Man Shoots Off Gun In Pants During Hug, Accidentally Kills Girlfriend

[StrictlyRockers]

Man Shoots Off Gun In Pants During Hug, Accidentally Kills Girlfriend
Posted: 10/02/2013 1:22 pm EDT | Updated: 10/02/2013 1:49 pm EDT

An Arizona woman died after her boyfriend accidentally shot off a handgun he had tucked into his waistband Tuesday morning.

The 18-year-old man had been hugging his 24-year-old girlfriend when she complained that the weapon was making her uncomfortable, according to KTVK.

The man discharged the gun while attempting to remove it, shooting the woman, according to police.

The woman was rushed to an area hospital and later pronounced dead. Police have not released names in the shooting. Phoenix Police Department spokesman Sgt. Tommy Thompson told ABC Phoenix that the shooting appears to be accidental, but is still under investigation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/man-shoots-off-gun-pants-kills-girlfriend_n_4030640.html

Why was he carrying, anyway?

[lostincalifornia]

1. unfortunately, the wrong person got shot. What idiot would put a gun in their pants, and on top of

that, to not put the safety on

[TheMastersNemesis]

2. Mother Of God What The Hell Is Wrong With This Country.

With open carry everywhere accidental shootings will go through the roof.

[greyl]

4. And it's fairly easy to fake an accidental shooting.

Accidental stabbings, not as much.

[Eleanors38]

19. Is open carry everywhere? What is the data on this kind of "accidental" shooting?

[GreenStormCloud]

45. The same prediction was made about CC, and it didn't happen.

Accidental shootings are on a downward trend.

[hrmjustin]

3. What a jerk. He should get some jail time.

[StrictlyRockers]

5. Well, I'm sure that imbecile is at least "sweating bullets" right now.

Phoenix Police Department spokesman Sgt. Tommy Thompson told ABC Phoenix that the shooting appears to be accidental, but is still under investigation."

sweating bullets what an odd expression...how pervasive gun culture is here. And, I feel intellectually lazy for not thinking up a less inappropriate expression.

[hrmjustin]

7. I hope her family pushes for charges.

[elleng]

6. Nothing like 'concealed carry,' I guess.

[mwrguy]

8. Gun owners, this is your poster boy

Enjoy.

[Straw Man]

10. I think we've just met ...

Gun owners, this is your poster boy

Enjoy.

... the poster boy for the association fallacy.

[Eleanors38]

20. Are you "enjoying" this? Please clarify. Thanx. nt

[blueridge3210]

37. Stay classy (NT)

[GreenStormCloud]

47. Nope. He was a criminal who was illegally carrying.

Legal gun owners carry in a holster. Criminals avoid using holsters and stick the gun in their trouser or a pocket. There is a reason for that. If the criminal needs to dump the gun in a hurry to avoid a cop finding it on him, he doesn't want to cop to find an empty holster looped onto his belt. The honest citizen doesn't fear the cops finding a gun on him so he is not afraid to use a holster.

[AlinPA]

53. He was "open carrying". It is legal in AZ. IMO, it was more like "dumb carrying".

[ManiacJoe]

55. The linked article does not support your open carry claim.

[AlinPA]

56. "tucked into his waistband..." sounds like it would be partially hidden and "open". i would picture

the handgun grip out in the open in that description.

[ManiacJoe]

57. GreenStormCloud's #47 would be a more common version of

"tucked into his waistband". Had he been using a proper holster, there would have been no need to adjust the gun's position or location.

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. What a steaming load of shit.

That's the poster boy for Doing It Wrong, obviously. But the fact that 99.9999+% of gun owners will never even approach that level of abject fuckup means nothing to people who insist on a reason for hating. Enjoy your bile.

[thelordofhell]

9. Guns don't kill people......Hugs kill people

[Niceguy1]

11. That's one heck of a hug

[Loudly]

12. All of her genuine rights were sacrificed to his one imaginary "right." n/t

[Straw Man]

30. Please Share some more of your wisdom.

It Unites us.

Tell us about bullets entering our bodies, no points for guns as a solution to guns, a gun-free oasis from sea to shining sea, and the Civil War rendering the Second Amendment obsolete.

[Loudly]

33. All good points. Thanks! n/t

[Straw Man]

41. You're welcome -- both of you.

[ileus]

13. Always carry in a proper holster.

What do you want to be it was one of the popular striker fired trigger "safety" type pistols?


IWB kills.....another reason I only carry OWB.

Safety first.

[gejohnston]

14. He failed to learn the four basic rules

that you either learn as a kid if you grow up around guns, or received some type of firearms training as an adult. I did both, the adults in my life and the DoD. I'm guessing he was neither. I frankly think his explanation needs further investigation because it doesn't sound that plausible.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Agreed. Investigation is required. Doesn't smell good to me.

My sympathies to her family and friends along with suggestions that they demand further investigation here.


OT: Who writes this stuff? Who thinks "shoots off" sounds like a verb that a professional journalist should be using?

[gejohnston]

16. most of this stuff seems to be written by

amateur pundits who are neither professional or journalists.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

17. I smell a fish in Denmark ...

or some such shit as that.

which is what that dude's story is.

and good god! there are some gullible people on this board.

[Eleanors38]

18. Just another attempt to denigrate pro-2A Democrats. nt

[StrictlyRockers]

21. That's really your take away from this? Wow.

Just wow. THAT is your comment? Okaaaayyyy....

[Eleanors38]

23. It certainly is. Review the posts, esp. 2, 8, & 12. Now, maybe you can answer some questions...

What did you want to take away from this?
What do you want others to take away from this?
How many open-carry people die from accidents involving the gun they were carrying?
How would you have prevented this incident?
What do you feel about the RKBA, esp. as regards state regulation?


What did you have in mind with your own post 5?

A lot of folks come in here with an assumed position of moral superiority (which is often nothing more than the practice of running others down) without providing ANY REASON why their assumed position is moral, then feign being incensed when someone doesn't dance to the assumed tune? As for your follow-up post #5, I'll let your own characterization of it stand.

Now if you have some constructive commentary, I'm listening.

Okay?

[StrictlyRockers]

27. Well, I honestly was expecting people on this forum to show a little human compassion.

I was expecting maybe one word of sympathy for the family of a poor, innocent 24-year old woman who is now dead because someone was exercising his "right" to keep and bear arms. Nope. Her death is inconsequential. This is just an opportunity to dig in the heels and defend, defend, defend.

There is a moral high ground here. Because there is a dead woman, dead because of a gun. And, it is immoral that we allow this to happen pretty much every day in our country. I'm sorry that you seem to be unable to see that. And, honestly, I'm not really interested in debating this with you except to tell you that I know that you are wrong.

[gejohnston]

28. we are

I was expecting maybe one word of sympathy for the family of a poor, innocent 24-year old woman who is now dead because someone was exercising his "right" to keep and bear arms. Nope. Her death is inconsequential. This is just an opportunity to dig in the heels and defend, defend, defend.

We are, but we are not using her as a political pawn or score political points. That would be very disrespectful and venal. Had she died in a swimming pool or a car crash, it would be a nonissue. Since both causes of death are tens and thousands times, respectively, more common it wouldn't be in the news either. Simple case of searching for gun accident stories, which are extremely rare, for a political point is not showing concern nor sympathy. It is disgusting.

There is a moral high ground here. Because there is a dead woman, dead because of a gun. And, it is immoral that we allow this to happen pretty much every day in our country. I'm sorry that you seem to be unable to see that. And, honestly, I'm not really interested in debating this with you except to tell you that I know that you are wrong

I don't see the moral high ground for the reasons above. She is dead because of a dumb ass with a gun. In case I didn't make it clear before, I don't believe the accident story. It isn't consistent with any accident I can envision. My guess he is going down for manslaughter.
According to the CDC, which is a more conservative estimate than most criminologists, 100K people defend themselves from death or possible bodily harm with a gun each year. Sorry, the morality claim rings very hollow.

Gun accidents account for about 500 (compared with 800 murdered with bare hands and feet), and the number has been going down.

[Eleanors38]

29. My point. nt

[petronius]

31. If that's what you were expecting, why was it completely absent from the OP?

But I'm sure you do feel sorrow and empathy for this woman's death, even as you took the opportunity to use it to try and make a social/political point. Because this is a discussion board where we discuss policy, law, society. So I certainly don't think it is at all blameworthy, and I don't draw inferences about your character or personality, nor about the validity of your opinions and positions, that you neglected to express any hint of human compassion in your OP. Because it was obvious that you were starting a thread about law and policy, not a thread to express condolences...

[SoutherDem]

32. Good Point

It is a good thing that you took the time to express compassion in your OP telling us about this happening. Oh, wait. My mistake. You didn't show compassion either.
But, lets face it. Compassion was not what you were looking for.

"because someone was exercising his "right" to keep and bear arms." You must be 21 to conceal carry a handgun in AZ, he was not exercising a right but breaking the law.

"Because there is a dead woman, dead because of a gun." No. A woman is dead because she was dating a guy who chose to 1) break the law, 2) not follow ANY gun safety rules, and 3) was stupid enough to carry a gun, not in a holster, tucked into his waist band.

"Her death is inconsequential. This is just an opportunity to dig in the heels and defend, defend, defend." It seems that is also what your side is doing. I must wonder no matter how much it is said by the anti-gun people that we pro-gun people are opportunistic you all don't miss an opportunity to capitalize on any and all gun deaths.

"I know that you are wrong." That is simply your arrogant opinion.

While, I know you disagree, the story doesn't add up or there is missing information.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. By all means, let's throw his ass in jail for criminal negligence, or possibly outright murder.

Smells like a murder to me. Removing the gun from his waistband, accidentally shot her? Bullshit. 360 degrees of possibilities in 3 dimensions, an the barrel was raised in her direction when it went off?

Bull.
Shit.

I hope the DA is up his ass right now, getting answers.

[jeepnstein]

22. Not buying the accident story.

Not that it matters because only two people know the truth and one is dead.

[Jenoch]

24. This kid illegally possessed the gun.

He was breaking the law. He was also not smart enough to handle a gun safely.

The headline does not make sense. The person was shot while the idiot was trying to remove the gun from his pants. I'm quite certain that the hug was over at that point.

[ManiacJoe]

25. There you go introducing facts into a good rant thread....

[SoutherDem]

26. Little info, lots of questions

How did an 18-year-old get a hand gun?

What type of gun was it?

Why not have a holster?

How does a gun "accidentally" go off pulling it out of the waist band?

I must say I would like some more information.

But, we do know he was breaking the law by having the gun and was not following ANY gun safety rules.

So for those who have put this in the "Another Responsible Legal Gun Owner" column, not so fast. He was anything but a responsible legal gun owner and to use him as an example for such is ridiculous.

[StrictlyRockers]

34. I definitely don't put him in the category of "responsible legal gun owner".

I put him in the category of irresponsible gun owner. This is a perfect example of someone who was not handling his firearm responsibly. Now, a young woman is dead.

[SoutherDem]

39. Yes, you are correct.

He was not following ANY gun safety rules. As I understand AZ laws (I do not live in AZ so I looked it up) he could open carry but I don't call stuffed in you pants open carry. If he were really open carrying the gun why was it not in a holster?
Because he was 18 with a handgun the question of how he got the gun must be asked. He couldn't have legally purchased it, it could have been given to him, he could have found it or stolen it.

As many of us have stated, the story give little information, and doesn't ring true.

[GreenStormCloud]

46. He was already breaking several gun laws.

Do you think he would have paid attention to still another gun law to make it double-illegal for him to carry?

[LTG]

35. Not necessarily breaking the law for simply possessing a handgun.

While the legality will vary depending on individual state law, under Federal firearms laws and regulations his possession of a handgun is perfectly legal.

Federal law allows the possession and ownership of handguns by anyone, not otherwise prohibited, over the age of 18. What federal law does prohibit is the sale of a handgun by an FFL to anyone under 21.

However, it is perfectly legal for a private citizen to gift or sell a handgun to a person 18 years old as long as that person is not otherwise prohibited from such ownership and there are no state laws preventing it.

They would not be able to get a license to carry concealed (at least anywhere I'm familiar with) but might be entitled to open carry in public, depending on relevant state and local laws.

Depending on the caliber and individual state laws, he may have trouble purchasing ammunition for it until he is 21. But there are a number of legal ways around that as it is legal to possess, just not purchase, just like the gun itself.

[SoutherDem]

38. Well you are right

But, as I understand AZ laws (I do not live in AZ and looked up the law), if he were open carrying he would not have been breaking the law, but stuffed in his waistband does not sound like open carry to me, but I guess one could claim if the grip is showing it is open carry.
As I said there are a lot of question not answered from the short news report.

Welcome to DU

[StrictlyRockers]

40. Well, at least there is some sanity coming to the world.

I'm all for following the rules and doing things by the book.

WHITE PLAINS — The Journal News on Thursday sued Putnam County and its county clerk’s office in state Supreme Court to compel them to release information about the county’s pistol-permit holders.

The newspaper’s lawsuit, filed shortly after 4 p.m., comes after Putnam denied two New York state Freedom of Information Law requests and a subsequent appeal. The paper first sought the information after the Newtown, Conn., shooting massacre, and again after New York state passed a gun-control law that allowed permit holders to apply to keep their names and addresses private.

<...>

“The Journal News believes that Putnam County should turn over the records that the law clearly says belong to the public,” said Janet Hasson, the paper’s president and publisher. “The data is essential for our journalists to do their jobs. For example, we need to be able to investigate whether guns involved in crimes are legally or illegally owned. ”

In the lawsuit, the newspaper maintains that the SAFE Act allows “individual permit holders to apply for exemption from the otherwise mandated public availability of their names and addresses only if they asserted reasonable concerns for their safety or privacy from disclosure.”

“In other words, the legislature considered the purported concerns raised by Putnam, and determined that the public’s right to know the names and addresses of permit holders should continue to be public records except where such holder has invoked SAFE Act procedures to be exempted from disclosure,” the lawsuit said.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20131002/NEWS/310020106/Journal-News-files-lawsuit-for-Putnam-pistol-permit-records


Psst, I may be paranoid here, but I think they may be coming for your guns next.

[blueridge3210]

42. Privacy

Try substituting "diagnosed as HIV +" for pistol permit holders and see how things look. How is it in the public interest to post the names and addresses of pistol permit holders if they have violated no law? This is not "sanity"; it is yet another attempt at "public shaming" by identifying gun owners. Yet again you show no interest in crime victims other than for exploitation. Stay classy.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

43. Replacing "pistol permit holder" with "diagnosed as HIV+"?

Really? Stay classy indeed.

[gejohnston]

50. privacy is privacy

The same concept applies, depending on the politics and prejudices of the publication. There is no "right to know" an individual's private information.
It is a valid analogy.

[StrictlyRockers]

44. Welcome to DU, blueridge3210!

Or should I say, welcome to the gungeon? Probably, I should say welcome to the gungeon, since this is the only place that you ever post.

[GreenStormCloud]

48. I don't believe his story.

I would want more details, such as forensics on his clothes and of the dead woman.

[bunnies]

51. Nothing says "I love you" like a bullet hole.

amirite?

[madaboutharry]

52. I haven't spent a single day

in detective school, but it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to think the boyfriend's story is bullshit.

[otohara]

58. Don't Date Men With Guns

don't marry men with guns...because shit like this and domestic violence resulting in death by gun happens all too often in our gun crazed country.

http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/another-voice/another-voice-courts-ruling-in-domestic-violence-case-could-imperil-women-20131005

First, we know that guns and domestic violence are a lethal mix. Numerous studies have found that the chance of a homicide increases dramatically in domestic violence cases in which the perpetrator has a gun. Of all females killed with firearms, almost two-thirds were murdered by intimate partners. The Violence Policy Center reported that in 2010, more women were shot and killed by partners than by strangers using all other weapons combined.

[gejohnston]

59. there is actually no evidnece of that

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=133041
On the slime chance any of them were peer reviewed, there is a good chance they got scathing reviews like the Kellerman "43 times more likely" which became "2.7 times more likely" using the same data buy only ten years later.

I have read some criminologists claiming that domestic abusers tend to beat women to death.

[ManiacJoe]

60. You have the right idea, but do not carry it to the logical conclusion.

You should be avoiding all men with domestic violence behavior, not just the ones with guns.

[Common Sense Party]

61. Riiiiiiight.

Um, sorry. I don't believe the story. I'm inclined to believe it was intentional.