Chattanooga-Shooting-Guarding-Recruiters-3

Following the shooting of a couple military recruiting locations in Chattanooga about a week ago something heartwarming happened: private citizens came out to defend the military. Armed with their “who really needs an assault rifle?” firearms, they stood guard and showed that the actions of one terrorist aren’t going to scare us away from defending ourselves home and abroad. That was all well and good, until one idiot had an accidental discharge and ruined it for everyone else.

From the Columbus Dispatch:

The owner of a shopping center that includes a storefront military recruitment center ordered armed civilians guarding the center to leave the premises today after one of them accidentally fired his rifle.

[…]

Reed told the officer who responded that he was holding his AR-15 rifle in front of the military recruiting station to guard the personnel inside when someone approached him and asked if he could take a look at the weapon. Reed agreed to show him, and while he was trying to clear the ammunition from the weapon, he accidentally fired into the asphalt pavement.

The only damage was a hole in the pavement. The rifle was taken from Reed pending his appearance in court, the incident report says.

Needless to say, this will be used as more grist for the mill as people like the Huffington Post continue to declare that the average citizen is too stupid to properly use a firearm.

[h/t Christian]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

186 COMMENTS

  1. This is why we can’t have nice things, I hope some of his fellow OCers beat the guy who screwed this up for everyone with a damn hose. This does nothing but hurt our 2A rights.

    • Idiots abound

      http://www.cbs46.com/story/29573194/man-accidentally-shoots-self-at-military-recruiting-office

      “A Navy recruiter is recovering in the hospital after accidentally shooting himself with his personal weapon that he brought to work Friday morning.

      Gainsville Police said he accidentally shot himself in the upper thigh. No one else was injured.

      The incident happened at a military recruiting office on Dawsonville Highway.

      Police said they are looking into whether the recruiter brought the gun for protection in light of the events that occurred in Chattanooga. As of Friday afternoon, the recruiter who shot himself did not make any statements to investigators.

      The man couldn’t have his gun on his hip because of the policy, but other store owners tell CBS46 that they heard the recruiter may have been hiding the gun in his front pocket. They say it went off as he was sitting down.”

    • This is our picture and it is unlawful to use our picture discussing a incident that did not happen with our group. Please remove it ASAP or our Lawyer will be contacted.

    • I’ve read everyone of these comments , most of them I agree with . I was so proud when I first heard about all these citizens standing for what was right , I couldn’t contain myself and I still am proud .
      When I heard on the local news that there were groups here in WV doing this my first thought was , I sure hope they don’t do something stupid to embarrass the state of WV ., I even joked about it to my wife , almost exactly what ended up happening .
      ALL I CAN SAY NOW IS , THANK GOD IT WASN’T IN WV . Sorry Buckeyes , it’s your turn .
      I don’t think anyone should stop what they are doing , just the idiotic moron that pulled that trigger .

    • This is our picture and it is unlawful to use our picture discussing a incident that did not happen with our group. Please remove it ASAP or our Lawyer will be contacted.

      • it would seem at best the only person able to even try to threaten a lawsuit would be Eric Schultz from AL.com, since he owns the picture( and that’s even if he cares). though there is a link to his copyright if you click it which means ttag isn’t stealing it

        • >> there is a link to his copyright if you click it which means ttag isn’t stealing it

          Copyright doesn’t work that way in general. You can’t just use a random photo – adding the appropriate attribution to the original copyright owner doesn’t mean that you automatically get permission to use it.

          (I doubt the photog cares much in practice, though. He might have if this were a website of some major newspaper or TV channel, but otherwise…)

  5. Not accidental, negligent. Fucking idiot, don’t dick with your loaded gun in public.

    • Bugger and booger are to distinctly different words. The first is a verb and the second is a noun…

      Buggery with your firearm can be a life altering experience…..

      • You correct his use of “bugger”. However, you cannot differentiate between to and two.

        How interesting.

  7. My emotions ran from funny to scary when seeing pictures of these armed citizens guarding recruiting offices, but definitely not heartwarming. This story reaffirmed my original feelings.

  8. The problem that we need to face is: some people are clearly just too stupid to safely carry firearms. I don’t have a solution but to ignore that reality is foolish.

    • OMG: here’s icing on the cake, from the main story:

      > Reed was convicted of the same offense
      > in 2013, and was fined $50, court
      > records show.

    • Can’t that be assumed of every other human activity? Driving a car, raising a child etc..?

        • If you’re working to imply something, Ralph, please do the courtesy of saying it straight. I’m not sure I get your meaning.

      • Completely true. Though driving a car (on public roads) is a privilege and you must demonstrate proficiency and familiarity with the applicable laws before being granted a license…which leads to one of the main areas of tension on firearms (right vs privilege).

        • Might be a debate, but gun ownership is still a right. BUT…just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

        • While I do not agree with you on the driving is a privilege meme, I will agree with you that even in the pre-auto era the conveyances of the day still required training and practice to be proficient and safe with (horseback, buggy, bicycle).

          It’s only speed and F=MV that makes automobiles comparatively dangerous. Though ask Christopher Reeves how he feels about horseback… oh.

        • As a side issue, driving is not a privilege. The free movement on public roads we paid for with our tax dollars is a right.

          The only time a license historically was needed was for tax purposes if a person was a commercial hauler moving goods on the roads.

          There was no requirement for a license or identification to travel on the roads for private travel whether by foot, horse or wagon. ,

          With the advent of the car, there was initially no need for a license or ID for travel on the roads. Over time, it slowly became the norm for a license and to have an ID while in a motor vehicle, but the essential right of free travel on the public roads, regardless of conveyance, has not changed.

        • In looking at driving today – and by “driving” perhaps I should be more specific and say “operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway” – I have a hard time seeing the view that it is a right, and not a privilege controlled by the state as it exists today in the United States. But I’m not sure of we’re apart on this due to semantics; I’m thinking that, technically, if my licensed wife is driving down the road and I’m a passenger in her car, I’m ‘driving’ in a sense on a public road and have every right to be there. Likewise, I can ‘drive’ my bicycle down the road, and have every right to be there (so long as I follow the laws, hmmm). But when it comes to operating a motor vehicle, as it exists today, that seems to be entirely controlled by the state with laws, requirements for insurance, passing a proficiency examination, and obtaining a (revokable) license. To me, that seems the definition of “privilege.”

          • CGinTX, I applaud you for attempting to develop some understanding of this distinction between the semantics underlying “right” vs. “privilege”. We PotG make a great deal of this distinction without necessarily having developed clear definitions for either term.

            As respects a “driver’s license”, I fail to see much of a practical distinction from a “right”. If I am a resident of the State of X and present the prescribed documentation of my identity they will administer a vision test, written test and behind-the-wheel test. Then, they WILL hand be a license. I will keep that license so long as I don’t establish a grievously bad driving record. The State of X doesn’t have much practical discretion in refusing or revoking my license.

            I’m expected to produce documentation to identify myself; much the same as I have to produce to buy a gun at an FFL or to vote for the first time in the precinct I’ve just registered in. These are not unreasonable; indeed, most of us would argue in favor of voter-ID and support denying sales of guns to illegal aliens.

            The vision, written and behind the wheel tests are not onerous. Virtually everyone who attempts these tests passes within 2 or 3 attempts at most. The State of X could – of course – by legislative or DoT action, make the tests onerous. However, that just isn’t politically feasible so long as the voters in the State insist on the widespread licensure of drivers.

            There is little that is arbitrary about issuing driver’s licenses. It would be hard to imagine a State getting away with licensing drivers who are members of one political party or only drivers who are of a particular race.

            Socially, we are a nation that regards driving as a liberty to which every qualified individual is entitled. And, socially, this is what we expect from government generally. When a state imposes some onerous barrier (e.g., requiring a cosmetology license to braid hair) it strikes us as over-reaching.

            It seems to fly in the face of our traditions for government to grant or withhold permission based on entirely arbitrary exercise of discretion. It doesn’t really matter whether one term or another is applied; “privileges”, “immunities”, “rights”, ” licenses”, “permits”. What is at issue is whether the government can stand in the way of one person vs. another doing something absent some objective distinction between the two people. “Knowing the right people” doesn’t count.

            It seems to me that we ought to be pushing THIS point. I.e., simply that RKBA is a “right” and the government can’t arbitrarily pick-and-choose who has the right to bare arms anymore than it can choose who has a right to speak.

            The definition of “privilege” and its distinction from a “right” is an UN-necessary diversion.

            Too many of us get caught-up in complaining about a $100 fee for a CWP or an 8 – 16 hour class. We insist that if one can vote without paying a fee or taking a class then one should be able to bare arms without a fee or class. In principle, I agree. Now, politically, does this principled position advance our cause?

            We are trying to win-over a general public to be affirmatively on-board in supporting the Right-to-Carry. And, we want to start the conversation complaining about:
            – the $100 fee?
            – taking a class?

            How do our complaints about $100 and a class win over hearts and minds?

            We should be trying to get the general population across all 50 States to support the Right-to-Carry. Especially those voters in the 40 States that already recognize the Right-to-Carry. We need voters in these 40 States to tell their Congress-critters to vote for National Reciprocity over the objections of the last 5 – 10 States that do NOT recognize a Right-to-Carry.

            Do we really want our message to be:

            “We demand – DEMAND – Constitutional Carry throughout the US.
            We will settle for no incremental steps such as National Reciprocity
            or Shall-Issue in the last 5 – 10 foot-dragging States!”

            Wouldn’t we be better off demanding National Reciprocity as the only Congressional solution to the 5 – 10 States that so defy the 2A that they have refused to adopt Shall-Issue?

        • MarkPA, although I largely agree with you that the requirements to obtain a driver’s license are minimal, if – in spite of those requirements, driving is still considered a “right” then it’s not a difficult reach to state that requiring someone to take educational classes and display basic proficiency in carrying and operating a firearm doesn’t impact the “right” to keep and bear arms. However, it doesn’t take much reading of TTAG to find that most of the PotG feel – vehemently – otherwise and that if you propose or agree with such education and licensing for firearms, you are by definition a statist and interfering with the RKBA.

          • “. . . it doesn’t take much reading of TTAG to find that most of the PotG feel – vehemently – otherwise

            and that if you propose or agree with such education and licensing for firearms, you are by definition a statist and interfering with the RKBA.”

            Yes, you are quite right. And my fellow readers can accuse me all they like. I fully support their freedom of the press as I do their RKBA.

            That doesn’t make the political implications go away. Those implications exist whether I write about them or not.

            If our response to CWP fees and training are DEEMED by the general public to be petty then our making petty arguments undermines our cause. The issue is NOT whether I deem them to be petty. I have no influence on the general public. It ONLY matters whether the general public deems them to be petty.

            IF – and to the extent – the general public deems such objections to be petty then we have to sharpen our rhetoric. We could say that: “Poll taxes – i.e., a tax on the exercise of the voting right – were outlawed by Constitutional amendment. To impose a fee to get a CWP is kind-of-like a poll tax on a Constitutional right. Albeit the fee in our State is low ($20 or $100) in other States its quite high; as much as $300. We object – in principle – to such fees. More importantly, we object to such fees because they have a disproportionate effect on people who can’t afford to pay such fees.

            Make a similar argument about taking a prescribed course of study. A poor person – or any person – should be free to study books and take a written test. Whether it’s taking a class or passing a written test, it smacks of the “literacy tests” for voting used to discriminate against Blacks.

            My own preferred approach is to turn the training requirement to our own benefit. Congress has explicit authority to “prescribe” the discipline for the militia. The States have an apparent Constitutional duty to “train the militia”. We PotG have no objection – indeed we support – the idea of Congress exercising it’s power to “prescribe the discipline for the militia” such as, e.g., the 4 rules and so forth. We further support States requiring the teaching of the prescribed discipline in public schools. Once implemented, the entire population would be trained to the national standard found adequate by Congress and according to the curriculum established by our respective State legislatures. Completely resolves the Constitutional reservations when harbor about qualifying for CWPs.

            It should be obvious that the Antis will oppose widespread gun safety and use education. This maneuver will put them into a corner where they have to put-up or shut-up.

            At this juncture, things are rolling our way. We have 40 States that honor a Right-to-Carry, mostly by Shall-Issue. The momentum seems to be building for Constitutional Carry with about 7 States now; leaving 33 with some sort of CWP requirement. We should see ourselves having two mutually-inclusive goals:
            – turning the remaining 5 – 10 Won’t-Issue into Shall-Issue States on any terms possible;
            – turning the Shall-Issue States toward Constitutional-Carry by reductions and elimination of fees and training.

            Likely, it will be a long time before the last Shall-Issue State becomes Constitutional-Carry. That’s OK. It’s more important to eliminate the Won’t-Issue States. If that takes settling for Shall-Issue as an interim measure, we ought to be willing to take 3/4 of a loaf.

        • You guys claiming that requiring licensing and education to own a firearm is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms I disagree with. It very much is so. You don’t need a license to engage in free speech. Or in voting. Or in any other right for the most part. Arms are not different, and requirements of such can seriously infringe on a person’s ability to utilize such right for self-protection. For example, look at all the people who bought guns in Ferguson in fear of the riots. What if they all found that first they had to get a license, which required taking a test, paying a fee, etc…and thus a long waiting period as the test may only be given once or twice a month and could be cancelled at any time. They would then have been unable to protect themselves.

          Driving a basic car is also a right, but one that unfortunately has been turned into a privilege. Because let’s face it, almost any moron can get a driver’s license. If we truly required proficiency in laws and driving skill, too many people would fail to the point that it would infringe on the ability of society to function. So the requirements are very lenient. Also, I do not agree that making driver’s license requirements stricter is prevented by the public. It is prevented by the fact that society could not function if they were too strict. Licenses for specialized vehicles like big trucks, buses, aircraft, etc…is fine, but for ordinary vehicles, it is just a way for the government to keep tabs on people.

          • You have made some good points and I agree with many of them. What I would like to see us PotG do on this training requirement issue is sharpen our rhetoric so that we are more effective politically.

            In the public mind, there is a strong predisposition to preferring some training – even more training – when their safety is at stake. We really do need to speak to this concern if we are to win them over. They are not particularly interested in issues such as constitutionalism and our distinctions between right and privilege. They are not particularly worried about the consequences for them of the votes cast by an idiot; they are concerned about the personal consequences of a shot fired by an idiot.

            Fortunately, we do not have a training prerequisite (of which I’m aware) for buying a gun or keeping it in the home. An argument to preserve this situation is that a gun fired in the home has a limited probability of leaving the home and threatening someone else.

            Unfortunately, we do have to deal with the issue under Right-to-Carry.

            The Ferguson incident is helpful, but not dispositive. Ferguson residents could buy guns and take them home. What we need to argue is that any citizen in like circumstances also needs to strap a gun to his hip and carry through a potentially riotous area – without a training requirement. That is a distinct and tougher argument to make.

            What are we really after with this issue? I can imagine 2 goals:
            – widespread recognition of the right/privilege distinction such that Right-to-Carry is acknowledged as absolutely exempt from even the slightest training or testing requirement whatsoever (analogous to the Constitutional prohibition against poll taxes).
            – a substantial barrier against an onerous training requirement.

            If recognition of the right/privilege distinction is a controlling goal then that eliminates any strategy to keep the burden of training to a minimum. We can’t argue that a 1-hour class or a test is sufficient. We can’t even argue that a person who can pick-out the 4 rules in a multiple-choice test is sufficient.

            Under this goal, we are expecting each listener to become comfortable that absolutely any 2A-able person in the nation can be trusted to behave responsibly without any training.

            Conversely, if our goal is to avoid onerous requirements, we have some maneuvering room.

            The typical voter who knows nothing about guns doesn’t have a clear picture of whether 4 – 8 – 16 – 24 or any other number of hours is sufficient. He is probably more comfortable with the idea of a person passing a test before he can do something that involves some danger.

            The biggest practical barrier with training is cost. I don’t particularly care about cost for myself; I’ve paid for over 100 hours of training voluntarily. I DO care about cost for those of modest means because it puts membership in the coalition-for-gun-rights out-of-reach for many people.

            In a State that has a Shall-Issue law with a training requirement, I’d argue to lower the barrier by converting to a testing requirement. I’d call for the Statue to designate either the NRA or the State affiliate of the NRA to prescribe the test. Who better to design the test than the organization that has been promoting gun safety the longest?

            It’s pretty hard for the Antis to screw with us over a test. If they try to make it onerous we can come at them with a “disparate outcome” attack. 80% of the OFWGs pass the test on the first try but only 20% of Black people pass after 4 tries. We need a test that minorities can pass otherwise this is a Jim Crow test. Once the State prescribes an onerous test we can learn what’s in the test and prepare cribbing materials to make sure everyone possible passes. Because we can do these things I very much doubt that the Antis will be able to succeed in using a test as a barrier.

            I recall hearing that the incidents of CWP-holders from no-training or low-training States are indistinguishable from those coming from high-training States. This is an argument we can use albeit I don’t think it’s particularly compelling.

            I think we can argue “common sense”. Nobody who undertakes to carry a gun wants to make a mistake that will put him in prison for years. We voluntarily train – if not in formal courses we do so with friends, acquaintances, by books or on the internet. It’s “common sense” to learn and observe the 4 rules; to observe “holster discipline” etc.

            Another aspect of getting clarity on this issue is how it applies geographically. It simply doesn’t have much impact where a State has had a Shall-Issue law for some time and the political forces are moving it toward Constitutional Carry. Momentum has already built. Legislators see that their constituents want Constitutional Carry. Just a little argument about the cost of training isn’t justified is all that is required.

            It can have some impact in a State with a Shall-Issue law and a high training requirement. Here, the next goal would better be to argue to reduce the training requirement to bring “our State’s” requirement into line with those of the other States with lower training requirements, no training requirements or Constitutional Carry. After lowering the requirement from 16 hours to 8 hours we can go back and try to reduce it to 4 or 0 hours.

            I’m afraid that arguing against training requirements is counter-productive in converting Won’t-Issue States to Shall-Issue. That conversion is – IMO – a more important goal. Such States already have (I believe) training requirements for armored car couriers; I’d argue that those requirements are the ceiling for non-commercial carry permits. We need these last few populous Won’t-Issue States to recognize a Right-to-Carry with far greater urgency than we need them to agree with us about a philosophical point about a training mandate distinguishing between a right vs. privilege.

            We need to win a war for Right-to-Carry; we don’t need to win a philosophical debate about why a training requirement is violative of a Constitutional mandate of “not be infringed”.

        • You make good points, however, I would say that part of winning the war on the issue includes the philosophical issue about shall not be infringed. I know in California that there is a waiting period for acquiring any guns and I believe all guns there must now be registered with the state. In New York where I am, all hand guns require a hand gun license to purchase, and it is May Issue.

    • We PotG need to think about the problem we are creating for ourselves.

      Think of our community as-if it were made up of crusty-OFWGs who have the rules of gun-handling pretty-well down-pat.

      Now, we want to expand our community as rapidly as we can for political purposes. The more members of the PotG the more votes we have to bring-to-bear at election time.

      We can’t possibly bring all our new recruits up-to-speed as seasoned OFWGs overnight. The more successful we are at recruiting, the more failures we will have with attitude, training and accidents.

      Along with everything else we have to worry about, we must also be keenly aware of promoting gun-safety among our new recruits (as well as among ourselves as presumably well disciplined gun users.)

      Why was this guy carrying a chambered rifle in a context where he did not expect to fire within a second or two? Why did the recruiter (cited in a comment above) have a ND while sitting down with a pistol in his pocket? No pocket holster?

      By this time in the course of history we should already know about all the failure-points (round-in-the-chamber under unwarranted circumstances; holster discipline; etc.) Why aren’t we conveying and reinforcing these failure-points to “young and old” alike?

    • SOLUTION .
      300 million to study the problem
      400 million to replace every window in every recruitment center with bullet resistant glass
      5 billion to install scanner equipment at the entrance in every recruitment center
      1.7 billion allocated to train and hire deadbeats to man the scanners in every recruitment center
      5 million to study the color and style of uniforms for the deadbeats hired for every recruitment center
      2 million to do a study on what to call the deadbeats hired for every recruitment center
      40 million for special uniforms for recruitment center security checkpoint scanner guards
      3 million for badges that say ‘ Recruitment Center Security Checkpoint Scanner Guard
      120 million for stun guns for every guard in every recruitment center
      7 million for signs that say ;
      ” These Premises are being monitored by Recruitment Center Security Checkpoint Security Guards armed with high power stun guns behind super strong bullet resistant glass “

  9. I’m fine with open carry, in principle…but fuck. It’s sad that they really think they were really accomplishing anything anyway. This is going to happen when you have these people finger phucking their weapons in public.

    Thanks as Sholes for making us all look bad and give anti ammo for their rapid fire, high power weapon….the media.

  10. Round in chamber – check
    Safety off – check
    Brain off – check
    Low hanging fruit for the anti-2A crowd – check

  11. Don’t tell me, let me guess, he pointed it at the ground and pulled the trigger to decock it and prove that it was empty after he ‘cleared’ it.

    Reminds me of the story about the IT specialist who got stuck on guard duty in the Army. At the end of his shift, he walked into HQ and cleared his M16 as best as he could remember from basic training. He carefully pointed it straight up in the air, cycled the action, removed the magazine, and pulled the trigger. Problem was, he was supposed to remove the mag and then cycle the bolt. When the bullet came up between a colonel’s knees and through his 2nd floor desk right past his face, he went downstairs in a rather poor mood, looking for somebody to court-martial.

  12. Jeez, 1. if you can’t clear a round without firing the weapon, maybe you shouldn’t keep one in the pipe.
    2. Try this, “No it’s a loaded weapon. That isn’t safe”.

    • Perhaps in preparation for the anatomical sword fight with said stranger. …. alot of stupid lead up to this….

    • And here’s something else… if you consider yourself as providing “armed security” for a site maybe you shouldn’t be handing your gun to some dude who comes up and asks to see it.

      • I agree entirely Hannibal. That is why I have a strong inclination that Negligent Nicolas (I don’t know and don’t care what the person’s actual name is) is an Agent Provocateur for gun-grabbers.

        • Whoever this fellow concerned citizen was , howbeit he had a moment of sheer stupidity , he is now a very depressed gun owner , maybe not such a good thing . Come forward , face your shame , admit how it happened , apologize and learn from your mistake and then get on with your life . SHIT HAPPENS . I forgive you and still respect you for your heart being in the right place . I didn’t do anything but bemoan . God bless .

  13. This infuriates me! If you can’t handle your weapon you shouldn’t have it! Period! I don’t have that much of a problem with the negligent discharge in reality. It happens to the best of us. What I have a problem with is that this guy is there representing us, taking up a defensive position against potential would-be terrorists and what does he do?!?! He goes all show-and-tell! Did he think he was at the range?!?! What a F’n idiot! Who does that? If this guy was OC’ing at Walmart and someone asked to see his pistol would he just hand it over? God I’m livid over this! I’m a big OC’er but between the Mall Ninjas and morons like this I’m even starting to feel a little self conscious when I do it. Thanks a lot stupid!

  17. i really wasn’t too thrilled with most of these guys outside of the recruitment offices to begin with. A majority of the pictures I’ve seen have shown them lounging in lawn chairs ‘showing the flag’ and not really guarding much of anything.

    Frankly, this incident is just- I can’t decide between ‘shameful’ or ’embarrassing’ but you can fill in your own adjective.

    I hope this clown is publicly shamed for smearing all of us with his foolishness. What possessed him to hand his firearm over to someone he (presumably) didn’t know? And to not be able to clear it properly? Jesus. Someone give this guy a piece of wood shaped like a gun until he completes a carbine course at a reputable academy!

    • Shebarresing?

      Embarriful?

      At least he cleared it before handing it over for “show and tell” during guard duty. That’s got to count for something.

  18. 1) I have no problem clearing an AR with safety on. 2) If your volunteering as security, it’s not show and tell and you shouldn’t unload your weapon. This deserves the dumb ass of the day award, Thank God noone was injured.

  20. Well, at least he had the rifle pointed in a safe direction. Jeff Cooper would be pleased that somebody followed one of his rules.

  21. “…the average citizen is too stupid to properly use a firearm.”

    The average US citizen can’t balance her own checkbook. (“Her” because there are more women than men in the US so odds are “the average” is female. Anyway.) Or to use the internet.

    However, last I checked, fundamental rights aren’t subject to capability tests.

      • I would tend to agree with that . Right to own should not be interpreted to be , give everyone one . You don’t have to be smart necessarily you need some common sense , about what it takes to use a hammer but you must be coherent , alert , and sufficiently trained to respect what it is you want to attain the right for . I personally would include a lot more training in the acquisition of CC permits . I would make sure the permit holder had dissembled and reconfigured the particular gun they used in their class for starters , cleaned it at least once and fired it under stress at least once ( while under timer ) . YES , some people should not carry a weapon , still have a right , but just don’t exercise it unless absolutely necessary .
        If you can’t remember what you did with your car keys or purse or wallet
        If you routinely put aluminum foil in the microwave and paper plates in the toaster oven
        If you occasionally forget how to tie your shoes
        If you drive your automobile like you own the road and become insane when you encounter one like yourself
        feel free to add to the list .

        • After I read this back I realized that reconfiguring the gun after disassembling it would probably be a bad idea . I can’t think of the word I want ( put it back together ) geeez .

    • “However, last I checked, fundamental rights aren’t subject to capability tests.”

      What other “fundamental rights” involve the capacity to kill lots of things quickly?
      Right to self-determination
      Right to liberty
      Right to due process of law
      Right to freedom of movement
      Right to freedom of thought
      Right to freedom of religion
      Right to freedom of expression
      Right to peacefully assemble
      Right to freedom of association

      I can understand the concern that any capability test can be abused to make sure the “wrong” people (i.e. the ones the powers-that-be don’t like) are denied access. But when you eliminate any requirement to demonstrate capability for responsible behaviour with equipment that can cause maiming or death, you wind up with armed morons like this guy and thousands more.

      That’s why the handling of any other potentially lethal tools/equipment from cars, through heavy equipment, to explosives and many others require training and licensing. Sure you still get thousands killed in car accidents (most involving drunk driving or speeding) but think how much higher the death toll would be if any moron could go into a dealership and come out driving a car with no training (except perhaps playing GTA IV). That’s the NRA’s utopia for gun ownership in the USA.

      • Like it or not, this is the reason why the Founders made sure the second amendment was enshrined into the U.S. Constitution. Probable because they knew beforehand the excuses the Federal government was going to make regarding the right to bear arms.

      • That was fairly well stated Paul .
        We don’t have to confuse a deprivation of a right with a qualification to exercise that right .
        I never said I forbid you to go to the swimming hole , I only stipulated that you needed to learn to swim first .
        I don’t want an absolute moron anywhere around me with a loaded gun any more than I would a lunatic terrorist .

  23. Typical. …Please send them home, and arm our disciplined, trained soldiers to defend their posts.

    • Were this the case, I wouldn’t expect a bumper sticker or car. Obama supporters are bused directly to location.

    • Day-glo green shirt, camo crocs. Who the hell let this guy outside without adult supervision?

    • Is it just me or does the guy in the photo have his booger finger on the bang switch? Hard to tell because he also has the fingers from his support hand near the trigger too. C’mon!

      A lot of fail in that photo (and not even including the fashion issues).

  26. You knew, you just knew, this was gonna happen somewhere, sometime. I’m sure glad no one was hurt. Too bad we can’t post them here, this one is worth at least a double facepalm.

    • @Good Riddance: Yep just like one car accident proves that all drivers are idiots. And one airplane crash proves that all pilots are idiots or that all planes are unsafe. Might want to study up on logic a bit more.

      • You mad bro?

        This is merely incremental proof, anyone who buys the military worship propaganda disseminated by the government is intellectually stunted by definition.

        • “U mad bro?”

          Do people really still find it fashionable to use that phrase? I guess so.

          Btw, not every story regarding the military automatically has to involve the “worship” of the military.

        • It’s a classic line.

          And let’s face it, anyone who feels obliged to “guard” recruitment centers is a worshiper of the military.

          • Nonsense!
            I take these people to be making a political statement:

            – If Congress and the DoD can’t figure this out then we will have to pitch-in as the unorganized militia. If government is devoid of shame then we will shame them by our actions.

        • The irony of people guarding volunteer killers for the world’s premiere terrorist organization (the US government) from “terrorists”. 🙂

          • No kidding. The U.S. military stopped having guard freedom and defense as it’s primary mission decades ago. I prefer to call it the U.S. Natural resource extraction and regime change force.

  29. The bright side is this moron is a statistical anomaly. The problem is that people rely more on emotional appeal than hard data.

    Goddam idiot. Why is he letting a stranger fondle his stick anyway?

    • I don’t know, between this guy and the Navy recruiter who shot himself, that’s two NDs defending recruiting stations in the past week. That’s some pretty awful data any way you slice it.

  30. That likely just killed the opportunity to arm. It is only one, it was pointed at the ground, but it fired. Sadly the anti-gun spin doesn’t take into account all which did not go off.

  32. No disrespect to the I got a gun club and I’ll protect the nations trigger pullers club…why so many OWFG available? Pulling VaCa time to pull guard duty or no J.O.B?

    • “why so many OWFG available?”

      Because lots of OFWGs are retired and have lots of free time…

  36. Wasn’t this a negligent discharge (ND) instead of an accidental discharge (AD)? There wasn’t a malfunction with the weapon, right? As I understand, he caused the shot.

  38. Good job…. DOPE….

    This just eviscerated any good PR these OC events at recruiting centers had.

    Thanks for the setback moron

    …. Stupid moron….

  39. The sad fact is that there are some in our group who are genuine idiots and parading around with a gun makes them feel like a “somebody”. I’m embarresed. I wish these dorks would just collect coins or something.

    • From that Stripes article

      ” A Navy officer and a Marine reportedly fired at the gunman (Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez), although it is unclear why they were armed. It is against Defense Department policy”

      Ummm, .. because self defense is a human right … plus they’re the ARMED Forces..? Maybe?

      The anti-disarmament blowback towards the government must be a real hassle right now, it’s taking focus away from making troops parade around town in those red high-heeled shoes..

    • It’s sort of cute that some people still believe the US military works for the American people. But it’s mostly dumb and pathetic.

      • The individual servicemember serves the American people. The leadership’s loyalty, however, belong to the political class.

        • So when an individual makes the conscious decision to work for these government crooks, somehow they are immune from the consequences of their choice even as they know the political leadership is corrupt to the core?

          This is what militarists actually believe.

  41. Geez, he’s without remorse. From the linked article:

    “He downplayed what happened. ‘It is what it is,’ he said. ‘Nobody got hurt.'”

    Next negligent discharge in 3…2….

  42. This was so “STUPID” its really hard to comment on what happened……. So many red flags! Your there protecting service personnel who’s own Government won’t let them protect them selves, so why would you even clear your weapon, unless you were being relieved by someone else and were going home!? Then to clear it to show it to someone whom you don’t know or what their intensions maybe, to me this goes beyond stupid!!!!!

  44. Idiot shouldn’t get his gun back without some serious “retraining”. I’m talking walking around a field with a dunce cap on while holding his rifle all the way out for hours in the middle of the hot sun. Sounds cruel and unusual but this kind of “accident” ruins tons and tons and tons of progress we make and its like infinite ammo for the anti’s. As I learned in the LE community, one bad incident undoes 10 good incidents.

    • “I’m talking walking around a field with a dunce cap on while holding his rifle all the way out for hours in the middle of the hot sun.”

      While making him grip the front sight post and the charging handle with the thumb and trigger fingers on both hands while holding the action open.

    • How about walking around with his britches down around his ankles, AR across his shoulder, sucking his thumb?

  45. One wonders just how effective these guys would be if a threat decided to attack while they were playing “Musical Fancy-Rifle”.
    Most of these guys weren’t there for any other reason than to be on T.V. and show off their shiny, rail-bedecked rifles. Wanna know how I know that? They were UNLOADING their weapons, in public, whilst “guarding” a high-value target. If you tell me to occupy a position, and then tell me that the enemy will likely attack my location, my freakin’ weapon will be perpetually loaded and I’ll be either out of sight or behind something bulletproof. I’m sure some of them took it seriously, but look at where they’re all standing. The space they’re occupying was the exact same space the Chattanooga shooter filled with bullets during his attack and they’re not even trying to be discrete. That’s like watching your enemy register his artillery and then establishing a FOB on that exact spot.
    Please. Get off my side. Things are bad enough without you making us all look like idiots.

    • Don’t we make a lot of noise around here about how terrorists and spree killers always attack “soft” targets? If that’s so, then wouldn’t making themselves as conspicuous as possible be enough to send the attacker looking for easier prey?

      Not that that gives them a pass for unloading guns and playing show-and-tell, but they’re not defending a FOB in a war zone. Hiding and making the place seem unguarded might not be the best strategy for this particular threat, especially if your “guards” are mostly untrained mall-ninja wannabes who might not be very effective in a firefight anyway.

  46. I know of many gatherings over the years and don’t recall a F-up like this happening. Seems very rare. Bad timing.

  47. Seriously, who gives a damn what the Huffington Post or Bloomberg has to say? Yeah I agree that the gentleman who really should have been more cautious made a mistake, but when liberals screw-up, blatantly lie, get all emotional that they are going to wet their pants do they get eaten by their own? I don’t think so, they circle the wagons and double down for their cause, maybe some of you critics need to be thinking along those terms.

    • Well aren’t we supposed to be better than HuffPo and the left?

      Holding people responsible for their actions is the adult thing to do (and that’s why the Left doesn’t )

      Yeah, being an adult is hard sometimes.

      • Some are trying to hold the individual to more responsibility than the individual owns. In this case, he messed up and negligently fired a round but nobody was hurt. Any responsibility beyond that isn’t his to be held accountable for. It’s a matter of blame shifting and scape-goating.

        • This is the second time he has done such a thing, though. And negligent discharge in a public place is a fairly serious thing – yes, no-one was hurt, but no thanks to him (to give a rough equivalent, if you drive onto the freeway and start going against traffic, even if you manage to not hurt anyone, you have still endangered people badly enough that there has to be some accountability for it).

        • @int19h: Yeah, Columbus already has a law for the alleged crime; discharging a firearm within the city limits. If he truly endangered anyone, there are already charges they can pursue. All of this other bullshit people are laying on him is what I’m referring to. I don’t care how many times he screwed up, none of it makes him responsible for how others think or feel. That’s on them alone.

          • As with every other interest-group, we PotG have to be concerned with our collective image as a group and the image of our issue – which is Right-to-Carry in this case.

            We must not be indifferent about the negligent or irresponsible behavior of other members of our own community. Quite to the contrary; we must self-discipline the members of our community. We do this at the range – we must be ever more vigilant in doing so in “policing” our members’ public behavior.

            Remember, we are in a battle to develop widespread recognition for a Right-to-Carry. Our battle is not already won; it was NOT won and preserved by prior generations. (The battle for free speech and free press was won long ago and is questioned by very few people today.) It’s not so easy to dismiss one person’s negligent/irresponsible act by saying that in other subject-areas we do not tar with a broad brush.

            It’s absolutely true that DUI drivers kill and injure but we don’t depreciate the rights of sober drivers on that account. Everybody is a driver and they will protect their own right-to-drive. We are trying to convert 90% of the population who do NOT already carry guns in public. They are more worried about public safety than they are worried about a right-to-carry that they don’t value for themselves.

            We are accomplishing what we need to do by publicizing this carrier’s negligent behavior and holding him up to public scorn. Others among us will learn from his example and be more careful.

        • @MarkPA: Nope. You won’t achieve the goal. It’s like trying to herd cats. People will do as people will do. And, time is always on government’s side. The best you will ever accomplish is some diluted list of suggestions for the courts to consider. In this specific area, we would be political enemies.

          Only belligerents have rights. I wish to keep my liberties at all costs, therefore, I will insist upon them in the strongest form necessary; even if that means ultimately violating laws (civil disobedience) or physically fighting for them (Sic semper tyrannis).

        • (The battle for free speech and free press was won long ago and is questioned by very few people today.)

          Ever heard of “free speech zones” or the NSA or NDAA or any number of infringements upon free speech these days? Even so-called “hate crime” laws are a violation of, among other things, freedom of speech. This battle has hardly been won.

          It’s absolutely true that DUI drivers kill and injure but we don’t depreciate the rights of sober drivers on that account. Everybody is a driver and they will protect their own right-to-drive. We are trying to convert 90% of the population who do NOT already carry guns in public. They are more worried about public safety than they are worried about a right-to-carry that they don’t value for themselves.

          This is some of the nonsense I intend to stop from happen. The right to travel was split into the right and a privilege through licensing. Today, the People just accept the infringements upon their right to travel. This is what will happen to the RKBA (and any other rights) and I intend to vehemently fight, tooth and nail, until my last breath, to prevent that from happening. If you accept this as an example for my natural rights then we are indeed political enemies.

        • We are accomplishing what we need to do by publicizing this carrier’s negligent behavior and holding him up to public scorn. Others among us will learn from his example and be more careful.

          Chanting “Burn the witch!” so they won’t come after me reeks of cowardice. It has been made clear throughout history that if you value your rights, you will ultimately fight for your freedom to exercise them. That doesn’t mean scapegoating others and playing appeasement games.

          • Who is “Chanting “Burn the witch!””? There are a few of us who heap scorn upon this negligent gun-carrier; perhaps one or two who metaphorically are alluding to a trip to the wood-shed. I doubt that any of them are actually serious about inflicting real physical violence.

            What would we say to this guy if his NGs had occurred at a range? He would very likely be suspended from a club range or banned for a time from a proprietary range. Do you suggest we adopt lower standards for gun-conduct in the public square?

            Are you asserting he has a RIGHT! to negligently discharge his gun in a public place? Are you suggesting that safety discipline in the public square is “appeasing” our enemies?

            I often think that in our battle for the hearts and minds of the voters that our own community members are among our worst enemies. Whatever parade-of-horribles the Anti’s raise in opposition to gun-rights someone among us will declare is a God-given natural right.

            “Some untrained irresponsible gun carrier might have a negligent discharge in a public place!”
            “You’re damed right! And, I or anybody else decides to discharge a gun negligently in a public place it’s our God-given right to do so guaranteed by the 2A! And, there is nothing anyone could say or do to take the Right of Negligent Discharge away from any of us!!!”

            This is supposed to win friends and influence people? If we loose the battle for Right-to-Carry it won’t be taken from us; the politically inept in our own camp will have given-it-away.

        • @MarkPA:

          tl;dr

          You know full well what I meant. It was colorful language not intended to be taken literally. Nice try though.

          I will now do as I should have when I read your first tl;dr comment some time ago… I shall return to not reading most them as many are a waste of my time. They’re often alot of words that usually end up advocating sniveling, groveling, and appeasement. That’s how we got here and that’s part of the big problem. But, please, continue your self-flagellation of the POTG.

          • I would make the same pledge to you, John in Ohio, but I rarely look at the author’s name. I try to read the text for the substance I find there.

            In any case, I’m grateful that I won’t enjoy your reading of my comments in the future.

  48. Being a gun owner means being a member of the only group that is legally and institutionally discriminated against, and being a member of the only group in which one person is used as representative of the whole.

    Muslim terrorists fly planes into buildings, shoot up recruitment centers, and wholesale slaughter Christians, but the “average” Muslims are treated like gods in this country. But one guy shoots a sidewalk, everyone’s to blame and gun owners are villainized.

    I’m surprised supermarket parking lots aren’t cleared and all the drivers villainized when a soccer mom dings a car with her minivan.

    Modern America. Insane at best.

    • Truly insane. The only reason one person exercising their right to bear arms is perceived as representing the whole is because so many gun owners apparently accept that narrative. Look at the ship of fools commenting about it here on TTAG. They are calling for the guy’s head; punishments in the sun before he can get his rifle back, suicide(?), etc. They apparently view the inalienable right as some sort of candy that’s distributed by the Emperor at the whim of the the mob. “Ruined it for the rest of us…” Pffffffft! Horseshit.

      POTG, if you don’t grow a pair, you will end up serfs cowering at each “misstep” of an individual and each headline that demonizes the RKBA. It’s past the time to put on your big girl panties, POTG. FFS, I’m honestly ashamed of some of the comments I’ve read here about this ND story.

      A guy screwed up. Nobody was hurt. People are going to think and say what they want about it. Full stop. No self-flagellation necessary. Eat an anti, not another POTG.

      • We all make mistakes. I make no claim of infallibility.

        Politics isn’t fair. We are up against the Bloomberg publishing empire and the MSM. A Person-of-the-Gun can’t spit on the sidewalk without sparking headline news.

        We need to be on-our-toes to feed them as few incidents as possible. It’s not that we need to “grow a pair” to be defenders of the RKBA. Rather, we must seek to muster our resources to maximize our efforts toward our goals and minimize the waste of energy making up for our mistakes.

        Clearly, in this case, we have a response:

        – The guy made a mistake; probably a couple of mistakes.
        – By observing muzzle discipline, the ND went into the pavement and didn’t threaten anyone.
        – ND are fairly rare; and, when they occur, it’s unusual that someone is injured.
        – NDs occur to professionals (police and military) as well as non-professionals alike.

        Internally, we need to constantly reinforce gun-safety. While we don’t have all the details it seems reasonable to question why he had a round in the chamber and why he would hand a gun to another person (just because he asked to look at it) in a place other than a range/hunting-ground/in-a-contained-area.

        Any time one is loading/unloading is a moment where acute attention and care is called for. That didn’t seem to happen here.

        • Of course, also note (according to the story) this wasn’t his first rodeo on the ND; he had previously been convicted of the same offense with a slap-on-the-wrist fine. When the “rare” ND happens to the same person twice, you start to wonder if the approbation isn’t deserved, even outside of keyboard kommando land.

    • The primary purpose (and I’d say it WAS working) was to embarrass the DOD to change their policy.

      It was a race between the DOD being shamed to do the right thing an an well-meaning idiot making a mistake.

      The idiot was faster.

  51. It is beyond stupid and moronic.
    Sad commentary and reflection on an otherwise positive presentation of
    effective, well meaning firearm use by everyone else.

    I just wonder if he will be billed for damage to the pavement?

    At least he didn’t fire at the first Muslim he saw!! Probably would have shot himself!!

  52. If you can’t clear your f–king weapon without shooting the G-damn thing in public, you shouldn’t have it in public. At least he had it pointed down, but he shouldn’t have shown it to anyone and should know how to manipulate it without firing it.

    Say….nice rifle! Can I look at it? Sorry, no.

    • “Say….nice rifle! Can I look at it?”

      Look with your Eyes … from back where you are.

  55. Accidents happen, just ask the local police. Oh, right, it’s the guns fault and they’re just getting used to a different type of handgun.
    YouTube has a non-Caucasian LEO on stage talking about gun safety and why we the average citizen can’t be allowed to handle a gun but the police can, he in particular because they’re well trained & pop, it shoots himself with his Glock.
    smdh

  57. Good. If they can’t handle themselves and can’t handle firearms they can go away.

    I’m active duty. I appreciate people showing their support. But the solution isn’t (in states where you’re not allowed) to open carry rifles around. The solution is contact your representatives and tell them to let us carry on duty (i.e. on land leased, not owned, by the federal government, firearms laws fall back on the state rather than following the federal statues).

    As for carrying on base, it would be nice for the services to relax their laws and allow more people to do so (Fort Hood, etc). The problem is that not everyone is trustworthy with their guns, not even in the military.

    So please contact your representatives and tell them you want us to be able to carry on base. Tell them to let federally leased land fall back on state laws rather than using federal leasing as a way to keep firearms off the property (because criminals ignore “no guns” signs) so recruiters can carry.

    But don’t break the law, and don’t have an ND. This is embarrassing to the whole community.

  58. Yeah, even if you’re not on “gaurd duty”, the answer to “can I see your gun?” is always ALWAYS no, haha. At least in public.

    Take it home and show it off if you need to. Man that ended up sounding hilariously dirty.

  59. Only if those Mall Ninjas standing “guard duty” would take their weapons home, go back, walk into the office asking to join.

  60. >>…while he was trying to clear the ammunition from the weapon, he accidentally fired into the asphalt pavement.<<

    Translation: The low IQ or untrained dickhead negligently pulled the trigger.

  61. Not sure I saw anyone else say it so I will: Yes, clearly a negligent discharge, clearly he was stupid, but if anyone asks to “see” my weapon in public, it’s ‘no’. There’s where the stupid began.

  62. Don’t forget the other anti-gun news organizations too, Newsweek, the N.Y. Times, and the L.A. Times, will probably run the same story.

  64. If the narrative from the anti-gun media will be that civilians with guns in public are a hazard because this guy had a negligent discharge, and therefore only police should have guns in public, it might be worthwhile for TTAG or another pro-freedom site to collate and publish statistics on American police accidental/negligent discharges, which are not all that uncommon. For example, NYPD had 21 such incidents in 2010 and 15 in 2011.

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/nypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2011.pdf

    Anyone think this tactic might be helpful, at least to put civilian incidents like this in perspective? Or would it be counter-productive?

    • Productive, I think. It’s part of breaking the “Only-Ones” meme.
      I think we need to be careful not to be seen to be cop-bashing. That would not help the cause.
      Publishing all incidents and running totals on cops and non-cops (as well as any other demographics, such as by State or PD department or size of PD department) would be even-handed.

      I also think that it would be valuable to tabulate deaths and injuries vs. property-damage only. Part of the “bullets flying all over” meme is that every ND must necessarily result in a death or grievous injury. Reality is that an object that is .38″ in diameter has a relatively low probability of hitting someone; and, a lower probability of hitting someone in a one-shot-stop part of the anatomy.

      By no means do I want to minimize the importance of controlling NDs; that is NOT the case. Every ND is a serious affair. Nevertheless, I suspect few are lethal and only a modest number cause grievous bodily injury.

  65. When idiots are permitted to stroll about in public while carrying loaded semi-automatic weapons … who needs lunatics?

    • Quite an inappropriate characterization of the facts.

      These militiamen are not “strolling about”; they are standing in front of military recruiting centers which – if you read the news – are apparently targets of attack by enemies (whether foreign or domestic).

      On what basis do you characterize them as “idiots”. Have you reviewed their scholastic records for grades or IQ scores?

      What are their intentions? It’s entirely possible that they might hope to intervene in the remote possibility that some other Jihadi might choose their particular recruiting center as a target during the time they are standing guard.

      Far more likely, they are investing their personal time to make a statement in support of our servicemen and a protest against the policies of our government to keep these servicemen vulnerable to attack. Were this the case, they are under no obligation to undermine their political statement by characterizing it as “merely” a demonstration. Instead, their actions are in the grand tradition of emphatic objection to government policies with which we are free to disagree.

      Significantly, for those of you too dim witted to recognize, these armed shows of force in defense of servicemen seem to be registering with the political elites in Washington. Despite their manifest resistance to admitting shame, bills have been introduced in Congress that would be responsible to the outcry against dis-arming our “Armed” Forces.

      Or, perhaps I am mistaken in imagining that you don’t recognize their effectiveness. Perhaps it is BECAUSE they seem to be having some effect that you want to denigrate them. In that case, I withdraw my characterization of you as being a member of the dim-witted.

Comments are closed.