Queue the anti-gun nuts...
 

That's just stupid.

He had to have been messing with it, had his hand on it, etc. in order for it to fire. Holsters don't have anything as a part of their construction typically that could wedge in and cause the gun to fire. Now if he was carrying it thug-style and just had it tucked in his waist band, well, that makes him a moron.

He shouldn't have even had his damn hand on it! What an idiot. This just pisses me off. To quote the instructor that taught my concealed carry class, "Don't put your hand on the gun unless you intend to KILL someone."

Saved them a shitty dinner.

A 5 yo brought a gun to class a mos our so ago, discharged and shrapnel hit 3 kids

fucking idiot

sounds like the idiot in the rest. was new to gun ownership and carrying in general. probably fidgeting with it to make sure he looked badass and yet no one could see it or whatever. either way he stuck his fingers where they didn't belong because guns don't just go off.

5 yo in class? how did he get it?? where from? (parent) those responsible should be charged heavily.
around here it seems as though when a kid gets a gun like that, it is from a parent who cannot legally own a gun. then the anti's get up in arms about gun ownership. no problem let's start a new gun control issue, anyone on probation gets regularly checked for firearms, if found they immediately return to prison and fulfill their whole sentence. no time off.

Surprised they didn't make a big deal about "he was carrying a SEMI-AUTOMATIC, WHOAH!!!!" .......You mean like 60-70% of all handguns in existance?

Why would someone carry a weapon with a round in the chamber? I hope he gets charged with discharging the round and they take his permit away

I carry with a round chambered, always. If for some reason I need to use my weapon, I want my gun to be ready to go when needed. If my weapon isn't ready to be used when needed, it's useless to me and I don't need to carry it.

I'd like to know more details. A gun doesn't magically go off for no reason. It wouldn't surprise me if he was fucking with it.

Would definitely love more of the story. He had to be messing with it, as others have already said.

Almost everyone I know with a concealed carry permit has a round chambered anytime the weapon is on their person.

Everyone I know keeps a round chambered too. Not sure about sounds though :lol:

Fucking autocorrect

Do you carry? I'm guessing not. I don't think I know anyone who carries that doesn't have a round chambered.

He must have had a really badly designed holster. My Fobus lever holster has absolutely 0 access to the trigger on both sides. He had to be fucking around, or be packing like Plaxico.

Yes, I have a permit and I carry concealed. I carry a revolver with the hammer on an empty chamber, because I don't want an accidental discharge.

Hopefully they also know enough to have the safety on.

"... playing with a 9mm Glock in his pocket..."

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28013741/detail.html

little bit different there. the revolver if double action can be carried unchambered. when you pull the trigger it goes bang as the cylinder then rotates to a live round.

with a semi auto, if you don't have a round chambered you would have to rack the slide in order to use the gun. if you had time, you would still need the forsight to do that.
I don't know anyone who carries an auto unchambered. if it's a 1911 they have the safety engaged if it's a glock style or springfield, well they have internal safetys. it would be hard to get a gun to go off like that without messing with it. back strap, trigger and other safetys make it very difficult to fire unless you're holding it and pulling the trigger.

Because the time it would take you to chamber a round might cost you your life.

Glocks don't have an external safety to put "on". That is also one of many good reasons why you don't screw around with it while it is in your pocket either.

Probably readjusting his balls and pulled the trigger.

I've never fired a Glock, but my understanding is that the safety is integrated into the trigger mechanism. Is that correct?

Clearly he was a member of a well regulated Militia....I mean....a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, after all. Most well regulated Militias train over dinner in family restaurants....of course he'd be packing while there.

Whatevah

Just more wanna be Rambo douche baggery. I guess we should all thankful that his "rights" only hurt little kids and old people out to eat instead of killing them. :idk:

Umm...i carry w a round chambered as well

That's pretty normal actually

Yes

I like glocks and have had several, I carry a 1911

Not really sure where KS is going w his post, but generally when ' carrying' you carry everywhere where legal, restaurants malls, wherever your travels take you.

Crime doesn't stop at the doors of ' family' restaurants

YES. My buddy has a personal Glock 19 and a work issued Glock 17. Both have trigger safetys. So this retard had his finger on the trigger with enough foce to depress the safety, and then something happened from there.

A Glock has 3 internal, automatic safeties and no manual safety switch like a conventional gun.

Drop Safety, Firing Pin Safety, Trigger Safety.

All three are disabled automatically by pressing the trigger. It is a very safe design. The only way a Glock is going to shoot is if you pull the trigger.

If he really was carrying a Glock, my guess is that it was in a shitty holster, or no holster at all. He fidgeted with it, and something pulled the trigger. They don't "just go off".

we have had more than our share of ghetto thugs castrate themselves just that way, keeping a gun in their waistband. Granted these idiots know little or nothing about gun safety, use or maintenance.

The upside is they wont be making babies mammas so thats a good thing.

As I posted, a report says that it was in his pocket.

On a revolver, that empty cylinder puts you at a disadvantage. You put yourself at a disadvantage both in terms of how many rounds are available and how many steps you then have to take to get your gun into a ready to fire situation. An accidental discharge on a revolver is difficult to do. The double action pull is somewhere around 11 pounds. Unless you're carrying it in a shit holster or no holster at all, it would be monumentally difficult to get the gun to discharge without you having a finger on the trigger.

I'm not knocking pocket carry, but if this idiot did indeed have the gun in his pocket and it discharged, it sounds like he was fucking with it, or it wasn't in a holster and something in his pocket snagged the trigger. He's a fucking dolt. Even in a pocket, your gun should be holstered, if for no other reason than to protect the trigger.

The ONLY person who brought violence and crime into that restaraunt was HIM.

But it's cool....can't have his "right" to be part of a well regulated militia infringed upon.

That guy was an idiot.

And no, we can't have that right infringed upon. EVER.

There are plenty of responsible people you come into contact with every day who carry concealed and you never know it. That's how it should be.

Agreed

I respect your opinion but I disagree...I don't see how adding more guns to an already over saturated population helps. Particularly when I look around and don't see ANY well regulated militias providing security for a free State as the right is prefaced in the Second Amendment.

Check the stats homie... gun control legislation increases violent crime rates... State by state here in the US, overseas in England, Australia, etc...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGmF...eature=related

As far as the second amendment is concerned....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

And my basic stance on the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBMq6b4MmE&NR=1

that's because as it stands right now millions of people legally own guns. want to find out how much they keep your state safe take away the guns that are legally owned. you will quickly find out that when only criminals own guns then criminals will control your state.

Point of clarification....

Individuals with guns in their own home applying the "king of their castle" defense? Game on.

Individuals with guns in public places? Not a fan.

And that's your right and opinion, many states and statistics disagree w you

It only takes 1x at an' innocent' location for bad things to happen

I agree with you on theory only... The truth is, banning guns anywhere only bans guns for law-abiding citizens... By definition and nature, criminals disregard these laws so the only thing anti-gun anything does is leave everyone who obeys the law at the mercy of anyone who doesn't.

Because an unloaded gun makes a piss poor club! Idiots are idiots ,, Idiots with cars kill far more people than idiots with guns. The guy appears to have been an idiot, take away his permit. He is subject to civil law in any event.
Perhaps more importantly than looking here in the US Look at the Swiss where everyone of military age has a fully automatic rifle and ammunition. (By Law) One of the lowest crim rates anywhere in the world

This.

One of the guys in my unit is in a UC counter drug unit. He was telling me of an incident where one of the rookies to the unit was adamant about not "taking work home". To that extent, he refused to carry while off duty.
Because of this, he got to witness his wife and children get murdered while he lay helpless on the floor. Had he been carrying a gun, he admits he would have had multiple opportunities to take out the gunman.

Just saying... if you are legally able to carry, and you do not, then you could just as well not carry at all.
That is my biggest problem with not being able to carry while in uniform.

That last point is where my line gets crazy. I feel completely fine carrying mine at night, driving at night, if im walking anywhere alone, on campus, on the bad side of town, on my nightstand. Into freaking smokey bones??? NO.

Yes that is what has been reported. But one thing you can count on is that American media is decidedly slanted when firearms are involved. In Baltimore in the mid 90s a citizen used a licensed side arm to stop a robbery. It was reported as a Gunfight as a store. My only point is we don't know what actually happened.

Where it goes wrong in my mind is this....

This guy presumably had a license to carry a gun in public....he left the house carrying his gun thinking that if he encountered any trouble, he would be part of the solution....his own defense.

Instead....he carried his gun into a public place and BECAME THE PROBLEM. Completely innocent people were wounded....for NOTHING. HE WAS THE PROBLEM.

I mean...there has GOTTA be some kind of judgement involved? Some kind of common sense? Like....it's night time....I'm on an unfamiliar urban street...maybe I should take my gun out of the car with me when I need to walk to my appointment. OK...I suppose I get that.

But...it's the dinner hour at a restaraunt....I'm gonna carry my gun out of the car and into the restaraunt with me "just in case."

Really? That just smacks of foolish pride to me.....foolish, arrogant "I've got a gun...I'm so cool" pride.

It's this kind of lack of judgement, and IN MY OPINION that is what is missing in this and probably many other cases, that makes this "I'll carry my gun into public places" thing a really bad idea.

The woman in the first video I posted watched her mother and father executed in front of her at a diner during a robbery at lunch time. She carried but was in a gun-free zone.

It's just like wearing gear when you ride... Probably won't need it, but if you do, you'll be damn glad you have it.

Is the problem that he carried a gun into the restaurant? Or that he was an idiot?

You don't really get to pick the location where you might need that gun. Just ask those folks at Luby's in the 90's. They were just at dinner, too.

My friend was riding his bike on the road, observing all the rules of the road. A semi-truck going too fast and the driver was tired. He didn't see my friend until it was too late. My friend is dead. Shit happens to good people and bad people. For all the responsible people out there who understand the responsibilities, there's shit heads who fuck things up and hurt people. The guy with the gun, from what little information is available, acted irresponsibly. His actions do not reflect upon other gun owners, only himself. I agree that he should be punished in some way. He got a CCW, which gives him rights, but also responsibilities, and he failed to meet those responsibilities. The other people in that restaurant who were carrying without anybody being aware of it shouldn't have their rights questioned because of ol' shitbag.

I normally stay out of the gun debate but this guy had no business carrying if he was fucking with his weapon - especially if it was in his pocket and not in some kind of holster while it was in there.

I no longer carry because my wife doesn't like it and because I didn't want that responsibility with a toddler in the house (just locked rifles left in the house in a vault). That being said, I was taught to NEVER put your fingers anywhere near the trigger, slide (or hammer depending on your weapon of choice), safety, etc unless you plan on firing a round or clearing the weapon. This guy was an idiot. Period.

Just like the guy on the ZZR today who passed me at over a buck and almost killed someone going around a corner wasn't representative of all riders, this guy shouldn't be considered representative of all those who carry.

So this idiots gun goes off

How many more times have gun carriers carried in ' safe' places w/o incident

How many times have crimes been deterred by legal gun carriers

My guess us both the last 2 are slot moire then the first

Guy should have his license revoked and civil fines the max

This...

You wouldn't have an accidental discharge unless something strikes the round. In the closed cylinder of a revolver that could only be the hammer and in order for that to happen the hammer would have to be cocked back thus advancing the cylinder to a live round so I really dont see what good having an empty chamber under the hammer is, just means one less shot...

An unchambered pistol is about as useless as tits on a Boar hog, unless you just need a club... IMO

I am seeing a disturbing pattern here. First, carrying a weapon with a round chambered, unless you are heading into imminent danger violates all the rules of firearm training for concealed carry. We are not talking military or LEO here. We are talking firearm safety classes and the "carry" classes necessary to obtain the permit. (in Florida) That rule is right there with never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire.

The second point is a revolver is one step quicker from concealment to fire than the pistol. It is pull, point and pull the trigger. There is no safety to check or release.

The third point is that if I need more than 5 shots to get myself clear of the situation, I am in combat, and not self defense.

The whole purpose of self defense is not to be involved in some Steven Segal movie where you are standing in the middle of a restaurant firing 17 shots, reload, fire 17 more and keep going until everyone is dead. The purpose is to defend yourself from attack while getting yourself and your family out of the situation.

If someone can find a news account where someone fired more than 5 or 6 shots in self defense to defuse the situation, post it up. I follow these stories closely and most self defense situations I study show that an attacker is fought off or scared off with 1, 2 or maybe 3 shots

I don't know who taught you firearms safety, but they suck at it. I have never heard that, and have had plenty of training.

I see you've looked at cases of self defense and how many rounds were fired. That's great.

Did you also investigate how long the incidents lasted? Do you honestly believe, in a true life or death situation, where you are not supposed to pull your gun unless you've made the decision to use it, that you're going to have time to pull the gun and rack the slide (providing it's a semi auto)?

You don't lose any time with your revolver, but you are losing a round with your empty chamber.

Have you also looked at the rates of shots on target vs missed shots in such a stressful situation?

Look into those. That's why I carry more rounds than what a wheel gun holds with one chamber empty.

I agree with a lot of this, but the chambered round is not mentioned anywhere here: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html

1. I can respect your opinions, but i disagree with all of this. I took my CCW in Florida as well. Our class was taught by three police officers. Not one of them mentioned anything about having a round chambered being a violation of concealed carry. Rather, they left the option in our hands. There is no such rule on carrying with a chambered round. If you wish to carry at that condition, that's your prerogative, but I will always disagree with that.

2. I don't see how you have a revolver being one step quicker. If you're carrying on an empty cylinder:
step one: present firearm
step two: pull trigger. since the cylinder is empty, it'll be a dry fire and the cylinder will rotate to a chambered round
step three: pull trigger
--- or ---
step one: present firearm
step two: pull trigger on a chambered round and boom.

--- vs ---

step one: present firearm
step two: rack slide
step three: pull trigger
--- or---
step one: present firearm
step two: pull trigger

A semi-auto may have one additional step if there's an external safety, and in that regard I'll give you one additional step, but on many striker fired pistols and double action hammer fired, there may not be a safety, so that step does not exist. I carry a Glock which has no traditional external safety. Much like my revolver, it's present weapon, pull trigger, bang.

3. The purpose of carrying is self defense. You don't get to choose the situation in which you draw a weapon, you can only be prepared for the worst. I agree that there's a point in which it doesn't make sense to carry x amount of bullets. I have friends who carry a full magazine in the gun plus a spare. I draw the line at a full magazine. Nobody wants to be in any bad situation, and there's a good chance that many people will not be. But you don't carry for the good situations.

Minor correction...
Pulling the trigger of a double action revolver advances the cylinder and cocks the hammer. Therefore, if you are carrying it with one empty chamber, would it be the one in place or the one that it would advance to when cocked?
If it were the one in place, that would make sense. Any impacts to the hammer would have no chance of touching a primer. Then, when you draw it and pull the trigger, it advances to a loaded chamber and everything works as intended.
However, I agree that this isn't a great safety measure since you would be going into a potential multi-shot situation down one round in an already low capacity firearm.
If you're worried about something snagging or impacting the hammer and causing an accidental discharge, there are several DAO revolvers which have no exposed hammer.

Not to mention that, unfortunately, there is no "emotional stability" test when issuing a concealed permit.

It's no different than the general population: A substantial percentage of people who carry are going to have certain "issues".

I also carry a revolver. It's a 5 shot, so I'm already down one round. I'm not going to make it a 4 shot by keeping an empty spot. Also, my holster has a strap over the hammer. So, not only would something have to catch on the trigger hard enough to activate the double action, it's also going to have to be hard enough to overcome the strap. Good luck with that. I hope I never have to use the gun. I also hope I never have to "use" my motorcycle helmet, but I wear one anyway, even on the "short" trips. And to those saying that nobody should carry in a "safe" location, I ask how you determine a "safe" location. Can you see the future to know that with 100% certainty nobody is going to come in and rob the place?

I absolutely hate that both of my jobs have rules against carrying. Not only that, but both jobs also have rules against having ANY weapon in my vehicle while on duty, including pepper spray. That's right, I can't have ANYTHING that can be conceived as a weapon on my person, or in my vehicle. Yet, in both jobs, I run the risk of being attacked, whether it's someone wanting to rob me, or someone pissed off at me. It's absolutely assanine that I can't carry in either position.

Correlation does not facilitate causation. Because these claims are not in a non-controlled media, you cannot infer that more OR less gun legislation increased crime rates.