Concealed weapon carrier accidentally shoots his barber

[AnOhioan]

A Parma barber was accidentally shot in the buttocks at about 2 p.m. Sept. 29.

It happened in Werner’s Barber Shop, 5331 Broadview Road. A regular customer walked in and showed the barber his new permit to carry a firearm.

As the customer adjusted his pants, his weapon — still in the holster — fell to the floor and accidentally fired.

The barber was taken to MetroHealth Medical Center, where he was treated and released.


Entire story above..link at http://blog.cleveland.com/parmasunpost/2011/10/concealed_weapon_carrier_accid.html

[n2doc]

1. Too bad the bullet hit the wrong ass n/t

[hlthe2b]

2. This will "never" happen...

Over and over and over and over and over again, we--who question if we really want to trust that everyone around us will be responsible and non-distracted while we are eating dinner, or having a beer, or sitting in a movie theater--are told.

Did the barber have a right not to be shot in his own shop? I guess not.

[TheWraith]

4. Actually, facts don't support your claim.

First off, you're playing with a strawman. Nobody says accidents never happen.

But what is true is that accidental shootings are at huge historical lows, rates around a few hundred a year. You're at much greater risk of falling off a ladder, or accidentally poisoning yourself, than you are being around a gun. And you're at FAR greater risk if you walk across the street to a store.

[Dawgs]

5. A few hundred a year is too many when that number can be zero.

This incident was unnecessary.

[SteveM]

11. The gun owner faces criminal and civil liabilities...

Do you really think the "number can be zero?" How? What would you propose. How would these proposals get us down to "zero," or any number near it (I'm a reasonable man)?

BTW, Ken Burns' "Prohibition" is showing on PBS this week.

[TheWraith]

31. The number can't be zero.

Any more than the number of people who accidentally choke to death will be zero, or accidental drownings will be zero, no matter how many restrictions you put on swimming pools or restaurants.

In a population of 308 million, the fact is that no matter how unlikely something is, it'll probably happen a few times. Your odds of getting struck by lightning are incredibly low, but even so 10,000 people a year are killed by lightning strikes worldwide.

But chances that are literally one out of one million are not statistically significant, and certainly don't merit the kind of hyperventilation people direct at them. The premise that "if it saves one life, it's worth it!" is demonstrably false, because if you actually followed that, there is almost nothing in the world from food to getting out of bed in the morning that's not potentially harmful to people. Risk is a part of daily life.

[hlthe2b]

6. One only has to go through the posts on the gungeon forum...

to disprove your point. The fact is that if that barber had refused to allow CCW in the shop, he would have been put out of business by that relatively small group of vehement and very vitriolic gun proponents and who have no concern for balance of those rights with those of others.

[spin]

9. I have a lot of concern for the rights of others ...

they have every right to not carry a firearm if they chose not to.

They also have every right to try to change the laws in Florida where I live so as to eliminate the legal concealed carry of firearms. I have absolutely no problem with that although I will exercise my rights to insure that "shall issue: concealed carry remains the law in Florida.

[SteveM]

14. Speculation upon speculation...

"The fact is that if that barber had refused to allow CCW in the shop, he would have been put out of business by that relatively small group of vehement and very vitriolic gun proponents and who have no concern for balance of those rights with those of others."

Explain again how a "small group" can "put out of business" a barber or anyone else? Even in Texas one can post a state-approved sign which says to prospective customers that firearms are not legal on the premises; they are commonly seen, and no business has been shown to have failed because of that issue.

Do you have facts to the contrary?

[iverglas]

27. how many examples would you like?

http://www.gundigest.com/gun-rights/boycott-against-restaurant-that-prohibits-concealed-and-open-carry-has-growing-internet-presence

Boycott Against Anti-Gun Restaurant Gaining Steam
Brian McCombie | Nov 15, 2010

As a press release by Ector noted, “The boycott was initiated by a local Michigan CCW Class Instructor, Rick Ector, in response to that eatery’s ban on the possession of all legally carried firearms—openly carried or lawfully concealed carried with a state of Michigan permit. In Michigan, open carry of a pistol in a visible holster is legal without a license. Furthermore, the concealed carry of a handgun is also legal if the person has a Michigan Concealed Pistol License.”

“Ector, a former robbery victim, believes that the restaurant’s ban on handguns creates a dangerous dining environment for customers. The reasoning, according to Ector, is that if a business bans guns then armed criminals will know where they can find unarmed people to rob, rape, and assault. The boycott will remain in effect until this local IHOP location drops it gun ban.”

A National Rifle Association credentialed firearms trainer, Ector provides CCW instruction in the Detroit area.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-cleveland/rumored-boycott-of-ora-appears-inevitable

Rumored Boycott of ORA appears Inevitable
Charles Hairston, Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner
April 17, 2011

In an article on April 15, 2011, the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner reported on the opposition of the Ohio Restaurant Association to the passage of Senate Bill 17, led by Director Richard Mason.

The article stated: “Rumor has it that an underground movement is being organized by the 250,000 concealed carry license holders and the thousands of open carry advocates to boycott Ohio restaurants and take their business across state lines to Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania”.

Through a variety of sources, it now appears that the proposed boycott of Ohio Restaurant Association Affiliates is more than just a rumor and that a boycott is inevitable. Apparently, Mason’s Office received such massive calls and emails from supporters of the bill that the ORA pulled it Board of Directors Directory from the World Wide Web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuddruckers

Fuddruckers was purchased in November 1998 by Michael Cannon, and later it was purchased by Magic Brands. The restaurant sometimes made controversial decisions; for example, in 2010 it began enforcing a no-weapons policy, which insisted that patrons should not carry "visible pistols" unless they were security officials. Laws in some U.S. states allow people to carry guns visibly in public. The move was controversial; Fuddruckers management had been concerned that the presence of armed patrons might deter unarmed ones from visiting, but the move caused controversy among pro-gun advocates who threatened to retaliate with boycotts of Fuddruckers restaurants.

And of course, back of it all -- since normal people just really don't want to walk around in public displaying guns to the world:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/29/fuddruckers-chain-feeling-heat-from-pro-gun-advocates/

Earlier this month, Fuddruckers managers in some locations informed their patrons carrying visible pistols that—unless they were police — they’d have to leave. Gun-toters have been posting their shock and outrage on a number of Web forums, like this one.

Noshing on fries while packing heat has apparently been a popular way for pro-gun advocates in Virginia — and some of the 42 other states where “open-carry” of guns is legal — to get together to demonstrate their right to bear arms.

... Pro-gun proponents have responded to Fuddruckers this month with threats of boycotts.

So ... is the INTENT not to put these businesses out of business if they don't bow to the demands of these people?

I thought that was what boycotts were for, myself.

[rl6214]

52. But if it is such a SMALL amount and if the gun control movement

is coming on strong as some have claimed here (the backlash cometh) then how can this small amount POSSIBLY shut down a business? Afterall, as we are told here time and time again, the majority want gun control.

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. Those rude toters! Where *ever* did they get the idea to do such things?

I'm sure it will occur to me sooner or later....

[Hoopla Phil]

30. Then you should have no problem citing that "never happen" claim you made.

As you made the claim, you should back it up - or retract it.

[X_Digger]

42. 1-2% of most states have CCW..

What makes you think 1-2% of customers going elsewhere would cause the shop to 'have been put out of business'?

*snort*

[Atypical Liberal]

57. That's the perils of having a business open to the public, I guess. nt

[iverglas]

25. actually, you don't know that

Who knows how many times this sort of thing happens and the fortunate outcome is that nobody actually gets injured?

Those incidents get into the newspapers, do they? Reported to police? I don't think so.

I'd feel quite safe thinking that for each of the ones that we hear about in which someone was actually injured, there were a few more where no one did.

I wouldn't be any more confident about the wisdom of permitting people to wander abroad with firearms secreted about their persons just because they had the pure good fortune not to injure someone when they behaved like this.

[TheWraith]

32. Argument from ignorance.

The first reaction when the facts don't work in someone's favor: argue that the facts don't exist or that they're not reliable. Sort of like how deniers claim that the science of global warming isn't reliable. In reality, you have to toss out all rational understanding of statistics in order to claim that there's "SO MANY!" unreported incidents that it becomes significant.

And even if you had a point, which you don't, by your own admission you're talking about incidents where no one was hurt and nothing happened in a public place. (Unless you think someone can fire off a gun in public and no one asks questions.) So even if you were right, you still have no counter-argument to the fact that accidental shootings are at all-time lows.

[iverglas]

36. accusation from malice

Or hell, maybe ignorance; what do I know?

The first reaction when the facts don't work in someone's favor: argue that the facts don't exist or that they're not reliable.

Go find somebody who did that and annoy them.

And even if you had a point, which you don't, by your own admission you're talking about incidents where no one was hurt and nothing happened in a public place.

"Nothing happened"? No, that isn't what I was talking about.

You think that Persons X, Y, Z, ... should assume the risk that person A won't "accidentally" let off a bullet, and cross their fingers that if it happens, the bullet won't hit them.

I don't.

(Unless you think someone can fire off a gun in public and no one asks questions.)

The incident in question wasn't "in public", it was in a privately-owned barbershop. Had no one been shot, then unless the proprietor or someone else there was inclined to call the police, no one would have asked questions.

At spin's barbershop, where the proprietor and a good chunk of the clientele were packing, would the police have been called? Hmm.

So even if you were right, you still have no counter-argument to the fact that accidental shootings are at all-time lows.

Apples and oranges, my dear friend.

In the past, many accidental shootings were associated with hunting. I have no doubt that those incidents have declined, in part because of the decline in hunting itself, in part because of intense public education and more enforcement, e.g. to combat hunting while drunk and encourage various safety practices.

This here is another kettle of fish. And you might want to tell us what the breakdown of accidental shootings is, year by year or such, before asking me to accept the notion that the risk of accidental shootings is not increased by the practice of significant numbers of people dragging their guns to the barbershop with them.

[rl6214]

53. Splitting hairs again

"(Unless you think someone can fire off a gun in public and no one asks questions.)

The incident in question wasn't "in public", it was in a privately-owned barbershop."

Yeah, you know what was meant by the "in public" comment, don't act like you don't and split hairs.

[iverglas]

58. avoiding the issue again

If someone discharges a firearm in real public, e.g. on a public sidewalk, yes indeed, it is quite likely to come to the attention of the authorities, since there is quite likely going to be someone nearby who doesn't just think "oops".

In a barbershop where the proprietor is carrying a firearm and a customer is carrying a firearm, it seems to me to be a great deal more likely that if someone has an "oops" with their gun but no one is hurt, there will be tacit agreement among those present that the authorities do not need to be involved, even if it would occur to them to involve the authorities. (Of course, with all persons present known and identifiable, there might also be considerable pressure not to do so on anyone who would have done so.)

A relevant and meaningful distinction is not a hair.

[russ1943]

44. Thousands unintentionally shot in US annually.

#4 Posted “Facts don’t support your claim..........But what is true is that accidental shootings are at huge historical lows, rates around a few hundred a year.”

The numbers & rates of accidental shootings for the most recent years available according to WISQARS (which labels them as unintentional) have been increasing.
2009 18,610 *people unintentionally shot in the US
2008 17,807 shot, including those killed
2007 16,311 "
2006 15,320 "
* Without any fatalities.
Accidental shootings have been averaging in the thousands per year (about 17,000) in the US and only about 4% of those result in a fatality.

[iverglas]

59. and once again

the declining fatality numbers alongside the rising injury numbers point to the effect of greater expertise in trauma treatment more than anything else.

One should cross one's fingers and hope that if one is "unintentionally" shot, one is in the vicinity of a good hospital, with good front-line services available to get one there alive.

[SteveM]

10. Do you have sources or cites for "This will 'never' happen....?"

"Over and over and over and over and over again..." does not hack it. You are merely cheering for the wrong side at a football game. Who ever said "This will 'never' happen?" Please cite; you can limit yourself to this forum, or go afield and find someone who has said that. Let us know when you find a source.

You should sell this straw to parched states in the Southwest; the price of forage is sky-high.

The barber can sue, the police can prosecute and should.

[Euromutt]

45. I doubt anyone's said "never"; they have said "highly unlikely"

And indeed, this kind of event wouldn't be "newsworthy" if it weren't extremely rare. I have a hard time figuring out--assuming the information given is correct--how this could even happen. How did the holster come loose from the carrier's pants? What kind of handgun still discharges upon striking the floor after dropping a mere three feet (given that most modern handguns are "drop safe")?

[rl6214]

50. Blood flowing in the streets I tell ya...

Over and over and over and over and over again (is that the right amount of overs, I kinda lost track) we are constantly told by the anti-gun zealots that there WILL be blood flowing in the streets if allowed to carry handguns for self defense and yet it hasn't happened.

[safeinOhio]

55. can you cite one posting where someone on DU

said "Blood flowing in the streets" or you just making shit up?

[rl6214]

66. I probably could but it's not worth my time to look it up.

Besides, you are the one that said on DU, not me but nice try moving those goalposts, don't hurt yourself.

[safeinOhio]

68. Yah right.

Said over and over again. So, just find 6 or 7 examples not on DU.

[RC]

3. The barber should have been armed.

He could have shot the customer first.
Guns for everbody, that way we will all be safe!

[spin]

12. In Tampa, my barber had a concealed weapons permit and did carry ...

and many of his customers, including me, also had carry permits.

It was a very polite barber shop.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Have you EVER seen a 'not polite' barbershop? Seriously. nt

[spin]

20. Yes. At one barbershop I was at a drunk staggered in and started to raise hell ...

The lady who owned the shop handled him politely and effectively and he staggered out.

He was obviously not a serious threat to anyone but he was impolite.

I have also been in barber shops when the political discussions got a little heated.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

38. Who said that?

I merely said that I have been in barbershops when heated political discussions occurred which was in reply to a post that asked,

Have you EVER seen a 'not polite' barbershop? Seriously. nt

I have also been in barbershops and was bored out of my mind by long conversations about hunting deer. While guns, or at least the talk of guns, was involved, guns were not a solution to this conversation either. (Note: I am not a hunter and I would have been far more happy to have a hot debate about politics than listen to a detailed discussion of deer hunting. I will admit venison does taste good if prepared properly.)

I decided to rectify the problem of listening to all the deer hunting talk at the barbershop. Since I was going bald and it always irritated me that I had to pay the same price for a short haircut as a guy with a full head of hair that took much longer to cut, I simply decided to shave my head.

[oneshooter]

41. There ya go, telling less than the truth again, Bless your heart. n/t

[iverglas]

34. and this has to do wtih carrying firearms in barbershops ... how?

Seems to suggest it's not a great idea.

Unless you're saying that having everybody carrying guns while getting their hair cut averts "heated political discussions".

Now there's a good thing, eh?

And here I thought the second amendment was the guarantor of the first ...

:rofl:

[spin]

39. It has nothing to do with carrying firearms in a barbershop ...

but was merely an answer to a poster who asked,

Have you EVER seen a 'not polite' barbershop? Seriously. nt

However in both instances that I mentioned I was indeed carrying a concealed firearm. That fact is just as irrelevant as mentioning that I was recently a carrying concealed weapon in a grocery store when I was buying shaving cream. There is nothing unusual about my carrying a concealed weapon as I have a license to do so.

edited for typo

[ileus]

7. Modern firearms should not discharge from being dropped.

[spin]

17. He might have been carrying something like an NAA mini-revolver ...

Even with the newer models you have to be careful to follow the instructions below. If you forget, you might hear a loud noise if you accidentally drop the weapon.

FAQ - Mini-Revolver Safety Cylinder


***snip***

The Safety Cylinder is a critical part of the gun. We recommend that you practice the following steps to become proficient at using the Safety Cylinder before loading the gun.

First: Make sure the gun is unloaded.
Second: Make sure the gun is unloaded!
Third: Retract the hammer to the point that the cylinder spins freely (about half-way) and keep it retracted.
Fourth: Looking through the top/rear of the frame, locate any of the five milled safety slots (those notches on the cylinder between the chambers), and position any slot directly beneath the blade of the hammer (which is still retracted).
Fifth: While still retracting the hammer, depress the trigger (and keep it depressed)
now allow the hammer to settle into the slot.

You can (should) confirm engagement of the hammer in the slot by attempting to rotate the cylinder; if it does rotate, the hammer was not engaged in the slot (repeat the process). Visually confirm, also, by examining the alignment of any chamber with the bore; if a bullet could physically pass from the chamber through the bore, the gun is not 'safe'. In other words, if a chamber is located at 12 o'clock, the gun is not 'safe'; in the 'safe' condition, the upper two chambers are at one and eleven o'clock. 99.9% of the failures are because the trigger was not kept fully depressed while the hammer was being lowered (Step 5). Once you get the hang of it, however, you'll find the process becomes surprisingly easy, quick and natural.
http://newsite.naaminis.com/safetycylinder

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Hear a loud noise. Or shoot somebody in the ass. nt

[Hoyt]

54. That thing is clearly an "accident waiting to happen."

[spin]

79. Not if you follow instructions ...

Of course, some people are not capable of following a simple procedure such as described to insure that the mini-revolver will not fire if dropped.

[CanonRay]

8. Bet it was a Glock

The article didn't say, but my money is on a Glock. Piece of shit dangerous thing.

[ileus]

13. You don't believe in the "safe action"

:)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

37. meh... glocks are single action. I don't know how Glock gets away calling them DA or "safe action"

[SteveM]

15. Safety starts with proper training. I prefer a Ruger revolver -- action bar. nt

[iverglas]

35. You meant to say: safety of person X starts with proper training of person Y

I wonder why person X would want to rely on person Y getting that training and being willing to adhere and capable of adhering to it at all times?

I also wonder how "proper training" could guarantee that these things don't happen anyhow.

I got proper training when I learned to drive a car. I've still skidded into my share of snowbanks.

At least the other people driving on the roads in winter have assumed the risks associated with sharing the roads with other drivers.

How does going to get one's hair cut imply assuming the risks associated with somebody else having a gun on the premises?

[TPaine7]

47. "How does going to get one's hair cut imply assuming the risks

associated with somebody else having a gun on the premises?"

Oh that's easy. It's because Americans who get past elementary school should understand that sane, law-abiding adults can keep and bear arms. If you are in a public place, you should assume that there are sane, law abiding adults in the vicinity, and that some of them may be armed. Just like you should assume that there may be people there with smartphones and books and pens and newspapers and watches and tattoos and matches.

Places with guns would obviously include barbershops that don't ban guns on the premises. Unless, of course, one is a dog being taken to an exclusive convict-run doggy barbershop by a convict, said barbershop only serving one client at a time.

[SteveM]

61. There is no entity that can be "relied" upon, or provide a "guarantee."

Improper use of a firearm makes one liable, and not just in barber shops.

[GKirk]

65. You didn't complete your sentence...

"I got proper training when I learned to drive a car. I've still skidded into my share of snowbanks...in July"
:) (you're from Canada, in case you forgot)

[Glassunion]

16. Why does everybody pick on the Glock all the time?

They are all dangerous if handled improperly.

[spin]

22. Yiou either love Glocks or you hate them ...

I fall in the hate category but I have to admit that Glocks are reliable and easy to clean and work on. All that I have fired have been in my opinion accurate. However they are flat out fugly. I really am not fond on having the safety on top on the trigger as it's like having the brake on your car mounted on top of the accelerator pedal.

You have to be very careful with such a firearm and even buying an improper holster can lead to an accidental discharge.

The importance of a good holster
This holster ...

resulted in this...

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/03/29/the-importance-of-a-good-holster/

I personally like S&W revolvers. I do own a couple of Colt .45 autos which I enjoy target shooting.

If I ever decide to buy a pistol for self defense and concealed carry, it will be double action only without a safety (similar to my S&W Model 642 revolver). I did own a .40 caliber Beretta 96D which was DOA, but while it was a good home and car defense weapon, it was a little large for concealed carry in Florida's warm months.

[Glassunion]

28. For me

I love em.. It's the grip angle.

Depending on the holster I will or will not have a round chambered.

10,000+ rounds fired at the range, never, ever had any jams or FTF's. I cannot say the same of my Ruger or S&W.

[oneshooter]

56. I am just the oppisite. The Glocks do not feel right in my hand

nor do they point shoot well for me. Prefer the 1911 and SIG grip angle.

Pistols are steel
Holsters are leather


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Common Sense Party]

71. I didn't like the Glock fit either, so I went for Springfield XDm. n/t

[Euromutt]

48. Oh, I don't know...

I don't really care for Glocks myself, but I've never missed with a borrowed or issued one (the Dutch army adopted the 17 in 1994), and my preferred SD/HD handguns are Smith & Wesson M&Ps which are--just like Glocks--striker-fired pistols with no manual safety (though, unlike Glocks, they do have the advantage that you don't have to pull the trigger prior to disassembly). I don't love Glocks, but I certainly don't hate them.

[TheWraith]

33. Maybe, but I for one don't trust a firearm without an external safety.

It's just my thing. I like having manual control.

[spin]

40. I prefer modern S&W revolvers without a safety for self defense ...

or a double action only pistol without a safety.

[Abin Sur]

43. I'm reminded of a story about the designer of the Radom ViS 35 pistol,

Piotr Wilniewczyc, back in the 1930's. When someone pointed out that his pistol (now regarded as one of the best designs of WWII) didn't have a manually operated safety, he replied, "Yes it does", and pointed to his trigger finger.

I have a rather nice Nazi-marked Radom in my collection, made not too long after Poland was conquered. The ones made late in the war were much cruder.

[Atypical Liberal]

60. Me too. Manual safeties detect intent, not just presence.

To me, manual safeties are very important. Because it is a mechanical interlock that you have to defeat to make the firearm operate.

All of the "safeties" on weapons like the Glock or XDM pistols are not, in my book, actual safeties. They are simply "something present detectors." They simply detect pressure on the grip and the trigger and assume that that pressure is a human hand that is intending to fire the weapon.

But it might not be a human hand. And even if it is a human hand, it might not be a hand of someone who intends to fire the weapon.

A manual safety is something that has to be actuated by intent, not just presence.

[spin]

64. I like the grip safety on 1911 style pistols ...

for me it works well, but some people dislike it.

[Atypical Liberal]

69. I do, too, but....

I do, too, but the grip safety, again, is only a detector of presence, not a detector of intent, like a manual safety is.

[spin]

70. True. (n/t)

[Logical]

72. And sometimes if handled properly!

[PavePusher]

21. How so? How do you make a Glock discharge without a finger on the trigger? n/t

[spin]

23. Buy a cheap holster. See post #22 (n/t)

[PavePusher]

24. Oh heck, I'd forgotten about that, I believe you posted it a while ago.

One of the reasons I prefer plastic to leather for most carry, besides the fact that I perspire more than almost anyone I know.

[spin]

26. Soemone else must have made that post ...

I just found the site myself.

When Glocks first came out I seem to remember that the storage box the weapon came with had a stud that could contact the trigger when the gun was placed in the box. Obviously if the weapon was fully loaded, this could cause a AD.

It took a while to find it on the net but my memory was accurate...

The All New Glock Box



Back at the end of the '80s, Glock, Inc. took notice that a number of negligent discharges¹ had occurred with their Models 17, 19 and 17L because shooters were attempting to replace a loaded pistol in the original Glock box, the one with the conical post designed to fit snugly into the trigger guard. This was a proven formula for an unpleasant surprise, often with attendant serious personal injury. (This was one of a series of "product improvments" Gaston Glock instituted because those stupid Americans just didn't seem to be able to deal with his much ballyhoo'd "Perfection.")

Comes now an all-new Glock box design… it's got that really neat "High-Tech" look that helps guys get girls, but it's not being especially well-received by LE agencies and dealers with a large inventory of Glocks 'cause the new container doesn't stack and store as compactly as the original.
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-box.html

[Euromutt]

46. Doubtful; Glocks are unforgiving of error, but they are assuredly "drop safe"

Glocks, famously, will not fire unless the trigger is pulled; infamously, they will fire if the trigger is pulled. There is absolutely no reason a Glock should discharge as the result of being dropped on the floor from three feet, unless there was something protruding into the trigger guard (and if so, that would be entirely the user's fault).

[AzNick]

74. A well maintained Glock would not do that. A mini revolver would

As someone already posted, it is likely to be that.

.22 cal little guns.

[rl6214]

49. And your point for this news story?

Oh that's right, you didn't make one.

[Euromutt]

51. I think it's an attempt at plausible deniability

The policy recommendation the OP drives at is implied but never explicitly stated; that way, the OP can claim "I never said that" when cornered.

[rl6214]

67. I guess that's the same as find any one person on DU that has said that

Never directly said, just indirectly.

[Glassunion]

62. Why is this such a big deal?

Who hasn't accidentally shot their barber? They know going into the profession what the risks are.

[Kennah]

73. I haven't, but I did gut punch mine the last time I came in for a trim.

[SecularMotion]

63. He needs gun carry insurance

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382990

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. No insurance company will pay for negligence on the part of the policyholder n/t

[SecularMotion]

77. If the insurance company determines the accident was a result of negligence

on the part of the gun carrier, then he should be sued for damages.

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. So the insurance policy would be pointless in that case.

Any insurance company would say (and rightfully so) "You fucked up, so you're not covered". Remember, this is a negligent
discharge, not an accident.