MWDN: Shooting injury at Southborough Rod & Gun Club

Metrowest Daily News reports that a woman was injured in the leg yesterday by shrapnel after accidentally discharging her gun at the ground. The incident took place at Southborough Rod & Gun Club.

I have to admit, I was surprised to see that this piece of news was out of Hopkinton. The club is located just over the border of our town on Fruit Street. (Did it move, or was it always based in Hopkinton?)

MWDN reports:

Police responded to a call reporting that a person was injured by a 9mm handgun at 12:43 p.m, Bennett said. The woman, 33, was hurt by shrapnel from the bullet and concrete. She was treated at the scene and transported to UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester with non-life threatening injuries.

The woman was a Hopkinton resident. Click here for the full story.

39 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Keith
6 years ago

According to http://www.southboroughrodandgun.com,”The first annual meeting of Southborough Rod & Gun Club, Inc. was held at the Fayville Town Hall. A small group assembled to witness the reading and official signing of the charter, constitution, and by-laws.” However, “Having searched Southborough township thoroughly but unsuccessfully, a 79.5 acre parcel of land was found in an ideal location in the neighboring town of Hopkinton.”

Southern Breeze
6 years ago

This is unfortunate. Good wishes out to the injured individual and anyone else around that was there for the experience. It is a somber reminder that great care must be taken at all times with these thing.

This is a link to the history of the club showing the very early tie to town.

http://www.southboroughrodandgun.com/#!history/cwv9

John Kendall
6 years ago

The Rod and Gun club has been at the same spot as long as I can remember….Fruit Street in Hopkinton

Carl Guyer
6 years ago

Ok, time to remind everyone of the well established statistic that if you keep a hand gun in your home you double the chances someone in your family will be injured or killed from a firearm. Accidental shootings are much more likely to occur than any chance you will prevent injury to your family using a hand gun for defense. Doubling down on this fact, suicides rates are significantly higher in residences where hand guns are present. What happened at the Rod and Gum Club was not a accident, accidents are unforesable events. We should be thankful there was not a serious injury or death when this weapon discharged.

Russell
6 years ago
Reply to  Carl Guyer

So teach your family safe firearm handling if you decide to exercise your 2nd amendment right. This club also offers classes such as home firearm safety which can teach safe firearm usage.

mike fuce
6 years ago

OMG Guyer, do you ever miss a chance to chime in with your leftist liberal rants. Whether the environment, guns, trash, whatever. “We The People” over 4000 gun owners in Southborough say to you, be quite. One firearm accident in the last 50 years. Really Carl. Get a life and wake up. We protect our homes, out families and if called upon even you Carl. Gun safety is huge, and any gun owning citizen knows this. Accidents do happen however. Here are some stats Carl, 35,000 auto deaths in the last 5 years. 20,000 violent acts and deaths due to anti depressants and ADD drugs that cause people to snap worse than before the drugs. Please go work on banning them. I know you do not like fossil fuels or cars as well. But leave our constitutional and personal responsibility and rights to own firearms alone. All of you firearms banners.

Carl Guyer
6 years ago
Reply to  mike fuce

Hi Mike… Sure there are as many injured and killed by other means such as automobiles, but consider that we require registration of automobiles, have mandatory annual safety inspections, require a license for operation, don’t let anyone under 16 drive one, have a VIN number on each auto, and will put you in jail if you are found operating one under the influence…. I see your analogy to automobiles all the time and think those proposing it should think twice about the implications.

Here is a tidbit that indicates we have a problem that needs fixing… In the United States more people are killed with firearms in a day (85) than the number of people killed by firearms in the UK in a year. Source : Wikipedia.

I just go with the data :

SouthsideGadsdenFlyer
6 years ago

I’m sorry Carl, but your comment is full of anecdata, not facts. There are definitely lessons to be learned from this, but I don’t see how this has anything to do with accidental shootings, nor suicide rates, that may occur in gun owners homes.

Carl Guyer
6 years ago

As I responded to Mike :I n the United States more people are killed with firearms in a day (85) than the number of people killed by firearms in the UK in a year. Source : Wikipedia. And my data is right.

Bob Bezokas
6 years ago

I’m not one for this social media stuff, I’m a bit old fashion however I couldn’t pass this by without adding my notorious opinion.

Carl, I’ve always respected your ideas when you were the chair of the Recycle/Green Technology Committee, your ability to think out of the box with well-resourced arguments was commendable. And I do respect your opinion, thought process and comments on the incident at the Southborough Rod and Gun Club.

Having said that, now it’s my turn. To say the incident wasn’t an accident is at this point a “shoot from the hip” response. Unless you know the real facts you should refrain from making a comment on conjecture. I certainly don’t believe any responsible target shooter would go to a shooting range with the intent “hey let’s shoot into the concrete and see what happens.” At this point in time the incident certainly was an accident and until the facts are released if they ever are, it should remain as an unfortunate accident. The gun could have malfunctioned, the shell could have been faulty and discharged on its own, or the person using the gun committed one of the mortal sins when handling a firearm, they had their finger on the trigger with the safety off and not pointing down range. So we’ve gone from a true accident to a possible careless accident. Leave it at that for the time being.

The “well-established” statistics that you mention regarding keeping guns in the home is more of a scare tactic than anything else. Statistics regarding pro-gun or anti-gun are often a manipulation of factual data to the benefit of those trying to make a point. I’m sure the same statistic could be used for having a car in the driveway, if you don’t have one then your chances are extremely low of having an accident.

I try to look at issues in three ways. What is the cause? What is the action? What is the results? In the case of guns which are inanimate objects just like a car, a knife, a hammer, they sit there lifeless. It takes someone to use them for a purpose which is the cause. The action is typically a constructive use of the item whether target shooting, hammering a nail, cutting a steak or driving to the store. So the results are commonly positive. What’s the exception? The misuse of any item which results in a person or persons being shot, an auto accident caused by not obeying the rules of the road, or a host of other incidents. So basically it comes down to the individual who has decided (the cause), to misuse the inanimate object (the action) and commit a misdemeanor or a felony (the result).

I am a gun owner. I’m a registered competitive trap shooter having participated in many competitions throughout New England, Pennsylvania and Illinois. I have shot pistol competitively with the Southborough Rod and Gun Club Pistol Team. I am not a hunter however I’m not against it. I gave testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Gun Control in the late 1990’s pointing out to them the injustices within the bill that penalizes the legitimate gun owners and favored the criminals.

I’d like to point out, in my opinion, the Senate Subcommittee members were anti-gun political plants made up of disingenuous individuals that could have cared less about any constructive criticism of the gun control bill, they were only interested in the testimony of the very few that favored the bill as written and they were probably plants.

We can’t forget our courts. Yesterday a judge ruled on allowing the release of Hinkley who tried to assassinate the President of the United States. He spent 35 years in a mental hospital and now is supposedly cured. His release is contingent upon him living with his 90+ year old mother, that’s reassuring. I would have thought since the doctors have given him a clean bill of mental health and is cured he should be brought back to court and be tried for his actions, seeing now he supposedly knows right from wrong, yeah sure.

So Carl, as I said I do respect your opinion as this is what makes the United States of
America GREAT. However, the distortion or misrepresentation of the facts on guns and gun control will continue until the hysteria created by the news media, the nonsense that spews out of the mouths of many anti-gun politicians and the citizens that are like lemmings following the hysteria, bring things back into perspective and stop the foolishness of attempting to ban all guns.

Carl Guyer
6 years ago
Reply to  Bob Bezokas

Hi Bob

Nice to hear from you, really.

My comment that what happened at the range was an accident was followed by the comment that accidents are “unforeseen” events. You may not agree, but having an “accidental” discharge of weapons at a range is not a new occurrence. It is to be expected. I have seen too many weapons unintentionaly discharge to believe otherwise.

If you really want gun safety we should limit firearms to bolt action weapons. Semi-automatic weapons with clips are always an accident waiting to happen. People just don’t realize or are careful enough to always clear their weapon.

By the way, do you know Massachusetts with its “anti-gun plants” has one of the lowest rates gun deaths per 100,000 in the USA as a direct result of having one of the lowest ownership rates in the nation. It is hard to shoot anyone if you can’t get your hands on a weapon.

I go with the data, most pro-gun advocates are quick to claim the data is skewed, and it is. It clearly is skewed to current gun ownership condition as a problem in the USA.

I am certainly willing and would like to hear some solutions from gun owners on how to fix the epidemic on gun deaths in the USA. The NRA is suggesting we vet gun owners for mental illness, that might help, it is a step in the right direction.

The problem with Mr. Hinkley is not that he is out of jail, it is the possiblty he could get his hands on a gun….

mike fuce
6 years ago

To Carl and the audience: Anyone who relies on Wiki for data is not an intelligent person. Carl, even our children in school are not allowed to use it as a source. Wiki is self contributing, self editing, Carl. Anyone can add to Wiki that wants to. Hence your “off the shelf” inaccurate firearm statistic is bunk per usual. And by the way, firearms are illegal in the UK and the UK people have no way to protect themselves from an invading legal army riff raff from uncivilized countries. Now those are facts worth thinking about. I would rather err on the side of personal protection of myself, my family, my neighbors and yes at soft targets like universities, public schools and theaters. 99.99% of LEGAL, and that is the key word, LEGAL, firearms owners are responsible. 90% of all firearm murders in Chicago alone are ILLEGAL firearms. But you are right, accidents do happen and thank God that the lady at SRG is OK.

Carl Guyer
6 years ago
Reply to  mike fuce

Hi Mike

It is OK to challange data and ask for better detail.

So here is some interesting data comparing the USA with the UK.

In 2012, the last year data is available on both countries, in the USA there were 33,563 gun deaths for a rate of 10.69 per 100,000. There were 16,668 gun related homicides at a rate of 5.31 per 100,00. In the UK there were 653 gun related deaths for a rate of 1.03 per 100,000 and 23 gun homicides at a rate of 0.04 per 100,00.

These are pretty shocking statistics,

Source : http://www.gunpolicy.org

If you think having guns in your home have a preventative effect in reducing the loss of life, homicides, you have to find this data contradictory to that idea.

And the UK is not the only example that can be referenced.

It is very clear we are not doing something right…..

To your point, if you want of eliminate the illegal firearms we will need to remove the primary source, legal firearms.

Carl Guyer
6 years ago
Reply to  Carl Guyer

Correction… The number of 653 is for all homicides in UK for a rate of 1.03. The number of gun related deaths was 123 for a rate of 0.19. Even more shocking and shows that in the UK the homicide rate is one-tenth of the USA and they are sitting home without their guns at the ready.

Frank Crowell
6 years ago

I was just browsing the web and found this:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

This is a little dated but it does pull in a lot statistics from over the past 30 years.

Al Hamilton
6 years ago
Reply to  Frank Crowell

Ok, I agree that we have a problem with gun violence in the US. But the reality is that we have the 2nd Amendment, and there is no prospect of that changing. Citizens will have access to firearms for the foreseeable future.

Given that, we need places like the Southborough Rod and Gun club where responsible gun owners and would be gun owners can receive quality training in the safe use of firearms and can practice those skills. Shooting sports when practiced at places like many rod and gun clubs are quite safe. Safer than, for instance, Football, Basketball, Boxing, or Skiing. The alternative to these sorts of facilities is firearms owners who have minimal if any training and opportunity to practice which is a recipe for even greater tragedy.

Full disclosure, I am a member of the Southborough Rod and Gun Club

Frank Crowell
6 years ago
Reply to  Al Hamilton

Al – just to be clear, I am not against the Second Amendment in fact I am looking to own a gun myself for target practice. I do disagree with you about the future of gun ownership. We are one Supreme Court justice from this right being at least restricted. Go through the link I posted and there are good excerpts from the courts decision on D.C vs. Heller. I am not alone in this observation: Gun factories are at full capacity. If the DC law stood, others states and other laws would have followed or other lower courts would have been more emboldened.

Mike
6 years ago

Hi Beth, nice that you chimed in. Which Statistic would you like me to retrieve? the Chicago one or the UK? I’d be glad to. Did you enjoy my comment on wiki?

Carl Guyer
6 years ago

Gentlemen…..please tell me why we cannot achieve the same results.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom

Bob Bezokas
6 years ago

Hi Carl,

Simple, this is the United States of America, it isn’t the UK, Australia or Canada. They have their social issues and we have ours. I would say our social issues are a bit more complicated than theirs so comparing us to the UK, nah, doesn’t do it!

What I’m not going to do is joust back and forth on the issue of gun control. Along with politics and religion it’s become an issue that shouldn’t be discussed in mixed company or even in a blog, everyone has their beliefs, convictions and opinions and will not be resolved at this level. All it does is raise the contempt between those that think arguing the issue will resolve it, it doesn’t, it just raises the ire between the sides.

However, I am an advocate for reasonable gun “ownership” control, not just “gun control” which many politicians interpret as “let’s ban all guns.” The Commonwealth does have background checks as part of the process leading up to issuing or not issuing a License to Carry. However, in some cities and towns the process can take up to 6 months before a License to Carry is issued. I’m not sure why it takes that long but it certainly can be interpreted that the issuer is making his/her statement on gun control.

Your well intentioned idea of only bolt actions be allowed is not what you think it is, an attempt to stop an errant discharge. Once a round has been chambered, whether it be a bolt action a semiautomatic or a revolver, it’s live and waiting to be discharged. The only mechanism between not firing and firing is the gun safety mechanism and the “gun sense” of the shooter. Yes, accidents happen, they’ll always be accidents with anything legal or illegal. So to ban something that may cause an accident is radical to say the least, if that happens what’s next? Ban the automobile, the airplane, prescription medications, golf, the list is endless. All it does is open up the doors for someone who doesn’t like something to start a movement to ban it.

What we need is to enforce the laws we have on the books, at least in the Commonwealth, and back up our “law enforcement agencies.” When an arrest is made, any kind of an arrest not just one where the use of a gun was involved, the courts need to apply the laws as they stand. The courts need to throw out some of the absolutely ridiculous defenses, delay antics, plea bargaining and stop with the “feel sorry” for the criminal and give them a light sentence. I believe it goes “he did the crime let him do the time.”

If there isn’t space for the criminals, either build more or renovate the ones we have. And stop calling them campuses, they’re “jails for bad guys and gals,” the best I’ll do is calling them penal institutions or a penitentiary, Harvard is a campus, not MCI Norfolk.

In the interim we keep voting in a number of lawmakers that don’t always think on their own, they run with the party bosses and feel the only way to justify their existence is to either author or ride on the coattails of another lawmaker and be a co-author of yet another reactionary law.

What I’m sure will continue is the quoting of more statistics, more arguments made for and against, more listening to the media with their hyped up interpretation of an event or more listening to a politician spewing out his/her twist on an issue. What we could and should do, is to have both schools of thought on guns and violence collaborate their efforts and develop workable laws that protect our citizens from the violence committed with a gun and allow the responsible gun owners to enjoy their hobby. I’m sure some out there will say “how can anyone call owning a gun a hobby?” For the same reason people golf, collect stamps, own fast cars, and so on.

southsider
6 years ago

Are there really 4000 gun owners in Southboro?

Mike Fuce
6 years ago

Southsider put your full name in so we know who you are. If you’re going to join the conversation, just like any other event, let us know who you are. And the term is “legal firearm owners” in Southborough. You can thank your neighbor for protection if anything real serious ever goes down. I highly recommend that everyone has personal protection. Legal personal protection.

Anonymous
6 years ago
Reply to  Mike Fuce

I’ll start by saying it’s too bad that the comments on this post aren’t purely about concerns for the health of the person involved in the story.

Is it somewhere in the rules that a full name is required to post a comment? I guess we will find out if this comment gets posted. Whether you choose to respond to someone anonymously is totally up to each user, of course.

I’m still curious to see the source of several numbers cited above, including the source of the number of the “over 4000 gun owners” in Southborough (to use a quote from Mike’s original July 28 comment) .

The 2010 census showed 3,460 housing units in town (http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-23.pdf), so I’m surprised to hear that there is more than one gun owner per residence, on average.

I would suggest that all sides source their data, particularly data that seems alarming or not commonly accepted as being fact. Otherwise I’m going to gloss over any data provided by the commenter and assume that it’s all just a guess.

Kate
6 years ago

Mike; one word – euphemism

Mike Fuce
6 years ago

I actually agree with you this time Beth with one exception. If a person is addressing an individual in a post and questioning their position or integrity they should name them selves. That is transparency and forthrightness as you mentioned in your post.

Anonymous
6 years ago
Reply to  Mike Fuce

Welcome to the internet.

Mike Fuce
6 years ago

My last addition to this particular discussion goes like this. ” Laws that forbid the carrying of fire arms… Disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage them to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence then an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

Carl Guyer
6 years ago
Reply to  Mike Fuce

Hi Mike

I can understand why you would think being a gun owner, specifically a hand gun owner, would be a form of protection for your family. The problem is that there is no data I can find that says homes without guns suffer higher incidences of violent injury and death. All the data I see says violent injury or death is more likely in the homes of hand gun owners. I can’t even find any data that says homes without hand guns suffer more injury and death from others breaking into their homes.

Al Hamilton
6 years ago
Reply to  Carl Guyer

I am pretty sure that people who own chainsaws have more chainsaw accidents than people who do not.

Carl Guyer
6 years ago
Reply to  Al Hamilton

Al, you did not read my comment. I was referrencing all violent injury and death, not just gun related. Gun owners have a higher frequency of violent injury and death than non-gun owners. The amount of prevention you derive from having a hand gun in your home is overwhelmed by accidents, suicides, and homicides associated with use of the same gun intended to protect you and your family. Look at the numbers I posted from the UK. They don’t allow hand guns or semi-automatics, it is overwhelming.

You were reading my message with a cultural bias.

Matthew Brownell
6 years ago
Reply to  Carl Guyer

Carl,

I guess it’s all fine and cozy to hypothesize on violent injury and death, and correlation/causation to gun ownership, when you’re commenting from the safe, suburban enclave of Southborough. It makes for usual garden-variety conversation at cocktail parties – where left-leaning, highly-educated guests sip chardonnay, eat watercress sandwiches, and extol the benefits of bloated, centrist, big government bureaucracy.

You say that “Gun owners have a higher frequency of violent injury and death than non-gun owners”, which, frankly, should not come as a shocker.
My guess, Carl, is that the vast majority of violent injuries and deaths (with or without firearms) come from densely-populated, urban environments, where murder rates have skyrocketed in recent years.

Would be interested in your comment on the year-old NY Times article below (the NY Times, of course, hardly a bastion of conservative thought):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html?_r=0

The fact is, Carl, tens of millions of U.S. residents do not have the luxury of safe communities, or police cruisers that respond within 5 minutes to threats of aggravated assault, forced entry, rape, burglary, etc. In most of these communities, the *only* recourse between “victim” status and safe harbor is a loaded firearm.

I will also call into question the last 8 years of utter abandonment by the White House in enforcing existing crime laws, and the soft “catch & release” policies of the Obama Administration . . but that is another rabbit hole, and discussion for another board.

Carl Guyer
6 years ago
Reply to  Carl Guyer

Hello Matt

The article you reference does accuately describe a rising level of violence in urban environments. Like you the article attributes the reason to speculation not evidence.

Check out this analytical study of data : http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016/08/18/diana-arezzo-gun-violence

Where is the data that increased gun ownership leads to fewer violent deaths. The article you referenced never indicates any such relationship.

Bob Bezokas
6 years ago

Carl,

You need to get away from looking for data, whether it does or doesn’t exist. People that have guns for protecting their family and home do not put out a sign on their front lawn stating that the property is protected by a gun. Many people that own guns whether pistol or other do not use them for personal protection, maybe for hunting, target practice, competition or maybe because they like guns, just like stamp collector likes stamps.

If you don’t like guns, fine and I respect that. Don’t come up with statics, data, studies or what have you that basically have been twisted to get people like you to believe that guns are bad and shouldn’t be allowed to be in the possession of anyone as they might be used illegally. Get rid of the gangs that use them illegally, get rid of the criminal that likes to rob convenience stores because he’s too damn lazy to get a real job, and start getting rid of the liberal bleeding heart judges that let these and other criminals off with soft if any sentences.

You have to get real Carl, guns or weapons as the super liberals would like to call them or assault weapons as the politicians would like you to believe are the worst thing since the H-Bomb and are no more dangerous than the individual using it. I’m not sure you want to believe it, but there are nut cakes out there that think nothing of shooting someone, running a vehicle into crowd, think that they are special and drive intoxicated, blow themselves up in crowds, or believe road rage is legal.

We spend more time debating the issue of guns and gun control and all we do is nothing. But wait, our AG thinks she can do anything because that’s what she believes and institutes a law from what I understand is absolutely preposterous. I do admit I haven’t read the law thoroughly but will at some point, as you I’m going by someone else’s take on what the law states.

So Carl, don’t spend your valuable time trying to find why we shouldn’t, spend your time developing a proposal for sensible gun control and tough mandatory sentences for those that commit a crime using a gun.

JMO
5 years ago

The problem with the second amendment is that it is simply too broad. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s comes down to one word “Arms”. I don’t at all blame the founding fathers. How could they envision semi-automatic weapons, nuclear bombs, drones, hydrogen bombs, chemical weapons, and all the other ways man has invented for the purpose of killing? The truth is Arms are already restricted. I am not allowed to own a chemical weapon. And, no you don’t have the right to own the weapon of your choice. I am not against people owning guns for sport, but there is no reason to own instruments that are purely made to kill the maximum number of people possible. The recent shooter in Munich, Germany only managed to kill 9 people. The shooter in Newtown killed 26 people. The difference? The weapon used. One was semi-automatic, one was not. The French knife wielder was foiled by three vacationing Americans because it was a knife, and the attacker was not able to get his hands on a semi-automatic weapon. There are background checks in place unless you go to a gun show. How can that be justified? There has to be some sensible middle ground.

Frank Crowell
5 years ago
Reply to  JMO

Fairly sure the second amendment does not guarantee my right to nuclear or chemical weapon (unless we are talking about killing weeds and insects in my yard) and I know of not one single sole who has ever argued that point. Also failrly sure if fed laws were properly or fully enforced, no terrorist or mentally ill patients would get their hands on a gun. When we realize that prisons are a poor substitute for mental institutions, we will be further along as a nation.

Al Hamilton
5 years ago
Reply to  JMO

While I am not advocating citizen ownership of heavy weapons, the founders intent was that the citizenry be well armed to be able to oppose a heavy handed central government or foreign foe and their intent was that those arms be comparable to those carried by their opponent.

From James Madison, Federalist Paper #46

“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”

  • © 2022 MySouthborough.com — All rights reserved.