And as I have pointed out ad nauseam on these forums these are laws that are unenforceable until an incident occurs.

I'd consider a guy that has previously threatened murder suicide by AK-47 going wacko with a BB Rifle and it being written up as a domestic to be an incident that occurred. The cops should have been able to ask for any weapons in the house, given him a receipt and told him to come and pick them up in 5 days.

And btw laws requiring all guns in the home to be unloaded have been ruled unconstitutional.

What about just stored guns? (There is the little thing called Amending the Constitution too, that is possible, really, the thing isn't set in stone.)

 

[Corsair 115]

Too many tragic incidents like this, but still people say it's the price of freedom right, that's the pretty high price if you ask me.

Let's look at some data for other accidental deaths for 2013—this PDF has the total number of deaths from many causes, as compiled by the CDC. Of note here will be accidental deaths, as opposed to the many pages of statistics on deaths from diseases. The relevant tables are on pages 41-42. As the woman in the story was 63, let's only look at the data for the 55-64 age group.

Nontransport accidents claimed the lives of a total of 11,841 persons aged 55-64 in 2013 in the U.S. Broken down by cause, the numbers were as follows:

Falls: 2,283 (19.3%)
Accidental discharge of firearms: 59 (0.5%)
Accidental drowning and submersion: 452 (3.8%)
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames: 556 (4.7%)
Accidental poisoning and exposure to noxious substances: 6,388 (53.9%)
Other and unspecified nontransport accidents and their sequelae: 2,103 (17.8%)

If we measure "pretty high price" by the number of lives lost in such nontransport accidents, then firearms are insignificant compared to the other accidental causes.

If they fail to enforce a law and then a death or injury occurs, they should be liable.

Are you prepared to extend this to ALL laws on the books that were not enforced on the relevant persons when a death or injury occurs? So, for example, the appropriate government agency/department is liable for a death or injury in the workplace because it failed to enforce the relevant laws on that workplace?

 

[WildCat]

If they fail to enforce a law and then a death or injury occurs, they should be liable.

According to what case law?

I'd consider a guy that has previously threatened murder suicide by AK-47 going wacko with a BB Rifle and it being written up as a domestic to be an incident that occurred. The cops should have been able to ask for any weapons in the house, given him a receipt and told him to come and pick them up in 5 days.

California has such a law, and it allows the cops to confiscate the firearms for up to 21 days without any court order. AK-47s are illegal in CA btw.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014

What about just stored guns? (There is the little thing called Amending the Constitution too, that is possible, really, the thing isn't set in stone.)

Good luck with that amendment!

 

[arthwollipot]

All gun deaths are preventable.

All gun deaths are caused by a person pulling the trigger. If you can get that person to not pull the trigger, then that death could have been prevented.

There are many ways that you can get a person to not pull a trigger. Sometimes, you just have to make sure there is no trigger to pull.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

All gun deaths are preventable.

All gun deaths are caused by a person pulling the trigger. If you can get that person to not pull the trigger, then that death could have been prevented.

Stupid handling of a gun can also result in death.

 

[arthwollipot]

Stupid handling of a gun can also result in death.

Only if the stupid handling results in the trigger being pulled.

 

[Corsair 115]

Sometimes, you just have to make sure there is no trigger to pull.

In terms of the subject of this thread—accidental discharge of a firearm—the number of deaths in the specified age group was just 59. For the entire country. For the entire year. Over 7 times as many were killed by drowning/submersion; over 9 times as many killed by smoke, fire, and flames; more than 38 times as many were killed as a result of falls; and 108 times as many died due to poisoning/exposure to noxious substances.

If saving lives is the primary goal, then doing something about those other causes would save far more lives.

 

[arthwollipot]

Just 59.

 

[Corsair 115]

Just 59.

Yes. Just 59 out of a population of roughly 40 million in that age group. Or, just half of one percent of all nontransport accidental deaths.

If the question is what causes the most accidental deaths in the 55-64 age group, firearms are insignificant.

I ask you straight out: why do you appear to have such overriding concern for those 59 persons killed by accidental firearms discharge while seemingly having little concern for the 9,679 persons who died accidentally from the other specified causes? Are those persons killed by accidental drowning or falls or poisoning not equally deserving of your sympathy? Are you certain nothing could have been done to prevent any of those nearly 10,000 other accidental deaths as you are that something could have been done to prevent those 59 firearms deaths?

 

[Cain]

If California has these laws then why weren't they enforced?

Because they know their statistics. They checked the batteries in her smoke alarm, made sure the pool was securely covered, gave every banister in the downstairs a firm tug. Why would they concern themselves with guns? You fool.

 

[arthwollipot]

I ask you straight out: why do you appear to have such overriding concern for those 59 persons killed by accidental firearms discharge while seemingly having little concern for the 9,679 persons who died accidentally from the other specified causes? Are those persons killed by accidental drowning or falls or poisoning not equally deserving of your sympathy? Are you certain nothing could have been done to prevent any of those nearly 10,000 other accidental deaths as you are that something could have been done to prevent those 59 firearms deaths?

What a completely stupid argument and I for one am utterly sick and tired of it and of those who make it. Pardon me for a moment while I rant. I apologise if I get a bit shouty here, but my frustration with this particular argument is at a peak right now.

Point the first: Concern for deaths is not exclusive and suggesting that it is is one of the dumbest arguments I have encountered in the time I have been arguing this subject. I can be concerned about gun deaths and other deaths - just because I am concerned about one does not in any sense mean that I cannot be concerned about others, and suggesting that this is the case isn't only completely offensive, it also says a hell of a lot about the mentality of the people who think that it's in any way a reasonable or valid argument.

Here's what seems to me to be an appropriate analogy for the argument you are making: Why are you so concerned about always teaching addition when multiplication gives you bigger numbers? Don't you care about multiplication? Why are you going out of your way to not teach multiplication? Do you see why I think this is such a massively stupid argument?

Point the second: I am concerned about guns because pools, fire extinguishers, motor vehicles and bottles of bleach are not called out in the Bill of Rights as having a special status. There is no right to own pools. There is no right to own bleach. There is no right to own or drive a motor vehicle. But there is a right to own guns. What gives guns - deadly weapons as we see every day - such a special status that there has to be something explicitly called out in the Bill of Rights (a document by the way that I otherwise have a fair bit of respect for) recognising them? Why do Americans have a right to own deadly weapons? Practically no-one else in the developed world does! And practically no-one else in the developed world sees the numbers of gun injuries and deaths that America does.

Point the third. America has the right to bear arms. Other developed countries do not. America has a gun death rate that is massively higher than other developed countries. Not just higher - massively higher. Anyone who doesn't think that there may be some kind of association between those two facts is a flat out idiot. If you don't support restriction on gun ownership, you are not only an idiot, you are an evil idiot because you think that your personal so-called "freedom" is more important than the lives of gun victims and you are willing to let them die in their thousands for your ideology.

*mic drop*

 

[Cain]

Point the second: I am concerned about guns because pools, fire extinguishers, motor vehicles and bottles of bleach are not called out in the Bill of Rights as having a special status.

I hate it when gun control advocates concede too much ground by granting this argument. No, the Constitution does not give special status to owning guns. People interpret it that way, especially in recent years, but with Scalia dead, dead, dead and the likelihood Obama is replaced with a Democrat, the Court could reverse itself on Heller and McDonald.

 

[arthwollipot]

I hate it when gun control advocates concede too much ground by granting this argument. No, the Constitution does not give special status to owning guns. People interpret it that way, especially in recent years, but with Scalia dead, dead, dead and the likelihood Obama is replaced with a Democrat, the Court could reverse itself on Heller and McDonald.

We can hope. But while there are 2nd Amendment Advocates willing to kill for their ideology, I don't like your chances of it happening soon.

Meanwhile, people continue to die.