Posted in Guns & Gun Control

Gun Automatically Shot Victim

   January 3, 2015

This should shoot holes (pun intended) in the meme that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. A police chief’s wife was supposedly shot by his gun and not his chiefness in their bedroom on New Years:

Police Chief William McCollom’s wife, who was shot and critically injured in a pre-dawn New Year’s Day shooting has now been revealed to have divorced him 15 years ago.

McCollom has told investigators that it wasn’t him, but instead his Glock service pistol that “automatically” shot his wife Margaret…

And not just one shot…but two!

Whodda thunk?

Share:

Related Articles

38 thoughts on “Gun Automatically Shot Victim”

  1. There needs to be more education about the dangers of having firearms in a household. Statistics show that having a gun in the house greatly increases the chances of a resident being shot in their own home. I am not anti-gun, but people should know the realities and the dangers. There should also be more required education before people are allowed to own a firearm.

  2. Ed, I’m unclear on how this disproves the meme that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” If you read a little into the link you provided it states:

    But gun’s do not “just go off.”

    When a firearm discharges it is because someone has done something to cause it to discharge. The notion that a gun was just laying in the bed with the two and at 4 a.m. McCollom decided he should get up and move it is preposterous in the extreme.

    If you have had a change of mind and this post was supposed to have the html SARCASM tag on, then bravo. If you are starting to use “preposterous evidence” to support your position, well, good luck with that.

  3. NEMO,

    Don’t lie.

    Your careful, sound, and strategic response demonstrates you’re crystal clear on Ed’s reasoning.

    Americans would take non-hunting firearms more seriously if we forced them to buy insurance on every weapon, and every round of ammo. This is why we tax alcohol. It’s so inexpensive to make, a tax is a way to communicate what a serious drug it is. W/R/T guns and ammo, weapon insurance acts just like a tax. You’re distributing the risk inherent in all firearms with the market forces in the property&casualty insurance industry. Those folks make a living gauging risk and they have incentives to see that responsible gun owners receive better rates.

    Universal background checks have to happen. Every time the NRA’s senseless policies let some mentally ill person discharge a weapon, the gun-control angels weep for joy.

        1. The NRA was not involved. May as well blame the man in the moon, you or me for a Police Chief who broke law, lied, careless or whatever. Not saying what happened is good, ok or acceptable. It is not.

          I’m not an NRA defender, I just recognize false blame (cop out). I read it here all the time. The tendency here is to lump all violent crime, accidents, stupidity and so on into one category and recent posts & comments here the last few days back that up. Ed, Zach, Steve, John, Duane and more. A gun was involved, blame the NRA. Blame is not a solution.

          I view the NRA as pro 1st amendment, pro gun safety and anti-crime. I would suggest that the “anti-gunners” work with the “gunners” regarding crime, safety and education.
          But what happens is the anti’s go after the gunners, who defend themselves, crime is unchecked as is safety and education. This is repeated again and again. Sound familiar.

          Look, there is not a person who reads this blog who likes the way our society has drifted with regard to bad human behavior.
          We are likely on the same page so why not work together?

          I don’t have all the answers, but would encourage folks to take a fresh look. The circle of blame and failure is not working.

          1. I haven’t blamed the NRA for diddly squat this past week…so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

            In the Idaho post I even listed the NRA safety classes in the quote from the Idaho AGs site and suggested that seemed like a reasonable level of training…

            And I don’t think the NRA gives a rat’s ass about the 1st Amendment…they think the other nine amendments should bow down and kiss the posterior of the second. So there, wish fulfilled, I have given you the requisite slam on the NRA to start off 2015!

          2. ig,

            You wrote: “I view the NRA as pro 1st amendment, pro gun safety and anti-crime.”

            You’re zero for three.

            1. Can demonstrators shoot police officers when they are ordered to take away their First Amendment rights?

            2. Aren’t gun deaths at an all time high, because the NRA, a wholly owned subsidiary of firearms manufacturers, have flooded America with guns and ammo?

            3. NRA isn’t helping with Wall Street crime.

            “Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval”

            http://seekingalpha.com/article/301260-bank-of-america-dumps-75-trillion-in-derivatives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approval

            To put $75 trillion in perspective, US GDP in 2012 was around $16.5 trillion. We blew a lot more than the $6 trillion they’re claiming in Iraq and Afghanistan. Social Security’s Trust Fund is around $2.3 trillion. Bank of America is just one Wall Street bank. They all have derivative exposure. I’ve seen estimates of $700 trillion, but I don’t think anyone knows.

              1. ig,

                You’re still zero for three.

                When was the last BB thread that you commented in? Please, post the link. I’d like to see it.

                Sure looks like your NRA handlers didn’t want you to miss this one.

                How much do they pay you per comment?

                That’s why your comments are always so short, right?

    2. John,
      Usually I’m the first one to endorse a market based solution, but not here. Taxing guns comes a little too close to a tax on speech or a poll tax for my liking. I’d bet that 5 of the 9 that count the most in such things would currently agree with this position. The solution to gun crime is to incarcerate the perpetrators. The solution to accidents involving firearms is much more ambiguous. Education is helpful as is training, but, tragically, little can fix stupid.

        1. John,

          Your wiki numbers on incarceration rates are interesting. And meaningless in this context. The solution to gun crime is to incarcerate the perpetrators [of gun crimes]. Citing the lockup rates of pots heads, jay walkers and men who have fallen behind on child support payments is not incarcerating the perpetrators of gun crimes.

          1. Nemo,

            How much does Corrections Corporation of America pay you per post? http://www.cca.com/

            Until you get behind universal background checks, and your NRA sponsors won’t let you, you’re closing the barn door after the horses have run off.

            1. John, there are several ways to approach this issue, each with its own costs and efficacy. Locking up violent criminals is far more effective than cheaply trampling the rights of the innocent. I prefer to save lives rather than count beans.

              1. Shorter Nemo:

                “As long as you pull off the robbery without too much violence, see white-collar fraud, Wall Street, exporting Defense jobs to foreign workers…., “NOOOOO prison time!”

                Nemo’s soft on white-collar crime.

                1. John,

                  Please cite the post or other publication where you found these statements that you have attributed to me, because they can not be logically implied on this comment thread. If I claim to like steak, you can not logically infer that I don’t like chicken. If I state that I like skiing, you can not logically infer that I dislike running. If I state that it’s good to segregate the violent from potential victims, it does not logically follow that I’m for “NOOOOO prison time!” for the felonious.

                  1. Nemo,

                    Conservative and liberals agree on ending the job-killing-government regulations against marijuana, ending the foreign occupations, and prosecuting Wall Street CEO’s.

                    Prove me wrong and link to a BB thread where you ever supported the “conlib” position on any of those three.

                    1. John,

                      In other words, you can’t cite the post where you pulled the aforementioned quote. I’m not sure how you compiled your “conlib” litmus test, but I do know that a thoughtful, measured response would pull this thread farther away from the posts topic (sorry Zach, Ed). Let’s save it for later on a thread that’s closer to the topics of your purity test. Until then, please stop making up quotes and attributing them to me. Thanks.

      2. Nemo,

        There’s nothing “market-based” about taxes. Markets are voluntary, taxes aren’t.

        1. I disagree Prime. Taxes can have the same effect on markets as would any other cost of production. If you slap a $10.00 per gallon tax milk, you will sell less milk. Supply and demand. Learn it. Know it. Live it.

          1. Hmmm. I may be wrong, but I suspect that we may actually have much in common and that the issue here is one of semantics. I consider a solution to be market-based if “the market” is allowed to resolve the situation. Taxes affect markets, but slapping a tax on a product is an attempt by politicians to manipulate the market and is, in reality, a political solution.

            Oh, and I’ll gladly compare economic bona fides with you. I’m well aware that even if you choose to ignore economics, economics isn’t going to ignore you.

            1. Logicus,

              Nemo’s a wingnut troll, who doesn’t understand #Modern Monetary Theory.

              He still thinks we borrow dollars from China and our grandchildren.

              You clearly understand that taxes, especially federal taxes, are “Demand Leakages: The 800lb Economist in the Room”

              “…Demand leakages are unspent income. For a given currency, if any agent doesn’t spend his income, some other agent has to spend more than his income, or that much output doesn’t get sold. So if the non government sectors collectively don’t spend all of their income, it’s up to government to make sure its income is less than its spending, or that much output doesn’t get sold. This translates into what’s commonly called the ‘output gap,’ which is largely a sanitized way of saying unemployment.

              And with the private sector necessarily pro cyclical, the (whopping) private sector spending gap in this economy can only be filled with by government via either a (whopping) tax cut and/or spending increase (depending on one’s politics).

              So wherefore the ‘demand leakages?’ The lion’s share are due to tax advantages for not spending your income, including pension contributions, IRA’s and all kinds of corporate reserves. Then there’s foreign hoards accumulated to support foreign exporters. And it all should be a very good thing — all of that net unspent income means that for a given size government, and a given non government rate of credit expansion, our taxes can be that much lower. Personally, I’d rather have a tax cut than a policy to get other people to spend their unspent income or borrow more. But that’s just me… …”

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-mosler/demand-leakages-the-800lb_b_1646916.html

              Link below is Palin, Obama, Ryan, Beck,…. every body else claiming we borrow from China, we borrow from our children, grandchildren

              https://www.dropbox.com/s/ujoc76aojso16dt/debt%20video%202%20min.mp4

              They’re all wrong.

              Per Modern Monetary Theory #MMT and the great @wbmosler “(Federal) Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete”

              “…The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements.
              The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks.
              The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold…”

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-mosler/taxes-for-revenue-are-obs_b_542134.html

              Nemo hasn’t figured out that capitalism runs on sales. The real “job creators” are consumers with money to spend. Federal taxes are “demand leakage.” That’s a bad thing. Less demand equals less supply which means lower wages and more unemployment. Nemo’s helping President Obama and Paul Ryan….. wage war on prosperity, by keeping federal corporate and personal income taxes high (payroll tax is most regressive).

              Wall Street’s already figured this out: “Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval”

              http://seekingalpha.com/article/301260-bank-of-america-dumps-75-trillion-in-derivatives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approval

              To put $75 trillion in perspective, US GDP in 2012 was around $16.5 trillion. We blew a lot more than the $6 trillion they’re claiming in Iraq and Afghanistan. Social Security’s Trust Fund is around $2.3 trillion. Bank of America is just one Wall Street bank. They all have derivative exposure. I’ve seen estimates of $700 trillion, but I don’t think anyone knows.

              Republicans are right. We need a FULL holiday brought back immediately on the payroll tax, federal income and corporate taxes on the 99%. Dems are right. We need a lot more federal spending on health care, education, and green infrastructure. Per brilliant UMKC Economics professor @stephaniekelton , in this very accessible 49-minute video http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/video-archive/2013/11/221-2524
              it’s not the federal budget that has to “balance.” What has to “balance,” are the three economic sectors: private (domestic), public, and foreign. When the private and domestic sectors are broke, the public sector has to SPEND.

              “UMKC’s Stephanie Kelton is named chief Democratic economist on the Senate Budget Committee” is really good news.

              http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article5168748.html

              “Four Reasons to see the deficit as your surplus”

              http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2014/02/24/deficit-as-your-surplus/

              The link below is to Mr. Mosler’s ideas back in 2009 for health care. It’s a gross understatement to call them the “public option” on steroids.
              http://moslereconomics.com/2009/03/02/mosler-health-care-proposal/

              The video diagram below, “Diagrams and Dollars,” is excellent, three minutes 40 seconds.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTZGU9s0idM

              From the Wall Street Journal’s @carney “How high should taxes get on the wealthy”
              http://www.cnbc.com/id/45402737

              “If you can have full employment killing Germans …”

              http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=25857

              Great MMT video money is like water

              http://econviz.org/?utm_content=bufferd2d50&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

              1. You’re barking up the wrong tree here. MMT is mostly a warmed-over reincarnation of Chartalism that, among its mistakes, confuses an accounting identity for insight. And while it’s true that government is not revenue-constrained with fiat money, the conclusions that MMTers draw from that fact have serious consequences that they hand-wave over once they get past the first or second order effects. It seems mostly to be a way to justify the political leanings of its adherents.

                  1. LP

                    Dr. Kelton’s slides in her 49-minute video are excellent.

                    Give me a time stamp on the first one you run across that you don’t agree with or understand.

                    1. I’ve spent way more than 49 minutes reading Kelton, along with many of the other luminaries of MMT, and I remain unimpressed. The foundational assumptions of MMT are so far off that it reminds me of Wolfgang Pauli’s quote: “This isn’t right. This isn’t even wrong.”

                2. LP,

                  If you had spent 5 minutes reading her, you’d be able to articulate with what you disagree.

                  Since you can’t do that, please by all means, list as many articles, books, …. as you claim to haveve read of Dr. Kelton’s. Rank them in order. Start with the best.

            2. Prime,

              I agree that taxes can be a market based political solution. Or anti-solution as the case may be. But what do I know, I’m a “wingnut troll”.

              1. Nemo, you’re a “bought and paid for wingnut troll.”

                You’ll write whatever the oligarchs want.

  4. What I find the most confounding in this report…is a police chief tried to get away with this excuse…if John Q Public had done this I ‘might’ understand.

    1. Simple, the chief’s been paying attention to the news. Police are getting away with killing unarmed people on a regular basis these days. He probably figured it would work for him, too. It’s a mistake to assume that the police are any more virtuous than “John Q Public.”

  5. It’s time for a name change to reflect the reality of the United States record of violent gun deaths to: “National Republican Assassinaters.”

    1. D12, go back a re-read the post and try to stay on topic.
      Oh, it that 30 caliber carbine, military assault rifle in your closet? Hypocrite.

      1. “Off topic,” is “independent guy” for I don’t like it.

        ig, please explain what’s “off topic” about National Republican Assassinaters?

        Looks perfectly “on topic” to me.

Comments are closed.