The Accurate Reloading Forums
United agent accidentally shot
26 July 2011, 06:37
kudu56United agent accidentally shot
Sigh!
United agent accidentally shot at New Orleans airportBy Rebecca Ruiz, Senior editor, msnbc.com
A United Airlines employee was shot in the leg at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International airport this morning when a passenger's rifle accidentally discharged.
The agent, who is not being named by the airline, was checking the passenger in when the rifle discharged. The flier, who had declared the gun, is reported to be 65-year-old Edward Deubler, according to the Times-Picayune.
Mary Ryan, a spokesperson for United, said that the employee sustained non-life threatening injuries and is reported to be in stable condition.
The airline's policy for checking firearms follow federal regulations, which require that guns in checked baggage or separate shipping cases be unloaded and declared.
Ryan did not know whether the rifle was in a bag or case when it was handled by the United agent.
Great. Just the type of thing we need. Look for the Feds to use this isolated instance to tighten the regs for the rest of us.
What kind of IDIOT would take a firearm into an airport without verifying that it is unloaded? There is absolutely no excuse for this to happen. Wonder how many laws he broke with that little stunt?
26 July 2011, 08:00
Crazyhorseconsultingquote:
Look for the Feds to use this isolated instance to tighten the regs for the rest of us.
Just like the discussion about the Lacey act and poaching. There are rules and regulations already in place, but in the minds of the Feds, after this incident, those rules and regs will be changed.
It is sad, but if people can not obey the existing laws what choice does anyone have.
Even the rocks don't last forever.
26 July 2011, 08:04
NavalukFeds need to take his whole gene line and eliminate it. What a dud.
26 July 2011, 09:47
Mike_DettorreCHC,
Its called enforce the existing laws and have real consequences.
What is the likelihood the 65 yr old guy does any jail time?
Creating more laws instead of enforcing the ones we have has created the society we have gotten ourselves into.
MikeLegistine actu quod scripsi?
Never under estimate the internet community's ability to reply to your post with their personal rant about their tangentially related, single occurrence issue.
What I have learned on AR, since 2001:
1. The proper answer to: Where is the best place in town to get a steak dinner? is…You should go to Mel's Diner and get the fried chicken.
2. Big game animals can tell the difference between .015 of an inch in diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, and 150 fps.
3. There is a difference in the performance of two identical projectiles launched at the same velocity if they came from different cartridges.
4. While a double rifle is the perfect DGR, every 375HH bolt gun needs to be modified to carry at least 5 down.
5. While a floor plate and detachable box magazine both use a mechanical latch, only the floor plate latch is reliable. Disregard the fact that every modern military rifle uses a detachable box magazine.
6. The Remington 700 is unreliable regardless of the fact it is the basis of the USMC M40 sniper rifle for 40+ years with no changes to the receiver or extractor and is the choice of more military and law enforcement sniper units than any other rifle.
7. PF actions are not suitable for a DGR and it is irrelevant that the M1, M14, M16, & AK47 which were designed for hunting men that can shoot back are all PF actions.
8. 95 deg F in Africa is different than 95 deg F in TX or CA and that is why you must worry about ammunition temperature in Africa (even though most safaris take place in winter) but not in TX or in CA.
9. The size of a ding in a gun's finish doesn't matter, what matters is whether it’s a safe ding or not.
10. 1 in a row is a trend, 2 in a row is statistically significant, and 3 in a row is an irrefutable fact.
11. Never buy a WSM or RCM cartridge for a safari rifle or your go to rifle in the USA because if they lose your ammo you can't find replacement ammo but don't worry 280 Rem, 338-06, 35 Whelen, and all Weatherby cartridges abound in Africa and back country stores.
12. A well hit animal can run 75 yds. in the open and suddenly drop with no initial blood trail, but the one I shot from 200 yds. away that ran 10 yds. and disappeared into a thicket and was not found was lost because the bullet penciled thru. I am 100% certain of this even though I have no physical evidence.
13. A 300 Win Mag is a 500 yard elk cartridge but a 308 Win is not a 300 yard elk cartridge even though the same bullet is travelling at the same velocity at those respective distances.
26 July 2011, 10:06
Crazyhorseconsultingquote:
Its called enforce the existing laws and have real consequences.
While it did not come across that way, that is exactly what I was trying to point out. There are enough laws on the books as it is. Enforcing the existing ones is the correct answer. But after this incident will the Feds stick with existing laws or introduce new ones???????
Even the rocks don't last forever.
I heard of a guy who accidentaly fired a shot at Istambul airport but fortunately hurt no one. Still, the idiot spent only one night in jail.
26 July 2011, 13:18
JBrownAnd guys, the last thing I want to do is associate myself with this numb-nuts, but.....
On my trip to Zimbabwe I
almost took a loaded 375 to the airport, so I can kinda sympathize with the guy in the news report. Luckily I noticed the single 375 round in the magazine just as I was about to lock my case and head to the airport.
The way it happened was that I tried to squeeze in one last range trip. I was in a hurry and somehow I left a round in the mag when I left the range.
But the big difference between me and the idiot who shot the ticket agent was that my rifle would have been perfectly safe if I had left that round in the mag(or even if it had been in the chamber)....... BECAUSE I ALWAYS REMOVE MY BOLT FROM THE RECEIVER WHEN I PLACE IT INTO A TRAVEL CASE!!!!!
The only way to make a rifle 100% safe when traveling is to remove the bolt. If you don't you are asking for trouble.
Jason
"You're not hard-core, unless you live hard-core."
_______________________
Hunting in Africa is an adventure. The number of variables involved preclude the possibility of a perfect hunt. Some problems will arise. How you decide to handle them will determine how much you enjoy your hunt.
Just tell yourself, "it's all part of the adventure." Remember, if Robert Ruark had gotten upset every time problems with Harry
Selby's flat bed truck delayed the safari, Horn of the Hunter would have read like an indictment of Selby. But Ruark rolled with the punches, poured some gin, and enjoyed the adventure.
-Jason Brown
26 July 2011, 14:56
larrys01This should be posted under African Travel also.
I thought it was required that the bolt be separate from the rifle when you show it to TSA.
26 July 2011, 18:49
DoublessWhether or not it is a requirement, it is a great practice, IMHO. I always do it when I travel with CF rifles. The bolts go in the carry on with me, and the ammunition is in a separate checked bag. If the rifles are somehow separated from me, there is no way they are usable until somebody figures out how to replace the bolts.
It also helps the TSA agent understand the rifles cannot fire when he sees the bolts are missing...
26 July 2011, 19:12
GA DEER HUNTERquote:
The bolts go in the carry on with me, and the ammunition is in a separate checked bag.
I also always remove the bolt from the rifle when I travel but I thought it was illegal to have any part of a rifle, or gun, with you on a plane in your carry on.
26 July 2011, 19:15
larrys01quote:
The bolts go in the carry on with me,
Correct, this is against the rules! You are not even allowed Rifle Scopes in your carry on as they are considered a Gun Part. I got this direct from TSA.
26 July 2011, 19:53
DoublessOkay, I stand corrected. I haven't flown since 2008 with a CF, so it could have changed. Stupid rule as I see it, but not the first...
I have never seen that on an airline's website either. But I might have missed it.
Frankly, my interaction with TSA has left me less than impressed... I had one a year or so back that couldn't tell ammunition boxes from fishing reel boxes, and another that took swabs off shrink wrapped frozen salmon, looking for explosives. Go figure.
26 July 2011, 20:15
BlacktailerIt's a scary thought that the person who brings a rifle to the airport with a shell in the chamber could have been out hunting with you. Talk about having your head up your a$$!
Have gun- Will travel
The value of a trophy is computed directly in terms of personal investment in its acquisition. Robert Ruark
26 July 2011, 20:29
GA DEER HUNTERquote:
Okay, I stand corrected. I haven't flown since 2008 with a CF, so it could have changed.
I'm not saying you didn't, but I think you got lucky at the gate. And, I sure wouldn't count on doing it again.
26 July 2011, 20:45
reddy375This is all we need to add to the BS. There is no excuse for it.
Kathi
kathi@wildtravel.net
708-425-3552
"The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page."
26 July 2011, 22:50
Bear in FairbanksHang on here, folks. The road's gonna get lots rougher 'cause of nimrod. An added bummer is that he probably procreated in his younger days. Wonder about his spawn too.
Bear in Fairbanks
Unless you're the lead dog, the scenery never changes.
I never thought that I'd live to see a President worse than Jimmy Carter. Well, I have.
Gun control means using two hands.
27 July 2011, 00:40
vapodogquote:
Creating more laws instead of enforcing the ones we have has created the society we have gotten ourselves into.
Mike
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill
Not an Accidental Discharge but a Negligent Discharge .
27 July 2011, 02:52
LRH270On the other hand, based on some United Airlines employees I have encountered........
______________________
RMEF Life Member
SCI
DRSS
Chapuis 9,3/9,3 + 20/20
Simson 12/12/9,3
Zoli 7x57R/12
Kreighoff .470/.470
We band of 9,3ers!
The Few. The Pissed. The Taxpayers.
27 July 2011, 03:08
Idaho SharpshooterLRH,
I was thinking more of Delta myself...
Rich
This is about gun safety & either stupidity or carelessness. I won't give anybody a pass because they overlooked, were too busy, in a rush or whatever, for packing an unsafe firearm. Nothing; I mean absolutely nothing justifies unsafe gun handling. It should be automatic to make sure a weapon is unloaded when being put away or packed. That's gun handling 101. It prevents people being killed or, in this case, wounded.
I hope the 65 yr old has liability insurance, with high limits, and he did'nt forget to pay his premium.
27 July 2011, 16:59
SnellstromI'm with olguy on this one.
The most important thing my dad ever taught me is treat every gun as if it were a loaded gun, assume evry gun is loaded until you prove to yourself its not and never take anyones word for it.
I teach my kids the same thing and every time they handle a weapon the first thing they do after pointing it in a safe direction is open it to see that it is unloaded.
Whatever happened to the 10 commandments of firearm handling someone should post that.
27 July 2011, 23:43
wasbeeman+2 to what olguy said.
Aim for the exit hole
28 July 2011, 00:21
DoublessI am in total agreement, with one very vital difference: with all due respect, firearms are no more a weapon than a claw hammer is, except in the context of the firearms built for military use. Those obviously were manufactured for assault on another human being.
IMO, referring to a handgun, rifle, or shotgun as a weapon gives the bunny huggers and Sarah Bradys of the world more fodder for the mill. They can point to the statement as validation of their contention that all guns are bad. Every time I read it or hear it, I cringe...
Sorry Doubless, but you are nitpicking semantics- and you are wrong. A claw hammer is every bit as much of a weapon, when used as such, same as a screwdriver, kitchen knife, 2X4 club, or whatever. You are being too PC. Do you really believe that our language is going to affect the antis agenda?
I am proud of the fact that I possess pistols, rifles & shotguns- anyone of which I would use to protect myself & family. My pistols are, for the most part, for self defense. My rifles & shotguns I acqired for sport; however, I would not hesitate to use them for self defense if that was all I had. Does that make them any more or less weapons?
As gunowners I think we need to be more assertive & vocal, not less so. Take my post in its context- safe gun handling.
28 July 2011, 07:58
Doublessquote:
I am proud of the fact that I possess pistols, rifles & shotguns- anyone of which I would use to protect myself & family. My pistols are, for the most part, for self defense. My rifles & shotguns I acqired for sport; however, I would not hesitate to use them for self defense if that was all I had. Does that make them any more or less weapons?
That is my point, and I am not wrong... They are only a weapon when used against another human being, just like you state above. The fact you call them a weapon insinuates you PLAN to use them against another human being, at least to an anti... You have said as much!
Now do you understand my problem with your post. Fu@% a bunch of political correctness... Talk and write in a way that says you know what you are talking about, and quit giving the antis something to fight us with. Take off your freaking tunnel vision glasses and try to understand what I said instead of taking offense with something you think insulted you. It was not personal.
Did not take your post as insult. Your 1st post, 2nd para., you started with "IMO"; I just do not agree with your opinion & reasoning. I absolutely would use a gun for protection &, particularly, a handgun; that is its intended purpose, is it not? I pray I never have to be in the position of having to use deadly force but I am prepared as can be for the eventuality. That's why I keep a loaded .38 Spl. bedside.
The more people that know there are folks like me the less likelihood the baddies are going to victimize us & will be more selective in their targets. You may disagree and that's OK.
What we are arguing about is my use of the term, weapon, fearing it may be seen by an anti who will use it to butress their position. I doubt they linger on this forum. But, even if they do, I don't think they are going to be swayed one way or the other by use of the word, weapon. They are already committed to their position. And, they do not need this as an issue; they make up stuff anyway.
Of course I would use a gun for protection- against another human being- but only if faced with deadly force. That is the purpose of most handguns. I never said, or implied, that I would use one indiscriminately. Self defense is a natural right and recognized in our law.
I think you are splitting hairs about this word. We will just have to agree to disagree. Finally, I did not take the matter personally- until your comments in the last paragraph of your last post where you closed by saying, "It was not personal." That WAS insulting. My suggestions: first, go take a cold shower; second, learn to respect other people's opinions and third, learn how to be judicious in your language.
28 July 2011, 20:22
wasbeemanThey're "weapons" to me. Whether I'm putting the hurt on a human, an animal or a piece of paper, their intent is to do damage of some sort. I find the term: "game animal regulatory device" kinda stilted.
Aim for the exit hole
28 July 2011, 23:05
Doublessolguy, PM sent...
I shall learn to respect the idea that others refer to firearms as weapons, and will learn not to cringe when I read the word in that context or hear it spoken when referring to firearms. Apologies to any I offended...
29 July 2011, 00:26
JBrownquote:
Originally posted by wasbeeman:
They're "weapons" to me.
I agree, firearms are weapons, IMO.
If we start playing games and giving them "warm and fuzzy" names we lower ourselves to level of the pro-abortion people who call themselves "pro-choice" and call abortion clinics "family planning clinics".
When you start arguing semantics you strengthen your argument with the idiots, but the flip side is that you weaken your argument with intelligent free thinkers.
IMO, of course........
Jason
"You're not hard-core, unless you live hard-core."
_______________________
Hunting in Africa is an adventure. The number of variables involved preclude the possibility of a perfect hunt. Some problems will arise. How you decide to handle them will determine how much you enjoy your hunt.
Just tell yourself, "it's all part of the adventure." Remember, if Robert Ruark had gotten upset every time problems with Harry
Selby's flat bed truck delayed the safari, Horn of the Hunter would have read like an indictment of Selby. But Ruark rolled with the punches, poured some gin, and enjoyed the adventure.
-Jason Brown
29 July 2011, 00:30
Nitro ExpressI'm with Doubless on this one--a sporting firearm should NOT be referred to as a "weapon."
Years ago, in one of the outdoor magazines, in a letter to the editor a subscriber took one of the writers to task for calling a deer rifle a "weapon." He said you could call it a firearm, a rifle, a peashooter, Ol' Betsy, or anything else you want, but not "weapon" as that language implies use against other humans.
I've always remembered that letter, and I too cringe when I hear a sporting arm called a weapon--especially when it's "one of us" saying it.
And no, it has nothing to do with Political Correctness but everything to do with proper use of our language. Hemingway believed there was only one correct word to use in any given circumstance, and in this case, "weapon" should only be used when referring to a piece of military armament or something used in law enforcement or personal defense.
It's not being "warm and fuzzy," it's just being precise in our usage. I've got some academic credentials to back up what I'm saying; I'll not trot them out here as I doubt anything will change anyone's mind on this issue.
On the other side of the coin, I also cringe when "one of us" says "harvest" when we want to indicate we've killed something. Crops are harvested; animals are not--they're shot, or killed, or bagged. Talk about PC!
LTC, USA, RET
Benefactor Life Member, NRA
Member, SCI & DSC
Proud son of Texas A&M, Class of 1969
"A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" Robert Browning
29 July 2011, 01:18
HowardWikipedia: A weapon is a tool used with the aim of causing damage or harm (either physical or mental) to living beings or artificial structures or systems. In human society weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of tasks such as hunting, fighting, defense, the committing of criminal acts, the preserving of law and order, and the waging of war.
merriam-webster
Definition of WEAPON
1
: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
Legal Dictionary: The term weapons includes numerous items that can cause death or injury, including firearms, explosives, chemicals, and nuclear material
Seems kind of silly to argue that your sporting firearm is NOT a weapon. Seems no commonly accepted use of the word weapon would allow one to exclude sporting arms from the definition.
Howard
Moses Lake, Washington USA
hwhomes@outlook.com
29 July 2011, 01:48
DoublessHoward, the only flaw in your definitions is that Wikipedia is edited by humans, and is therefore subject to the individual's input.
Explosives, chemicals, and nuclear materials, huh? All used on mourning doves, partridge, quail and pheasant, deer, caribou, elk, etc., right? How about you try to eat something you took with an explosive, chemical, or nuclear material, and let me know how you fare.
And your use of the words "commonly accepted" make me smile...
Thanks for helping me make my point.
29 July 2011, 03:06
Howardquote:
Originally posted by Doubless:
Howard, the only flaw in your definitions is that Wikipedia is edited by humans, and is therefore subject to the individual's input.
Explosives, chemicals, and nuclear materials, huh? All used on mourning doves, partridge, quail and pheasant, deer, caribou, elk, etc., right? How about you try to eat something you took with an explosive, chemical, or nuclear material, and let me know how you fare.
And your use of the words "commonly accepted" make me smile...
Thanks for helping me make my point.
Hey Doubless glad I could make you smile. You made me smile too.
You want to exclude a definition because it's edited by humans?
Excuse me but isn't everything about words "edited" by humans?
Sorry but the rest of your post makes just as much sense.
Howard
Moses Lake, Washington USA
hwhomes@outlook.com
29 July 2011, 09:36
JBrownquote:
Originally posted by Nitro Express:
On the other side of the coin, I also cringe when "one of us" says "harvest" when we want to indicate we've killed something. Crops are harvested; animals are not--they're shot, or killed, or bagged. Talk about PC!
But you think if we cease to call firearms "weapons" people will look at them in a better light?
You guys crack me up!
Jason
"You're not hard-core, unless you live hard-core."
_______________________
Hunting in Africa is an adventure. The number of variables involved preclude the possibility of a perfect hunt. Some problems will arise. How you decide to handle them will determine how much you enjoy your hunt.
Just tell yourself, "it's all part of the adventure." Remember, if Robert Ruark had gotten upset every time problems with Harry
Selby's flat bed truck delayed the safari, Horn of the Hunter would have read like an indictment of Selby. But Ruark rolled with the punches, poured some gin, and enjoyed the adventure.
-Jason Brown
29 July 2011, 19:12
Nitro ExpressYou know, a few years ago it was possible to have a civilized discussion on AR without people making snide remarks or resorting to name-calling or profanity.
The anonymity of the Internet allows people to say whatever they please--people who otherwise would be too courteous—or afraid—to make those comments to a person’s face.
Electronic communication has many benefits but unfortunately almost as many drawbacks.
And for the last time, not calling a firearm a weapon unless it is used against humans is NOT about Political Correctness, or “softening” the impact of killing an animal to appease the anti’s—it’s about correct use of our language. You wouldn’t call a rowboat a yacht, would you? Or a butter knife a steak knife?
Anyway, I am done here—Doubless, you have my sympathy.
LTC, USA, RET
Benefactor Life Member, NRA
Member, SCI & DSC
Proud son of Texas A&M, Class of 1969
"A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" Robert Browning
29 July 2011, 19:32
Gatogordoquote:
Originally posted by Doubless:
I am in total agreement, with one very vital difference: with all due respect, firearms are no more a weapon than a claw hammer is, except in the context of the firearms built for military use. Those obviously were manufactured for assault on another human being.
IMO, referring to a handgun, rifle, or shotgun as a weapon gives the bunny huggers and Sarah Bradys of the world more fodder for the mill. They can point to the statement as validation of their contention that all guns are bad. Every time I read it or hear it, I cringe...
I'm quoting the original post because it is basically wrong. He says, beside military weapons, but, in fact, ANY FIREARM can be considered a weapon, depending on it's use, because the ABILITY to use it as a weapon, makes it a weapon. Why don't any of you people who are arguing that "Oh, my Purdy isn't a nasty old weapon, but a fine sporting instrument." try carrying it into the Whitehouse, or most public buildings, court houses come to mind instantly, without permission and see what you're charged with? Do you think you will be able to beat that charge in court with the defense that because it was designed to shoot birds, it is not a weapon? A little common sense would go a long ways here.
xxxxxxxxxx
When considering US based operations of guides/outfitters, check and see if they are NRA members. If not, why support someone who doesn't support us? Consider spending your money elsewhere.
NEVER, EVER book a hunt with BLAIR WORLDWIDE HUNTING or JEFF BLAIR.
I have come to understand that in hunting, the goal is not the goal but the process.