You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

5 People Shot at 3 Different Gun Shows on Gun Appreciation Day

Adam Peck
Think Progress / News Report
Published: Sunday 20 January 2013
A representative from Political Media, the group responsible for organizing Gun Appreciation Day, was not immediately available for comment.
Article image

If the gun advocates behind this year’s inaugural Gun Appreciation Day had hoped to use the day’s festivities to build support for their anti-regulation platform, they are going to have to wait another year.

Emergency personnel had to be called to the scene of the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, North Carolina after a gun accidentally discharged and shot two people at the show’s safety check-in booth just after 1 pm. Both victims were transported to an area hospital, and the Raleigh Fire Department announced that the show would be closed for the rest of the day.

Gun Appreciation Day is the combined effort of dozens of far-right organizations who have been vocal opponents of gun control advocates’ efforts to reduce the number of dangerous weapons on our streets and prevent them from ending up in the hands of people with criminal backgrounds or a history of mental illness. In response to a renewed push for sensible reforms of gun laws after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, groups like the National Rifle Association and the founders of Gun Appreciation Day have instead advocated for an increase in the number of guns in public places like elementary schools, arguing — falsely — that more guns will mean more protection for individuals.

But today’s unfortunate accident, which took place at a safety check in surrounded by hundreds of people who presumably have at least some training on how to properly handle a dangerous weapon, undermines that case. Earlier this week, an armed security officer at a Michigan charter school accidentally left his gun in a restroom that is regularly used by students as young as five years old.

A representative from Political Media, the group responsible for organizing Gun Appreciation Day, was not immediately available for comment.


Two similar incidents occurred at entirely separate gun shows in the Midwest, one in the Cleveland suburb of Medina, Ohio and the other at the state fairgrounds in Indianapolis, Indiana. In Ohio, the local ABC affiliate reports that one individual was brought to a hospital by EMS, and in Indiana Channel 8 WISH says that an individual shot himself in the hand while trying to reload his gun in the show parking lot. That brings the tally to 4 victims of gun violence so far at three different gun shows during the country’s first Gun Appreciation Day.


CNN is reporting that three people were injured at the gun show in Raleigh, not two as originally reported. All were victims of a shotgun that fired while the owner was removing it from a case.

Author pic
ABOUT Adam Peck

Adam Peck is a Reporter/Blogger for Think Progress at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Adam grew up just outside of New York City, and attended Stony Brook University’s School of Journalism. Before joining Think Progress, Adam was an intern at Countdown with Keith Olbermann at MSNBC in New York, and at Campus Progress in Washington, D.C. He was also the founder and editor of Think Magazine, the largest collegiate news organization on Long Island. His work has appeared in The New York Times, CNN and the BBC.

"Common Sense" tells me never

"Common Sense" tells me never to go to a Gun Show anytime you've got a majority of Tea-Baggers believing their 2nd amendment is under attack. Everytime this happens, Gun & Ammunition $ales go up and these companies are happy. Think about the mob mentality of these Tea-Bagger's! Would you really want to be even 50 feet near them? Let alone next to guns or automatic weapons. Imagine if someone put a Tape recording of ' I LOVE OBAMA ' or said something they REALLY disagreed with, you would never make it out of the Parking lot alive.

There is no defence for the

There is no defence for the insanity of American gun culture.Just look at the numbers of gun deaths compared to other countries and it says it all.Guns to stop gun violence is as insane as the idea that everyone should own a gun.Jeezuz.

Americans should insist that

Americans should insist that every home have a musket and enough powder and ball to defend.Anything else has nothing to do with the founding fathers.

I think Jefferson would feel

I think Jefferson would feel the intent of what he said those many years ago is definitely being misrepresented by the gun lobbyists today. He wanted to protect the American way of life not destroy it. Maybe Americans should go back to using only the guns that were used in his time.

Yes, people are killed by

Yes, people are killed by people, but guns are more efficient than most other means, such as a knife or a heavy object. Obviously bombs or planes are even more efficient, but it's much easier to get a gun. In any case, a lot more little children would be alive today if the guy in Sandy Hook had had only a knife.

BTW three of five gun deaths are suicides. People who kill themselves are often at a point in their lives where everything seems hopeless. If they have a gun they can end it quickly. But if they had to plan a less efficient means to do the job, like stockpiling pills, or a less reliable one, like trying to slash their wrists, they might have more time to realize that life is not so bad. Also, more people survive pill overdoses and wrist slashing attempts than a gun to the head. And if you think that finding someone who has committed suicide is traumatic, try finding someone whose face has been blown up by a gun. My husband still has flashbacks of finding his best friend that way. It would still have been painful to find him dead from an overdose of pills, but the nightmares would not be quite so bad.

Tragically Gun Mania is

Tragically Gun Mania is sexually driven therefore there is no logic or rationality associated with it. When you talk about trying to limit gun magazine sizes, gun nuts scream as if you'd asked to do something surgical to their John Thomas. Testosterone is a dangerous substance and seems to impair brain function.

Hey Peck...I mean

Hey Peck...I mean Pecker....thanks for your that your job or to just report the news??


"In response to a renewed push for sensible reforms of gun laws after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, groups like the National Rifle Association and the founders of Gun Appreciation Day have instead advocated for an increase in the number of guns in public places like elementary schools, arguing — falsely — that more guns will mean more protection for individuals."

At least 69 shot in America

At least 69 shot in America on gun appreciation day: 30 killed, 39 injured

What's so much better than

What's so much better than Pro-Gun Violence vitriols killing people who propose common sense regulation of weapons? Pro-Gun Violence vitriols killing themselves if they don't get their way.
We just simply should be glad it wasn't Nuclear Warhead Appreciation Day.

Nuclear Warhead Appreciation

Nuclear Warhead Appreciation Day occurs in Iran. "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed". -Alexander Hamilton

Honestly why did they feel

Honestly why did they feel they had to close the gun show down for the rest of the day? If they had kept it open who knows how many more of these gun loving perverts might have met their just rewards!

Keep guns out of criminals,

Keep guns out of criminals, mentally impaired, and people who do not have sufficient training to use them. People who sell guns at gun shows circumvent background checks and other necessary regulation, and today some of them paid a price for it.

Those were not accidents. A safety check is done to ensure the gun doesn't fire as it is being carried and handled, because there is the possibility that it could fire. Obviously the safety check was done by incompetent people (including the two policemen involved), because they have to assume that a gun may fire and should be aimed safely, otherwise what is the point of doing the check? I smell lawsuits in the air.

Timothy McVeigh killed 168

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people (19 of which were small children), injured 680 and no firearm was used at all. Should we regulate fertilizer, diesel fuel and boxtrucks? 19 hijackers bypassed the security of the greatest nation on earth, flew airliners into buildings & the ground killing 3,000... not one single firearm was used. Just box cutters! Is it becoming clearer that it's not the device but the evil,evil person? I hate it but there will always be mass murders and restricting firearms will not change a thing except to make criminals out of law abiding citizens. The evil doers will always have their weapon of choice no matter what. Very sad but true!

So by that logic, bombs and

So by that logic, bombs and bazookas should be freely available because its only evil people who use whatever device is available to kill people, and not the availability of weapons that make the task of killing a large number of people with speed and easy use that we should be concerned about, eh?

And FYI, the purchase of nitrogen fertilizer and fuel has been regulated for many, many years regardless. The fact that you didn't know it yet somehow felt life was still worth living is a case in point for all the lunatics who believe life has changed in a fundamental way if regulation are passed saying all military assault weapons hall henceforth be used only by the military personnel they were explicitly designed to use.

Yes, Timothy McVeigh did

Yes, Timothy McVeigh did those things, and you know what? He was another wingnut who considered the federal government his enemy (kinda reminds me of all those "try to take my guns from me" statements being flashed around).

But Timothy didn't do his dastardly act on the spur of the moment, like Adam Lanza apparently did. It took time, patience, and planning. Yes, people can always find ways to kill other people, but nothing's as QUICK and EASY as firing an assault rifle into a crowded theater.

But using your logic, I guess we should allow shoulder-fired missiles into our neighborhoods, because, after all, people can kill by dozens of different ways, right? And maybe privately-owned mortars and grenades and machine guns, too...because, as you say, a killer can always find a way, right?

The wise course of action would be to limit the kinds of people-killing tools designed only for killing lots of people easily. I still haven't heard a sound or valid reason why our private citizens should own assault rifles.

I think you are missing a big

I think you are missing a big point - it is not the prevention of a relatively miniscule number of deaths from mass murders that would be the greatest benefit of gun control, but it might help prevent the far greater number of gun shooting deaths that result from gun negligence and spontaneous acts of passion, either murders or suicides. These Firearms Appreciation injuries highlight the potential benefits of having fewer guns in the world. But I don't wish to try to pry anyone's gun from his or her hands - its not worth my effort, when humanity's survival is threatened by runaway climate change, which is looming over us. Once we get that threat dealt with, then maybe I'll have time to look at what gun control measures could and should be implemented.

You make too much sense to be

You make too much sense to be on this site. Something that is never discussed about 9/11 is what would have happened if pilots and co-pilots were allowed to carry arms on their aircraft. I believe the towers would still be standing and 3,000 fellow citizens would still be alive.

So a guy comes into the

So a guy comes into the cockpit of the airliner pointing a gun at the pilot and co-pilot. What do you think happens then? The pilot or co-pilot starts reaching for his gun while strapped into his seat? Or not strapped into his seat? And the gunman will do what, stand there and watch?

Or to follow your dream, what if the hijacker just has a boxcutter, that he puts to the pilots throat? Pilot going to start reaching for a gun?

The problem with the gun nuts is they think it all happens like a Clint Eastwood movie. It never seems to occur to them that it is usually all over before people know what has happened.

Actually, Mister B, if the

Actually, Mister B, if the airlines had placed secure, lockable doors on their cockpits (as is now required), the terrorists would not have gained control of the planes. The airlines whined so much about the costs of the installation that the corporate controlled Congress never pushed the issue.

Right. And if Jews had guns

Right. And if Jews had guns there would have been no Holocaust, either eh?
Tell that to the French whom I believe had a couple guns lying around as well (HUGE guns lining the "impregnable Maginot Line" which the Germans found a way to get around, then captured and used against their owners..... Which is a good metaphor for what happens with weapons time and again to people who buy a gun believing it can only help, never harm their personal safety)

You are my prospect #1 for a

You are my prospect #1 for a bridge I am selling...this bridge does not belong to me ... it does not span a chasm or river... in fact it does not exist! ...but with your exciting logic, you are certainly my best prospect! Call me!

Idiot, try comparing apples

Idiot, try comparing apples to apples.

"No free man shall ever be

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms". -Thomas Jefferson

I rest my case!

I rest my case!

But the numbers do not lie.

But the numbers do not lie. The more guns we have at large in the society, the more deaths we have from guns.

Your tack says it does not matter, but that is demonstrably not true. Sure, any one or several deaths MAY be due to some other factor, but the increase in numbers means that SOME of those deaths MUST be due to the increase in firearms.

No way around that one. More is more.

I guess Dick Cheney shooting

I guess Dick Cheney shooting some guy in the face is ok, though.... yes?

"Guns don't kill." So you

"Guns don't kill." So you don't mind if I take your guns: what other use do you have for them? Are you going to use them to drive nails - peel carrots - brush your hair? OF COURSE GUNS KILL!!!

Guns are not the problem,

Guns are not the problem, murderers are.

Wrongo! Murderers with guns

Wrongo! Murderers with guns are the problem. Guns enable murderers. Guns make it EASY TO KILL people, including yourself. And assault rifles make it EASY to kill LOTS of people. And the more of these mass-killing tools are in circulation, the more killers can access them.

Suppose you had a neighbor who had the "hobby" of developing a gas or chemical that could be sprayed, and if used for the purpose he designed them for, could easily and quickly kill a large room-full of people. Wouldn't that make you more than a little concerned? He might say the Constitution guarantees him the right to "pursue happiness," and his hobby, though dangerous, is what makes him happy.

Would you really accept that? And how about if he had no burglar-proof system of protecting his lab in the cellar? And maybe he wasn't acting very balanced himself? Would you still say, "the Constitution guarantees him that right" and go on your merry way?

I think not. Well, how do you think the majority of Americans, who don't own guns, feel about all of these private arsenals with AR-15s and the like?

Are they secure? No.

Is it impossible for the gun-owner to ever freak out and take his AR-15 to the theater in the mall? No.

Now you might understand our concerns about those gun - collectors who seem to be a little off-balance and boast of armed resistance to the national government.

Here's the math: Murderers =

Here's the math:

Murderers = Deaths.

Guns (by purpose) = Deaths.

Murderers PLUS Guns = MORE Deaths.

Considering what is at stake,

Considering what is at stake, is it out of the question that these "gun show incidents" were staged?
Our American way of life, our heritage is under attack. We have seen what the Muslims are capable of. And when one of their own is elected president of the country nothing is out of bounds.

You fit the profile developed

You fit the profile developed by social psychologists hired by DHS to provide their counter-terrorism branch with list of traits typical of those who most often snap under emotionally traumatizing circumstances.
What you and so many of these militia-men, sovereign citizens, neo-confederates fail to realize is that it is precisely this type of hostile rhetoric directed at legitimate government that will bring an attack by gov. agents defending a government the rest of us elected.
A fetish for guns, and that all-crucial trait terrorists must have that allows their violence to manifest is an ability to justify it all as actions with "rights" , patriotic duty, or other memes nationalists use. All claims made very often by those on trial for crimes not covered as well as the more glamorous Nazi's were being tried over in the main court at Nuremberg.

I'll bet you're a racist who

I'll bet you're a racist who lives in a red state. I'm an old guy, and I've never seen such vitriolic hatred of an elected president as some people display toward Obama.

"Muslim, America-hater, Socialist, Communist, Hitler, Nazi, tyrant," the list boggles the mind. Anything, it seems, to disguise the fact that you hate Obama because he doesn't look like you.

Our European allies and partners consider Obama a "moderate," and rightly so, but wingnuts can't make up their minds if he's Hitler or the Anti-Christ or a Muslim terrorist or...?

Who does your thinking for you? That big fat druggie clown, Rush Blimbpag? Or maybe that skinny bottle blonde from a privileged background named "Ann."

And you wonder why sane people view gun-freaks with alarm?

What, staged by the

What, staged by the gun-owners? Why?

Oh, I get it. You watch far too much Alex Jones.

People actually getting shot at gun shows (when YOU thought there WAS no safer place to be) MUST be because Muslims-and-Progressives are CONSPIRING to go to gun shows and shoot themselves with their fancy lead-propelling gadgets...

Consider this as an alternate theory: The recent push for gun ownership has many people scared into buying guns, whose, um, "mental evolution" is um, not quite up to the task of handling deadly weapons in public? Eh?

Makes MUCH more sense to me.

The mentally-unhinged idea you just put forth, likening the Reichstag fire to these people shooting themselves, is purely drivel. For one, the Reich JUMPED on the burning of the Reichstag, to drive home their message and solidify their coup. So far, NOTHING from the Obama Presidency at all.

Doesn't he KNOW that he has to JUMP on this sort of set-up?

(well, if it WERE one...)

Wow, redscho351 - you need to

Wow, redscho351 - you need to stop watching Fox (s0-called) news and Limbaugh so much and expand your information horizon a little bit.

By the way, could you possibly explain to me and the millions of other inquiring minds what the first half of the 2nd Amendment means and why it is ignored by so many so called gun enthusiasts when they talk about gun ownership rights?

It seems clear that the

It seems clear that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to support a (state) militia. Nevertheless, the second amendment is the only part of any of our Great Documents that is grammatically faulty. If it were any other law, a court would throw it out for being vague or imprecise. The second amendment derives its meaning from rulings by the Supreme Court, whose justices are not infallible as history has shown in many other cases.

Unfortunately those on the far right believe the second amendment is unlimited, despite a Supreme Court ruling. Others believe they will again have to fight King George III (metaphorically speaking). Give them muskets and horse-drawn cannon (literally speaking).

Can you tell me what "right

Can you tell me what "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" means? Does it say "the right of the army ... or militia"? NO it says "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"
No one ignores the first part of the amendment, but it doesn't alter who the 2nd amendments guarantees the rights of .... the people.

But that's exactly what

But that's exactly what gun-hobbyists do, ignore the first clause of the Second Amendment. If the second clause isn't dependent on the first, why even include that blather about a "well-regulated militia?" When the Second Amendment was adopted, in 1791, America had no standing army or national arsenal. Able-bodied men could be called up to form a militia to protect the young Republic from external enemies and to enforce the authority of the national government, such as putting down resistance or rebellion by people who decided they didn't like the laws passed by the national government. (Witness what President Washington did in 1794 about the "Whiskey Rebellion." Look it up.)

Aside from that, in 1791 most of the people lived on farms in rural areas. There were still lots of wild animals back then (bears, bobcats and cougars, for example) and misplaced aborigines who might attack a defenseless farmer and his family. It made sense for citizens to have the weapons to defend themselves and to use if called up for militia service to the national government.

Those justifications no longer exist.

Sure, the Supreme Court decided (erroneously, I believe) that the Second Amendment was still valid and guaranteed for citizens the right to own firearms; but they did rule it was NOT an "unlimited right." You can't own missiles or other weapons for mass destruction. And assault rifles are weapons of mass destruction, because they make it quick and easy to kill LOTS of people.

There's no justification for citizens to own military-style assault rifles. You don't need an AR-15 to stop a burglar who invades your space, or to bring down a deer in the woods. The more of them that are in private collections around the country, the more access criminals or looney family members have to these mass-killing tools.

But the first phrase DOES lay

But the first phrase DOES lay out the PURPOSE of that arms-bearing in very clear language. It DOES NOT SAY it is for personal or home self-protection. It DOES NOT SAY it is so we'll have the weapons to counter our own government when/if the need arises.

What it SAYS is that a free people need to maintain a "militia." And by the attachment of that second phrase, to that first phrase, we see that the GUNS are meant for the MILITIA.

And that was all in the days BEFORE we kept a standing army of any caliber. NOW, the "need" for militias is moot -- at least those needed "for the security of a free nation."

Yes, that is a SIMPLE concept. TOO simple, maybe, for a conspiracy-minded public to get.

So, what does the first part

So, what does the first part of the 2nd Amendment mean? And what is its relationship to the SECOND part of the amendment, which means it (the second part) must follow the first part's intent. I doubt that you can logically answer the question since despite your protestation, YOU are ignoring the first part.

Allison... I hate to disagree

Allison... I hate to disagree with you but every day deranged people get in their vehicles and plow down innocent children and adults. They are called "Drunk Drivers". Maybe you've not had a friend or family member "plowed down" in such a way, but I have and I don't blame the vehicle. If you've not been raised around guns I understand your beliefs and opinions. You must understand that these restrictions will not hinder the deranged mass murderer any more than restricting types of vehicles would keep drunk drivers off the road. We must strictly enforce the laws that are already in place. Every time I get into my car I remind myself of the awesome responsibility of driving down the road. Every time I use my firearm for practice or hunting, I also remind myself of the awesome responsiblity!

And we register both vehicles

And we register both vehicles and drivers since they can be lethal if used improperly, and few people object to those sensible precautions, even though they can't prevent the first vehicular homicide a person commits. But they are useful for taking the person who commits homicide with a vehicle off the road so he can't kill anyone else. Gun registration of all guns could give this nation a similar benefit - if the owner was negligent and allowed their gun to get into a situation where it harmed an innocent person, they would and should be liable for it and should not be entrusted with owning a weapon again.

Parhound, you make a false

Parhound, you make a false equivalency. A drunk driver does not intentionally kill. Nor can he kill as many people as he could if he had an automatic firearm. And I do believe that making automatic weapons unavailable and other firearms harder to obtain would make a difference in the number of gun related deaths. Good for you that you remind yourself of your "awesome" responsibility in handling your car and your rifle. What makes you think every other citizen does the same?

Some people argue, that

Some people argue, that automobiles kill thousands too and indeed they do, but the difference is, that the prime purpose of an automobile is transportation, as opposed to that of a gun, which is killing and usually purposely so. A coward uses a gun and a civilized person his/her intelligence. And what is so sporty and civilized about killing a defenseless animal? To me it is nothing short of barbaric.

I take it Cartesius, that you

I take it Cartesius, that you are a vegetarian or vegan, for if you make that statement (killing an animal is barbaric) and eat meat, you'd be a hypocrit. I'm vegetarian, but I recognize that my survival also depends on the consumption of living beings, albeit plants. I'd prefer that animals only be killed humanely, when our survival demands it, and not be made into an industry of gluttony. But I also recognize that starvation & disease are a horrific ways to die, and that is what has happened to many deer herds in the absence of their natural predators, the wolves. So it is necessary for some humans to cull the herds, but they should try to take the weakest ones like the wolves do, and it is not necessary to go after the deer with what are essentially assault weapons of war. Last year, the hunters of a field near my home used what sounded like a rocket launcher against the deer - where is the sport in that?

Dinner. It's called dinner

Dinner. It's called dinner when one goes bird shooting. It's much better than the automated slaughterhouses your dinner dies in.
I live in tediously boring NoWhere, which is where I grow your food. But if I want to eat I have to keep a kitchen garden and hunt or fish. Get off your attitude. You don't drive two hours to a grocery and probably have great take out. Made with stuff I grow.

Now, these civilian version M-16 assault guns; Nobody here has them as they're useless. I did have some men from the city arrested for attempted poaching with those things. Pitiful people with no understanding of bullet equals dead. I say draconian assault rifle prohibition and more paintball ranges for losers to play Rambo on.

I agree with Cartesius and

I agree with Cartesius and others who have commented that the auto comparison doesn't hold up. I also support gun control and I definitely support a ban on automatic weapons. Have you ever heard of a driver committing mass murder by plowing down 20 children and 6 adults? When was the last time you heard about a driver forcibly mowing people down on crowded streets or on lawns in residential neighborhoods? Maybe a driver could motor through the walls of a crowded theater and run people over. C'mon people - be rational. Yes, cars are dangerous. Drivers have fatal accidents. But even a drunk driver does not intentionally kill. But people use guns to intentionally kill others. And police patrol the streets and issue citations to drivers who are observed breaking the rules. Thre is no comparable way for law enforcement personnel to monitor the use of guns. And that is why their has to be control what kind of guns should be sold and to whom they should be issued. Just because the constitution allows a citizen to bear arms doesn't mean every citizen is fit to bear arms. Gun advocates, especially those who fiercely assert that they have a constitutional right to own guns, to the exclusion of all other facets of the issue, should be a little more introspective. Ask yourself if it's possible that an inordinate amount of fear is clouding your judgement? We need reasonable citizens to think about and discuss this very important issue.

You know, a quick google

You know, a quick google search about drivers plowing down innocent people pulls up an alarming number of hits. Here's just one: It happens more often than you think. Just sayin'.

PDXDOUGG, the incident you

PDXDOUGG, the incident you cite happened in London, England. Also, you claim it happens more than I think. Where are the examples to back up your statement?'s my 2nd's my 2nd amendment right to shoot and get shot too.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...