Things got a little rowdy at the South by Southwest music and technology festival in Austin over the weekend. Apparently, someone was so amped up by SXSW’s eviction of a free speech activist because she refused to censor her Twitter feed, the film about the University of Texas Bell tower shooting from the 1960s winning some kind of award, and a speech by some guy who used to be president urging the citizenry to trade some more essential liberty for a little more imagined security, he decided to celebrate by launching a few rounds into the air . . .

Fox News has the story:

Shots were fired early Sunday on a downtown Austin, Texas, street crowded with people celebrating at the South by Southwest music and technology festival, police said.

Austin Police said several shots were fired into the air around 1:30 a.m. Sunday and witnesses said the gunfire caused the crowd to run in panic.

Police said one person was taken into custody and the gun was recovered….

Reports on social media indicated that a crowd of SXSW’ers fled the area in panic when the shots rang out, although there were no reports of any injuries either from the shooting or from the stampede.

I’m sure most of y’all saw the Mythbusters episode where Adam and Jamie kind of, sort of, confirmed that in certain circumstances a round fired into the air in celebration might be able to cause a lethal injury when it comes down (it was the only myth to simultaneously receive the ratings of “Busted”, “Plausible”, and “Confirmed”.) Nevertheless, I suspect that the greatest risk of injury from some damned fool thing like firing a gun into the air in the middle of a freakin’ street party comes more from the panicked stampede it might touch off or a police officer or concealed carrier drawing down on you once you break leather for no good reason.

I’ll leave today’s (so far unidentified) IGOTD winner with a meditation from one of my earlier firearms instructors: We don’t shoot at God.

Recommended For You

81 Responses to Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day: Unidentified SXSW Celebrant

  1. It’s not the round fired straight up, it is the round fired at an angle that strikes a mile away, think of a sniper’s bullet.

    • The one fired straight up eventually reaches zero forward (upward) speed, at which point it starts precessing. When it falls back, it’s tumbling and because it’s presenting random sides to the air-flow, it never gets above the terminal velocity for an object of its size and density, which, while faster than the 150 MPH or so a human body would reach, is still way slower than it came out of the barrel.

      One fired on a diagonal is not subject to that precession-caused failure to regain kinetic energy and hits whatever it hits ‘pointy’ end first with more of its initial kinetic energy.

      • The latter has been the cause of documented deaths, including someone firing a machine gun in the air at the New Year to a man unloading his muzzle loading rifle by firing it into the air after an unsuccessful hunt in Ohio, resulting in the death of a 16 year old Amish girl a mile away.

      • I don’t think it tumbles if fired straight up. The upward movement is eventually canceled by air resistance and gravity, but the rotational velocity remains almost constant.

        I think if you could shoot exactly straight up, the bullet would land base first, still spinning at thousands of RPM.

  2. They’ve got SXSW Edu, SXSW Music, SXSW Film, SXSW Interactive…this was just the kickoff of SXSW Ballistic…or opening shot so to speak…

  3. Thank you, Mr. IGOTD recipient, for proving to the entire crowd in attendance that the film was right and we DO need more gun control.

    You utter PILLOCK.

    • More what?

      It’s already a crime to discharge a weapon in such a manner in such a place. Also very likely that the super-genius responsible for this had the gun illegally already, meaning not posessing a valid permit, perhaps stolen, perhaps a number of other things. Alcohol may well also have been involved here.

      And hopefully they have Mr. super-genius in custody and punishment will be deployed.

      So what more do you think is missing here? More WHAT?

      • I don’t think the poster meant that we need more gun control, just that it would reinforce that belief in the people at the party. I could be misreading it, though.

        • I believe the addressing of the I identified individual in this instance as “pillock” makes it sufficiently clear that you are correct. Declining to observe this is a failure on the part of the reader, not the writer.

        • “Declining to observe this is a failure on the part of the reader, not the writer.”

          Sorry, that’s not clear to me. “pillock: slang Brit a stupid or annoying person”

          Proving to the crowd that they are right means proving that gun control needs to be implemented upon the civil society in whole, as this is what they want. That the person who did this is a stupid pillock changes that call?

          Apologies, but if the OP meant otherwise I think he should have written otherwise in the post.

        • Confirmation bias. Doing something that stupid on your, miles from anybody is one thing. Doing it in the epicenter of Texas gun control, with the eyes of BuzzFeed upon you? It feeds the monster. It says, here is a prime example of the problems you complain about.

          We can talk until we turn blue about how the vast majority of gun owners/carriers/users are safe and considerate, but all it takes is one example to confirm their preconceived bias.

          All that noise about how women should be welcome at The Citadel/VMI/the battlefield. And there are probably a sizable number of women can who can hold their own. But all it took was Shannon Faulkner dropping out for many skeptics to argue that she was proof that women didn’t belong.

    • Couldn’t agree more.
      Don’t think irresponsible gun owners of the day is enough.
      Dumb@$$ of the day award is more appropriate.

  4. I rest my case. This plus all the other irresponsible gun owners highlighted here and in other sources of news. You, alone, might be the one trained and responsible gun owner, but idiots with guns abound. The damage they cause is not imaginary, it is real to the people injured or killed, and it is not statistically insignificant to them.

    We do not know who is a responsible gun owner, and who is not. Neither do you. Gun safety is about gun safety. Refusing to even consider improving safe gun ownership is morally bankrupt. Do you realize how incredibly dull you appear when you somehow imagine that improving gun owner safety is tantamount to gun confiscation? Even if, as you claim, “gun safety means gun confiscation”, do you really believe that avoiding improving gun safety somehow ensures gun confiscation cannot happen?

    • Most gun owners are into improving “gun safety”. Most legislators are not, but are happy to lie about it. Leave “gun safety” unlegislated and all will be fine.

      • If “all would be fine”, we wouldn’t have 500 innocents a year to bury because of gun owners who are so convinced they are superior beings.

        Legislating gun safety education and training should be considered only because gun owners refuse to take “common sense” actions without being forced by law. There is really no reason to rely on force of law.

        • What about car and pool safety? No amount of legislation can render all activity safe. It will still be up to individuals to be safe in their actions. You would do better to support legislation which holds individuals accountable for their actions, rather than allowing individuals to blame others for their choices. It’s about people, not objects.

        • So many people try to deflect attention from gun safety and onto safety of every other product on the market. The conclusion can only be that gun owners are not interested in improving gun safety until all products are 100% safe. Since you know that cannot happen (although safety improvements of so many products are on-going), the natural conclusion is that gun owners want to dodge the issue of GUN SAFETY, simply because they are not interested in gun safety. The perception you create is your responsibility.

        • So, we should ban swimming pools because of the thousands that drown in them every year? FOR THE CHILDREN?

        • Again, someone who wants all the world’s safety issues to be solved before even considering that gun owners (and the rest of us) would benefit from on-going, professional training.

          This is a blog about guns, can we stick to that subject?

        • Your point doesn’t match reality. A quick google search showed me that there is some kind of firearms training or safety event every single weekend for the rest of the year within a 3 hour drive of Austin, Texas. There is absolutely no lack of voluntary safety training made available, and clearly taken advantage of, by either people who make or shoot guns.
          As an example, I can find many more, and more diverse, firearms training events than I can find drivers training events, outside of speeding ticket mitigation, that is.

        • Still not a coordinated national drive. Local efforts reach a statistically insignificant number of gun owners (out of 100 million). Small local events across the country reach an insignificant number of gun owners. To top it off, such frequent training as you cite is usually once a lifetime event. I am talking about recurring training and proof of safe gun handling (through a professional certifying organization.

          You guys seem incapable of separating civilian initiated, civilian led universal safety programs from imagined threats of gun confiscation behind every power point slide. It is always good to learn that some gun owners are taking safety courses at least once, but it is not enough to allow non-gun owners to rely on the gun people to act responsibly.

    • You are arguing to yourself here. No one argues about gun safety here. The rules of firearms safety are constantly identified, reiterated, and practically preached as holy gospel. Numerous training opportunities are highlighted and encouraged. Responsible parties are lauded as hero’s, irresponsible as idiots.

      • The audience of this blog do not represent anywhere near the overwhelming majority of gun owners. Reading about gun safety, talking about gun safety is (to steal a phrase) just a mental hamster wheel. Pushing pro-gun organizations to establish voluntary recurring training, promoting such at every opportunity, rewarding people for becoming certified in gun safety/gun handling (hello insurance companies), those are things that just may bring the nation closer to greatly reducing the negligent deaths due to irresponsible gun owners.

        BTW, there is an organization (little noted or reported on) established solely for the purpose of endorsing, supporting, highlighting the need for more and better gun safety training. From what I saw, that organization is politically neutral. Such an organization should be promoted by every pro-gun name brand in existence.

        • “and yet you fail to name this organization (gun safety) yourself.”

          Now, why should I be the only one researching gun safety organizations? Would it not seem something active gun owners would be interested in? Sadly, I have only turned-up one gun safety organization that gun owners might have respect for.

        • “Pushing pro-gun organizations to establish voluntary recurring training, promoting such at every opportunity, rewarding people for becoming certified in gun safety/gun handling (hello insurance companies), those are things that just may bring the nation closer to greatly reducing the negligent deaths due to irresponsible gun owners.”
          -You know, that exactly what the NRA does, and has been their primary focus for many decades. It is absolutely shameful that many organization on the “anti gun” side continue to deny organizations the ability to teach responsible gun ownership.

        • No, the NRA does not spend much time focusing on gun safety, outside NRA events. In my best world, NRA would establish a set of safety courses, recurring handgun proficiency programs and a professional certification program that is adopted by all the major gun industry lobby groups, and industry trade organizations. Why is there not a conclave where all the big names in guns get together and establish such a thing? After all these years, the gun industry continues to me selfishly focused on how to beat down “the competition”, not on making gun owning respectable.

          Now, it is true that if gun owners and industry did actually create universal, widely sold and attended organization like other professions, I would be left with not much to say. Maybe then I could work toward getting some of the craziness out of the gun sense movement.

        • 2ASux says “Sadly, I have only turned-up one gun safety organization that gun owners might have respect for.”

          Fine; so put up or shut up, as the saying goes.

          Put it up and we can perhaps start a reasonable discussion, starting from a common set of information. We can talk about why you like it, and compare it to others, and even perhaps come to some agreement. I’ll even start: I’ve attended a number of safety and introductory programs under the auspices of the NRA, and have generally found them to be good in discussing basic safety regimes. What about, let’s say, their basic pistol course do you think they could do better? Personally I wish they would spend more time covering the differences between how different types of safety function, which would help to reduce the possibility of negligent discharges when handing a new-to-you pistol.

          Otherwise, you’re forcing me to proceed on the hypothesis that this organization of yours is extant only in your own head, so you can have something to try to berate others with. In that case, we have nothing left to discuss.

        • I discovered the one website dedicated to true gun safety by looking for it. Why are gun owners looking to a non-gun owner to find this information? Laziness? Lack of interest? How hard can it be?

          There are hundred of uncoordinated gun safety courses taught across the country, but they don’t put a dent in the number of gun owners who need training. To go back over cold ground, virtually every profession in the country has a voluntary professional standards board. For the overwhelming majority, those professions wield nothing that can cause physical harm to a person not in the profession. Why are gun owners not clamoring for a professional standards committed that can certify gun owners as adequately trained in safety and gun handling? You wield a deadly weapon that can kill from long distance, but are satisfied with absolutely no voluntary standards and certifications for use and possession of that weapon. A bunch of random classes is not a professional standard, nor is there an agreed upon means to ensure proper levels of capability. The audience is not yourselves or your friends, the audience is that half of the population that believes you are unreasonable, scary, irresponsible, untrained, and oblivious to the world around you. I didn’t develop that reputation for you, you did it yourselves. If you do not want to present a positive image to the populace, accept your reward like an adult.

        • “No, the NRA does not spend much time focusing on gun safety, outside NRA events.” 100% undeniable lies. The NRA spends more time, money and energy on firearms safety education and training than any other entity on earth. They also train and certify instructors by the thousands to extend both safety and proficiency training far beyond their events.

          “In my best world, NRA would establish a set of safety courses, recurring handgun proficiency programs and a professional certification program that is adopted by all the major gun industry lobby groups, and industry trade organizations.” They already have the set of safety courses, and you can retake them as many times as you can afford. Beyond basic safety and marksmanship proficiency the possibilities defy having any single governing body. Beyond the 4 golden safety rules and basic marksmanship principles there are literally dozens if not hundreds of “correct” ways to fine tune your shooting skills. Different schools exist specializing in those variations. But those should not have any bearing on basic civil rights.

          “Why is there not a conclave where all the big names in guns get together and establish such a thing?” There is no point. The four rules, “squeeze don’t jerk”, breath . . . the basic rules that most shooters learned as a child or from their very first instructor have been the 100% agreed upon standard for hundreds of years. Why does some conclave need to exist to claim what has been held as ultimate truth for centuries? What possible purpose could they serve other than raising prices?

          “After all these years, the gun industry continues to me selfishly focused on how to beat down “the competition”, not on making gun owning respectable.” Gun owning is respectable. They don’t have to focus on making it what it already is. Focusing on the constant attacks by “the competition” to make gun ownership sound like a sin is a better focus for their efforts.

          “Now, it is true that if gun owners and industry did actually create universal, widely sold and attended organization like other professions,” Gun owners are not a profession. But we do have a widely sold and attended organization. It’s called the NRA.

          “I would be left with not much to say. Maybe then I could work toward getting some of the craziness out of the gun sense movement.” Every restriction to a civil liberty has always been followed by more restrictions. There is no evidence or obvious good faith that the next restriction will be the last. It would be insane to think it would this time.

        • You guys just can’t get beyond paranoia that every suggestion to improve gun safety is an “infringement”. Well, get over it. Your gun rights are infringed, period. Nothing is going to turn back time to 1789. All rights listed or contemplated by the constitution are subject to constraints; none are absolute. Read some history. The constitution was not designed to control state governments. It was designed to control the central government, period. At the time, states could do pretty much anything they wanted because central government power to interfere was crippled. It was the 14th amendment that changed the relation between central government and the states. With the 14th, states were no longer sovereign and the source of power for the central government. At the point federal law, and the constitution, was pushed to the states, the government became premier and the states mere political subdivisions. Point is at the founding, the states were not prohibited from doing anything they wanted regarding gun ownership. Read a bit and you will find states banning certain weapons, and especially banning concealed carry.

          But all that is background. Calling for a voluntary, civilian controlled professional organization to establish standards (and produce certified professionals) in not an infringement. Boasting a high degree of membership in such a professional organization should be sought after as proof to the country that gun ownership is not something to fear. It is simply a good promotional. You lose the battle because you hid behind barricades, let the rest of us see you project yourselves as fossilized, backward neanderthals. Believing that sticking your fingers in your ears will win the day based simply on “shall not be infringed” has not won you the majority you believe exists. The country is nearly evenly divided over more or less gun control. Advertisement sells, pictures sell, emotional appeals sell. “Leave me alone” does not sell.

        • Your replies grow longer and yet you say less and less.

          You claim laziness on my (and our) parts; I contend that – as you yourself point out – there are too many websites relating to gun safety to reasonably determine which one you continuously refer to but refuse to name. I hate playing “bring me a rock” and refuse to do so, especially with someone behaving so petulantly.

          And your attitude reminds me of somebody … yes, I remember now. “I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that were known to…” Senator McCarthy.

          Post the name of the website you so admire, and stop trying to change the subject. or admit that there IS no organization you would actually trust for firearm safety, and let’s go from there.

        • I didn’t say I trust the website, didn’t say they were the only organization promoting gun safety. I am saying there gun safety is so fragmented as to be inefficient or ineffective. I wouldn’t propose to cast any existing gun owner/industry organization as the “number one” for gun safety. What I am proposing is gun owners and the industry should want to establish a professional gun safety organization supported by all POTG and gun industry.

          The website I stumbled upon is the only site I found with no affiliation or agenda other than gun safety. Is it the only one in existence? Don’t know. Haven’t had time to canvass the entire internet. No one else has identified a non-aligned, politically neutral group who is discussing nothing but gun safety measures.

          Afraid I am not familiar with “bring me a rock”, but I assume it is something considered not good.

      • “Responsible parties are lauded as hero’s, irresponsible as idiots.”

        A dynamic that is pretty unique to gun owners and completely ignored by the anti-gun crowd. Check a forum on almost any other topic and you will find lots of people willing to defend the side of the obvious idiot. Cycling forums where enthusiasts defend running red lights/stop signs and intentionally riding in ways that hold up traffic. Car forums where videos of people street racing and doing stunts on public roads is heralded, places like facebook where cyberbullying gets people to join in. The list goes on and on and on. Just about the only arena of our society left where participants are willing and expected to openly chastise those among their own is gun owners.

        The fact that we are quick to point out our idiots instead of defend them supports our cause.

        • You (TTAG and readers) highlight idiots, congratulations. What is the measurable outcome? Where is the pro-action to reduce these events even further? Nothing will prevent idiots? And you are happy to live in a condition where any idiot can destroy your family? No concern for their safety? Don’t go hide behind statistics, it is a dodge. Show us the positive steps being taken to reduce to the minimum possible the number of negligent deaths. Just jawing doesn’t get it. Now, maybe I don’t really care (and who’s to know?) if the government launches a general campaign to confiscate all guns. In the meantime, I am pushing for more and better firearms training. The reasons given here for refusing to even give voluntarily improved gun safety are unworthy of a populace who believe they are superior beings because, guns.

        • “And you are happy to live in a condition where any idiot can destroy your family?”- this condition does not exist. You are delusional. If it did exist, the “gun death” rate would be rapidly increasing. The opposite is true.
          Your refusal to look at facts, evidenced by your statement that statistics are a dodge, tells me you are unwilling to do anything to solve the problem of irresponsible use of a firearm. If you aren’t able to talk about what actually happens in the real world, maybe you should step away from the discussion.
          But, as it may be, your method of reducing negligent deaths with a firearm is by reducing the availability of firearms to citizens, you won’t find a lot of space for discussion. There just isn’t much compromise with fundamental human rights.

        • The consistent count of 500 death annually due to negligent gun owners does not prove a decreasing threat. Any idiot with a gun can destroy you or your family through stupidity. Just because your number isn’t up doesn’t mean the risk is zero, or even near zero. We can all be thankful that the number of killings by irresponsible gun owners is low, but why do gun owners simply shrug-off 500 preventable deaths (Ok, make it 400 if you like because we will never hit zero permanently)? Guns are very different from virtually all other tools in that they are designed to puncture at a distance. There is no comparison between guns and cars, plastic bags, swimming pools and the like. If guns weren’t terrible instruments, you wouldn’t consider them the favorite self-defense weapon. It is because guns are so different that you rely on them. Shouldn’t improving safe handling be a constant effort, among all 100 million gun owners?

        • You (TTAG and readers) highlight idiots, congratulations. What is the measurable outcome? . . . Don’t go hide behind statistics, it is a dodge.”
          Uhhhh . . . the statistics are the measurable outcome. You don’t get to ask for it then ignore its existence. All types of gun deaths are at 20+ year lows.

          “Where is the pro-action to reduce these events even further?” It’s extremely difficult to promote gun safety when anti-gun folks constantly try to pass legislation and pressure local entities to prevent the education of children on the subject. None the less the NRA leads the world in this cagetory as well as required hunter safety education before hunting is allowed. There are certified trainers at every range I have ever been to. The list goes on. Just have to look for it.

          “Nothing will prevent idiots? And you are happy to live in a condition where any idiot can destroy your family? No concern for their safety?” That is the condition no matter what laws and regulations are passed. It’s not a matter of happy or sad. It is reality no matter what. So I am happy that i live in a condition where I can defend my family.

          “Show us the positive steps being taken to reduce to the minimum possible the number of negligent deaths.” Well, beyond the open discussion here and in forums like this, there are all of the programs I listed above just for starters.

          “Just jawing doesn’t get it.” Nope, but it is an important part.

          “Now, maybe I don’t really care (and who’s to know?) if the government launches a general campaign to confiscate all guns.” No, they are would be campaigning to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens only, except for the police. Criminals would simply laugh and some law abiding gun owners would wake up as criminals the next day simply because they didn’t die in their sleep, and not turn in their guns.

          “In the meantime, I am pushing for more and better firearms training. The reasons given here for refusing to even give voluntarily improved gun safety are unworthy of a populace who believe they are superior beings because, guns.” I’m pretty sure you have had very little formal firearms training. You will be hard pressed to find any truly flawed entry level training, especially on the topic of safety. If you want to improve gun safety here are two ideas that we as gun owners need a lot of help in.

          First, make sure you voice your opposition to shielding children from training and safety. Note, this is not about giving them unfettered access to firearms. That goes against everything we stand for. But starting with programs like Eddie Eagle, followed by safe handling and operation are absolutely key to reducing accidental deaths.

          Second, the next time you see somebody suggest limiting the amount of ammunition that can be purchased, point out how that makes it impossible to maintain any standard of training. Take my family of six for instance. No single gun is appropriate for the various sizes of people going out to practice, so we have more than one. Since we are voluntarily practicing/training we need ammunition for each of the firearms we are taking. If we are practicing only safety I don’t see any argument that can be made where less than 50 rounds fired is adequate practice. If we are looking for proficiency it would be at least 200-300 rounds from each firearm. For a family of six with two firearms that is 600 rounds to practice safety and 2400-3600 rounds for proficiency PER DAY that we practice not including range time or instructor fees when we take formal classes. Limiting ammunition purchases makes the training that you are trying so hard to push (that we all want to do, just not be on a list for) impossible. It works against your argument of safety, not for it.

        • Here we go again….some sort of government take-over of the privileges of “law abiding” gun owners. Once and for all, can you just drop that crap? I am not, have not endorsed legislation as the tool to get a small batch of gun owners to become agitators for voluntary, recurring training. It is not enough to simply have a first-timers class, once in your life. You want the “gun-grabbers” to have a more difficult time proving their case via legislation you don’t like? Band together to establish a voluntary, civilian led and controlled professional standard that requires recurring training and certification for all gun owners. A good campaign would be relentless and seek to contact gun owners through all forms of media. The image produced would go a long way to making it more difficult for voters to put further restrictions on your gun ownership.

          One important thing people of your side constantly misunderstand is the power of an impression, a visual. I do not fear revealing to you the weakness that serves to keep gun sense programs and efforts going, because you have had ample time to see, recognize, act; but, you don’t. The people you oppose win because the pictures they draw are compelling to other people who care about other people. The pictures you draw are of uncaring, insensitive hide-bound cretins. And then reinforce that picture through failure to use visuals to support your side.

          The battle is emotion, folks. I am emotional about the 500 dead every year because one or more of you acted stupidly. I do not accept that 500 dead every year is “acceptable casualties”. I get boiling angry at every negligent discharge, every negligent death. Because almost all of it could be eliminated through an honest effort of gun owners to police their own, without government intervention.

        • Moderate safety improvements in the interest of saving lives?

          You’re right. Are you willing to sign my petition to have beer set at a 3.2% ABV, nationally? It’s a simple safety measure that would significantly reduce not just motor vehicle deaths, but prevent all sorts of other dangerous drunken behaviors, including rape, hazing, binging, assault, etc.

        • Yo, dingdong! The “measurable outcome” is that there are not more deaths from irresponsible gun owners. What is the “measurable outcome” of NICS checks? Hint; there is none.

        • 2Asux,

          “And you are happy to live in a condition where any idiot can destroy your family?”

          Any idiot can easily destroy my family WITHOUT firearms — using fire, poison, a bomb, a sword, or a car instead. Eliminating firearms from the planet will not change that FACT.

          What a person can, could, or might do is not a valid basis for public policy/law — especially when those public policies/laws would violate fundamental rights.

        • Your risk of death from a bombing are considerably lower than the risk for negligent gun handling. There are all sorts of risks. Failing to address one does not justify failing to do any, which is the logic behind your words. You guys fly in all directions simultaneously, all airspeed and no heading. Stick to the subject at hands, negligent gun handling, and steps to reduce it further. Voluntary efforts, not government coercion. Or maybe you are just admitting you don’t consider 500 dead to be something worth losing sleep over. Until it comes home.

    • Ok. Assuming we pass all of this “safety” legislation and this guy goes through all of his background checks, gets permitted, purchased his one gun per year legally, his 14 rounds of ammunition per quarter legally with additional background checks, stored it in a safe that was verified by local law enforcement legally, had it on a registered list legally, then still took it to the concert and celebrated like a jackass . . . how exactly did any of that make anybody safer?

      As for refusing to consider improving safe gun ownership being morally bankrupt, many will point out that restricting any basic right including the basic right of self preservation that humans (and every living thing for that matter) has would be a far more egregious moral travesty. Hiding it behind layers of expensive bureaucracy only ensures that people without disposable income are prevented from legally defending themselves. Yes, it is tragic when somebody is hurt or killed. That is absolutely not a reason to punish 99.9999% of everybody else.

      • You completely missed the point. I only acknowledge that legislation, mandates, force of law are alternatives available when people refuse to act responsibly. These are last resorts. My entire theme has been VOLUNTARY, industry-promoted, professionalized, recurring training and certification. What is the “infringement”? If you are saying that there should be completely uncontrolled, irresponsible, untrained, uninhibited, reckless and dangerous gun owners running loose in the streets, you are supporting the kinds of behavior for which society eventually gets around to legislating against. In the end, you are simply declaring you have absolutely zero concern for the annual death toll at the hands of irresponsible, negligent gun owners. You are known by your associates.

        Before you get there, 2A is not absolute, period. Neither are any of the other enumerated rights. Claiming the opposite feels good, but gets you nowhere when it counts.

        • My entire theme has been VOLUNTARY, industry-promoted, professionalized, recurring training and certification. What is the “infringement”?

          We already have voluntary, industry-promoted, professional, recurring training. The infringement comes when one is required by threat of government force to remain on a list at a cost. There have been times in my life where I have been able to train far more regularly and far more rigorously than any police agency with the exception of SWAT officers. There have also been times in my life where I have not had either the free time or extra money to hold myself to that standard. The infringement comes when ANY person is not allowed to defend themselves simply because they are low income or middle income with children.

          I assure you that voluntary training is not the issue. Training (even if it is training you have already done) is FUN and the vast majority of gun owners love to go out and practice/train as much as possible. The limitations are logistical and financial. Neither of which are justifiable reasons to deny basic human rights.

        • The people on this blog pretty much represent themselves, only. The vast majority of gun owners admittedly do not practice enough to be proficient. How does one conclude they are training in safe handling?

          My idea of gun training is a campaign where gun owners are eager to show their colors, demonstrate for the world that they operate under a professionally recognized gun safety certification protocol (like doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, etc.) The fact is very few gun owners take any kind of safety course, and the number of gun owners who go to Front Sight or Gun Sight is minuscule against the alleged 100 million gun owners. On this blog, people seem to be saying, “I took some training, that’s enough”. As the ol’ gunny used to scream at the troops, “If you think you don’t need any more training, you need more training.”

        • Actually, you are wrong, 2A is absolute, for adults. Was demanded to be, was written to be, was adopted to be, but has been adulterated unconstitutionally ever since. You are showing your ignorance.

        • It no longer matters what the original intent or wording of the second amendment was. 2A is correct in that it has been circumscribed and curtailed, like so many assumed rights back in the beginning. We need to face our reality and do what is necessary to overcome. It does no good to simply make assertions that cannot hold up in court.

          Sometimes 2Asux looks like a gun-grabbing commie pinko lefty (red diaper doper baby), but lately he is stuck in a single gear about intentionally upping our game at improving gun safety. So long as he is talking about us taking action, and not the feds, maybe there is something to learn. If we get too comfortable, one day they will come for us and there will be no one to speak in favor.

        • “The people on this blog pretty much represent themselves, only. The vast majority of gun owners admittedly do not practice enough to be proficient.” And the vast majority both A) wish they could and B) still practice more than is required by most law enforcement agencies.

          “How does one conclude they are training in safe handling?” Safe handling is an entirely different standard than proficient. Which is it you want to mandate?

          “My idea of gun training is a campaign where gun owners are eager to show their colors, demonstrate for the world that they operate under a professionally recognized gun safety certification protocol (like doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, etc.)” At an expense that is impossible for any but the affluent to attain or maintain. Thus relegating a right to a privilage for only the wealthy. Doctor’s, lawyers, dentists, accountants, etc. are not practicing a right. Handy professions but not basic human rights. Oddly, doctors kill more people on accident than guns kill in all ways combined.

          “The fact is very few gun owners take any kind of safety course” I call bullshit. First, you have absolutely no data to support your guess and two, i’m guessing that I know a few more gun owners than you do to base my anecdotal opinion on.

          “and the number of gun owners who go to Front Sight or Gun Sight is minuscule against the alleged 100 million gun owners.” That is not, nor should it be the required standard. A basic human right does not require the ability to operate as an operator operationally.

          “On this blog, people seem to be saying, “I took some training, that’s enough”. As the ol’ gunny used to scream at the troops, “If you think you don’t need any more training, you need more training.”” We all agree that we want more training and practice. But there is no need to record it, document it or and certainly no justification to deny the right based on income.

        • “I got my gun, I am safe. Leave me alone”. Life in a vacuum.

          I’m talking about taking positive steps as a culture (gun culture) to present the picture to the country that gun owners are well trained, safety conscious, and aware that gun skills degrade over time if left stagnant. As I said over and again, virtually every profession in the nation has a standards board and a certification process THAT IS NOT MANDATED BY THE GOVERNMENT (caps for emphasis). Why do gun owners refuse to professionalize and advertise that fact? You think simply napping behind “shall not be infringed” keeps the bogeyman away. Try that in court some day. If gun owners continue to act as though every gun owner is the paragon of safety and proficiency, but don’t need to prove it to anyone, you will lose the battle you refuse to engage in. So much money is spent advertising the safety, benefits and effectivity of so many products these days, one would think gun owners would want to be out front with their message. Instead they cling to the same stale complaints about gun confiscation and government mandates.

          BTW, there is also absolutely zero comprehensive, reliable data to support the notion that the vast majority of 100 million gun owners shoot more than once, or ever take a safety course.

    • “gun safety means gun confiscation”,

      Forgot to mention, you are delusional or a liar. There is rarely a thread on TTAG which does not have firearm safety mentioned in it somewhere. It is one of the basic reasons for the site. The only “gun safety” (in quotes) that fits your description has to do with UBC (which has nothing to do with safety) or some silliness about limiting magazine capacity or similar (which has nothing to do with safety.

      OK, guys, I’ll stop feeding the troll.

      • Gun safety and UBC are not identical, nor are they mutually exclusive.

        Mentioning safety in TTAG articles is not sufficient to hope to reduce the number of negligent homicides and injuries committed by irresponsible gun owners. While it is good that TTAG and some readers pay attention to gun safety, it is not the same as a population-wide (gun owners) system of formal, recurring, professional education and proficiency training. Why do we expect security and law enforcement to undergo recurring training (for lack of which they are often ridiculed on TTAG)? Why should a security or law enforcement entity demand more of their gun handlers, than the individual, private gun owners? Is there a constitutional mandate for such agencies to undergo recurring firearms training? Is there a constitutional mandate that law enforcement be held to a higher standard than private citizens? Or is it just “common sense” ? While the individual has certain, restricted RTKBK (case law), the states, in the constitution permitted the government to arm itself for collective defense of the nation. Yet, there is nothing about required firearms training.

        Resisting, fighting, ignoring the 500 negligent deaths each year is not a defense against gun confiscation. If you fear gun confiscation, nothing short of political power will prevent legislation to remove privately held firearms. No threat of molon labe impresses law makers, because there is no significant threat.

        No amount or measure of ongoing gun safety training and education will lead to violation of your second amendment rights, just as refusing to become a safer element of society will prevent confiscation as a last effort of society to protect itself.

    • “We do not know who is a responsible gun owner, and who is not. Neither do you.”

      Just like drivers of automobiles…

      • If 100,000 automobile drivers and pedestrians were killed each year, that would have no effect on the number of negligent deaths by gunfire. Just as zero negligent deaths would have any positive impact on 100,000 drivers and pedestrians killed every year. Apples-to-apples.

    • Most gun owners I know support actual gun safety initiatives, such as teaching children-as part of school curriculum-the four rules and (as appropriate by age) enough about guns that (a) they’re not immediately a danger to themselves and everyone around them should they find one and (b) they’re no longer some kind of taboo object, as that just encourages them to play with the things. This just makes sense in a country with hundreds of millions of firearms. It’s a life skill, just like balancing a checkbook. Pandora’s box is open, they’re not going anywhere. But this is exactly the kind of thing most anti-gun people oppose.

      With respect to deaths from firearms, whether it’s the 500 you cite or the ~10k murders committed with them per annum, I find the idea of restricting the rights of ~100m people to save a few thousand to be morally bankrupt. Irrespective of the impact on the victims, their family and their friends, on a societal level, it is statistically insignificant.

      You don’t get to make a “you” problem an “everyone” problem just because it hurts.

      • Read, read, read. Then comprehend.

        VOLUNTARY organized ongoing safety and proficiency training for “law abiding” gun owners.

        How much more simple can I make it?

        • Your original comment (
          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/johannes-paulsen/irresponsible-gun-owner-day-unidentified-sxsw-celebrant/#comment-2565069 ) made no mention of programs, voluntary or otherwise. It was a generalized statement, to which I offered an equally broad reply. I didn’t bother reading any further because frankly I find the premise that 500 deaths in a country of ~300m is somehow indicative of a problem-let alone one that needs to be addressed in any way, shape, or form-inherently laughable.

          But, by all means, have all the voluntary programs you want. Just don’t ask me to pay for them out of my taxes.

        • What part of VOLUNTARY indicates taxation, or taxpayer expense? Read, read, read. Then comprehend.

          It is so rewarding to get you folks on record (even if not your real name, etc) as believing 500 negligent deaths are “acceptable casualties”, “insignificant statistics”. Supports your self-portrait as selfish, uncaring, smug, dismissive of lives not your own. POTG establish their own poor reputation. Media doesn’t do it, they just record it. Legislatures don’t do it, they just pass legislation to make it harder for you to add to the 500 deaths each year.

        • There are all kinds of voluntary programs that are government-funded through taxation. Last I checked, nobody is required to make use of welfare, for instance. You did not make any implication one way or the other in your reply to me about the public or private nature of your proposal. I was simply adding a detail to clarify my position.

          And I’m glad it’s rewarding for you to get it on record that I consider 500 deaths to be statistically insignificant. I’m also an elitist, an objectivist, and a social darwinist. Furthermore, I believe that compassion for other people-when it’s predicated on nothing but our shared humanity-is one of the biggest failings of the human mind, and I believe that empathy for your fellow man belongs in the DSM-5, right alongside a belief in any form of higher power. I don’t believe in deliberately screwing people over, but if I don’t know someone on a first-name basis, I wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire. This is hardly something I make a secret of, either online or in person, so, I mean… Congrats on getting that on record? I guess?

          And, uh, for your record: I held that position long before my interest in guns. I’m just an asshole.

          The fact that you consider 500 lives to be significant simply indicates that you allow your emotions to overrule logical thought.

          To that end, I invite you to prove objectively that human life is inherently valuable. That, independent of their value to themselves, their families, their friends, society, humanity, or the universe at large, an individual has value that can be quantified and measured, and further, that that value is nontrivial.

    • 2Asux,

      What is so special about annual deaths from negligent firearm use? Why does the present number require all the “voluntary” and legally required measures that you and other gun grabbers promote?

      What if four times more people died every year from negligent use of pillows? Would you demand the same invasive “voluntary” and legally required measures for pillows as you demand for negligent firearm use (e.g. extensive training, screening, vetting, registration, and confiscation)? Would you promote Pillow Violence Restraining Orders?

      Please respond and show us how emotion is the only factor that drives your position.

      • A. This blog is about guns. Nothing more. Non-gun worries are for another blog
        B. “Legally required” is not something I put forward, except to point out that is a last resort
        C. The picture of gun owners so calloused they care nothing about 500 negligent deaths by use of their favorite tool is not winning hearts and minds in the public. An losing regularly in the political arena.

        If promoting an image of reasonable, comprehending, caring, professional and safe gun handling is unimportant, Ok. You will earn your reward.

        There are plenty of people looking to take your guns. How many people to you on this blog are advocating gun owners take personal and organized responsibility for ratcheting up gun safety, and promoting that to the public? (answer: just a few)

        • “A. This blog is about guns. Nothing more. Non-gun worries are for another blog” Except that when efforts to infringe on a basic human right it is more than worthwhile to point out that other rights and privileges are not infringed to the same standard. That’s not changing the subject, that’s acknowledging a double standard.

          “B. “Legally required” is not something I put forward, except to point out that is a last resort”
          As has already been pointed out to you by several of us there are literally hundreds of gun safety and proficiency classes every day in this country. The overwhelming majority of the are taught by NRA trained and certified instructors. All trained and certified to the same standard, all members of the same nationwide organization. The same nationwide organization that leads the world in both promoting awareness and spending on training safety. The infrastructure you are looking for is already there. The only thing it seems to lack (if I am understanding your intentionally vague point) is government over-site. To be clear, the government should never have over-site of a basic right.

          “C. The picture of gun owners so calloused they care nothing about 500 negligent deaths by use of their favorite tool is not winning hearts and minds in the public. An losing regularly in the political arena.” That is because the media that you claim we should be partnering with portrays us that way. None of us deny that those 500 deaths are tragic. But tragedy on a minuscule is a terrible, horrible, morally bankrupt reason to deny basic rights to hundreds of millions of people. That’s why we constantly preach safety . . . both in small groups and on a national level.

          “If promoting an image of reasonable, comprehending, caring, professional and safe gun handling is unimportant, Ok. You will earn your reward.” Said no law abiding gun over ever.

          “There are plenty of people looking to take your guns. How many people to you on this blog are advocating gun owners take personal and organized responsibility for ratcheting up gun safety, and promoting that to the public? (answer: just a few)” No. Just a few are vocal about it. How many are current dues paying, organized and actively advocating . . . last count the NRA had about 5 million alone with smaller groups like RMGO, the Pink Pistols, etc. also adding to the count. Every gun owner from the dedicated blogger to the “i bought it, shot it once and keep it for home protection” gun newbie is interested in promoting safety. With numbers of roughly 1/3 of the countries population we do it as a community outside the public eye and it has effectively reduced all types of gun related deaths to a 20 year low. Better than all of the other forms of death. Without the help of the media that you so desperately want us to use. So lets look at that for a moment.

          The main problem with using the mainstream media to promote gun safety is . . . they won’t let us. I’m not talking some paranoid conspiracy. Laws are being passed and there are very public movements in film, TV, social media and paper pushing to eliminate the mention, use or visual of guns from their publications. ANY mention of the NRA is usually to reference them as bloodthirsty savages who are responsible for Sandy Hook and any mention of educating the young with, “Stop, don’t touch, go tell an adult” is greeted equally with bizarre, “we won’t let the NRA turn our children into terrorists” nonsense. Hell, there are many places where a store that sells guns can’t have a picture of a gun in the window or on a small sign out front. Make no mistake, the media is extremely anti gun, and because gun safety requires contact with and use of guns they are extremely resistant to mentioning any form of safety or proficiency training. Training that requires the idea of ammunition limitations to be thrown away.

          So the next time you are trolling along and see something pushing an ammunition quota as a common sense safety measure, removing the mention of gun related anything from a media source, or crucifying the NRA as killers with no interest in safety (which drives new and casual gun owners away from the worlds leading safety and training organization). . . THOSE are the people you should be preaching to. We gun owners LOVE to practice and would LOVE to both encourage the “i shot it once now it is in my drawer” crowd to join us. If you truly are looking for a way to promote more regular training . . . you are preaching to the choir more than most of the people who post here and by your own assertion, wasting your time. It is the anti-gun audience you should be posting to. Just keep the government out of it. Nothing good can ever come from the government getting involved in monitoring basic human rights. I won’t bother getting into the cost again though because you will just ignore it. Again.

  5. About 10 years ago an infant was shot to death in their crib in Denver. The round came through the ceiling. They tracked it back to a different police report of a man shooting at street lights with a .44 Mag. If I remember right it was 4th of July or new year’s eve and he wanted to see the fireworks better. For practice, training, hunting, fun, or ballistic celebration the rule about always knowing what is beyond your target still applies 100% of the time. Manners and simple common courtesy restrict doing it in the middle of an unsuspecting crowd. Jack-wagon on multiple levels.

    • Are you talking about the one where the bullet was supposedly fired from 2 1/2 miles away? I remember one like that, but I’m sure something bogus about it, no way a .44 will shoot that far.

      • It’s been a long time and I am working entirely off memory. I don’t remember the distance but the instance I am talking about they were both in the same portion of west Denver around Alameda and Federal. Not unusual to hear gunfire in that part of town what with the Surenos trying to maintain control over their turf and all. Anyway, the media quickly forgot about it and moved on to other reporting. I am not positive if they matched the slug up to the original suspect or not. Something came through the roof of the baby’s room though. Tragic.

  6. Don’t get me started on Mythbusters and the bullet shot straight up. I think there’s a good possibility they made a mistake.

    Given the info from a previous confirmed myth of theirs (bullet spinning on ice) we know how long it’s possible for a bullet to spin (and remain stable) when its being supported by a “water bearing” (melted ice) which has significant drag (though an argument could be made that it was a “steam bearing”)..

    An “air bearing” (shot into the air) would cause a bullet to spin much longer and stay stable much longer.

    In a vacuum subject to earth gravity and fired at 1600 fps, bullet flight time (straight up and straight down) would be 100 seconds (t – v/a, t = 1600/32, then t*2 for flight up, fall down). Far less time in air due to air resistance. Heck, a typical 45ACP would come down in less than a minute in a vacuum, less in air.

    Though it would come down base first, I think a bullet would quite likely still be stable, and therefore fall at a rate far faster than the Mythbusters measured, since they assumed a tumbling, unstable bullet.

    But, alas, they’re gone and won’t revisit it.

    O2

    • “Y’all never heard of a “desk pop…”

      Desk pop – The evidence left behind that someone used your desk after hours for a quickie.

      (I just Googled it, it’s actually a line from a Will Ferrell movie…)

    • Illegal gun indeed. And what’s more;

      “Spicer, who has a Killeen address, has been charged with a misdemeanor weapons charge, and police say he will likely face a felony charge for deadly conduct for discharging a deadly weapon.”

      That means no guns for Mr. super-genius for the rest of his life.

      Sounds like gun control to me.

  7. ” I suspect that the greatest risk of injury from some damned fool thing like firing a gun into the air in the middle of a freakin’ street party comes more from the panicked stampede it might touch off or a police officer or concealed carrier drawing down on you once you break leather for no good reason.”

    I suspect the greatest risk of injury comes from the amount of alcohol this doofus consumed that night.

  8. She is a porn star with degrees very open minded and likes guns names Mercedes carrea @themercedesxxx her Twitter

Leave a Reply

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