Responsible gun ownership

[Meg 368]

I do not want this to be another discussion about gun rights.   We have already discussed that ad nauseam.    I do have a question about gun safety, or use a better term, responsible gun ownership. 

 

imho, if someone has a gun, it is their responsibility to keep it secure and out of the hands of those who do not know how to, or can not, handle it safely.

 

Can someone explain to me how this can be considered an "accident"?  The mother knew the gun was there.   She knew the 2-year-old was there.  The gun was not locked securely.  She put them in close proximity to each other.  A 2-year-old can not possibly handle a loaded gun safely.  She was not paying enough attention to stop this while it was in progress.  How is that anything but negligence?

 

On some level, it does not matter.  She is not around to learn from her mistake.    Why she had a gun in that place and time is not the issue; whether I like it or not, that is the culture she lives in.

 

I am, however, troubled by the attitude that this was a tragic accident.  I see this as downright negligence that turned out to be fatal.

 

Can someone who regards this incident as an "accident" instead of negligence explain why?   I really do not understand.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Responsible gun ownership is almost an oxymoron. its not even that difficult  to get a concealed carry permit now.

She was irresponsible and paid for her mistake with her life,the kid will most likely  need therapy if and when they tell him about how his mom died.

the kid might be better better off to never tell him.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Charitably, it seems this mom didn't know about the safety catch on her pistol.  She received her Darwin reward and has been removed from the gene pool. 

 

It is truly regrettable that the child will, perhaps, grow up knowing he was the proximate cause of her death.  I agree that this should be kept from him, but we can be pretty sure some busy-body will tell him eventually.  Some kind of psychological defense mechanism needs to be in place before this can happen.

 

Accident?  Hardly.  Poor education in the use of firearms is hardly an accident.  Pure carelessness.

 

Ownership and carry may be a right in the United States, but surely training is a must?  A carry permit should include mandatory training.

[Duke87 1,070]

In many places guns are so normal that people think nothing of them and have an extremely casual attitude about them. To the point where I'm sure a woman having a gun in her purse and leaving it near her young child for a couple minutes is probably not thought of as a big deal and is probably something that happens very frequently. 99.999% of the time, nothing bad happens. But then you get the occasional tragic story like this.

 

A lot of us grew up in places where guns are not normal, where we never see them except in movies/games/TV and so to us they are big scary deadly weapons. But this woman I'm sure sees several guns every day in addition to her own and thinks nothing of it. It's a plain old ordinary object, nothing special about it. So given that, she thought nothing of leaving a gun in her child's presence. Her mother probably did it to her all the time, and her friends probably all do the same to their children.

 

That, then, is the crux of the matter: analyzing the situation from afar (with perhaps a dash of Monday morning quarterbacking), it is easy to see this woman's behavior as negligent. But it was also behavior that was socially normal where she lived.

 

And to be fair, while stories like this are shocking and horrifying, in the greater scheme of things they are rare occurrences. Tons of people have this relatively low level of caution around firearms and in spite of it very few people actually get hurt. While I would never leave a gun near a child I would also argue that the perceived risk associated with doing so is much greater than the actual risk. 

 

As things stand, car accidents kill a lot more Americans (32,999 in 2010) than gun accidents (606 in 2010). A lot of people do a lot of reckless things with their cars quite frequently - but usually no one reacts with utter shock and horror to seeing a driver cut someone off, push a red light, aggressively whip around a corner, etc. Why not? Because these behaviors are socially normal and therefore we do not perceive them as being very risky. A car and a gun can both be equally deadly when misused. But cars are normal and people handle them quite casually. Well, there are places in the country where guns are equally normal and are handled equally casually.

 

 

Of course, it does also become a political matter. To say this is negligent and irresponsible behavior as opposed to a tragic accident is to suggest that something ought to be done to stop it. And to suggest that something ought to be done to stop it is to suggest that we need stricter gun regulations - a suggestion which a lot of people don't want to make.

[Compdude787 916]

In many places guns are so normal that people think nothing of them and have an extremely casual attitude about them. To the point where I'm sure a woman having a gun in her purse and leaving it near her young child for a couple minutes is probably not thought of as a big deal and is probably something that happens very frequently. 99.999% of the time, nothing bad happens. But then you get the occasional tragic story like this.

...

 

As things stand, car accidents kill a lot more Americans (32,999 in 2010) than gun accidents (606 in 2010). A lot of people do a lot of reckless things with their cars quite frequently - but usually no one reacts with utter shock and horror to seeing a driver cut someone off, push a red light, aggressively whip around a corner, etc. Why not? Because these behaviors are socially normal and therefore we do not perceive them as being very risky. A car and a gun can both be equally deadly when misused. But cars are normal and people handle them quite casually. Well, there are places in the country where guns are equally normal and are handled equally casually.

If anyone should have a right to have a gun to defend themselves, it is women. Feminist platitudes of women being "strong and independent" are complete BS, since we all know that women really are inferior physically to men both in height and strength. So they need some way to defend themselves and even pulling a gun on a bad guy who is trying to attack her in some way should be enough for him to get the hell out of there lest he get shot.

 

It is interesting that you mention that cars kill way more people per year than guns! I was not aware of those statistics. So, maybe we should ban cars instead of guns. Ummm, no. The benefits of cars are very obvious, perhaps more so than with guns. 

[Indiana Joe 1,750]

At least 11.1 million Americans have concealed weapon permits.  I think the occasional instance of this happening every few months that we hear about is no sign of an epidemic.  Just a freak accident involving poor education and judgment combined with unfortunate luck.  Akin to a shark attack or getting struck by lightning.  Although the media tries to sensationalize even those things nowadays.

 

Most guns aren't involved in any accidents.  All you can do is preach education.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Can someone explain to me how this can be considered an "accident"?  The mother knew the gun was there.   She knew the 2-year-old was there.  The gun was not locked securely.  She put them in close proximity to each other.  A 2-year-old can not possibly handle a loaded gun safely.  She was not paying enough attention to stop this while it was in progress.  How is that anything but negligence?

No, responsible gun ownership doesn't really exist. Not for people like that. 

 

I mean, if you want a gun to protect yourself, because you are so afraid of other people, you want easy access to your gun in case you end up feeling the need to pull it on someone. But easy access means the gun is much more likely to go off in an accident like this. If you want to be responsible about having a gun, it means locking it away, which means its impractical to use for self defense. Hence, gun ownership for self defense purposes is mutually exclusive with responsible gun ownership. 

 

I don't think this is negligence though. I mean, having a gun for self defense purposes is, at least in the US, a valid reason to carry a gun around. Its just also very very dangerous. When it comes to guns, its quite simple. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Guns are your constitutional right, but the trade off is that your society will be fundamentally less safe than countries where the government has the monopoly on violence. 

[Meg 368]

Thank you, Duke.  You usually have a good read on these things.

 

it is easy to see this woman's behavior as negligent. But it was also behavior that was socially normal where she lived.

 

I believe you are right:  that is the crux of it.    and it reminds me of another situation, having to do with cars.   Back in the 70s and 80s, drunk drivers were not seen as negligent.  If a drunk driver hit someone the attitude was basically:  well, that wasn't his fault; he was drunk at the time.  It took a while but that mindset has changed.

 

Are cars and guns both dangerous?  Of course they are.  But, with education, they can be used safely.    The key, as someone said, is education.  (It's key to a large percentage of the world's problems but that's another story.)

 

Do accidents happen?   Yes, sometimes people can do everything "right" and stuff happens anyway.   (Driving along, obeying the traffic laws, a deer jumps out of the woods, driver hits someone or something.)

 

I do believe that responsible gun ownership is possible.    I do not understand the benefit of concealed carry somewhere other than on your person.     As most self defense classes teach, the problem with carrying any weapon is it can be used against you.  Why increase that chance by having the weapon out of reach to start with?

 

[hym 358]

I do believe that responsible gun ownership is possible.    I do not understand the benefit of concealed carry somewhere other than on your person.     As most self defense classes teach, the problem with carrying any weapon is it can be used against you.  Why increase that chance by having the weapon out of reach to start with?

 

Depending on one's attire, carrying the weapon directly on your person may be impractical.  It is easier to carry and use a concealed handgun when your attire looks like this, as opposed to when your attire looks like this.  Gun manufacturers actually sell handguns explicitly designed around typical purse dimensions to help offer women more options for carrying a concealed gun.

 

Of course, this is all negated if you walk away from your purse.

[Meg 368]

Of course, this is all negated if you walk away from your purse.

 

 

 

My point exactly.    It is irresponsible to take a gun out in public and just leave it somewhere. 

 

Especially when it is left in proximity to a toddler.

[hym 358]

My point exactly.    It is irresponsible to take a gun out in public and just leave it somewhere. 

 

Especially when it is left in proximity to a toddler.

 

I don't disagree about the toddler part, although I'm not certain about the "leave it somewhere" part.  I haven't seen anything indicating that she actually walked away from the purse.  She may simply not have been looking in that direction.  Have you seen anything to indicate she actually left the purse?

[Meg 368]

I don't disagree about the toddler part, although I'm not certain about the "leave it somewhere" part.  I haven't seen anything indicating that she actually walked away from the purse.  She may simply not have been looking in that direction.  Have you seen anything to indicate she actually left the purse?

 

 

She was far enough away and/or distracted enough not to notice that the kid was rummaging through her purse.  Both the gun and the kid were off her radar.

[hym 358]

My reasoning for questioning the part about her walking away from the purse isn't to split hairs over whether she made a mistake or not.  I'm mentioning it because I am wondering if we might have stumbled upon a weak point in traditional gun safety guidelines.

 

Everyone has his/her own degree of ability to concentrate, tune things out, or otherwise be non-observant of the world around them.  It can have tragic consequences.  Driving while tired is a prime example.  In theory, we have always understood that it is dangerous to drive when fatigued, but it is a relatively recent thing that we have started paying serious attention to the phenomenon, studying it, and attempting to warn drivers about the danger they are exposing themselves to.

 

How many of us walk into a store and remember to stay alert to our surroundings because zoning out could have tragic consequences?  I'm betting not many of us, and to a certain degree, with good reason.  It's highly unlikely anything is going to happen, we don't feel in danger, and we tend to modify our behavior to the perceived level of risk, so we don't pay any attention to it.

 

As Duke said, for many people, they grew up around guns, so they don't really think anything of them.  Risks that may seem "well, duh!" to a non-gun owner may not even cross the mind of an individual who has been handling firearms since he/she was a little kid and doesn't possess the "guns are dangerous!" fear that many non-gun owners have.  (The whole perceived risk level phenomenon.)  Just as "don't drive while tired" is a message we all theoretically knew but probably didn't think of till the perceived risk level started going up (awareness campaigns, news reports, etc.), perhaps the message "don't get too focused on what your doing while you're carrying" needs to become a standard part of gun safety training.

 

Such a change may prove valuable towards helping prevent similar incidents in the future.  (It may also prove utterly useless too.  I admit I'm conjecturing here.)

[Meg 368]

My reasoning for questioning the part about her walking away from the purse isn't to split hairs over whether she made a mistake or not.  I'm mentioning it because I am wondering if we might have stumbled upon a weak point in traditional gun safety guidelines.

 

 

Yes, I believe there are weak points in traditional gun safety guidelines and this is one of them.  

 

 

 

How many of us walk into a store and remember to stay alert to our surroundings because zoning out could have tragic consequences?  I'm betting not many of us, and to a certain degree, with good reason.  It's highly unlikely anything is going to happen, we don't feel in danger, and we tend to modify our behavior to the perceived level of risk, so we don't pay any attention to it.

 

You are making an excellent point here and I do not wish to derail that.   People do modify their behavior to the perceived level of risk.   Point taken.

 

(Point to discuss elsewhere:  You get to zone out that much in public?   Must be nice.)

 

Moving on . . .

 

 

As Duke said, for many people, they grew up around guns, so they don't really think anything of them.  Risks that may seem "well, duh!" to a non-gun owner may not even cross the mind of an individual who has been handling firearms since he/she was a little kid and doesn't possess the "guns are dangerous!" fear that many non-gun owners have.  (The whole perceived risk level phenomenon.)  Just as "don't drive while tired" is a message we all theoretically knew but probably didn't think of till the perceived risk level started going up (awareness campaigns, news reports, etc.), perhaps the message "don't get too focused on what your doing while you're carrying" needs to become a standard part of gun safety training.

 

 

I think that's a good idea.   "Don't forget that you are carrying" might be another way of expressing it.   

 

This purse was new to her; if carrying a gun was normal to her she might have forgotten that she had it.   (Although if you are used to walking around with a gun in a holster, wouldn't you notice it wasn't there?)

 

The woman's father-in-law does not see her as irresponsible.   [link]    The perception seems to be that a zipper compartment in a purse should have been enough to consider the gun to be secure.

 

Perhaps that special zippered compartment was enough to keep the gun from rattling around randomly inside the purse but it clearly wasn't enough to stop a 2-year-old.   Why would anyone think it would be?  "zippered" is not close to "child proof".

 

 

Such a change may prove valuable towards helping prevent similar incidents in the future.  (It may also prove utterly useless too.  I admit I'm conjecturing here.)

 

 

I hope you are right.  I am all for updating and publicizing gun safety guidelines.  

[mrbisonm 1,620]

I am a vivid gun collector since the early seventies and I own a whole lot of them and most of my firearms are in a safe place, locked within a solid room especially built for this, except those arms that I keep close in case of needing to defend my or my family,s life since I live in a remote area.

 

What I see here with this video is a simple  and unfortunate accident, and as long as humans exist, this will sometimes happen. Forgetting to put the arms in a safe place, making sure it is not loaded or not on safe mode when having kids and unresponsable persons around, will always come into a possibility as we humans do have that weakness to put aside or forget our responsabilitly, as much as driving cars and flying airplanes will also always cause deaths within accidents.

 

And that is all this was. sad but a fact as true as it can get.

 

Fred

[Duke87 1,070]

To continue drawing the analogy to cars, perhaps there are a few ideas we can borrow.

 

Getting a drivers' license requires you demonstrate basic proficiency at safely operating a car. Getting a gun permit (usually) does not require you demonstrate basic proficiency at safely handling a gun. Exceeding the speed limit, running a red light, etc. can get you a conversation with a police officer, a fine, and points on your license with the possibility of it being suspended if you get too many of them. Carrying a gun with the safety off, leaving one unattended, etc. does not.

 

So maybe there is an interesting way of thinking worth considering. Maybe if gun owners had to pass a test and had to worry about getting fined if they do something stupid with their gun, that might cut back on this sort of nonsense and breed more safe handling of firearms.

 

 

The trouble with this is that all of these things can be done with drivers licenses because driving is fundamentally considered to be a privilege and not a right. Gun ownership is considered a right so putting the same restrictions on it is problematic.

[Meg 368]

I agree, Duke.   It makes sense to me.

 

Rights can be taken away or lost through bad conduct.   Convicted felons lose their right to vote.  People convicted of a variety of other crimes lose their right to liberty.  or their right to live.

 

But there is that wording that doesn't even comprise a grammatically correct sentence:

 

"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."

 

Many people just look at the last half -- "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- partly because it is a sentence with an definable subject and verb.

 

Why does the "well regulated" part just get ignored?

[hym 358]

Why does the "well regulated" part just get ignored?

 

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the "well regulated militia" part does not impose restrictions on the right, so it is sort of irrelevant to the general debate.

 

Furthermore, courtesy of the legal shenanigans of Chicago, the Supreme Court has declared that no government has the authority to obfuscate the process of gun ownership.  If an individual wants a firearm and has a legal right to obtain one, the government has a legal obligation to place no unnecessary obstacles in his way.  The government still has the right to create and enforce restrictions on gun ownership, but it is going to have to put more work into the justification for those restrictions, along with proof that they are both necessary and minimally restrictive.  (In other words, the Supreme Court opinion is moving towards protecting gun ownership under strict scrutiny judicial review.)

[blunder 1,079]

In many places guns are so normal that people think nothing of them and have an extremely casual attitude about them. To the point where I'm sure a woman having a gun in her purse and leaving it near her young child for a couple minutes is probably not thought of as a big deal and is probably something that happens very frequently. 99.999% of the time, nothing bad happens. But then you get the occasional tragic story like this.

 

^ This.  I was raised in a semi-rural area of the pacific northwest, by which i mean full-blown redneck, titties 'n' beer, go 'murica, two-wheel-drive is for pussies, country is the only real music (but classic rock is ok), bla bla bla. 

 

The lax attitude you describe exists, but it is not generally representative of the population of rural america as a whole.  Gun owners span the entire spectrum of responsibility and attitude, even in these rural settings.  For instance you have the middle of the spectrum here too: my father, and many other fathers, teach their children that whenever they so much as touch a gun they have the awesome power of ending a human life, and must always be conscious of that possibility and take responsibility for it.  That's probably the majority of gun owners here; people practice gun safety as well as they are able.  Those who are negligent about gun safety are those who are negligent about other things too; like driving safety, or maintenance of whatever.  It's not something gun laws can fix; it's a reflection of the attitude and ability of each person. 

 

The vast majority of households here are not just gun owners, but own multiple firearms (i own three myself) and are very strict about gun safety in part also because we all know people who have suffered from them.  I know 4 people that have been shot while hunting; all intentionally, one fatally.  I had a friend of a friend who neglected to safety his colt 357 one time when he holstered it loaded; the trigger caught and discharged, the bullet entered his leg and severed his femoral artery and he bled out and died (entirely his own fault yes, but it's a mistake anyone can make).  I've been camping twice where some idiot nearby accidentally discharged a firearm in my direction.  And don't get me started on the people that light off ammunition when they run out of fireworks.

 

Calling the general attitude lax is wrong, but that attitude does exists, and it is terrifying.  There is both the lax attitude of idiots uneducated about gun safety, and the shenanigans of morons who just don't care.  These are the same kind of people that think their dick size is measured by how much destruction they can wreck, how fast they can go, and just think they have the right to do whatever they want, 'cuz 'murica.  These are the same people that in other situations are dangerous drivers, possibly abusive family members, are quickest to get drunk, and do whatever they want because they want it and damn the consequences to others.  Unfortunately these people usually know how to pass whatever gun safety test you put in from, so there's no way to keep guns out of their hands unless they've been dumb enough to commit a felony.  (and that still doesn't always work)

 

This problem isn't something you can legislate or educate away.  It's an attitude, cultural, and family problem.  I don't have an answer to fix it, but it's not something a law can address.  How do you proactively make stupidity and recklessness illegal?  The law is always reactionary.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

When you speak of a "Well regulated militia" does this not imply the gun owners must belong to one of these?  Cherry picking any set of rules leads to trouble.  The most current one of these is the cherry picking done on the Qu'ran by the various Islamic fundamentalists.

 

How about you can't have a concealed carry unless you pass a physical proficiency test and belong to a recognized organization?  The constitution is silent on the issue because at the time long guns were the norm and handguns were generally too bulky to conceal.

[mrbisonm 1,620]

To continue drawing the analogy to cars, perhaps there are a few ideas we can borrow.

 

 

 

So maybe there is an interesting way of thinking worth considering. Maybe if gun owners had to pass a test and had to worry about getting fined if they do something stupid with their gun, that might cut back on this sort of nonsense and breed more safe handling of firearms.

 

 

 

 

We have this here in Quebec since several years now. It is necessary and and an obligation to follow a course for different arm categories, before you can even buy, own or use one, whether in private or public, and this did not change the fact that accidents happen. We still have firearm accidents every year.....just like it is with cars and traffic and anything else. .....just to defend my point.

 

Fred

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Of course there are accidents.  However, a trained community will have fewer of them.

[hym 358]

When you speak of a "Well regulated militia" does this not imply the gun owners must belong to one of these?

 

The Supreme Court does not think so.  However, this is getting into the gun rights debate, which we have discussed at great length and is not the purpose of this thread.

 

How about you can't have a concealed carry unless you pass a physical proficiency test and belong to a recognized organization?

 

The question then becomes "What purpose does this serve?"  To understand the significance of that question, let's go off on a quick side tangent.

 

In the United States, it is illegal to discriminate on race, unless you are the government and have a good reason to discriminate on race.  Because of previous histories of racial discrimination, the Supreme Court applies the "strict scrutiny" standard of judicial review to cases concerning racial discrimination.  It is very difficult for the government to write a discriminatory law that will survive a review under the strict scrutiny standard, even if the government has indisputable evidence that the law is beneficial to the public and serves legitimate government interests.

 

Back on topic...

 

After the District of Columbia v. Heller case that overturned D.C.'s gun ban, Chicago politicians rewrote their laws to allow individuals to own guns, but only after they have completed a certified training course at a firing range.  Seems reasonable enough.  They also added in a new law forbidding any firing range inside Chicago city limits.  People took issue with this, and the case found its way to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court agreed that this was unacceptable and struck down Chicago's law.  Additionally, the Supreme Court accused Chicago of using the law as a deliberate attempt to obstruct people's ability to exercise their constitutional rights.  Included in the Court's opinion was a warning that if the Supreme Court continued to see cases like this in the future, it would apply the strict scrutiny standard to matters concerning gun rights just like it did with racial discrimination cases.

 

Application of the strict scrutiny standard would be a disaster to the gun control lobby, as it would likely remove most gun control measures on the books and effectively stop nearly all new gun control measures.  If they don't want this to happen, they will have to be very careful to only target those measures that are considered traditional measures of control (such as background checks and denying felons gun ownership).  Gun legislation that is new, unusual, or of disputable efficacy must be very, very carefully implemented, otherwise the law may find its way to a Supreme Court that has grown increasingly hostile towards gun control measures.

 

So back to the original question.  Can you indisputably prove that a proficiency test improves public safety?  Can you prove that there is no other practical way to achieve this result without the restriction?  By codifying it into law, you are formally declaring it as (part of) the government's opinion on responsible gun ownership, and if the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, you may find it making these decisions for you, and further restricting your authority to decide what constitutes responsible gun ownership.  One would be well-advised to tread lightly.

[AcmeSigns 97]

 

I had a friend of a friend who neglected to safety his colt 357 one time when he holstered it loaded; the trigger caught and discharged, the bullet entered his leg and severed his femoral artery and he bled out and died (entirely his own fault yes, but it's a mistake anyone can make).

 

 

As a gun owner this statement brings up numerous questions about the validity of this story ('friend of a friend' is, what, 3rd hand knowledge at best?):

 

What kind of 'Colt .357' has a safety? No Colt revolver that I've ever seen or owned.There is/was a Smith & Wesson with a grip safety but I think those are out of production. A hammer block safety just keeps the firearm from going off if it's dropped and the hammer is over a loaded chamber.

 

Where the heck was this thing holstered? Your femoral artery is located inside your right leg. Was he carrying a .357 in an inside-the-thigh holster? Having the barrel pass over or aimed at any part of your anatomy is a major no-no!

 

The only way that I know that a trigger can get 'caught' while holstering is to have your finger inside the trigger guard (essentially having your finger on the trigger). Again, this goes against one of the 1st tenants of responsible gun ownership - Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot. Heck, I keep my finger indexed on a hand-held drill until I'm ready to use it. Same with a circular saw or pretty much anything with a trigger.

 

And lastly, if you know anything about firearms and their proper use and handling, none of these are mistakes that I, or anyone I know, would ever make. If your 'friend of a friend' did indeed do himself in as you say, then he pretty much had it coming. It would have just been a matter of time.

[blunder 1,079]

As a gun owner this statement brings up numerous questions about the validity of this story ('friend of a friend' is, what, 3rd hand knowledge at best?):

 

It was my friends little brother, who i did not like (in part because, as you astutely noted, he wasn't very bright), hence describing him as a 'friend of a friend'.  I wasn't there when it happened but one of my cousins was.  I asked that cousin and he said he thinks it was a 9mm, not his .357, but was very sure it had a toggle safety next to the trigger and not a thumb hammer.  Not sure why i was remembering it as a .357 but you're right and that's entirely my mistake; probably because his .357 was his favorite pistol that he loved to talk about (I shoot rifles and shotguns.  I do not care about handguns and don't really care to keep track of all the features on all the types). I went to dig the story out of his local newspaper's archive and found that they only archive online back to 2005, and this happened about 12 years ago.

 

Where the heck was this thing holstered? Your femoral artery is located inside your right leg

 

Right hip holster that hung lower than his belt.  My terminology on the artery was bad,  I thought the name 'femural' applied to the entire length of the large artery down the leg.  The bullet entered his leg in the backside of his right knee, so after checking an anatomy chart i guess it's technically the popliteal artery or the middle genicular artery or somesuch.

 

If your 'friend of a friend' did indeed do himself in as you say, then he pretty much had it coming. It would have just been a matter of time.

 

Yes. Yes he did have it coming.  But that doesn't change the fact that it was a simple accident that came from not having the safety on and not being careful enough holstering his weapon.

[AcmeSigns 97]

Glad you cleared that up. That makes much more sense. Still stupid but at least possible.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

At least there were no fatalities.

 

One is forced to wonder if women in the U.S. actually take concealed carry seriously?  Nothing like a shot in the ass to wake up the boy friend.

[47ply 1,100]

I personally think anyone saying this was an accident is a fool!!! she was 100 percent at fault and paid with her life!! to say it was an accident then what would have been her punishment if the gun killed the shopper in the aisle next to her? to compare it to drunk drivers? do they not go to prison for life for killing someone? yes they do!!! People say guns don't kill people kill well true that. It is also true that guns do not accidently just fire someone has to take the safety off and pull the trigger no accident there. If it is becoming so common place to be carrying a gun that you forget you have it then yes we have to start having more rules for having one not to prevent you from having one but so that you never forget about something so dangerous!!!! 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Did I read that article wrong?  Was the girl friend killed?  I didn't see that.  And I just checked.  She is in hospital.

 

Both of these idiots deserve a razzy.

[Meg 368]

^ Did I read that article wrong?  Was the girl friend killed?  I didn't see that.  And I just checked.  She is in hospital.

 

Both of these idiots deserve a razzy.

 

I believe he is referring to the first article, not the second.

 

At least there were no fatalities.

 

One is forced to wonder if women in the U.S. actually take concealed carry seriously?  

 

The behavior of two people does not indicate the behavior of millions.