We can't help but think about incidents like this as we are told over and over about our gun zombies telling us how very safe they think they are.
And then we have some idiot shooting up a WalMart bathroom when he drops trew to poo. Or some idiot shooting at a mouse in his kitchen in Utah, and gravely wounding his roommate in the bathroom on the other side of the wall.
From NewsOne:
Tavares Donnell Colbert (pictured) of Oklahoma City, Okla. accidentally shot himself in the penis with the same gun he planned on selling at a convenience store, NewsOK reports.
You have to admit - if we closed the gun show / private transaction loophole, this is one gun shot hole that wouldn't be happening, because there wouldn't be this kind of casual gun sale in convenience store parking lots by idiots.
This guy wasn't only a menace to himself, but to others around him as well. See why some of us deplore you gun nuts who think you're so damned safe when you're not? In some places, any old idiot is allowed a gun, competent or not. I for one prefer not to test the theory of Social Darwinism / the Darwin awards in action, or Murphy's Law if you like that theorem better.
And then we have some idiot shooting up a WalMart bathroom when he drops trew to poo. Or some idiot shooting at a mouse in his kitchen in Utah, and gravely wounding his roommate in the bathroom on the other side of the wall.
From NewsOne:
Man Shoots Himself In Penis, Then Gets Cuffed!
Tavares Donnell Colbert (pictured) of Oklahoma City, Okla. accidentally shot himself in the penis with the same gun he planned on selling at a convenience store, NewsOK reports.Police were called to the local hospital on Saturday morning where they found Colbert bleeding from his self-inflicted gunshot wound.
The unfortunate fella told cops that he bought the gun in Kansas and planned on selling it in a convenience store parking in the city. Before arriving at his destination, Colbert pulled over into a parking lot to check if the gun was working properly.
It was. As Colbert, 36, pulled it out of the case, he accidentally squeezed the trigger and pop himself dead smack in the Johnson
You have to admit - if we closed the gun show / private transaction loophole, this is one gun shot hole that wouldn't be happening, because there wouldn't be this kind of casual gun sale in convenience store parking lots by idiots.
This guy wasn't only a menace to himself, but to others around him as well. See why some of us deplore you gun nuts who think you're so damned safe when you're not? In some places, any old idiot is allowed a gun, competent or not. I for one prefer not to test the theory of Social Darwinism / the Darwin awards in action, or Murphy's Law if you like that theorem better.
I guess he really will need a penis substitute now.
ReplyDeleteI suppose we should be glad he didn't have a 'pocket nuke'.
DeleteBut then nukes are better regulated in this country...
"You have to admit - if we closed the gun show / private transaction loophole, this is one gun shot hole that wouldn't be happening, because there wouldn't be this kind of casual gun sale in convenience store parking lots by idiots."
ReplyDeleteReally? So if you barred lawful gun owners from selling to each others, criminals would follow their lead and not do so either?
Your fantasy world cracks me up. :)
Who ever said barred, FWM?
Deletebackground checks and registration.
remember that while pronouncing the Second Amendment "an individual right", that Heller-McDonald also said that background checks and registration didn't violate it.
No excuses for gun control now thanks to it being "an individual right".
FWM, I saw no indication this guy was a criminal selling a firearm to another criminal.
DeleteRead for comprehension -- ""You have to admit - if we closed the gun show / private transaction loophole, this is one gun shot hole that wouldn't be happening, because there wouldn't be this kind of casual gun sale in convenience store parking lots by idiots."
Really? So if you barred lawful gun owners from selling to each others, criminals would follow their lead and not do so either? "
What part of "THIS IS ONE GUN SHOT HOLE THAT WOULDN'T BE HAPPENING"? How do you get from this specific megastupid man here shooting himself in his personals column to generic criminals selling firearms to other generic criminals?
YOUR selective reality is oen of gun culture failure, however much you try to deny that reality. This guy is one of yours - and not a very good billboard for fun culture success by ANY metric.
DG - learn to read the source material - "The man, a felon," first four words of the article linked in the post - by you! Interesting that in quoting the story you left out all of the parts that indicated this dude was a prohibited owner. The reason he was arrested was for illegal gun possession.
DeleteThanks for the correction JimF. It was not mentioned in the NewsOne article, and I only glanced at the link, without catching that he was arrested for firearm possession.
DeleteThere are after all, plenty of felons who still are allowed to legally own firearms.
I still make the same point, however - if he bought the firearms in a private transaction, as appears to be the case, in Kansas, where there is NO indication the purchase was made FROM a criminal, had we required background checks to make sure that no PRIVATE sales were made to prohibited persons, this guy wouldn't have been able to make the purchase in Kansas.
But if you see something that indicates the Kansas seller was a prohibited person, do let me know....
Any way you try to spin this, it is still a clear bright and big case of epic fail for the gun culture, epic fail for the NRA opposition to making checks on private sales.
DeleteIf we had better laws, with stringent enforcement - like they do in other civilized countries (unlike here where in this regard we are uncivilized) there would be far far far fewer guns in the hands of ANY criminals.
You all have yet to refute that there is less crime, particularly fewer homicides and far far far less firearm related crime in countries like the UK or most western European countries, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan.... ad infinitum.
"There are after all, plenty of felons who still are allowed to legally own firearms."
DeleteHow so? What felons?
Talk about spinning. You take a story about someone prohibited from legally owning firearms shooting himself and make a giant leap to barring private sales between law abiding people would have prevented the felon from doing so.
"Who ever said barred, FWM?
Deletebackground checks and registration. "
Yes, but since there is no way for private individuals to run background checks on each other, prohibiting transfers without a background check would effectively bar private transfers.
As far as registration, you won't get it. You'll feel better if you just give up on that one right now. No registration--we shall not permit it to happen.
You have to sell your gun through a firearms dealer, which most states require from what I remember.
DeleteUnfortunately, it's hard to catch people making private sales.
You all have yet to refute that there is less crime...in countries like the UK
DeleteFalse - Overall the US is 15th in total crime victims as a percent of population - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims
FM wrote: How so? What felons?
DeleteTalk about spinning. You take a story about someone prohibited from legally owning firearms shooting himself and make a giant leap to barring private sales between law abiding people would have prevented the felon from doing so.
Felons get their gun rights back all the time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all
While private individuals do not currently have access to the background check data bases, it has been proposed that private party sales could easily pay a small fee to an FFL to run the check, or request the local LEO to do so for free. It is not impossible. I would even argue to you FWM, that it is pretty easy using any of the PI services available to look someone up on line that for $10, you could find out fairly definitively if someone was a convicted felon. Most states maintain data bases as well where you can do so - in MN for example, you can access the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for something like $5 to see if someone has been convicted of a felony. Employers run that kind of background check all the time, without special qualificatoins - gun sales could do so easily.
No registration is just one more example of the massive gun culture fail, and the abuses of gun sales will inevitably follow the trend world wide away from routine deadly force in private hands. YOU don't get to decide personally what will or won't happen; it is decided by much larger trends and groups of people. Present blocking of registration doesn't mean anything significant in the larger scheme of events.
Then if you have to go pay a firearms dealer, then you have barred a private sale.
DeleteMost states do not require every handgun sale to go though a dealer, not even New York.
Pennsylvania requires handgun transfers to all go through a dealer, at least that is what I have been told. I have never bought or sold a handgun in PA. I don't know of any other's but I would think there are a few.
Ah, Jim, comparative crime statistics is a topic which has been covered, but you just didn't understand it, APU.
DeleteSee this page from the UN office on Drugs and Crime:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Compiling-and-comparing-International-Crime-Statistics.html
Like any statistical report, this is based upon what is counted and reported along with the methodology used.
As the UN page points out:
These factors, while alerting the reader to the potential pitfalls of comparisons, apply more to some crimes than others. In selected cases, most notably homicide, country to country comparisons are safer, although may still be subject to the drawbacks outlined above. In the case of some categories of violent crime - such as rape or assault - country to country comparisons may simply be unreliable and misleading.
Given these problems, the question may be asked why there is a requirement to bring together a wealth of statistical data on criminal justice issues from a variety of jurisdictions. It should be emphasized here that the main purpose of the UN survey is not to measure the exact amount of crime that exists in the world or to compare countries, but rather to provide an accounting of crime and governmental responses to it. This aim of the survey is enhanced with an increasing number of sweeps that allow the emergence of a clearer picture of trends in individual societies.
So if the actual crime stats maintained by the UN are unreliable for comparisons between countries, then what do you base your claim of higher crime rates in the US?
DeleteThen if you have to go pay a firearms dealer, then you have barred a private sale.
DeleteMost states do not require every handgun sale to go though a dealer, not even New York.
Hunh? If a sale can go through, even if it requires it to be processed by a firearms dealer, it has not been barred.
If the sale fails because the purchaser is not allowed to buy the weapon, then the system works.
The law on private sales varies from state to state--I had to sell my firearms through a dealer--even though the purchaser was a police officer--since I lived in PA at the time (still technically a resident as well).
So, FWM, you have now put your foot in your mouth since you appear to be saying that private sales to disqualified persons should not be a problem.
Additionally, you are acknowledging what is called the "gun show loophole", that is private sales are unregulated. Not to mention sellers are able to sell to people who are disgualified from purchasing under 18 USC 922(d) since they are not undergoing NICS checks.
Again, you might want to shut up while I am ahead.
"Hunh? If a sale can go through, even if it requires it to be processed by a firearms dealer, it has not been barred."
DeleteIf you have to contract the services of a Federal Firearms Licensed Dealer, then it is no longer a private sale between two private parties.
"The law on private sales varies from state to state--I had to sell my firearms through a dealer--even though the purchaser was a police officer--since I lived in PA at the time (still technically a resident as well). "
Yep. That is what I said. PA has the requirement but most states do not.
"So, FWM, you have now put your foot in your mouth since you appear to be saying that private sales to disqualified persons should not be a problem."
I never said any such thing. I think private sales should remain private. It is currently illegal to transfer a gun to a prohibited person, privately or not. It is a crime now to do so.
"Additionally, you are acknowledging what is called the 'gun show loophole', that is private sales are unregulated."
Isn't a loophole an unintended flaw or gap in a law that allows the intent of the law to be exploited? If that is a "loophole" then indeed no such loophole exists. When the law was passed, it intentionally did not apply to private transfers. If it had, then the law probably would not have passed. Private transfers were not left out or missed in the law but rather were specifically excluded. So it is not a "loophole", it is a "feature".
"Again, you might want to shut up while I am ahead."
I recently bought a gun from my neighbor--no background check, no registration and no government permission. Just a handshake between two parties. If you are ahead, then I am glad for it. You just stay ahead.
So, how do you propose to stop the flow if there is no check on who the buyer is, FWM?
DeleteWe have seen plenty of videos where the buyer tells the seller that he really shouldn't be buying the gun, yet the sale goes through.
So, despite what you say, you are condoning the sale of firearms to disqualified persons and you think it is a good thing.
A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.
DeleteAccording to you, FWM, It is currently illegal to transfer a gun to a prohibited person, privately or not. It is a crime now to do so.
Yet, if there is a private sale which is unregulated and allows for disqualified persons to purchase firearms, that is an intentional gap in the system, and thus, a loophole.
And you condone it.
So, you condone illegal activity.
Your example doesn't mean shit since we don't know if you or your neighbour is prohibited from owning a firearm. And even if you are not one of the prohibited class, the fact that you bought a firearm does not mean that illegal sales do not occur.
We have more than enough hidden camera evidence that these acts take place.
No ifs, ands, or buts, You are condoning illegal activity, FWM.
FWM wrote:If you have to contract the services of a Federal Firearms Licensed Dealer, then it is no longer a private sale between two private parties.
DeleteWhat a load of codswollop.
If you had to have an emissions check to make a private sale of a vehicle, it would still be a private sale, even if someone official had to do that emissions check.
The person who owns the firearm is not the FFL; the person negotiating the price with the buyer is not the FFL, the person doing any adverts to make the sale is not the FFL. The person who pays any sales tax owed -- yes, and how many transactions collect and turn those over to the appropriate agency? -- is not the FFL.
You make a specious and totally failed argument about having an FFL do a check; and having local LEOS do it, or using the same services available to employers who are checking out the legal records for potential hires, or using any of the many effective online sources could ALL meet the requirement to ensure that a private seller is not selling to a prohibited buyer.
YOU fail as badly here, FWM, in your claims about how to define a private sale, as the safety fail by the gun zombies who shoot off their .....privates.
"Yet, if there is a private sale which is unregulated and allows for disqualified persons to purchase firearms, that is an intentional gap in the system, and thus, a loophole.
DeleteAnd you condone it."
So before NICS you are saying that since all sales, private or FFL were unregulated therefore everyone condoned illegal activity for the first 30 years of the GCA?
"We have seen plenty of videos where the buyer tells the seller that he really shouldn't be buying the gun, yet the sale goes through."
DeleteNo, we have seen plenty of edited videos from Bloomberg's dog and pony shows--not real evidence that a crime has been created by the sellers. Ever notice in every one of the videos Bloomberg's straw buyer only says "I probably couldn't pass a background check"? They never say "I would fail a NICS check" or "I am prohibited from legally buying a firearm".
You do not have to be able to pass a NICS check to buy a firearm. You cannot buy a firearm if you are denied on a NICS check or are otherwise a prohibited person. Hundreds of people every month are not denied nor are they passed by the check and after 3 days of not being denied, the sale is allowed to continue. People that are not prohibited persons are delayed for various reasons including having a high government security clearance or simply a very common name.
Bloomturd's little video farces are just that, a joke. No criminal activity is taking place--unless of course you count the fact that Bloomberg is hiring Dick Tracy School dropouts to go make straw purchases for him in other states. That is the only real crime these video jokes show.
Whoa there Mortimer, er, FWM - before anyone else answers any more questions, I want you to explain how a private sale that includes a background check is not still a private sale.
DeleteI can't wait to see the convoluted logic in that one.
Bloomberg's videos are NOT the only ones that show such transactions. You are the one who is factually badly challenged here FWM. Have you been sucking down the lead-based Fox News coolade of disinformation again?
I bet the flavor was red -- to most of us that is a color; for Fox News and jello, it's more of a generic flavor of stupid.
You do not have to be able to pass a NICS check to buy a firearm. You cannot buy a firearm if you are denied on a NICS check or are otherwise a prohibited person.
DeleteThat makes no fucking sense whatsoever, but you have been speaking double talk ever since the gun show/private sale loophole has been raised.
Then you mention how the hidden camera videos have buyer saying they are disqualified, yet someone sells to them.
By your own admission this should not be happening, yet you say no crime is committed?
You can't have it both ways--either a crime is committed or it isn't.
And it sure looks like crimes are being committed, yet you are denying this.
Try to explain how something can and cannot exist at the same time without resorting to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, since this isn't quantum physics, but reality.
Unless you propose you are in an alternative reality loop.
Codswallop is my new favorite word. I managed to work it into two work documents today.
DeleteThanks!
Glad you liked it; we're still waiting for you to work an answer into your comment documents today.
DeleteLaci,
DeleteSense it makes no sense, I'll try to type it slower this time.
When you go through the NICS check there are three possible outcomes. 1. You are approved and the sale may continue. 2. You are Denied and the sale may not continue. 3. You neither pass nor fail but are delayed.
If you are delayed, you are in limbo waiting for the folks at the FBI to get back to the dealer. The delay can last from 3 minutes to 3 days.
If the FBI does not approve you or deny you in that time period, the sale may continue. Thus, you have not passed a NICS check, nor failed it. Some people with high security clearances get delayed as do people with common names. Hundreds of people are delayed every month and are legally permitted to purchase a gun without being approved by the NICS check.
Got a source for those figures FWM?
DeleteIf you are delayed, and in that time you have not had anything disqualifying turn up, you have passed the check.
It is a time sensitive approval. Nothing bad, you pass, even if they didn't get around to telling you about it.
There was still a check, and nothing disqualifying turned up.
"Whoa there Mortimer, er, FWM - before anyone else answers any more questions, I want you to explain how a private sale that includes a background check is not still a private sale."
DeleteIf you require Private Transfers to have a NICS check and private parties may not call Clarksburg to run a NICS check, then there is no way for the sale to proceed unless you go through a FFL.
An FFL cannot just run a NICS check for shits and giggles. He has to take your firearm into his inventory and then transfer it to the buyer along with the requisite form 4473 and NICS check. He is probably not going to go through this for free. Therefore all sales must go through a FFL and are no longer private sales.
Since you introduced the car analogy, it is like saying that I cannot sell you a car. Instead, we have to go to a licensed dealership and have him move the car into his inventory, have the title transfered to him and then he can transfer it to you. That is hardly a private sale.
"And it sure looks like crimes are being committed, yet you are denying this."
DeleteSo where are all the prosecutions from these videos?
Bullshit.
DeleteIf we require NICS checks, or some other kind of checks, on private sales then some provision will be made for those checks to be done.
You can easily expand the access to the NICS, and certainly allowing law enforcement to do so now would be one alternative to FFLs. To try to claim that because we do not do so now is specious, false and disingenuous.
A limit to such fees can also be stipulated. Since a background check requires nothing more from the FFL than a phone call, it is ridiculous to think that would be costly.
You have tried to create a tautology here FwM. Do you know what that is?
In rhetoric: A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of statements that form an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that, by defining a dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another self-referentially, the truth of the proposition cannot be disputed. Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable. It is a way of formulating a description such that it masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently derived.
It would be like making the argument that people can't fly because they don't have wings, therefore people can't fly on airplanes either.
Just as people can be transported through the atmosphere from point a to point b, IF and WHEN we make the rational decision to do some form of background check on private transactions so as to only make and record sales to qualified buyers, a means to do those checks will also be implemented.
If you sincerely believe that will require all sales will necessitate adding the weapon being transferred to the inventory of an FFL, I suggest you go stand on a picnic table, flap your arms and wait for a good brisk breeze to come along so you can take flight.
I think it is time for Laci to give you the fuckwit card.
Back up the bus FWM.
DeleteYou presume that all videos are part of law enforcement apparently.
Unless there is a clear chain of evidence, it is unreasonable that law enforcement would proceed on the basis of video, no matter how clear it is as evidence.
They might open an investigation, but not necessarily act on the video.
So, are you now admitting that you were talking out of your ass when you claimed that only Bloomberg did such videos?
(Hint - before you answer, go look how very many such prohibited private sales are on videos, including by news organizations, as well as documentaries by other film makers than those affilliated with Bloomberg exist - I've posted about some of them here.)
I reiterate DG's question, FWM.
DeleteOne can have a crime, yet it goes unpunished--even if there is irrefutable evidence of that crime taking place.
But, as DG points out, these videos were not made by Law Enforcement as part of an investigation.
While summary justice is part of the gunloon culture, proper law requires certain due process restraints and procedures.
Actually, FWM may be trying to make a tautology, but he is actually showing a contradiction because he is trying to say this doesn't happen, yet admits to seeing evidence to the contrary.
It's cognitive dissonance in action.
The question I repeat it:
DeleteSo, are you now admitting that you were talking out of your ass, FWM?
BTW, there are arrests for this type of activity at gun shows:
DeleteFrom Wikipedia:
ATF criminal investigations at Gun Shows
From 2004 to 2006, ATF conducted surveillance and undercover investigations at 195 gun shows (approximately 2% of all shows). Specific targeting of suspected individuals (77%) resulted in 121 individual arrests and 5,345 firearms seizures. Seventy nine of the 121 ATF operation plans were known suspects previously under investigation.[1]
Additionally, ATF Field Offices report that:
Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 guns legally purchased at gun shows from licensed dealers in the city of Richmond, Virginia, were later recovered in connection with criminal activity. Bouchard notes that, "These figures do not take into account firearms that may have been sold at Richmond area gun shows by unlicensed sellers, as these transactions are more difficult to track."[3] It is noteworthy that the "in connection with criminal activity" category includes stolen guns later recovered from burglaries, but the report does not specify how many guns in the 400 gun figure cited were not guns used in the commission of a crime, but that were rather the fruits of criminal activity.
The Department of Justice reports, "after reviewing hundreds of trace reports associated with guns used in crime recovered in the New Orleans area and interviewing known gang members and other criminals, ATF Special Agents identified area gun shows as a source used by local gang members and other criminals to obtain guns."[1]
In 2003 and 2004, the San Francisco ATF Field Division conducted six general operations at Reno, Nevada, gun shows to investigate interstate firearms trafficking. During these operations, "agents purchased firearms and identified violations related to "off paper" sales, sales to out-of-state residents, and dealing in firearms without a license." The "ATF seized or purchased 400 firearms before making arrests and executing search warrants, which resulted in the seizure of an additional 600 firearms and the recovery of explosives."[1]
ATF's Columbus Field Division conducted its anti-trafficking operations based on intelligence from Cleveland police that "many of the guns recovered in high-crime areas of the city had been purchased at local gun shows." Subsequent gun show sting operations resulted in the seizure of "5 guns, one indictment, and two pending indictments for felony possession of a firearm." The state of Ohio is one of the top ten source states for recovered guns used in crime.[1]
The ATF's Phoenix Field Division reported that "many gun shows attracted large numbers of gang members from Mexico and California. They often bought large quantities of assault weapons and smuggled them into Mexico or transported them to California."[1] Garen Wintemute, a professor at the University of California at Davis, calls Arizona and Texas a "gunrunner's paradise."[26]
BTW, I highlighted where it said that Ohio was one of the top 10 states for this activity--you aren't profiting from this by any chance, FWM?
Is that why you don't admit this happens?
"You presume that all videos are part of law enforcement apparently.
DeleteUnless there is a clear chain of evidence, it is unreasonable that law enforcement would proceed on the basis of video, no matter how clear it is as evidence."
That was exactly my point. It was a dog and pony show, not evidence of a real crime.
Wow, all of this because you thought that if we ban or regulate private sales, that criminals will not shoot their dicks at a gas station.
DeleteKeep climbing up on top of the balloon to push it down Mortimer.
DeleteNo one said ban private sales. Doing background checks on private sales would, however, reduce the number of criminals being sold guns.
Why do you want to continue these private sales to crooks, whether they shoot themselves in embarassing places or not?
And then you write something that is one of the more stupid things you've claimed so far -- and you've had some whoppers here, for competition:
That was exactly my point. It was a dog and pony show, not evidence of a real crime.
A crime is a crime; it is not made a crime because law enforcement sees it or prosecutes it. A crime is committed when someone does something against the law.
A murder for example is a murder because one person intentionally kills another; it is not criminal dependent on who sees it or records it.
NO, emphatically, what you call a dog and pony show IS evidence of a real crime. You cannot spin it into being anything else, not try to make black be white or up be down. These are very real crimes.
Or do you not think agent Terry in Arizona is really dead from a firearm sold through a straw purchase?
Here's a segment from 60 minutes where the segment interview is the former police superintendent of Virginia identifying precisely what we describe.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-4931769.html
Crime. Very REAL crime, not pretend crime.
You lie Mortimer. You LIE FWM.
YOU LIE BECAUSE YOUR GUN CULTURE IS A FAILURE THAT HELPS PUT GUNS IN THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS -- a LOT.
Shame on you - it puts blood on your hands too for doing that, and of course a lot of blood on the hands and heads of the NRA crooks who are putting money in their real clients pockets.
OK, FWM, if you know there are people using illegal drugs, yet the cops don't arrest them--does that make the activity any less illegal?
DeleteThe fact that there haven't been arrests doesn't make the activity legal.
It just means that LEO haven't done anything about it.
Yet.
"Really? So if you barred lawful gun owners from selling to each others, criminals would follow their lead and not do so either?"
ReplyDeleteWow, you tossed that guy under the bus in a hurry. I didn't know that he was criminal with a record of misusing "household toolz" that go bang and result in people gettin' perforated.
Democommie, it seems pretty obvious that the gun nuts are embarassed that one of their fellow gun nuts shot his big boy bits...to bits, so to speak.
DeleteGun nuts really can't do anything more embarassing than that for an EPIC, MASSIVE, COLOSSAL, MEGA-FAIL, bwahaaaa haaa haaaaa haaaaaaaa.
It's not like this only happens to criminals; the more legal gun zombies (on the legal illegal spectrum where Ted Nugent of the NRA has criminal convictions) shoot themselves and each other too.
Like this guy:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-08-08-gun-holsters-man-shoots-penis_n.htm
Or this one from just last month, another legal gun nut shooting himself in the penis:
http://www.freep.com/article/20120615/NEWS03/120615029/Man-shoots-himself-in-the-penis-in-Birmingham
So it's not like this kind of thing doesn't happen to the gun nuts who are legal too. I think FWM and JimF are perhaps trying to distract us from the whopping spectacular gun culture failure here.
It's not working!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha haaaa!
and here's another one.....
Deletehttp://www.sabinabecker.com/2009/09/stupid_sex_tricks_going_off_ha.html
I was just telling japete, I may have to do a monthly penis shooting accident search, so I don't miss any of these safe carrying in wasteband claims where things go horribly wrong...... or as this blog post referred to it, only going off half-cocked from now on...