Straight Up Disgusting

From the way this reads, 3 knuckle heads got drunk and started playing with a gun, in an apartment complex. My guess is they shot through a wall.
This is not only very very sad it is disgusting, a surpreme display of stupidity.

5 Likes

Appreciate the post.

It’s a leap to say that this incident would not have happened if Utah were not a permit-less state. Especially since we don’t have all of the facts. And a permit alone does not guarantee that the shooter would have learned enough to not have made a mistake.

All the training in the world can’t guarantee against bad judgment.

But believing that in fact, a life was lost, a child, age 7, a little girl; And knowing that many such occurrences do occur, from accidental discharge; Even one life, but truly compounded of many – that is powerful. Even as a supporter of gun rights, I hear this.

It makes me want to do something about it, to help reduce such accidents, and increase trust and respect for our community as responsible. It makes it easier for me to support requiring FOIDs, Permits, background checks; And I’m pro-self defense.

Imagine what the rest or other side of society gleen from this. On one hand, some of us want firearm freedoms in order to protect what we value “life”; On the other hand, having a firearm can easily accidentally take a life, a slippery slope. Is there a balance of rights or laws?

A relative of mine recently obtained their own state’s permit. I purchased their first year’s USCCA membership for them. Wanting to help them with liability insurance – but to also receive more training.

We can do more though.

4 Likes

A little more info. Not really an accident…

3 Likes

Don’t see how a bunch of new laws, regulations, and paperwork would have stopped this. None of the likely dozen or so laws they broke that night stopped the tragedy from happening. Laws and regulations don’t fix drunk, stupid, and criminal. They just punish it after the fact.

I’m with you though on working to reduce accidents. If the anti gunners put 1/10th the effort and money they put into trying to infringe on rights into public education and outreach designed to teach responsible gun handling instead of spreading fear to promote eventual confiscation, they may actually save a few of the lives they claim to care about. But probably not in this case.

A true tragedy for that family. My prayers go out to them.

9 Likes

Things like FOID, and the NICS background check don’t stop crimes. These men were arrested, for committing crimes. They broke some of the 20,000 laws on the books. More regulations won’t do anything. We, as responsible gun owners, should call out and condemn the bad actions of the few.

10 Likes

Thanks for pointing out how they may have broken several laws (in addition to the death). Even in their own region, where there seems to be more open/freedom around firearm laws. As that could serve to help the public learn more about those laws - some of which are there to help prevent accidents.

Other than calling them out on it, I wonder what else we can do to help at least reduce such tragedies.

In terms of crime, sometimes I wonder if “accidents” get lost on the conversations when violent criminal behavior is brought into talks.

From the view of the parents, and family of the girl who died, I wonder what they would want to change. I try to put myself both “in their shoes as that parent, and as well as still a responsible firearm owner”.

Without regulations, who are we.

1 Like

Don’t know if they knew how sketchy their neighbors where before this. But not sharing a wall with sketchy neighbors would be ideal. Easier said than done in many cases I know.

Human beings with the ability to utilize common sense and morals? I am not against all regulations. Just the ones that unduly burden good folks while doing little or nothing to stop the unacceptable behavior of the bad ones.

3 Likes

I understand where your coming from, so don’t take me as being harsh, or argumentative. In the firearm world, there’s no such thing as an accident. There’s intentional discharge, mechanical malfunction, and negligence. In this case, the guilty party intentionally discharged a firearm, and was negligent in his handling of a pistol while intoxicated. The parents, should seek manslaughter charges, as that is why this is.

We, as free citizens can exercise our Constitutionally protected rights. It is personal responsibility to exercise these rights, in a manner that is safe. We have laws governing what age we believe someone is old enough, to do that responsibly. We have laws, like outlawing murder, that dictate the penalties when someone abuses their rights. We convict them, and they lose their rights, and freedom. That’s about where I feel the laws should end.

2 Likes

I think, to the point, there are laws about being intoxicated, there are laws about discharge in public, there are laws about who can have one, there are laws about killing people with guns. Not to mention, in Utah, before the law changed, there was no regulation about having a gun for protection in my house. I could open carry. Another law, another regulation, another rule would do nothing to change what happened here.

4 Likes

For the group:

Appreciate that this incident was not an accident, and that there should be harsh penalties. It could have been our child; Would your reaction be any different if it were?

Not knowing all the details, I still believe there’s a possibility that laws could have prevented this child’s life from being stolen. If not, then something else could have prevented it. Not to, is to accept it. UT granted me a permit, for which I’m honored.

Is it possible that if UT had Red Flag laws, that it could reduce accidents or reduce negligence?

If not, then we can create new laws which could reach those who would be culpable.

There is some subjectivity in many of our posts. I’ve a questioning attitude especially when I hear a statement that might to me seem too broad or I think not stand up to scrutiny. I’d be concerned that others might fall to believe in something stated so assuredly.

I propose a more humble approach.

There have been and will be more incidences like this. Therefore, to those parents/survivors, yes, we can do something to reduce such incidents from happening again.

It is up to us, we can help change laws or maintain and develop prevention programs, before the real anti-gunners take it too far, instead can we control our own destiny?

If we are not more proactive in “prevention”, it could hurt us worse in the long-term.

Just came back from a family outing at a restaurant, had to make alternatives as they posted a Firearms Prohibited sign; Which I don’t agree with.

Why do they post them? Do you “really” still think to stop a violent criminal from entering? In thinking about it or asking them why, maybe another reason is they want to reduce chance of negligence inside. But where do they get these ideas? Why/where?: The answer could be in this same above story, about the 7-year-old girl who was shot and killed in her Heber City home.

I feel confident that making changes will allow me to still “carry”. I won’t agree with all proposals, but I’m willing to meet half-way.

Are there too many gun owners? Should more not be allowed to? Before the Utah shooter above fired that gun, should he have been allowed to “own”, does it take a loss of life to happen before he loses his right? Is that the best we can do? Does this relate to responsibility, ethics, and humanity?

1 Like

guessing the key word here is intoxicated. Can anyone stop drunks from doing stupid things?

3 Likes

@Burdo I appreciate your concerns and would be willing to discuss positive changes but I just don’t see most of these proposals having the desired effect. Unless you want to go full on Minority Report and arrest people because someone decides they may do something bad some day based on premonitions backed by zero evidence?

With draconian laws you may stop some innocent deaths. But how many other innocent people might end up being harmed or killed because they needlessly lost their right to carry or possess a firearm?

3 Likes

My thoughts on more laws end in one word: Chicago.

Illinois itself, already has the unconstitutional FOID. Add to that, the Gun Dealer Licensing scheme. Then stack all of Chicago’s draconian laws, and they still see record numbers of murders involving firearms. Many of those, are innocent children. Why? Because criminals don’t follow the law. It doesn’t matter how many laws are passed, these things will continue to happen. Cain killed his brother Able with a rock, thousands of years before the first firearm was invented.

2 Likes

I hear you all roar.

If one would qualify for a FOID or CCL/Permit there, why does one need that city to remove its laws?

So are we proposing that city change their laws so that it’s permitless and open carry? What do we think would happen there then? Would we be residing there during that “experimentation”?

Remember the rules of scientific research. Just because one set of numbers exists, does not mean that another factor had or did not have the effect on it which you claim. These are “apples and oranges”; They are unrelated with no cause and effect relationship. What came first, the violence in that city, or the strict gun laws?

The reason for those laws are for many purposes. Think of how violent that city naturally is. Now, take another look at Form 4473. Add millions of people living together with paper thin walls. Do they want more guns on the streets, or is it in their interest to try to limit the number of guns on the streets, and help ensure that those bought are bought legally, and at least some crude attempt at weeding some folks out. I’m not complaining about those strict laws, for were I to say they don’t work, they may believe me, and make it even more strict. Do you all get what I mean?

I value and respect background checks. I’d be careful about complaining that background checks do no good. Think what the opposition gleans from that? If we tell them that, they will think “Well if the enthusiasts say it does nothing, then maybe we need to make it even more strict”. I’d leave that alone before they get too wise.

If there were no guns at all in large cities, then you compared Chicago to all other large cities, do we think they’d still lead in violence? I do. Why, because nothing was done to change the people. No excuses, but what causes violence anywhere?: Anger, gangs, revenge, not solving problems via peaceful means, economy – to name a few.

Just speaking to the group, when we go up against those trying to take away certain freedoms, try to look at it from all angles. Not unlike an attorney trying to prepare us for cross examination, as our opposition will ask us questions – did we prep for them? Because they do their homework. How do I know? I live with them. They are PhD’s in “research”. Agreed; High violence would exist there, with or without certain gun laws. Writers of those laws did not necessarily write those laws to curb violence, but they had other mitigation goals in mind as well, i.e. – negligence, accidents.

Know this, that same argument that one makes that laws do not reduce violence, the same argument can be made, that were it not for the laws, it could be even worse, that the laws are actually keeping it at bay.

Why am I interested? Because among these pages are my fellow enthusiasts, and I owe it to our community to help prepare us for what’s ahead, and to build up our collective knowledge, as I’m part of it. You go down, I go down with you.

That’s why I’m a supporter of more state reciprocity, but against permitless.

However, please allow us to be able to legally “carry” into stores and businesses. I’m advocating for abolishing those Prohibited signs. In doing so, I’m learning a lot more about their fears. Why do I care about their fears, because they are the other half who write the laws. We all share the same land.

What about making it easier for victims of domestic violence to be able to own a firearm?:

Change the law specifically for them; And

As soon as your daughter or niece turns 18, help them apply. Love and spoil them to no end, but ask one favor of them – you get to take their boyfriend out alone to meet you and all of your USCCA friends. If you can afford it, help pay for daughter’s/niece’s first year’s Karate class. When I did, on the first day of class, guess where they taught the ladies to kick? You guessed it.

All in good faith & no luv lost,
Birdo :blush:

This link describes trying to hold a theory up to scrutiny:

This point hammers home why more gun laws aren’t the answer. Only the law abiding citizens are impacted by gun laws.
Let’s say a woman, who has never owned a gun, is assaulted one night. Maybe the criminal is never caught. Maybe, he gets off in a technicality. Then, the woman feels the need to get a gun. So, in Illinois, she pays her 10 dollars to the state, fills out her form online, and waits for her FOID card. Maybe she gets it in 30 days, maybe she gets it in 6 months. Even though it is written into that law, that FOID cards will be issued in no more than 30 days. Anyway, once she has FOID card in hand, she goes to the local FFL, pics out a gun, fills out her 4473, and waits. The earliest she will take possession, is 72 hours. So, if it all works great, maybe she owns a gun in 33 days.
Same woman, lives in Missouri. She goes to the local FFL, picks out a pistol, shows her DL, chats with the clerk about holsters, and Ammo, and maybe how to properly maintain her pistol. In a few minutes, the FFL gets the approval from MSP, she pays her money, and leaves with her new self defense pistol, free to carry it on her the minute she leaves the store.

As to the NICS system. Many times, recently, the shooter had passed a NICS check, and “legally” obtained a firearm, because the system failed.

To the idea that the anti gunners will use us saying “NICS doesn’t work” to pass more laws. Their goal, is to completely disarm citizens by any means necessary. “Common sense” gun control is a fictitious idea. It is their way of politely, and covertly saying “Hell yes we’re coming to take your guns.”

4 Likes

The next and Appropriate step.
Notice these guys were drug dealers, Rapists, Intoxicated. Looks to me like “The Law” means absolutely nothing to them.

1 Like

No, they never deserved the honor of owning a firearm, let alone other privileges. Appreciate the post, sad, but educational, and my heart goes out to her and her family.

In support of domestic violence victims, USCCA’s Beth A. had written a great post about a program she was supporting which would allow domestic violence victims a fast track to obtain a firearm for self-defense, whereas normally in their region, there’s the long waiting list we both experience locally.

When you refer to “the shooter had passed a NICS check, and legally obtained a firearm, because the system failed”; Personally, I’m carefully calling that system a failure. My reason, is that would make the anti-gunners petition for an even more strict vetting. But also because there is a segment of the population who can’t pass it – and some in our own community do support those “checks”.

No consolation, but when a domestic violence victim experiences having to wait for a firearm, so does her perpetrator or assailant. With NICS, if that perp has a history of abusing, he/she may not pass that NICS check, but the victim could. That’s why I advocate for women to learn about firearms at an early age, instead of applying too late. But in honor of this cause, I donate few times per year to non-profits, this year I’ll pledge to ensure one of my donations goes to their charity, out of respect to our discussion raising this awareness my friend.

Although a permitless state would help remedy and allow victims to obtain a firearm immediately, personally, I don’t that support that as a reason alone to go permitless. I believe in the rights, but also in a more structured system.

Obviously there’s a segment who wishes to completely disarm, just not all of those against firearms. I personally just want to be more careful about making generalizations.

I confess, I’m losing faith in common sense among the anti-gunners and even in our own community. Why? I just have not been hearing a whole lot of it anywhere, their voice have been overshadowed by the polar opposites on the issues. Perhaps the “common sense” has been too quiet. IDK.

But I do want to send a positive message that it’s not so dark or grim, our community is alive and well, and there are many of us. Many states have demonstrated they believe in firearm rights, if I’m not mistaken neighbor, even our state last to join CCL/Permit – made that happen in 2013. The last 12 months saw the highest increase in owners ever. Even I who might be critical and prefer safer management, recently joined seven 2A support organizations. Peace be with you.

Let not our hearts be troubled.

Some of that is the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Anti-2A groups shout loudly, on the TV, Radio and Print. We hear so much about this shooting and that gun violence, in the mean time 2A folks, for the most part, stay quiet and support their point of view on forums like this.

2 Likes

The assailant likely already has access to firearms or other sufficient tools. A woman my wife knows just had her crazy ex kidnap her son. Fortunately he was caught but is out on bail. He had to voluntarily turn in his firearms. He turned in about half of the ones she knows he owns. Thankfully we live in a state where law abiding citizens do not have to jump over excessive hurdles to practice their 2A rights. She was able to go to the store and purchase a defensive tool. Hopefully she will not have to use it but at least she is not defenseless. against a known predator. In other states she would be at his mercy for days, months, or forever.

If easy access to legally purchased firearms was a contributing factor to “gun” violence then the States with “lax” gun laws should have more firearm involved shootings. But more often than not it is the States with lax laws that have the least gun related crimes. I’m not saying that proves that lax gun laws make people safer. But it certainly shows their is no evidence that stricter laws will make anyone safer. Without clear proof of a significantly greater public good, there is no justification for taking away the rights of law abiding citizens.

Maybe after the authorities catch up on trying to enforce the thousands of laws already in place we can consider passing some new ones based on logic instead of fear.

4 Likes