Gun accident sends Oktibbeha woman to hospital

A gun mishap sent an Oktibbeha County woman to the hospital with a gunshot wound to the leg Tuesday.

The Oktibbeha County Sheriff's Office responded to a 911 call at 3875 Jeff Peay Road. When deputies arrived on the scene, Nicole Westmoreland, 23, told them she was retrieving a gun from her bedroom after spotting a snake in her yard, but dropped the weapon, causing it to discharge. A single round penetrated through Westmoreland's leg.

Westmoreland was transported to Oktibbeha County Hospital. She was at home with her four children when the accident occurred.

http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=11027

I was wondering.

In a motherfucking tree !!


////////
Austin Haley was fishing with his grandfather, Jack Tracy, Friday evening when Tracy said he heard a shot and saw a bullet hit the water just a few feet in front of the boat dock where he was standing.

Moments later, a second shot was fired that hit Austin in the head.

A Noble police officer who had responded to a report of a snake in a tree apparently fired the deadly shot while trying to kill the snake, according to City Manager Bob Wade.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html#ixzz1M9vr5w00

Firearm handling should have been taught to her as part of a mandatory high school curriculum.

..... as a public service.

They even have a course curriculum, hand-outs, coloring activities, etc for kids.

The NRA set up the NRA foundation grant to distribute Eddie Eagle material to educators at no cost. Heck, they'll even help find a volunteer in your state to teach it.

Other than making holes in the lawn

...but I'm guessing she didn't have one of those loaded in this particular pistol if it made a solid hole in her leg.

That lady needs help.

Just because she was stupid with a gun is no reason to take mine away from me.

forced abortions and sterilizations...once again the "freedumb" crowd shoots itself in the foot.

that would be insulting if it wasn't so dumb.

you are giving jpak a run for the money with the stupid comments.

Who said anything about abortions and forced sterilizations. You let your imagination get away from you.

I interpret it to mean that the poster (in jest, I'm sure) thinks that abortions should be forced on this woman because she has "too many kids" at a young age. I responded (also in jest) that this poster supports forced abortions.

please dont misspell your insinuation that I can't read, btw.

that's always been a freeper thing. And the 'PP = forced sterilization' is only claimed by the most despicably RW of them all. Are you truly so eager to lash out at guns and gun owners that you are incapable of thinking about what you're typing, and willing to abandon even basic liberal principles to try and score a cheap point?

I don't think any pro-choice person thinks that PP should be making housecalls based on a woman having too many children. Choice means what it says...CHOOSING to visit PP or have an abortion, not having PP called to your home because some jaggoff thinks you are reproducing to quickly.

And again...I was KIDDING, as (I hope) the greencloud poster was too.

Assuming for the sake of argument that he wasn't kidding (he was), do you think that PP should be making unsolicited "housecalls?"

talking point. That came out of your head and nowhere else, but if you tell us that you don't really think that way then of course we'll accept the word of a fellow DUer... :shrug:

acquire a sense of humor, you might enjoy it.

Now see if you can answer this question: Do you think that planned parenthood should be making unsolicited housecalls, as Greencloud (in jest) implied they should?

joke to be referring to birth control, education, and the many other services PP provides. I still find it odd that you so quickly associated PP with sterilization and abortion. Which brings us back to the beginning - why are you so willing to abandon (or at least temporarily forget) liberal principles in search of a cheap slam against guns and gun owners?

Since that is the service that PP is most associated with in popular consciousness.

Which brings us back to the beginning - why are you so willing to abandon (or at least temporarily forget) liberal principles in search of a cheap slam against guns and gun owners?

To make a joke.

GSC abandoned "liberal principles" of reproductive freedoms (including the freedom not to use birth control) to make his joke, and I teased him about it.

Humor is a good thing. I hope you aren't actually this joyless irl.

assumptions and stereotypes about progressive institutions. Your perspective obviously differs...

you've latched on to a joke I made because you want to "lash out" at me. It's OK, I don't take it personally.

BTW, since you continue to insinuate that I'm a freeper...could you tell me what the freeper position on gun control is? How does it differ from your own?

were unthinkingly assimilating their talking points - which seemed (seems) odd to me. Freepers, as we know, like to reduce PP to just abortion and sterilization, and it's disturbing to see a DUer play their game just to make a joke...

What is the standard freeper position on gun control, and how does it differ from your own?

your strange notions about PP - of course, if you want to end that discussion all you need to do is acknowledge that you typed without thinking and fell into an error of representation wrt to PP. Do you want to do that?

As for freepers and gun control I presume they generally oppose it - why should I care?

"of course, if you want to end that discussion all you need to do is acknowledge that you typed without thinking"

I. was. making. a. joke. As Senator Kyle said on this very issue: "Not intended to be a factual statement." Perfect defense.

As for freepers and gun control I presume they generally oppose it - why should I care?

You shouldn't care that you are taking the freeper position on gun control...and you're dead serious in your agreement with them?

that wingers insist on for their own despicable purposes.

My progressive pro-RKBA position stands on its own, with no reference to freepers at all (if they choose to agree with me I couldn't care less). Your so-called defense, however, requires you to get right down in the mud and align yourself with some disturbingly anti-progressive opinions.

I'm a bit surprised you're persisting with this - why don't you just acknowledge that the 'PP = abortion' line is freeper propaganda and your so-called joke was in poor taste?

that PP does not = abortion. Again, I made a joke. Jokes often rely on false assumptions. My joke was in poor taste (most good ones are) as was GSC's, when he suggested that women should be subjected to unsolicited visits from PP because they have more children than he thinks are appropriate.

The RKBA position isn't progressive, it's regressive. It's a position that subjects democratic constituencies to the tyranny of the right wing NRA, overturns laws that localities pass to protect themselves and their communities. You are right down in the mud with Scalia and LaPierre.

Spare me your fake outrage.

will slough off progressive principles in service of humor (on the trivial end of the scale) or in reaction to fear or bias or distaste (at the serious end of the scale).

RKBA is absolutely a progressive position - it's one manifestation of a regard for choice, liberty, self-determination, self-preservation, and the Constitution. As a liberal, I take the position that restrictions on freedom and choice must be empirically-based and and as narrow as possible - I also recognize that basic individual rights are not subject to the whims of a community. Regrettably, many gun-control advocates too-easily abandon that clearly progressive philosophy...

even if it is tiny.

The RKBA is not a progressive position. It is a position held by the NRA and the KKK and Free Republic. It is a position that ignores the freedom of communities to make laws to protect themselves. It is a position that denies people in our larger cities their rights to self-determination and self-preservation.

The laws struck down by your right wing friends on the SCOTUS are not passed on a whim. They are passed after consideration of the problems that plague their communities.

mean in the context of individual civil rights? You are treading an extremely authoritarian and non-progressive path here, with this notion that communities can over-ride core Constitutional principles to 'protect themselves,' no matter how you try to rationalize it...

Even in the "wild west" localities were free to pass ordinances regarding gun possession. There have been big city gun laws on the books since before the constitution.

The Heller decision overturned centuries of precedent. See The Heller dissent(s).

If you think that the NRA, the KKK, and Free Republic are progressive institutions, I welcome you to get in bed with those people while laughably calling yourself "progressive."

your attempts to be insulting are truly feeble. As is your claim of "reinterpretation" - what I gave you is a clear application of progressive ideals to the topic of RKBA. If you can't see that, perhaps it's your understanding of 'progressive' that is faulty...

What's the problem?

What you gave me was actually the same regurgitation that I could get from any freeper, hyperbolic jumbled nonsense about freedumb, ignoring the material cost of your position.

perhaps it's your understanding of 'progressive' that is faulty

When the KKK and the NRA are understood to be progressive institutions, I'll concede your point.

The KKK is irrelevant (except in your feeble attempt at being insulting). The NRA is irrelevant. Unsubstantiated "material cost" is irrelevant. Other posters are irrelevant. The only freeper propaganda espoused on this thread has been yours.

The bottom line is that a true progressive defends freedom, choice, and the Constitution regardless of how he personally feels about the specific topic. A true progressive opposes unfounded government intrusions into private life. A true progressive recognizes that individual rights are not subject to majority whims or fears. Notice that I didn't mention guns in any of that...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

into private life? :shrug:

Keep squirming if you want, but your claims simply cannot be reconciled with a progressive philosophy.

This all depends on what you perceive to be unfounded intrustions. I don't think that requiring a person to pass an NICS check for every single gun sale or transfer is unfounded intrusion. I don't think that making it very difficult for Joe 6-pack to get a grenade launcher is an unfounded intrustion, but lost of your buddies at FreeRepublic would percieve it as such.

I don't think that taxation is theft or slavery, either...though a teabagger/freeper would. That's what's so funny about your pablum "freedom" argument here--it's the same one a teabagger would make.

When it comes to this particular issue, "unfounded intrusion" is in the eye of the beholder to a significant extent.

have non-trivial empirical foundations and be as narrow as possible to protect individual choice and liberty. You apparently think that's pablum. (Which makes me wonder: you claim to be pro-choice, how did you arrive at that position?)

I also said that it's disturbing to see DUers so happy to abandon progressive principles when those principles conflict with their biases, desires, or fears. But we've been seeing a lot of that in the forum; DUers in favor of 'terror watch lists', in favor of employers searching vehicles,willing to ignore the Constitution, happy to see innocent people victimized - all things that would be abhorred if a dislike of firearms didn't take precedence.

As for your strawmen and feeble attempts at insults, they are clear indicators of a poster who is unwilling to honestly examine his premises, and is simply trying to deflect attention from the weaknesses of his arguments...

What you believe to be trivial is a matter of opinion. And yes, all your demagoguery about "freedom" and "liberty" and "the constitution" is very much reminiscent of teabagger pablum. This demagoguery is a part of why I find your side of this debate to be so repellant.

"Which makes me wonder: you claim to be pro-choice, how did you arrive at that position?)"

A woman's reproductive organs are part of her body, your gun is not part of yours. Her organs aren't taking the lives of persons all around this country every single day.

"I also said that it's disturbing to see DUers so happy to abandon progressive principles when those principles conflict with their biases, desires, or fears."

Now again, you don't determine what progressive principles are. I don't know why I need to keep reminding you of this. You claim to be progressive, but you are aligned here with regressives.

"happy to see innocent people victimized"

You mean like all the people victimized because of your pro-gun stance? The people who died today and will die tomorrow? I don't know why you are so happy to see these people victimized.

You continue to post nonsense, ad hominems, bogus assumptions, and false 'common sense'. When you even have an empirical basis for something, then we can discuss whether it's trivial.

You really don't get the concept of having consistent principles, do you? For me, the principles come first and determine my stances on issues (I hoped the choice question would give you a hint to think about on that). For you, however, it seems that the principles are secondary to your opinion on the topic, which allows you to so easily dismiss the idea of individual choice and freedom when it's an issue you don't like.

But tell me - what do you think progressive principles are, if the ideas I outlined above are unpalatable to you?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

-RWE

"You really don't get the concept of having consistent principles, do you? For me, the principles come first..."

This is where we part ways. For me, my opinions--based on what I see around me--come first. In my life I have seen terrible harm come to many people because of your little goblin. I assure you that I "get" the concept, but I also "get" how easily people can be manipulated when they turn their brains off and rely on rigid consistency with a predetermined beliefs set.

I'm a free agent, not bound to any "ism," and thus I am not shackled to any particular rigid ideology, all of which are easily hijacked by cynical persons. I'm not especially fond of labels, like "progressive" or "liberal," because I understand what those things actually mean in a historical context. The progressives were great, but they cynically used racism to achieve their ends (see: Woodrow Wilson). Liberals are also great, but they also provided the ideological basis for laissez-faire capitalism. The nice thing about liberalism is that its proponents generally opposed conformity and homogenaity. You appear to take the opposite position, despite the fact that your views are generally not the view of people that are described as liberals or progressives today.

Hilariously these labels are used to describe the same people nowadays, though they are actually diametrically opposed historically on several issues (i.e. role of government). I reject these labels for myself because I know what they actually mean in that context. If you want to label me, I prefer left-wing or socialist.

"what do you think progressive principles are?"

Social justice (relevant here), the idea that government and its practices should evolve as society evolves (relevant here). The desire for less corruption in government (I despise the corrupting influence of the NRA). Environmentalism. Opposition to strict constructivism and conservatism (i.e. your homeboy Scalia). Support of labor over business in that eternal struggle. (The NRA routinely uses hysterical shrieking about the gun issue to bamboozle workers into voting against their best interests, lists the AFL-CIO as an enemy, supports anti-union politicians.) The bonus here is that these are positions that actually dovetail with THE REAL PROGRESSIVES of the last century.

You want things to be simple, but they aren't simple. You want for there to be a book of rules for you to follow so you don't have do deal with pesky realities and independent thought. It's not enough to mindlessly chant "liberty" and "constitution" as the teabaggers do. You have to actually consider the impact on other people of your position. Your position and related organizations harm people all around me.

And since I've consistently said that individual liberty, freedom, and choice should be protected, I'm not sure how you got conformity and homogeneity out of that.

What I think you're saying is that you choose positions on individual topics based on your own experience - which is fine, we all do it. But, you're rejecting a whole other dimension of thinking critically about those topics through the lens of deeper convictions, principles, and ideals (that choice, freedom, liberty, justice stuff that you keep dismissing as pablum). These deeper principles may also be arrived at through critical thinking and experience, but once they are they should carry more weight that opinion/experience on any individual point. When one does the more difficult thinking, one often realizes that what he 'believes' may often come in conflict with what he 'wants.'

One of my core principles is that individual liberty/choice is paramount (again, the opposite of conformity). Social justice/community needs is also a basic principle - those two ideals often come in conflict. When they do, choices have to be made, and I guide those choices by requiring an articulable compelling social need before I'll accept over-riding the individual choice. On the topic of firearms, many DUers appear willing to skip that latter step; a mindset which I consider overly-flexible and insufficiently thoughtful...

"freeper propaganda"

I didn't say there was such a provision, and I disagree with bans....not because I think they are unconstitutional necessarily, but because bans provoke such hyperbolic overractions from the gun crowd. I prefer guns that keep these hyperbolic overreactions to a minimum, though of course some gun people will overreact to anything.

But:

Boston in 1746 had a law prohibiting the “discharge” of “any Gun or Pistol charged with Shot or Ball in the Town” on penalty of 40 shillings, a law that was later revived in 1778. See Act of May 28, 1746, ch. 10; An Act for Reviving and Continuing Sundry Laws that are Expired, and Near Expiring, 1778 Massachusetts Session Laws, ch. 5, pp. 193, 194. Philadelphia prohibited, on penalty of 5 shillings (or two days in jail if the fine were not paid), firing a gun or setting off fireworks in Philadelphia without a “governor’s special license.” See Act of Aug. 26, 1721, §4, in 3 Mitchell, Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania 253–254. And New York City banned, on penalty of a 20-shilling fine, the firing of guns (even in houses) for the three days surrounding New Year’s Day. 5 Colonial Laws of New York, ch. 1501, pp. 244–246 (1894); see also An Act to Suppress the Disorderly Practice of Firing Guns, & c., on the Times Therein Mentioned, 8 Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania 1770–1776, pp. 410–412 (1902) (similar law for all “inhabited parts” of Pennsylvania). See also An Act for preventing Mischief being done in the Town of Newport, or in any other Town in this Government, 1731, Rhode Island Session Laws (prohibiting, on penalty of 5 shillings for a first offense and more for subsequent offenses, the firing of “any Gun or Pistol … in the Streets of any of the Towns of this Government, or in any Tavern of the same, after dark, on any Night whatsoever”).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

So legal to own it, but illegal to "discharge" it for any reason. That means the trigger lock/disassembly provision would be entirely in keeping with these local laws, and the precedent that cities are free to pass laws restricting guns within their city limits is also there.

So one couldn't fire a gun after dark or on the three days surrounding New Year's? And from this you go to trigger locks? Maybe we have different definitions of "entirely in keeping." Would the local constable come around at dusk and on holidays to check and see that the trigger locks were on? "Five o'clock and all's well: guns locked or disassembled."

No, these are "disturbing the peace" ordinances: "to Suppress the Disorderly Practice of Firing Guns." They would disarm no one, and had nothing to do with incapacitating one's firearms. Such laws are still in force, but you'll find that many municipalities make an exception for the firing of a gun in legitimate self-defense, or at the very last are not inclined to prosecute the petty offense if the shooting was deemed to be justified.

So where were we? Oh, back at the issue of home rule being allowed to trump civil rights only when guns are involved.

this time, read more carefully.

It lists about five statutes. I specifically referred to two of them, but the intent of all of them is the same: to prevent public nuisances and disturbances of the peace. They say nothing about possessing or carrying, and as I said, would in all likelihood not be applied to a case of legitimate self-defense, neither now nor then.

"It is a position that denies people in our larger cities their rights to self-determination and self-preservation."

Isn't recognizing and celebrating rights a progressive thing? Yet progressives always want to deny the RKBA. The ACLU will take any case out there concerning the bill of rights EXCEPT for the RKBA. Progressives are on the wrong side.

"It's a position that subjects democratic constituencies to the tyranny of the right wing NRA, overturns laws that localities pass to protect themselves and their communities."

But progressives have always been about individual rights yet they deny the individual right "to protect themselves and their communities."

I would very much like to see the NRA out of the way in this discussion. The NRA is an impediment to constructive debate.

Yet progressives always want to deny the RKBA

Don't tell whatshisname...he thinks he can tell people what progressives are and are not.

"But progressives have always been about individual rights yet they deny the individual right "to protect themselves and their communities."

As an actual non NRA member progressive, I recognize that no right is absolute, and that all of our rights need to be balanced against potential harm they do to others. And yes, bullets do harm people.

Thanks again for showing your dishonesty.

YUP

The only time the media speaks negatively or has someone on speaking negatively about PP is when they are talking abortion, sterilization.

I believe McDonald v. Chicago to be just as valid as Roe v. Wade, even though those who support one rarely support

the other...

Its starting to make sense now....

Condoms? The pill? IUD?

perhaps that would be a personal opinion yes?

Green doesnt speak for me at least

Planned Parenthood does birth control counseling and asists in family planning. You make unwarranted assumptions.

Yes, I was kidding about PP making a house call.

appear to recognize that there was a joke here.

I will have to take your word for it, as I don't listen to him, but apparently you do.

I am subjected to limbaugh language frequently...and again here when you use it.

:rofl:


I had forgotten how pathetic your posts were.

that send people to the hospital?