Tuesday, February 21, 2012

One Shot Shopping,
Another Arizona Gun Carrying Lunatic
with an Accidental Discharge

I bet this guy could qualify for 'peopleofwalmart.com' where there are more than a few 'good ol' boys' on file.

One more time.  This is why WE think YOU are DANGEROUS, and why we object to unnecessary, 'just-becuz-I-WANNA' whining carry (either open or concealed......or whatever THIS is).

At least he was in the right place when he scared the shit out of people.  Did you happen to notice how these sorts of ooopses happen so much more often in states like Florida and Arizona?  That greater frequency? Now THAT is NOT an accident. 

Although........it would have been even more fun if he'd been shopping at Target. Maybe next time?

From the HuffPo:

Man Accidentally Fires Gun In Walmart Bathroom: Arizona Man Andrew Seals Could Face Endangerment Charge

Somebody had an accident.
An Arizona man using a Walmart bathroom over the weekend gave shoppers the shock of their lives when his gun inadvertently discharged as he sat down to use the toilet.
Andrew Seals, 24, entered the store restroom around 1 p.m. on Sunday, KPHO reports. As pulled down his trousers, Seals' Ruger .357 caliber revolver fell out of it's holster, hit the ground and inadvertently fired.
"The bullet went through the stall door, hit a wall, ricocheted into a light on the ceiling, then struck the floor about 5 feet from another man who was standing at a urinal," according to The Republic.
Officers declined to arrest Seals, but say they will ask prosecutors to charge him with reckless endangerment.
Police were already at the store addressing a shoplifting incident when an employee notified them of the gunshot.
Reports did not mention any injuries.


  1. I guess it could have been worse. What if the guy who was "drainin' the lizard" had been strapped and punched the originial shithouse shootist's ticket?

  2. Dog Gone, are you going to answer my question? There are six or seven million license holders in this country, and millions more live in states that require no license at all. You report on a handful of incidents in a year like this. What percentage would be small enough for you to stop trying to take our licenses away? You love numbers, so give me a number.

    1. Zero accidents from anyone who did not have a legitimate, objective NEED to be carrying for some purpose like a job, etc.

      These are stupid, and avoidable. They endanger us for no other reason than someone is insecure without a firearm. That isn't good enough to justify the risk.

    2. So you are willing to accept accidents by law enforcement and others that have a "legitimate" need to carry a gun? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    3. Now name any group of humans with a perfect safety record. In fact, name any group that performs better than concealed carry license holders. Our error rate runs well below one percent.

      It's your proposals that are stupid.

    4. I don't need to name any group of people with a perfect safety record.

      I only need to point out that this was an avoidable accident, because this dumbass shouldn't have had a gun with him in the Wallyworld bathroom in the first place.

      This is exactly the sort of thing which makes us all less free, but you're too fetish obsessed to understand that fact.

    5. DG - so if this had been a police officer using the restroom and his service weapon accidentally discharged you would not call for the police to be disarmed?

    6. If he was off duty, yes.

      If he was carrying his firearm on duty, no, but I'd require him to be retrained in safety before being allowed to carry a firearm on duty ever again.

      Or do you expect me to believe this idiot with a firearm is as well trained as law enforcement officers are required to be, or that his firearm was properly in the same kind of holster that law enforcement routinely uses which minimizes this kind of accident?

      The point is, law enforcement needs weapons in the course of their job. This guy did not, this was avoidable, it was unnecessary, and it is exactly why the rest of us don't wish to have to put up with your dangerous crap. (pun intended)

    7. DG - I understand you wanting this particular person disarmed. He commited a crime of reckless endangerment and should be disarmed in my opinion. But you use this as evidence that all people (except those with a legitmate need for guns) should be disarmed. That does not make any sense to me. We constantly hear about police officers that have accidentally shot themselves - we all know about the video of the one officer that was a youtube sensation - but you see no reason why the accidents of a few police officers should result in the disarming of all police officers. That seems to be a logical disconnect to me.

  3. By the way, you said that these incidents happen much more often in Florida and Arizona. Much more often? Don't you mean one or two times a year? In your many years of education, did you bother to study statistics? How about just general math? Do you comprehend what makes something statistically significant?

    1. No. I mean that they happen more often, because more stupid people carry guns around for no good reason in states like these.

      Do you understand words OR math concepts? What part of the word MORE do YOU fail to grasp?

      There IS NO LEGITIMATE argument that this is ok. THAT makes my point, my argument, the significance. There is no acceptable level of stupid Walmart civilian gun accidents. You're very premise is flawed, but then that is hardly a first time experience for you, is it?

    2. Greg, did you really say "one or two times a year?" And you accuse us of various things? That's pretty funny.

      About the anecdotal, and admittedly low-percentage incidents, I'll say this. These are the worst of the worst. The ones that make the national news and are readily available on google are the worst or the silliest or something else to make them newsworthy.

      In addition you've got all the lesser ones that don't make the big news, only the local outlets pick them up. And let's not forget to apply the old DGU rule to this as well, many don't get reported at all. There are improper brandishings and threatenings, there are even improper shootings that don't get reported to anybody.

      So, our stories represent a far bigger problem than the stories themsleves, much like the tip of an enormous iceberg.

    3. Mikeb, you're begging the question. There are more accidents because there are more accidents. But even if there are more than are being reported, the numbers are still tiny. As I challenged Dog Gone, I'll observe again that the percentages of total gun owners and of licensed carriers are both under one percent. She claims that there is no legitimate argument in favor of letting us carry handguns, but if we apply her logic--any incident at all argues against allowing carry--to many other activities that Americans do every day, we'll have to pass a long list of bans.

      There's no reason to ride bicycles.
      There's no reason to ride skateboards.
      There's no reason to ride roller skates.
      There's no reason to climb mountains.
      There's no reason to hike in the wilderness.
      There's no reason to drive in rain or snow.

      And on and on.

    4. There are more accidents because there are more accidents.

      What a total load of crap.

      Bicycles, skateboards, rollerskates, mountain climbing, hiking etc. do not have the lethal quality inherent in guns, nor do they reflect the incidence where someone uses those activities specifically to kill numbers of other people or themselves.

      You just live to make false analogies, because logic and honest, fair analogies don't work for your side or your arguments.

      Btw - we regulate things like bicycles, skateboards, etc. not only to make those things safer for the users, but also to make it safer for those who have to regulate and ensure their safety - like park rangers, and other law enforcement or security personnel. We do protect people from the extremes of their stupidity in this country, because apparently we have to do so.

    5. Since you have to have everything spelled out, I'll explain: There are more accidents because there are more accidents was my summary of Mikeb's begging the question. That's not my assertion.

      You really don't have the skills that you brag about, Dog Gone.

    6. No. It was an inept and inaccurate summary on your part Greg. MikeB did NOT beg the question; you have to dodge cause and effect because you are so dishonest you would go through any amount of contortion and distortion to deny it.

    7. Dog Gone's right, Greg. Your comment to me was a load of crap. We're arguing about the percentage of preventable problems that arise from gun ownership. You're talking about bicycles and shit.

  4. "Mikeb, you're begging the question. There are more accidents because there are more accidents."

    Do you even know what you're saying. Please, enlighten us all as to how Mikeb302000's comment is "begging the question". Really, I'm curious how his comment is interpreted by you to mean anything like "begging the question".

    dog gone:

    I mentioned this story to a guy last night who skydives in AZ. He says he always carries a gun when he's there BECAUSE everybody carries guns. Now THAT is a case of someone "begging the question".

  5. Begging the question is the fallacy of assuming that something is true and then using that assumption as evidence of the truth of your conclusion. Often here, it is assumed that concealed carry license holders have many more accidents and incidents than get reported. That assumption is then offered as proof that this actually happens.

    Now in looking again at the story, I do have some doubts as to the account given by the gun owner. Modern revolvers don't do what he described. Was he cocking the thing (no snickering, please) while doing his other business?