Previous Post
Next Post

“A gun rights advocate in Florida was seriously wounded on Tuesday when her 4-year-old son shot her in the back from the back seat of her vehicle,” Inside Edition reports. “According to police, Jamie Gilt was discovered shot in her truck when a deputy noticed she was acting frantically. When the deputy approached Gilt, she told him she was shot by her young son.” Ms. Gilt is recovering, but the anti-gun rights jihadis are just getting started. They’re incensed because Ms. Gilt was publicly pro-gun. While I hate to give aid and comfort to the enemies of firearms freedom . . .

Ms. Gilt was clearly negligent in her firearms storage. Why in the world would she leave a loaded, unsecured .45 caliber Kimber handgun in the back of her pickup where a four-year-old could access it? While Ms. Gilt had no doubt “trained” her son in the rules of firearms safety — her Facebook page boasted of his prowess and enthusiasm for a .22 pistol — there’s no excuse for failing to maintain control of her firearm. Her irresponsibility traumatized her child, almost cost her her life and set back the gun rights movement. Don’t be that guy. Or gal.

Previous Post
Next Post

259 COMMENTS

  1. This could have ended much much worse than it did. Thankfully, she will survive. That said, she is completely to blame for an incident that was 100% avoidable.

    • I think the problem here is that Gilt got way to complacent and confident with her gun skills. It’s a common thing to happen when people get a little big in their britches about guns.

      You see, guns are not friends. They have no loyalty and will kill you as easily as anyone else. And they certainly are not toys so even referring to them, as she did about her Kimber .45, misleads children and adds more chances for something to go wrong. Which she demonstrated to epic proportions.

      Gilt made a pile of errors. But in one brief bang, a powerful role model is instantly turned into running joke. No turning back from that one. (pun intended)

      But before the gun community dog piles on her for this gravest of transgressions, consider that the same attention that was heaped on this woman fueled her insecurities and made her feel a part of a group that empowered her. Now she need our help more than ever. She was damaged goods in the first place, and really needed human support but instead was glorified because of guns, not her personally. She became just another object in the gun case.

      Those who feel compelled to publicize their love of firearms on Facebook are the same folks who need some tough love when it comes to guns.

    • its not her fault she slept with a loaded Gun between her legs and a stick of dynamite shoved up her azz because its her right, just going to Dillard’s it was an accident

    • Stop, enough welfare money for her and her son, where did she get the money for the guns and ammo? 25 years, turn in the guns, plus no custody and payback taxpayers

      • Your words are assinine. You better be absolutely perfect ( hint…you are not) and may God and others help you when you make a mistake not just with your firearm but anything else…like a car or pickup or motorcycle or…..yes, they can all cause serious injury or death if a MISTAKE is made. How about firecrackers, powersaws, kitchen utensils… I hope you get the idea. If you don’t….you should turn in your guns.

  2. Somebody must have their facts wrong. A .45 wouldn’t have left enough of her for the police to find….

    Seriously, though, all it takes for tragedy is half a second of stupid. One of the reasons I’m a fan of “on your body or in a safe.” Either one minimizes the chances of that half second happening to you….

    • +1,000. I just don’t get why people leave loaded guns laying about in cars, on bookshelves, or in dresser drawers, especially when they have kids. I don’t have kids, live alone, and I don’t leave guns randomly around. It’s a terribly bad habit to get into even in my situation because at some point, you have visitors, and well, you are right — it’s that half-second of stupid.

      When I’ve been forced to leave a gun in the car, I disassemble it and take a critical piece (usually the barrel) with me. I get it if you are making ends meet and can’t afford a gun safe or heavy duty lock box, but don’t all guns come with trigger locks nowadays?

      She made a very bad mistake and she’s lucky she’s alive. So clearly the gun control harpies have to excoriate her.

      • That’s the one good thing about magazine disconnects. When I go into a school or post office, I lock the gun in the glove box with the magazine removed and in my pocket.

        • Make sure the ammo is not also illegal. Furthermore, the Post Office has written a reg (exceeding the scope of unconstitutional federal law, in addition to the constitution itself) that even the parking lot is a forbidden area.

        • I suppose there is nothing wrong with that, but I really want the gun to be inoperable and not easily made operable if it is not on me or in my gun safe. If the gun gets stolen, it’s harder to obtain a spare barrel than an extra magazine, and a gun without a barrel is not worth much on the street. That’s why I generally take the barrel, if I take anything. You can’t really put most guns back together without the barrel to even make it look like it works.

          Also, as a personal rule for me, I don’t leave a round in the chamber without a magazine in the gun. That’s probably because I mostly carry Glocks. I don’t want to have a half-second of stupid and pull the trigger to start the disassembly process thinking the gun is empty.

        • Please don’t praise the good of magazine disconnects. Wait until your in state that mandates them. California in a few years it will be a choice between a S&W Shield and Hipoint as everything else drops of the “Not Unsafe Gun Roster’

    • Somebody must have their facts wrong. A .45 wouldn’t have left enough of her for the police to find….

      PiersonB for the win!

    • “A .45 wouldn’t have left enough of her for the police to find….”

      A pastor in my area was shot a few days ago by a truly crazy person who thought he was a martian (who then flew commercial from Idaho to D.C. despite an open felony warrant). The pastor was hit by 6, .45 ACP rounds, one in the skull which did not penetrate, one in the lung, one in the hip, one in the shoulder, etc, and is in fair/stable condition and “will be fine.”

      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/idaho-pastor-who-spoke-ted-cruz-rally-shot-and-wounded

          • Let’s get this caliber war started off right.

            If you want true knock down power you need a 12.7×99

            • Just saw an ad for a single-shot handgun loading .223 rifle cartridge. small gun, big bang. Still contemplating as a first gun.

              But, yeah, 12.7×99 should get the job done.

              • They’ve got one of those here in Ca, it comes with a second barrel chambered in .308

              • But I would have to decide which barrel to use, when. Oh wait…that would be a third decision, when.

                Guess this is why I don’t own a gun.

              • Consciousness is nuaght but an unending stream of decisions.
                Besides I’ve always felt the proper mindset for gun buy to be the same as Pokemon. If you don’t get it you should be ashamed.

    • Piersonb is incorrect. A .45 cal pistol is not an RPG. I have seen people survive .45 cal gunshot wounds. If the round missed any vital spots, like the spine, heart, kidneys, etc, she COULD fully recover, physically if not emotionslly. If any of these vital spots were hit, God help her!

  3. Can a 4yr old work the slide on a 45? Maybe not.

    Guessing hot chamber condition; So, maybe, sometimes, Israeli carry is not such a bad idea?

    • Actually it would be Israeli NOT-carry in this case. It was not only not on her person, she probably had no way to reach it quickly.

      So I’d not use it as an argument in favor of Israeli carry.

    • Um, no. Keeping the gun out of the hands of a 4 year old is the correct answer and it’s not that hard to do. This was negligence, unfortunate and lucky for her, but entirely the fault of the gun owner.

      • I don’t think even she disputes that.
        Lest we forget…ALL of us have serious lapses of judgment that in most cases do not result in serious injury by the grace and only the Grace of God.
        Don’t jump on her folks…your turn may be closer than you think and even though you may think so….YOU (and me) ARE NOT IMMUNE!

    • “Guessing hot chamber condition; So, maybe, sometimes, Israeli carry is not such a bad idea?”

      At some point, you (rhetorical you, not you personally, Bob) have to ask yourself, “Why bother carrying a gun?” If it’s off-body AND Condition 3…what’s the point? Just to say you are in the club and have a gun…somewhere?

      There are a number of reasons Condition 3 is a bad idea. There are a number of reasons off-body carry is a bad idea. Both together? What’s bad x bad?

      Compounding errors very rarely leads to a good solution.

      • JR_in_NC,

        There is one scenario where I think off-body carry makes a TON of sense. Suppose …

        (a) You work in an environment where the only handgun that you can conceal (without being “made” and losing your job or being jailed) is a micro/sub-compact handgun.

        (b) You have concluded that a micro/sub-compact handgun is wholly inadequate for stopping murder/suicide (domestic) attackers, spree killers, and terrorists.

        (c) You want a full-size handgun available for retrieval for murder/suicides, spree killers, and terrorists.

        I am confident those conditions apply to a half-million or more people in our nation. If they are going to keep a full-size handgun available off-body in their work environment, keeping the chamber empty could be a critical safeguard for the non-zero probability of someone else (child or otherwise) getting their hands on that full-size handgun. Does an empty chamber add about one second to the total time it will take that person to retrieve their handgun and be able to defend themselves? Sure. Is it a wise trade-off? I believe it is.

        Remember, if the attacker suddenly starts attacking that armed person at close range, that armed person can immediately employ their micro/sub-compact handgun to defend themselves. Otherwise, if the attacker starts their attack elsewhere, that armed person should have ample time to retrieve their full-size handgun and take up a defensive position.

        This is just an extension of keeping a long-gun available for a horrific attack and keeping the chamber empty as a safety measure.

        • No argument against any of your specific points.

          To clarify: I was just trying to make a more general statement regarding how a long list of ‘concessions’ without added benefits eventually leaves one without really having any net benefit at all.

          With each “compromise,” there are diminishing returns.

        • Exactly. You have to carry your gun, in order to protect yourself from all those other people who are carrying guns. That’s the whole point of carrying a gun. To protect yourself from all the guns.

          I agree with all the other folk saying not to be too hard on her. You wouldn’t want to be too hard on a woman who almost got herself shot with her own gun by her 4 year old son. Who could have just as easily shot himself or an innocent bystander.
          Sure, why be hard on her, even though she was negligent almost to the the point of negligent homicide of her child.

          Of course, in the good old USA when it does lead to death only 25 percent of legal firearm owners are ever charged with crime when they leave their loaded unsupervised firearms around children and someone dies.
          And then suddenly no one is talking about enforcing the laws you already have. Even if someone did, it wouldn’t matter, because in most states it’s not a crime. It’s just God taken home a family member.

          So it’s not real surprise to see this sort of thing happening regularly in the USA, but almost never in Norway or Switzerland. But that’s because they have instituted a REAL culture of gun safety, including enforcing laws. Even if one day it might be you making the stupid mistake and you are facing charges. Otherwise, these so called accidents will continue to happen. And quite clearly, there are many in the US who feel that’s a perfectly acceptable price to pay. You can see them in the comments telling others not to be too hard on her. We all make mistakes. So a child winds up dead now and then. Or 5 a day. Big deal.

          The porttent ting is te evil gubbmint aint goona force me to be safe wit my gun!!!!!!

        • What rock did you crawl out from under? You are completely misrepresenting pretty much everything said on this site by quite a number of people.

          And…the “only happens in the US” canard….good grief.

          Whatever rock it was, crawl back under it. Illogical nonsense is a waste of our time.

    • I have a cheap Ruger P90 with a strangely smooth as silk slide that anyone even with severe arthritis could work. A Kimber that’s probably like dragging a fat corpse over jagged rocks probably not.

      It shouldn’t be an issue as the correct answer is the 4 year old shouldn’t have been able to get at it to even find out.

    • Yep, shrill white knights. Every cause has them. It’s fine as long as they’re understood to be the torch and pitchfork brigade, not leaders.

  4. The irony here is she’s an advocate for ‘gun sense’ but lacked – that all too rare COMMON SENSE to 1. Secure her weapon and 2. Secure her child in a car seat

    Congrats Jamie, you’ve done more to undermine and embarrass our community, than any of your “advocacy” ever did to help…

    That said, I hope you make a full recovery and get right back on the horse, literally and proverbially and have fucking learned something from it…

  5. Sometimes, you just wish some people would stay off your side…

    Still, glad her mistakes injured HER rather than hurting the child.

    FWIW, and I know this’ll piss somebody off, I think four is too young. A four year old is nowhere near the age of reason and cannot be made to understand the gravity of firearms. They just aren’t developed enough. I’d say eight or nine with supervision, maybe twelve without.

    • I was given a single shot bolt action .22 rifle for my 6th birthday.

      Many millions of people start shooting before 8 or 9. With proper supervision, a person of any age can safely enjoy shooting.

      • From 4 to 6 to 8 there is significant development.

        I took my daughter shooting (.22) for the first time last year when she was 8. Right now, the kids share a Red Ryder (6 and 9).

        Even though both are familiar with the 4 rules, I would have trusted either with more than a nerd or water gun when they were 4.

        • If you don’t trust your 4 year old with a firearm, then you must not trust yourself as a parent, either.

          Nobody would willingly leave a 4 year old alone with a firearm. And if that 4 year old is using a firearm under your constant and careful direction, control, and supervision, and you STILL don’t trust her, then you’d best re-evaluate your abilities as a parent. That 4 year old isn’t going to do anything that you don’t tell them to do when you’re righ there beside them the whole time.

    • Certainly way too young to have unsupervised access to a loaded pistol in the backseat of a car! :-S Too young for my choice in introducing anything past Eddie Eagle firearm safety rules (I start that at about 3yrs). Kids with supervision I think can certainly start shooting fairly early. I started mine with range time at about 7-8 yrs. I first shot at 5 yrs. Pistols also aren’t my choice at that age though as they’re tough for kids to handle. I like long barrels and bench rests to easily keep muzzles pointed downrange while we focus on basic usage and safety. I then work up to carbines and standing. I didn’t start them with pistols until teen years.

      Important to say though: EVERY KID AND FAMILY IS DIFFERENT! Should be how the parent feels knowing the comfort level of themselves and their kids. Some kids will shoot earlier than others.

      Now I have to go back to work but I’m pining for range time…thanks TTAG! 😛

  6. Wonder how this would have played out if the child had shot sideways and killed someone in a nearby car. Good thing mom took a bullet for her child. This could have been much worse for us.

    Gilt was a fake. This proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. Count the errors. 1) kid not seat belted in booster, 2) gun unsecured, 3) gun loaded, 4) kid taught that guns are toys, 5) kid taught that all triggers are to be pulled, 6) nobody in the car was wearing ear pro, and 7) a Kimber actually fired without $900 in aftermarket gunsmithing.

    • 1) kid not seat belted in booster … Not a big deal depending on where you live, where you’re driving at the time.
      2) gun unsecured … Primary mistake.
      3) gun loaded … As they’re supposed to be. Not a mistake.
      4) kid taught that guns are toys … Proof? Referring to a gun as a “toy” is not the same as teaching your child that that’s what they are. I jokingly call my off-road vehicles “toys” but they’re no more of a toy than a firearm is.
      5) kid taught that all triggers are to be pulled … Again, proof? What an asinine comment.
      6) nobody in the car wearing ear pro … How is that a mistake? Do you drive around with ear muffs on on an average day?
      7) Kimber firing w/o $900 of gunsmithing … Not a mistake, but surprising nonetheless.

      • 6) to amplify your point, wearing ear pro would be a mistake in a vehicle. Maybe even illegal; you’re supposed to be able to hear sirens, horns, etc. (When properly used a horn can warn you of an unsafe condition.) Yes, it also exposes you to (c)rap musing playing so loud in the neighboring vehicle you can hear every loose screw and bolt buzz.

        7) Actually the first firing isn’t a surprise…she somehow managed to chamber the round.

        It would be the second bang that would be the surprise. And since there wasn’t one, we can’t know what happened. Sooooo…what are the chances the gun was NOT in battery when it was found after this incident?

        • I wear ear pro in my car all the time. Since you don’t I can only assume you gots yerself one of them new cars from the 90s thats got quite built in. Without ear pro I can’t hear my walkman.

          Second bang. Point well taken. I stand corrected with Glock in hand.

      • “7) Kimber firing w/o $900 of gunsmithing … Not a mistake, but surprising nonetheless.”

        Now that’s funny!

  7. Too bad this happened, but clearly, if it was holstered and on her waist, this would not have happened. Is this woman considersed a firearms expert of sorts? No way around it, a pistol with a chambered round can be very dangerous, and thus must be under control with muzzle pointed to safe place, just in case. It was her fault.

    • I take your point, but remember that SWAT officer in California who was doing a show and tell at a grade school? A young kid snuck up behind him and fired his gun in its holster and they were never able to even figure out which kid did it! So just saying “holster” is not even a panacea. Kids are fast and sneaky when they have their eyes on something and they have skinny little fingers. It needs to be a very secure holster.

  8. Turd in the punchbowl. Poseur.

    Best wishes for recovery, hope the child doesnt have hearing loss and isn’t traumatized, but holy heck, what a screw up.

  9. It will turn out to be her husband’s gun that he left in the vehicle after a visit to the range… it’s always a man’s fault.

  10. Parents with children that age store stuff like drain cleaner and insecticide out of the children’s reach. A firearm should be handled the same way. She should be convicted of child neglect.

    • I tried to make the same point in another thread. Careless handling or storage of a firearm could be criminally negligent and should be treated as such. Allowing a 4yr old unsupervised access to a loaded firearm IS criminally negligent (and by not securing her pistol, she did allow it). I’m sorry she was injured, but as someone else noted; he could have just as easily pointed it out the window and shot Mrs.Browning, the retired teacher on a drive with her husband.

      It may be unpopular here but snarky comments won’t change the fact that this person endangered herself, her son, and the public at large and as such should be held criminally liable.

      and BTW- my Kimber works fine with no gunsmithing, but then again, its a Series I and I don’t know what the newer ones are like.

      Ridge

  11. She’s catching a lot of flak in the local media. Or was until yesterday when we had our second workplace shooting in a week and an off duty detective was shot in the same day. She’s old news locally now. Last I heard they were trying to find chargers to pin on her. Just stupid as everybody else has pointed out already.

    • Boy Ian, you’re a real buzzkill. It’s not every day we get to eat one of our own. Let us enjoy it a little longer will ya?

      • I didn’t mean to interrupt the feeding frenzy. SQUIRREL??? Just pointing out that even locally here where it happened nobody is paying attention anymore. SQUIRREL!!! After all if it bleeds it leads, and she has stopped bleeding and there is more blood being spilled. FOR THE CHILDREN! I’m sorry, what were we paying attention to?

  12. People who think that a four old understands the implications of the four rules are a threat to gun rights. Ms. Gilt made the fundamental error in believing that her son understood them because he can parrot them back to her. A child will not begin to really comprehend the whys of the four rules until they approach double digit ages.

    • Whether or not you can successfully teach a young child to refrain from handling firearms depends on the teaching method.

      If your teaching method uses nothing but words, your method will not work until your children are 10+ years old as you stated, and even then it might fail.

      I use a different method that is highly effective on young children, even to age four or so. When my children were very young, about age four, I had them stand back about 50 feet behind me, without hearing protection, and watch me shoot a target with a large caliber handgun. That unpleasantly loud bang that they HEARD made it clear to my children that using firearms was inherently undesirable for them. Next, I had them put on hearing protection and stand with me. I had them put their hands around my hands and I fired off one round. They FELT the significant recoil through my hands which further clarified that this was inherently undesirable for them. Finally, I had them stand five feet behind me (with hearing protection) while I shot a milk jug full of water that was ten feet away. Their OBSERVATION of that milk jug exploding in spectacular fashion made it crystal clear that firearms have a huge ability to destroy things and they did NOT want to handle nor operate a firearm.

      The traditional teaching method that most people use — explanation — is totally ineffective for young children because young children are unable to:
      (a) focus their attention for a long time
      (b) understand abstract concepts
      (c) learn only from hearing a verbal explanation

      My method is much more effective with young children for several reasons:
      (a) It does NOT require a long attention span.
      (b) It does NOT require understanding abstract concepts.
      (c) It involves a slight amount of pain which children WILL remember. (One loud bang from 50 feet away is unpleasant but does not cause any hearing damage.)
      (d) It involves all learning styles — hearing, feeling (doing), and seeing.
      (e) It enables children to see the destructive potential of firearms.

      Unless your children are mentally ill or have a learning disability, my method is wildly successful. Even then, it is only an added safety measure in the event that they happen upon a firearm in spite of your best efforts to prevent your children from accessing them. My method does not reduce the responsibility of adults to prevent their children from accessing a firearm.

  13. This is worse than a lapse in judgement. This is criminal negligence. She should be charged with a crime serious enough to put her on the prohibited persons list, permanently.

    • Yeah, let’s really kick her while she’s down and make sure she never gets another chance!

      Jesus wept . . .

      As John Belushi said, “I hate Illinois Nazis.”

      • I’m fine with waiting until she gets out of the hospital before we slap the cuffs on her.

        I hate Illinois Nazis too, but Florida morons are more dangerous.

        • As far as I can tell, she appears to only be dangerous to herself.

          If she were to continue to injure herself repeated via stupidity, I say she ought to be free to suffer through it.

          Bringing the state into something like this doesn’t do anyone any good, except for the power hungry statists.

          First you bend the definition of negligence to include instances of no harm to anyone, so you can crucify some stupid woman who made you look bad.

          Then, the anti-gun statists take these newly “broadened” statutes and broaden them further to include things like leaving a loaded gun unlocked for use in home defense (nightstand gun or the like). No harm done to anyone, nobody even injured, but now you’re a felon and can’t live a normal life anymore (which is something that needs to be fixed, but I digress).

          You guys who are incensed and out for blood need to get over your embarrassment and realize that every call for state action in a situation like this WILL eventually be used against all of us in the future.

          She may not have helped the cause any with her stupidity, but you’re actively rolling us backwards by demanding state criminal action when no third party was harmed.

  14. The only firearm that I have that is loaded is the one that is on me and/or in my locked gun storage in my vehicle (because I can’t carry at work and is parked right out my window at work) or being shot at the range.

    All firearms at home with the exception of the one under my control are locked up with no magazine in them or chambered rounds in them.

    This is the second example in less than a week of someone not thinking about the storage of a firearms. The other being the wife of a former member of The Eagles(the band not the NFL team).

    • Generally, in my home, I am within three steps of a loaded firearm which is not on my person. My wife has been advised where they are and knows how to use them. This has been the case since years before my first child was born, and that was 41 years ago. Some here seem to have majored in unjustifiable panic while in school, have been reading mandated federal warnings far too long.

  15. Big fan Robert. Jamie Gilt here. I was inspired by your cute avatar of a stuffed animal holding a gun. Long story short, my kid was crying in the back seat of the truck and I thought “hey, he’s got his favorite fluffy back there (we call him Shooty), why not let his stuffed animal hold a gun”. Jokes on me I guess. But in my son’s defense, it was Shooty, that actually shot me in the back.

    • And that’s supposed to be funny? Cute? An explanation? Let’s give a child a gun to play with? Whether this a real comment or not from Jamie Gilt, Robert, I’d delete this comment on GP sake as its about as dumb as I’ve ever seen. SMH.

    • Jamie, we get it your an attention whore with a victim complex.

      Now obviously it’s too late but most mothers get by with the old “I was in labor with you for X hours” guilt trip. Not only is this elaborate bull is way too much effort, but the kid won’t even be able to hear you now. You’re banging on about your back and all he hears is a Peanuts parent. You’re gonna have to hobble that trash out all by yourself.

  16. Hope she recovers and hope that the kid wasn’t tramautized. Also hope she learns from this.

  17. Theres an old saw in IT that there are only two kinds of people: Those who have had a hard drive crash and those who are about to. I wonder if its the same for ND? Some obviously being safer than others like guys on the line drawing and shooting the ground or reflexively pulling the trigger from recoil or worse an ND from faulty trigger groups factory or home smithed.

    I try like hell to be safe but aren’t we all just one moment away? If we didn’t have accidents, would we end up having accidents by complacency?

    • You handle a gun enough, it will happen. Much like motorcycle riders are divided between those who have crashed and those who will crash. People who are careful and attentive may extend that interval past their lifetimes, but as you never know when that time is, it pays to take care all the time.

      The point of the hard gun safety rules is so that when it does happen, it won’t hurt anyone, as you generally have to be breaking at least three of them at once.

      • “You handle a gun enough, it will happen. ” – No sir, it won’t. Follow the rules and it will never happen, no matter how much you handle the gun. I am no smarter or dexterous than the next guy, and in 20 years of carrying a chambered gun every day, and shooting longer than that, including my time in the army, I’ve never had an ND. I am not lucky. I am careful.

        • As soon as you think you’re immune you will get aced, or do you think your to smart for it to happen? I call bs. Because you’re a veteran you know gun safety better?? Horseshit.

    • False analogy.
      Hard drive crashes are beyond our control.
      Guns are, or should be, completely under our control. They don’t go bang by themselves.

  18. Gawd I hope that’s NOT really you Ms. Gilt. Get your shite together! Sorry lady no excuse for this…

  19. I take the kids to the range when they get to age 10
    They shoot the M 1 carbine as a first gun
    Nice soft shooter for a kid
    They each have been “helping me” clean my guns since about age 5
    The are taught never to pick up a gun or let anyone else pick it up if they find one
    They complain to their mother when I leave an unloaded one for them to to find
    “Mom, tell Dad to stop testing us. It’s annoying”!
    I carry my conceal weapon Israeli style
    I think racking the slide does take 2 hands and an extra second, but adds a layer of safety with kids in the house

  20. Just heard that Miss Gilt has decided not to press charges against her son. Too bad. Another criminal walks because a spineless gun owner believes the perp learned a lesson and won’t do it again.

    And in other news Florida governor jeb bush lowered the age to get a concieled carry permit to five years old in hopes of attracting more delegates if the primary is contested.

    Senator Cruz hit back at bush with an ad showing a pic of Gilt’s son holding a .45 and telling us he’s got our back.

  21. Florida already has a readily available violation to charge Ms. Gilt with: Statute 790.174 “Safe storage of firearms required.”

    (2) It is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if a person violates subsection (1) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result thereof a minor gains access to the firearm, without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, and possesses or exhibits it, without the supervision required by law:
    (a) In a public place; or
    (b) In a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in violation of s. 790.10.

    • The minor did not do either of those things, and apparently shooting somebody was not a concern of that law. So she’s all good.

  22. Beauty….. check!
    Brains….. Thought they said trains, so passed on it!

    Anyone can F… up, But GEEEEZE,
    That was one hell of a “BRAIN FART”
    Rule number ONE….. “The gun is ALWAYS LOADED”!!!!!

    ( I…) Don’t think a Cocked 1911 ( or any other “COCKED” SA) is suitable anywhere near Children!

  23. As someone who very much believes in the concept of an “accidental” in addition to “negligent” Discharge. This one is pretty stupid.

  24. Im glad shes ok. Too bad she wasnt shot in the side of her head, theres nothing between her ears to stop it! She wouldnt have even been injured.

  25. What’s surprising the number of people that believe their superior parenting skills would prevent the same from happening with their gifted little snowflakes. I suppose Ms. Gilt believed the same thing.

    • Sorry dude. Mine has and mine did.

      100% of my kids had zero firearms “accidents” and it’s all because we know that we’re one hair trigger away from screwing up so every firearm rule is followed 100% of the time. Zero exceptions. Ever.

    • Well she did leave a lot of room to make that claim. This isn’t exactly the same as little Jason finding grandpa’s forgotten revolver in a night stand. As bad as those cases are, this is a person actively promoting gun ownership that should never be caught that complacent. What the hell! I keep my cheap guns more secure than that, even without any kids riding in the back seat, just so they don’t get beat up rolling around in the vehicle or have an ND from the trigger getting caught on something.

  26. Why in the world would she leave a loaded, unsecured .45 caliber Kimber handgun in the back of her pickup

    Well, since its a Kimber, she was probably expecting it to jam.

    • Well consistency counts for something, even when it goes bang, it’s still an expensive failure.

    • The problem with that logic is, it will still fire the round actually in the chamber. Jamming after that, well, it’s too late. Embarrassing little ND.

  27. If you asked her if her child was responsible around guns the day before she was shot, I bet she would have said “yes.” Just like all the other gun owners I hear talk about how they can trust their child around guns because they have taught them well.

        • i don’t care if a 4 year old can understand “responsible”. i am more concerned they understand “obedience” when it comes to guns. a child does not need to know if they are being “responsible” when told to never touch a firearm, period, ever (unless daddy says so). once upon a time, when children were told to never touch parents’ belonging, they feared the parent more than could ever enjoy defying the parents. there is no “nice, nice” when it comes to guns and children. children are not adults in little bitty bodies. you don’t convince them they are terrific little creatures if they act “responsibly” around guns. you teach them to follow orders.

  28. I said this earlier but continued reading and could not honestly believe the remarks of some of you here…Saying this was a criminal act is more senseless than what she did. She made a mistake…several and I am not denying they could have been serious but that DOES NOT MAKE HER CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT.
    IF she needs help funding a lawyer I’ll be glad to pitch in. If you’re on the prosecuting side I’ll be even more willing.
    If there turns out to be a crowd funding for her please let me know.

      • Criminal negligence requires actual harm to someone other than the person being charged.

        You can’t be charged with negligence for cutting your fingers off with a table saw, or breaking your own leg falling down crappy stairs that you built.

        If you’re dumb and hurt yourself, the law should (and does, unless “creatively” interpreted) consider the injury itself to be punishment enough.

        What good does it do to use the law to kick someone when they’re already down?

        It only serves to satisfy your desire for revenge against someone for making you look bad, and that is really the most vapid reason I can think of to charge someone with a crime.

        Suck it up guys. The lady stepped in it, and for about fifteen minutes the usual douchenozzles are going to crow and strut about how unsafe all guns are, and you can (and should) tell them to GoFThemselves, just like normal.

        This is ONE bad outcome. It is not the end of the world, or even much of a setback on the gun rights front. The lady already has an extra hole in her carcass to deal with, along with a very confused/scared kid and probably a pissed off husband. She’s got enough on her plate without a bunch of randos from the internet hoping to bring down the weight of the state on her too.

        If nothing else, imagine how happy a prosecution would make all those douchenozzles that you don’t like look bad in front of.

        Can’t hand them THAT kind of a win, right?

        • “What good does it do to use the law to kick someone when they’re already down?”

          It might save her son’s life if she doesn’t get another chance go throw him unrestrained in a back seat next to a loaded gun.

          Getting shot doesn’t magically make stupid people smart.

        • And I’ll remind you Curt, being stupid isn’t illegal (else half the country or more would be incarcerated).

          Dumb people do FAR more damage, both on a per-instance and an overall yearly basis, with automobiles than guns, yet I don’t see you agitating for everyone who’s ever had a fenderbender or speeding ticket to be jailed to save us all from their stupidity.

          Look into your heart and you’ll find, if you’re honest with yourself, that the reason you are SO angry with this woman is because she has publicly embarrassed you, and so to protect your self esteem you have to lash out at her. Which is fine.

          Lash out on a personal basis all you like, but keep the state out of it.

          If you don’t, you’ll eventually find yourself hoisted on a petard of your own making.

        • She wasn’t being stupid, as in putting diesel in a gas car. If she had been alone in her house, then maybe your argument would have merit; but, she was being careless with a firearm in Public. Her carelessness caused injury. That its to herself is immaterial. It could have been her child, or Mrs. Adkins coming home from the grocery store.

          If her carelessness isn’t criminal negligence or reckless endangerment, hell then nothing is.

          Ridge

      • In my town, a negligent discharge IS a criminal act. And you become a prohibited person for life. If a child is involved, you could be charged with reckless endangerment, child abuse and whatever else they can think up. In an instance like the one reported, a child could be placed in the care of the state for an indefinite time. Or placed permanently with the other parent (if known).

  29. Ok, I take serious issue with the fact that this individual was not in the habit of weapon safety. Whether you go by the four basic fundamental safety “rules” of firearms or interpretation thereof, she was willfully UNSAFE AS A RULE; Her own photos prove it. Of the four photos I accessed easily, anyone with any respect for safety first, should be shaking their heads. Putting her vanity above safety IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS FROM HER IDIOTIC PICTURES. Exhibit A: Holding a firearm and a baby simultaneously = FAIL. Exhibit B: Posing with your firearm on the saddle of a horse, finger on the trigger, and looking at the camera instead of the direction of the weapon= FAIL. Exhibit C: Holding a weapon, pointed vertically up, looking at the camera=FAIL. Exhibit D: “Got to play with my new toy…”=FAIL. We all know what Exhibit E is….

  30. Life is dangerous and uncertain. I nearly got scragged at an intersection today cause a woman was too busy with her cell phone to notice she was running a red light.

  31. You guys are making this just too easy.

    Irrefutable Fact: if no gun had been available, this incident would not have happened.

    Irrefutable Fact: All law-abiding gun owners cannot be trusted to safely handle firearms.

    Irrefutable Fact: Gun safety is about gun safety.

    Where are the calls for industry supported, standard, continuing gun safety classes ? Might not stop every stupid person with a gun, but how can it infringe on any one’s right ? Voluntary standards are replete throughout industry. Why not for guns ?

    • Irrefutable Fact: Unless you are personally going to come remove said gun from my grasp, all your words and laws will have ZERO effect in the real world.

      You can demand and legislate anything at all, but that does not make it so.

      There are over 300 million firearms in private hands in the US right now.

      I DARE you to come try and find them all.

      • Is “deflection” all you guys got?

        Never said anything about gun confiscation. Noting that the absence of a gun would have eliminated the possibility of an ND is simply noting an irrefutable fact. So, if one were to object that gun confiscation would do nothing, facts would be against such objection. You guys are fond of ignoring facts you don’t like.

        As to molon labe, I already laid-out a number of scenarios where the majority of guns could be collected without the opportunity for anyone to forcefully resist. If more guns equals less crime, would fewer guns not mean fewer opportunities for NDs? Or would you argue that with less guns, the remaining owners would actually be more irresponsible? Oh yeah, here’s a lesson in tactics for attacking heavily armed strongholds: Singapore, 15Feb42.

        My submission led to a question about why gun guys are not calling for more training, more discipline. I am impressed with how many of you are taking a no-nonsense stance about appropriate punishment. The “gun lobby” and its acolytes should be announcing through every outlet that incidents like this are intolerable, and steps are being taken to support more and better firearm safety.

    • Are you the troll 2asux or the guy trolling 2asux? Next thing you know we’ll have a 2asuxadix commenting here.

      • Why is challenging cement-brained ideas considered “troling”? I was instructed that “trolls” drop in to stir-up a frenzy and never stick around. I frequent these forums in an effort to do battle with fossilized thinking. Sometimes a person responds that they have reconsidered their position and fine-tuned their ideas. Whether or not that person agrees fully with me is immaterial. Elevating the discussion beyond slogans is better for both sides of the issue.

        • If it’s got feathers like a duck, webbed feet like a duck and quacks like a duck then it’s a troll. Of course you deny being a troll.

          You’re using the dindu nuffin defense.

          • “Of course you deny being a troll.”
            – Can we get this done once and for all? A “troll” is anyone who posts disagreement with mindless sloganeering about guns? Did I get that right?

            You’re using the dindu nuffin defense.”
            – Nope. I did/do something. I pushed up against your unyielding prejudice.

        • Now you’re getting upset at being called out. You probably shouldn’t own a gun.

          A troll that’s upset cause he doesn’t have credibility? Now that’s ironic.

          • “Now you’re getting upset at being called out. You probably shouldn’t own a gun.
            A troll that’s upset cause he doesn’t have credibility? ”

            Based on your assumption, I went straight to the source, asking myself if I was upset, angered, aggravated, insulted, pissed-off, out of joint, irritated at comments coming from the anti-responsibility wing of the pro-gun cabal. After due consideration (and a beer), I concluded to myself that I am, in fact, “upset”. Indeed, I look forward to opportunities to communicate with people with cogent ideas and musings about accidental (negligent) shootings of private citizens.

            So, nope, not upset. But you are having great difficulty dealing with someone who refuses to accept your version of reasonable and responsible (“because I said so !”) conversation.

        • So a drunk troll wants to control the conversation? I’m having no trouble at all with the conversation.

          Constitutional carry is gradually becoming the law of the land. Frame the conversation any way you want. That fact ain’t changing. Your fixating on a few accidental deaths or injuries isn’t going to change that fact.

          Picking comments to run and tell your anti gun buddies is also not going to change that fact. I’m willing to bet that within 10 years we’ll have national constitutional carry laws. No classes or permits to exercise a right.

          If that upsets you, meh. You can always try to change the constitution. Lots of luck with that.

          • Thank you. It is always good to find an honest person willing to admit gun safety is nothing to be interested in, only the right to have a gun and do as you please, regardless of who gets hurt. You deserve the admiration of your peers.

              • “Previously discussed on this site:
                http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/03/jim-sutherland/why-americans-need-mandatory-firearms-training/

                – Entertaining, but not germane to this string. Nothing said about “mandatory” or “government” regarding gun safety training. The author of the referenced article noted that “mandatory” training is “radioactive” to American gun owners. Missed the target…any gun safety training is radioactive to gun owners.

                Take a look at just about any profession in the US you can name. There are institutes, foundations, organizations, certifications and testing to achieve “professional” status. All of this type training is definitely NOT mandatory. Yet hundreds of thousands of Americans take the classes and get the credentials. But gun owners will have none of it because…infringement. The gun owner religion conflated “mandatory” with voluntary, government control with individual initiative. So why are there no gun industry safety certifications (not talking about “instructor” qualification courses, or armorer courses)? Why is there no prestige in completing tough safety certification courses? And, of maybe even more importance, why are so few gun owners formally trained in gunshot trauma first aid?

                Does safety training appear to be the nose of the camel under the tent?

              • It was simply to highlight/elaborate on what you’ve been saying. What do we have to take before we get a hunting license, a hunter’s safety course. Drive a car; driving test to demonstrate we at least were cognizant enough at the time to acknowledge basic competence and proficiency.

                Bothers me that no organization takes the opportunity to do a PSA at the least to remind/educate people about safe handling after these kinds of things. Just because they read about gun safety, does not mean they understand prac app at the range or actual handling. Pretty sure I’ve kicked that dead horse enough. In short, I agree with you on the lack of safety training. Doesn’t mean people will exercise good judgment but they can’t say they didn’t know any better…

              • Ah yes, the old, “You aren’t paying attention, pal.” And you are right, I wasn’t. Seem to have spilled a bit of my pint o’ beer on me glasses.

                While I may be lumped in with total gun grabbers, I am actually very interested in true gun safety. I would endorse, encourage or otherwise praise any pro-gun organization that took up the banner for improved gun safety. Some here dismiss gun safety training as useless, but that condemns any and all training. If safety training is useless, what makes any other sort of training effective? Either training can influence outcomes or it can’t, period.

                So, good on ya’, mate. Keep encouraging others to consider how beneficial, in more ways than one, gun safety training can be to gun owners.

              • It’s all good! Takes a bit to understand one another.

                ( Off-thread topic: Ultralight aircraft issues that somewhat correlate.I’m not current on this, but few years back, there wasn’t sufficient crash data, no license or training required which boggles the mind…)

              • Almost lost my wife (before she was) to an ultralight crash. The FAA allows “experimental” aircraft to operate without what would be considered “normal” safety features or training because “experimental” means “who knows what we will find out” in developing aircraft. Thus, if one wants to “experiment” with flight, it is on you (actually, flight as we know it would never have developed if there had been a bunch of safety and training regulations in the early years).

                “Experimental” remains a designation today, often used by people who build kitted airplanes in their garage or shed.

              • Good night, Irene; Eerie coincidence aside, good to hear your wife made it through and is ok. The experimental designation is pretty interesting and depending where you’re at, they do issue certificates. While it’s a relief to know there’s room for creating, it’s a bit disconcerting to know someone can just take to the air. Anyway, I’m with you on training people how to use firearms proficiently and having some sort of standard to go by. Training does improve proficiency but isn’t without danger, like anything else. Marines are riflemen first, they have training mishaps, and they have a proven track record of instruction for safe and effective weapons handling, overall. Pistol and rifle qual turns out a lot of folks that can’t say they don’t know better! It’s the dope behind the weapon…

              • Interesting read; thanks !

                Military is a pretty tight organization, relatively small compared to the alleged number of gun owners. Which means if the military has a training problem, how much more so does the gun owning populace?

                Re experimental aircraft, you are right. The FAA does inspect the airframes for proper assembly/construction if….you are building an airplane. Ultralights continue to be a class by themselves: “Flying Under Ultralight Rules (FAR Part 103)

                Recreational flight limited to single seaters weighing less than 254 lbs
                Any category, class or type of vehicle permitted (i.e. airplane, trike, powered parachute)
                FAA has chosen not to promulgate Federal regulations regarding pilot certification, vehiclecertification, and vehicle registration, preferring that the ultralight community assume the initiative forthe development of these important safety programs. The ultralight community has taken positiveaction and developed programs almost two decades ago gaining FAA approval for their implementation.
                FAA further states, “…it should be emphasized that the individual ultralight operator’s support andcompliance with national self-regulation programs is essential to the FAA’s continued policy ofallowing industry self-regulation in these areas.”

              • I don’t agree with loaded vs unloaded. I do believe it’s paramount to fully understand what safety features are and ability to properly perform those procedures. It comes down to a general breakdown in