Fed shoots himself in leg while giving gun SAFETY presentation

[JohnMitchell 16]

The handgun I used is a Colt .45, 1911 model - a modern version: Gold Cup National Matchwith the same result: nothing happened.

Quote

Dang, John, couldn't you have used a little nicer pistol for all this? My thing is is that you don't even need a gun to teach gun safety to kids, anymore than you need a car to teach kids to cross the street safely. Just teach them the Eddie the Eagle routine to start, and move to safe gun handling when they are ready to be shooters. I sure don't want my four kids, all shooters, to be in the same room with that addled brained, macho knuckle head.

• Quote

[Kennedy 0]

Even if you want a gun in the room, why not have a dummy gun, like the blue gun or the red gun?

Or how about simply unloading before going into a safety demonstration?

Or maybe he could simply follow the rules of safe gun handling!!

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JJohnson 0]

Correct me if I'm missing something here, but if you eject the mag, then pull back the slide, any round in the chamber would be ejected? So where did this magic round come from?

I think the CYA explanation holds true. Somebody is holding back one little thing in the chain of events here.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

but if you eject the mag, then pull back the slide, any round in the chamber would be ejected? So where did this magic round come from?

It would only be ejected if the slide is pulled back far enough, you can pull the slide back far enough to check the chamber but not eject a round or lock open the slide.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

but if you eject the mag, then pull back the slide, any round in the chamber would be ejected? So where did this magic round come from?

It would only be ejected if the slide is pulled back far enough, you can pull the slide back far enough to check the chamber but not eject a round or lock open the slide.

Yes, if you pull the slide all the way back, the chambered round should have been ejected. But if that's what he did, then he should have stopped everything when no cartridge popped out. That would have been a clue that the cartridge might still be in the chamber.

Dave is also correct. The attached photo shows how you can pull the slide back just a half-inch or so, to see the brass cartridge being pulled out of the chamber by the extractor. You can do that to verify that there is a round in the chamber, then drop the slide forward again to re-chamber it. If the officer did this, then it was insufficient to detect the cartridge still in the chamber.

The proper way would be to pull the slide all the way to the rear, and lock it to there. Then physically look inside with your eyeballs to see that the chamber is empty. (Second photo attached)

Either way, this officer showed gross negligence by not detecting the round. And he was stupid to take a real gun with live ammo in the first place, to do the demonstration. He could have used dummy ammo, and/or a dummy gun.

[JJohnson 0]

So let's see if we got this numbnuts story straight: He ejects the mag, pulls back the slide....far enough to let someone else verify the gun is not loaded, yet not far enough to eject the round......we won't mention the fact that neither of them saw the round....
So the solution is obvious, the gun is haunted....or he was using those new stealth bullets.....or maybe....just maybe...I'm going out on a limb here....maybe he didn't really check the gun.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Either way, this officer showed gross negligence by not detecting the round. And he was stupid to take a real gun with live ammo in the first place, to do the demonstration. He could have used dummy ammo, and/or a dummy gun.

I hate myself for wishing that he and the DEA and the school district get sued, but it's hard to stop myself...

Either way, we are talking about the kind of idiot who is either stupid enough or intellectually dishonest enough to actually work for the "war on drugs." That tells me something about him. I respect that about as much as I respect someone who worked for the Treasury to enforce Prohibition. You have to be an abject liar in order to attempt to justify what you're doing, telling us that if we just "keep at it," we'll win this "war." What a load of shit. No wonder we get a bullshit story about how this moron shot himself in the leg. I hope he gets gangrene in his balls from the wound.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 3,154]

>See, you just made me realize skydiving is more dangerous than
> owning a gun. I realize skydiving that I might not go home tonight.
> With gun ownership, if it's just me and the gun, I know I'm going
> home tonight.

I think the same quote is applicable to both skydiving and gun ownership:

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect."

>what might do me in if I follow the four rules of safe gun handling?

A careless gun owner at the range. Just as a careless hook turner took out Roger Nelson. You can't control everything about your environment. Is skydiving safer than gun ownership? I'm not qualified to make that call. Neither is safe by most definitions.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

A careless gun owner at the range.

If someone is being a dumbass on the range, always feel free to walk off the range and get the rangemaster! I've had to do that more then a couple times, when folks were too stupid to keep the muzzle pointed downrange while loading/unloading, handling, etc as well as when they've done things that were outrageous and dangerous.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

What might do me in if I follow the four rules of safe gun handling?

A careless gun owner at the range. Just as a careless hook turner took out Roger Nelson. You can't control everything about your environment. Is skydiving safer than gun ownership? I'm not qualified to make that call. Neither is safe by most definitions.

Well, by that token, you can pretty much say that anything is dangerous and be correct. Why not equate gun ownership with crossing the street? If I personally want to make sure I don't hurt myself, I can -- and I know this is a bold statement -- be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE that I won't hurt myself when handling my gun. I just have to do things the right way. Same goes for crossing the street. Make no mistake: crossing the street is dangerous. People die doing it all the time.

Since you can get killed just about anywhere, doing just about anything, why not say that living is dangerous. You could be at a knitting store taking knitting lessons and someone walking by with her project stumbles and falls and *splorscht* you catch her knitting needles in your eye and your brain is pithed. These are things that can happen. How dangerous the activity is depends on how often they happen, and how controllable their occurring is by the user. Shit, cutting vegetables in the kitchen is dangerous. I could give myself a cut that I could bleed to death from. Have I ever? No. When I cut, I go slowly and carefully and I watch what I'm doing, and I make sure to remind myself to do it that way.

I think that the danger in these activities (or any activities) is almost 99% the human element, and we are supposed to control that individually. Yes, some deaths are the result of the actions or carelessness of others (i.e. Roger Nelson's), but that is not what makes skydiving dangerous, that's what made that person's actions dangerous.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[JohnMitchell 16]

***Even if you want a gun in the room, why not have a dummy gun, like the blue gun or the red gun?

Quote

At Gunsite in Arizona, the instructors all use the dummy weapons for training. At Gunsite, all guns are loaded, regardless of what you may do with them, and are not used for demonstrations. This is not, by the way, the first incident of a law officer's firearm discharging around children. Some people just get to casual or too cocky with their own importance to be safe.

• Quote

[billvon 3,154]

>If I personally want to make sure I don't hurt myself, I can -- and I
> know this is a bold statement -- be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE
> that I won't hurt myself when handling my gun.

Is it your position that guns are therefore safe and do not require extraordinary care in handling?

> Yes, some deaths are the result of the actions or carelessness of
> others (i.e. Roger Nelson's), but that is not what makes skydiving
> dangerous, that's what made that person's actions dangerous.

No, that's what makes skydiving dangerous. To claim Roger's death was not a skydiving death would be as silly as claiming that a child who is accidentally shot when a gun goes off in the house next door is not a gun death.

[JJohnson 0]

Are you saying that Roger's death was entirely the fault of someone else? That he had no part in it?

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So let's see if we got this numbnuts story straight: He ejects the mag, pulls back the slide....far enough to let someone else verify the gun is not loaded, yet not far enough to eject the round......we won't mention the fact that neither of them saw the round....
So the solution is obvious, the gun is haunted....or he was using those new stealth bullets.....or maybe....just maybe...I'm going out on a limb here....maybe he didn't really check the gun.

Correct! And in the end they'll blame the gun manufacturer for building a "faulty" gun...

Just like basketball star Jayson Williams, who blames Beretta, the manufacturer of his shotgun, for his own act of pointing a loaded shotgun at someone.

[kallend 2,196]

Quote

Quote

So let's see if we got this numbnuts story straight: He ejects the mag, pulls back the slide....far enough to let someone else verify the gun is not loaded, yet not far enough to eject the round......we won't mention the fact that neither of them saw the round....
So the solution is obvious, the gun is haunted....or he was using those new stealth bullets.....or maybe....just maybe...I'm going out on a limb here....maybe he didn't really check the gun.

Correct! And in the end they'll blame the gun manufacturer for building a "faulty" gun...

Just like basketball star Jayson Williams, who blames Beretta, the manufacturer of his shotgun, for his own act of pointing a loaded shotgun at someone.

Fact is, there are many people who can't or won't follow even simple instructions or follow simple safety rules like looking before crossing the street, or turning the power off before changing a light bulb. Visit any emergency room any day and you'll see a bunch of them getting treatment.

Such people should not have guns, IMO, or become skydivers for that matter. You certainly don't want them in the militia.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

You certainly don't want them in the militia.

Sure we do, every army needs cannon fodder to send out to check for minefields, or take enemy machine gun nests, etc.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Sure we do, every army needs cannon fodder to send out to check for minefields, or take enemy machine gun nests, etc.

Kinda like "Operation Human Shield" from South Park (the movie).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Fact is, there are many people who can't or won't follow even simple instructions or follow simple safety rules like looking before crossing the street, or turning the power off before changing a light bulb. Visit any emergency room any day and you'll see a bunch of them getting treatment.

Thank god you didn't say, "We need guns with foolproof safety devices that will take over and keep people safe even when the user breaks significant safe-use rules." Believe it or not, there are people who claim to believe that.

Quote

Such people should not have guns, IMO, or become skydivers for that matter. You certainly don't want them in the militia.

Yeah, I suppose I agree with this. The only problem (and it's a big one) is how do we empower, say, a government, to determine who is safe enough or responsible enough to have these things or do these things? The danger is that if you put your rights into their hands and tell them to dole them back out to you (i.e. the people), there is always the risk that they'll come back saying, "Uh, we changed our minds about letting you have your rights back." That's why many gun owners balk at having "mandatory training" to establish that a gun owner can demonstrate safe use. The risk exists that the government will simply set the passing bar impossibly high. Sure, they may start it low, but they'll raise it. And besides that, they'll start saying, "Oh, woe is us, we have to raise the fee 350% this year to cover costs of administering the "are-you-fit-to-own-a-gun" program!..."

This shit happens just like I'm telling it. Go look at NY, and Gov. Pataki's onerous proposal to build revenue on the backs of gun owners.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

You can't control everything about your environment. Is skydiving safer than gun ownership? I'm not qualified to make that call. Neither is safe by most definitions.

There's the difference. To skydive is to inherently put your life in danger. You are two to three miles above the earth, relying on nylon to save your life.

Gun ownership, on the other hand, bears no inherent risks. Gun ownership is like buying a rig, there's nothing dangerous about it. How many times have you heard pulling referred to as saving your own life? Your life is at risk on a skydive, when you use your rig, no two ways about it.

Using a firearm, however, does not bring you to danger.

That's why I can say gun ownership is less dangerous than skydiving. That's why I can say gun ownership is not dangerous at all, any more than hammer ownership.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

True. I agree. In the sense of just having a gun, what harm can come of that? I guess billvon is talking about actually putting on a rig and using it, and putting ammunition in a gun and firing it.

However, a huge difference exists. Barring unforeseen weakness or damage in a firearm, the chances of being injured while properly and safely using the gun (i.e. discharging it at a safe target) are nearly nil. Under the control of a user who has training and knowledge in the proper use of a gun, that gun is almost 100% safe for the user. Not so with a parachute rig, since even though the user may know and understand how to safely skydive, factors like wind, materials failure, air traffic, etc. enter the equation and can bring about injury or death even when the skydiver is doing everything he can do correctly.

To say that gun ownership per se is dangerous to the owner is no more accurate than saying that diamond necklace ownership is dangerous to a woman because someone may endanger her life in order to acquire it from her. Yet this is the illusion anti-gunners try to cast on gun ownership when they talk about how many more times at risk a gun owner is to be killed with a firearm (the infamous "Kellerman study" which cannot be completely debunked because as I understand it he has never revealed all of his source data for peer review).

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Tonto 1]

Quote

I suppose it's possible, but I think most pistols require the trigger to be pulled after the slide has completely returned to rest. I'm pretty sure Glocks and Sigs are like that. I don't know about 1911s, H&Ks, or anything else.

I agree with you here. Most pistols I'm familiar with would require the trigger to be released and pulled again if the slide were released while the trigger was held to the rear. Any other mode of operation (without the sear being tampered with) would result in a full auto pistol.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[markd_nscr986 0]

Maybe we should send this guy to Gaza to give Islamic Jihad bomb making lessons!!!

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[billvon 3,154]

>That's why I can say gun ownership is not dangerous at all, any more
>than hammer ownership.

I can find no cases on the net of a child killing himself with a hammer. Guns can be safe when used carefully. However, the claim that guns are not dangerous is simply not tenable. They are one of the most dangerous tools you can own, and have an incredible capacity to injure and kill when misused. No suprise there; that's what they were designed to do.

[rickjump1 0]

In some of the rear (REMF) areas of Vietnam, there was a steel drum filled with sand located in the front entrance of tents or buildings. The drum was set up at an angle. This sand/drum was used for clearing weapons. You pulled the magazine out, pulled the slide back, and then pointed the pistol/rifle into the drum and pulled the trigger. I was told that occasionally somebody's weapon fired.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Kennedy 0]

Many police agencies use a similar drum before checking firearms (prior to shift, maintenence, etc). It exists as a failsafe for human stupidity. If an officer unloads his firearm properly, there is no need for the drum. It exists for those few times when idiots show their stripes. You have to remember, when pointing into the drum, no one expects a bang, because there should be no cartridge in the chamber.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*