'Knucklehead' Kansas bloke shoots self in foot A Kansas high school graduation ceremony ended prematurely for two attendees yesterday when one shot himself in the foot with a concealed handgun, in the process seriously wounding another. According to local news outlet KWCH, the incident occurred just before 2pm yesterday at Augusta High School's outdoor stadium, when a man …
My impression is that gun accidents are seen in the US as unpredictable freaks rather than sad consequences of negligence - anywhere else I'd expect the authorities to be prosecuting him for causing serious injury through negligence, not pondering whether he did it in the wrong place. Whether that woman got shot at a school, a mall, or on a street pales in comparison to this man's reckless stupidity and apparent unfitness to have such a weapon anywhere.
Funnily enough we was talking about this sort of thing this morning, 200 incidents involving children in US already this year.
I think you need god when people do things like leave loaded guns loose under the car seat for kids to pick up, take guns to weddings, seriously a bride killed her niece adjusting the gun in the limo. Tuck loaded weapons (with no safety?) in socks. You certainly don't seem to be able to rely on common sense of some gun owners.
But suppose you were in a situation where you were naked except for your socks and had to deal with an intruder/terrorist/grizzly bear? You wouldn't have time to cycle an empty chamber.
Quite simply, if I felt I had to carry, open or concealed, I'd do that in a proper holster and my assessment of the circumstances would dictate in what modus I'd have the gun itself and my handling of it would match that modus. In general, I like a minimum of two steps between picking up a gun and it firing because mistakes are easily made and bloody hard to undo.
Further, there are no circumstances I can think of where I would keep on my socks when naked :).
> Also, ankle holsters are crap except in very particular circumstances.
For example when you're a leggy femme fatale in a movie that's just looking for an excuse to show some leg :)
It might be a limited imagination, but I can't think of a civilian circumstance where it'd likely be beneficial as it's more of a "backup" thing
One in the chamber is fine, no safety is fine (See Glock, SD et al) but a proper holster that covers the trigger is a must. Also, ankle holsters are crap except in very particular circumstances
You remind me of this fantastic clip. It still makes me laugh.
On in the chamber and no safety is fine if you are entering a dangerous area where you know you may be forced to fire quickly to save lives (including yours).
If you are in a school for an end of year ceremony, you should not have the gun with you in the first place, and you're not a cop aware of some menace, you're just a danger.
As a multiple firearm owner, I'll just state outright, this is yet another case of negligence and it's also a felony to carry a firearm onto school property. Not seeing a sign isn't considered an affirmative defense in the US, it's well known where to not carry on school property.
Maybe I'm a bit harsh for a gun owner, but that wasn't accidental, that was stupidity, pure and simple. I've paid a fortune for licenses, permits and classes on safety and properly handling a firearm, and it's jackweeds like him that give honest and responsible people, like me, a really bad name.
In short, I was taught a long time ago that there are no accidents with guns. Period. Either you respect them and treat them properly or you're simply choosing to act irresponsibly and are endangering innocent people. A sock doesn't securely contain a pistol safely, no matter how small. Even a child can figure that one out.
I have not one iota of sympathy for him or his foot! My heart goes out to the woman he injured and as far as I'm concerned, he should be completely financially responsible for any and all medical bills for her, related to this and he should have his ass locked away for several decades, for almost killing someone.
Au contraire, it's a problem for any country that thinks it appropriate to carry guns around in public for no particular reason or purpose other than because its some stupidly interpreted "right" that made some sense a few centuries ago but does not now.
Ah, but they need those guns to defend themselves against people with, well, guns. The NRA has been allowed to do quite a number on the psyche of that nation. Personally I'd be more worried about getting accidentally shot by such an idiot or their police than getting robbed - that seems nowadays a relatively minor risk in comparison.
It's always "just this guy" or "just that stupid parent" or every other individual who risked themselves and others. It's always taken down to a single example. But it's always "all those feminist who said..." or "the Liberal media" or "These terrorists" rather than "just one woman who said", "a reporter who wrote" or "just one violent guy who bombed".
Why is it that gun-owners get to step away from a group identity whens something bad or stupid happens? I myself like guns, but when I have possession of my fire-arm, I'm not suddenly in a responsibility-free bubble where I am accountable to no one and to blame for nothing.
Why is it that gun-owners get to step away from a group identity whens something bad or stupid happens?
For the same reason that way too many people get away with doing stupid crap in a car such as driving while distracted or under the influence. Or going to the absurd reality... falling off a ladder. It's the "accident'" mentality. Can't blame ourselves so it was "an accident". A rather disgusting state of affairs.
I too am a gun-owner, but I take just as much personal responsibility for the gun as anything thing. Same for the car and driving. Or climbing a ladder.
>This is not a problem with guns or America, just this guy.
Unfortunately there's no way to stop guys like this buying guns. There's also no way to stop them hurting random people; they're weapons and if they go off the bullet's going to go somewhere. So while it may be his right to own, carry or whatever a gun its also my right to be free from the menace of random ordnance going off because we can't regulate properly who owns the hardware.
That's a lot of downvotes. If you're Americans who love signs and/or hate guns, this country is fucked. I hope you're simply foreigners who hate America.
EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see your prominent replies, there were so many. You seem to be gun haters who believe that gun owners are all idiots who think alike. You are wrong. This country is full of idiots of all stripes. We are truly fucked.
"Does this mean that sock-holster-gun-fondler-guy could be judged blameless if he turns out to be functionally illiterate?"
Nope. Ignorance of the law is not a defense in the US. This sounds like someone has connections, so they're actively trying to not charge him with a felony.
Pity, convicted felons lose the right to possess a firearm.
I'm having trouble working out what he thought he was doing.
A sock is not a very accessible place to keep a gun.What did he think he would use it for? Even in the US fantasy of being a hero and foiling crime, he wouldn't have time to get to it. If directly mugged he could have problems if he asked the mugger to wait while he got the sock off.
So presumably it was to resist searches? Did he expect to be searched coming onto the grounds but wanted to smuggle the gun in anyway? Is he a criminal wanting to get a gun past police? Or did he have a fantasy of being prepared in case he was kidnapped?
Or just the apparently widespread idea in the US that you have to have a gun with you at all times just in case?
I would assume this is stupidity mixing with madness. The stupidity is carrying a gun in his sock, to wear a gun on your ankle you wear an ankle holster for safety. I am guessing he couldnt wear an ankle holster as it would be potentially noticed which is only a problem because of the madness of gun free zones, or massacre centres depending how you want to look at it. I can imagine he thought he was doing the right thing in case a situation occurred but what he did was stupid.
Of course that assumes he wasnt trying to sneak it in for any bad reason where nobody else would be armed.
"cause of the madness of gun free zones, or massacre centres depending how you want to look at it"
I've had loaded guns with the safety off aimed directly at me at a range of under 5m on several occasions. In every case the perp was entitled to use firearms, and they were drunk. On all those occasions I had no real warning beyond the fact they were (legally) carrying a firearm, and in none of those cases would I have had time to even raise & aim a firearm without being lethally wounded. The only thing that kept me alive was making sure they understood there was nothing to gain by shooting me, any sign of a gun would have signed my death warrant.
In all those situations I've been on the wrong end of a gun, removing the firearms would have vastly improved my odds of survival. I got lucky, others haven't been so lucky.
Ideally (for me) the lawful use of a firearm should require close (independent) supervision where every discharge of the firearm will be recorded and verified, that firearms may be concealed, but anyone carrying firearms should be clearly marked as doing so and the purpose of the firearms should be declared (and agreed with the supervisory body) prior to use. The purpose of the firearms should also be *publically* displayed on the bearer of firearms (uniforms are already used for this purpose).
Laws pretty much cover all of the above in most countries, and there are knob-ends in most countries too, so the madness is that the supervision/enforcement just isn't good enough.
Having said all that I reckon that keeping folks who can't hold their booze off the streets (or keeping them away from booze) would have a more beneficial effect on the quality of life for everyone everywhere. :)
What I don't understand is that "possession of a firearm while intoxicated" is not already a crime in the US. Either you get to carry a firearm or you get to drink booze. Either, Or. Not both. Firearms are dangerous at the best of times. Having easy access to one while boozed up is just stupid. Drinking and driving is already (rightfully) heavily penalized. Even sitting in a car with the key in the ignition while fast asleep is enough to be charged with a DIU (intent to drive, basically). So why isn't having a firearm on your person or close-by ready to go a similar offense? The consequences of having an accident are greatly similar.
I grew up and lived as an adult in an "open carry" state - Pennsylvania. I've since relocated to Louisiana, another "open carry" state.
The funny thing is, few bother to carry a firearm.
Decades ago, I lived in a rather lousy neighborhood in Philadelphia, so I got a concealed carry permit. That resulted in much more frequent cleanings of my pistol and one evening, while cleaning the pistol, I pondered just how much of a good sport an armed criminal would have to be to await my drawing my firearm, so that we'd be evenly matched.
So, I put the cleaned pistol back into its safe and only took it out to go to and from a range, permitting the concealed carry permit to expire.
This post has been deleted by its author
Don't know who is downvoting you... putting people on the "wrong" side of a gun helps a lot to make them understand the risks of carrying guns around without a real need - and often even without being able to properly handle them as well, as the dangerous idiot in the article shows.
Clearly the only way to stop a gunman who hasn't seen the signs is to equip the signs themselves with guns.
Ah - like they do in Gibraltar!
Go try to ignore these signs...
:D
>> try texting while driving a stick.
You'd think it would be almost impossible, wouldn't you...?
We have manual transmission almost exclusively here, and I am sorry to report that most people, through what I assume must be an extraordinary dent of effort, still manage to use their phones while driving. Including texting!
My own view is that anyone calling me while I am driving can probably wait until I am done. Unless it's a god calling, in which case I expect s/he should be able to manage another means of communication anyway.
Fourth gear can easily take you from a standstill to well over the speed limit, no gear changes needed. It might cost you a bit of clutch wear, but if you're the kind of person who texts and drives, you'll probably be oblivious to the smell of toasted clutch, same as pretty much everything else going on around you on the road.
"The authorities are now pondering what charges the gun owner may face."
Really! Do I deduce that the USA has now reached such an extreme level of loonyness that discharging a firearm in a crowded building and injuring someone might not actually be a crime?
Hardly. This statement most likely reflects the "need" to figure out which set of charges to file against the loony in question will render the harshest of penalties in aggregate. Why stop with a single charge when you can collect the whole set?
Something I'm a little surprised at is that the concealed carry licence doesn't require you carry the weapon in a suitable holster to prevent risk of injury to bystanders. Actually I'm kind of surprised that safe storage of firearms isn't part of *all* gun licences, but if you're carrying a concealed one it certainly seems like you should be required to do that, rather than just stick it in a sock
Some interesting statistics:
Last year, estimated deaths by shooting of children under 19 in the USA 2,600 (that's two thousand six hundred)
2013, total deaths on British roads from all causes 1713
Makes you think (well, obviously doesn't make american gun nuts think, but should make anyone with a working brain think)
Totally agreed.
And for those who think that weapons in the hands of citizens help curb crime: Number of Firearms stolen in burglaries every year in the US = ~250,000.
More Americans have been killed by toddlers in 2016 than by terrorists. Imagine growing up knowing you killed your brother or your mother. And yet the adults who brought the gun into the house and left it unsafely in a place where a toddler can pick it up tend to get off scot-free, because it was "just a tragic accident."
That'd be 63 million total of every age, USA approx 320 million. As percentage of total population :
The USA shoots 0.0008% of it's population under the age of 19.
The UK runs down 0.002% of it's population under the age of 19.
But I guess the USA also runs down it's teenagers, and the UK must shoot some of theirs..... Statistics eh?
"The UK runs down 0.002% of it's population under the age of 19"
No. The UK runs down 0.0027% of its TOTAL population.
"The USA shoots 0.0008% of it's population under the age of 19."
Let's see... Estimated deaths of children and teens by gunfire in the USA: 2600.[/] Number of Children and teen in the USA = 83 millions.[=] 0.0031%
Your figures are fucked up!
You come from a country quite happy to let its citizens arm and kill themselves, but blaspheme and the almighty might (wont! as he doesn't exist) strike you down?
I think it's the same place that considers showing a bare breast on TV far more dangerous to children than constant violence.
One way to reduce firearms in the US? Ask everybody who wants to carry one to have also a full insurance for any damage they can cause to people and properties. If I suffer damage, I want to be paid a lot of money, even if you are a poor loon who spent his whole monthly pay in guns and ammunition. The insurance sector will be happy, and will back the proposal, I guess...
And also raise the bar. Allow not only handguns and assault rifles, go all the way to heavy machine guns, chain guns, hand grenades, mortars, light artillery. Oh, and tanks too.
What is it you say ? No, no sniper rifles, that would still be illegal.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
