Concealed Carry Football Fan Shoots Self by Accident

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 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 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 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.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

 

 

When Seconds Count


Akron.com provides a step-by-step account of the movements of the killer. Basically, as we've been reading all week, he went from bouse to house, through backyards, even chasing one victim into a neighbor's house in order to execute him, an 11-year-old.

Hance was killed by a Copley police officer, Mier said, about 10 minutes after the first 9-1-1 call was received.

What that means is the murderous rampage lasted at least 11 minutes, presuming the first call took place some seconds after the first shot. Where were all the armed neighbors?  Where were all the local CCW guys?

How many times have we heard that flippant remark, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."  This infers that in places like Ohio where many homes have guns and the percentage of concealed carry permits is high, we don't have to wait for the police to put a stop to things like this.

Yet, as we saw in Arizona a few months ago, this is just not the case.  As with the Loughner shooting, it's a safe bet that gunowners were on hand but they turned out to be powerless to stop the onslaught of violence.

Why, I don't know, probably several reasons, but I have one theory.  The vast majority of gun owners, even concealed carry guys, are not trained for this kind of intervention.  They may think they are, but when the SHTF, as they like to say on The Truth Abough Guns, they're not up to the task.  It takes quick decisive action to intervene, and courage, knowing that getting involved, you go from being a neutral spectator to a potential target.

Most people are frozen with fear during those critical seconds or minutes. Their owning guns does nothing more than make them feel safe, and of course, increase the chances of gun mishaps of many kinds.

What's your opinion?  It seems to me this story illustrates that altough the exemplary action of the police was not as swift as we'd like it to have been, it was pretty good.  And once again we count ourselves lucky that none of the local gun owners made it worse.


(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

 

 

When Seconds Count


Akron.com provides a step-by-step account of the movements of the killer. Basically, as we've been reading all week, he went from bouse to house, through backyards, even chasing one victim into a neighbor's house in order to execute him, an 11-year-old.

Hance was killed by a Copley police officer, Mier said, about 10 minutes after the first 9-1-1 call was received.

What that means is the murderous rampage lasted at least 11 minutes, presuming the first call took place some seconds after the first shot. Where were all the armed neighbors?  Where were all the local CCW guys?

How many times have we heard that flippant remark, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."  This infers that in places like Ohio where many homes have guns and the percentage of concealed carry permits is high, we don't have to wait for the police to put a stop to things like this.

Yet, as we saw in Arizona a few months ago, this is just not the case.  As with the Loughner shooting, it's a safe bet that gunowners were on hand but they turned out to be powerless to stop the onslaught of violence.

Why, I don't know, probably several reasons, but I have one theory.  The vast majority of gun owners, even concealed carry guys, are not trained for this kind of intervention.  They may think they are, but when the SHTF, as they like to say on The Truth Abough Guns, they're not up to the task.  It takes quick decisive action to intervene, and courage, knowing that getting involved, you go from being a neutral spectator to a potential target.

Most people are frozen with fear during those critical seconds or minutes. Their owning guns does nothing more than make them feel safe, and of course, increase the chances of gun mishaps of many kinds.

What's your opinion?  It seems to me this story illustrates that altough the exemplary action of the police was not as swift as we'd like it to have been, it was pretty good.  And once again we count ourselves lucky that none of the local gun owners made it worse.


(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

 

 

Wisconsin Concealed Carry Confusion

Yahoo News published a wonderful article by Joshua Huffman (not to be confused with Joe Huffman because Joshua sounds quite reasonable).

Fortunately, Lambeau Field officials will have ample time to interpret the law for the new Wisconsin concealed gun law that should be passed this October. Green Bay police aren't aware of how the law impacts their ability to prevent fans from entering the stadium with a handgun.

The NFL prohibits fans from carrying guns into any stadium. However, they could be prohibited from enforcing their own policy on Lambeau Field. The NFL doesn't own the stadium, therefore can't impose their anti-gun policy. Pat Webb, the stadium's executive director, stated, "I don't know enough about Wisconsin's specific law to know if the stadiums are exempt or not or can be exempt."

I wouldn't be comfortable with people carrying guns in an environment of 50,000 people or greater. Post-game driving is hardly safe with the alcohol that's consumed at these sporting events. It only takes one person to create a chaotic scene. I'd be worried about someone trying to pry the gun away from the holder. Some people make irrational decisions when angered. That irrationality is magnified under intoxication.

What's your opinion? How does it work in other states with lax gun laws? Are folks permitted to carry concealed at sporting events in say Florida or Arizona?

I would think the fanaticism of some sports fans is even worse when mixed with guns than your general bar and drinking environment. At huge sporting events some of those sports nuts might also be CCW permit holders and some of them might decide to drink a few beers, you know, bad-rules-be-damned and all that.

What do you think? Good idea or bad idea?

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


Please leave a comment.

 

 

Diaries

Advertise Blogads