Man accidentally shoots self while bowling, police say

[Glas Ridire]

Didn't the guy think about putting it on safety?

Single action revolvers don't tend (I am unaware of any & if it goes bang, I pretty much know about it) to have safeties, rather they rely on not having their hammers cocked until they are ready to be fired. Modern and double action revolvers frequently have hammer-blocks which prevent discharges unless the trigger is pulled all the way through its travel. I suspect the revolver in question was being toyed with or carried cocked, which on a firearm without a trigger guard, outside a holster, is dumb, exceedingly dumb (to the point of wondering if the guy did it on purpose to try and get a settlement/ sue the manufacturer). This isn't an example of garden variety dumb, this is like the terminal disease kinda dumb. Anyway. . .

In the United States, we have a principle in our law that the offender is considered innocent til proven otherwise. That is why this guy was presumed responsible until he indicated otherwise, through negligent action. The firearm can't fire accidentally unless cocked (a willful action) and then the trigger bumped (carelessness) without the first element, the second would be a non-event (nothing would have happened). As for him not being a felon now, that remains to be seen, states attorneys can wait a good while to bring charges against folk that aren't in custody.

 

[JCSr]

As a young southpaw bowler with a righty father and few people from whom to learn, he was someone I tried to emulate.

Amazing! That is also one of the things about him I admired! A brother lefty Plus, in the old days Earl had a crew cut and thick glasses just like my father. That was another thing I liked about Anthony, other than being a terrific bowler. Sadly I was never near that good

I cannot imagine Earl Anthony being dumb enough to bowl with a gun in his pocket.

 

[Glas Ridire]

I cannot imagine Earl Anthony being dumb enough to bowl with a gun in his pocket.

There is nothing dumb about it when done responsibly. Quality pocket holsters aren't outrageous (like $60 for the top of the line, from one of the most reputable custom gun leathersmiths), carrying the hun the way the manufacturer designed it and not fiddling with it as if a toy would make this negligent discharge quite impossible. Impossible is not too strong a word, guns in quality holsters won't go off. Single action revolvers made after about 1920 will not go off unless they are cocked, even if you lay the gun on the floor and drop a bowling ball in it. You'd have to get creative, tape the trigger back with the revolver in a vise pointed up at a greater than 45 degree angle and drop the bowling ball at just the right angle to "fan" the hammer, rather than simply breaking the spur. A bowling ball could set off an uncocked single action revolver made within the last hundred years only by the method I have outlined. That leaves dumb guy carrying it in a fashion the design isn't intended to be (cocked) and outside a holster, also not intended by the nanufacturer. Are there other machines that can do bad things if used in a manner not intended by the manufacturer? Um? This is on the level with trying to clean a blender while it is operating (hard on fingertips) or taking sports cars off roading (call insurance agent ahead of time).

 

[JCSr]

There is nothing dumb about it when done responsibly. Quality pocket holsters aren't outrageous (like $60 for the top of the line, from one of the most reputable custom gun leathersmiths), carrying the hun the way the manufacturer designed it and not fiddling with it as if a toy would make this negligent discharge quite impossible. Impossible is not too strong a word, guns in quality holsters won't go off. Single action revolvers made after about 1920 will not go off unless they are cocked, even if you lay the gun on the floor and drop a bowling ball in it. You'd have to get creative, tape the trigger back with the revolver in a vise pointed up at a greater than 45 degree angle and drop the bowling ball at just the right angle to "fan" the hammer, rather than simply breaking the spur. A bowling ball could set off an uncocked single action revolver made within the last hundred years only by the method I have outlined. That leaves dumb guy carrying it in a fashion the design isn't intended to be (cocked) and outside a holster, also not intended by the nanufacturer. Are there other machines that can do bad things if used in a manner not intended by the manufacturer? Um? This is on the level with trying to clean a blender while it is operating (hard on fingertips) or taking sports cars off roading (call insurance agent ahead of time).

I appreciate your comment however bowling with a gun in the pocket is dumb. This has nothing to do with carrying a gin in a pocket, just bowling with it in the pocket. It is probably uncomfortable and most likely contributes to lower scores. Oh, and the safety thing.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I appreciate your comment however bowling with a gun in the pocket is dumb. This has nothing to do with carrying a gin in a pocket, just bowling with it in the pocket. It is probably uncomfortable and most likely contributes to lower scores. Oh, and the safety thing.

Although bowling with a gun in one's pocket seems ludicrous, what is sane about bowling while consuming copious amounts of alcoholic beverages and then getting behind the wheel of a car? Which one is actually the greater safety issue and which one is more common?

 

[JCSr]

Although bowling with a gun in one's pocket seems ludicrous, what is sane about bowling while consuming copious amounts of alcoholic beverages and then getting behind the wheel of a car? Which one is actually the greater safety issue and which one is more common?

Other than this topic having nothing to do with alcohol or driving, you have a point.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Other than this topic having nothing to do with alcohol or driving, you have a point.

Is what one does while bowling not relevant to the topic? Perhaps you wish for some reason to limit the scope of discussion to an extremely narrow focus? If so, please be kind enough to spell out exactly how narrow the focus ought to be.

 

[AirPo]

Is what one does while bowling not relevant to the topic? Perhaps you wish for some reason to limit the scope of discussion to an extremely narrow focus? If so, please be kind enough to spell out exactly how narrow the focus ought to be.

Seems rather obvious that the topic is gun irresponsibility.

 

[JCSr]

Is what one does while bowling not relevant to the topic? Perhaps you wish for some reason to limit the scope of discussion to an extremely narrow focus? If so, please be kind enough to spell out exactly how narrow the focus ought to be.

Yes, I want to limit the scope of discussion to a man bowling with a gun in his pocket, the dangers associated with such behavior, the liabilities which accompany discharging a weapon in public and why somebody like this is not punished for endangering the lives of others.

There was no bee hive, grenade, bottle of Jack, sharp Trident chef knife, radioactive material, gummy bears, bag of rosin, banana, or IED in his pocket, it was a gun.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Seems rather obvious that the topic is gun irresponsibility.

I was under the impression, from the thread title, that irresponsible behavior at the bowling alley was the topic. The narrowness you find so obvious did not seem so to me. That is rather a narrow topic for such a sensationalist title. Why not title the thread "gun irresponsibility" if one wishes only to discuss gun irresponsibility and no other kind of irresponsibility ought to be mentioned? Had that been the title I would certainly not have bothered with the thread at all and then no one would have been inconvenienced by my observations concerning the much more common sorts of dangerously irresponsible acts that occur daily at bowling alleys thereby leaving the few interested parties free to discuss the metaphysical meaning of a once in a lifetime accident without outside interference.

 

[JCSr]

I was under the impression, from the thread title, that irresponsible behavior at the bowling alley was the topic. The narrowness you find so obvious did not seem so to me. That is rather a narrow topic for such a sensationalist title. Why not title the thread "gun irresponsibility" if one wishes only to discuss gun irresponsibility and no other kind of irresponsibility ought to be mentioned? Had that been the title I would certainly not have bothered with the thread at all and then no one would have been inconvenienced by my observations concerning the much more common sorts of dangerously irresponsible acts that occur daily at bowling alleys thereby leaving the few interested parties free to discuss the metaphysical meaning of a once in a lifetime accident without outside interference.

Your impression was incorrect. I have posted the scope of discussion, so there should be no issue, right?

 

[AirPo]

I was under the impression, from the thread title, that irresponsible behavior at the bowling alley was the topic. The narrowness you find so obvious did not seem so to me. That is rather a narrow topic for such a sensationalist title. Why not title the thread "gun irresponsibility" if one wishes only to discuss gun irresponsibility and no other kind of irresponsibility ought to be mentioned? Had that been the title I would certainly not have bothered with the thread at all and then no one would have been inconvenienced by my observations concerning the much more common sorts of dangerously irresponsible acts that occur daily at bowling alleys.

Not buying it.

 

[JCSr]

I was under the impression, from the thread title, that irresponsible behavior at the bowling alley was the topic. The narrowness you find so obvious did not seem so to me. That is rather a narrow topic for such a sensationalist title. Why not title the thread "gun irresponsibility" if one wishes only to discuss gun irresponsibility and no other kind of irresponsibility ought to be mentioned? Had that been the title I would certainly not have bothered with the thread at all and then no one would have been inconvenienced by my observations concerning the much more common sorts of dangerously irresponsible acts that occur daily at bowling alleys thereby leaving the few interested parties free to discuss the metaphysical meaning of a once in a lifetime accident without outside interference.

When posting threads in relation to an article, it is my belief that the title I post is the title given by the author of the article. This prevents people from accusing me of politicizing or posting a misleading title. Sorry that the title sucked you into my thread in such a deceitful way. You are free to exit the thread and post about Tom Cruise in the Jane Fonda thread.

 

[HalfoffSale]

In the United States, we have a principle in our law that the offender is considered innocent til proven otherwise. That is why this guy was presumed responsible until he indicated otherwise, through negligent action. The firearm can't fire accidentally unless cocked (a willful action) and then the trigger bumped (carelessness) without the first element, the second would be a non-event (nothing would have happened). As for him not being a felon now, that remains to be seen, states attorneys can wait a good while to bring charges against folk that aren't in custody.

Innocent and responsible are two different things. I'm innocent in crashing a plane, but I'm not deemed responsible to fly one. If this guy was dumb enough to as you say willfully [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] the weapon and hit the trigger while bowling with it in his pocket, what make you think previously that he understood and was responsible enough with firearms to not willfully [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] the weapon and hit the trigger accidentally? Not having a record has nothing to do wit how he understands that part of having a firearm.

 

[Glas Ridire]

I appreciate your comment however bowling with a gun in the pocket is dumb. This has nothing to do with carrying a gin in a pocket, just bowling with it in the pocket. It is probably uncomfortable and most likely contributes to lower scores. Oh, and the safety thing.

Well no. bowling with a pocket carry gun is no more uncomfortable than bowling with a wallet, unless you are used to carrying a decorative wallet that is empty. . . in which case it might be. If you bowl with a wallet that has a reasonable but not excessive number of debit cards (credit cards I am sorry, you are a democrat) and an insurance card or two (unless you are an illegal immigrant democrat), a state Driver's License and carry permit and the receipts from your last three transactions . . . it'd feel about the same. Me, I like IWB or pancake holsters depending on what I am carrying:

Want to tell me how bowling or anything else I might do is dumb when that is on my belt? What are the chances of accidental discharge, the gun uncocked DA revolver with a modern transfer bar safety, inside a holster? If you hit it with artillery that would kill the user and everyone within 150 yards, it might go off, uncocked and inside a holster .. . by might, I mean 1 in ________ insert big number, like the same probability of your offspring mutating wings. So why is bowling with a gun dumb? A pocket holster is no less secure, a double action is not safer given the scenario here, so tell us?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Your impression was incorrect. I have posted the scope of discussion, so there should be no issue, right?

Fine, If gun irresponsibility is the only thing you desire to speak of then be my guest. I do not wish to be impolite and make you uncomfortable by discussing things you wish to avoid. Though I find your autocratic attitude on this to be somewhat inappropriate as from what I see in the rules you actually do not have the power to enforce so narrow a focus on any thread you start. I cannot find it in the rules that an observation about the actual topic line (in this case Man accidentally shoots self while bowling, police say) may not be made because the OP says it is off topic while the topic line the OP posted in the thread is something other than what the OP later claims the topic to be(in this case gun irresponsibility and nothing else but gun irresponsibility may be mentioned ) and the fact that that claimed topic is only one possible thing to discuss related to the topic line the OP posted to entice people to become involved in the thread should not be considered at all. Now let us consider the gun irresponsibility of Earl Anthony since I am sure your mention of him was completely on topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Although bowling with a gun in one's pocket seems ludicrous, what is sane about bowling while consuming copious amounts of alcoholic beverages and then getting behind the wheel of a car? Which one is actually the greater safety issue and which one is more common?

When I bowl I take almost everything out of my pockets. Ever had a cell phone vibrate in the middle of your backswing? Ever had your keys jab you in a not so comfortable place?

Just the fact that anyone would bowl with something that bulky in their pocket is kind of strange, and then add on the lethality of the object . . .

 

[JCSr]

Fine, If gun irresponsibility is the only thing you desire to speak of then be my guest.

It wasn't the only thing I wanted to discuss. Apparently you did not read my post.

I do not wish to be impolite and make you uncomfortable by discussing things you wish to avoid. Though I find your autocratic attitude on this to be somewhat inappropriate as from what I see in the rules you actually do not have the power to enforce so narrow a focus on any thread you start. I cannot find it in the rules that an observation about the actual topic line (in this case Man accidentally shoots self while bowling, police say) may not be made because the OP says it is off topic while the topic line the OP posted in the thread is something other than what the OP later claims the topic to be(in this case gun irresponsibility and nothing else but gun irresponsibility may be mentioned ) and the fact that that claimed topic is only one possible thing to discuss related to the topic line the OP posted to entice people to become involved in the thread should not be considered at all. Now let us consider the gun irresponsibility of Earl Anthony since I am sure your mention of him was completely on topic.

Sorry if you don't like being told what to discuss in my thread. You are free to start your own thread

Really, I won't mind.

 

[JCSr]

Well no. bowling with a pocket carry gun is no more uncomfortable than bowling with a wallet, unless you are used to carrying a decorative wallet that is empty. . . in which case it might be. If you bowl with a wallet that has a reasonable but not excessive number of debit cards (credit cards I am sorry, you are a democrat) and an insurance card or two (unless you are an illegal immigrant democrat), a state Driver's License and carry permit and the receipts from your last three transactions . . . it'd feel about the same. Me, I like IWB or pancake holsters depending on what I am carrying:

Want to tell me how bowling or anything else I might do is dumb when that is on my belt? What are the chances of accidental discharge, the gun uncocked DA revolver with a modern transfer bar safety, inside a holster? If you hit it with artillery that would kill the user and everyone within 150 yards, it might go off, uncocked and inside a holster .. . by might, I mean 1 in ________ insert big number, like the same probability of your offspring mutating wings. So why is bowling with a gun dumb? A pocket holster is no less secure, a double action is not safer given the scenario here, so tell us?

After reading the OP article, if you don't know what is dumb about bowling with a gun in your pocket, I cannot help you.

And yes, if you must know I am an illegal democrat with a free Obama phone and 10 credit cards maxed out, and the government is helping me with the payments. (I figured I would just throw it out so you don't have to assume stupid things about me)

 

[grasping the after wind]

When posting threads in relation to an article, it is my belief that the title I post is the title given by the author of the article. This prevents people from accusing me of politicizing or posting a misleading title. Sorry that the title sucked you into my thread in such a deceitful way. You are free to exit the thread and post about Tom Cruise in the Jane Fonda thread.

If you mean to discuss gun irresponsibility exclusively then your title is not only misleading but you are attempting to politicize an accident. I would immediately exit your misleading and politicized thread but find I must stay to find out about Earl Anthony's gun irresponsibility as my curiosity about the man, whom I never would have dreamed to be an irresponsible gun owner, has been piqued.