A New York police officer was on a casual motorcycle trip with his son and a group of other men, when he shot his son dead, thinking he was an intruder.
From Raw Story:
Village of Perry Officer Michael Leach, 59, was sleeping at around 12:50 a.m. on Saturday morning when he was awakened by someone entering his Old Forge hotel room. Thinking the person was an intruder, Leach fired one shot, killing his 37-year-old son Matthew, according to The Observer-Dispatch.
Michael Leach called 911 and stated that he had shot an intruder.
Matthew Leach was later pronounced dead St. Elizabeth Medical Center. The father was taken to Faxton St. Luke’s Healthcare for an unspecified medical issue.
While police are investigating the incident, it’s likely that it will be declared an accidental shooting.
Obviously, words can’t express the grief and guilt this father must be feeling, but in the wake of the Aurora, CO shooting, it does highlight a common argument in the gun control debate. After every shooting tragedy in the US, it seems that the pro-gun argument is that responsible gun owners would have helped mitigate the situation. Aurora was no exception, despite the fact that the shooter, dressed in black, filled the dark theater with smoke. Without night vision goggles, it’s unfathomable how more guns would have led to fewer victims.
Pending knowing the details of Officer Leach, it’s not a stretch to believe that he is a “responsible” gun owner, trained to handle and carry a gun with near perfect accuracy and without accidental mishap. The fact is, people, no matter how well-trained, are fallible. Sure, while it might literally be true that people kill people, guns are lethal. All it takes is a split-second reaction to either create or exacerbate a deadly tragedy.
Follow me on my new Facebook page or on Twitter, @wendygittleson
To the administrators of this blog: How long will my comment be awaiting moderation?
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” is the most fallacious argument one can make. A truer argument is “Guns don’t kill people, but a single person with a gun (or guns) can kill lots of people” and as we’ve seen too often, people with guns can kill LOTS of people all at once and from great distances.
It also is true that a person with a knife, blunt instrument or garotte can kill people and these don’t have to be regulated. But, in these cases, only a few people can be killed at one time and only at close range, and at that only by the murderer losing or throwing away his/her only weapon(s). In other words, the killing is far less lethal and the killer far more likely to be stopped before masses of people are murdered.
It also is true that a person can cause mass murder with an automobile and explosives, but these “weapons” are heavily regulated. The vast majority of mass killings by automobile are by accident and NOT by intent. The vast majority of mass murders by explosives are intentional, but explosives or the ingredients to make explosives also are regulated, but only marginally so. However, most of the known attempts to make homemade explosives have been thwarted by conscientious sellers who notify the authorities. Comparatively few mass murders succeed using explosives. Perhaps MORE regulations would reduce these mass murders to zero.
Most of those citizens with whom I communicate in regard to this issue, one way or another, have no problem with gun/ammunition ownership, provided the owners register their guns and are considered complicit in any murder that may be committed by the negligent use of their gun, whether they or someone else discharged it in the commission of that murder.
Further in this regard, the idea that registration will make it easy for the “gummint” to take away a person’s weapon(s)when the communistic/socialistic storm-troopers come our way . . . well, that’s just about as absurd a notion EVER. First of all, those storm-troopers would be our citizens and, unlike the Nazis, it’s doubtful they’d obey those orders. Second, how many weapons would the ordinary anti-communist/socialist patriot have to own to stand off the armament of the greatest fighting forces in the world? This idea is so hopelessly ridiculous, I’m embarrassed even just to write out the obvious reasoning. However, apparently it’s necessary to do so.
In addition, most of my communicants and I insist that guns and ordinary ammunition may be owned, but only if it is intended for personal protection and/or heavily regulated hunting or sport-shooting and stored only at hunting lodges or firing ranges. Body armor, weapons of mass destruction, armor piercing bullets, dum-dums or any ammunition NOT intended for use as personal protection, hunting and sport-shooting would be banned whether purchased or manufactured, even if manufactured by other than licensed and regulated manufacturers.
Finally, for those who continuously and intentionally misread the Second Amendment, we agree that there should be NO regulation of the weapons and ammunition with which the Founding Fathers were familiar and under the specific, literal circumstances they envisioned in 1791. Specifically, these would be flintlocks, muskets in any variations of front-loading, single-shot Minnie ball weapons. These were meant by the Founders only to be used under the regulations of a local militia who would be protecting themselves individually and a citizenry of several thousands, in some cases less and some cases more. In addition, there would have to be no standing army available to protect that citizenry as there was not at the time of the writing of the amendment.
On May 8, 1792, Congress additionally passed “[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States . . . That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.”-Second Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 33, 1792, Chap. XX XIII, Section 1.