Father shoots self in leg in Downtown Disney parking lot

[rebecca06261]

I dont think an off duty cop would be carrying a gun in his waist band....IMO

You're right. Most off duty officers carry their weapons in an ankle holster for safety reasons.

Just my two cents: Regardless of your opinion on whether carrying a weapon is right/wrong or necessary/unnecessary at DTD (or anywhere for that matter,) he had a legal right to do so. As a supporter of his right to be an over-protective father, I wish others would learn from this situation and atleast learn how to safely care and handle their weapons. For goodness sake, you have to pass a written & practical exam before getting your driver's license too! While it isn't a requirement that you pass a test, please educate yourself before brandishing a weapon in any area - public or private!

My over-protective father (now a sheriff's deputy) accidently discharged a weapon in my apartment when I was in college... Fortunately, no one was hurt, but I've had a very real fear of the inexperienced law-abiding, gun-toting dads of the world ever since.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

For goodness sake, you have to pass a written & practical exam before getting your driver's license too! While it isn't a requirement that you pass a test, please educate yourself before brandishing a weapon in any area - public or private!

You don't have to take any sort of safety course to carry a gun around with you? I really didn't realize that.

 

[G8RFAN]

You don't have to take any sort of safety course to carry a gun around with you? I really didn't realize that.

That is an incorrect assumption. In order to legally carry concealed in FL, you need to obtain a concealed weapons permit (CWL) which includes having to take a certified firearms safety course and to demonstrate the ability to safely fire a weapon. Some instructors do the bare minimum, but there are some courses where the instructor will take 4 to 6 hours to help explain and understand not only the basic rules of safety and the various conditions when and where you may use a weapon, but also take a few hours at a range to make sure you leave proficient with your handgun.

Of course you can legally carry a weapon in you car securely encased without a CWL but not on your person.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Of course you can legally carry a weapon in you car securely encased without a CWL but not on your person.

So, then, there are people who own guns who have never had a safety course. Again, let me introduce you to my little friend -

 

[G8RFAN]

So, then, there are people who own guns who have never had a safety course. Again, let me introduce you to my little friend -

There are parents out there who never took a parenting course, or voters that are illiterate. Maybe basic rights should only be given to those who can prove they deserve it. I am all for education and self improvement, but at least I understand the difference between at privilege and a right. (at least as it pertains in the US)

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I have seen so much go wrong with big brother government and how more often than not that well intentioned policies result in damaging consequences.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

There are parents out there who never took a parenting course, or voters that are illiterate. Maybe basic rights should only be given to those who can prove they deserve it. I am all for education and self improvement, but at least I understand the difference between at privilege and a right. (at least as it pertains in the US)

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I have seen so much go wrong with big brother government and how more often than not that well intentioned policies result in damaging consequences.

But children are taken away from parents all the time because they are irresponsible people. Is the same true for weapons? I'm also not so sure I agree with your defnition of "basic right" and I have no idea what being literate has to do with being able to vote.

Anyway, my point wasn't to start a debate about gun control. (If you read back up, you'll see that I didn't really find this story to be all this newsworthy because it was an accident.) I was just surprised to know that there were was no safety training required in the US to own a gun. If you were from any other country in the world, you would probably find that shocking too.

 

[rebecca06261]

....I was just surprised to know that there were was no safety training required in the US to own a gun. If you were from any other country in the world, you would probably find that shocking too.

I see where you're coming from. Political Science 101 lesson for our neighbors-
For those who are not familiar with the US Bill of Rights, found within our Consitution- as US Citizens we are granted "inalienable rights" which are detailed in the US Consitution. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments (or specific rights) that we are granted, in the Consitution. Amendment 2 grants us the right to keep and bear arms. So, when we refer to "rights," this is what we are refering to.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

I see where you're coming from. Political Science 101 lesson for our neighbors-
For those who are not familiar with the US Bill of Rights, found within our Consitution- as US Citizens we are granted "inalienable rights" which are detailed in the US Consitution. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments (or specific rights) that we are granted, in the Consitution. Amendment 2 grants us the right to keep and bear arms. So, when we refer to "rights," this is what we are refering to.

Oh, I'm well aware of what you're refering to. I also know the historical context in which that was written and there was no way that your forefathers were considering nuclear and automatic weapons when the Constitution was written. Not only that, but how does that right exclude the possibility of requiring people to take safety courses or get licenses in order to own firearms? And the poster said "basic right" (which usually means human right) not constitutional right.

 

[G8RFAN]

Oh, I'm well aware of what you're refering to. I also know the historical context in which that was written and there was no way that your forefathers were considering nuclear and automatic weapons when the Constitution was written. Not only that, but how does that right exclude the possibility of requiring people to take safety courses or get licenses in order to own firearms? And the poster said "basic right" (which usually means human right) not constitutional right.

Nuclear what?????!!!!!! Maybe you are missing the big picture here. Apparently this guy DID take a safety course since he DOES have a CWP. How on earth can you justify an implementation of a national registry since your concept will not be enforceable without one and setting up the infrastructure of a safety course and punitive laws for non-compliance when it apparently didn't do any good?!!!! People will be boneheads. Some will unfortunately own guns, vote, and procreate, eh?

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Nuclear what?????!!!!!! Maybe you are missing the big picture here. Apparently this guy DID take a safety course since he DOES have a CWP. How on earth can you justify an implementation of a national registry since your concept will not be enforceable without one and setting up the infrastructure of a safety course and punitive laws for non-compliance when it apparently didn't do any good?!!!! People will be boneheads. Some will unfortunately own guns, vote, and procreate, eh?

I don't know how to make it any more clear to you that in this particular case there was nothing more that could have been done. Obviously, he needed some sort of training to carry a concealed weapon. Yes, there will always be boneheads, however, maybe you could cut down on the number of boneheads out there by teaching them how to properly use the weapon they own.

I'm not talking about a national registry? There's a difference between buying a legal, licensed weapon and creating a national gun registry.

 

[G8RFAN]

.......however, maybe you could cut down on the number of boneheads out there by teaching them how to properly use the weapon they own.

I propose to you that the people that would be interested in owning and operating a gun safely would probably have read the basic gun safety outlined in their owners manual and practiced these principals properly while at home, in their car, or at the range do so already. Those that are the "boneheads" will remain boneheads unless you have the magical cure for a lack of common sense. You are trying to suggest implementing a costly policy both monetarily and politically that can never be measured for success (reason to follow).

I'm not talking about a national registry? There's a difference between buying a legal, licensed weapon and creating a national gun registry.

You can't enforce what you don't know. Sure, you can implement a safety course requirement at the FFL (licensed class 2 firearms dealers) level, to accompany the form 4473 and background check and waiting period (if applicable in that particular State). The problem is that the onus is on back of the FFL. Once the sale is made, there is absolutely no way that authorities can track who has or who hasn't taken a safety course. In a country with nearly 100 million firearms, you are going to have a difficult time tracking the benefit of such a law, as you would have to track a firearm to the selling FFL to see if the buyer met proper qualifications assuming that the firearm did not change hands privately. They only do this if the firearm has been involved in a crime. Therefore, the natural sense is to implement a safety course requirement for all gun owners. The problem is that you can't do that until you know who has a firearm which is only achievable through a national gun registery and eliminate private firearms transactions. An additional consideration is that about 20% of the population lives in rural areas. Would it be fair to require people in those areas to travel an unreasonable distance to take a certified safety course or else be made by default a criminal? Many times, we tend to think only in terms that relate to our own environment and not consider the impact to the rest of the country. Plus, you are once again confusing the diference between a right and a privilege. This is definitely putting a restriction on a right for law abiding Citizens.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

I propose to you that the people that would be interested in owning and operating a gun safely would probably have read the basic gun safety outlined in their owners manual and practiced these principals properly while at home, in their car, or at the range do so already. Those that are the "boneheads" will remain boneheads unless you have the magical cure for a lack of common sense.

It's seem to have worked for the rest of the free world. It's hard to deny that America trumps everyone when it comes to crimes, deaths, and injuries involving firearms and violent crimes in general.

I knew this thread was going to turn into this. I don't want to enter into a policy debate here. I was just trying to express my surprise at the lack of requirements for owning a firearm. I was being sincere with my . I hadn't realized the laws were so...nonexistent. It was an aside to begin with and I apologize. It is really a moot point in this case.

 

[DancingBear]

I see where you're coming from. Political Science 101 lesson for our neighbors-
For those who are not familiar with the US Bill of Rights, found within our Consitution- as US Citizens we are granted "inalienable rights" which are detailed in the US Consitution. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments (or specific rights) that we are granted, in the Consitution. Amendment 2 grants us the right to keep and bear arms. So, when we refer to "rights," this is what we are refering to.

Thanks for the lesson. In 201 perhaps we can study the decision written by Justice Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

 

[DancingBear]

You can't enforce what you don't know. Sure, you can implement a safety course requirement at the FFL (licensed class 2 firearms dealers) level, to accompany the form 4473 and background check and waiting period (if applicable in that particular State). The problem is that the onus is on back of the FFL. Once the sale is made, there is absolutely no way that authorities can track who has or who hasn't taken a safety course. In a country with nearly 100 million firearms, you are going to have a difficult time tracking the benefit of such a law, as you would have to track a firearm to the selling FFL to see if the buyer met proper qualifications assuming that the firearm did not change hands privately. They only do this if the firearm has been involved in a crime. Therefore, the natural sense is to implement a safety course requirement for all gun owners. The problem is that you can't do that until you know who has a firearm which is only achievable through a national gun registery and eliminate private firearms transactions.

Your logic that a safety course requirement equals national registry is muddled by enforcement considerations. There are plenty of laws on the books that aren't always aggressively investigated and enforced but are available to law enforcement when incidents happen. For example if somebody shoots themself in the foot and can't prove they've taken a safety course, they could be charged.

 

[G8RFAN]

Your logic that a safety course requirement equals national registry is muddled by enforcement considerations. There are plenty of laws on the books that aren't always aggressively investigated and enforced but are available to law enforcement when incidents happen. For example if somebody shoots themself in the foot and can't prove they've taken a safety course, they could be charged.

I hear you and I have a lot to say about that but not here on a Disney oriented forum, but it sort of boils down to what I said earlier:

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I have seen so much go wrong with big brother government and how more often than not that well intentioned policies result in damaging consequences.

 

[unicorn1000palms]

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to clean the gun at home or somewhere other than a crowded, family-friendly resort area? Cause in the process of trying not to shoot someone he accidentally shot someone. I'd hope common sense would be a requirement for carrying a gun but unfortunately they seem to hand them out to anyone down there

The man was not CLEANING his gun he was CLEARING it. Big difference. What that means is he was making sure that there was no bullet in the chamber before he put it away. Obiously since he shot himself there was one there

 

[rebecca06261]

The man was not CLEANING his gun he was CLEARING it. Big difference. What that means is he was making sure that there was no bullet in the chamber before he put it away. Obiously since he shot himself there was one there

Oh yeah, btw, Welcome to the Dis! We hope you have a magical journey through the threads

 

[G8RFAN]

I spoke to a Deputy today claiming to be familiar with the incident and he said that the guy had his finger on the trigger while he was holstering the weapon (Glock) which caused him to discharge the weapon. He said the guy was on the "Pooh" side and apparently was lucky in that the firearm was pointing outward and the bullet traveled just through subcutaneous tissue down his leg.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

The man was not CLEANING his gun he was CLEARING it. Big difference. What that means is he was making sure that there was no bullet in the chamber before he put it away. Obiously since he shot himself there was one there

This has actually already been explained earlier in the thread but welcome to the DIS just the same.

 

[lmhannon2004]

Instead of having a mandatory safety permit, why not extend the "assault with a deadly weapon" statutes to those who shoot themselves if they are proven to be acting negligently, and/ or put others in danger, by not knowing or adhering to basic gun safety laws, like this idiot? I'm all for doing the same with cars, chainsaws, nailguns and anything else dangerous in the wrong hands you can think of.

That way, everyone gets the basic rights that come with being an American, but its taken away from people who can't handle the responsibility that those rights come with.

Thats the best middle ground I can come up with at 1am, I'm afraid!