Local news reports
City police said a man suffered an accidental gunshot wound inside a Burlington business.
The incident happened just after 2:30 p.m. Sunday near the sporting goods section of Dunham's Sports on Huffman Mill Road.
The
victim, an employee of the business, suffered a gunshot wound to his
upper leg. Police told WXII they think the self-inflicted wound happened
with the employee's personal handgun.
There were patrons in the area when the incident occurred, but no other injuries were reported. The business remained open.
Since no charges are brought, the incredible record of permit holder behavior will remain unchanged.
"The victim has been identified as Bruce R. Foote, 43, of Mebane. Police said Sunday evening that he was in surgery at Duke University Medical Center in Durham. His condition has not been released."
ReplyDeletehttp://myfox8.com/2015/02/01/man-hospitalized-after-accidental-shooting-at-sporting-goods-store-in-burlington/
Considering that the permit holder is still in surgery on a Sunday evening, its not surprising that there are no charges yet, it still being Sunday evening.
I won't hold my breath.
DeleteNegligence unpunished again.
ReplyDeleteSince no charges are brought, the incredible record of permit holder behavior will remain unchanged.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "incredible"? Seems quite plausible to me.
Well, it would be plausible if the average permit holder were some kind of super man. But since they're more or less like everybody else, it's incredible (literal meaning).
DeleteWell, it would be plausible if the average permit holder were some kind of super man.
DeleteOne need not be a "super man" to avoid shooting oneself (or anyone else) unintentionally, even if one handles guns regularly and extensively. I'm a prime example, because my internet handle (which is based on my affinity for the .45 Super cartridge) notwithstanding, I am anything but "super," but decades of regular gun handling on my part haven't gotten anyone shot.
But since they're more or less like everybody else . . .
Funny you should say that. Sometimes, you seem to indicate that gun owners are fundamentally different from "everybody else" simply by virtue of owning guns:
His criminal past doesn't change the fact that he owned and used guns exactly like you do, to protect himself and his family, to shoot at cans out in the woods or at the shooting range, to lovingly clean them and show them off to his friends. There was really no difference between the two of you. In fact, going berserk and suddenly shooting a few innocent people is not the exclusive domain of ex-felons, as I often show on this blog. So, no Simon, criminal gun owners are not much different than the rest of you.
But since they're more or less like everybody else . . .
DeleteBesides, only idiots and/or liars would argue that the failings of the general population translate "straight across the board to gun owners" (let alone to concealed carry permit holders, for which the hurdles in most states are even higher than those for mere gun ownership). Oh . . . oops.
Mike, it's not that gun owners are a super person compared to everybody else- it's that the people who go out and commit violent crimes are not like everyone else. And they are not the ones getting permits.
Delete"decades of regular gun handling"
DeleteHow many years is that, eleven?
How many years is that, eleven?
DeleteAs I thought we'd already established, if the time involved had been exactly ten years and one Planck Time Unit totaling 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000070835992018 decades, that would qualify for the plural, because 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000070835992018 is a multiplier greater than one.
However, we don't really need to mess around with all those zeros in this case--call it an estimated 20 years of regular and extensive gun handling on my part. But, for the sake of argument, what if it had been "only" one decade? Would that not still prove that a gun owner/concealed carrier need not be possessed of any "superpowers" to avoid unintended shootings, even over a long period of time?
Kurt, why not say "an estimated 80 years of regular and extensive gun handling"? If you're going to estimate, go big.
DeleteKurt, why not say "an estimated 80 years of regular and extensive gun handling"? If you're going to estimate, go big.
DeleteAh, yes, TS. How silly of me to forget about the magical powers of the word "estimate."
Kurt, thanks for admitting that you're exaggerating your status in the gun world. First you said "decades." Then it became "an estimated 20 years." I guess the truth is 17 years or 18 years but you couldn't say that so desperate to make yourself seem greater than you are. Petty, pathetic and silly. That's you.
DeleteKurt, thanks for admitting that you're exaggerating . . .
DeleteI see no such "admission" on my part, which makes sense, because I've not exaggerated anything in this discussion.
. . . your status in the gun world.
Whatever the hell that means.
First you said "decades." Then it became "an estimated 20 years."
"20 years" is "decades," even within the bizarrely restrictive framework you would impose on use of the plural form (what's next--mandatory background checks for use of the letter "s"?).
I guess the truth is 17 years or 18 years . . .
Ah--another of your "guesses" (based on what, I wonder--anything at all?), and as should surprise no one, another wild swing and a miss on your part. 20 years ago I was qualifying "expert" on the M-16 (admittedly not a particularly high bar, but I should think easily enough to demonstrate that I spent a fair amount of time handling guns back then). Since leaving the Army, I've been accumulating guns steadily, And somehow, have still never unintentionally shot anyone.
. . . so desperate to make yourself seem greater than you are.
I actually don't take pride in my shooting skills--I'm pretty average, at best. Average, though, is plenty good enough to avoid unintentionally shooting myself or anyone else, because one of course need not be anything close to a "super man" to avoid such things.
You're so full of it, Kurt. In order to qualify for "decades" you have to go all the way back to your basic training. What a phoney baloney. After your military "gun handling" AFTER you got out, you started getting interested in gun rights and gun ownership, which makes it about what I said, 17 or 18 years of "gun handling," maybe less. And that's what you referred to as "decades of gun handling." Brwahahahahahaha.
Delete