A Milford man accidentally shot his friend through the thigh on Wednesday while he was cleaning his brand new .40-caliber pistol, police said.
The shooting occurred at about 4:22 p.m. Wednesday in the area of Lake Street. The 21-year-old Milford man was cleaning his handgun, and unbeknownst to him, a round was in the chamber, said Bellingham Lt. Kevin Ranieri, the Daily News reported.
"I can’t explain why there was a round in the chamber," Ranieri said.
The gun discharged, with the bullet striking a 23-year-old Bellingham man in the upper thigh and exiting through his right buttock, Ranieri said.
"At this point it appears to be accidental," he said.
EMTs first called for a medical helicopter for the injured man, but the blustery weather made it too dangerous to fly. Instead he was taken by ambulance to Rhode Island Hospital in Providence.
According to police, his injuries were non-life-threatening, and he has since been released.
As a precaution, police confiscated the Milford man’s handgun. He received his license to carry from the Milford Police Department.
Isn't Massachusetts one of those enlightened states, where this sort of thing doesn't happen?
ReplyDeleteWhat a stupid fucking comment. And as with most of your questions, it's a sarcastic attempt to paint gun control folks as idiots? The fact is, we DON'T say strict gun control laws prevent 100% of these incidents. But, you knew that, right, Kurt?
DeleteWhat this incident shows is that people with concealed carry permits are sometimes completely unfit. The reason, the requirements are too low.
"I can’t explain why there was a round in the chamber," Ranieri said."
ReplyDeleteI can answer that question, because there's supposed to be a round in the chamber. That is why you check, EVERY TIME.
Why do we see so many permit holders doing this. The number should be near zero.
DeleteBut it is, Mikeb. You just won't admit that.
DeleteDo these gun loons all have Alzheimers? They forget their guns in airports, bathrooms, they forget a bullet is in the chamber, etc.. A pretty stupid bunch.
ReplyDeleteSort of like you see happen with police officers also. Or for example the times you read of children forgotten in cars and busses. It speaks to the imperfection of humans, though yes, many of these instances can be attributed to negligence. But this happens in all areas where humans are involved and isn't limited to firearms.
DeleteTrue, but firearms are more dangerous than forgetting where you left your car keys, or even forgetting to pick up a kid (stupid) from school, And it seems from reading the stories that this negligence with guns is not seen as negligence and even when it is they get off to easy. Like the earlier post about the guy who killed his daughter because he thought the gun was empty. Why would the idiot point and shoot at her even if the gun was empty? He got off with no jail time after his stupidity killed someone. Laws do change behavior, example drunk driving. No, laws won't and don't stop all stupidity, but shouldn't we try?
DeleteShouldn't we try? Try what? I'm not aware of a law that would curtail stupidity. I also see nothing that would promote "safety" without also violating the rights of millions.
DeleteHigher requirements for the permit, that's what we need.
DeleteGC,
DeleteI understand you disagree that the law can curb stupidity even though there are many examples, and I did give a good example.
I also understand you think any law regulating gun purchases, or use is an infringement on your second amendment rights.
On both points you are wrong and experience with those kinds of laws prove you wrong.
Mikeb, the fact that you don't see Massachusetts's requirements as too high is proof enough that nothing of what you demand should become law.
DeleteGC,
DeleteWhat does it matter what the law is when you have stated you don't recognize and find unconstitutional any law you disagree with?
GC,
DeleteWhat does it matter what the law is when you have stated you don't recognize and find unconstitutional any law you disagree with?
I don't mean to presume to speak for Greg (who is more than capable of speaking for himself), but unconstitutional laws matter rather a lot when the government's hired muscle can use those unconstitutional laws to lock people in cages.
So fragrantly breaking thew law is an option because you think the laws is unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court has found those laws are constitutional. That's criminal thinking, not the response of a law abiding citizen who accepts working within the process to change laws he disagrees with. You have already stated you are not a law abiding citizen, fine, but I have an obligation as a law abiding citizen, to point out that is an outlaw position and thinking.
DeleteSo fragrantly breaking thew law is an option . . . fragrantly breaking the law . . . "
DeleteActually, I tend to make my violations of unconstitutional laws odorless, although those laws could be said to reek.
Call me an outlaw for my victimless "crimes," if you think you are thus "obligated," but I don't need or want your respect, and am proud to live my life in accordance with the wisdom of these great men:
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them.
Henry David Thoreau
Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.
Henry David Thoreau
An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.
Gandhi
You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil administration never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil.
Gandhi
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Martin Luther King
One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
Martin Luther King
So . . . live my life in accordance to the wisdom of these great men, or in such a way that would please some anonymous, government-worshiping, boot-licking coward. Tough choice ;-).
Kurt, Take a shower. Fragrantly breaking the law is inconsiderate to your compatriots!
DeleteAnonymous, So, do you condemn the law breaking of MLK Jr. and others during the civil rights movement? Many of those laws had been found Constitutional and accepted as such before that time. How about the lawbreakers running the Underground Railroad?
And before you or someone else interjects that this isn't the same situation, the principle is the same--Either it is morally right to break unconstitutional, immoral laws, or it is not. After that is resolved is the time for questions and debates over whether such a principle applies in this case.
TS,
DeleteYou are talking about people who faced real oppression, not the denial of a 40 bullet magazine and other trivial regulations whose end result does not infringe on your right to buy, own and use a gun. Stop being so extremist and maybe you would be accepted as having a reasonable argument.
Simon,
MLK and others had the conviction of civil disobedience, they were willing and even wanted to go to jail, to prove their civil disobedience convictions, which actually helped them get popular support. The laws and situations you cite were changed by law, not anarchy.
When a guy like Snowden runs away and joins the likes of Putin, he is no hero. In fact he proves his disregard for constitutional democracy by joining forces with the KGB dictator, who currently is oppressing the press in his country and acting like Hitler annexing a foreign country and being denounced by the world. This is the force of freedom(?) Snowden chooses to be backed by? I would have respect for him if he had stayed and fought for his convictions even it that meant he had to make his fight from a jail cell, as MLK did.
It's deplorable that you guys are even comparing human rights to gun (an inanimate object) rights.
DeleteYour gun rights are enshrined and protected by law, the US Constitution.
The human rights people like MLK and Gandhi were fighting for were not protected by law. They were fighting to make their human rights as legal as your gun rights. I hear you guys scream about "inherent" rights, or God given rights, or natural rights, in my book humans take priority over guns. There is no comparison between human rights and gun rights. When you try to make that comparison, that's when people call you gun loons, and rightfully so.