The first incident was one of an "accidental discharge" of a semiautomatic pistol by a woman who is a member of the Kentucky state legislature (Rep. Leslie Combs). News reports indicated she was unloading the pistol in her office, although the reason for this was not entirely clear. She said something about having decided she did not wish to use the gun any more, according to a few news accounts, although most reports gave no reason at all for her actions. This doesn't really make any sense. If a member of the legislature with a concealed carry permit decided that she no longer wished to go about armed with a loaded handgun, why would she suddenly decide to unload it in her office?
Setting aside that question, the incident is illustrative of a few important points. First is that one must be thoroughly familiar with the operations of any handgun one carries or otherwise possesses. She clearly had a lapse: apparently she did not realize the gun had a round in the chamber when she pulled the trigger. Presumably she made the error of thinking it was unloaded after removing the magazine. This error is sufficiently common that some pistols are designed with a "magazine safety." This makes it impossible to fire a round that is in the chamber if there is no magazine in place in the gun's receiver.
[In case you're wondering, there is a reason some pistols do not have a magazine safety. Although such a safety makes a pistol somewhat more idiot-resistant, it also makes it impossible to fire the round in the chamber if one is in the midst of changing magazines or has somehow accidentally pressed the button that ejects the magazine. In a life-threatening situation, being unable to fire the round in the chamber because there is no magazine in the receiver could have tragic consequences. On the other hand, making a pistol more idiot-resistant has great appeal. When I teach people about pistols, I tell them they must be aware of how a magazine safety operates, decide whether they want the pistol they are going to keep or carry to have such a safety or not, and know whether any pistol they possess is so designed. I also teach them how to find out, if they aren't sure, by having a round in the chamber, removing the magazine, pointing the gun downrange, and squeezing the trigger.]
So my guess is that Rep. Combs had removed the magazine and had not checked for a round in the chamber. Then, when she pulled the trigger, she learned two things: there was a round in the chamber, and her pistol did not have a magazine safety. Such foolishness on the part of a gun owner is most unfortunate and proved quite embarrassing, given that the incident occurred in her office. Did she do anything right? Absolutely. She obeyed the first and most important rule of gun safety: she had the gun pointed in a safe direction. (That rule is commonly stated either of two ways. Always have the gun pointed in a safe direction. Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy. Notice the inherent assumption that any gun is loaded, no matter how sure you are that it isn't. The bullet struck the base of a bookcase.)
Why did this happen? Inadequate training? Mental lapse? We cannot tell from the news reports. Despite the statement that she had decided she no longer wished to have a loaded gun in her possession, for unstated reasons, she remains a staunch supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.
The other news story was much more disturbing.
A retired police office got into an argument with another patron of a movie theater, who was texting on a phone. The movie hadn't started yet. The officer went to report the other patron to cinema personnel, who reportedly took no action. The texting patron was nevertheless annoyed about having been reported. The argument escalated. The texting patron reportedly threw popcorn at the officer. There may be missing details in the reports of the sequence of events, but the accounts I've read make no mention of any blows being struck before the officer drew a pistol and shot the other patron and that man's wife. The man who was texting died, and his wife was wounded and taken to hospital.
At the cinema near my home, where I go to see a movie on infrequent occasions, there is a very emphatic announcement, which goes on at some length, about how the use of a phone for talking, texting, web browsing, etc. during the movie will not be tolerated and will result in the removal of the patron. That seems reasonable to me. Confronting someone who is texting before the movie has begun does not. If I didn't know there was going to be an announcement, I might say to my fellow moviegoer, in the most congenial manner I could summon, that I hoped he wouldn't do that during the movie. But probably not. And if his reaction was unfriendly, I'd probably just move.
I've read a great deal about the decision to carry a concealed handgun, and one of the recurring themes is that this places upon the person carrying the gun a great burden of responsibility to avoid conflict, and to do everything possible to deescalate any conflict that occurs. A verbal argument that has the potential to escalate into a fistfight becomes a much more serious undertaking if it has the potential to escalate into a shooting.
The striking thing about this story is that the shooter was a retired police officer. If anyone has been trained to use, in any sort of interpersonal conflict, all manner of behaviors short of physical force, and all manner of physical force short of lethal force, it is a police officer. Therefore, the shooter's background is a compelling reminder that training is no guarantee that a person will adhere to important principles of nonviolent conflict resolution. Such education and training is a good thing, and not only for people who have guns. In my work as an emergency physician, I see people every day who could have benefited from it and perhaps avoided injuries from punches, kicks, impact weapons, and sharp implements.
As I'm sure you would guess, these stories have generated many comments on news websites and in social media. Those who dislike guns cite these incidents as evidence that human beings simply cannot be trusted to behave carefully and rationally, even when they appear to be the sort who could be relied upon to do just that. The conclusion they draw is that people just should not be allowed to go about armed.
As you might guess if you are a regular reader, that is not the conclusion I reach.
This is because I believe in the right of self defense as a fundamental, natural human right, and I believe we live in a society in which, for some of us, the exercise of that right may require the availability of lethal force in the form of a gun. Without that, the elderly, the frail, the weak, and the slow will always be at the mercy of those who are malevolent and who are young, strong, and quick, even if they are not themselves armed.
So the conclusions I draw are straightforward. All who possess firearms have an obligation to be well trained, to practice frequently, and to learn thoroughly and internalize profoundly the legal and ethical principles governing the use of lethal force in self defense.
