Man’s Gun Accidentally Goes Off In Busy Restaurant-3 wounded

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A mother, her child and another person had to be rushed to the hospital, after a man's gun accidentally went off inside a busy restaurant Tuesday.

The "Smokey Bones" restaurant on East Colonial Drive was filled with customers when the gun went off.

The man had a concealed weapons permit. Evidently, the gun was in his pants with no holster, when it went off. The bullet went down his leg and hit the floor.

The victims were not seriously hurt, and will be okay.

http://www.wftv.com/news/28014137/detail.html

Thinking of bringing your gun out to dinner with the family? A man who did just that this evening ended up injuring four people, himself included, at a Smokey Bones restaurant on East Colonial Drive in Orlando.

The victims, including a 4-year-old boy, were slightly injured when the gun went off accidentally in the restaurant's foyer, Orlando police said.

The owner of the gun, a 35-year-old man who was not identified, suffered powder burns and abrasions to his leg. He declined medical treatment.

The other three people were slightly injured, primarily in the legs, by either bullet fragments or bits of floor tile, according to Orlando police Lt. John Holysz. Those victims were a 32-year-old woman, her 4-year-old son, and an unrelated man in his 20s. All three were taken to local hospitals as a precautionary measure.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-4-hurt-in-smokey-bones-shooting-20110524,0,286382.story

The shooting is being identified as an accidental discharge of a gun carried by a man with a concealed weapons permit. He tells police he had his 9mm in his pant pocket and also had his hand in his pocket when he says the gun accidentally fired.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/orange_news/052411-gun-discharges-at-orlando-restaurant

Another Ahole without a holster! Revoke his CCW!

Knowing they were "protected" by a CCW carrier.








:sarcasm:

....when it comes to firearms than you do with others who experience accidents that also result in injuries but do not involve firearms. Anything less than a 100% safety margin and you're out with the bull shit sarcasm.

This guy did something stupid and should be punished for it, at least by having his permit taken away. Is that reflective of the entire issue somehow? Not in the least.

Because according to you, the rights of the careless, irresponsible gun-toter matter far more than the safety, well-being, and even the lives of the rest of us.

Not more or less, but equally. Instead of taking this as an example of an exception to the rule (which is exactly what it is) you wish to lump all gun owners into a single pot with this particular individual, ignoring all of the benefits of concealed carry and only concentrating on the negatives.

This is both hypocritical and irrational.

of those people--that child? Good Gawd. Disgusting.

...is your blatant hypocrisy. When a drunk driver kills a family of 4 in a minivan, do you rail about the evils of the auto industry and how those nasty "car-drivers" are endangering the lives of everybody around them?

Of course not. You likely recognize that there are bad apples in every single group. That the vast majority of car drivers are generally responsible drivers.

Yet when it comes to firearms, you set a totally different standard, and all rationality goes out the window. Like I said, instead of concentrating on punishing this one individual for their irresponsible behavior, you're taking the opportunity to lump all CCW permit holders into a single pot. That somehow they are all a massive danger to the lives of everybody around them, which is simply not the reality. Not any more than most drivers are a massive danger to others around.

What a ludicrous analogy

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What a ludicrous answer from you.

as a comparison. This asshole had a loaded gun in his pocket that went off in a restaurant. WTF does it have to do with drunk driving?

It's called an "analogy." We have two activities (driving and carrying concealed in this case) that require implements (a vehicle and a firearm), that can be done in an irresponsible fashion. We use the analogy to point out the hypocrisy of those who feel negligent discharges of a firearm such as this make a great case against concealed carry (and those that disagree don't care about others lives somehow) but do not make a similar argument when it comes to driving.

This "asshole" is no different than an asshole who drives drunk. The only difference is the way people like yourself perceive it. It involves an activity you don't understand, therefore it is somehow much worse in your eyes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

try to drive also. They guy decided to have his gun in his pocket without a proper holster and this is just as irresponsible as driving drunk. I'm sure you are willing to claim that all people who drink are bad also. If not. You are a...

If not, would you support such a law?

Given that this is an extremely rare occurrence, is a law really necessary to begin with?

...we probably also need a law that prohibits drying off your infant in the microwave.
:banghead:
:sarcasm:

It's a serious subject, but that honestly made me laugh out loud. :)

Maybe weird Al will do better. :)

No laws, lots of rights. Sounds wonderful, except more idiots will be exercising those rights at everyone else's expense.

I think your attitude is pretty typical of the gun defenders in this forum...

...are as important as our lives. Without our rights, our lives are diminished anyway.

I don't cherry pick which rights are important and which aren't, as you apparently do. Nor do I take a rare exception to a rule (the person in the above story) and attempt to twist it into a reasoning to limit an activity that, not only has not proven to be uber-dangerous or life threatening as you seem to think it is, but in fact both a safe and often generally beneficial activity to those who participate in it.

You hold up a handful of anecdotal stories to support your position. I have years of statistical data. Which do you think holds more weight?

....that can come from CCW or gun ownership in general. Their prejudiced minds just refuse to acknowledge it is even possible.

...are attributes of the individual. You can no more forcibly deny the rights of one man to help another than you can compel a kidney donation.

:patriot:

If that were the case wouldn't we all be pushing for legal immunity for such people?

Do you support a ban on driving? No?!?!??! So you believe your right to drive drunk and murder other people through negligence trumps my right to be safe?

Monster!

protect everyone else.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They seem to factor in a lot of the recent reports of accidental shootings.

Reach for Your Car Keys — Oops — One of them got caught in the GUN — BANG!

Do the exercise any real standards in giving those out? I was always under the impression that they only gave those to the RESPONSIBLE gun owners.

There's nothing irresponsible about them in the least. They have been carried safely by many thousands of law enforcement officers and regular citizens for years upon years. Not sure if it was a revolver or possibly a Glock in this case.

Nobody every claimed that all CCW permit holders were blameless, holy creatures. That's simply the standard people like yourself seem to require of them. Yet for some reason I doubt you hold any other group in society to the same requirements.

Most states have no restrictions on what gun is carried.

At least that's what I've always read in posts that were defending the practice. That they actually had some criteria other than you're not a recent mental hospital patient and don't have any restraining orders against you (or did the Supreme court invalidate that one? It's hard to keep up).

Well, I guess I just have to accept the fact that if myself or my kids get shot, that's just the breaks, or the price we pay for living in a utopia of freedom. Maybe I should invest in bullet proof vests for all of us.

..where anybody claimed that 100% of CCW permit holders were always responsible 100% of the time? You'll have a hard time finding such a post, because it doesn't actually exist.

Maybe you should invest in working up your critical thinking skills a bit more. I think that would serve you better than the vests.

mere possession by those people is a federal crime. Has been for mental patients since the 1960s. Those with restraining orders since the 1990s. Convicted felons since the 1930s. So no, they would not qualify for a CCW.

Almost every firearm produced now has some sort of safety -- even modern revolvers have a hammer-block safety that prevents the gun from firing if dropped on its hammer. You're probably thinking of a manual safety, which is a feature of many, but by no means all, semi-auto handguns. Any mechanical safety device is not a substitute for safe gun handling -- it merely adds an extra layer of protection.

Striker-fired semi-auto pistols do not have a manual safety, relying instead on a long trigger pull to prevent negligent discharges. This would include the Glock, which has an estimated 65% of the U.S. law-enforcement market and is the most popular military and police handgun in the world. Like modern revolvers, Glocks are "drop-safe," but negligent discharges can happen if idiots persist in carrying them without adequate holsters and are incapable of keeping their fingers off the trigger until ready to shoot. It should be noted that negligent discharges can happen even with pistols that have manual safeties: "I thought the safety was on" ranks with "I didn't know it was loaded" as an invalid excuse for unsafe behavior. No mechanical device is idiot-proof.

By the way, none of the stories linked in the OP mentions this man's gun not having a safety. That's just some random speculation by another poster in this thread.

This man was negligent and abused his right to carry a firearm. All rights will be abused by someone, somewhere, sometime. We have legal mechanisms for removing rights from those who abuse them. Removing rights from people who do not abuse them is not justifiable.

Your last sentence sums up my thoughts on the subject more eloquently than I was able to do so myself. Thanks!

:toast:

but it is a small lever on the trigger. So if your finger, or another object, is resting lightly on the trigger, the safety is deactivated. This is why it's a bad idea to carry such a gun in the pocket without some sort of pocket-holster/trigger guard device.

It's not like the typical manual safety on a DA/SA semi-auto, which locks up the trigger so that it can't move no matter how hard you squeeze it. I think that's what the general public's conception of a "safety" is.

They don't look at your guns as a determining factor. Why would they?

"Do the exercise any real standards in giving those out?" Which are you asking about,guns? or permits?

"I was always under the impression that they only gave those to the RESPONSIBLE gun owners." Again the question arises,guns? or permits?

The state of issue only gives the appropriate testing, as required by that States law, then if you pass you are given a permit. Except in California where permits are only issued to the wealthy, famous, or good friend of the local Sheriff.

As far as I know you are required to purchase your own weapon.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

In a pocket without a holster the safety could be just as easily offed as the trigger by objects in pocket.

I'd never depend on an external safety for any carry on the body.

Of course I have the weapon in a pocket holster and I don't play with it. The revolver and its holster are the only items in that pants pocket.



S&W Model 642


Bianchi 4501 Pocket Change Pocket Holster


There are pocket holsters made for pistols such as Glocks.


DeSantis Nemesis Pocket Holster

:nuke:

:nopity:

or to be used in a suicide than they are to be used in successful self-defense.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/102/

This study compared the number of times guns kept in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense with the number of times they were used in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, criminal assault or homicide. Records of fatal and nonfatal shootings in Memphis, TN, Seattle, WA, and Galveston, TX were used. It was found that for every time a household gun was used for self-defense, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Overall, guns kept in the home were 22 times more likely to be used in unintentional shootings, murder or assault, and suicide attempts than in an act of self-defense.

The study concludes that: “Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.”

...the methodology used in that study has been literally ripped to shreds over and over again. Kellermann's technique in general could be used to also show that any non-firearm object in your home is even MORE likely to be used to harm or kill a family member than be used in a self defense situation than a FIREARM is. Thus, using the same logic, you'd be safer having NOTHING BUT firearms in your house than any other object!

Of course, that really doesn't make a lot of sense, now does it?

Read here. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Not only do they go over the flaw in the methodology but also link to several other papers that were written on this subject.

EDIT: Another good place to read about this. http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

No, not literally.

I haven't seen that one in a few weeks.

such shamelessly Right Wing sites?

Paul Helmke (R Moran)

Josh Sugarman (R Moran)

Sarah Brady (R Moran)

James (Doorstop) Brady (R Moran)

How many other Republican gun grabbers are your hero?

Megan McCain? (R Moran)

Dick Cheney? (R Moran)

I certainly think it should count. My wife defended herself from an attack with her gun but she didn't have to shoot. The bad guy ran away.

The Kellerman study is badly flaws as it only counted dead burglars (Wounded ones didn't count.) and if the burglar used his own gun to shoot the residence then they counted that as a "gun in the home".

You have been told several times previously about the flaws of the Kellerman study. You know better but choose to use it anyway.

Lieing republican run gun hater societies should not be trotted out on this website in support of...anything.

...of a lonely brady...
who was bring up things fallacious and wrong...
from a campaign loosing support and just not so strong.

And I'd like to leave you with my favorite quote from Arthur Kellerman: "If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." (Health Magazine, March/April 1994) (emphasis mine)

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that guy is going to be paying a lot more than what that gun cost him.....what a dumb ass.

for driving a car while drunk?

I am not saying this man was drunk. I don't know whether this restaurant even serves alcohol. I am just wondering about the idea of carrying a weapon to a place where you are likely to drink, and whether it is legal. Not commenting on this particular situation.

...may or may not be legal depending on your state. However, carrying while consuming alcohol is illegal in every state that carry is allowed as far as I am aware (someone that knows any exceptions to this is welcome to post, as I am not 100% certain of every states laws). But a quick search did not turn up anyplace where being above the legal limit and carrying were legal. In fact, in some states, taking a single drink while carrying was illegal.

Hope this helps. :)

but they usually peg the limit to the DUI limits.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/

...kinda contradicts itself half way through (pre and post google search) which makes my post about as clear as mud. lol

Thanks for the good link, PavePusher. :)

it's the only way we'll be safe.

To separate the fools that can't carry their weapon responsibly from the normal customers.

but then in reality, "gun toters" who have a concealed carry permit are normally very polite people. We don't go looking for fights.

is for the A-Holes that can't go anywhere without their guns and handle them properly.

It's a select group.

if you pocket carry, get one. Only bad guys and fools carry without a holster.


DeSantis Nemesis Pocket Holster Ambidextrous Glock 26, 27 Kel-Tec P11, P40, S&W M&P 9C/40C, Taurus 709 Slim Nylon Black $14.99
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=995917


DeSantis Nemesis Pocket Holster Ambidextrous Colt Detective Special 2", Ruger LCR 1-7/8", SP101 2", S&W J-Frame 2-1/4" Barrel Nylon Black $$14.99
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=166521

Anyone know if Florida in their classes to get a permit stresses the importance of a holster? Just curious.

This idiot is going to pay far more than the <$25 to get a pocket holster.

I made a kydex pocket holster for it last year but stopped using it. I carry it in a cheap uncle mikes now...

but upgraded when I wore the last one out.

I now use a thicker Bianchi Pocket Change Pocket Holster for my S&W Model 642 snub nosed .38 revolver. If you have small pockets in your pants, the Uncle Mikes holster may fit better. I usually wear shorts or pants from 5.11 which have roomy pockets.

for my LCP. Winter I have a 9c or PT145 that I carry in a couple of different OWB holsters. Late in the winter this year my wife bought me a fobus holster for my LCP that I thought was going to be useless, but I started using it and liked it. Now that it's warmer I've moved back to my pocket holster and put up the "compacts" in favor of the LCP.

I sometimes carry a S&W 3" model 60 revolver in a Don Hume IWB leather holster. This weapon is far easier to shoot than my .38 snubbie. The little snubbie has a nasty recoil and poor sights.

In Florida a recent change in the concealed carry law will take away some of my concerns in carrying the Model 60. Under the old law you could find yourself in trouble with the law if the wind caught your jacket and someone noticed you were carrying. Under the new law an inadvertent flash of the weapon will be tolerated as long as you have a concealed weapons permit. Of course, you can not walk around blatantly exposing your firearm.



I bought a Ruger LCP for my son in law as a present and he loves it. I tend to prefer wheel guns (revolvers) for reliability reasons but in reality the reliability of modern semi-automatic pistols is far better than pistols manufactured 20 or more years ago.

I want a 586 or 686 with a 4" barrel, I don't have any revolvers only 5 autos.

but you never know what I may buy...something comes along at the right price well I can't resist. LOL

It's a tack driver and has had thousands and thousands of rounds fired through it.

I recommend that if you want to take a course in Florida you find an instructor with a good reputation and a small class. Such a class will be more expensive, but you get what you pay for.

I remember an ex-police chief of Cincinnati Ohio who ran gun classes in the Tampa Bay area. His classes were excellent and he spent a lot of time on the range making sure his students were knowledgeable and could shoot their weapons with a degree of accuracy. He would have his students shoot at various distances up to 25 yards. Unfortunately he was killed in a car accident.

Kristen Heaney and her 4-year-old son were hit with shrapnel and pieces of tile. Her husband and older son were in the bathroom at the time.

“I walked around the corner and I heard a big bang. My wife was screaming for my 4-year-old and I looked down and there was a big bullet hole in the ground,” said the victim’s husband, Brian Heaney.

Smokey Bones employees immediately called 911 and grabbed the gun away from the man, who was also with his children.

“The guy was saying with his hands up ‘I’m sorry! I'm sorry! I'm sorry! I didn't mean to do it’,” said Heaney.

http://www.wftv.com/news/28014137/detail.html

the gun accidentally fired."

I think he just learned to stop fondling his gun through his pocket while in public.

No keys, no money, NOTHING, well, except a pocket holster, of course. That way I have no reason to reach into that pocket except to get the gun. Nothing in there to get tangled up with the gun.

He was playing pocket pool and pulled the wrong trigger.

:patriot: