> “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".
I chose not to link to the New York Post story because of 1) the misleading photograph showing a guy with an assault rifle (https://imgur.com/a/7MyRSmN), and 2) the overwhelming onslaught of ads.
Reasonable. I have js disabled (mostly blocking the ads), and read carefully enough to understand that that misleading photo was almost certainly pulled from the deceased's "frequently posted pro-gun content to his more than 8,000 followers on TikTok" content. And with a button-pushing subject like guns, it might prove imprudently charitable to assume that every HN user will look so closely at the details.
one of the first cases, where "gun kill human" and not the National Riffle Organisation's argumentation "humans kill humans, but not guns".
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.
Do expressions like "as a European" imply that you're simply expressing the politics of the political world you live in and not your own individually derived opinions? When someone says "as a European," I somehow intuitively know what they're going to say on a given topic.
It's strange to me.
both. I live in a world with certain rules & regulations - and so my experiences and individually derived opinions are based on this. There is no possibility for me here to, for example, make experiences and derive individual opinions, like "experienced it on my own, so by that I came to the conclusion...". The handguns and weapons are simply not allowed.
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? :)
Human still killed human. Gun did not walk into MRI. It was carried in. Man kills self by eschewing due care when in close proximity to MRI should be the headline.
you're right the headline could be written differently. But I'm not with you on "Human still killed human, because Gun did not walk into MRI" -> when the argument is "not guns kill humans, its human kill humans", this imply one takes a gun and use it intentionally - which is always the case when the bullet is fired up with finger-force and is directed towards smthg. Here, the gun was not used, there has not been a finger on the trigger, but it went of. Just because the gun was carried in, it doesn't make "Human killed Human". Guns are carried to a lot of places they should not be carried to without any incident. Here the gun went off without pulling the trigger :)
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.
The trigger was pulled because a ferric material, probably the firing pin, was brought into an intense magnetic field, bypassing any of the normal safeties typically involved with a mechanically actuated firearm. You do not under any circumstances take a loaded firearm into a place without environmental consideration. The mechanical safeties in a firearm are all secondary to the primary safety which is your brain. If you don't use your brain, that isn't a problem with the firearm. That's a problem with you. By the way, that ferric metal part is required by law in most jurisdictions so the damn thing will show up using most conventional metal detecting technologies.
>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.
>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.
(2023), and article seems to be solely based on a linked (and more interesting) New York Post story: https://nypost.com/2023/02/09/lawyer-dead-after-mri-discharg...
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".
I chose not to link to the New York Post story because of 1) the misleading photograph showing a guy with an assault rifle (https://imgur.com/a/7MyRSmN), and 2) the overwhelming onslaught of ads.
Reasonable. I have js disabled (mostly blocking the ads), and read carefully enough to understand that that misleading photo was almost certainly pulled from the deceased's "frequently posted pro-gun content to his more than 8,000 followers on TikTok" content. And with a button-pushing subject like guns, it might prove imprudently charitable to assume that every HN user will look so closely at the details.
I hadn't noticed that the guy with the rifle was the deceased. You really do read carefully!
one of the first cases, where "gun kill human" and not the National Riffle Organisation's argumentation "humans kill humans, but not guns".
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.
in my opinion it could be a bit more regulated.
Do expressions like "as a European" imply that you're simply expressing the politics of the political world you live in and not your own individually derived opinions? When someone says "as a European," I somehow intuitively know what they're going to say on a given topic. It's strange to me.
both. I live in a world with certain rules & regulations - and so my experiences and individually derived opinions are based on this. There is no possibility for me here to, for example, make experiences and derive individual opinions, like "experienced it on my own, so by that I came to the conclusion...". The handguns and weapons are simply not allowed.
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? :)
Human still killed human. Gun did not walk into MRI. It was carried in. Man kills self by eschewing due care when in close proximity to MRI should be the headline.
you're right the headline could be written differently. But I'm not with you on "Human still killed human, because Gun did not walk into MRI" -> when the argument is "not guns kill humans, its human kill humans", this imply one takes a gun and use it intentionally - which is always the case when the bullet is fired up with finger-force and is directed towards smthg. Here, the gun was not used, there has not been a finger on the trigger, but it went of. Just because the gun was carried in, it doesn't make "Human killed Human". Guns are carried to a lot of places they should not be carried to without any incident. Here the gun went off without pulling the trigger :)
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.
The trigger was pulled because a ferric material, probably the firing pin, was brought into an intense magnetic field, bypassing any of the normal safeties typically involved with a mechanically actuated firearm. You do not under any circumstances take a loaded firearm into a place without environmental consideration. The mechanical safeties in a firearm are all secondary to the primary safety which is your brain. If you don't use your brain, that isn't a problem with the firearm. That's a problem with you. By the way, that ferric metal part is required by law in most jurisdictions so the damn thing will show up using most conventional metal detecting technologies.
>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.
elaborate way to shoot one self for sure