Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Kentucky state representative's gun accidentally fires in Capitol building

Ok, I know you will make idiots of yourselves by saying that my accident with a gun that doesn't fire projectiles (PPK blank gun) or a cocked, but otherwise unloaded, airpistol (Webley Tempest)--big differences there, but you probably shouldn't tell me I know nothing about guns if you can't spot them.

It seems that Representative Leslie Combs (D- Pikeville) was unloading her pistol according to safety procedure when it accidentally fired.

No human intervention or so the story goes.

"I thought it was totally clear," Combs said Wednesday. "I am a gun owner. It happens."  Combs added no one was in harms way.

I think there is a big difference between having an accident with a gun that is incapable of firing a projectile and one that does, but I guess that's just me.  In fact, the entire idea of using a blank gun for that type of thing is that you CAN screw up and no one will get hurt.

Unlike a gun that ACTUALLY has the ability to fire a projectile.

33 comments:

  1. What do you say to this, Mike? Is there a big difference between negligently handling air guns and blank guns vs. real guns? Or is this behavior indicative of poor practices that would carry over to real guns? Should Laci be barred from owning guns based on not just one, but two incidents?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every gun has to be treated like it is loaded with real rounds. Any other attitude, is negligence.

      Delete
    2. Of course there's a difference between breaking the safety rules with an air gun and blank gun as with a real gun.

      My position has been clear about what should happen to people who misuse guns. Why are you attacking the poster with antagonistic questions about him? The post is more about a Kentucky politician than Laci.

      Delete
    3. "Of course there's a difference between breaking the safety rules with an air gun and blank gun as with a real gun."

      I know that some starter pistols vent gasses from the side of the barrel, perhaps Laci can interject here on whether her PPK does that, however, you just posted an article about a death caused by careless use of a pellet gun.
      There are also two fairly notable, if dated deaths caused by guns firing blanks, Jon Erik Hexum,

      "Apparently, he had unloaded all but one (blank) round, spun it, and in what would appear to be a game of Russian roulette, at 5:15 p.m., he put the revolver to his right temple and pulled the trigger."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_eric_hexum#Death

      And Brandon Lee, son of Bruce Lee, though his death was much more complicated in the series of events that led up to it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Lee#Death

      Delete
    4. MikeB: “Of course there's a difference between breaking the safety rules with an air gun and blank gun as with a real gun."

      Oh boy. Here we go with the gotchas:

      MikeB: ” The plastic pellets actually put holes in the coke cans after enough hits. How dangerous those air soft guns are, and how realistic looking. They need to be controlled exactly like real firearms.”

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-does-gun-control-advocate-teach-his.html

      MikeB: ” What's your opinion? Does it make a difference that this was a toy gun? Should it?

      Some people think air-soft and other demi-firearms should be treated like the real thing. I feel even stronger about that.

      As far as the parents being held responsible for accidents like this, too often that doesn't happen. It was only an accident, after all. It wasn't a real gun anyway. In this case there was not mention of there being any investigation at all. That's a disgrace.”


      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/09/accidental-shooting-of-michigan-10-year.html

      MikeB: ” 1. Air-soft guns, BB guns, pellet guns and all the rest need to be treated like real guns. Parental supervision, safe storage and adherence to the 4 Rules of Gun Safety are all a must.”

      [my emphasis]

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/08/wesr-virginia-7-year-old-seriously.html


      MikeB: “My position has been clear about what should happen to people who misuse guns.”

      Yes, you have been clear. You’ve also been clear that your rules don’t apply to people who share your beliefs on gun control, like Bill Maher.

      MikeB: “Why are you attacking the poster with antagonistic questions about him? The post is more about a Kentucky politician than Laci.”

      I don’t think I am attacking him. He brought it up, and I asked for your opinion on it. If you want mine, I don’t think Laci should be disarmed because of his two incidents, but based on what you’ve said in the past- you certainly should. This is why we fight things like “may issue”, which you even want to gun ownership. You’ve shown yourself to be incredibly biased.

      Delete
    5. You're right. I should stay tough on air-soft and other less-than-firearms gun abuse.

      But, what do you mean I don't hold Mill Maher to the same standards?

      Delete
    6. You defended Bill Maher's right to own a gun though he admits to regularly smoking pot.

      So to be clear, do you think your blogging partner, Laci should be allowed to own guns?

      Delete
    7. TS, I think with the current trend towards legalizing marijuana state by state, we will have to start moving from the concept of any use being a disqualifying factor, to being under the influence of whatever active chemical is being used, be it THC or alcohol for instance.
      These concerns have been addressed in the individual states in regards to operating motor vehicles. It will also have to be determined for use of firearms.

      Delete
    8. I agree, ssgmarkcr, but Mike's stance is no pot use ever if you own guns (seemingly unless you're a liberal who supports gun control).

      Delete
    9. Typical liars trait, change the subject. Now it's about Bill Maher. HA HA HA HA HA HA

      Delete
    10. TS, I don't recall exactly what I've said in the past, but what ss just said makes sense to me. I think the act of smoking pot in moderation should not disqualify a person for gun ownership any more the drinking in moderation does. I would say that either activity removes the person from the ranks of "responsible gun owners," but to actually forfeit the guns it would take more.

      I'm really sick and tired of your asking me about Laci. Your attempts at catching me out are tedious to put it mildly. You know how I feel about the one strike you're out business. If this were the law of the land, there would be courts and judges, there would be appeals processes, exceptions would be made for first-time milder offenders, dropped gun cases for example. But, of course the same rules would apply to my co-bloggers as would apply to everyone else.

      Delete
    11. Of course you are getting sick and tired of addressing Laci’s incidents. It puts you in an awkward position. You’ve had no problem passing your personal judgment on literally thousands of gun owners on this blog over the years, but when it comes time to apply your standards to your co-blogger you start singing a different tune. But I have to say, we’ve made some real good progress here. My point about putting this question to you wasn’t so much to trash Laci, but rather to get you to see things in a different light. Look at your response. You are speaking with fairness- talking about due process, courts, appeals, etc. I have been preaching about due process since day one of my commenting on your blog. What it comes down to is taking action upon conviction of wrongdoing, and not chasing the sacred cow of “prevention”. Now you see the light when asked about disqualifying one of your own. You had a similar response when we discussed Bill Maher- you said he only *says* that he smokes pot. This is good. See thread below:

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/05/bill-maher-i-aint-givin-up-my-guns.html#comment-form

      The biggest implication of your words here is that it is in direct conflict with your ideas of may-issue gun ownership. In the past, you’ve spoken of it having value in denying ownership to those who don’t have a record/conviction of wrongdoing, but where the authorities “just know” that the applicant is irresponsible. So that’s gone- along with the terrorist watch list ideas, etc. So is the 50% disarmament pipe dream. You simply can’t run that tens of millions of people through the court system. Nowhere close to that many. I consider this a milestone conversation. We’ll wait and see if you retain this attitude the next time you are talking about “Bubba” from Mississippi though.

      Delete
    12. You've really got a twisted and egotistical way of seeing things. I believe you're as hopeless as Greg. For you to take some kind of credit for finally having forced me to say something you can accept is laughable.

      What I just said about Bill Maher and Laci in no way contradicts what I've always said about the 50% of unfit gun owners and the benefits of the may issue policy.

      But, by all means, keep twisting and spinning. You're quite good at it.

      Delete
    13. How is it not a contradiction? Are we back to double standards where Laci and Bill Maher will receive the benefits of due process, but "Bubba" would still be subject to the whims of may-issue? Do you agree that may-issue is not compatible with requiring a court decision?

      Delete
    14. There's no double standard. Everyone, Bubba included, would get the benefit of due process. May-issue is compatible. There is an appeals process for questionable decisions, is there not?

      No system is perfect 100%, but may-issue is the only way to screen out obvious problem cases that would otherwise qualify for gun ownership - to everyone's detriment.

      Delete
    15. Shall issue permit systems are a reaction to the double standards that were observed in the May issue permit systems. When someone with a legitimate need gets turned down, and then sees the Sheriff's political contributers get one, the problem got fixed by legislating rules that apply the same standards to everyone.
      In Minnesota, there is even an option where Sheriffs can deny a permit to an otherwise qualified person if he feels they are a danger to himself or others. However, there is also an appeal process where the Sheriff has to convince a judge to a set standard that his denial is justified.

      Delete
    16. May-issue means they get to say "no" for whatever reason they want. Could be because they know they to be a heavy drinker, or because they know of cases of poor trigger discipline, or because they know they didn't confirm a clear chamber before pulling the trigger, or because they didn't buy enough tickets for the police union raffle, or because they are black, or because they voted for the wrong person. You get the idea. Since you were talking about due process earlier, why not call for a shall-issue system with well-defined but strict guidelines that you can agree with?

      At any rate, you speak of appeals. Do you really think our courts can handle 10s of millions of appeals?

      your application for gun ownership has been denied under the "MikeB is King Rule". The next available court date is August 4th, 2046 at 11:30am. Would you like to schedule an appeal?

      Delete
    17. "Tens of millions of appeals," c'mon man. Keep it a little bit realistic at least.

      ss, that sounds like may issue in your state.

      Delete
    18. Even using your estimate of 60 million gun owners, that's 30 million people with their rights revoked, not including any new population who wishes to own guns. Obviously they all can't appeal.

      Delete
    19. TS, you're doing that tedious thing again. Even if I got everything I wanted the results would not be 30 million immediately disarmed people appealing their cases overnight.

      But, you knew that, right?

      Delete
    20. It doesn't matter whether it's over night or spread out over years. We don't have a system that can handle appeals for everyone who you want denied. It's not even close. Our court system is already overtaxed. Do you deny that? But that's a feature, not a bug, I suppose.

      Delete
    21. You're conveniently overlooking that under my version of strict gun control laws, not everyone who gets denied would have grounds for appeal. Of the ones who do, not all would. The disarming of 50% would take twenty or thirty years. It's doable and that's if the stricter laws were enacted overnight. But unfortunately even that'll be a gradual process. No, it's very doable but we're talking about a very long and gradual transition.

      Delete
    22. Mikeb, until you stop treating gun ownership and carry like a privilege instead of a right, you'll get nothing outside of the handful of slave states.

      Delete
    23. Again with that slave state racist crap. Typical for a proven racist antisemite.

      Delete
  2. Laci, given your uncontrolled rage and your threats, you are certainly someone who shouldn't have any kind of gun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The site criminal lying coward: Given your proven and self admitted criminal thinking, you should not be able to have a gun.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, unsourced and out of context quotations do not constitute proof. But three states disagree with your assessment about my background and ability to own guns. Two also have approved me to work in jobs requiring background checks.

      Delete
    3. I agree, but your words were not taken out of context, or unsourced. In fact they are still there for all to see, and Steve has re-posted them many times, but you are to coward to respond.
      Next lie.

      Delete
    4. A source means a link to the comment in its original location. Whenever you or Steve or anyone else is ready to do that, let me know. Otherwise, we can't verify the accuracy of the quotation or the context of the discussion.

      Delete
    5. Again with your childish source crap. Date and time source enough, but you are to cowardly to respond. You have been proven to be a lying criminal coward. You LOSE liar.

      Delete
    6. We all read your own words, which were re-posted again by Steve yesterday. Yet, you continue to deny you ever said them. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
      Next li

      Delete
  3. "accident with a gun that doesn't fire projectiles (PPK blank gun) or a cocked, but otherwise unloaded, airpistol (Webley Tempest)"

    After each occurrence, did you go back and determine what exactly happened? And then do any retraining to prevent it from happening again? I'm not asking to beat you up. I'm interested in what you did to make you safer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Safer would be not allowing this idiot to have a gun in a public place where innocent people can be injured, or killed.

    ReplyDelete