Quote of the Day: Austin Gun Show Shooting Death Edition

Central Texas Gunworks owner Michael Cargill (courtesy rawstory.com)

“This is not ‘I told you so’ this is not ‘I gotcha.’ This is no different than this little incident we saw a day or so ago where two kids were ejected from a vehicle because they weren’t wearing a seatbelt. We don’t blame the vehicle for that incident so we’re not gonna blame the guns for this incident.” – Central Texas Gunworks owner Michael Cargill quoted in Texas gun store: Gun show shooting death is ‘no different’ than not wearing seatbelt [via rawstory.com]

comments

  1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    It is different because it’s the guns that trigger an emotional response, not the children. The children are just props.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      But aren’t we supposed to think of the children?

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        As long as it serves the leftist agenda.

  2. avatar RetLEO says:

    I tried to read some of the comments on that site but couldn’t finish without yelling at the screen. Here’s the question for the anti’s out there…So what particular gun law would you write that would somehow prevent an accident like the one in the article? Short of banning private ownership, which is the ultimate goal of too many anti-2As out there, there is no piece of legislation that would work. I’m still waiting for someone to show me legislation that prevents human error.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      An outright ban is the goal.

      But, the anti-folks know they cannot get that all at once, so the plan is nickel and dime the 2nd A to death.

      It’s not about preventing anything. If it were education would be on the top of their list.

      1. avatar whatever says:

        Every single grabber I debated quickly went full bantard. They’re simply implementing the British road map to a universal ban.

    2. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      Too bad the ignorant fool’s commenting on the story can vote. If they run the rest of their lives using their “logic” they must be wrecks.

  3. Tragic. Objectively, the guy is right.

    Unfortunately, “GUNS!” is all people react to and this will be one more notch in the anti’s belt to point to when “arguing” their “point”.

    1. I like the quote and I get the analogy. But the quote of the day should have been the activist in the video that said “If guns are supposed to make us safer then there wouldn’t be any accidents.” What an ass-clown! People choke to death on Gummy Bears and Gummy Bears don’t protect you from tyranny! There are so many holes in his statement, I could do this all day. Alas, I have work to do.

      1. avatar whatever says:

        Please don’t tempt these folks. They’re led bankrolled by the same guy who wanted to ban Big Gulps.

  4. avatar the ruester says:

    Like how the democrat thinks background checks would have stopped this, when there is about a 95% chance the weapon involved was purchased with a bc. The idea is to push the 40% lie wherever possible. As far as the public is concerned any sale at a gun show is shady.

  5. avatar BlinkyPete says:

    Calm logic is the natural enemy of the media and your average gun controller.

  6. avatar John says:

    I’m not an anti-gunner. However, this incident is COMPLETELY different than someone not wearing their own seat belt. Someone not wearing their seat belt is not likely going to cause someone else to die, or be seriously injured. Negligently discharging a firearm can VERY likely cause someone else to die, or be seriously injured.

    1. avatar TheBear says:

      Point.

      That’s why the example I give to anti gunners is mistakes with chainsaws. In 1999 there were 28,500 chainsaw injuries in the US. Some can be fatal.

      It’s very easy to accidentally maim or kill your buddies if you’re an idiot too.

      Anti gunners have responded, “Chainsaws weren’t meant to kill, guns were! Etc Etc”

      To which I respond, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre.”

      Draw.

    2. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      That’s… not true at all. It has been proven time over that an unrestrained passenger is a often lethal hazard to everyone else in the car in an accident as they crash around inside the vehicle. Or a driver who loses control of their vehicle post crash, either due to being thrown away from the driving controls by the forces acting on the vehicle or being incapacitated due to increased injuries sustained due to not wearing a seatbelt, turning their car/SUV into an unguided 2 ton missile. You most definitely do run risk of killing someone other than yourself if you drive/ride without a seatbelt.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Like shaking dice in a Yahtzee can…

      2. avatar M J Johnson says:

        +1

        Also, Notice how the gun shop owner shows how to safely manipulate a gun during his interview.

        http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/30/texas-gun-store-gun-show-shooting-death-is-no-different-than-not-wearing-seatbelt/

        1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

          Mike Cargill is a class act. An honest businessman, a competent public speaker ( he is on nightly news regularly when they have political debates about gun control etc. and he always caries himself well), and just generally a likeable guy with a good group of people to deal with in the shop. Ive done 2 FFL transfers through Central Texas Gunworks and will definitely give them future business if need arises (should say when, “if” is a lie that I only think my wife believes). When I get the time carved out, I will be taking my CHL class from them as well.

      3. avatar BlinkyPete says:

        +1 MJ – It’s refreshing to hear such a calm, logical response to gun control hysteria. He did a fantastic job in that interview.

      4. avatar John says:

        Actually, what I said is true. You’re arguing to a point I never made. I never said that one can not injure, or kill someone else in an accident involving the lack of using a seat belt. I said the comparison is not the same as to a firearm. Bystanders are far more likely to be injured from negligent firearm usage than from someone not wearing their seat belt. Two people, literally, killing themselves due to their negligence with seat belts, is not the same as someone killing a bystander due to his negligent firearm handling.

        I would love to see the stats showing the amount of bystanders, killed/injured annually due to lack of seat belt usage compared to the amount of bystanders killed/injured annually due to negligent firearm handling. BTW, children accidentally shooting someone = negligent discharge as well.

        I would like to have seen the focus of Centex dude’s response be solely on the irresponsibility of the firearm owner’s negligent behavior. Including social sanctioning.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Bystanders are far more likely to be injured from negligent firearm usage than from someone not wearing their seat belt”

          Another inconvenient fact that gets buried is that bystanders are more likely to be killed by a belted driver than by one that’s not, because the seat belt provides a feeling of invulnerability, and a sense that, “Oh, the belt will save me – I don’t need to drive carefully!”

          Problem with seat belts is they save exactly the wrong person – the negligent driver that causes the crash. Here’s the proper way to deal with that: http://richgrise.tripod.com/images/Safe-Car.gif

    3. avatar lizzrd says:

      A voice of reason. What are you doing on here?

    4. avatar Rico Criner says:

      Then consider a different comparison: someone who drives a car and makes a poor judgement, or actually does something illegal and causes an accident that hurts a second and third party not responsible for the accident… is a closer analogy. Given the number of fatalities due to automobile usage, a similar logic might suggest that we need to ban all automobiles … which goes along with the pleas to “save the children”. I would opt for reducing potential accidents by raising safety awareness.

    5. avatar Hannibal says:

      But it’s not different in that you still don’t blame the CAR, you blame the person.

    6. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      The wearing of a seat belt reduces the likelihood of mortality by 72%. If it was children that were killed in a car operation by adults, that is most certainly gross negligence. The same obviously goes for all negligent discharges, but I doubt that the ratio of negligent discharges to death is anywhere close to crashes with/without seatbelts.

    7. avatar Greg says:

      No seat belt and you are ejected from the vehicle or thrown to the back seat on a busy Interstate highway, now you have a 2000-5000 lb. aimless(driverless) projectile that probably won’t go in a straight line which is going to cause OTHERS to slam on their breaks at a minimum and at those speeds it is almost guaranteed that there will be re-end pile up following. And, what if there is no barrier in the median and that vehicle, still running, heads into on-coming traffic. Accidents happen when you are careless and on rare occasions due to equipment failure, some are only going to affect you, sometimes others will be involved. Who knows maybe you weren’t wearing a seat belt but it was the other guy, that was wearing his, but he lost control of his vehicle and is responsible for starting the chain of events. Not wearing a seatbelt is stupid but, that doesn’t CAUSE the accident just like having an UNLOADED weapon when you are showing at a store or a show won’t “accidently fire”. Even then, an experienced gun handler will have it pointed in a safe direction. A loaded weapon pulled out, no matter where you are, and pointed at someone is stupid, unless you are attempting to stop a violent aggressor meaning to do you or someone else harm.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        You really think that someone who is wearing a seatbelt and has just then been in the sort of accident that would otherwise eject them from a vehicle is going to be able to operate that vehicle, post-collision, in such a manner as to make a difference? Get real. The restrained driver would be senseless (and probably airbagged anyway) while the vehicle will have been smashed up.

        1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

          Think pickup truck with a front bench seat, wouldnt really take much to put you in the passenger seat, someone sideswipes you, heck you dont need to even get in an accident suppose you lose traction swerving to miss something in the road or on a corner and get some snap over-steer that whips the car the opposite direction, hit a huge bump/ dip in the road that you weren’t expecting. I agree it is less common, but then there is also, the secondary collateral where you become a blunt missile inside the car free to smack in to anyone else in the car. You mean to tell me you get into a collision and a backseat passenger not wearing a seatbelt smacks the front of their head in to the back of the front seat occupant’s head at 30-40 MPH and tell me that person isnt dead or dying as a direct result of the backseat passenger not wearing a seatbelt. If you step out of the MDA/BBerg propaganda echo chamber I seriously doubt that the % of ND’s that result in death is any higher than the % of people killed by unsecured occupants in vehicle crashes. In fact I bet the vehicle stats are higher just because the # of fatal accidents is astronomical compared to the subset of already low firearms related deaths (remember they get to count teenage gangbangers in there statistics about children killed by negligent use of firearms).

    8. avatar Davis Thompson says:

      Wrong. Look it up. People not wearing seatbelts (especially if one of them is the driver) can absolutely cause or contribute to the deaths of others as they get thrown around a crashing car or, in the case of the driver, lose the ability to retain any sort of control on the vehicle.

    9. avatar Phil says:

      I see your point.

      In that case, we could say, “it’s not any different from someone that didn’t respect the red light”. His action could cause harm to someone else. It could also be “not any different from someone driving completely drunk”.

      And this kind of car accidents, unfortunately, happen every day…. and no one is blaming the car manufacturers, the automobile industry, or even every drivers on earth.

  7. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    The happened in the parking lot within a privately owned vehicle…

    The guns show was merely incidental to the ND.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Precisely. Nowhere does it say he just bought the gun at the show. This could just as easily have happened in a Wal-Mart parking lot, or his own driveway.

    2. avatar Fed Up says:

      It’s not a Gun Show incident, it’s a Gun Free Zone incident.

      Somebody unloaded his carry weapon in order to satisfy a ‘no loaded guns in here’ rule, and had an ND while reloading after he left.

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    I was way more offended by the pop-up ads on the computer. Of course the a##holes want to ban your guns. Accidentally shooting in a parking lot doesn’t help.

  9. avatar dh34 says:

    Expanded background checks….hmmm…that’s like saying more stringent controls on prescription medicine would prevent heroin overdoses.

    If it happens at a gun show, it’s because of “lax” gun show rules. Had it been a school parking lot it would called a school shooting.
    If it had happened in the parking lot of an employer that was a “gun free” zone, it would he workplace violence…

    These folks will do anything to make a splash.

  10. avatar Gunr says:

    S.O.S. Different day.

  11. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    Stanford: “Right now the status quo sure isn’t working?” Really? Lowest US homicide rate in 50 years?

    Why is it that anti-gun politicians are so immune to facts, such as the fact that a background check (which all FFL dealers at gun shows must perform with certain exceptions for Texas permit holders) at the gun show or to gain admittance to the gun show WOULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THIS SHOOTING WHICH HAPPENED IN THE F*****G PARKING LOT. Where, I might add, the shooter reloaded the weapon. Why? Because gun shows, by and large, don’t allow any loaded weapons inside.

    If Mr. Stanford wants gun owners to “work with” him, then might I suggest he stop lying, first.

  12. avatar FirearmConcierge says:

    Here’s the bottom line:

    When someone bombs a marathon, we as a society hold the bombers accountable.

    When someone drinks too much at a bar, we as a society hold the person accountable.

    When someone shoots up a school with a TEC9, we as a society hold the TEC9 accountable.

    This trend needs to change.

    1. avatar Phil says:

      Or we could just act like they do with firearms, and every time someone will have a car accident under the influence, we could start to blame:
      – All drivers on earth, specially car enthusiasts and racing/sport cars pilots
      – All car manufactures, specially the ones that build sport cars
      – All parts manufacturers, specially the ones that build the large magazine… oops, engine and gas tank
      – All oil companies for providing gas so easily to the US citizens
      – All events that promote usage of cars, mainly for racing/sport purpose (such NASCAR)

      But we could also hold accountable:
      – All bars that serve alcohol, even thought they do a “background… oops, ID check”
      – All bartenders, because they’re the ones that serve drinkers
      – All spirits companies for providing high capacity… oops, high alcohol content liquors

      And probably also:
      – The farmers that grow fruits/vegetables used to make alcohol

      And of course, to satisfy all worry moms out there, we could also:
      – Ban all traffic in cities and specially in areas close to schools (including buses)

      That would be a start 😉

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email