Skip to main content

That headline explains exactly what happened today.

Kentucky State Rep. Leslie Combs (D) accidentally fired her semi-automatic handgun in the state capitol building Tuesday night just before Gov. Steve Beshear (D) gave his state of the state address, WHAS11 reported.

Combs was unloading her gun in the Capitol annex office when it went off. The bullet hit the floor and ricocheted toward a bookshelf, according to WHAS11.

Rep. Jeff Greer (D) was in the room at the time, but Combs said she was following safety procedure and that nobody was in harm's way, WHAS11 reported. Nobody was injured.

"I thought it was totally clear," Combs told WHAS11 Wednesday. "I am a gun owner. It happens."

It is somewhat baffling how the justification boils down to "I'm a gun owner..it happens."  Must count as one of the most lame excuses I can remember.

While the bullet rattled around out of harms way, and no one was hurt, Representative Grover makes a serious mistake by saying 'nobody was in harms way'... the representative who discharged a weapon accidentally was in harm's way.   She could have easily shot herself thanks to this careless attitude.

We are so tied up in everyone has to carry weapons everywhere now that state representatives, even fellow democrats, feel empowered to think that walking in to a state building with a loaded semi-automatic as part of their concealed carry is A-OK as long as they unload it before getting into the chamber.

A society that believes everyone has to carry around lethal weaponry to survive is not a culture that looks out for each other.   The moment we reach the conclusion that we have a duty to deal death as justice, we might as well go back to the wild wild west.

I don't remember, at any point in my lifetime such a desire to over-equip everyone with guns as they walk around.  

These things don't 'just happen'.  They happen because you chose to carry a gun.  If you were carrying around any of the non-lethal forms of self defense (mace, tazer, whatever) you wouldn't be sending bullets flying around your person.

head slap

Originally posted to tmservo433 on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 08:22 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Firearms Law and Policy, and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Isn`t everyone one in the room in "harms way" (27+ / 0-)

    with ricochetting bullets? How can she she say this with a straight face?

    Politics is like driving.... (D) forward, (R) reverse.

    by Tribecastan on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 08:30:48 PM PST

  •  I know nothing about gun safety procedures (31+ / 0-)

    but it is almost impossible to believe that these two statements can simultaneously be true:

    1) Combs said she was following safety procedures

    2) Leslie Combs (D) accidentally fired her semi-automatic handgun

    Well, okay, I take that back.  She could have SAID she was following safety procedures, that could be true.  But I can't believe she actually WAS following safety procedures.

    •  I think she's basically just saying (16+ / 0-)

      'I wasn't directly pointing it at anyone'.  Of course, with ricochets, that doesn't really matter.

    •  We have drop the euphemistic language that we (16+ / 0-)

      tolerate from such buffoonery.

      Proven failure to master basic firearm mechanics and safety rules.

      This was not an accidental discharge.

      This was a negligent discharge, in the freakin' state capitol.

      Her comments suggest it's actually much worse, that it's actually incompetence after she was already trained to handle the gun safely.

      Do all the Kentucky reps need to have a clearing barrel installed in their offices so they can check if their guns are empty without shooting anyone.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 09:42:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Guns just don't go off. It takes an idiot. (6+ / 0-)

        You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

        by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 12:31:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't often agree with Lilith, but... (8+ / 0-)

        Yep, that was negligent. Accidental rather than deliberate, but it went off because it was mishandled in some way rather than just "going off" all by itself. Maybe she had her finger in the trigger guard when she was racking the slide, maybe she did not visually check the chamber after unloading and then "dry-fired" it, but modern pistol design makes it mechanically impossible to fire a round without a finger on the trigger.

        Unfortunately, I will wager that the rep involved will not suffer the same penalties as say a spectator in the state house gallery who did the same thing.

        •  Explanation? Maybe she never had any training? (0+ / 0-)

          Maybe someone signed off on her application for her, trusting her to have good judgment and go to the range on her own.

          This corrupt DINO is no friend to gun rights advocates or to gun safety advocates.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:05:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have no idea (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, FrankRose

            I can make plausible speculation about the circumstances that caused the discharge, but as to her lack of proper weapon handling skills I have insufficient information.

            What I want to know is why she was unloading the weapon there. Was she clearing the weapon before handing it to someone else (the other rep in the room)? If so, I have to give her credit for good intentions, but that does not overcome the demerits for incompetent follow-through.

            •  Her CCW should be revoked (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FarWestGirl

              "I'm a gun owner. It happens."

              Her statements are sufficient to convince a reasonable person that one of these is likely

              a) this is not the first time
              b) she never had any training
              c) she failed to master the most basic points of the training
              d) she might be lying

              Actual negligent discharge is evidence of negligence. That evidence, together with her statements to justify what happened, that should be sufficient proof to revoke a CCW license.

              Even Judge Posner in Moore v Madigan, said that a gun in untrained hands, in public is a menace. (paraphrasing)

              Your interest in focusing on further investigation is a redirection that just sucks up LEO resources. We see this every day in the GunFail diaries. The idea that law enforcement "didn't have enough information" is letting assholes with guns off the hook.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:35:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Say what? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas, LilithGardener, FrankRose
                Your interest in focusing on further investigation is a redirection that just sucks up LEO resources
                Where did I say that? Where did I even imply that? I've made a few comments on this diary. Show me one, in any context, where I showed any desire in "letting assholes with guns off the hook."
                •  Think about it this way (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero

                  When you park illegally blocking a fire hydrant, it doesn't matter that no one died in a fire. If you get caught, and the simple proof of your unattended vehicle is sufficient proof, you face a stiff fine and temporary forfeiture.

                  The risk of injury and death is real. The cops don't waste time and resources investigating who the driver was that parked the car illegally. Why? Because it doesn't matter.

                  The details you want to know do not matter. What matters is the proof of her inability to keep her weapon safely operational for the lawful purpose of self defense.

                  There is a moral hazard inherent in tolerating this negligent discharge with a slap on the wrist. Her statements make it reasonable to predict that she would learn to simply put the loaded gun in her desk when she needs to go vote on laws. She would skip clearing her gun because "it might go off."

                  We have GunFAILS every week in which people die preventable deaths because we tolerate such slovenly gun habits.

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 01:58:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  OK (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero, Shamash

                  Not worth the bother. Perhaps I was paraphrasing or summarizing other remarks.

                  Sorry.

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 02:11:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  "Accidental rather than deliberate" does not ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          ... adequately describe the range of possibilities and responsibilities.

          That's why the language we all use to describe these "gun fails" is wrong. When a gun "goes off," it is not an accident. The gun's possessor may not have intended it to go off, but it sure as hell didn't do go off by itself.

          [If it did, that makes a very strong case for removing the liability exemption the gun manufacturers lobbied for themselves.]

          The gun's possessor caused it to fire. I.e. committed an affirmative act or acts that discharged a bullet. That result is not any kind of "accident."

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 07:29:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's why we call them negligent discharges. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk, CarlosJ

            And have for quite a few years now...

            •  Good point, but "accident" is what most reports... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, coquiero

              ... say.

              If the shot isn't termed "intentional," "accident" is almost always - like 99+% "almost always" - the word used, it seems to me. I don't hear or read of any discharger of a firearm accepting responsibility or police reports using the word "negligent" as often as it is warranted.

              It may be that "negligent" triggers more of a police report or even requires charges (as in "negligent discharge of a weapon") or rustles feathers. But that's my point, too! "Accident," on the other hand, goes  away pretty fast, because Hey, we all have 'em.

              2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:53:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  X2 she was negligent, needs to be disarmed but (5+ / 0-)

        That won't happen 'cause FREEDUMB

        nosotros no somos estúpidos

        by a2nite on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 06:49:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (4+ / 0-)

      This screams "negligent discharge."

      As in, "well gee, I didn't know a gun could discharge if I had my finger on the trigger."

      Stupid, stupid, stupid.

      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
      My Blog
      My wife's woodblock prints

      by maxomai on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 09:24:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She followed some of them... (0+ / 0-)

      1.  All guns are always loaded.
      2.  Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
      3.  Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
      4.  Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
      This is my favorite version of the safety rules.  These are from a guy named Jeff Cooper who was a racist crank but got a few things right.  I think she needs at least a weekend safety class.  

      She ignored 1, 3 and 4 but remembered #2.  She thankfully didn't shoot anyone but it does show a lack of training.

      Always check and clear the chamber!

      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

      by DavidMS on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 04:42:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  disagree (0+ / 0-)

        According to the diary, she was in the process of determining that it was unloaded. In the middle of the process means, to me, that she was in that in-between state of "Gun PRESUMED to be loaded" and that state of "Gun DEFINITELY no longer loaded". It's not a light-switch process. Intermediate stages between those two states of being would be "Magazine ejected but barrel not yet checked" for example. I'm not willing to hit her with the hammer of shame for this rule, because of her being in the process of clearing.

        She was following #2. Gun pointed away from any object. Would have been better to choose to point at a phone book or some other thing that would act as a sandbag, but the opposite direction from all other people

        #3 - That's the one she fucked up. Too bad she didn't choose a bigger gun, rather than such a tiny thing that she didn't really have enough space on the grip to be able to hold it without that index finger up high. Still, she fucked the donkey on rule 3.

        She had no target. She wasn't actively targeting anything, she was in a "Point away from others" mode and not a "Point at a target" mode. There was nothing beyond a target because there is no target. She was not breaking rule 4.

        Nowhere in the diary was the gun's make and model mentioned. Neither was a link to the news story. Google gave me the pistol details as a ruger .380, but no model. Doesn't matter, it looks like all of the Ruger .380 caliber models are tiny guns, which is why I think she didn't have enough grip to grab without placing her index finger near the trigger.

        She should have had something bigger - and NOT a glock because that design also requires pulling the trigger before the slide can be taken off.

    •  Safety Procedures are one factor only (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero

      If guns go off when people are unloading them and they're 'following safety procedures' then there must be a flaw in the design or execution by the gun maker.  It's time for a recall of that model gun.  It's time to have the Consumer Product Safety Commission to have guns in their area of responsibility.  Lots of stupid gun designs out there--no safety or the fact that Glocks have to have the trigger pulled to take them apart for example.    

      Mandatory Gun Insurance would provide for victims, encourage safety and not be an excessive burden on gun owners. How to do it at Gun Insurance Blog. I also make posts at Huffington as Tom Harvey.

      by guninsuranceblog on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 05:02:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tipped & recc'ed, except: (18+ / 0-)
    we might as well go back to the wild wild west.
    The thing is, the wild west is largely a figment of the gun nuts imagination.
    In the real old west, most towns did not allow carry of guns in the town limits. If I remember correctly, that famous fight at the OK corral was over gun control.

    Severely Socialist 47283

    by ichibon on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 08:37:15 PM PST

    •  I think I'm invoking (8+ / 0-)

      The ideal more then the reality :)  Let's just say in the mindset of some, gunslinging seems like the right idea.  To which I point to cases like this.

      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

      by Chris Reeves on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 08:49:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Close... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rja, FrankRose, FarWestGirl, kurt
      In the real old west, most towns did not allow carry of guns in the town limits.
      As it turns out, in Tombstone you could carry your guns into town, but had to check them in at one of two places and could then pick them back up when you were leaving town. This also applied to knives, so it was not so much a "gun control" law as a "we don't want people using any weapons on each other law". I believe the law in place was:
      Ordinance No. 9: To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons, effective 19 April 1881. Excerpt:

      • It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person to carry deadly weapons, concealed or otherwise [except the same be carried openly in sight, and in the hand] within the limits of the City of Tombstone.
      • This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.
      • All firearms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance.

      I am guessing the exception in the first part would be so that someone could have a lumber axe or crowbar or other "deadly weapon" as something they were using in town, but not carrying around on their belt.
    •  The "wild west" is more often portrayed (0+ / 0-)

      by the anti-gun people than the pro-gun.  The phrase "this would turn out like the wild west" is common in hoplophobes presenting a situation where firearms are both common and used recklessly.  

  •  What a quote, It. Happens. (19+ / 0-)

    My ass, it happens. The only way a firearm can discharge is for the firing pin to fall on a bullet in the chamber. That means it is loaded and ready to go.

    To unload a semi-automatic requires one or two things to happen. IF it has a round in the chamber one has to eject the clip, which holds additional ammo, and then pull the bolt back thereby ejecting the round in the chamber. No round in the chamber? Drop the clip and you're home free.

    But it is that pesky round in the chamber of a semi-auto that trips up the careless. And in this case, it happened.

    •  I've always wondered why so many people feel (9+ / 0-)

      the need to pull the trigger on a gun indoors.
      Unless you have just personally inspected the magazine and chamber yourself (and I mean JUST...as in, the instant before) it is too much of a risk to pull a trigger indoors.
      It really bugs me how people just seem to casually pull the trigger on a gun.

      -- We are just regular people informed on issues

      by mike101 on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 09:09:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They didn't have the same (6+ / 0-)

        safety training my dad drilled in to my head when I was a youngster.

        •  Kentucky CCW permit requires training (4+ / 0-)

          Concealed weapons permitting in Kentucky

          Firearm Safety Training

          Kentucky law requires that an applicant demonstrate “competence with a firearm by successful completion of a firearms safety course offered or approved by the Department of Criminal Justice Training.”5 The course must be no more than eight hours in length, and include instruction on the safe use of handguns, the care and cleaning of handguns, and handgun marksmanship principles. The course must include actual range firing of a handgun in a safe manner, and the firing of not more than 20 rounds at a full-size silhouette target, during which firing, not less than 11 rounds must hit the silhouette portion of the target. The course must also include information on and a copy of Kentucky laws relating to possession and carrying of firearms, and the Kentucky laws relating to the use of force.6

          Her statements made it sound like she had taken an online safety course with no range time. If she actually had training like the above, she is incompetent to have a CCW permit.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 10:08:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If she had no prior experience with fire arms (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            before her course, or no prior experience with semi-auto hand guns, then the training --while a good first step wouldn't be enough.

            Repetition is the key there, a lot of range time and practicing handling the gun safely long after the instruction class.

            If she insisted on carrying a fire arm and didn't have the time to go the range frequently, I have to really wonder at the safety issues she presents to everyone around her.

            My question is why is she carrying at all? Is there some direct threat on her life? And if so--why not look into hiring a professional? Or applying for some kind of additional protection?

            Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

            by GreenMother on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 10:02:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  In some states, such as NY, MD, and HI (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GreenMother

              IIRC, you have to convince a county official (in NY) or the State Police (in MD and HI) that you have "good cause" to carry a concealed weapon.

              It's not a perfect system, by any means, and it can lead to situations where only the rich and politically connected get issued permits.

              In can lead to extremes, such as Hawaii that hasn't issued any concealed weapons permits in many years. So that is an instance where the state Leg has effectively banned CCW without ever passing legislation to do that. IOW, without having to justify the law to the people who elected them.

              Her comments make me wonder if she had any training at all, or whether someone signed off for her on a "no-show" basis trusting her to have good judgment and go to the range on her own.

              I hope more gun owners stand up on this. We don't need Dems like this as the face of Dem gun rights/gun control policy.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 10:53:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What bothers me is that people look at these sorts (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener, coquiero

                of guns and imagine themselves to be as skilled as a cop or a military person. Only problem is that cops and military that are experts with these weapons, use them frequently and rack up lots of range hours.

                It's part of their job in most cases. (keep in mind that not every military person is trained with guns like that)

                It's easy to be good with a gun at the range with a little practice.

                It's a lot harder to do that out in the world, where one is scrutinized and can feel nervous. It's even more difficult if one is in a live fire situation.

                That's where imagined badness and actual idiocy clash.

                If she doesn't bother to even physically check, I don't even think I would want her with a revolver.

                Trade those guns in for some pepper spray or even a big stick if you have to, but don't be putting the rest of us at risk with half assed safety procedures.

                Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

                by GreenMother on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 05:36:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  And this is one reason why "shall issue" and (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero, LilithGardener

            national reciprocity are such bad ideas. When there is no accountability for the training, no state should have to recognize another's mistakes.

            I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. Leo Gerard.

            by tgrshark13 on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 10:05:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agree - we need standards, not forced reciprocity (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              to the lowest current standards.

              There are good reason why constitutional rights should be uniform across the country. I spell them out in this diary, where I also spell out what's standing in the way of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.

              What is Reciprocity? Introduction to Concealed Carry Law
              Woollard v. Gallagher

              IMO the right message/framing is that "forced reciprocity" is a bad idea, but that we should establish a national licensing scheme instead, the way we have for driving. I'm looking to what would be required to establish national standards for gun licensing. I mean starting with a certain level for gun ownership, and a higher level of proficiency required for public carry (open or concealed).

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:00:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  They are one and the same. (0+ / 0-)

                A national license would be valid everywhere in the nation. NJ would not be able to deny the validity of a national license.

                NJ would not go along with a national licensing program, because then they could not deny that license to people that the establishment doesn't like.

                NJ doesn't release numbers, but the most recent trustable factual data that I have seen shows that in a state with about 6,500,000 adults only 32K non-cops have been granted permits to carry. Meaning 99.5% of the adults are not permitted, and yet you have massive crime in places like Camden.

                Source for my numbers, the US Government Accountability Office (pdf) You are looking for page 75/76.

      •  I know the answer to this (9+ / 0-)

        It's child-like curiosity.

        Because in their mental structure the gun is represented as a cool toy.

        If their brain had stored that a gun is a deadly weapon, they would not handle a gun in such a reckless and careless manner.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 09:45:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is what my dad drilled into (4+ / 0-)

          me. It is a deadly weapon. He was in law enforcement and could deliver that message with authority.
          You are right, being represented as a cool tool makes it just another accessory that all your buddies have. Actually I would question even calling it a tool. Why the hell do these people need to carry a gun? I guess it is like having the latest iPad, or something.

          •  Me too. It was a rite of passage in my family (4+ / 0-)

            My Dad taught me to shoot straight at the age of 10.

            Responsibility to use the gun for clearing groundhogs didn't come until later and after much one-on-one supervised practice at

            1. picking up the rifle safely,
            2. carrying the rifle safely,
            3. handling the rifle safely,
            4. loading the rifle while keeping it pointed in a safe direction,
            5. learning to hold it correctly and to aim calmly...

            ... and to enjoy the thrill of the controlled explosion...

            6. laying the weapon down safely, with the barrel pointed in a safe direction,
            7. before going "down range" to see if how many bullets hit the target.

            ... without ever, not even for a moment, forgetting that it was a deadly weapon.

            Even unloaded it was handled as a deadly weapon.

            Always.

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 09:05:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's effective consumer product marketing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero, realalaskan

            - convincing people that the "need" to keep up with the jones'.

            The "need" is defined according to "what sells" in each segment of the market. The AR-15 is marketed humorously to people who joke about guns/manhood. "Your man card has been reissued." It's a joke, of course, but it's very effective, because it's extremely memorable.

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 09:08:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  It might be part... (0+ / 0-)

        ...of the field stripping procedure before cleaning.

        ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
        My Blog
        My wife's woodblock prints

        by maxomai on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 09:28:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I thought so too, but it wasn't a glock. (0+ / 0-)

          It was some sort of ruger .380, and from the website they all look like tiny guns, introducing all the relevant issues that accompany tiny guns + possible weak hands.

          For those who don't understand - that means that you either hold the gun with your finger up at least near the trigger, or hold the gun lower and with one or even two fingers down below the bottom of the grip with nothing to hold, so you end up having only two fingers curled around the grip. And if the spring is strong or the person has weak hands, the person is using strength to rack the slide and when focusing on such gross motor skills the finer finger dexterity suffers. Recommendation? Get a bigger gun with more to grab, and tell the people who think a gun is compensation for penis size to quit showcasing their ignorance.

          •  Glocks aren't the only handgun with that feature (0+ / 0-)

            I have a Springfield XDS and the procedure is the same. You have to pull the trigger to release the slide as you bring it forward for removal. That being said, how you could get to that point and not know there was a round in the chamber seems improbable.

    •  She didn't know how to handle her weapon. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      realalaskan, LilithGardener

      It happens.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 12:32:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Standard unloading procedure (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, DavidMS, JayFromPA
      • Remove the magazine
      • Rack the slide three times to remove any bullet that might be in the chamber (and to make double sure that you removed the magazine - only one bullet should come out, not three.)
      • Lock slide back; inspect chamber, magazine well to make sure it's unloaded.

      She failed one of these steps.

      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
      My Blog
      My wife's woodblock prints

      by maxomai on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 09:27:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Protecting who from what? I mean, really get (10+ / 0-)

    a grip. Most people on the planet live in greater distress than those of us blessed to be in the U.S., and the greater threat to life for them stems from disease and famine, and pestilence.

    Why in the hell do we keep fooling ourselves into believing in "The Boogey Man"? Very, very rarely do ANY of us ever face life threatening danger from strangers. Wasting money on buying a gun is the stupidest decision that most of us will ever make.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 08:43:43 PM PST

  •  I've been waiting for someone to diary this (14+ / 0-)

    as I am obviously to lazy to do so.

    Thank you!

    This woman typifies your run of the mill gun owner these days, if you ask me.  

    Negligent discharges should come with criminal charges, or at least stiff civil ones.

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 08:47:59 PM PST

  •  Tipped, Recced & Tweeted nt (4+ / 0-)

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 09:31:43 PM PST

  •  Interesting juxtaposed beliefs (13+ / 0-)

    From the story

    "I will be the first proponent for gun safety, at the same time I'm also a proponent in support of people to be able to carry weapons properly and with a concealed carry permit.
    When some says "at the same time", it tends to recognize that an inherent contradiction exists between Statement A and Statement B.. Otherwise, she would use the conjunction "and".

    I think what she's really saying here is that Statement B trumps Statement A.  That she recognizes there could be restrictions on guns that would improve gun safety but she feels it's more important that people carry weapons.

    The problem with these situations is that they are treated as casually as a pickup basketball game--no injury, no foul.

    For me, the moral of the story should be that there should be mandatory consequences for people that had gun "accidents."  Just like people who get too many points for driving offenses.  e.g.,  Mandatory training  on gun safety, like, you know, how to clean your gun without firing it.  

    And for people who have concealed weapons permits, the degree of responsibility--and consequences--should be higher.  Her permit could be suspended or even revoked pending completion of retraining.

    •  Insightful catch (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drmah, Cartoon Peril, Tortmaster, coquiero

      Also thought her "It happens." was a reflexive defense, "I'm no worse than everybody else who does this."

      The push for a national licensing system for concealed carry permits could impose sanctions on negligent discharges like this.

      Fine. Loss of RKBA. Mandatory retraining. Volunteer hours serving people disabled by negligent gun play.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 10:14:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Quote may be quickly followed by, "I didn't know (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cartoon Peril, Tortmaster, coquiero

      the gun was loaded, I'm so sorry my friend. I didn't know the gun was loaded, and I'll never, ever do that again."  

      Services will be held a Memorial Gardens on Saturday morning. Carrying a weapon does have consequences.

    •  Well, that's what happens... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      ...when people who claim to be proponents of gun safety then start to propose gun control. The untrained brain picks up on the hypocrisy and runs in the other direction.

      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
      My Blog
      My wife's woodblock prints

      by maxomai on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 09:30:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "It happens" -- no, it doesn''t. Lame a$$ excuse. (4+ / 0-)

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 12:28:58 AM PST

  •  Well, it "doesn't happen" if you're not packing (8+ / 0-)

    We need to factor in a possible mental factor of fear and/or insecurity. Some carry those feelings more than others, and the gun lobby PR plays to that weakness. The "need" to carry seems to run very deeply in some.  

    Once in a blue moon one might truly need a weapon.  The other 99.9% of the time that weapon introduces danger in a room that wouldn't be there if the gun wasn't there.  

    And I know a large, adamant crowd that would deny both these paragraphs.

    •  Don't deny it at all (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, FrankRose

      It is just completely irrelevant as a reason for a ban. Your subjective interpretation of a third party's "need" is exactly as valid as a reason to ban something as it is for a conservative's statement that 99.9% of the time a woman does not "need" an abortion. Which is to say, not at all.

      And yes, I do think the representative in this case was negligent and should suffer consequences, but these consequences should not carry over to everyone who is not negligent. If she had been driving drunk, would you be saying there is no "need" for drinking or driving? Or would you say that enforcing existing laws against the negligent combination of the two is sufficient?

      Too often the argument of "need" only comes up when someone requires an excuse to make an exception to their beliefs to exclude someone they disagree with.

  •  What kind of Democrat is she otherwise? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    This type of attitude / incident would be entirely consistent with GOP beliefs and policies. I'm curious about what this Democrat is about, other than her views on gun possession. And will this hurt her with her Democratic constituency? Or bolster her credibility among independents she needs to get reelected? Comments from KY?

  •  "It happens..." - excuse of a 9-year-old... n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, a2nite, Glen The Plumber

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

    by unclebucky on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 05:09:14 AM PST

  •  Now, if she were unloading here rubber ducky... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, a2nite, Glen The Plumber

    Nothing would have happened.

    GUNS KILL.

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

    by unclebucky on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 05:11:11 AM PST

  •  I've kicked around the idea of owning a gun but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreenMother, LilithGardener

    I'm not very good with machinery or anything that requires hand-eye coordination. It's important to know your limitations.

    Find out about my next big thing by reading my blog. Link is here: http://bettysrants.wordpress.com

    by Kimball Cross on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 06:50:31 AM PST

  •  o_0 No. (6+ / 0-)
    They happen because you chose to carry a gun.
    They happen due to negligence or ignorance or just plain stupidity. Shall issue concealed carry (with appropriate training) is something I support.
    •  How could it have happened if she didn't carry (4+ / 0-)

      a gun?

      Magic?

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 07:30:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (6+ / 0-)

        It's not the firearms fault. It's the owner/carrier. Negligence, in this case. It doesn't just happen if you carry a firearm. I carry a firearm. It doesn't happen to me. Funny how that works out. Then again, I actually follow the basic safety rules and am not ignorant of how my firearms actually work.

        •  She said "It happens". (5+ / 0-)

          These are your gun owners.  These are your CC holders.

          Own them.

          I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

          by coquiero on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 07:34:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hey, isn't she a Democrat? Should we, as a party, (8+ / 0-)

            "own" her as well?

            No, she isn't one of my CC holders. You remember, I've taught quite a few people the concealed carry course here in Michigan. THOSE are my CC holders.

            Holding all of the firearm community responsible for idiocy/negligence/ignorance of a select few is wrong. Or are you also going to credit the firearm community for the actions of all of those who do the right thing? I sincerely doubt it.

            •  This is US gun culture (3+ / 0-)

              Enjoy.  

              It's very simple.  You want to expand gun culture.  I want to shrink it.

              This is our expansive US gun culture.  That is what you and the NRA need to own.

              More people with guns does NOT equal more safe people with guns.  It means the same number of safe owners that there would have been originally, PLUS a bunch of idiots who think that shows on The History Channel about people who build big ass custom gun and blow shit up are awesome.  In addition to every jackass that watches Fox News all day and thinks the world is coming to an end and buys bunkers and guns.

              Stir and enjoy!

              I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

              by coquiero on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 09:11:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  We should look to primary her (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, coquiero

              The simplest explanation is that she never had the required training.

              Her statements indicate that she was somehow able to bypass the minimal training, which in KY is 8 hours, and has a range time component, because of corruption. I predict someone is seriously regretting that they signed off for her.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:13:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's the requirement in Tennessee as well (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener, coquiero

                8 hour class (mine was taught by an LEO who was very pro carry) that includes range time and a minimum score on I think it was 48 rounds split up between 3 yards, 7 yards and 15 yards. States are well served to have fairly stringent training not only for safety, but for reciprocity. Tennessee's Carry permit is recognized by basically every state (38 of them) except the usual suspects (no CA, NY, CT, etc....)

            •  You own the NRA. You own muffled gun publications. (0+ / 0-)

              You can't have it both ways.
              Either your (pl) guns are working out, or they aren't.

              Your "sport" is allowing its own default leadership, Share Our Wealth, resulting in unchallenge-able mentally ill with guns (aka "shall issue") and a 30 yr. rash of runaway pro-gun legislation.

              If I am mistaken, then please point me to the gunowners' healthy national discussion on, and your pending moderation of, this increasing problem.  You can't.

              You can't because by default you (pl) have created a monster.

              Thanks for your response.  Really.

              It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

              by reasonablegunsplz on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 11:12:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Since firearm related violent crime is dropping, (0+ / 0-)

                including the homicide rate, I'd say it is working out.

                •  Since guns are infringing our public places... (0+ / 0-)

                  and private homes, and since resulting death and injury rates are 19.5 times other high-income countries (per CDC 2013), I'd say it's not working out too well.

                  Does 100,000 casualties per year sound acceptable to you?

                  It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                  by reasonablegunsplz on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 11:39:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have put forth my suggestions on how we (0+ / 0-)

                    can cut back on all violent crime and firearm related violent crime without further infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms in the US. This would reduce those casualties, which are not acceptable.

                    Those other high income countries, by the way, also have quite a few things other than "no guns!" going for them. Say, better social safety nets, for one.

                    •  Thanks. Let's continue. (0+ / 0-)

                      Humans screw up all the time.
                      Guns are dangerous objects.
                      Put the two together, and a track record develops.
                      Sorry, Share Our Wealth, but that track record is terrible.

                      To recruit the unwashed, flawed masses to guns is to invite trouble, IMO.

                      To quote a real S.O.B. on the subject, Tom Diaz, "It's the guns, stupid."

                      It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                      by reasonablegunsplz on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 11:52:37 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That track record is still getting better (0+ / 0-)

                        as firearm laws (with a few exceptions) continue to liberalize across the country.

                        •  Cancel the victory lap (0+ / 0-)

                          First off, excuse me for getting your name wrong two times, Kyle.

                          You mention crime deterrence in two posts.  I am not pro-crime, of course, but crime is no measure of the actual damage being done here.  The researchers are focusing on gun mishaps between people who know each other, which far exceed perps with bullet homes in them.

                          But more to the point of your narrative, "getting better" needs to get 19 times better before you have a salient point.

                          It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                          by reasonablegunsplz on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 12:09:41 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Instead of arguing your points (which I disagree (0+ / 0-)

                            with): what do you suggest doing to fix the issue?

                          •  Great question (0+ / 0-)

                            The answer is first to discourage guns, across the board.

                            Then, recruit responsible leadership within the gun community.

                            Calling out the NRA and SAF culture for the open ignorance of inhibiting gun violence study is a no-brainer.  (Wow.)

                            Addressing the vacuous "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act", then applying the RICO statutes would be effective.

                            Getting a SCOTUS which can read the actual words of the second amendment would help, long-term.

                            It's a real mess, sir.
                            I am a once-proud gunowner, and I value the conversation.

                            It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                            by reasonablegunsplz on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 01:27:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, pretty much disagree with all of that. (0+ / 0-)

                            With the exception of your third paragraph.

                            Have a good one.

                •  Bogus indeed. (0+ / 0-)

                  Over a period of nine years, the gun fatalities have leveled off, yes. But it is because of the 911 phone system, the placement of triage centers, and improvements in medical science.

                  Between 2000 and 2008 a total of 617,488 people suffered nonfatal gunshot injuries in the
                  United States. This averages to about 68,610 persons per year. In 2008, however―a year in
                  which gun deaths totaled 31,593, only slightly above the period’s average―another 78,622
                  were shot but did not die, a figure markedly above the period’s average. Most striking, the
                  total number of people shot in 2008 totaled 110,215―the highest total recorded during the
                  nine-year period. 3

                  Why have gun deaths remained fairly constant even though the total number of people shot
                  is increasing? The answer is that improved emergency services and better medical care are
                  saving lives that would otherwise be lost to guns.

                  The authors of a landmark study in 2002 on the relationship between murder and medicine
                  concluded that advances in emergency services―including the 911 system and
                  establishment of trauma centers―as well as better surgical techniques have suppressed the
                  homicide rate. They concluded that “…without these developments in medical technology
                  there would have been between 45,000 and 70,000 homicides annually the past 5 years
                  instead of an actual 15,000 to 20,000.”4

                  Leaving all the bodies aside for now, let's review the injuries. Between 2000 and 2008, they averaged 69,000.  The last of these years they were 110,000 (Another source: THE LAST GUN, Tom Diaz).

                  In other words, the most recent completed annual figures show the problem is getting worse.

                  And...to repeat, "better" needs to get within the range of other advanced civilizations: LOTS better, not stabilized at a horrific level.  

                  It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                  by reasonablegunsplz on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 12:36:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think you're comparing non-fatal GSWs to (0+ / 0-)

                    the total of GSW + fatalities. Am I reading that wrong?

                    •  Excuse my being unclear (0+ / 0-)

                      The 9-yr gunshot injury survival figure morphed from a 69,000 average to 78,000 in the most recent year  This is significant, and contrary to your rosy analysis.

                      KVoimakis, you are a firearms instructor and seem to be attempting to defend the status quo of guns in 2014.  Allow me to ask, how do you and your compadres plan to turn this train around?
                      Are you (pl) hoping to just accept the present rate of damage?

                      And a follow-up question: normally trade and industry publications become part of the solution, sort of like a self-healing organism.  Can you offer any comment on the unique situation (related to lack of publishable free expression) which has developed?

                      Thanks.

                      It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                      by reasonablegunsplz on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 01:54:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Total numbers can go up while the rate goes (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrankRose

                        down. Population growth needs to be taken into account.

                        I've put forth my own suggestions as to how we fix violent crime in general and firearm related violent crime specifically. My diary history has RKBA: Suggestions for those.

                        Would you expand on your last question please?

                        •  Can we talk? (0+ / 0-)
                          Would you expand on your last question please?
                          The reason we have had a good exchange is that there is plenty to discuss.  I gave two examples of established, long-term gun mag writers who hit a brick wall professionaly, for initiating discussion on key issues. Here's another, a writer shafted for suggesting a concealable machine gun was not a suitable consumer product.
                          METCALF'S TERMINATION OFFENSE:
                              “Too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to continue to keep and bear arms is an infringement,” Metcalf wrote. “The fact is that all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

                              He goes on: “Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberately shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is regulated. A church cannot practice human sacrifice.   Many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, an infringement. If that were true, then the authors of the Second Amendment themselves should not have specified ‘well-regulated.’  The question is, when does regulation become  infringement?”

                          Metcalf was fired (just before Christmas) and Zumbo had to grovel before Ted Nugent to keep his job.  The crimes? Metcalf had suggested that unspecified gun regulations might be okay, something spelled out in the Scalia decision.  Zumbo suggested battlefield-oriented weapons were inappropriate for hunting (as in 30-round capability is overkill for deer).  BIG UPROAR.

                          Again, what is the format for national discussion if the gun mags must print only the talking points of the extremist faction of the NRA? It's a good question.

                          It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                          by reasonablegunsplz on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 10:50:41 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Ahh, I understand. (0+ / 0-)

                            I think that if you start the argument from a compromise position, you'll be pulled even further away from what you want. Hasn't this been something we've seen with the Democrats we've elected at the national level (specifically referencing Congress)?

                            Metcalf was wrong by the way. You CAN shout fire falsely in a crowded theater. If, afterwards, you've caused property damage or injury/death, you'll be brought up on criminal charges.

                            This is a long dead diary. Would you prefer to continue this convo by email or PM?

    •  Really boneheaded on her part (5+ / 0-)

      The closest I ever came was once about 15 years ago. I took a semi auto handgun out of the case, racked the slide to confirm it was empty and a shell ejected out.

      The good: The first thing I did upon taking the gun out of the case was check to confirm it was empty.

      The Bad: I had failed to confirm it was empty when I put it away at the farm 3 months before.

      The lesson: I have become MUCH more focused and conscientious about following the safety drill completely every every every time and not allowing myself to get distracted.

      A guy I follow on youtube talked about it. We become a bit numb from the 27 pages of safety warnings that come with everything these days from lawn mowers to tooth brushes, but guns are the real deal. They are flying planes or riding motorcycles, you usually only get to screw up once. You MUST view it that way, always.

  •  According to this morning's (6+ / 0-)

    Louisville Courier Journal, everyone considers this a "case closed" situation.

    When the legislature decided to change the rules an allow people to carry guns within the Capitol bldg. I wrote a letter to the paper pointing out that we have tons of school students touring that building every day and that the state Supreme Court (who sometimes makes enemies) housed there.  I thought it was a terrible idea, but the gun lobbyists held sway.  So did the rally attendants who showed up on the lawn hooting and hollering about their gun rights.  

    The fact that NOTHING is going to happen as a result just because no one got hurt just goes to show you the mind set of many gun owners and the powers that be in Frankfort.  That mind set is basically an empty space.

    •  Lots of hollering about rights, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, Fishtroller01

      responsibility or consequences for their actions, not so much.

      I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. Leo Gerard.

      by tgrshark13 on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 10:15:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know any who think that NDs or 'ADs' (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, JayFromPA, theatre goon

        should go unpunished. The question is, what should the punishment be?

        •  I suppose having to "work" with the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas

          KY legislature is probably punishment enough!

        •  1) CCW license revoked - (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, tgrshark13

          2) fine,
          3) volunteer hours providing service to people who have been disabled by negligent discharge aka "accidental shootings."
          4) after some time, restoration of rights requires 5) training/proof/retraining as many times as is necessary.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:44:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Counterproposal. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kasoru, DavidMS, theatre goon

            No damage to people or things:
            1. Fine.
            2. Suspension of CPL for one month and a point on the CPL, similar to a driver's license (first offense). Second offense would  be for a longer period of time, higher fine, another point. Third offense, another point (brings total to 3), complete revocation.

            Damage to people or things (things that aren't the CPL holders; shooting your own shit isn't a crime): 3 points. Revocation. Criminal/civil charges.

            Not sure how I'd work remedial training into it.

            •  Have things changed? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, coquiero

              When I had a hunter's permit, if you discharged a weapon on government property (any wildlife preserve) not only did you have your permit revoked, but you were subject to some serious fines.   Whether you hit anything or not.

              In this specific case, a weapon went off in a capital building... how is it that hunters were held to a different standard than a politician?  

              No, her CCW should be revoked.

              Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

              by Chris Reeves on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 01:13:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's way more serious than illegally parking in (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero

                front of a fire hydrant, a non-moving traffic violation, in which you can face a stiff fine, and face temporary forfeiture (towing). That's part of my "scale" to try to develop some ideas about what might be reasonable.

                If she was an employee at a private business she would be fired.

                Her proven failure here and her statements shows that a) does not know how to safely clear a gun, and b) she can not be trusted to carry or handle a gun safely, neither at home nor in public.

                I'm all for due process. The process here is already done, when she discharged her gun in the fucking state capitol building, proving her inability to KEEP her gun operational for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 01:53:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  My suggestions were not location based. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tmservo433, theatre goon

                They were not meant as an exhaustive list. Just like there's certain areas where speeding tickets are double the money and points (construction areas).

                And I'm pretty sure she damaged SOMETHING in that room.

  •  You always check the gun to see if it's loaded (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, LilithGardener

    FIRST.

    It happens my ass!

    ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS or else you don't carry one.

    Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

    by GreenMother on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 09:47:44 AM PST

  •  A clear indicator that we need more training on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, JayFromPA, theatre goon

    the proper handling of firearms. Federally subsidized, taught in public schools.

    People need to know how to verify that a weapon is clear before handling it in any way- or else these incidents will continue to occur.

    •  When I took Hunter Safety in High School (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, LilithGardener

      It was the ONLY way to get a gun permit that I remembered.  If you wanted to ever go hunting, or get a hunting license, you HAD to take hunter safety.  

      Now, since more and more people aren't buying weapons for hunting, they seem to bypass this step all together.

      But part of what makes a gun owner a responsible one is knowing something about the weapon they carry.

      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

      by Chris Reeves on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 12:26:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  These classes are availiable. (0+ / 0-)

        For all of the NRA-ILA's FUD spreading, the training class curriculum from the NRA are very good.  I took a class at the local Izaak Walton League of America about a year and a half before I decided to buy a firearm.  

        I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

        by DavidMS on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 05:07:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's an iffy statement. (0+ / 0-)

          Where YOU are, compliant with YOUR work schedule.... under THOSE conditions there are classes available.

          In MY area, compliant with MY work schedule... under THOSE conditions there are NOT hunter safety classes available.

          You are privileged. Others must expend effort just to arrive at (temporary) parity with the opportunity that you have easily.

        •  I have no problem.. (0+ / 0-)

          Saying there classes are probably pretty good.

          By the same token, I'm betting a large, large group of people never ever take them.

          Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

          by Chris Reeves on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 10:03:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site