3 hurt when gun mysteriously fires at Fla. range
A Tampa couple and an Irish tourist were shot at a Lakeland gun range after a handgun accidentally fired.Polk County sheriff's deputies say it's not entirely clear how many times Michael and Sherri Thourot's 9mm accidentally went off Saturday, or what caused the handgun to fire. The pistol was a Jennings make.
The man in an adjacent stall, 29-year-old Gary Flynn, of Ireland, was most seriously injured. He underwent surgery after being hit in the shoulder and throat, and was listed in stable condition.
Michael Thourot was shot in the left hand, and Sherri Thourot was hit in the left arm. Both were also listed in stable condition.
Now, I've been told more than once by folks who know a lot more than I do about guns that they can't do that. Rule number 3 of the 4 Rules of Gun Safety states that you must "Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot." Presumably that's because the only way for the gun to go off is by pulling the trigger. Or have I missed something?
Is there such thing as a malfunctioning gun that goes off by itself? Has such a thing been documented? If not, what could possibly be behind this article in the Miami Herald? "Mysteriously fires," and "accidentally fired," leave little doubt about what they're saying.
What's your opinion? Is this another thing we have to worry about, guns going off by themselves? Or is the thing to really worry about the fact that the Miami Herald is spinning it like this?
Please leave a comment.
I'm calling bullshit.
ReplyDeleteSomeone does not want to own up to their negligent discharge.
From the article:
ReplyDeleteA Tampa couple and an Irish tourist were shot at a Lakeland gun range after a handgun accidentally fired.
"Accidentally fired" and "fired by itself" describe somewhat different scenarios.
Polk County sheriff's deputies say it's not entirely clear how many times Michael and Sherri Thourot's 9mm accidentally went off Saturday, or what caused the handgun to fire.
Which indicates to me that the possibility of a pulled trigger has not been ruled out.
There are all kinds of possibilities here, and the article contains far too few details to choose one over the others.
That said, a gun is a mechanical construct, and thus fallible. I don't rule out the exceedingly remote possibility that the gun fired without the trigger having been pulled, but I think you'll be willing to acknowledge the extraordinary rarity of something like that happening. In fact, it seems you have already acknowledged that to some extent, by virtue of your wording: "a truly amazing gun incident."
Even if the gun did fire by itself, you presumably aren't suggesting that gun laws be made even more insanely draconian than they already are in the U.S., over some kind of 1 in a gazillion chance like that.
A Jennings.
ReplyDeleteJennings makes some of the worst guns ever. I wouldn't be surprised if there actually was a mechanical defect, then again, we don't know that from reading the article.
+1 to what others have said. Jennings makes very inexpensive and simple guns. The simplicity allows its low cost, but also the possibility of a critical malfunction (this goes double for the 9mm version).
ReplyDeleteStill following the 4 rules at all times would eliminate any possibility for injury.
No matter what this is operator error, and still very possibly bad handing and no fault of the gun at all
Jennings are pieces of shit. They were a "ring of fire" company back in the 80s that produced a lot of very cheap, poorly made guns, many of which ended up in the wrong hands. That's not necessarily the case here. But it is possible that the gun just went off, and if Jennings were still in business, they would, and should be sued for a defective product.
ReplyDeleteStill a rule was being violated here. There was a gun being pointed into an adjacent stall. Guns should be pointed downrange.
Notice how MikeB doesn't carry about the many other products that are dangerous, just the firearm?
ReplyDeleteOf course, he says that he doesn't focus on the firearm right?
Just trying to prevent the people who shouldn't have them from getting firearms, isn't that what you say MikeB?
Perhaps your agenda is starting to show through more and more...it seems that you feel no one should have firearms.
You don't appear to think that women who were about to be raped (comments over at Marko's place) should have access to firearms.
You don't think that home owners should have firearms without Fort Knox style security.
You have indicated that basically civilian ownership of firearms should be outlawed.
One thing i've learned is there is always more to the story than what is posted:
ReplyDeleteFrom the St Petersburg Times:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/9mm-malfunctions-at-lakeland-gun-range-shoots-three-people/1041591#
"The Polk County Sheriff's Office said the gun may have been altered, leading to the malfunction."
"Sherri Thourot said her son, 29-year-old Jeremy, brought the 9mm back to the United States after one of his tours in Iraq with the Navy."
Those two things, if true, make this incident a lot less amazing and more of your average manifestation of Darwin. Modifying a gun is dumb. Especially if it's already such a horribly built gun to begin with. And it's even dumber when it's just some random gun you've picked in a foreign country.
Here's a gun that fired spontaneously near an MRI machine:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/178/5/1092
This sort of thing is nearly impossible.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if it is going to happen, it will likely be with a Jennings-family gun. These were designed to replace the cheap handguns that were banned from import in the late 60's. There are a handful of companies started by relatives and employees of Jennings, producing to the same basic design, with the same crappy materials.
I do not know anyone who legally carries a Jennings-family gun. The general attitude toward them is that if all you can afford is a Jennings, save your money until you can afford a real gun.
Anonymous, Thanks for that link. We definitely shouldn't carry a gun when getting an MRI.
ReplyDeleteBob S., said, "Notice how MikeB doesn't care about the many other products that are dangerous, just the firearm?"
You often point this out, Bob, as if it proves something. I'm as interested in guns almost as much as you are, just in a different way. So what?
I agree with those who pointed out that the gun should not have been pointing into the next shootng booth. That was a serious mistake.
The point is MikeB that you claim one thing - You are interested in saving lives-- but your actions show another -- you only deal with firearms.
ReplyDeleteFirearms aren't the most dangerous or deadly items out there, yet you don't discuss anything else practically.
You focus on the firearm. It betrays your agenda.
You aren't interested in saving lives, you are interested in getting rid of firearms.
People should know your true agenda
S., Did I really say that?
ReplyDelete"you claim one thing - You are interested in saving lives"
I certainly didn't say that's the reason for the blog. That I'm sure about. I never said anything so lofty and noble as "interested in saving lives" as the reason for blogging. In fact that doesn't sound like me at all.
Here's a statement for the record, OK Bob. I'm interested in guns. You and Weer'd used to badger me about why. I never opened up about that and that's how it'll stay.
So if you wanna prove what a liar and hypocrite I am, search and search to come up with a quote where I said I'm interested in saving lives. Otherwise shut up about it, will ya? I like to write about guns from a gun control perspective. Isn't that obvious. And if that's an "agenda," so what. What the hell does that prove?
I agree with those who pointed out that the gun should not have been pointing into the next shootng booth. That was a serious mistake.
ReplyDeleteIf this was actually the "one in millions" case of a gun that went into full auto when set down on the table, it would almost certainly spin as it fired. The initial shot may have gone down range, but there would be no way to predict which direction subsequent shots went.
This also does not negate the point that guns don't just go off, they go off when handled.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteI usually don't go in for that old gun control argument which says "if it saves only one life," but sometimes it crosses my mind. I can't get over the senseless stupidity that would allow something like this to happen.
This sounds like a very roundabout way of saying gun control is about saving lives
What about the increase in shootouts that would occur and all the stray bullets flying around? What about the misuse of guns during fights and brawls? What about the famous 10% of lawful gun owners who for one reason or another shouldn't have guns in the first place
Or does this comment sound like it is about saving lives?
I realize this doesn't happen very often, but it does illustrate the problem with gun proliferation. When more and more people have guns legally, the chances of accidents and mistakes increases proportionately, as does the chances of other types of misuse.. That's exactly why people, non-gun-owning people, favor gun free zones. And this is exactly what's wrong with the seemingly increasing movement to expand gun rights.
Or this
I agree with all that, but I also feel gun access plays a part. If so many bad boys in Baltimore didn't have access to so many guns, the bloodshed would have been less.
That only takes me back to Sept 25th.
Should I keep going?
"This sounds like a very roundabout way of saying gun control is about saving lives"
ReplyDeleteGun control saves lives, just ask the Jews, or Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, etc.
Gun control does save lives. It saves the lives of the people who ignore gun control laws, same as other laws (criminals). Everyone else, is SOL.
ReplyDelete