Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Monday, July 1, 2013

Well Armed Militia Accidentally Shoots Sleeping Grandson

Posted by on Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:02 PM

If only her sleeping grandson had been armed:

The Harrison County Sheriff's Department has released information about a shooting on Jarvisville Road in the Bristol area of Harrison County that happened around 11:38 p.m. Sunday. Sheriff Albert Marano said William Owens, 11, of Jarvisville, was lying in bed when he received a single gunshot wound to his chest. Just prior to the shooting, Owens' grandmother, Tina Owens, 57, of Jarvisville and Owens' father heard what they thought to be intruders tampering with their properties outside. Tina Owens went outside to investigate, taking along a .40 caliber pistol and fired multiple shots to scare away the intruders. One of the shots went astray, said Sheriff Marano, traveling into the house wall and hitting William Owens in the chest. William later died from his injuries.

 

Comments (34) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
2
I wonder if the intruders would have shot their grandson in the chest if they hadn't "scared them away."

I'm having a hard time with the "stray shot" story. They were outside the house. Why would they fire AT the house to scare away intruders who were outside? I can understand being a crappy shot, but how could you miss shooting into the entire wild blue yonder, 180 degrees side to side and 90 degrees up and down, so badly that you shoot behind you into the house you were supposedly protecting?

Jumpy, drunk, blind, old people shouldn't have guns.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on July 1, 2013 at 3:25 PM · Report this
3
Dan how is a person a well armed militia, the supreme court has held, an individual right to guns.
Posted by Seattle14 on July 1, 2013 at 3:38 PM · Report this
4
Ricochet?
Posted by clashfan on July 1, 2013 at 3:41 PM · Report this
5
@3: And I think they were wrong to do so.
Posted by clashfan on July 1, 2013 at 3:42 PM · Report this
seatackled 6
The suspected intruders didn't complete their mission of intrusion, so this was a justified accidental shooting. Carry on, brave grandmother.
Posted by seatackled on July 1, 2013 at 3:44 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 7
The MSM will never report it but the same thing happens all the time with swimming pools, like all the grandparents who thought they heard, say, fire giants outside their house and threw their grand kids in the pool. Oops! Let's ban pools.

Or trampolines. You think you feel attacking giant mole rats and all head for the trampoline to escape them. Better ban trampolines. Unless you think you can create some kind of utopia where nobody has to fear giant mole rats? House-sized mole rats are a fact of life in a free society, sheeple.

http://wagunresponsibility.org/
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on July 1, 2013 at 3:47 PM · Report this
8
"This is just another crazy person with a gun, not a responsible gun owner."

"This is different because maybe there's a chance the maybe intruder maybe would have shot him anyway."

"Drunk, blind, old people shouldn't reflect on responsible gun owners."

But all those things are happening right now. What are you suggesting we do, besides nothing? Excuses are like assholes. And guns, apparently.
Posted by nullbull on July 1, 2013 at 3:55 PM · Report this
9
"Well Armed Militia Accidentally Shoots Sleeping Grandson"

Aren't you confusing the group "militia" with the individual?
And, again, Dan is okay with supporting an invasion that would result Iraqi (Islamo-fascists) children being shot.
But Dan has a problem when it is a child in America being shot.
Because an Iraqi child (Islamo-fascists) is worth less than the life of an American child.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 1, 2013 at 4:24 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 10
@9: get a new mule to beat.
Posted by Max Solomon on July 1, 2013 at 4:30 PM · Report this
11
@10
"get a new mule to beat."

Does it bother you that someone you admire values one child's life less than another child's life simply because of where they were born?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 1, 2013 at 4:41 PM · Report this
seatackled 12
@10

At least it's not the pasting of the bingo list or some ten-year-old news again.
Posted by seatackled on July 1, 2013 at 4:43 PM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 13
@11 Get ANOTHER another mule to beat. You done beat both them ones enough, son.
Posted by Dr_Awesome on July 1, 2013 at 4:44 PM · Report this
seatackled 14
Oops, sorry, it is ten-year-old news. I guess I foolishly assumed he would come up with something a little more original.
Posted by seatackled on July 1, 2013 at 4:48 PM · Report this
15
It's a well *REGULATED* militia. Argue about commas all you want, the word REGULATED makes a prominent appearance.
Posted by Ms. D on July 1, 2013 at 5:02 PM · Report this
16
He was following Biden's advice. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013…

Bad idea.
Posted by Tawnos on July 1, 2013 at 5:02 PM · Report this
17
Ms. D - it makes a prominent appearance in a phrase that is used to justify the main clause. For example: A well-read populace being necessary to the preservation of our rights, the right of the people to keep and read literature shall not be infringed.

Does that sentence mean only a well-read populace may keep and read literature? Of course not, it says that "x is good, y must be kept". Left unsaid is that "because we think y insures x". In the case of my rewording, to assume only a well-read populace may keep and read literature would be to deny the very means by which a populace becomes well-read. Such is also the case with the second amendment, which was written by those who thought a well-regulated militia (I won't go into any of the other arguments related to what "regulated" means in this context, beyond the cursory mention that there are multiple definitions of the word) ensured a free state, and preventing the state from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms ensured that such a militia can exist.

Posted by Tawnos on July 1, 2013 at 5:33 PM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 18
Say what you will about Snowden and his revelations about the surveillance state, but understand that a bunch of hicks with guns are absolutely kidding their fool selves if they think they are "keeping us free".

Where were these "well-regulated militias with the purpose of keeping us free" when the Patriot act was voted in place? Where were they when the FISA courts started allowing warrantless wiretapping? Where were they when the NSA decided to lie to us about what information they were collecting? Where were they when asset-seizure laws were passed?

Before we all conclude that the gun nuts are pretty goddamn useless, do remember that they all strapped on their peni- oops, guns, and showed up at health care reform rallies. Because nothing says "keeping you free" like fighting to prevent reforming our fucked-up healthcare system.

Goddamn gun nuts, you people are worthless.
Posted by Dr_Awesome on July 1, 2013 at 7:15 PM · Report this
19
The child "received a gunshot..." No one did not fucking shoot him. Is that clear?
Posted by Tor on July 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM · Report this
20
If this woman legitimately believed that there were intruders who wished her harm, then this wasn't irresponsibility. It was just an accident.
Posted by DRF on July 1, 2013 at 7:57 PM · Report this
21
@20: Well ok then.
Posted by Eric from Boulder on July 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM · Report this
22
People who intentionally discharge firearms are responsible for the damage caused by their bullets.
Posted by Charlie Mas on July 1, 2013 at 8:48 PM · Report this
23
@22 we all know that is simply not true. It would be true if it was your dog or child who hurt someone, or your sidewalk was not shoveled in the snow, etc. But guns somehow encumber less liability. likely a fine and some supervision. probably won't even lose the other guns in the house.
Posted by Chris Jury http://www.thebismarck.net on July 1, 2013 at 10:14 PM · Report this
seatackled 24
@20

It sounds like she was just shooting wherever, without seeing any target. That is hardly responsible.
Posted by seatackled on July 1, 2013 at 10:24 PM · Report this
25
@23:
Unless, of course, you are black. Then, suddenly, it is not an accident but second degree murder:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/06…
Posted by migrationist on July 2, 2013 at 1:15 AM · Report this
smajor82 26
@18 - Exactly.
Posted by smajor82 on July 2, 2013 at 5:51 AM · Report this
27
this is bollicks. gun safety is important, yes, but Dan, have you ever been a petite woman at home alone in a dangerous neighborhood? No? then SHUT THE FUCK UP.

thanks.
Posted by PinkieB on July 2, 2013 at 6:19 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 28
@20 @27

Bullshit. You never shoot a gun at what you can't see and can't identify. Being afraid doesn't absolve you of that responsibility. The fundamental flaw in the thinking of gun nuts is that they think the weight of their fear is greater than the weight of their responsibility. That's why they refuse to accept that there's a litmus test for who can handle the responsibility of a gun and who can't.

I'd feel sympathy for all the frightened petite women (how come the NRA is 98% male, by the way?) in the world if I wasn't so overwhelmed with concern for all the small children gunned down by fuckheads who never should have had a gun. An adult who is living in fear has other choices to keep themselves safe if they aren't qualified to have a gun. These dead kids never had a choice.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on July 2, 2013 at 7:52 AM · Report this
debug 29
Well one thing for sure is that the conversation here on this topic will be intelligent, balanced, and polite.....

lol
Posted by debug on July 2, 2013 at 8:03 AM · Report this
CATSPAW666 30
I am sure this incident will be added to the 2 million other "Defensive Gun Uses" per year in America.
How else do you think they get to such a big number?
Posted by CATSPAW666 on July 2, 2013 at 8:14 AM · Report this
31
"(1) All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are. (2) Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.) (3) Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges. (4) Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified."

Seriously, a chimp could learn these. I forgot once to clear a breach and years later it still turns my stomach with terror of the memory. Why do these idiots care so little?
Posted by seeker6079 on July 2, 2013 at 11:27 AM · Report this
32
@28: "The fundamental flaw in the thinking of gun nuts is that they think the weight of their fear is greater than the weight of their responsibility. That's why they refuse to accept that there's a litmus test for who can handle the responsibility of a gun and who can't."

This, tenfold. It is why so many of them place such fervid emphasis on the constitutional right because they deem it to absolve them of all responsibility or care. It's a stupid position, obviously. As bad as idiotic it is also hypocritical: a lot of the people so ferociously against reasonable restrictions on how one exercises the right to possess and use a weapon are simultaneously very much in favour of unreasonable restrictions on the right to possess and use the vote.
Posted by seeker6079 on July 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM · Report this
ams_ 33
@27 What does being petit have to do with anything? Do you think, "Damn, if only I were 4 inches taller and 20 pounds heavier, I wouldn't need all these guns!".
Posted by ams_ on July 2, 2013 at 1:19 PM · Report this
34
@33: I'm not a big fan of civilian weapons (yay Canada) but @33 is kinda wilfully obtuse, isn't it? All life is a measurement of risk, and women feel more at risk than men do (something encouraged by both the left for feminist reasons and the right for pro-gun and harsh criminal law reasons), and small people feel more at risk than big people, and people who live in bad neighbourhoods feel more at risk than people in safe neighbourhoods. One can disagree on whether guns are the answer, but it's more than a little fatuous to assert that a person with a weapon isn't less vulnerable than a person without.

One of the more entertaining things about watching the gun control debate in the US is watching the right pretend that it isn't frequently paranoid, or talismanic about guns, and watching the left pretend that crime and criminals don't exist and don't use guns because, well, guns are bad m'kay and if civilians don't have them criminals won't either.
Posted by seeker6079 on July 2, 2013 at 1:34 PM · Report this
Gou Tongzhi 35
Morons. Paranoid, untrained, stupid, unthinking morons.
Posted by Gou Tongzhi on July 2, 2013 at 5:01 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy