A Texas City man who was reaching for his pistol accidentally shot himself in the hand during the weekend, police said.
The unidentified man’s wife also was injured when the gun fired.
The couple had just left a Texas City restaurant on Palmer Highway about 7 p.m. Saturday when the man reached under the seat of his car to remove his handgun. While handling the gun, it fired and struck the man’s left ring finger.
His wife had two small wounds on her leg as a result of the gun going off, police said.
The couple drove to Mainland Medical Center where they were treated and released.
While the man did not have a concealed handgun license, he won’t be charged because police said state laws allow someone to carry a pistol in the vehicle as long as it is concealed, Sgt. Joe Stanton said.
I'd say he has no one to blame but himself, and the gun of course. Even the reporting said, "it fired and struck the man’s left ring finger." "It fired..." I thought that was pretty funny.
What's your opinion? Do the pro-gun folks sometimes try to blame the laws and the gun control folks for mishaps like this? I mean, what kind of silly law says you're allowed to have a gun in the car as long as it's concealed? If a guy has no concealed carry permit, he cannot carry concealed outside of his vehicle, but inside he must? And all the while open carry allowed in Texas, isn't it?
With so many confusing laws, it's no wonder so many gun owners are running into trouble.
Please leave a comment.
"With so many confusing laws, it's no wonder so many gun owners are running into trouble."
ReplyDeleteThat much is true. That's why it's better to just let people carry Vermont-style. No need for worrying about whether the gun is concealed or not or whether you can take it into the restaurant.
It would cut down on a lot of unnecessary handing of firearms and probably cut the number negligent discharges. After all, you're less likely to shoot yourself (or someone else) if the only time you have to touch your gun is when you put it on in the morning and when you take it off at night.
And open-carry is not legal in Texas. Probably never will be with the bleeding heart liberal population growing in Houston and Austin.
Silly laws?
ReplyDeleteYou mean like the law that says I can carry a concealed firearm but not a concealed sling-shot?
Surprisingly, Texas is not an open carry state. In fact, though many point to it as an example for other states to follow, there are more restrictions there than in other states including Ohio.
ReplyDelete"With so many confusing laws, it's no wonder so many gun owners are running into trouble."
And that is why we seek their repeal. Before pre emption in Ohio revoked hundreds of silly local ordinances, you could go back and forth between criminal and legal several times doing nothing more than just driving down a highway.
Again, this show most gunloons have no clue as to how to safely handle firearms.
ReplyDeleteDarwinism in action.
--JadeGold
"With so many confusing laws, it's no wonder so many gun owners are running into trouble."
ReplyDeleteNo kidding. I would argue that any gun owner who's had his guns for more than a couple years has probably unknowingly committed a felony (or several) during that time.
It would cut down on a lot of unnecessary handing of firearms and probably cut the number negligent discharges.
I think about that stupidity everytime the law requires me to remove my firearm from my hip when crossing from PA back into DE. (and I live so close I can actually walk into PA from my house)
Anytime the law requires extra administrative handling of a gun you're increasing the chance of an ND.
Kaveman - Another good example. Per PA law I can conceal a gun and walk around with my gun on a Utah permit, but it's illegal for me to carry a 3 inch folding knife that I have on me every day here in DE.
ReplyDeleteAgain, this show most gunloons have no clue as to how to safely handle firearms.
ReplyDeleteActually it proves that no human being is perfect. Any law that requires more handling and unloading/loading of a persons gun increases the likelihood of an ND, since no one is infallable 100% of the time.
The safest place for my gun is loaded, in a holster on my hip. It simply cannot fire if kept there.
The amount of unnecessary handling of firearms necessitated by differing laws on carrying firearms in vehicles contributes to these events.
what kind of silly law says you're allowed to have a gun in the car as long as it's concealed? If a guy has no concealed carry permit, he cannot carry concealed outside of his vehicle.
Well most gun laws ARE much like this. They are silly and confusing. And it's not just the laws, but how they're interpreted.
"Actually it proves that no human being is perfect. "
ReplyDeleteNo. That's a given and a constant.
What's proven here is the risk is greater. Risk being defined as a measure of liklihood and consequence.
Consider two examples: the story of the Galveston gun loon and someone who drops a milkshake.
Both involve imperfect humans. But in one case, the risk is almost infinitely greater.
--JadeGold
More JadeGold "logic":
ReplyDeleteAgain, this show most gunloons have no clue as to how to safely handle firearms.
Darwinism in action.
Yep--a moment of stupid negligence on the part of one gun owner shows anything about any group of people.
By the way, "Darwinism in action"? Are you confused about Darwin's theory of evolution, or about reproductive anatomy, JadeGold? A hand injury is rather unlikely to prevent him from reproducing. Now if you shot your balls off--that would be "Darwinism in action."
Let me see if I understand. The guy was mainly to blame, but under the shared responsibility theory, the gun laws are also to blame and those who support them.
ReplyDeleteConsider two examples: the story of the Galveston gun loon and someone who drops a milkshake
ReplyDeleteUsing Jade logic we should prevent humans (since they're imperfect and make mistakes) from owning any instrument which, if a mistake were made while handling it, could result in injury and or death.
Quick, let's ban kitchen knives, since one time my dad knocked one off the table and it landed point down & logded in my big toe.
Clearly that incident also proves that humans are imperfect when handling tools and can injure themselves or others without meaning to.
What's proven here is the risk is greater. Risk being defined as a measure of liklihood and consequence.
ReplyDeleteActually people make mistakes. They can have conseqences. The risks, likelihood and consequences are no greater for concealed firearms than for any number of other tools people use. CDC accident data bears this out.
Vermont Style:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dps.state.vt.us/vtsp/faq1.html#VermontGun
Please be aware that Vermont does not at this time require or issue gun permits. Some Vermont towns and cities do have local ordinances, so if you are planning on visiting, it would be wise to contact the local police chief to find information pertaining to local information.
Sounds pretty confusing to me.
It also sounds as if local jurisdictions can enact law to regulate firearms.
Laci - I debunked that BS position in another thread by citing the ACTUAL VERMONT STATUTES.
ReplyDeleteDo I need to point you to it again?
I see Mike W. requires a lesson in logic. I'd expected as much.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the gunloon and his wife in Galveston walked away with minor injuries is extremely fortunate. One or both of them could just as easily been killed or suffered a lifechanging injury. It's also possible a bystander could have been killed or injured.
Your dad's adventure with a kitchen knife presents no such risk in terms of either liklihood or consequence. It is hard to imagine an accident involving a kitchen knife where your dad, his wife and possibly onlookers might have been killed or seriously injured.
I'm fairly certain Mike W. doesn't understand the meaning of "consequence." We can discern he has no clue as to the meaning of "liklihood" since he believes the number of kitchen knife accidental fatalities exceed those of gun accidents.
--JadeGold
Hey Mike ... you've identified a major problem. By battling for incrementally anti-gun laws and so many exceptions to concealed carry, anti-gun people are ENDANGERING their fellow citizens.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing this guy had to disarm and then re-arm because of the ridiculous restriction in Texas on carrying in restaurants that server alcohol, even if you're not drinking. As a result, he got shot and his wife was hurt.
Just as dangerous are the limitations on carrying in parks, schools, colleges, etc.
So for the safety of us all ... for the safety of the children ... be anti-gun if you want, anti-CCW if you can't see beyond your own paranoia ... but for the sake of us all, for the sake of the CHILDREN, join us in fighting against exceptions for CCW. All the do is force law abiding, trained people to constantly handle their weapons (holstering and unholstering), endangering us all, and do nothing for anybody's safety.
TIA for joining us in the crusade to legalize CCW in all places, including schools and parks. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem ...
Laci - vermont doesn't issue permits because according to Vermont law, anyone legally entitled to own a firearm may carry concealed. For a lawyer, you're not too bright.
ReplyDeleteMikeb says:
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I understand. The guy was mainly to blame, but under the shared responsibility theory, the gun laws are also to blame and those who support them.
That's actually a pretty good try, Mikeb. I actually had to put some (brief) thought into why it's not inconsistent for us on the pro-rights side to contemptuously dismiss your version of shared responsibility, while simultaneously arguing that those who put in place the silly laws that the Texas guy was trying to comply with when he negligently shot himself and his wife made that negligent discharge more likely.
The difference is that in our version of shared responsibility, we are condemning the government mandate of behavior that made a negligent discharge more likely, in that the laws necessitated more gun handling than would otherwise have been necessary.
In your version, on the other hand, those of us who fight to prevent the implementation of laws that gun-hater dogma says will reduce "gun violence" are fighting against government coercion. No shootings are made more likely by anything we would require anyone to do.
That's a fundamental difference.
Zorro: I guess you need a lesson in evolution.
ReplyDeleteEvolution was not an idea of Darwin's. In fact, the notion of evolution had been around several hundred years before Darwin. Various scientists and natural philosophers had investigated evolution (a concept frowned upon by most Christian religions) including Montesquieu, Diderot, Descartes, and many others. It could be argued the concept extends back to the ancient Greek philosophers.
No, Darwin's seminal contribution to evolution was providing overwhelming proof of the mechanism for evolution: natural selection.
I think you're confused by Darwin's more controversial (and erroneous) theory on sexual selection.
Hope this clears up your confusion.
--JadeGold
Not going to blame the gun for anything, it almost certainly worked as designed--push the trigger to the rear, bullet comes out the front.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan of "car guns", nor the idea of tossing a loaded gun under the seat unless it is in a case or something that reliably covers the trigger, for reasons that this case makes obvious.
Hmmm...
ReplyDeleteI can go to jail for carrying pepper spray concealed but I can carry a pistol with a 120 round drum mag filled with AP ammo and I'm perfectly legal whether it's concealed or out in the open, my choice.
And yes I have the set up described.
Makes sense to me!
Zorro, Your "fundamental difference" eludes me. I'm sure it's because I'm not the crack thinker you are.
ReplyDeleteThe government mandate that makes the accident more likely works fine if you want to blame someone other than the gun owner, you know the guy who fired the gun.
And you say no shootings are made more likely by what you propose? If you had your way there'd be 10 times as many guns available and practically no restrictions. You don't think that would lead to more accidents and misuse?
Sorry, but nice try.
JadeGold says "It is hard to imagine an accident involving a kitchen knife where your dad, his wife and possibly onlookers might have been killed or seriously injured."
ReplyDeleteIt's not hard to imagine at all. What if that knife had fallen into his leg instead and cut a major artery? What if he was turning around to cut something on the counter and ran into the son? There are too many 'what ifs'. Clearly we need to ban kitchen knives for the sake of The Children(TM).
RuffRidr, Your "what-ifs" about knives are preposterous. "What-ifs" about gun accidents are commonplace.
ReplyDeleteOK, then how about this one. What if a meteorite burst through the roof and hit the knife out of his hand and lodged into the other person. That meme certainly is commonplace amongst this blog. Is that more up to your speed?
ReplyDelete