Man accidentally shoots himself in testicles! CCW FTL

[jlee]

also shens on anyone who has a CCL calling carrying a gun "heat"

One could say the same about confusing the terms "misfire" and "accidental discharge."

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

OP is a gun-control troll. No mention of CCW, no thread.

 

[TheVrolok]

You crack me up.

You do realize that you're the guy who said that he carries a concealed weapon not for self-defense (in fact, you stated that you will not use it for self-defense) , but to be a vigilante instead? LEOs do not want people like you running around taking the law into your own hands. I'm sorry that you can't see all the things wrong with that thinking, it really is a shame. There's a reason that CWL/CWP/CCW and the related classes/literature revolve around self-defense. It is not an honorary "go out and protect the innocent" license. My usage of the term "heat" was to illustrate the type of slang that someone like yourself would more likely use. Someone who carries without a round chambered, and only carries to defend the innocent around. Scary, really.

 

[geno]

 

[thepd7]

You do realize that you're the guy who said that he carries a concealed weapon not for self-defense (in fact, you stated that you will not use it for self-defense) , but to be a vigilante instead? LEOs do not want people like you running around taking the law into your own hands. I'm sorry that you can't see all the things wrong with that thinking, it really is a shame. There's a reason that CWL/CWP/CCW and the related classes/literature revolve around self-defense. It is not an honorary "go out and protect the innocent" license. My usage of the term "heat" was to illustrate the type of slang that someone like yourself would more likely use. Someone who carries without a round chambered, and only carries to defend the innocent around. Scary, really.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

The CHL Class in Texas revolves around the law. The law is very clear in Texas about when you can and cannot use lethal force.

I can protect anyone who is a victim of a felony. Guess why? The law says so.

You are telling me that LEOs do not want me carrying because I won't shoot a mugger but I will shoot a mass murderer or a rapist?

 

[JulesMaximus]

That word does not mean what you think it means.

The CHL Class in Texas revolves around the law. The law is very clear in Texas about when you can and cannot use lethal force.

I can protect anyone who is a victim of a felony. Guess why? The law says so.

You are telling me that LEOs do not want me carrying because I won't shoot a mugger but I will shoot a mass murderer or a rapist?

Fact is you're probably never going to shoot anyone in your lifetime. Sorry to let you down.

 

[pontifex]

What precedents? The law is very clear. I know this because I have the relevant law printed out sitting at my desk.

I'm not a wanna-be LEO, I'm a citizen who has the lawful right to stop certain crimes. If I choose not to stop them against me, that's my decision.

I'm really not following your logic: I'm irresponsible with firearms because I want to prevent mall shootings?

LOOK I CAN USE CAPS TOO. IF A CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS FOR SELF-DEFENSE THAN THE LAW SHOULD SAY THIS.

Question: if someone starting shooting people near you and you had your carry weapon, would you draw your weapon and fire at them? OMGHOLYSHITYOUWOULD? WANNABELEOWTFBBLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You crack me up.

You would be doing it for your own self defense as well because, you know, you don't want to get shot either.

you don't get a CCW license to become a first responder or go looking for this stuff to happen.

 

[thepd7]

Fact is you're probably never going to shoot anyone in your lifetime. Sorry to let you down.

I hope I never do.

You would be doing it for your own self defense as well because, you know, you don't want to get shot either.

you don't get a CCW license to become a first responder or go looking for this stuff to happen.

So if you had a carry weapon and license and there was a shooting and you were in a safe place where there is 0% chance the shooter would find you, then you WOULDN'T go find the shooter and try to stop the threat to others lives?

 

[spidey07]

I hope I never do.



So if you had a carry weapon and license and there was a shooting and you were in a safe place where there is 0% chance the shooter would find you, then you WOULDN'T go find the shooter and try to stop the threat to others lives?

Probably not because in my state it would be iffy on the line of me commiting a crime. Now if I witness an innocent being threatened directly, then I can fire only to stop that immediate threat.

It seems you are carrying for all the wrong reasons.

 

[pontifex]

I hope I never do.



So if you had a carry weapon and license and there was a shooting and you were in a safe place where there is 0% chance the shooter would find you, then you WOULDN'T go find the shooter and try to stop the threat to others lives?

i'd call the fucking police and let them do their jobs. I'm not a cop or an action movie hero.

 

[BoomerD]

ROFL! I knew a guy in the early 70's that stuck his pistol in his waistband and shot himself in the peenor and through his thigh. Once he got out of the hospital...and out of jail, (IIRC, the gun was stolen...so he did a bit of time for posession of stolen property...maybe 60 days) we harassed him endlessly...

 

[Deeko]

This explains so much. I'm absolutely stunned. Stunned. So you DON'T want to use your firearm if someone is attempting to KILL you, but you DO want to use it to be a weekend warrior law enforcement officer? I'm sorry that this is offensive, but that's absolutely absurd. Many states don't even allow that, and even in your state of Texas you may be facing legal trouble based on certain precedents. The reason to carry a concealed weapon is first and foremost SELF-DEFENSE, you DO NOT get your CWL/CWP/CCW to become a "wanna-be" LEO. That's quite simply not what it's for... I can't even believe you'd say something like that and pretend to be responsible about firearms. My mind is literally blown. If you want to carry heat and protect those around you join the force, otherwise, stay out of the way.

I frankly don't care about this issue, and I'm not talking about you in particular thevrolok, but I do find it ironic that its a travesty to carry a gun to stop a mall shooting or similar, but in the rare cases where that actually happens, the pro-gun crew on these forums trumpets it from on high. In fact, some of the people (again, not you) arguing with thepd7 here defended the actions of the CCW guy in those threads.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=181810&highlight=saved+ccw
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=278227&highlight=saved+ccw

 

[TheVrolok]

I frankly don't care about this issue, and I'm not talking about you in particular thevrolok, but I do find it ironic that its a travesty to carry a gun to stop a mall shooting or similar, but in the rare cases where that actually happens, the pro-gun crew on these forums trumpets it from on high. In fact, some of the people (again, not you) arguing with thepd7 here defended the actions of the CCW guy in those threads.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=181810&highlight=saved+ccw
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=278227&highlight=saved+ccw

I don't think it's a travesty to carry a gun and prevent a mall shooting/defend the innocent, per se. It's just a very grey area of CCWs. If you can absolutely 100% identify what is happening in the situation and then act appropriately (and safely) with your CCW to stop that crime from being committed then wonderful. What I do not care for is someone who is carrying ONLY for this situation, or someone that has a chip on his shoulder and is keeping his eye out as a "first responder." CCW laws are not designed for "first responders" they are designed so that civilians can protect themselves. There are just too many things that can go wrong when you have someone running around with a firearm and defending the innocent. That person does not have the appropriate training/expertise for these situations and can often cause more harm than good.

What happens if there is a mall shooting and the "first responder" decides to open fire? Best case scenario, he takes down the baddy and everyone goes home to their families. I would love that outcome, I would. But unfortunately there are other possible (arguably probable) outcomes. What happens if the "first responder" perhaps due to his lack of appropriate training/expertise misses a single shot or has a shot ricochet and it takes the life of an innocent victim? Well, that "first responder" has now lost the ability to claim self-defense (or protection) under the law and has committed a felony. Or, what if the "first responder" and baddy enter into a gunfight where the baddy ends up placing a few shots into innocent civilians? Well, the "first responder" can become lawfully responsible for those shots as well (in some places, under some laws, perhaps not in Texas). In another scenario, "first responder" and baddy are in a shoot out and the police arrive to see two civilians having it out.. in the confusion, both civilians get taken down because it's not possible to immediately identify who was the aggressor.

I'm not saying there's no chance a CCW could save lives in a situation like this, in fact they have, numerous times. I'm simply saying that it is not necessarily a good idea because of the risk involved. I find it interesting that thepd7 decided that carrying a round chambered is entirely too risky, but opening fire in public without the appropriate training is not. Now perhaps he is a retired LEO, or ISPC/IDPA champion.. but I doubt it. And I'm not disagreeing with your Deeko, I think you have a valid point.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

So who does he sue? Loews? The maker of the gun? The maker of the pants? His parents for what are obviously a defective set of genes?

He now has a defective pair of jeans.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

No shit. Most of us would if we had been that stupid.

I'd be trying to get the gun out and shoot myself in the head. If I just blew my balls of I don't want to live.

 

[thepd7]

Probably not because in my state it would be iffy on the line of me commiting a crime. Now if I witness an innocent being threatened directly, then I can fire only to stop that immediate threat.

It seems you are carrying for all the wrong reasons.

I'm so glad you don't live in Texas. I was worried with you saying "the south" in that other thread.

i'd call the fucking police and let them do their jobs. I'm not a cop or an action movie hero.

Your responses make a lot more sense now that I know you wouldn't sacrifice your life to save anyone else.

I don't think it's a travesty to carry a gun and prevent a mall shooting/defend the innocent, per se. It's just a very grey area of CCWs. If you can absolutely 100% identify what is happening in the situation and then act appropriately (and safely) with your CCW to stop that crime from being committed then wonderful. What I do not care for is someone who is carrying ONLY for this situation, or someone that has a chip on his shoulder and is keeping his eye out as a "first responder." CCW laws are not designed for "first responders" they are designed so that civilians can protect themselves. There are just too many things that can go wrong when you have someone running around with a firearm and defending the innocent. That person does not have the appropriate training/expertise for these situations and can often cause more harm than good.

What happens if there is a mall shooting and the "first responder" decides to open fire? Best case scenario, he takes down the baddy and everyone goes home to their families. I would love that outcome, I would. But unfortunately there are other possible (arguably probable) outcomes. What happens if the "first responder" perhaps due to his lack of appropriate training/expertise misses a single shot or has a shot ricochet and it takes the life of an innocent victim? Well, that "first responder" has now lost the ability to claim self-defense (or protection) under the law and has committed a felony. Or, what if the "first responder" and baddy enter into a gunfight where the baddy ends up placing a few shots into innocent civilians? Well, the "first responder" can become lawfully responsible for those shots as well (in some places, under some laws, perhaps not in Texas). In another scenario, "first responder" and baddy are in a shoot out and the police arrive to see two civilians having it out.. in the confusion, both civilians get taken down because it's not possible to immediately identify who was the aggressor.

I'm not saying there's no chance a CCW could save lives in a situation like this, in fact they have, numerous times. I'm simply saying that it is not necessarily a good idea because of the risk involved. I find it interesting that thepd7 decided that carrying a round chambered is entirely too risky, but opening fire in public without the appropriate training is not. Now perhaps he is a retired LEO, or ISPC/IDPA champion.. but I doubt it. And I'm not disagreeing with your Deeko, I think you have a valid point.

It's not a gray area in Texas. Even if the worst happened and a richochet hit someone else I would not be charged unless I was acting negligantly.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Almost all handguns have some sort of safety, it's just not always a switch. For instance, my Springfield xD-9 has a trigger and palm safety. Basically, for my gun to fire you have to be pressing the back of the gun and press a thin trigger safety before pressing the trigger. The likelihood of this happening is slim to nil.

Some glocks only have the trigger safety, and some small carry weapons have no safety, just a very strong required trigger pull.




This. I will never carry with one in the chamber no matter what gun. The chances of me needed my gun are slim and the chances of having an accident with a round in the chamber are slim. That being said, I'll prevent the accident even if it takes me another second or so if I ever need to draw to pull the slide back.

I see you are in Austin, maybe that explains your thinking. You must remember when it comes time to use that gun, all that time at the range and the forethought and motor skills needed to remember to and then pull the slide back all go up in the air and you might or might not do it. That's a gamble you are willing to take?
I carry an HK P2000 with a LEM trigger, and a Taurus 85UL in my pocket. Neither weapon has a safety I need to disengage. Just pull the trigger. They have drop safeties and that's it. I carry the HK cocked and unlocked in a IWB holster. The Taurus rides in a Desates Nemesis pocket holster. I'd like to hear how I would carry a revolver without a round ready to go?

You also have to think ahead about some things. If the unfortunate event happens and you have to shove that smoke wagon in someones pie hole, if there are witnesses you will have to explain to a jury if it gets to that why you had the time to rack the slide of the gun instead of retreat from the situation. "You were obviously not in danger if you had time to react and manipulate the firearm before shooting my client in cold blood."

 

[jlee]

It's not a gray area in Texas. Even if the worst happened and a richochet hit someone else I would not be charged unless I was acting negligantly.

If you end up hitting the wrong person, you'll want a good lawyer regardless.

 

[spidey07]

Carrying a revolver unchambered? How about a 6 shot turned into 4. Current chamber is empty as is next one, then the other four are full. Seems kinda stupid but I guess it could be done. You'd just have to pull the trigger twice for a round to go off. *click* *CLI-BANG*

 

[thepd7]

I see you are in Austin, maybe that explains your thinking. You must remember when it comes time to use that gun, all that time at the range and the forethought and motor skills needed to remember to and then pull the slide back all go up in the air and you might or might not do it. That's a gamble you are willing to take?
I carry an HK P2000 with a LEM trigger, and a Taurus 85UL in my pocket. Neither weapon has a safety I need to disengage. Just pull the trigger. They have drop safeties and that's it. I carry the HK cocked and unlocked in a IWB holster. The Taurus rides in a Desates Nemesis pocket holster. I'd like to hear how I would carry a revolver without a round ready to go?

You also have to think ahead about some things. If the unfortunate event happens and you have to shove that smoke wagon in someones pie hole, if there are witnesses you will have to explain to a jury if it gets to that why you had the time to rack the slide of the gun instead of retreat from the situation. "You were obviously not in danger if you had time to react and manipulate the firearm before shooting my client in cold blood."

You people really need to read up on laws in Texas before you post. I don't have to prove I was in danger to be authorized to use lethal force in Texas.

If you end up hitting the wrong person, you'll want a good lawyer regardless.

That is for damn sure.

 

[TheVrolok]

You people really need to read up on laws in Texas before you post. I don't have to prove I was in danger to be authorized to use lethal force in Texas.
That is for damn sure.

You do have to realize that regardless of the letter of the law the odds are heavily in favor of your being arrested and tried. Why? Because lawyers want to make case law.

 

[jlee]

You do have to realize that regardless of the letter of the law the odds are heavily in favor of your being arrested and tried. Why? Because lawyers want to make case law.

I understand what you're saying...I was going to reply as well but then I looked up Texas deadly force stuff - it's way more lenient than NH. I have a hard time seeing case law override written law. Clarify, sure - but blatantly override? No.

 

[TheVrolok]

I understand what you're saying...I was going to reply as well but then I looked up Texas deadly force stuff - it's way more lenient than NH. I have a hard time seeing case law override written law. Clarify, sure - but blatantly override? No.

Oh I agree completely. Texas' lethal force laws are WAY more lenient than any other in the union. I'm just saying that he will likely be tried. Most likely acquitted in Texas, but he will be tried. Remember that fellow (Texan) that shot the two dudes burglarizing his neighbor's house? I believe he was tried, even though he followed the law, and he was rightfully (according to law) acquitted.

 

[pontifex]

Your responses make a lot more sense now that I know you wouldn't sacrifice your life to save anyone else.

If that's what makes you feel like a big man, then ok, Mr. Vigilante Mall Ninja

 

[JulesMaximus]

Your responses make a lot more sense now that I know you wouldn't sacrifice your life to save anyone else.

Says the man who claims not to be a wanna be cop.

Honestly, it would come down to a personal decision whether or not I would get involved in an altercation and the situation...and for the most part it would come down to my own self preservation and the preservation of my loved ones...and I don't even carry a gun.