Man accidentally shoots self while bowling, police say

[JCSr]

What could we do post-book-throwing to make sure less idiots make this happen? What can prevent the next guy with a gun in his pocket from having it go off? It seems to happen pretty frequently.

If it happens frequently, why has nothing being done to correct it? A dozen babies died because of poorly designed cribs and the cribs were recalled. Why is there no oversight on guns going off in people's pockets?

 

[AirPo]

If it happens frequently, why has nothing being done to correct it? A dozen babies died because of poorly designed cribs and the cribs were recalled. Why is there no oversight on guns going off in people's pockets?

Recalled pants?

 

[Urieltenken]

What could we do post-book-throwing to make sure less idiots make this happen? What can prevent the next guy with a gun in his pocket from having it go off? It seems to happen pretty frequently.

What could we do post-book-throwing to make sure less idiots make this happen? What can prevent the next guy who's had too much to drink from getting in a car and driving? It seems to happen pretty frequently.

The problem is it's hard to fix a problem with legislation that is already illegal through legislation. There's education, which is required in many places to be able to carry (this happened in Florida, where I know for a fact that it is required). However, if someone chooses to ignore their education, how do you stop that? We could have "Use a holster" commercials on TV, but I'm sure anti-gun people would be against that since they've already blocked gun stores from advertising on many carriers. You could outlaw slideclips, but there would be grandfathers for ones already in possession, and they would be incredibly easy to self manufacture. You could legislate that carry requires a holster, however, that would only add to the thrown book after the fact (since you usually aren't required to identify that you are armed when speaking with police, and they would normally be investigating some other crime when they find out you are carrying w/o a holster).

 

[JCSr]

Recalled pants?

Ya, that's it.

 

[Glas Ridire]

If it happens frequently, why has nothing being done to correct it? A dozen babies died because of poorly designed cribs and the cribs were recalled. Why is there no oversight on guns going off in people's pockets?

Mostly because they aren't designed to be used in that way. They are (in the case of derringer mini revolvers) designed to be carried in a holster and not cocked (fully) until the trigger is ready to be pulled. Kinda like asking why there is no oversight when cars driven into bridge abutments don't teleport through. People use machines, things go well (generally) people misuse machines and things go bad (generally) so asking for more oversight for people who disregard existing oversight is kinda like asking sober AA members to provide oversight for college binge drinkers. The target audience is still gonna do stupid, even if people who have been there done that and suffered the consequences counsel common sense.

So what do we do with that overweight middle aged (probable NRA member)? I say crucify him to the extra venomous extent of the law, as hard as we can hit him. The bell tapped with a q-tip rings louder when hit by a sledge. I want everyone of his kind to hear it & sign up for a tactical refresher, IDPA league, or other venue where they will drift further from the meme. The left wants it (stupid gun owners doing ignorant stuff) to stop, I want it to inspire people to do the opposite, join the majority who have been moving toward more responsibility, better training, we can't tolerate these Goetz-esque, throwbacks dragging down the movement toward true responsible citizen 2A usage.

 

[HalfoffSale]

What could we do post-book-throwing to make sure less idiots make this happen? What can prevent the next guy who's had too much to drink from getting in a car and driving? It seems to happen pretty frequently.

The problem is it's hard to fix a problem with legislation that is already illegal through legislation. There's education, which is required in many places to be able to carry (this happened in Florida, where I know for a fact that it is required). However, if someone chooses to ignore their education, how do you stop that? We could have "Use a holster" commercials on TV, but I'm sure anti-gun people would be against that since they've already blocked gun stores from advertising on many carriers. You could outlaw slideclips, but there would be grandfathers for ones already in possession, and they would be incredibly easy to self manufacture. You could legislate that carry requires a holster, however, that would only add to the thrown book after the fact (since you usually aren't required to identify that you are armed when speaking with police, and they would normally be investigating some other crime when they find out you are carrying w/o a holster).

It's more than just the laws though, there's also the image, and the culture. Why did this man feel the need to be armed while bowling in the first place? Why so much fear? It's easy to call for this guys head, but had there been a victim is it just "oh well, that's the price we pay for having everyone armed?" "He messed up, but don't worry, the other 12 of us bowling here armed are responsible?" Should I have trusted this man earlier that day to draw on a shooter safely? What does "responsible gun owner" mean when this happens regularly?

 

[JCSr]

I want to know why he probably won't be charged when he clearly was a danger to himself and others by not securing his weapon?

 

[Urieltenken]

It's more than just the laws though, there's also the image, and the culture. Why did this man feel the need to be armed while bowling in the first place? Why so much fear? It's easy to call for this guys head, but had there been a victim is it just "oh well, that's the price we pay for having everyone armed?" "He messed up, but don't worry, the other 12 of us bowling here armed are responsible?" Should I have trusted this man earlier that day to draw on a shooter safely? What does "responsible gun owner" mean when this happens regularly?

Do you have any evidence that this happens regularly? I'm asking honestly, because I looked for the rate of negligent discharges when preparing to respond to you and found nothing.

The image and culture of having a gun stuffed in your waistband is one I think we should definitely get rid. It is the cause of many negligent discharges. As for the image and culture of carrying a weapon to defend yourself, why should we get rid of it? Why does it matter why he wanted to carry? Believe it or not, the average CCW holder is not a person who walks around expecting the boogieman to jump out of every dark alleyway he or she passes. Is the average seat belt wearer paralyzed by fear that ever other car is going to charge at them like bumper cars?

If the negligent discharge has caused injury to another person, the man would have been charged with it. Every time a person gets hit by a drunk driver do we just go, "Oh well, that's the price we pay for alcohol being legal?"

These types of events don't occur to responsible gun owners, with one exception. That exception is mechanical failure and is very rare. The rules of gun safety state that every gun is to be treated like it's loaded and the safety is off. Any time someone says they thought the safety was on, they were being negligent and not following the rules of gun safety. The rules of gun safety state that you should never point your gun at anything you're not willing to destroy. Any time someone was "lasering" another person when they had their discharge, they were being negligent and not following the rules of gun safety. The rules of gun safety state to keep your finger of the trigger until you are ready to fire. Anytime they have their finger on the trigger when trying to holster or simply handling their gun, they are being negligent and not following the rules of gun safety. The two rules that are unwritten that can cause negligent discharges are always maintain your equipment, and always use a holster. The former includes your holsters, weapon, and magazines.

 

[Glas Ridire]

It's more than just the laws though, there's also the image, and the culture. Why did this man feel the need to be armed while bowling in the first place?

I love my loved ones. I take personal responsibility for their safety every chance I can, because less would reflect negligence towards my loved ones. I am a qualified adult, it doesn't matter my history in recent wars, doesn't matter the relevant undergrad degree, doesn't matter the years of experience . . . I might be like dropping Jason Bourne in a senario or Gomer Pyle, the responsibility is the same. Mine is mine to protect first, others only if I fail.

Why so much fear?

Why do people with perfectly competent fire departments still have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers? Why do safe and competent drivers still wear seatbelts? Fear? If fear of having a flambe go sideways or fear of other drivers being really dumb is totally irrational, surely having a gun to deal with potential criminals that won't take "no" for an answer are as irrational.

It's easy to call for this guys head, but had there been a victim is it just "oh well, that's the price we pay for having everyone armed?" "He messed up, but don't worry, the other 12 of us bowling here armed are responsible?" Should I have trusted this man earlier that day to draw on a shooter safely? What does "responsible gun owner" mean when this happens regularly?

What percent? What percent did he make up of the people who lawfully carried firearms that day? One drunk hits a bridge abutment wounding nobody else despite heavy traffic do we call for a change in drunk driving laws? I reject your claim that it would have been written off, had there been victims. Is that what we do with drunk driving?

 

[jgarden]

Man accidentally shoots self while bowling, police say

Never overestimate the intelligence of a gun owner!

 

[HalfoffSale]

Do you have any evidence that this happens regularly? I'm asking honestly, because I looked for the rate of negligent discharges when preparing to respond to you and found nothing.

The image and culture of having a gun stuffed in your waistband is one I think we should definitely get rid. It is the cause of many negligent discharges. As for the image and culture of carrying a weapon to defend yourself, why should we get rid of it? Why does it matter why he wanted to carry? Believe it or not, the average CCW holder is not a person who walks around expecting the boogieman to jump out of every dark alleyway he or she passes. Is the average seat belt wearer paralyzed by fear that ever other car is going to charge at them like bumper cars?

If the negligent discharge has caused injury to another person, the man would have been charged with it. Every time a person gets hit by a drunk driver do we just go, "Oh well, that's the price we pay for alcohol being legal?"

These types of events don't occur to responsible gun owners, with one exception. That exception is mechanical failure and is very rare. The rules of gun safety state that every gun is to be treated like it's loaded and the safety is off. Any time someone says they thought the safety was on, they were being negligent and not following the rules of gun safety. The rules of gun safety state that you should never point your gun at anything you're not willing to destroy. Any time someone was "lasering" another person when they had their discharge, they were being negligent and not following the rules of gun safety. The rules of gun safety state to keep your finger of the trigger until you are ready to fire. Anytime they have their finger on the trigger when trying to holster or simply handling their gun, they are being negligent and not following the rules of gun safety. The two rules that are unwritten that can cause negligent discharges are always maintain your equipment, and always use a holster. The former includes your holsters, weapon, and magazines.

The issue I have is with the process before and after these things happen. Basically:

1) Anyone who does not have a record or mental illness is deemed responsible to own and carry a gun. Some states require a 40 hour course, etc, for CCW.

2) People are regularly encouraged through ads, groups, pundits, etc, to carry weapons in public for the intent of protecting themselves in otherwise gun-unrelated situations.

3) When a discharge does happen or the gun is left out and children find it, etc, and here's the important part, that person is deemed irresponsible and then disappears into the determined punishment.


At what point does it become reasonable to question how we determined "responsible" to begin with? Currently it seems the only criteria is to not have a criminal record, or at best ~40 hours of coursework. Compare that with driving licenses, where someone must drive under supervision for a full year, and then pass a test. By claiming they are responsible gun owners, as this man would have been deemed not an hour before, we are then responsible for that definition. Outside of this man not having a criminal record before, plus potentially ~40 hours CCW(if his state requires it), what makes you sure of his responsibility?

 

[Urieltenken]

The issue I have is with the process before and after these things happen. Basically:

1) Anyone who does not have a record or mental illness is deemed responsible to own and carry a gun. Some states require a 40 hour course, etc, for CCW.

2) People are regularly encouraged through ads, groups, pundits, etc, to carry weapons in public for the intent of protecting themselves in otherwise gun-unrelated situations.

3) When a discharge does happen or the gun is left out and children find it, etc, and here's the important part, that person is deemed irresponsible and then disappears into the determined punishment.


At what point does it become reasonable to question how we determined "responsible" to begin with? Currently it seems the only criteria is to not have a criminal record, or at best ~40 hours of coursework. Compare that with driving licenses, where someone must drive under supervision for a full year, and then pass a test. By claiming they are responsible gun owners, as this man would have been deemed not an hour before, we are then responsible for that definition. Outside of this man not having a criminal record before, plus potentially ~40 hours CCW(if his state requires it), what makes you sure of his responsibility?

What would you set the requirement at to be deemed responsible to own a gun? To carry one?

I have never seen an ad, nor seen a group or pundit state you should use a gun for anything other than a) sportsmanship, b) self-defense, or c) hunting. Not once have I come across an ad stating I should use a gun to pay for my dry cleaning, to get someone to give up a parking spot, to transport me to the park, or any other gun-unrelated situation.

Generally, we don't see biographies of criminals who have been sentenced. I can't remember the last time I saw a news story about a drunk driver, or a thief after they've been sentenced. Even those who are convicted of manslaughter (vehicular or any other kind) don't get a whole lot of coverage. Do you think that those who have negligent discharges should be treated differently? Should they lose the right to control their image, and be used as poster boys?

You do not have to drive under supervision for a year, nor do you have to take a course to get a driver's license. All you have to do is take a simple test. You can do this at a far younger age than you can gain a CCW. You can choose to gain your license a year younger by taking a course and driving under supervision.

In Florida to gain a CCW you must take a course, be 21 years of age, be fingerprinted, pass a background check and demonstrate proficiency at a range. At the age of 18, you can buy a samurai sword with no background check. At almost any age you can take martial arts courses without being fingerprinted.

 

[HalfoffSale]

What would you set the requirement at to be deemed responsible to own a gun? To carry one?

I have never seen an ad, nor seen a group or pundit state you should use a gun for anything other than a) sportsmanship, b) self-defense, or c) hunting. Not once have I come across an ad stating I should use a gun to pay for my dry cleaning, to get someone to give up a parking spot, to transport me to the park, or any other gun-unrelated situation.

Generally, we don't see biographies of criminals who have been sentenced. I can't remember the last time I saw a news story about a drunk driver, or a thief after they've been sentenced. Even those who are convicted of manslaughter (vehicular or any other kind) don't get a whole lot of coverage. Do you think that those who have negligent discharges should be treated differently? Should they lose the right to control their image, and be used as poster boys?

You do not have to drive under supervision for a year, nor do you have to take a course to get a driver's license. All you have to do is take a simple test. You can do this at a far younger age than you can gain a CCW. You can choose to gain your license a year younger by taking a course and driving under supervision.

In Florida to gain a CCW you must take a course, be 21 years of age, be fingerprinted, pass a background check and demonstrate proficiency at a range. At the age of 18, you can buy a samurai sword with no background check. At almost any age you can take martial arts courses without being fingerprinted.

I'm not making suggestions here. What I'm asking is, if "he doesn't have a record" is all that it takes to deem someone responsible, and people prove this criteria wrong several times a day across the nation, at what point does "Is not having a criminal record enough to grant responsible status" a valid question. All I seem to get told is that this person turned out not to be, and everyone who perviously said the criteria and his responsibility was enough suddenly throws him under the bus. I want to know why the next time I'm bowling, you think the next as-of-yet-no-accidental-discharge carrier in the lane next to me should be considered responsible, as many have deemed him.

 

[Glas Ridire]

What I'm asking is, if "he doesn't have a record" is all that it takes to deem someone responsible, and people prove this criteria wrong several times a day across the nation, at what point does "Is not having a criminal record enough to grant responsible status" a valid question.

Consult the list of events with a higher rate of victimization first and then get back to me. Why does anybody get hit by morons running red lights? It is baffling, they passed a drivers test to get a license right? Pool drownings? Come on, it is a pool . . . it isn't like those sneak up on people.

All I seem to get told is that this person turned out not to be, and everyone who perviously said the criteria and his responsibility was enough suddenly throws him under the bus.

I am unapologetic for throwing this guy under the bus. I feel his actions were grossly inappropriate, totally inexcusable & hey. . . why not throw him under the bus? He recklessly discharged a firearm in a public place and wounded someone! What are we gonna do? Make excuses for him? He hurts us, by giving people who hate freedom and responsibility an example of why freedom and responsibility are bad. There can be no excuse.

I want to know why the next time I'm bowling, you think the next as-of-yet-no-accidental-discharge carrier in the lane next to me should be considered responsible, as many have deemed him.

If you consult an actuary, it would be comforting to you. . . . if this is really a concern. The job of an actuary is relevant & I suspect they'd have access to helpful information. It is probable that you stand a better chance of getting struck by lightning, but not quite as unlikely as having a winning lotto ticket fall from the sky. Somewhere in the range between those two events. But if it keeps ya up at night, an actuary can break down the numbers for ya.

 

[HalfoffSale]

I am unapologetic for throwing this guy under the bus. I feel his actions were grossly inappropriate, totally inexcusable & hey. . . why not throw him under the bus? He recklessly discharged a firearm in a public place and wounded someone! What are we gonna do? Make excuses for him? He hurts us, by giving people who hate freedom and responsibility an example of why freedom and responsibility are bad. There can be no excuse.

Go ahead and throw him under the bus. I'm not objecting to that. I'm objecting to how we got there.

"This guy's responsible, he doesn't have a record"
BLAM
"Guess he wasn't responsible, throw him under the bus."

 

[Glas Ridire]

"This guy's responsible, he doesn't have a record"
BLAM
"Guess he wasn't responsible, throw him under the bus."

Is not that the way of it with first time felons? Should we treat everyone as a criminal because they might one day be? It is easy to be a first time DUI offender, but hard to justify treating them lightly given the peril they place the innocent in.

 

[HalfoffSale]

Is not that the way of it with first time felons? Should we treat everyone as a criminal because they might one day be? It is easy to be a first time DUI offender, but hard to justify treating them lightly given the peril they place the innocent in.

These are not felons, they are accidents. I'm asking why I should take at your word a mans responsibility with a firearm merely because an accident has not happened yet. I'm stating I don't trust that criteria alone for measuring competency.

 

[USincognito]

Please don't be Texas...
Please don't be Texas...
Please don't be Texas...

It's Florida?

 

[USincognito]

Any of you young whipper snappers recognize this man? Growing up, he was my hero.

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

 

[Mcrfan343]

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