Reply #9: I agree with your comment, but not sure about the point.

[Pert_UK]

If he'd have obeyed that rule about handling guns then he wouldn't have shot himself in the leg.

However, he didn't follow that rule and he died.

If he hadn't had a gun with him then there would be no way he could have shot himself, with human error playing no role in whether he lived or died.

Alternatively, if he DID have the gun but had decided NOT to pull it at that stage, then he wouldn't have shot himself.

If he hadn't have had a gun in the car, would he really have chased down an unknown perpetrator and placed himself in a position of danger where he felt he had no choice but to pull the gun in self-defence?

I don't know about you, but if someone crashed into me then refused to stop I might follow them for a while but I WOULD NOT then get out to remonstrate with them if they looked unstable of violent.

Did the gun give him false confidence which then put him into a position of being threatened, which he felt required pulling the gun?

I don't know, I really don't.

My basic point here is that every time someone gets accidentally shot then the "pro gun" people always highlight the rule that could have saved their life. The sad fact is that these rules are repeatedly ignored in the heat of confrontation and that there are many accidental shootings.

I'm playing devil's advocate, but it's like addressing the problem of burglary by saying "But if everyone obeyed the law which prohibits theft then there wouldn't be any burglary" and then taking no further action on it. Having a law or rule does not necessarily solve the problem, there needs to be focus on the enforcement.