Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Don't miss the unloading for transportation ND story in the Michigan forum

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post


  3. #3
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    I support a general proctice of not chambering a round at a OC picnic. If a situation arises where you need your weapon, you can rack the slide as you draw andare not loosing any time. If you can not do this, then you have not spent near enough time at the range. An OC picnic is different than general OC in town. If you mess up in town, you are an isolated person messing up. If you mess up at the picnic, it casts a shadow onthe picnic.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    I support a general proctice of not chambering a round at a OC picnic. If a situation arises where you need your weapon, you can rack the slide as you draw andare not loosing any time. If you can not do this, then you have not spent near enough time at the range. An OC picnic is different than general OC in town. If you mess up in town, you are an isolated person messing up. If you mess up at the picnic, it casts a shadow onthe picnic.
    If you mess up on this forum does it cast a shadow on the forum? An unloaded gun is a poor paper weight like a computer is a poor boat anchor.


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    223

    Post imported post

    Carrying a paper weight isn't much use to anyone.

    Having to unload a firearm in the rain, dark, and attempting to hide it from the public like people do here is just increasing the risk of ND's.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    If you mess up on this forum does it cast a shadow on the forum? An unloaded gun is a poor paper weight like a computer is a poor boat anchor.
    The actions of 1 member reflect on the group. If people make stupid public statements on the forum and the public reads it, it does reflect poorly on the forum...That is why there are forum rules.

    A paper weight in skilled hands can be used to effectively apply deadly force .

    There is a reason that according to WI law,a firearm with a magazineinserted is NOT "unloaded". The absence of a round in the chamberwhileholstered does not by any stretch of the imagination make a firearm less effective. This is carry condition 3. It is a legitimate form of carry.

    Due to someone's lack of training and experience, they may find it difficult to draw the weapon, chamber a round and aim it without loosing their balance, tripping on their face or dropping the weapon on their own toes, wetting themselvesor breaking out in tears. If this is the case, thenthey have no business carrying in the first place and need to spend more time at the range before they seriously consider doing so.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Passive101 wrote:
    Carrying a paper weight isn't much use to anyone.
    Refer to the above post....


    Passive101 wrote:
    Having to unload a firearm in the rain, dark, and attempting to hide it from the public like people do here is just increasing the risk of ND's.
    If you can not clear your weapon with your eyes closed, then you need to spend more time at home andat the range getting intimate with your weapon before you seriously consider carrying it.

    The facts are that most people do not spend enough time at home dry firing and doing their manual of arms. They do not spend enough time at the range getting proficient. If you do not support mandatory training, then youshould support safety standards so that the inexperienced Open Carrier standing next to you doesnot shoot you or themselves.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    223

    Post imported post

    You can have any amount of training you want. The fact is that if LE officers had to unload constantly they would have ND's in the field as well. Even many of them only use their weapons during required training only a few times a year and sometimes only annually.

    Most people have firearms for a need for self defense and do not train to be as proficient as many of us. We are a very small minority unfortunately. I wish people did and would want to train more. I find it fun.

  9. #9
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    Post imported post

    I have never had a problem with speaking up when I see someone mis-handling a firearm.

    I don't like barrels pointed at me at the range, in the gun shop or in someones gun room or garage.

    I can't tell you how many times I have said something about that and hear this in response.

    "It's not loaded, what's the big deal?"

    The big deal is that you never point a barrel at something or someone you are not willing to destroy or kill.

    While loading or un-loading a firearm, the barrel needs to be pointed down or away at the very least, down range.

    The point to this is that we should speak up. Don't be afraid to let someone know they are screwing up and putting you in danger.

    Also, any time you are in a position to teach, emphasize proper training and handling while loading or un-loading a firearm. You may repeat this every time you are able till you say the words in your sleep. It bears repeating over and over again that proper firearms safety and handling techniques while handling your sidearm is of paramount importance.

    Never allow your mind to wander and always think about what you are doing.

    By teaching, I mean when you're at the range with your buddies, wife, kids, in the garage or basement showing off your cache or whatever. etc.

    I was taught by a retired Army Ranger armorer. He said the same things many of you have said here. Know your weapon.

    If you own a firearm, proficiency with it in all areas seems to be a no brainer to me.

    If more of us speak up more often, we can make a positive impact on safety and the public's view of our right to carry.

    Write, speak, do.

    P.S. Keep your finger off the trigger.

    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    After a point it truly doesn't matter how much training or experience you've had. The more you handle a weapon the greater the opportunity for a ND. The unnecessary loading and unloading definitely DOES make the problem worse.

    A perfect example is a machinist I know. He had 20 years of experience before he had an accident. He was running a machine which he knew to be dangerous, and hadran hundreds of timesbefore but lost one of his fingers anyway.

    Was experience or training the problem? No. Diligence and Vigilance are the problem. In fact, the more used to something you are the more important it is to keep those two qualities in mind. In some cases one could even argue that too much training and experience is a bad thing.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  11. #11
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post



    Let's get real. We aren't talking about individuals who have 20 years experience with handling firearms 8 hours a day 5 days a week and who get complacent. We are talking about people who seldom get to the range and who have likely never had any formal training other than maybe hunters' safety when they were 12 years old.

    If you truly believe that this is an issue, then you should keep your handgun in condition 3 and you do not have to worry about bullet set back along with your predicted inevitable ND. I dissagree that "eventually it will happen" to everyone. I know of people with 30+ years experience in high risk manufacturing jobs who have never been injured. Some individuals are prone to make stupid safety mistakes. If you train to do things methodically and do this whether you are at home or out in public, the odds are reduced down to a level that it will likely never happen.



  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:

    Let's get real. We aren't talking about individuals who have 20 years experience with handling firearms 8 hours a day 5 days a week and who get complacent. We are talking about people who seldom get to the range and who have likely never had any formal training other than maybe hunters' safety when they were 12 years old.

    If you truly believe that this is an issue, then you should keep your handgun in condition 3 and you do not have to worry about bullet set back along with your predicted inevitable ND. I dissagree that "eventually it will happen" to everyone. I know of people with 30+ years experience in high risk manufacturing jobs who have never been injured. Some individuals are prone to make stupid safety mistakes. If you train to do things methodically and do this whether you are at home or out in public, the odds are reduced down to a level that it will likely never happen.

    Let's get real? Yes, lets.

    If you truly don't believe that exessive handling of firearms statistically increases your risk to have something happen then you are the one that needs to get real.

    Might as well straw-man as that seems to be ideal here: If I never go swimming will I be attacked by a shark? If I never get near Rosie O'Donnelsdinner plateI will be eaten?

    Also, I never said that "eventually it will happen". Why try to put those words in my mouth?

    My point is that any unnecessary handling is a bad thing.

    If you know the basic rules of firearms safety and are Diligent you are far better off than one who has years of tacti-cool training and sacrifices diligence for complacency. Lest we forget "familiarity breeds complacency." It's as true as it always has been.

    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  13. #13
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    You are speaking generally in relation to statistical probability. I am addressing a specific statistical sub group of all the people handling firearms.

    I amstating that your premise of a "greater opportunity" does not equate to higher statistical probabilityof a ND. There is a disproportunately higher statistical probability of the untrained inexperienced individual having a ND for every 1000 handlings of a firearm than for the properly trained and experienced individual. Most people do not place their hands in front of the barrel when they discharge the firearm. Many people put their hands near nips, etc in manufactuting settings which can do as much or more physical harm. Those who follow the basic safety rules in these settingssimply do not get hurt. Those who do not, end up bleeding.We do not place the least experienced people in the most dangerous situations.

    Carrying your handgun in Condition 3 isin effect a less dangerous situation than condition 2. You can stil play stupid games and win stupid prizes,but the odds are diminished.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    You are speaking generally in relation to statistical probability. I am addressing a specific statistical sub group of all the people handling firearms.

    I amstating that your premise of a "greater opportunity" does not equate to higher statistical probabilityof a ND. There is a disproportunately higher statistical probability of the untrained inexperienced individual having a ND for every 1000 handlings of a firearm than for the properly trained and experienced individual. Most people do not place their hands in front of the barrel when they discharge the firearm. Many people put their hands near nips, etc in manufactuting settings which can do as much or more physical harm. Those who follow the basic safety rules in these settingssimply do not get hurt. Those who do not, end up bleeding.We do not place the least experienced people in the most dangerous situations.

    Carrying your handgun in Condition 3 isin effect a less dangerous situation than condition 2. You can stil play stupid games and win stupid prizes,but the odds are diminished.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    I amstating that your premise of a "greater opportunity" does not equate to higher statistical probabilityof a ND.
    Honestly? Really? Did you really just write that? How in the world does it not equate?
    There is a disproportunately higher statistical probability of the untrained inexperienced individual having a ND for every 1000 handlings of a firearm than for the properly trained and experienced individual.
    I would agree; however, I beleive the that the statistical difference between the trained and the untrained is much less than one would think. You are alot more careful with things you aren't intimately familar with. The first time you drove a car you had both hands on the wheel and no distractions. Now you may drive a car with one hand on the wheel, the other wrapped around a quarter pounder with cheese while talking on the cell phone held up to your ear with your shoulder.
    Most people do not place their hands in front of the barrel when they discharge the firearm. Many people put their hands near nips, etc in manufactuting settings which can do as much or more physical harm. Those who follow the basic safety rules in these settingssimply do not get hurt. Those who do not, end up bleeding.We do not place the least experienced people in the most dangerous situations.
    Point: "Those who follow the basic safety rules simply do not get hurt." Of course that's true but what would ever keep you from following those rules? The reason's could be two: Not knowing them (an untrained individual) or complacency. That's pretty much it.
    Carrying your handgun in Condition 3 isin effect a less dangerous situation than condition 2. You can stil play stupid games and win stupid prizes,but the odds are diminished.
    Once again; agree, but that wasn't the point.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    The four rules are not designed to stop ADs* and NDs, they are meant to prevent injury in the event of an AD or ND. Sounds to me like they worked in this instance.

    The probability of discharge upon handling of a weaponcannot be developed in a vacuum based on arbitrary numbers; itmust becalculated based on the number of times it actually happens versus the times opportunity existed. Herego, it follows that given the probability of discharge is a function of the number of times weapons are handled,if you increase the number of times a weapon is handled,the probability of a discharge has increased proportionally. While I think that Condition 3 carry is a good option for me, I don't think that everyone feels the same way.

    I also disagree that this looks bad for all of us as a community in any way. No press is bad press, as they say.

    This is just one more opportunity to turn the situation around (in mass media outlets, no doubt) and raise awareness of the fact that current state law forced this man to handle his firearm in a situation where he would not have done so by choice. Remember when this happened to the pilot? Remember when we got to all get out in the mass media and say "we told you so!" We got to point out that we thought the holster design and unneccesary handling were all going to increase the chances of an accident, and that's EXACTLY what we should do here. We're in a fight, and we need to use rhetoric sometimes to our advantage, even if we are not being individually philosophically pure while doing so.

    *Yes, I realize that there is no difference under the law in WI between AD and ND, however there is a difference. A fire-by-malfunction is certainly not a ND, for instance.



  17. #17
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Rick Finsta wrote:
    The probability of discharge upon handling of a weaponcannot be developed in a vacuum based on arbitrary numbers; itmust becalculated based on the number of times it actually happens versus the times opportunity existed. Herego, it follows that given the probability of discharge is a function of the number of times weapons are handled,if you increase the number of times a weapon is handled,the probability of a discharge has increased proportionally. While I think that Condition 3 carry is a good option for me, I don't think that everyone feels the same way.
    In strict accordance to your opening premise.....

    The more times thatweaponsare handled safely, the lower the statistical odds become that a negligent discharge will occur with each handling.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Rick Finsta wrote:
    itmust becalculated based on the number of times it actually happens versus the times opportunity existed.
    In strict accordance to your opening premise.....

    The more times thatweaponsare handled safely, the lower the statistical odds become that a negligent discharge will occur with each handling.
    "Versus" is hardly an arithmetic operation and does not specify proportionality or inverse proportionality. It might mean 'against' and its root is 'overthrow'.



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    The more times thatweaponsare handled safely, the lower the statistical odds become that a negligent discharge will occur with each handling.
    And I will counter with this statement, If the firearm does not need to be handled at all, I would be willing to bet the chances of having it discharge in any wayare absolutely ZERO!


  20. #20
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    And I will counter with this statement, If the firearm does not need to be handled at all, I would be willing to bet the chances of having it discharge in any wayare absolutely ZERO!
    Essentially you are stating the fact that if you are never going to remove your firearm from the gun safe, then your ability to Open Carryis absolutely ZERO...



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Nutczak wrote:
    And I will counter with this statement, If the firearm does not need to be handled at all, I would be willing to bet the chances of having it discharge in any wayare absolutely ZERO!
    Essentially you are stating the fact that if you are never going to remove your firearm from the gun safe, then your ability to Open Carryis absolutely ZERO...

    No, that f you are not required to continually load and unload everytime you need to get in and out of a vehicle. Was it really that difficult for you to understand, or are you justsuffering from an acutecase of cranial rectalitis?

  22. #22
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Nutczak wrote:
    And I will counter with this statement, If the firearm does not need to be handled at all, I would be willing to bet the chances of having it discharge in any wayare absolutely ZERO!
    Essentially you are stating the fact that if you are never going to remove your firearm from the gun safe, then your ability to Open Carryis absolutely ZERO...

    No, that f you are not required to continually load and unload everytime you need to get in and out of a vehicle. Was it really that difficult for you to understand, or are you justsuffering from an acutecase of cranial rectalitis?
    Bad week to stop sniffing glue?

    When you mention zero (which you did), that normally means that the gun never leaves the safe. If you never chamber a roundeach time that you get in and out of a vehicle,your odds are also zero that you will have a ND while doing so. If there are no opportunities to have a ND, there will be no ND.

    Each time you choose to chamber a round when you carry and then clear the chamber when you get back into the car, there is a chance that you will have a ND. You can not state that the number of times you personally do this that the odds of you having a ND will increase. Having more opportunities for something to go wrong does not mean that the odds of it going wrong are increased. Although this is notequivalent to flipping a coin or even spinning a roulette wheel, the concept that the odds are the same whether you do it once or 1000x holds true. Each holstering and clearing to put it back in its case is an independent event with the same odds as the last and the next. A statistic that out of XX events of firearms handling there was a discharge X times has nothing to do with the "odds" of such a discharge occurring.

    The odds you will have a ND are based more on the odds that you will choose to ignore a basic safety rule than anything else. I am involved in our safety program at work. I can tell you that people are expected to do things safely every single time. Their job depends upon it. It would be unacceptable to make the statement that if someone does a specific task more times than someone else that the odds are higher that they will get hurt. To accept any statistic as fact regarding if something is done xx times that they will get hurt x times is not an option.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    You can not state that the number of times you personally do this that the odds of you having a ND will increase.
    Again?? incomprehensible.

    Handling a gun is not a 'safety' issue but a risk management issue because a gun is perceived as inherently unsafe while enjoying normal and substantial safety - comparable to nuclear power (speaking of work place 'safety'). A negligent discharge ND is merely an event with some probability of occurrence in an event/fault tree with other fault probabilities.

    Just as the probability of an event is dependent on the opportunities, so too is the impact of the event dependent on appropriate precautions.

    Consider the simplistic event tree, LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER, TARGET. Loaded and Trigger determine the likelihood of the event while Muzzle and Target determine the impact of the event.

    The Wikipedia has reasonable articles on "safety" and "risk", unfortunately the latter turns soon to calculus.




  24. #24
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Handling a gun is not a 'safety' issue but a risk management issue because a gun is perceived as inherently unsafe while enjoying normal and substantial safety - comparable to nuclear power (speaking of work place 'safety').


    Again? unintelligible..

    Perception has nothing to do with safety. Since the misshandling of a firearm can easily cause an injury, it is most definitely a safety issue. It is the handling which is the safety issue, not the firearm. Just like all mechanical devices, a firearm is not inherently unsafe. It is no less safe than a 10,000 # press at rest,an automobile at rest or an airplane at rest. All are safe when left alone. Once there is human intervention andthis humandoes something with these devices, there is the opportunity for an unsafe act which can cause injury to someone.

    There is nothing inherently unsafe about discharging a firearm into a designated proper backstop.An unintentional discharge is inherently unsafe as the outcome isless controlled. No event can occur without the opportunity for it to occur. The odds of each individual opportunity resulting in an injuryare no different than the last or next if nothing else changes. Additional opportunities do not change the odds of the outcome. Loaded and trigger normally infer that a dischargeeventwill happen. Muzzle and target definitely change the outcome of that event but do not effect the probablity that an event will occur.


    I agree that you can use risk assessment tools to make the people more safe.


    1. Identify the hazards
    2. Decide who might be harmed and how
    3. Evaluate the risks and decide on precaution


    .The hazard iswhatmay cause harm, which is the firearm if misshandled,

    · The risk is the chance, high or low, that somebody could be harmed by a ND with an indication of how serious the harm could be.


    · Can I get rid of the hazard altogether?
    · If not, how can I control the risks so that harm is unlikely?
    By choosing to not chamber a round, you control the risk so that harm is unlikely.

    In order to lower the risk of those prone to be unsafe having a ND,it would behelpful to reduce exposure to the hazard by not needing to handle the firearm every timethey get in and out of the vehicle, but the current laws prevent this.



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    I-K, your arguments do hold some water, but then lets throw this headline into the mix, a gun thatfired completlyby itself, resulting full-auto style fire that wounded three people.
    9mm malfunctions at Lakeland gun range, shoots three people
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/9mm-malfunctions-at-lakeland-gun-range-shoots-three-people/1041591


    TAMPA — Michael Thourot had just pulled his hand away from the warm metal when it started spewing bullets.

    Moments before, Sherri Thourot had watched her husband fire and reload the Jennings 9mm. Then he set it down for her to shoot next at the range.

    That's when the handgun started firing on its own, she said, spinning around in circles, landing the Thourots and an Irish tourist in the hospital.

    "Nothing like that has ever happened," said Sherri Thourot on Sunday evening from her room at Lakeland Regional Medical Center.

    "We've been around guns all our lives."

    It was about 10:30 a.m. Saturday when Sherri Thourot, 46, watched her husband, 47, set the gun down. The couple had decided to try out their new gun at the Saddle Creek Shooting Range in Lakeland.

    They like the Polk County-owned range. It's strict and safe, the way the Thourots say they like to use their guns.

    But as soon as Michael Thourot took his hand off the gun, it started firing like it was possessed, his wife said.

    "I saw that he'd been hit, but I couldn't tell how bad," Sherri Thourot said. "Then I realized I had been hit. My hand was bent forward and I couldn't move my arm."

    A bullet tore through the back of her right arm and exited from her biceps. Her husband had been shot in the left hand. Another man, a 29-year-old tourist visiting a friend, was hit in the shoulder and throat as he stood behind a shooting stall next to the Thourots.

    All three were taken to the Lakeland hospital, where Michael Thourot and the tourist, Gary Flynn, underwent surgery.

    Flynn was listed in stable condition at the hospital, while Michael Thourot was released Sunday. His wife said doctors put pins in his hand to help heal shattered bone.

    She expected to leave the hospital today.

    The Polk County Sheriff's Office said the gun may have been altered, leading to the malfunction. Detectives expect to know more when they take the gun apart and inspect it as they continue to investigate.

    Sherri Thourot said her son, 29-year-old Jeremy, brought the 9mm back to the United States after one of his tours in Iraq with the Navy. He gave it to them this summer.

    The couple cleaned the gun and made sure it was in good condition before taking it to the range, she said. They never expected to leave in an ambulance.

    Before he left the hospital, her husband stopped in to see her.

    "He's very shaken up over it," she said. "He's traumatized that anything like this happened to his wife."

    But the freak accident won't keep her away from guns.

    "I can't allow something like this to cause me to be afraid of something I've done all my life."
    The gun fired by itself, multiple times, while doing what inanimate objects do best, Just sitting there (according to the reports)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •