The juicy bit:
> “Both the patient and his companion were properly instructed regarding the procedures for accessing the examination room and warned about the removal of any and all metallic objects,” they [a spokesman for the MRI facility] declared.
> The facility’s PR added that both Novaes and his mother signed a form regarding the protocols, but that the lawyer failed to mention his weapon and entered the unit with it “by his own decision.”
> A police probe confirmed that the [concealed and undeclared] weapon was registered and that the attorney had a valid license for it.
Too bad about the lawyer lingering for 3 weeks in a hospital, before he finally died of his wounds. But otherwise, this sounds like cut-and-dried case of "exercised his own fully-informed free will in taking the risk, and no bystanders nor innocents were injured".
The person with the gun died, however it would be a lot less stress to the mother, and the medical staff if this hadn’t happened.
It is a bit flimsy to say he had declared this, some people might just have a mental block. A metal detector should ensure that there’s no confusion.
I’m guessing whilst a solution, it might not be feasible to get the clearance funding, and ongoing maintenance of such a device.
theGeatZhopa•6mo ago
If no one had guns, no one would die from scrunity of whom ever. Very unpopular opinion, I understand, but as an european where guns are "forbidden", I fully support "no guns" politics because my experience show, its better for me not to be killed on any ocassions - which obviously did not happen till today. Thank you Europa.
stop50•6mo ago
yostrovs•6mo ago
theGeatZhopa•6mo ago
The comparisons to other countries regulations & rules I learn from media coverage, let me derive an individual opinion. This opinion can be contradicted and revised by experiences I may make in the future. For now, I think - it's better not to posses a gun. Even I think it's a lot of fun to go on a shooting-range without years of certifications, which are needed, if you want to do it here. Also, not possessing a gun let the policemen be relaxed on this topic and not to start shooting because of the fear "it might be a gun, one reaches for in the pocket.", for example.
"as an European" is just to express that "I live in a different world with other rules and so my thinking is based on that". It's not an offense. Its rather a framing in the start of an discussions, so each participant already knows the positions and can adjust the discussion-style/arguments/...
Why do you feel strange? You're given the information about your discussion partner upfront and don't have to do the work of finding out, with a possible discussion-breaking argument? How can I do otherwise? Not mentioning it at all would do it, but then I may have to explain why I think like that and not the other way.. You care to explain your view on this, my friend? :)
yostrovs•6mo ago
salawat•6mo ago
theGeatZhopa•6mo ago
it could also happen in a sauna with one sitting alone and having the gun put aside. Of course, "why do you bring a gun into a sauna? Its your fault.." No its not. Its not supposed to shoot without pulling the trigger. So one can carry the gun to any places without being shot by it.
salawat•6mo ago
>It could also happen in a sauna with one sitting alone and having the gun put aside.
Horse hockey. Most rounds will only go off at 275° Fahrenheit and above, and if they aren't chambered, aren't a problem. Yes, people have set out to deliberately set off ammunition to characterize the thermal sensitivity of it, and most primers are specifically designed to be more shock sensitive than thermally sensitive. If you're in a 275° sauna with a loaded firearm with a round chambered and pointed at yourself, I would still categorize that as a you problem, not an it problem.
https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/cook-off-temperatur...
>Its not supposed to shoot without pulling the trigger.
The trigger was literally pulled by the executive decision to introduce the loaded firearm to an environment that replaces the dominant form of safing, the mechanical interlocks, with an alternate triggering mechanism. It wasn't magic. You take ferromagnetic thing near big magnet, big magnet pulls magnetic thing (firing pin) forward, firing pin strikes primer of chambered round. ND.
The device is designed to prevent the pin moving forward under typical usage conditions via push by mechanical safeties (which depending on the strength of magnetic field and the material they are fabricated from could compromise their function as well), but has no constraint on pulling. Why? Because no one is generally considered to be daft enough to waltz into an MRI or other Big Frigging Magnet with a loaded firearm with a round chambered, especially after it has been pointed out that all metal on your person must be safely stored for access to the MRI. This is a glorified lesson on why when your life is at stake, you double up on safety. Don't just trust that hydraulic jack. Use a jack stand. You can't even make the argument that the firing train shouldn't have ferromagnetic parts, because most jurisdictions require metallic components capable of being detected by a metal detector.
Things the user could have done to rectify the situation as an increasingly responsible firearm owner:
A) Clear the round in the chamber. No round locked in, no problem, still jeopardizing the MRI machine, but no discharge risk. B) Put the weapon in the same locker everyone else puts their metal stuff in as procedures state. No risk to anyone's property at that point.
I'm sorry, but you won't convince me this was a failing of the weapon. This was a tragic, but nevertheless self-inflicted ND on the part of the wielder. No one else can be blamed for this gentleman's egregious lapse in vigilance, understanding of rudimentary physics, risk management, and the operating principles of his everyday carry.
theGeatZhopa•6mo ago
just to add, it's not only the trigger that can put into movement by the magnetic forces, or some secure-hinge, it also can be heat induced by magnetic fields / induction / in the bullet itself.
I stay with my view, though. When the gun were not brought in, it could not go off and, thus, no fatality. Its the gun & bullet that killed its possessor and not the MRT or the process of "bringing it in". The same would not happen with a printed, non-magnetic gun (if we put aside the bullet's ferromagnetism, if any..). So two guns - both brought in - one goes off - which one killed?? Like you said, horse hockey.
I could follow the argument "its not guns killing human, its the bullets" :)
sim7c00•6mo ago