Even this was avoidable.
- Thread starter briandg
- Start date
therealdeal
New member
MLeake
That is debatable. Many 14yr olds can't even tell you what came first: WWII or Vietnam.
That is debatable. Many 14yr olds can't even tell you what came first: WWII or Vietnam.
therealdeal
New member
I agree w/Nnobby45's post just after the post I just quoted above. Accidents can and will happen. Period. Maybe I should have mentioned this earlier, but based on what I know about this case(situation) and what Briandg has added: no charges should be filed.
That doesn't change the fact that you must use constant vigilence in your own life to try and avoid this same situation. An accident is an accident, but there are people who don't care, ARE negligent, and/or might even do this kind of stuff on purpose(if I may be so bold).
That doesn't change the fact that you must use constant vigilence in your own life to try and avoid this same situation. An accident is an accident, but there are people who don't care, ARE negligent, and/or might even do this kind of stuff on purpose(if I may be so bold).
therealdeal, if the 14yo girl had hit the other girl with a baseball bat, or stabbed her with a kitchen knife, would you bring up poor knowledge of history?
The fact is, the potential harm from pointing a firearm at a person and pulling the trigger should be just as obvious as the potential harm from clubbing or stabbing a person.
Would I hold a 14yo to the same legal standard as an 18yo? Probably not. But I wouldn't call what happened a true accident, either.
Ironically, I think that hiding guns from kids may actually be a reason why some kids treat guns like toys. They don't internalize the reality of the weapons the way they would if they were used to seeing the damage guns do to game, targets, etc.
Society's efforts to protect everybody from themselves just makes people that much more likely to harm themselves when they aren't under "proper supervision."
The fact is, the potential harm from pointing a firearm at a person and pulling the trigger should be just as obvious as the potential harm from clubbing or stabbing a person.
Would I hold a 14yo to the same legal standard as an 18yo? Probably not. But I wouldn't call what happened a true accident, either.
Ironically, I think that hiding guns from kids may actually be a reason why some kids treat guns like toys. They don't internalize the reality of the weapons the way they would if they were used to seeing the damage guns do to game, targets, etc.
Society's efforts to protect everybody from themselves just makes people that much more likely to harm themselves when they aren't under "proper supervision."
therealdeal
New member
No, I wouldn't.
I must go back to my first replies of your posts before agreeing to the last one between these last two between us:
A 14yr old would not hit a friend with a baseball bat by accident unless it was a 'true' accident like during a softball game as example.
The fact remains -society's fault or not - that teenagers especially females and moreso in certain locations are not knowledgeable enough about firearms. It might have to do with the fact that people are scared of guns or anti guns, but it might also have to do with the fact that a 14yr old can buy a bat, hold it in the store, play sports with it, etc. She cannot do this with a firearm.
I must go back to my first replies of your posts before agreeing to the last one between these last two between us:
A 14yr old would not hit a friend with a baseball bat by accident unless it was a 'true' accident like during a softball game as example.
The fact remains -society's fault or not - that teenagers especially females and moreso in certain locations are not knowledgeable enough about firearms. It might have to do with the fact that people are scared of guns or anti guns, but it might also have to do with the fact that a 14yr old can buy a bat, hold it in the store, play sports with it, etc. She cannot do this with a firearm.
therealdeal
New member
This is how I feel MLeake about the binge drinking(as only one example) that children in America do while a 14yr old in Spain can have a glass of cream sherry with the family. Basically, I agree with the quoted statement.
To quote Ozzy Ozbourne(paraphrase):
"My parents told me they better not ever catch me smoking or I was gonna get it bad. What did I do? I went and got a carton of cigarettes and smoked my brains out with my friends."
Johannes_Paulsen
New member
Actually, there is a principle of law that dates back over one hundred twenty years colloquially known as the "eggshell skull rule". It means that the tortfeasor takes the victim as they were, even if they were in a more vulnerable state than the average person, and even if this was not reasonably foreseeable by the tortfeasor. As a matter of policy, we don't want the victim's unusual vulnerability to injury to mitigate the damages from the tortfeasor; (s)he should be taking steps to ensure that (s)he doesn't injure people generally.
For example, if you have a negligent discharge at the range and hit me in the arm, but because I'm a hemophiliac, I bleed out before medical help can arrive, you wouldn't be able to get the damages reduced at the inevitable civil suit because you didn't reasonably know that I was a hemophiliac.
Vosburg v. Pitney, though I do not think it mentions it by name, is considered one of the exemplars of the rule. You can find it here if you're curious: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/torts01/syllabus/readings/sd1-vosburgvputney.html
Remember that in this case:
(1) A 79 year old woman is more susceptible to injury, will take a longer time to recover from those injuries, and may have more difficulty with manipulating the cups. This may have weighed on the amount of actual damages awarded.
(2) Of course, anyone regardless of age, could have spilled the coffee. One of the facts relied upon during the case was that the coffee at that temperature would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.
(3) It actually was forseeable that people would be seriously injured by the temperature of the coffee -- in fact McDonald's had already spent $500,000.00 (five hundred thousand U.S. dollars) settling injury claims.
(4) It took the woman several surgeries and two years to completely recover.
(5) I'm sorry, apparently I was unclear. The 79-year old woman who spilled the coffee was not driving a car. She was a passenger in the car. Her grandson, the driver, had pulled into a parking spot when the coffee was spilled. Anyway, would it have made a difference if she was sitting in a booth at McDonald's, from which she couldn't get up quickly? Come on.
(6) The jury did find the woman 20% at fault, and the award for actual damages was reduced by 20%. McDonald's was also hit with punitive damages because they were aware that people were getting injured (having paid out $500,000 in settlements previously) and decided not to change anything.
(7) Don't forget, the woman offered to settle for $20,000 (twenty thousand U.S. dollars) to cover her $18,000 medical bills + pain and suffering. McDonald's rejected this and offered to settle instead for $800 (eight hundred U.S. dollars). In the end, even though McDonald's was technically on the hook for $640,000, they settled for an undisclosed amount before the appeal was completed (which probably means: less than $640,000.
(8) And finally: $1.35 million was, at the time, the daily profits that McDonald's made from selling coffee alone.
Anyway, I will not comment on this again, because I think these posts are skirting the edge of relevance in this forum generally. I wanted to make these points because I am tired of people who know nothing about the case spreading misinformation about it. If the case still seems unreasonable to you, that's fine--carry on making fun of it. I have found, however, that the case works well as a punchline principally among people who are ignorant of its details.
jkp1187, the coffee they serve over here at the DFACs in Afghanistan is often so hot that I burn my fingers if I don't double up the cups. So, I learned very quickly to double up the cups, and to allow the coffee to cool before drinking it when it is that hot.
Should the coffee be cooler? Perhaps.
Should McDonald's have set their coffee to a slightly lower temperature? Quite possibly.
Do they bear any degree of responsibility? Yes, since they knew of previous problems.
BUT... in my opinion, the victim should only have been paid actual medical costs. Pain and suffering? No. Punitive damages? No... although I could see government fines being applied. (In general, I don't think private individuals should receive punitive damages unless actual malice can be proven.)
To keep this on topic, degrees of responsibility and culpability vary with circumstance. And there is a difference between what public entities and private citizens do, and for what they should be held accountable.
If I run a gun shop, and I keep weapons about in a haphazard manner, some of them loaded, then I should probably expect problems if anybody gets hurt by such a gun.
On the other hand, if I have a weapon in my home, that an unauthorized individual manipulates without my permission, and in a patently unsafe manner, that should be that person's problem, and only that person's.
I think torts and criminal charges are way over the top in the US; from your posts and citations, I suspect (though I could be wrong) that you work in or with the legal system... and you probably realize that while the US has under 5% of the world's population, we currently have 22% of the world's prison population.
We sue, and we criminalize, far too often for my tastes. Again, people need to own more responsibility for the things they do (generally, much more than 20%...) and quit trying to get the government to put all blame and responsibility onto others for them.
Should the coffee be cooler? Perhaps.
Should McDonald's have set their coffee to a slightly lower temperature? Quite possibly.
Do they bear any degree of responsibility? Yes, since they knew of previous problems.
BUT... in my opinion, the victim should only have been paid actual medical costs. Pain and suffering? No. Punitive damages? No... although I could see government fines being applied. (In general, I don't think private individuals should receive punitive damages unless actual malice can be proven.)
To keep this on topic, degrees of responsibility and culpability vary with circumstance. And there is a difference between what public entities and private citizens do, and for what they should be held accountable.
If I run a gun shop, and I keep weapons about in a haphazard manner, some of them loaded, then I should probably expect problems if anybody gets hurt by such a gun.
On the other hand, if I have a weapon in my home, that an unauthorized individual manipulates without my permission, and in a patently unsafe manner, that should be that person's problem, and only that person's.
I think torts and criminal charges are way over the top in the US; from your posts and citations, I suspect (though I could be wrong) that you work in or with the legal system... and you probably realize that while the US has under 5% of the world's population, we currently have 22% of the world's prison population.
We sue, and we criminalize, far too often for my tastes. Again, people need to own more responsibility for the things they do (generally, much more than 20%...) and quit trying to get the government to put all blame and responsibility onto others for them.
Mleake, I respect your thoughts. They are rational and well considered. Extreme and kinda nuts, in my opinion, but that's your right and you are certainly NOT WRONG in your beleifs that everyone should be responsible.
Unfortunately, you are either not realizing, or ignoring the fact that
PEOPLE, IN GENERAL, ARE STUPID.
for every person in the population that graduated high school and succeeded in college, there is at least one person who sits on the western foothills of bell curve mountain, with iq scores below 80. Even considering all of those people with quantifiable intelligence impairment, there are still a hundred fools for every 15 clear minded, level headed, common sense carrying individuals.
I'm of the mind that we've got to give the stupid a break on things like this. A guy who drives drunk does so deliberately, a guy who robs a bank, ditto, and a guy who deliberately leaves his handguns hanging around the house all the time is not just an idiot, he is laughing in the face of fate, or god, whoever you think is in charge of these events.
The idiot who deliberately challenges fate needs to have his head caved in by the justice system. A person who has been deliberately negligent deserves to suffer consequences.
But is it fair to nail a guy whose brakes failed, or steering died? Is it fair to jail a man who did his best all of his life to do the right thing, over a momentary negligence? Most importantly, is it smart to break the guy over the knees of the justice system when he could be an otherwise productive member of society instead of a prison inmate?
This same argument applies to the girl.
Let's be serious. a 14 year old girl is almost as smart as an adult at the very bottom of the intelligence scale, and she is lacking in any life skills. All of her life, she has watched movies and tv shows that show guns as toys. things that make a lot of noise, and they are always being pointed at other people. She did something that comes naturally to idiots, she emulated people who she thought were cool.
We cant try an incompetent adult. You very rarely see a retarded offender at trial. Juveniles are only tried as adults in extreme cases, when deliberation and full knowledge of their actions are present. How could we ever prosecute her, a full blown kazoo tooting doofus, because she did something really stupid? Will it fix anything? not at all.
In cases like this, the way I see it, punishment is useless. it serves no purpose Punish deliberate offenders. for the stupid, you try to fix the problem. You take away their guns, their cars, etc, so they can't hurt anyone again. We already do that, pretty routinely.
Unfortunately, you are either not realizing, or ignoring the fact that
PEOPLE, IN GENERAL, ARE STUPID.
for every person in the population that graduated high school and succeeded in college, there is at least one person who sits on the western foothills of bell curve mountain, with iq scores below 80. Even considering all of those people with quantifiable intelligence impairment, there are still a hundred fools for every 15 clear minded, level headed, common sense carrying individuals.
I'm of the mind that we've got to give the stupid a break on things like this. A guy who drives drunk does so deliberately, a guy who robs a bank, ditto, and a guy who deliberately leaves his handguns hanging around the house all the time is not just an idiot, he is laughing in the face of fate, or god, whoever you think is in charge of these events.
The idiot who deliberately challenges fate needs to have his head caved in by the justice system. A person who has been deliberately negligent deserves to suffer consequences.
But is it fair to nail a guy whose brakes failed, or steering died? Is it fair to jail a man who did his best all of his life to do the right thing, over a momentary negligence? Most importantly, is it smart to break the guy over the knees of the justice system when he could be an otherwise productive member of society instead of a prison inmate?
This same argument applies to the girl.
Let's be serious. a 14 year old girl is almost as smart as an adult at the very bottom of the intelligence scale, and she is lacking in any life skills. All of her life, she has watched movies and tv shows that show guns as toys. things that make a lot of noise, and they are always being pointed at other people. She did something that comes naturally to idiots, she emulated people who she thought were cool.
We cant try an incompetent adult. You very rarely see a retarded offender at trial. Juveniles are only tried as adults in extreme cases, when deliberation and full knowledge of their actions are present. How could we ever prosecute her, a full blown kazoo tooting doofus, because she did something really stupid? Will it fix anything? not at all.
In cases like this, the way I see it, punishment is useless. it serves no purpose Punish deliberate offenders. for the stupid, you try to fix the problem. You take away their guns, their cars, etc, so they can't hurt anyone again. We already do that, pretty routinely.
There is one thing that I think would be beneficial to every kid. First, every kid I have ever taught, or discussed shooting with, I tell them that the firearm must be thought of just like a death ray. Pull that trigger, and anything in front of the barrel for as far as the eye can see is probably going to die, or be destroyed. Second, any firearm is almost certain to kill, or absolutely destroy anything that is hit. Sure, maybe it will only be a flesh wound, but NOT VERY OFTEN.
Lastly, I want every kid on the planet to be present at a firearm exhibition. I want them to hear the muzzle blast, I want them to see those watermelons or cantalopes disintegrate. I want them to see what the heck happens when a .22-250 does to a head, and a .45-70 does to a pig.
Then, I want them to watch me shoot a kitten, and remind them that this is what will happen if they are careless
Lastly, I want every kid on the planet to be present at a firearm exhibition. I want them to hear the muzzle blast, I want them to see those watermelons or cantalopes disintegrate. I want them to see what the heck happens when a .22-250 does to a head, and a .45-70 does to a pig.
Then, I want them to watch me shoot a kitten, and remind them that this is what will happen if they are careless
briandg, if investigators determined from other witnesses' statements, and any other evidence, that it was truly an accident or a case of sheer teenage foolishness, then no, I wouldn't favor prosecution. That may be the case.
However, investigators should in fact make that determination, not just assume that because of the shooter's youth that it must have been an accident.
Fourteen year olds have been known to deliberately shoot people. A former co-worker of mine was shot by a thirteen year old kid, whom he had disregarded during a raid on a gang's drug house. He was focused on the adult threats, and was surprised when a kid shot him. Good thing he had a vest.
A case a few years ago involved a ten or eleven year old kid, who was mad that he couldn't go play. He shot a girl who was outside snowmobiling, killing her. Tried to claim it was a pure accident; problem was the recoil caused the scope to give him a nice ring-shaped bruise over his eyebrow and cheekbone...
Just because the shooter was a kid, does not necessarily excuse the shooter, even if we don't hold a kid to adult standards.
I have to admit, rational yet kinda nuts is a pretty uncommon description. Guess I'm at least making you think on unusual levels...
However, investigators should in fact make that determination, not just assume that because of the shooter's youth that it must have been an accident.
Fourteen year olds have been known to deliberately shoot people. A former co-worker of mine was shot by a thirteen year old kid, whom he had disregarded during a raid on a gang's drug house. He was focused on the adult threats, and was surprised when a kid shot him. Good thing he had a vest.
A case a few years ago involved a ten or eleven year old kid, who was mad that he couldn't go play. He shot a girl who was outside snowmobiling, killing her. Tried to claim it was a pure accident; problem was the recoil caused the scope to give him a nice ring-shaped bruise over his eyebrow and cheekbone...
Just because the shooter was a kid, does not necessarily excuse the shooter, even if we don't hold a kid to adult standards.
I have to admit, rational yet kinda nuts is a pretty uncommon description. Guess I'm at least making you think on unusual levels...
I remember the snowmobile shooting. .35 remington, I believe.
I know that younger people do it all the time. a 16 year old in that same city shot his girlfriend in the head, in her own bedroom, because she broke up with him. his defense was that he brought the gun to kill himself, had it against his temple, and she yanked it out of his hand, accidentally shooting herself in the head (complete with contact burns) Do you remember the kid in arkansas that took his father's 742 30-06 to shool and sniped the elementary school playground? Can't very well plead that as an accident, can he? (good evidence that the recoil of a 30-06 is tolerable)
prosecuting tragedy doesn't do any good.
prosecute malice, then put them in stocks in the village square so that the peasants can throw horse fewmets at them. When the peasants get bored, give them a proper hanging. I think that we both probably mostly agree here, at least it seems that way.
They did decline to prosecute because there was absolutely no evidence of preplanning, malice, or motive.
I know that younger people do it all the time. a 16 year old in that same city shot his girlfriend in the head, in her own bedroom, because she broke up with him. his defense was that he brought the gun to kill himself, had it against his temple, and she yanked it out of his hand, accidentally shooting herself in the head (complete with contact burns) Do you remember the kid in arkansas that took his father's 742 30-06 to shool and sniped the elementary school playground? Can't very well plead that as an accident, can he? (good evidence that the recoil of a 30-06 is tolerable)
prosecuting tragedy doesn't do any good.
prosecute malice, then put them in stocks in the village square so that the peasants can throw horse fewmets at them. When the peasants get bored, give them a proper hanging. I think that we both probably mostly agree here, at least it seems that way.
They did decline to prosecute because there was absolutely no evidence of preplanning, malice, or motive.
Oh, another thing.
who here believes that the kid who gunned down his schoolmates with his dads deer rifle from an adjacent wooded lot, and the kid who shot a school mate on a snowmobile from a bedroom window with a .35 remington constitute solid evidence that kids should not be taught how to shoot until they're 21?
You all know that this is what a lot of people were saying and thinking.
Yeah.
who here believes that the kid who gunned down his schoolmates with his dads deer rifle from an adjacent wooded lot, and the kid who shot a school mate on a snowmobile from a bedroom window with a .35 remington constitute solid evidence that kids should not be taught how to shoot until they're 21?
You all know that this is what a lot of people were saying and thinking.
Yeah.
BlackFeather
New member
Briandg said:
This is one of the reasons people aren't allowed to handle my swords without having prior experience with them. The second is that every time I say "Do not touch the blade", the first thing they do is touch the blade.
A sword or knife is a loaded firearm, a firearm is always to be treated as loaded. The argument that kids see television and movies that show weapons as toys is quite ridiculous to me, as they also show what they can and will do. Taking away toys that replicate weapons will do one thing, make them want to play with the real thing, or make their own weapons. Rocks, sticks, and glass are all just as dangerous. I learned at a young age to make my own weapons, these WERE my toys. At 10 I had my first steel sword. Boys play with toys in mock battles and hunts because it's what we naturally want to do, just like catching bugs is "foraging". I feel like this is being taken away, leading to the poor health and judgment of children lately.
If it was a boy it would have been blamed on TV and movies and video games, being a girl it's because she didn't know better. The father is blamed for leaving the loaded gun around. What about the girl who was shot, what did she say when her friend picked up the gun? Did she know better?
Lastly, avoidable or not, a 14 year old girl is traumatized, and another is dead. No one should be charged, everyone involved is suffering enough. She should devote her time to teaching gun safety, help others who have gone through the same.
People should teach their kids that firearms and knives are deadly, not just by instruction, but by visual aid. It sounds wrong, but images of those who have been shot, cut, or stabbed will show the reality of it all. It's not just safety, it's understanding WHY safety is important. And with that, the principal of letting an adult know the firearm is there, is important. This should further the idea of something like the old warrior societies when everyone knew and understood weapons and their use.
Justice06RR
New member
A loaded firearm is not the main issue, as many Americans including me (and many others i'm sure) have plenty of loaded fireams in their homes for SD/HD.
it was irresponsibility and negligence that led to the tragedy, and each gun owner needs to be aware of the responsibility we all carry when possesing firearms. But I agree with what was posted before that kitchen knifes, cars, and even matches are deadly weapons although they are not designed that way.
it was irresponsibility and negligence that led to the tragedy, and each gun owner needs to be aware of the responsibility we all carry when possesing firearms. But I agree with what was posted before that kitchen knifes, cars, and even matches are deadly weapons although they are not designed that way.
It should be noted that guns are not the only product with double standards. A toddler who dies in a home because he gets under the bathroom sink and drinks a bottle of scope is just a senseless tragedy. If they get into medications, there is a lot less sympathy.
The problem is, as I will say a million more times before I die, that we are taking as gospel the opinions of people who are so stupid their mouths should be sewed shut.
Yep, I'm being judgmental. but, who started it? the millions of people who decided that they have the right and responsibility to set standards of behavior.
The problem is, as I will say a million more times before I die, that we are taking as gospel the opinions of people who are so stupid their mouths should be sewed shut.
Yep, I'm being judgmental. but, who started it? the millions of people who decided that they have the right and responsibility to set standards of behavior.
why, thank you sir.
Years ago, I wrote a series of stories that parodied super heroes.
One of the leaders of my group of supervillains was Judge Mental. he ran appellate court. his superpower was mind control. the villains would be convicted in lower court, and then be cleared in higher court.
For years after that, my wife called me Judge Mental, because I'm one of the most intolerant people she ever knew.
Years ago, I wrote a series of stories that parodied super heroes.
One of the leaders of my group of supervillains was Judge Mental. he ran appellate court. his superpower was mind control. the villains would be convicted in lower court, and then be cleared in higher court.
For years after that, my wife called me Judge Mental, because I'm one of the most intolerant people she ever knew.
RazorbackMac
New member
Negligent? Yes, but as stated, not a reoccurring theme for the gun owner.
Charges? IMO, no. The mental anguish will do more than any sentence would.
Tragic? Definitely.
Having not posted often on this site, allow me to introduce myself: David from NW Arkansas, pro-gun, pro-SD/HD, pro-stupid people outnumber even the semi-intelligent.
I work at a store as a sales clerk that sells long guns and I can say with professional certainty that the first thing people do when I hand them a firearm is jam their finger toward the trigger only to be stopped by a trigger guard I installed. Not all of them look directly into the muzzle but do not think for a moment that less than 20% of them do. To top things off, it isn't uncommon for the muzzle to be pointed at someone (usually me) during some of the firearm viewings. Are the guns unloaded, absolutely. I first ensure firearms are unloaded upon receiving from the factory, then prior to installing a trigger lock, then again in every instance before handing one to a customer, it has become pure instinct for me at this point (Their are even a few "gun nuts" that even check for themselves after being handed the firearm
). If not in my hands or the customers hands, they are behind lock and key. Some might even say I go overboard by only allowing one gun to be out of the case at a time... and to those people, I say open your own gun store and do things your own way... As for me, I make it a point to ensure my own safety as well as anyone in my presence and have decided this is the best route for me.
Having said all of that, I like to think I am doing everything in my power to be as safe as I can and I follow a lot of these procedures at home as well as at work. To the point of the OP, I fully believe I am not the smartest person alive yet I know from watching people, I exhibit better gun safety than a lot of people. (Not being elitist, attempting to make a point) As I said, I'm no smarter than anyone, I think being taught gun safety from an early age is the sole reason for my safe habits. I encourage children even from non-gun households to know gun safety... It isn't stated in the OP whether the girl that fired the gun was from a non-gun household or not but supposing she was, gun safety education could have changed the outcome (maybe not the case, just showing why I think it is important for all children, not just gun friendly households.)
I also would like to say that at 14, I knew guns were dangerous. I also knew at 14, that tobacco was bad for you. (Actually, I have been told both from about the age of 5). Did I still start using tobacco at 18? Yes. I say this to point out that A) I would like to think that 14 year olds knowing guns are dangerous isn't the minority and B) People are stupid. Knowing it was bad for me, I still started using tobacco. Education was a great start but "do as I say" didn't scare me away after watching dad smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. You can stress safety orally until you are blue in the face
but acting in unsafe ways will only overrule those lessons and instill the fact that accidents only happen to others. Even if you don't think anyone is watching and learning from your actions, you never know. (Not to mention your own safety is at risk even when others aren't watching you) Don't just say, DO!
Charges? IMO, no. The mental anguish will do more than any sentence would.
Tragic? Definitely.
Having not posted often on this site, allow me to introduce myself: David from NW Arkansas, pro-gun, pro-SD/HD, pro-stupid people outnumber even the semi-intelligent.
I work at a store as a sales clerk that sells long guns and I can say with professional certainty that the first thing people do when I hand them a firearm is jam their finger toward the trigger only to be stopped by a trigger guard I installed. Not all of them look directly into the muzzle but do not think for a moment that less than 20% of them do. To top things off, it isn't uncommon for the muzzle to be pointed at someone (usually me) during some of the firearm viewings. Are the guns unloaded, absolutely. I first ensure firearms are unloaded upon receiving from the factory, then prior to installing a trigger lock, then again in every instance before handing one to a customer, it has become pure instinct for me at this point (Their are even a few "gun nuts" that even check for themselves after being handed the firearm
). If not in my hands or the customers hands, they are behind lock and key. Some might even say I go overboard by only allowing one gun to be out of the case at a time... and to those people, I say open your own gun store and do things your own way... As for me, I make it a point to ensure my own safety as well as anyone in my presence and have decided this is the best route for me. Having said all of that, I like to think I am doing everything in my power to be as safe as I can and I follow a lot of these procedures at home as well as at work. To the point of the OP, I fully believe I am not the smartest person alive yet I know from watching people, I exhibit better gun safety than a lot of people. (Not being elitist, attempting to make a point) As I said, I'm no smarter than anyone, I think being taught gun safety from an early age is the sole reason for my safe habits. I encourage children even from non-gun households to know gun safety... It isn't stated in the OP whether the girl that fired the gun was from a non-gun household or not but supposing she was, gun safety education could have changed the outcome (maybe not the case, just showing why I think it is important for all children, not just gun friendly households.)
I also would like to say that at 14, I knew guns were dangerous. I also knew at 14, that tobacco was bad for you. (Actually, I have been told both from about the age of 5). Did I still start using tobacco at 18? Yes. I say this to point out that A) I would like to think that 14 year olds knowing guns are dangerous isn't the minority and B) People are stupid. Knowing it was bad for me, I still started using tobacco. Education was a great start but "do as I say" didn't scare me away after watching dad smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. You can stress safety orally until you are blue in the face
but acting in unsafe ways will only overrule those lessons and instill the fact that accidents only happen to others. Even if you don't think anyone is watching and learning from your actions, you never know. (Not to mention your own safety is at risk even when others aren't watching you) Don't just say, DO!