Men Shot With .357 as They Traced It for Tattoo Pattern

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

CHAPARRAL, N.M. — Getting a tattoo can be a painful proposition, but usually it's just the needle you have to worry about.

Two men trying to trace a loaded .357-caliber Magnum as a pattern for a tattoo accidentally shot themselves, the Otero County Sheriff's Department said Monday.

Robert Glasser and Joey Acosta, both 22, were treated at a hospital in El Paso, Texas, after the shooting Thursday evening in nearby Chaparral.

Authorities said Glasser was struck in the hand when the gun accidentally went off, and Acosta was hit in the left arm. Their injuries were not life-threatening, authorities said.

Another educated and trained gun owner.

Duuuhhhhhh.......

New Mexico/Texas.

(Need I say more?)

"Another educated and trained gun owner."

Yes, yes, Sarah Brady. Thanks for weighing in.

Hey Vitalogy, is there such a thing as an educated gun owner??
I thought most people who own guns are poorly educated.

I read it as sarcasm.

As in, a life lesson has been learned the hard way!

I read it as painting all gun owners with a broad brush as being a bunch of rubes. If I read it incorrectly, so be it.

It should be read as another idiot with a gun that represents the broader culture of those that own guns. Not everyone, but most. This is why I don't like guns. Too many armed idiots like these guys.

I stand corrected.

Agreed on the idiots too. They like 'em, by percentage, more than anybody else does.

"...another idiot with a gun that represents the broader culture of those that own guns. Not everyone, but most."

Most? MOST??? Surely you exaggerate.

You guys just reminded me of a classic video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS-n9cGy7us

I was never particularly pro or con handguns, UNTIL my neighbor across the street was tied-up (in his home) by a couple of local meth-heads and murdered 2 years ago at Christmas http://www.newsregister.com/news/results.cfm?story_no=202354

So I went looking for a suitable "in the house" self-defense handgun and found a dandy. It's perfect for the purpose because it has a wide scatter-pattern and short range. http://www.thunder5.com/docs1.html

Highly recommended, ...IF you think you need a gun. If not, nobody's mandating it.

Too short a barrel, for home defense, a 16 gauge shotgun, with the shortest legal barrel.

Chances are, that gun will be used against you or your family, or a tragic accident will occur within your house with that gun before you'll ever have a chance to use it for self defense. Anybody that properly locks up their unloaded gun will never have a chance to use it when they need it.

I've been thinking about Brinks or some other monitored system. I don't think the burglar will hang around with a siren going off! And yes with my rifle locked in a gun safe unloaded it is not of much use in a hurry up situation.

Vitalogy, do you have any statistics to prove that? (not the locked up gun part)

I think that you will find after doing some research that statement is incorrect or at best not not accurate.

Sadly, the Brady Campaign's faulty statistics and outright lies are spewed by the media who never mention the millions of times a year law-abiding citizens defend themselves with firearms, usually never having to fire a shot. Please do some research.

Any non-NRA generated statistics out there show that people that live in households with guns are statisically more at risk of gun violence (murder, suicide, accidents) than those that don't. I'm not saying we should ban guns or that you're a bad person for having one. But, I think people should at least be honest that a household with a gun present is more dangerous to it's inhabitants than a household without one.

From: http://www.gunlawsuits.org/reform/ftcfiling.php

II. The Presence of a Handgun in the Home Actually Increases the Risk of Gun Injury or Death for the Residents of the Home.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, there are currently more than 222 million firearms in the possession of private citizens in this country, including 76 million handguns. Many of these gun owners believe that handguns are an effective means of self- and home-defense. One study reported that "three quarters of gun owners keep them at least partly for protection," and that "[t]he single most common reason for keeping firearms given by owners of handguns . . . "'is self-defense at home.'"

At the same time, many gun owners discount or fail to recognize the risk the guns in their home pose to themselves and their families. For example, one study showed that half of gun owners fail to store their guns under lock and key, that half of those who say they own handguns for protection keep them loaded some or all of the time, and that almost one third of gun owners with children in the home store their weapons loaded. And, contrary to what many gun owners may believe, a recent study showed that children as young as 3 or 4 years of age have the hand strength to fire most handguns.

But, as the scientific evidence shows, the risks posed by a gun in the home are very real. Several studies have shown that rather than increasing the personal security of the residents of a home, the introduction of a handgun actually makes it more likely that the residents of that home will die by gunfire. In two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues found "strong evidence that the ready availability of guns increases the risk of suicide in the home," especially if the guns are kept loaded or unlocked, and that "[p]eople who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not." Specifically, Kellermann found that keeping a gun in the house increased by 2.7 times the risk that a resident would die in a homicide and by 4.8 times the risk a resident would commit suicide.

Kellermann also found no "evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in . . . cases that involved forced entry." Indeed, in another study, Kellermann found that it is 43 times more likely that a gun kept in the home will be used to kill a household member or a friend or acquaintance of a household member than to kill an intruder. These studies make clear that rather than improving the safety of the residents of a home as the challenged advertisements suggest, bringing a firearm into the home actually makes those that live there less safe.

Despite the scientific evidence regarding the real dangers posed by guns in the home, some have suggested that gun ownership should be encouraged because guns are used more frequently in self-defense than in crime. But, the best estimates of the number of times guns are used in a defensive manner are far outnumbered by the deaths, injuries and victimizations inflicted by guns.

In 1993, there were approximately 40,000 gun deaths in the United States, including homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. In addition, each year, there are over 900,000 criminal victimizations with guns and an estimated 100,000 non-fatal gun injuries requiring emergency room care.

In contrast, in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports only about 85,000 annual civilian defensive uses of guns. A study analyzing the NCVS data from 1987 through 1990, concluded that an average of less than 65,000 crime victims, or fewer than 2 victims in 1000, defended themselves with a gun in each of those years. And, another study reported that the use of a firearm in self-defense during the commission of a violent crime is associated with a seven fold increase in the likelihood that the defender will be attacked with a gun.

"To decide whether or not to own a gun for self-defense based solely on a "kill" ratio is folly. To estimate the risks and benefits of gun ownership many more factors need to be considered. An example is defensive gun use, which outnumbers homicides, suicides, and accidents, and is ignored in most of the medical research."

Entire Article Here

"The data most often cited to support the theory that the protective benefits of guns outweigh the harm they cause is put forth by Professor Gary Kleck. Kleck claims that firearms are used as many as 2.5 million times annually by law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminal attack. But Kleck's conclusion has been roundly criticized by the scientific community. Kleck's data are based upon a privately commissioned telephone survey of about 5,000 respondents. From the relatively small number of annual defensive uses reported by these respondents (63), Kleck extrapolated a national rate. But because each person reporting a defensive gun use in Kleck's survey represents a large portion of Kleck's national estimate of 2.5 million defensive uses annually, even a small number of people who misunderstood or inaccurately answered the survey question could cause a relatively large discrepancy between Kleck's estimate and the true frequency of defensive gun use. In contrast, the NCVS employs an in-person interview of a sample of about 60,000 households, conducted every six months, making it relatively immune to large changes in estimates under different assumptions.

As one researcher put it, "Kleck's conclusions rest on limited data. Small changes in the procedures would produce large differences in the findings. The estimates are questionable and it appears unwise to place much weight on them." On balance then, the great weight of scientific data support the view that a firearm in the home confers more risk than benefit upon those who reside there."

I tend to believe actual statistics, not surveys.

Uncle! That's it. I've had enough. Be sure to send the Bradys a contribution!

The only contributions I make are to my retirement accounts.

Just make sure to be a good law abiding gun owner and lock your stuff up so you don't become a statistic yourself.

Owning a gun for protection, is a personal decision, that requires thought and proparation.

Number one, learn how to secure it, and use it.

Make sure you know when you should use it! Its not a macho thing, you don't want to kill someone over a couple hundred dollars. If someone wants to take your money, and their armed, give it to them, and let the police deal with it, you should only use a weapon to protect yourself, if you feel threatened.

Will do, Vital!

Nwokie....actually, the barrel of the Thunder Five is a great size. It not only makes the gun relatively short and easy to handle, but it has good scatter which is important to me because I don't think I'd have the time or inclination to set-up the perfect aim.

In any event, it's a gas to shoot. Much less recoil (with either the .45LC or .410 gauge rounds) than I would've thought.

Vitalogy, you discount reports by the NRA (I don't think they are biased pro-gun as much as pro-constitution) but then you cite a report by the Brady Center which is 100% anti gun.

How about finding an unbiased source, this might be hard to do.

Possibly the CDC might have statistics (although being part of the government, I don't know how unbiased they'd be). You'd have to rule out any media studies or surveys as the media is definitely anti gun.

Then weigh the results from gun deaths/injuries against other household accidents such as accidental drowning from a swimming pool, poisoning from household products, falling down stairs, etc.

I think you'll find that the percentage of firearm accidents/deaths is less than that of other accidents.

Skybill, the NRA is as biased as any organization can be, and that's their right since they are in the business of supporting gun rights. Of course, I know the Brady Center is biased as well, but they seem to have much more broad research and statistics than the NRA does.

Now, in regards to the percentage of accidents/deaths from guns vs other accidents, that's not what I'm debating. My debate is this: Gun or no gun, safer or not? All I know is that if my kid is playing at someone's house who has a gun present vs no gun present, the chances of my kid becoming a victim of gun violence is greatly increased by the presence of a gun as compared to the house without one. I think even the most ardent NRA supporter would have a hard time not agreeing with me.

Vitalogy, I would wager that both the NRA and the Brady Center are equally as broad as each other in their pursuit to promote their position, although the NRA has been around much, much longer than the Brady Center.

Using the same logic then, my child is much more likely to drown in a swimming pool if they are playing at someone's house that has a pool than someone's house that doesn't have a pool or bitten by a dog while playing at someone's house that has a dog vs. a house with no dog or injured in a car accident while riding in a car vs. not riding in a car and on and on and on.

"Using the same logic then, my child is much more likely to drown in a swimming pool if they are playing at someone's house that has a pool than someone's house that doesn't have a pool..."

Exactly my point. Risk factors are risk factors, and guns bring a certain amount of risk to the household, same as a pool does. For me personally, a gun in the house fails my test of "is it worth having."

"I think that you will find after doing some research that statement is incorrect or at best not not accurate."

A gun in the home is far more likely to be used by a family member for a suicide or accidentally fired by one of the children living in the house than to thwart a thug entering the house.

The two most important factors regarding any risk are education and supervision.

Coming from a family that has been in cattle ranching for 3 generations, firearms have been part of my life as long as I can remember. We were taught not to touch them, first, then how to clean them, maintain them, and use them as appropriate. They were not things of wonder we had to show our friends, nor to be used as an empty threat. They have always been a necessary tool on the ranch, and used as such. Not much novelty there, except for going down to the firing range to sight in a new one.

As a gun owner, I take full responsibility for it's presence. I know where it is, how I can get to it quickly and safely, and no one but me knows where it is or even that it exists. It's not something that needs to be shown off to friends or discussed on dates, further than I have a permit to carry one, and that I update my skills regularly, if the subject even comes up.

As far as suicides and domestic violence, people who are intent on either of those activities will do them with any tool they have to hand: a firearm just gets the most attention. A handful of pills or a length of rope will do the same work. Kids accidentally shooting each other lays at the feet of the gun owner and their irresponsibility.

All of the above IMHO, of course.

Hear, hear, Entre! Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks!

Very well put.

Entre_nous: Nailed it. A fine post. Hoping to see more of those from you!

I'm pretty handy with a sewing machine, too A true Rennaisance woman, I'm afraid.

Thanks...been on the recieving end of violent behavior at the hands of strangers and have given much thought to self preservation...living under martial law after Hurricane Andrew forced me to put the hypothetical aside and defend myself and my neighbors, many of whom were not so well prepared. Thank goodness for my upbringing.