Man shoots self in buttocks in Brighton Home Depot with gun he was carrying

[hue]

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/viewart/20131227/NEWS01/312270014/Man-shoots-self-buttocks-Brighton-Home-Depot-gun-he-carrying

BRIGHTON — Authorities say a man accidentally shot himself in a home improvement store with the gun he was legally carrying.

WHMI-FM reports the 32-year-old man from the Livingston County community of Green Oak Township was shot in the buttocks Thursday evening at the Home Depot in Brighton. Police say it appears he was reaching for his wallet when he inadvertently grabbed the pistol and a shot fired.

The man was treated for minor injuries at a nearby hospital.

*******************************
Bwahaha!!! What a pain in the a&&!!!

[Laf.La.Dem.]

1. If he only had a gun for protection!

oops

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. No charges filed by police including discharge of a weapon in a store

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)

in a store that's what got me.



On edit I looked up Michigan law and you just can't do it a graveyard.. Says nothing about stores.

Well yippie yea ca ya.

[pinboy3niner]

4. Of course not. He was just assing for it.

[TxDemChem]

11. Lol nice one!

[NBachers]

31. Oh, another wise crack, eh?

[pinboy3niner]

34. Cheeky, aren't I?

[Happyhippychick]

53. I'm a little behind on this story

[pinboy3niner]

57. No prob--your commoonity newspaper should have it soon

[magical thyme]

62. not to butt in here, butt

are you anywhere near the end?

[pinboy3niner]

65. Don't worry, I expect to hit bottom soon

[Lizzie Poppet]

64. Now the poor fellow's going to be the butt of jokes.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

82. A real pain in the butt!

A lesson to be learned - never bring your loaded gun in your pocket to Home Depot

[pinboy3niner]

94. And for that advice he thanks you from the heart of his bottom

[antiquie]

35. ~

[pinboy3niner]

110. Bookmarking so I can save your post for posteriority

[antiquie]

119. >>>>groan<<<<

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

117. tushé

[pinboy3niner]

118. Just when I hit bottom for new material, you came through

[etherealtruth]

6. Exactly

If one is going to claim to be a responsible gun owner and carry around guns ... one should be held accountable and actually be responsible ... and when you are not there needs to be consequences

[pinboy3niner]

8. Maybe he should have kept it as strictly a home appliance. nt

[etherealtruth]

9. He sure as hell is not responsible enough to be out in public with it

Geeze.

Mercifully, no one was seriously injured (and I include the moron in the report)

[NutmegYankee]

26. It's that mentality that has filled our prisons needlessly.

Accidents are accidents. What is jailing a man for a non-intentional act going to accomplish? If it actually stopped other accidents and human mistakes, we'd have jailed people for fender benders long ago.

[etherealtruth]

29. I had not suggested jail, nor has anyone else

I would like to see charges filed (not looking for a jail term), fines, and the loss of the ability to carry a weapon in public.

It is not "jail" or no no consequences.

[NutmegYankee]

39. I don't believe in legal charges for accidents.

Charges should be used to punish crime and promote reform. Unless there is direct evidence that the man's conduct was grossly negligent, criminal charges in this case will accomplish neither. Criminal charges will likely end this guys chances at employment in many jobs. I don't care how much you may dislike concealed carry, the man doesn't deserve that. When I took my first firearm safety course in Conn., the guy giving it was a police officer and when he discussed accidental discharges, he indicated that even police officers have had them.

[etherealtruth]

43. Well on this we are going to disagree

(i agree I am very outspoken on my opposition to guns; however, I honestly do not believe holding someone responsible for this is over the top)

Down thread you used a car accident analogy. Car "accidents" happen ... there are penalties for those at fault (fault does not mean that you had the intention of doing it). Again, at no time has anyone (including me) asserted that CRIMINAL charges should be filed (and no one has advocated jail time anywhere).

If one is going to assert that owning and carrying guns are a right ... I would assume that there would be some responsibilities attached to that right. Preventing accidental discharge in public should be high on that list.

[NutmegYankee]

46. You were talking about charges up above.

Charges implies criminal charges. The man may very well have his carry permit revoked. That is done via a non-court board in most states. Concealed carry is a privilege, not a right and can be revoked at any time. However, ownership of a firearm is a right and can only be removed by due process per the Fifth amendment.

[etherealtruth]

51. I don't think you meant to be contraditctory but are ...

"The man may very well have his carry permit revoked. That is done via a non-court board in most states." (I have no idea what the actual case is in Michigan)

"However, ownership of a firearm is a right and can only be removed by due process per the Fifth amendment." ... is a board review considered due process of the 5th?

No one (not me) implied no gun ownership ... I clearly stated no guns carried in public for a specified period of time would be fitting and just (charges filed implied due process should be initiated) ... I also thinks civil fines would be appropriate.

I am assured over and over by folk (here) that own guns ... that guns don't accidentally discharge like this (except in the case of irresponsibility). Was there not some locking mechanism that could/ SHOULD have been engaged in order to prevent this.

[NutmegYankee]

67. There is no constitutional right to carry a gun concealed.

That is solely a privilege granted by permit in a locality or state. That can be revoked without court action. The man doesn't lose the gun, he just can't hide it under a coat and walk around in public.

Now there are some rules/exceptions provided for normal use of firearms. A hunter needs to be able to carry his rifle to the forest to hunt and a target shooter needs transport to the range. There are rules to do so by car with the firearms unloaded. In the case of the hunter, you will obviously need to open carry the rifle through the property. These provisions are inherent to a right to own firearms.

As for the accident, a lot of popular carry pistols use what is called a long pull trigger safety. The distance to pull is longer and the force required is higher. I personally dislike that design, and own none of that style (I also don't carry a pistol concealed and have no use for one). The problem with that design is it is too easy to snag a wallet corner on the trigger, not realize as you pull the wallet upward, and accidentally discharge the firearm.

[northoftheborder]

126. Agree with etheraltruth

[Thor_MN]

52. "Unless there is direct evidence that the man's conduct was grossly negligent"

We could refer you to the man's ass...


Police carry for a reason. The fact that accidental discharges occur amongst police officers does not equate to a reason for this dumbass to be carrying in a Home Depot.

[NutmegYankee]

59. How so?

The reason that the man was legally carrying a concealed pistol has no bearing on the safety precautions he may have taken or not taken. Given that the back holster is a common carrying method, and many carry pistols only have a long pull trigger and no other safety, it may prove impossible to prove negligence in a court.

Not all accidents are due to negligence.

[George II]

72. "Not all accidents are due to negligence" - correct, some are due to downright stupidity!

[NutmegYankee]

75. This is true.

Last I checked we don't jail stupid people. Being familiar with firearms, I believe the wallet corner likely snagged the trigger and the guy never knew as he tugged the wallet upward to pull it from the pocket. I'd attribute that to bad luck more than anything else.

[mbperrin]

87. No luck involved. No trigger pulled itself. If a person is so unconscious that they

do not know where their gun is nor the conditions under which it will fire (EVERY time!), they have no business carrying or owning any firearm or other dangerous item, steak knives and the like.

I'd like to see 90 days in jail, medium size fine $10,000-$20,000, say, and public ridicule for the rest of his life.

Concern for his employment? Why should I be? He has no concern for the safety of others nor his own, so why I would give a shit about him when he doesn't is beyond me.

I grew up around guns, owning guns, and I can assure you that if this happened when my dad was still alive, that a butt wound from a gun would be the least of my worries. He had paraphrased "you can't fix stupid" long before it became a movie line.

Immediate and public punishment with some gravity may, may, MAY make some other dumbass think for a moment about how a gun fires and to take measures to prevent those exact and particular circumstances from occurring. See? I'm an educator at heart, no matter how stupid or uncaring the pupil.

[BobUp]

125. Guns

don't have a safety switch.

[Skittles]

129. the guys is a stupid asshole

he endangered himself and EVERYONE in the store because he is skeered of a boogie man

[Thor_MN]

84. Exhibit A. The man's ass.

Accidentally discharging a firearm IS negligence. It does not matter how the trigger was pulled. The Brighton city ordinances appear to be missing from Google's view but the majority of US cities prohibit the discharge of a firearm within city limits. It may exit somewhere, but I have yet to see an ordinance that provides for "accidental discharge". He may have been legally carrying, but he unlawfully discharged the weapon. It is quite possible he may not be charged, but there can be no doubt that he is guilty of firing a handgun within city limits.

[NutmegYankee]

89. Wow, got to love that method of thinking.

Gee, lets make it a criminal offense to crash into another car, anywhere, including parking lots. And give automatic jail time to anyone who does. It doesn't matter if it was bad judgement on distance, a skid on ice, or another driver caused you to have to swerve and you hit another car. After all, the law is clear that hitting another car is the crime. Period. Child swings to door open rapidly and dents a door, kid goes to juvie and you to jail. Can't have those irresponsible parents out there can we?

No accidents or innocent mistakes in your world apparently.

[Thor_MN]

96. Nice false equivalence

Leaving the scene of a vehicle accident is a crime, anywhere (including parking lots). The accident itself, unless complicated by other circumstance, is not a crime. Discharging a firearm within city limits, unless excepted by strictly defined circumstance, is always a crime. It is not always charged, but it is always a crime, unless excepted (which never includes shooting oneself in the ass in a Home Depot).

Not sure where your jail fantasy comes from, no one has mentioned jail except for you.

[NutmegYankee]

97. No false equivalence.

I was extending your absolute view on the discharge of a firearm to car accidents. Most localities I have lived in required the discharge to be "intentional".

[Thor_MN]

100. Every city ordinance I have read simply reads "discharge of a fiream"

or the equivalent. I have never read one that includes the concept of "intentional". I do not claim that there does not exist a United States community that looks kindly on random weapon fire, but I have never seen one.

And you were attempting to create a false equivalence by equating car accidents to discharges of firearms. Nothing equates them, there is no logical path from one to the other.

[NutmegYankee]

102. I was making fun of the absolutism in your post.

You obviously didn't get it.

[Thor_MN]

103. Ah, the last refuge. "I was joking"

You are forgiven for not being funny. Have a nice day.

[oldhippie]

115. here's my city ordinance ......

Nothing about "intention" that I see. Also the penalty is pretty light by most standards.

Sec. 13-2. Use and discharge of firearms on certain properties within the city.permanent link to this piece of content

(a) Definition. "Firearms" means gun, pistol, revolver, pellet gun, bb gun, air gun, shotgun, rifle, bow and arrow, cross bow or any other weapon.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm, within an area of the city limits annexed prior to September 1, 1981; provided, that this section shall not be so construed as to prohibit the discharge of firearms:

(1) In any activity or by any person considered within the class of exemptions applicable under state statutes;

(2) In exhibitions, contests, or demonstrations conducted under conditions and supervision approved by the city council after application has been made to the city and permit has been issued;

(3) By duly qualified and commissioned peace officers in the performance of the official duties of their office;

(4) For the protection of a person or property in or about his home in accordance with the laws of the state; or

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm within an area annexed after September 1, 1981; provided, that this section shall not be so construed as to prohibit the discharge of firearms as follows:

(1) The firearm is a shotgun, air rifle or pistol, BB gun, or bow and arrow; and

a. Discharged on a tract of land of ten (10) acres or more;

b. Discharged more than one hundred fifty (150) feet from a residence or occupied building located on another property; and

c. In a manner not reasonably expected to cause a projectile to cross the boundary of the tract; or

(2) The firearm is a center fire or rim fire rifle or pistol of any caliber:

a. Discharged on a tract of land of fifty (50) acres or more;

b. More than three hundred (300) feet from a residence or occupied building located on another property; and

c. In a manner not reasonably expected to cause a projectile to cross the boundary of the tract.

(3) In any activity or by any person considered within the class of exemptions applicable under state statutes;

(4) In exhibitions, contests, or demonstrations conducted under conditions and supervision approved by the city council after application has been made to the city and permit has been issued;

(5) By duly qualified and commissioned peace officers in the performance of the official duties of their office; or

(6) For the protection of a person or property in or about his home in accordance with the laws of the state.

(d) Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a class C misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00).

edit: can't spell

[blueamy66]

104. A car is mainly used to get from Point A to Point B.

What is a gun mainly used for?

[NutmegYankee]

106. Given that hunting takes of deer far outnumber any other use in the United States

I say providing food. I myself took one this year and enjoy the steaks and ground venison. Target shooting is the second most common use.

[blueamy66]

109. Ok. So a gun's number one use is to kill.

That's what I thought.

[avebury]

74. How about, say 200 hours,

of community service having to speak to community groups and schools on the subject of gun safety. Let his humility be stretched out as long as possible.

[etherealtruth]

88. It would not be unreasonable

He endangered himself and others with his irresponsible handling of a fire arm.

I am surprised gun advocates would defend this. (acknowledging that I am as anti-gun as anyone) If I were advocating for guns i would state that this was not a responsible gun owner (as evidenced by his discharge of a firearm in a public place) ... I would further argue that responsible owners take the necessary steps to insure this does not happen and would not object to the idiot facing consequences.

I did not argue for ridiculous consequences (such as jail or prison) ... I may be anti-gun, but I am not anti-human (calling for overly harsh or cruel punishment ... especially when no one else was injured).

If we are to believe carrying guns is not a danger , then this idiot is an irresponsible abberation that endangered himself and others through his irresponsibility. If "guns" are a right (to me) it would follow that there are responsibilities associated with that right. To argue otherwise undermines the entire gun argument.

[etherealtruth]

38. This isn't akin to a fender bender

This is more akin to reckless driving. (reckless driving does not require injury to others and it doesn't require the intention of driving recklessly) ... There are consequences for this (there is even the possibility for jail time) ... in all likelihood one is going to be fined and face the loss of their driving privilege (for a time).

[NutmegYankee]

40. No.

"Reckless driving is often defined as a mental state in which the driver displays a wanton disregard for the rules of the road". I don't see a wanton disregard for safety from the man. It was an accident.

[loudsue]

50. Nutmeg....was that you who shot himself in the butt?

Actually, I agree with you about accidents such as this and the long arm of the law.

[NutmegYankee]

73. I have a classical liberal view on the use of criminal charges.

I expect the guy will lose his conceal carry permit, and suffer from pain for a while. But I absolutely will never agree to throw people in jail for non-intentional mistakes.

[niyad]

41. would you still be saying the same if that "accidental" shot had injured or killed someone?

just wondering how careless one has to be to keep the wallet and the gun right next to each other, with, apparently, the trigger so available. but, what the heck, it was an "accident".

[NutmegYankee]

54. People are sometimes hurt or killed in accidents.

There are often tort liability in such cases, but criminal liability is very specific. Let's say you are looking one way (not forward) and walk briskly into an elderly woman, knocking her down and breaking her hip. I wouldn't support having the man charged with battery on the woman as it wasn't intentional. That said, the man is obviously liable for civil damages for medical care for the woman.

The problem with guns is that it's practically impossible to have a discussion without extreme emotion clouding the issue. I understand that people strongly oppose concealed carry. But that isn't a justification to stop a liberal approach to criminal punishment.

[George II]

71. And what it the bullet had hit and killed a child standing nearby?

[alfredo]

91. He had the safety off.

[NutmegYankee]

93. Not all of them have one.

Sometime it's built into the trigger as a longer pull with more force required. I personally hate that design because it's too easy to snag the trigger with an object and not realize it till it's too late. In this instance, the wallet corner likely did so and as it was pulled upward to exit the pocket, it pulled the trigger back.

[Demeter]

45. Well, there was ONE consequence

but if you mean public opprobrium, in Aryan Michigan, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[etherealtruth]

47. Aryan Michigan

This also occurred in Livingston County ... historical home to Michigan's KKK

[NutmegYankee]

24. It wasn't intentional.

I generally applaud smart decisions of police/prosecutors to not clog the legal system with non-criminal cases. This was an obvious accident. Charging and jailing the man serves no purpose for society.

[groundloop]

32. Agree with no jail for this, but a fine and loss of ability to carry weapon in public is justified

People this irresponsible scare the shit out of me. He doesn't need to be carrying a loaded weapon in public.

[NutmegYankee]

36. Can you prove it was irresponsibility?

Or was it just an accident? One major reason this often isn't pursued by police officers is that they themselves sometimes make these types of mistakes.

[MH1]

61. The fact that he shot himself in a public place is proof of irresponsibility to me.

I'd say at the very least his right to publicly carry should be suspended for a year or so and he should be fined. It should go on his record so that after a certain number of instances he should completely lose his right to carry. Do not say that such an action would have no effect. People who accumulate points against their driver's license incur higher insurance costs and at some point could even have their license suspended - when that risk gets close enough, most people with 2 brain cells to rub together modify their behavior to avoid losing their license at least. So if a similar model were used in cases like this, incidents could be reduced, and public safety would be improved. To me that is a valid use of the justice system.

It sounds like you think there should be NO consequences to this man for endangering the public. Obviously his butt wound is a consequence for endangering himself. That would be sufficient if he'd shot his own ass at home with no one else around. But in this case, he endangered others, and there should be some additional price to him for that.

I'm guessing we're both stuck in our positions so I'll just leave it here.

[NutmegYankee]

69. You misunderstood/misrepresented my position.

I fully believe the man can lose the right to conceal carry in public. But that is a civil matter and not a criminal matter. I don't believe in charging the man with a misdemeanor or felony over an accident. It is a horrible use of the justice system.

[Logical]

70. LOL, really, so it was a responsible accidental firing of his gun. WTF?? n-t

[NutmegYankee]

80. So you subscribe to the Republican view of responsibility?

Sorry, but I do not. I do not believe in charging people with a crime for accidents. And I'm not a fan of heavy punishments for simple mistakes either.

The concealed carry permit is a civil matter, and he will probably lose it. That's fine.

[Logical]

83. A gun requires more responsibility than a normal accident. Get it? n-t

[NutmegYankee]

90. No I don't get it.

I don't subscribe to the Republican view on responsibility. I don't believe in harsh punishments for accidents simply because someone was doing something legal that I dislike.

[Logical]

92. LOL, I am pro-gun. I have a CC license and own many guns. But the responsibility....

of carrying a gun in public is much higher than driving a car, etc.

Allow mistakes to happen with no punishment does not set the standard higher. Other idiot gun owners will see this idiot get a weekend in jail and take note.

[NutmegYankee]

95. And do what differently?

Sometimes shit happens. If you don't want CCW (it is stupid) then work to repeal the law. Don't smash down on a guy because of a simple mistake like getting his wallet caught on the trigger of some shitty designed glock or such. This belief that we need to severely punish people for simple mistakes is fucking our society up.

[Logical]

99. Simple Mistake??? Ok, no need to discuss this with you any longer. Bye! n-t

[NutmegYankee]

98. I actually find driving a car to be higher.

I'm not a fan of concealed carry. I only believe a gun should be carried in public if unloaded, and then only for a purpose such as going to a range or hunting. But I separate that view from my feelings about use of courts and accidents.

An accidental discharge may injure one or two people at most before the bullet loses energy. But a lose of control in a car can kill/injure many more. A single car losing control can cause this:

[Logical]

121. You are not driving a car for self defense. You have to drive a car. You don't have to carry a gun.

[etherealtruth]

105. This is the response I would expect from a serious gun advocate

I don't mean this as snark, my intention is to point out that this is a good and consistent argument (and I hate guns). To defend the irresponsibility of this idiot undermines the "pro-gun" argument.

I had posted this above:

"I am surprised gun advocates would defend this. (acknowledging that I am as anti-gun as anyone) If I were advocating for guns i would state that this was not a responsible gun owner (as evidenced by his discharge of a firearm in a public place) ... I would further argue that responsible owners take the necessary steps to insure this does not happen and would not object to the idiot facing consequences.

If we are to believe carrying guns is not a danger, then this idiot is an irresponsible aberration that endangered himself and others through his irresponsibility. If "guns" are a right (to me) it would follow that there are responsibilities associated with that right. To argue otherwise undermines the entire gun argument. "

[Ichingcarpenter]

55. The Law says no discharging in graveyards though

discharging a firearm from a vehicle is prohibited;

discharging a firearm within a public right-of-way, in cemeteries,



or on farm property without the consent of the farm's owner is prohibited;

and
carrying a firearm while under the influence of a controlled substance or alcohol is prohibited.


http://www.michiganinbrief.org/edition07/Chapter5/FirearmReg.htm

[BlueMTexpat]

60. This looks like reckless endangerment to me.

Intent is not required.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reckless-endangerment/

Carrying a loaded gun into a store, especially during a period when the store is likely to be crowded (post-Xmas sales, etc.) where it was ultimately discharged is clearly showing a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of that action. The interpretation of this as a felony depends on state law. He is extremely lucky that the only person he harmed was himself.

I hope that he seriously rethinks such actions in future. And yes, I hope that he can be - and is - charged with a felony.

[iamthebandfanman]

86. what if it had

ricocheted and injured someone else?

still no punishment ?

I can understand not getting in trouble for accidently shooting yourself.. but youd think given his location, hed be expected to have more control over his firearm .. and be held responsible for the safety of carrying it.

[smokey nj]

3. Was his gun named Skittles?

[wilt the stilt]

5. The beauty of this

is he will be reminded of this idiocy for at least 6 weeks as he can't sit down.

[liberal N proud]

7. Wood for that new project $100

New tools $200
Shooting self in the ass while shopping -PRICELESS!

[KansDem]

10. Well, you know how to stop one bad ass with a gun?

[hobbit709]

12. There are those that can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground

And then there are those that can't tell the difference between a wallet and a gun on their ass.

[George II]

79. Well, now this A-hole has TWO holes in his!!!

[malaise]

13. What if he had shot someone else? n/t

[pinboy3niner]

15. Instead of Home Depot, what if he'd been picking up a child at a day care center? nt

[valerief]

18. They absolutely do not care about that. They're like most pols.

Only concerned about themselves and their 1% masters.

[Feral Child]

28. Civil matter. n/t

[bucolic_frolic]

14. Hope he had insurance to cover his derriere

the right to bare will not be infringed

maybe he should put the safety in the "on" position

[pinboy3niner]

17. It probably was a derriereinger

[malaise]

19. ROFL

[valerief]

16. My ass bleeds for him. NOT.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. Gun control is not shooting yourself in the ass. nt

[Crunchy Frog]

21. Too bad he didn't shoot himself on the other side.

He could have eliminated himself from the gene pool and won himself a Darwin prize.

[Blue Owl]

22. Smells like ass and gunpowder

n/t

[Turbineguy]

23. He'd better

buy another gun for his ass to protect itself from his brain.

[MindPilot]

25. Perhaps he planned to use it on the self-checkout machine.

after a few rounds of "place item in bagging area...remove item from bagging area" I'm ready for some sledgehammer diplomacy.

[marmar]

27. He's going to be the butt of jokes forever.

[BlueStreak]

30. If has asshole had a gun, it could have defended itself

[pinboy3niner]

33. Just what we need--another asshole with a gun. nt

[egold2604]

68. You beat me to it

[3catwoman3]

37. Must be some sort of...

poetic justice or karma - an @$$h0le now has another hole in his @$$.

(love the assorted brilliant word play up thread, BTW)

[JNelson6563]

42. An asshole with a hole in his ass.

How fitting.

[NBachers]

44. Must've scared the shit out of whoever was behind him in line

[Iggo]

48. Another gunfucker too stupid to own a gun.

I sense a trend.

[Sophiegirl]

49. Dumb ass. n/t

[davidthegnome]

56. Whoops

Really bizarre accident.

I think people asking whether he should lose his weapon and permit to carry are asking a good question. If a man is so irresponsible or ignorant as to put a loaded weapon, with the safety OFF, so close to his wallet, and uhm, other important things, then is this someone we want carrying a gun around in public? I mean, there are simple ways he could have avoided making an ass of himself.

Maybe I assume too much though, perhaps his gun didn't have safety. Maybe he accidentally flicked it off while searching for his wallet. We all know that when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

[Gothmog]

58. Juanita Jean had some fun with story

http://www.juanitajean.com/2013/12/28/fun-with-guns-hiney-edition/

[MADem]

63. Hilarity and gratitude!

Hilarity because the dumb-butt shot himself in the ass, and gratitude that it wasn't Brighton, MA...! I didn't think there was a HOME DEPOT there, any-hoo!

[L0oniX]

66. So the gun made an ...ass hole?

[davidthegnome]

76. Indeed.

I think it may be assumed that his ass is now wholly holey.

[MurrayDelph]

77. He doesn't realize how close he came

to blowing his brains out.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

78. But guns are so safe! nt

[Politicalboi]

81. While I love stories like this

We still aren't seeing stores banning guns inside. Your rights don't supersede what the stores rules are, and if Home Depot allows shit like this to happen in their stores, it's time to boycott stores that allow peoples lives to be threatened by some gun nut who needs to bring his gun with him EVERYWHERE he goes. Fuck him.

[City Lights]

85. LOL!

Thank goodness no one else was injured by this douchesac's idiocy.

[gulliver]

101. It would be good to see his name published.

That way his relatives, friends, neighbors, boss, etc., can decide what they think about the whole thing. I assume he was white or the story would probably be very different.

[Jackpine Radical]

107. One man shoots self in butt,

DU laughs its collective ass off.

[valerief]

111. You betcha! It's his freedumbs and liberties to shoot hisself wherever he wants.

It's in the first and second amendments of the Constitution and pro'ly more, too. It's in the Bible, too. He has a gawd-given right to protect hisself with guns and rifles and semi-automatics and pro'ly even grenades in public places like kindergartens and churches and Home Depots. Anything else would be Commie, Socialist, Nazi, and unAmerican!

[samsingh]

108. if only he had more guns to protect himself

[valerief]

113. Hisself. Say it write.

[rdharma]

112. A musical interlude for the "butt hurt" victim of this shooting.........

[Vashta Nerada]

114. The thread I posted in about this topic last night was locked by the GD hosts.

For violating SOP. They are not consistent, it seems.

Anyways, I have no sympathy for this dumbass. He deserves his injury. I'm glad no innocent bystanders were injured.

[etherealtruth]

127. This one was locked and then unlocked

[Scootaloo]

116. He's fortunate it didn't cause any brain damage!

[In_The_Wind]

120. Unlocking ...

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Thanks to all of the Host for discussing this thread.

[img][/img]





ITW
[img][/img]

[BobUp]

122. If

the bullet from the gun would have ricocheted off of the floor or another thing in the store, and have killed another person or sent another person to the hospital, what would the police have charged to gun holder with? Accidental shooting, involuntary manslaughter, or other?

This is an example why people shouldn't carry firearms into places of business.

My wife and I stopped going to the local coin operated laundry because another patron carries his pistol on his hip. We don't want to be around people who carry loaded weapons into businesses. Idiots also carry guns in our local Walmart too, fortunately, we only visit Walmart once every three months to pick up prescriptions. People who carry guns into businesses must feel really insecure or afraid of other people, just my opinion.

[ileus]

123. Another IWBer I bet.

[ManiacJoe]

124. IWBer? Meaning, without a holster?

A good IWB holster would have prevented this.

[ileus]

128. Most won't invest in a "good" IWB holster

they pick up a crappy uncle mikes instead.

I refuse to carry inside the waist band...OWB for life here.

[bvar22]

130. Anyone who believes they need to be"packing" to go to Home Depot...

...deserves a self imposed bullet in the butt.
I hope this suburban Rambo wannabe was carrying a MAGNUM.