Concealed Carry Football Fan Shoots Self by Accident

[mikeb302000]

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1107gun-toting_fan_shoots_self_in_leg_misses_shot_at_seeing_pats_game">The Boston Herald reports on a very interesting incident. CCW permit holders are among the most responsible of gun owners. Everyone knows this. In The Bay State, presumably, they're even better screened and therefore safer than, say, in http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/07/arizonas-first.html">Arizona.

The man, who is licensed to carry, was about to see the Patriots play the New York Giants when he checked the back of his ticket and saw firearms were prohibited at the Foxboro venue, said state police spokesman David Procopio. As the man was taking out the gun back at his car, a round went off, going through his leg near the knee about 3 p.m., Procopio said.

After all the flack I've received over http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/03/i-blame-lawful-gun-owners-in-addition.html">my shared responsibility ideas, I dare you pro-gun guys to blame the gun-free zone rules at the stadium, I double dare you.

The fact is a guy with a license to carry a concealed weapon who doesn't know that the Patriot's football stadium is a gun free-zone is already in the wrong. I thought these guys were supposed to be aware of the rules before they go places? Isn't that one of the big complaints? The poor endangered men have to take their chances unarmed when they go to the post office and the court house.

His failure to know the gun-free zones was the least of his sins. There's no excuse for a negligent discharge, other than negligence that is. Negligence is not acceptable. CCW permit holders must be held to a higher standard. When you make a mistake with a hammer, you sometimes blacken your thumb. When you make a mistake with a gun, the damage is likely to be worse than that.

The solution is http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-strike-youre-out.html">the one strike you're out rule. It's simple. It need not violate due process. It could be done properly. The results would be to disarm the most reckless and stupid among the gun owners, the ones responsible for most of the problems.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[ingac70]

1. I agree with the one strike your out....

one stupid incident, no more CCW.

[CreekDog]

2. when you let damn near everyone have a CCW permit, there's going to be accidents

and guns don't make you safer.

there's that one moment here and there where they might make you safer, but the rest of the time they make you less safe.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. "Damn near everyone"? You're not from Massachusetts, are you?

Though we are like California in one crucial way- Holding political office or donating a large sum to the proper campaign fund is a great way to prove that you both need to carry a concealed handgun and are qualified to do so. Funny how that works, innit?

[SteveM]

28. "...let damn near everyone?" Who advocates this? Please provide link. nt

[iverglas]

32. you don't have to answer if you don't want ...

... but in one of those "shall-issue" states, what proportion of the adult population would not actually be able to demand a permit?

I guess it wouldn't actually leave "damn near everyone" as being eligible, but hell, not all that far off, eh?

[SteveM]

34. Not the question I posed, but anyway...

A: Convicted felons, adjudicated mental incompetents, people under 21 (except in certain circumstances), perhaps illegal aliens.

Here's one for you:

Q: How many eligible folks actually have a concealed-carry license?

[iverglas]

35. certainly not any answer to my question

A: Convicted felons, adjudicated mental incompetents, people under 21 (except in certain circumstances), perhaps illegal aliens.

Gosh, maybe somebody didn't know that.

What I asked for was numbers.

Q: How many eligible folks actually have a concealed-carry license?

Who knows who cares?

The statement you took issue was about when you let damn near everyone have a permit. Nothing to do with who actually does.

Not doing too well backing up that huffy response of yours to that statement, so far.

[SteveM]

39. The minutiae: It blows in the wind. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

29. I would argue...

...the rest of the time they don't do squat, but like a lot of items, when you need them, you REALLY need them.

You may not like them, but that doesn't give you the right to tell others what they may or may not do.

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. So would your "one strike" be a felony or a aggravated misdemeanor?

I'm not replying to a blind link to your blog, so if you want this idea of yours discussed here you should damn well present it here.

[iverglas]

33. hm, that's just weird

Permission denial is neither a felony nor a misdemeanour, I think. I can't even parse your question ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. It wouldn't be "permission denial", it would be a denial of rights under law.

You, personally, may or may not care about the minutiae of US Constitutional law, but it is the "owners' manual" (so to speak) around here- and since Mc Donald came down, you'd need a compelling reason to pull his permit. "Unlawful discharge",
per Town of Foxbourough law, might be one. A simple ND would not meet the Constitutional standard.

[Skittles]

5. fucking moron

[Remmah2]

16. Probably a Giants fan. nt

nt

[RSillsbee]

45. Are you talking about the guy that shot himself or the OP?

I could see where there could be some confusion

[appleannie1]

6. I was a hunter for many years. And a gun owner. No way would I go into a stadium with a loaded gun

whether it was allowed or not.

[Hoyt]

41. I wish more folks were like you.

[LAGC]

7. Darwin Award?

I don't think we need a "one strike and you're out law", we should just let natural selection take its course instead.

:evilgrin:

[jmg257]

8. That's too bad, the poor endangered guy shot himself AND missed a great game.

[jtuck004]

9. I think your real danger is the accident that hasn't happened yet.

This guy has already had his, and one incident does not show a propensity.

Granted, waiting may get someone hurt, but if no one thought there would be accidents with CCW, they were fooling themselves. And dang, he shot himself. Wanna bet he learned more than the guy or gal who hasn't shot themself, yet?

High standards? Should police be fired for an accidental discharge? Of their gun. I mean their service weapon.

I think there should be a fine and a hearing to determine if there were other factors after his wound heals a couple months or so.
They should have the power to jerk the ticket, except the ability to leave them with it, if they have some confidence that it isn't likely to happen again with this person.

[mwb970]

10. Why does one need a loaded gun at the ready for a football game?

I'm afraid I don't understand even the simplest things about gun nuts like this guy. What was it he thought would happen? A massacre of some kind, with him heroically stopping it? Has that ever happened?

I don't get it.

:shrug:

[GreenStormCloud]

15. Because Star Trek Transporters haven't been invented yet.

He has to travel from home to game to wherever else he may be going, and then someplace else and finally home. The gun could well be needed at any of those other places. I suspect that you actually want citizens to be disarmed and vulnerable to criminals at all times.

[mwb970]

17. OK, whatever.

:eyes:

[AtheistCrusader]

20. If you don't start out with a false assumption

it's easier to have a conversation.

[SteveM]

30. "Understanding" begins with dropping terms like "gun nuts..."

I rather suspect he carries in other locales where danger is higher, and didn't realize he was illegal at the stadium; hence his return to the vehicle.

A better approach is to visit these forums with a somewhat more open mind. No one here expects "a massacre of some kind, with him/her heroically stopping it."

BTW, there have been a few instances where "massacres" were in progress before armed citizens put a stop to them (Pearl River, Miss., Appalachian State Law School). Very few mentions of "heroes," however, given MSM's attitude toward firearms.

[mwb970]

49. What do you prefer instead of "gun nuts"?

How about

"people who are obsessed with guns"

or

"people who inexplicably place guns at the center of their lives, where other people have music, sex, friends, and television"

?

[petronius]

50. Anyone who places television near the center of their life is a bigger nut than

anyone I've ever seen at a range or gun shop. :P

How about just not assuming that people who own guns, choose to carry them, or prefer less-stringent gun control are "obsessed", or inexplicably over-involved, or are 'nuts - no more than music nuts, TV nuts, surfboard nuts, camera nuts...

[jmg257]

51. I prefer peanuts...maybe walnuts...definitely pistachios, but that doesn't work as well.

"Gun Nuts...get crackin!"

[RC]

11. Besides the loaded gun in a crowd, what was he doing with one in the chamber?

It can't be that involved to work the action.
Wasn't CC implemented to stop the quick draw want-a-be types from strapping the gun holster to his leg where his hand naturally falls?
If people are so paranoid they think they need to carry a gun in public, they are too paranoid to have one.

[jmg257]

21. Many people carry concealed because they fear they will need to use

that weapon for self-defense. That means bringing it into action ASAP...very possibly one handed...while deadly physical force being used against you is imminent.

Though the Isreali military seems to like it, carrying with an empty chamber is not good or smart practice. Even carrying with a manual safety engaged is questionable on some semi-autos, though on a SA it is well recommended (and usually easy to deactivate).

[rl6214]

22. An unloaded gun dosen't do much good

If it's not loaded and chambered it's about as good as a rock.

"strapping the gun holster to his leg"

Not too easy to conceal a gun that is strapped to a leg.This one was in a backpack but when I carry it's in a fanny pack specifically designed to carry a gun or in a belt held holster, that way there is not a chance that your finger will accidently end on the trigger until you want it to.

[RC]

25. Reading comprehension?

Wasn't CC implemented to stop the quick draw want-a-be types from strapping the gun holster to his leg where his hand naturally falls?

How hard is it to work the action to chamber a round?

BTY, it is loaded by virtue of the bullets in the clip in the gun, even though there is not a round in the chamber. It is just not ready to fire.

[rl6214]

26. A gun without a round in the chamber is just a big rock

There, fixed it for you.

"How hard is it to work the action to chamber a round?"



Are you familiar with the Tuller Drill? A person can travel 21ft in just 1.5 seconds. That's quicker than you can draw and chamber a round. If that person had a knife, you would be dead before you drew your gun, chambered a round and aimed at the attacker.

[ileus]

37. an unleaded gun is a collectors item.

[SteveM]

31. Oh, I just love your circular logic. Not:

"If people are so paranoid they think they need to carry a gun in public, they are too paranoid to have one."

Such a standard, esp. given the promiscuous definitions parlor psychologists have for "paranoia."

[ileus]

12. Ouch that's gotta hurt.

[Katya Mullethov]

13. I was hoping you wouldnt find it .

This one precipitous event could very well spell the end of the self defense movement .




Oh .... and Eric the Three Toed Sloth is gonna fry some more today .

Senate Judiciary Committee
Full Committee
DATE: November 8, 2011
TIME: 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
ROOM: Dirksen 226

[aikoaiko]

14. If he violated a law then he can be prosecuted. Otherwise its just an negligent discharge...

...that injured himself. People make mistakes that injure themselves or others often. There can and should appropriate consequences.

I suspect there are already laws like discharging a firearm within the city limits that could be applied.

If the State of Massachusetts, being very tight with it firearm regulations, doesn't prosecute or withdraw his permit, then I think that helps place your views on the extreme end.

[Oneka]

18. A hint of hypocrasy?

"The gun-rights extremists love to point out anecdotal situations in which a gun MIGHT
have helped, but they reject all the other anecdotal situations in which the gun did more
harm than good."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=477211&mesg_id=477211

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[rl6214]

23. So he saw the sign saying he couldn't take his gun into the stadium

And did the correct thing and returned it to his car instead of trying to sneak it in. So he followed the law, right?

"The fact is a guy with a license to carry a concealed weapon who doesn't know that the Patriot's football stadium is a gun free-zone is already in the wrong. I thought these guys were supposed to be aware of the rules before they go places?"

I don't think this is against the law in every state. Some of you other CCL holders jump in if I am wrong here.

Blind links. You want to have people comment on your BS yet you continue to hide it behind blind links. No one is going to take you at all serious if you keep doing this.

"The solution is the one strike you're out rule."

Were you imprisoned over your self admitted illegal gun ownership? You are advocating one strike and you're out. Is that why you are such an anti-gun zealot?

Unrec for the usual BS

[Atypical Liberal]

24. Who does that?

After all the flack I've received over my shared responsibility ideas, I dare you pro-gun guys to blame the gun-free zone rules at the stadium, I double dare you.

The rules for where you can carry guns have nothing to do with unsafe handling of a firearm. That said, there is no reason why he should not have been able to carry inside a stadium. If he is safe outside the stadium, then he is safe inside the stadium.

The fact is a guy with a license to carry a concealed weapon who doesn't know that the Patriot's football stadium is a gun free-zone is already in the wrong. I thought these guys were supposed to be aware of the rules before they go places? Isn't that one of the big complaints? The poor endangered men have to take their chances unarmed when they go to the post office and the court house.

One of the hassles with concealed carry, and the main reason I don't carry, is you have to constantly be wondering if the place you are going to disallows firearms or not. I suppose you could say that people should plan their day every day and check ahead to see whether or not any of the places they are visiting allow guns or not. Personally, I don't think people should have to worry about such things. I think any facility open to the public should allow concealed carry. If I can walk down main street with a firearm, then I should be good to go anywhere.

His failure to know the gun-free zones was the least of his sins. There's no excuse for a negligent discharge, other than negligence that is. Negligence is not acceptable. CCW permit holders must be held to a higher standard. When you make a mistake with a hammer, you sometimes blacken your thumb. When you make a mistake with a gun, the damage is likely to be worse than that.

The solution is the one strike you're out rule. It's simple. It need not violate due process. It could be done properly. The results would be to disarm the most reckless and stupid among the gun owners, the ones responsible for most of the problems.

Suits me. If you can't safely carry a firearm in public, then you don't get to carry them in public anymore. Maybe you require a training class or something if you want to carry again.

[SteveM]

27. "I double dare you." Getting a little macho on us?

What in heaven's name is your point? The guy violated the law, and he going to be held accountable.

Your "one strike you're out rule" resonates with GOP-advocated "Three strikes you're out." Except they have a little moderation in their approach. As it stands, he will probably lose his concealed-carry permit, and should.

[Hoyt]

42. There are plenty more like him packing.

[SteveM]

46. Only in your imagination, since no evidence is presented. nt

[rl6214]

52. "packing"?

Somebody going on a trip?

[ileus]

36. This is the kind of stuff you get when you insist on gun free zones.

[jmg257]

38. :) I triple dog dare ya! nt

[Hoyt]

43. Or, what you get when you let people carry guns in public.

[RSillsbee]

44. If I was already in the stadium

I would have ignored the GFZ rule

[krispos42]

47. Um... security didn't catch him and make him go back to his car.

He did it all by his lonesome. BEFORE the authorities stepped in, BEFORE he unknowingly broke any laws.


So he didn't "fail" to know about the gun-free zone. Okay, it would have been nice if he had noticed it before he left the house, but that's the worst you can say about it.


The ND... well, that's a screwup and he should be punished.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

48. Punished for what?

Only person he harmed was himself. I'd call that punishment enough.

As the old saying goes, you've either had one, or you're going to. Anyone who shoots or carries a gun on a regular basis will have an ND at some point. It happens. That's why proper muzzle control is so critical.