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


  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.”

        • 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.


  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. 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.

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

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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!

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

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

    • 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.


      • 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).

  28. 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….

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

      • 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:

          – 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 self-discipline habits of people, imo.

          *Treat every weapon as if it were loaded at all times.
          *Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
          *Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
          *Keep the weapon on safe until you intend to fire.
          *Know how to operate your weapon and know its safety features.
          *Keep guns unloaded, locked, and out of reach of children at home.
          *Keep ammunition stored separately and secured in a locked container.

        • The four rules are important, but address the most failure-prone element of the system: humans. With time, people who are not active gunners (and maybe some active gunners) let slip their determination. Which is why I think recurring training is critical in keeping people focused on safety. And even then, there will be someone who fails to pay attention. But, there will also be someone who fails to remember how to properly operate and maintain their weapon. Zero defects is not achievable, but taking steps toward that goal is worthwhile. Otherwise, why do anything to improve anything?

        • “Otherwise, why do anything to improve anything?”

          The only reason to expend effort to improve something is that effort will result in a direct benefit to the individual expending the effort.

          If the benefit to the individual does not out weigh that individual’s required effort to achieve, there is no reason to expect that effort to take place.

          Freedom isn’t just about not having prior restrictions on one’s actions, but also not having any form of a societal safety net. You are free to make your own choices and free to suffer the consequences for your mistakes without any form of support from society.
          I.E. You are free to create a scenario where a third party could end up dead. You are further free to be charged with murder iff (if and only if) said third party actually dies.
          You are free to be charged with assault iff the third party is injured.
          You are free to change nothing about your scenario iff the third party is uninjured physically.

        • “The only reason to expend effort to improve something is that effort will result in a direct benefit to the individual expending the effort.”

          – Not quite. I do not drive a car. I depend on public transportation. But !….I support improving safety for automobiles. Those improvements do not result in a “direct benefit” to me. I do not have children in public schools, yet I support taxation to support schools. That is not a direct benefit to me (my children were home-schooled, and I still paid education taxes). I agree that a national military force is necessary, but I do not directly benefit. Neither do I reject paying taxes to support the national military, because maybe one day I will be a direct beneficiary.

          Holding that improvement of anything is supportable ONLY if the individual receives a direct personal benefit greater than the cost of the improvement does not account for life around us? What is the direct benefit to you or me of medical breakthroughs that do not address any current medical condition? Here, you cannot claim, “…but one day.” because “one day” requires an intervening event before you can benefit. What is the benefit of improving the capability of your local fire department? None….until. In the interim, you are personally disadvantaged by paying taxes to support the fire department, with no net direct benefit to you. The same holds for insurance policies (of any kind). If you do not file a claim, you receive nothing in return for your insurance premium.

        • 1. Your first two examples are of a direct benefit to yourself. Albeit a marginal benefit at best.
          2. None of your examples constitute you personally putting forth the effort to enact the desired improvement.

          You are stuck on the idea of reducing gun negligence. Not a bad cause but your zeal is off putting. My point, the individuals in question you desire to improve will not do so until it is to their direct benefit to do so. Consequently neither you nor I can do anything to influence said individuals thought process without being guilty of tyranny or infringement.

          So i submit to you, the situation is as good as it’s going to get.

        • “So i submit to you, the situation is as good as it’s going to get.”

          That is sad. When they come for us (and they will), we have only ourselves to blame.

        • Increasing liberty is never a bad thing.

          Yes only I am to blame for my misfortune, just as only I am to be congratulated for my good fortune. That is the entire point of being free.

        • “Increasing liberty is never a bad thing.”

          Where do you live ? For the last 40 years, all I have seen is a relentless march toward servitude.

        • I didn’t say that it was increasing. That statement was meant as a basic outlook on life.

          On a side note that relentless march you speak of is not a nationwide phenomena. From what I have observed you are witnessing the self segregation of society. The different factions are gravitating towards their respective corners. The nation is polarizing in a geographic nature.

          When my finances allow I will contribute to the segregation, i will relocate to liberty filled pastures.

        • Agree, increased liberty is good.

          The “balkanization” of America is closer to complete than many want to recognize. What do you call a country that is made of a collection of individual countries? Czechoslovakia has already been used, so we need a new term for what was formerly the United States.

        • I’d believe it, nor would I consider it a bad thing. But i digress

          The irony of your comment is that the term you seek is “United States”. When the name was decided upon State was a synonym for nationality. The original intention was that each state be essentially an individual nation. The central government is supposed to be barely more than a figure head for diplomatic purposes.

        • True historically. But what do we call it now? If instead of “country” we substitute “tribe”, what do we have? The original aborigines here were tribes, and they warred constantly. Even among the so-called Iroquois Nation, which I think was really a gang of tribes with a mostly common language (?). We are a nation divided, and getting more divided. Lincoln said such cannot long stand. What replaces it?

        • The beauty of the current system, at least as written on the founding documents, is that it possess a Phoenix factor.

          Civil war will come. It’s cleansing fire will strip away the impurities , and out of the ashes the United States will rise again refreshed & renewed. The cycle will repeat every 250-300yr

        • Based on the material at hand today, I would venture that said civil war would be short, sharp and brutal. Maybe eliminating the possibility of there ever being another.

        • Only the wholesale extinction of the human race would prevent war from ever reoccuring.

          If even one man is left standing the nation can and most likely will be rebuilt.

        • Was the underlying theory of Carthage worth rebuilding?


          How do we know Carthage by another name didn’t come the be built?

        • The Romans tore it down, stone-by-stone, then salted the entire city and surroundings. Nothing arose to ever again threaten Rome.

          The former site of Carthage is now Tunis. One cannot say Tunis amounted to much on the world stage, and certainly can threaten no other nation.

        • My knowledge of Carthage is so limited that your response failed to answer my questions.

          Oh and geographical location is irrelevant.

        • Now you’re getting pissy cause I dare to disagree with you. I’ve read your comments on other threads. If you’re being honest, always in doubt with a troll, you’ve made statements about living in fear of being shot by an irresponsible gun owner.

          Really? I was nearly scragged today by a woman that was too busy with her cell phone to realize she ran a red light. I’m not haunting pro car sites wailing about the 30+ thousand people done in by cars in this country every year.

          Think about this. You’re letting a fear of an event that’s less likely than you getting hit by a distracted driver rule your days and your life.

          If you’re honest with us and not just a troll. (Still have my doubts about that)

        • “If you’re being honest, always in doubt with a troll, you’ve made statements about living in fear of being shot by an irresponsible gun owner.”

          – Oh, indeed, my good man. Safety traces directly to fear of being shot by an untrained and undisciplined gun owner. Fear of being “accidentally” shot by an untrained and undisciplined gun owner traces directly to the interest in and call for widespread, formal gun safety training. Nothing prissy about that; right out in the open.

          – I drive the same streets (metaphorically) as you. Undisciplined drivers present a serious threat. While the gun safety people will tell you that “People need cars, people don’t need guns”, I think negligent driving leading to injury should be treated as assault. Indeed, I have advocated for charging drunks with attempted murder if they injure another driver, passenger or pedestrian. The laws concerning impaired driving are way too lax.

        • So 2asux, under the guise of “common sense gun safety” and percieved public perception about an almost non existent problem, promotes “gun safety”

          Lay out your exact plans on “sensible gun safety” 2asux and I’ll bet it sets such a high bar that it’s actually a gun ban in disguise.

          Silly troll, we’ve heard this drivel before. You actually think you’re original?

        • “Lay out your exact plans on “sensible gun safety” 2asux and I’ll bet it sets such a high bar that it’s actually a gun ban in disguise.”

          – Perhaps you joined late, but….
          2Asux says:
          March 10, 2016 at 22:41
          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.

          2Asux says:
          March 11, 2016 at 10:20
          The four rules are important, but address the most failure-prone element of the system: humans. With time, people who are not active gunners (and maybe some active gunners) let slip their determination. Which is why I think recurring training is critical in keeping people focused on safety.

          2Asux says:
          March 10, 2016 at 18:02

          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 ?

          I did a word search, and did not find “confiscate” recommended.

        • Every pro 2a group that I’m aware of promotes gun safety and recommends training and classes. And since it’s voluntary you now have your wish fullfilled.

          Have nice day.

        • “Every pro 2a group that I’m aware of promotes gun safety and recommends training and classes. ”

          – I do not know how many “Every pro 2a group…” is. I do know NRA has the Eddie Eagle program for youngsters. Have seen nothing about any other recognizable organization establishing voluntary gun safety courses. But a single, once-a-lifetime course of powerpoint slides is not getting it. There is no national movement by pro-gun organizations to professionalize gun safety. There is no appeal by national pro-gun organizations for gun owners to receive recurring training. The vast majority of references to/for/about/by pro-gun people is “Just follow the four rules”. Would you put your trust in a surgeon who’s approach to staying current and maintaining their credentials is “Just follow the steps on YouTube videos?”. I submit that you would demand that someone who can kill you with the flick of a scalpel be highly trained, highly skilled, with valid and current credentials. Why less concern about people who can kill at long range?

        • “That’s very simple. We can’t see it coming.”

          Only on my second coffee this morning, not sure of your meaning.

        • “Why less concern about people who can kill at long range?”

          “We can’t see it coming” unlike surgery we aren’t voluntarily placing ourselves into danger.

        • I would not think responsible gun owners are against recurrancy training every couple of years but most look at it with suspicion regarding the government using the info to use against individuals.
          That said, as a pilot I am required to take recurrence training every two years even though I am not flying for hire.
          Any group of people that are involved in any kind of activity that requires an additional amount of sharpness mentally and physically should have to show proof of competency at some point be it every year, two years or….part of the investment in doing what we enjoy.

        • Thank you.

          As a holder of a private pilot’s certificate, I did not want to point to myself as an example of “recurring professional training”. Also, doing so would introduce government mandate, which at the moment is not my point of discussion; industry sponsored gun safety certification is.

        • There is no industry-wide safety certification, because there is more than one way to be safe. To believe otherwise is the height of statist thinking.

          Gun-grabber call for “gun safety” regulations and mandated training, not actual safety. They want more rules by which to entrap and enslave. Reducing gun negligence is not their goal because then they’d lose yet another talking point.

        • In the name of fair play, I think pro-gun advocates should be advised that self-regulation is an option. Unexplored, that option is ripe for elimination through government action. When we can’t get people to act right on their own, law and regulation is always available. Again, in all fairness, you have been warned.

          BTW, if there “…is more than one way to be safe”, then the “four rules” are not the end-all, be-all that gun lovers claim. A point we have been highlighting for years…gun owners cannot be trusted to be safe because, “…..there is more than one way to be safe”, and we have no idea what some gun owners would consider “safe”.

          “To believe otherwise is the height of statist thinking.”
          – It is “statist” thinking to call for voluntary industry standards of safe-gun handling?

        • No. Statist thinking is to believe a single code of safety (industry wide voluntary certification) is the just and proper course.

        • “No. Statist thinking is to believe a single code of safety (industry wide voluntary certification) is the just and proper course.”

          I guess that applies to every non-government standards organization in existence in the country. If I understand you correctly, there should be no standards of any sort that is not totally and completely self-initiated, self-controlled, self-promoting, self-interested, contemptuous of everyone else.

        • “Yes it does apply, no you do not understand me.”

          – Think I have shown I am willing to learn. Why are industry standards “statist”?

        • Exhaulting the collective over the individual is statism.

          Here’s the monkey wrench: Just because an idea is statist doesn’t make it automatically bad.

        • “Exhaulting the collective over the individual is statism.”

          – I agree that is a classic viewpoint. From that standpoint, advocates for common sense gun regulation act to eliminate an individual activity for the sake of the whole of society. But what we are discussing here is something dependent on individuals recognizing it is in their individual self-interest to take an action to display to the public that pro-gun people are reasonable and responsible. Indeed, individuals could quietly go about finding and completing recurring gun safety training, but the “collective” of gun owners do not benefit without some sort of publicity about their positive actions. The “collective” of gun owners is important because we view “gun nuts” as a collective of unreliable, undisciplined crazy people with guns. It is why we don’t one-by-one fight individual gun owners, because we might lose too many battles. By creating the “gun nut” collective, we gain the support of non-gun owners, en masse.

        • “It is why we don’t one-by-one fight individual gun owners, because we might lose too many battles. By creating the “gun nut” collective, we gain the support of non-gun owners, en masse.”
          So you change the rules because you can’t win a fair fight.

          Well we’d do it too if we could.

        • “So you change the rules because you can’t win a fair fight.”

          Not changing the rules so much as adopting Sun Tsu.

        • As long as there are people involved there will be incompetency and mistakes ( not necessarily the same thing) on both sides of the debate whether through arrogance or ignorance but a basic level of proof of knowledge and ability is NOT a bad thing.
          Will it eliminate all errors? Of course not and no one with any degree of intelligence would claim it would but that ” piece of paper” would be a valid way to quiet the gun grabbers argument or at least one more way to show value of what and who we are. The good guys and gals remember..

        • The bad thing is not the demonstration of basic competency.

          The bad thing is opening the door for corrupt and unscrupulous men to use an arbitrarily defined standard to entrap common citizens and deny them their rights.

        • “The bad thing is opening the door for corrupt and unscrupulous men to use an arbitrarily defined standard to entrap common citizens and deny them their rights.”

          Still not getting how a non-governmental, private, industry-sponsored initiative administering professional gun safety training can be used against anyone? While a trained/certified person might still generate an ND, and ND is an ND. If one argues that taking a safety course and then having an ND will somehow result in more severe punishment, how much more severe should punishment be for a gun owner who has no training and has an ND? Which condition demonstrates the gun owner is more irresponsible?

        • 1. See my other comment.
          2. The punishment is to fit the crime, not the person.
          Criminal act A gets punishment A.
          Criminal act B gets punishment B.
          The background or character of the person is to be irrelevant to that equation.

        • “2. The punishment is to fit the crime, not the person.”

          – I am not about “punishing” the person committing the ND; I am about preventing as many as possible. There are plenty on my side who love the idea of punishing citizens into a behavior deemed acceptable (no guns). Punishment (other then the death penalty) seems to have very little deterrence value (death of a criminal deters that criminal permanently). Punishing a single person for an ND means nothing to the rest of the gun culture because, “I am better: I don’t have NDs”). Recurring gun safety training may not deter everyone, but if the idea of the training is beneficial and deemed a positive, it may be more effective than “punishment”.

          And for the person killed or injured by an ND, the “punishment” of the offender never puts them right again.

        • “I am of the school if Machiavelli. Laws are to be simole, punishment to be harsh.”

          Nice thing about that meme is it is useful for whichever constituency is in power.

        • You missed the point or intentionally veered away. In any event it was meant to be used as an example that that not all mandatory training is bad. God help us if none who use a firearm would be required to go through currency checks.
          Are we as civilians better than those that protect us? Military? Police? I think not. You can not change that fact. If they need to show proof of competency then we as non professionals should not have a problem with it as long as it is not used against us. Like it or not we are all subject to government regulations on some level and though some are questionable not all are bad.
          Disagree if you will. I am in favor of some type of continuing training for gun owners. I as a gun owner know that I practice regularly and seek knowledge from others more experienced than I but you and the average Joe/ Josephine do not. A piece of paper as some call it to show at least some basic level of competency is a small price to pay for your comfort and others.

        • “we as non professionals should not have a problem with it as long as it is not used against us.”
          What planet do you live on? If it can be used against us, it will be used against us.

        • ” If it can be used against us, it will be used against us.”

          Not getting how voluntary, industry-sponsored gun safety training will be used against you? Are you suspecting somehow the government will access, wholesale or individually, private company training records, find you took gun safety courses and use that information to do what?

        • Did you learn nothing from the Snowden scandel?

          Conspiracy theory aside government need only pass a new law requiring that said industry sponsored safety course be passed to keep one’s name from being listed in the NICS database. Then like here in California they start a task force to go door to door to forcibly collect the personal property of those who were newly added to said database.

        • “…government need only pass a new law requiring that said industry sponsored safety course be passed to keep one’s name from being listed in the NICS database. ”

          – What do you suppose is preventing that form happening, now? My side is loaded-up with legislative measures designed to force gun owners to comply with restrictions designed to improve gun safety. A set of voluntary industry standards would not be the trigger mechanism.

          You guys lack any appreciation of the PR value of doing something positive. Remaining totally reactionary is not a winning campaign. Doing something positive would make my side have to work harder to overcome that positive action. But, hey, I am just trying to get you to make this a fair fight; you are not required to do anything along that line. We own the media, we own the schools, we own the culture, we own the Saturday morning shows. Soon, we will own the courts. If private citizens refuse to act safely of their own accord, we have the facilities to win legislation to do so. Yes, we know it is easier (and makes us feel good) to address the activities of law-abiding citizens, rather than do the tough job of changing the things that make society unsafe to begin with.

        • “A set of voluntary industry standards would not be the trigger mechanism.” Don’t make me laugh. I cite microstamping and the NJ smartgun .
          Legislation that uses our own programs against us is easy for your side to sell to the fence sitters and harder for us to combat.

        • The reason I said a voluntary gun safety training program would not “trigger” a government take-over of some sort is that the government has not taken over tons of private industry standards boards. In addition, a voluntary gun safety training organization is not needed for government to make the laws you fear. Rejecting gun safety training and certification does nothing to prevent government action. But…I already heard tonite that your own lobby groups oppose many of the things gun owners support, and the lobby groups make deals with those opposed to unfettered gun ownership. Deals that bring us closer to managing deadly weapons. So, my theory that pro-gun people could steal a march on our side by promoting gun safety education and certification is no longer something to contemplate. Fortunate for us, your side does not have the courage to press-on despite the odds. Do you realize how much history we have had to overcome in order to get on the books the common sense restrictions on gun ownership that we have accomplished? Didn’t get there by declaring it was too hard, and giving up.

        • Only bloodshed can prevent it, but why make it easy?

          Btw I’m not rejecting the training itself. I am rejecting yet another layer that amounts to nothing more than the impedance to ones rights.

          You should be free to endanger another, and be free to suffer the fullest punishment under the law after you hurt another.

        • “rather than do the tough job of changing the things that make society unsafe to begin with.” And conveniently overlooking an ally in that struggle. You may be the exception, but I don’t believe the anti gun side is actually concerned with safety at all.

        • There are many of us who are honestly concerned with making gun ownership and handling safer, but we do get drowned-out by those who do not want to try small measures first.

        • We are actually in agreement. There is a place for government standards, and there is a place for professional, non-government standards. My focus in this string is voluntary, private initiative standards of professionalism. I didn’t want to bring in pilot certification because that is federal control and would likely be misconstrued as advocating for only government control of safety training.

          There are window stickers for gun owners that tout gun rights, or gun clubs, or gun support organizations. Would think gun owners would be proud to have a sticker that demonstrates, as you said, “…show at least some basic level of competency …”

        • I would display such a sticker.
          However I will not voluntarily allow anyone to put into a position where they may be denigraded for their lack of a sticker.

          You want basic proof of competency? Well actions speak louder than paper. Every gun that is bought that does not injury or kill is your proof.

        • “However I will not voluntarily allow anyone to put into a position where they may be denigraded for their lack of a sticker.”

          – I don’t know how things always work in the gun culture. Are people who are not members of NRA, or don’t display NRA stickers looked down on and criticized? I think it should be just fine that those who want to identify their proficiency with a sticker do so, and those who don’t , don’t. Like the training itself, it would be voluntary to attend, or put a sticker out there.

          “You want basic proof of competency? Well actions speak louder than paper. Every gun that is bought that does not injury or kill is your proof.”

          – Can you know that for certain? Maybe the vast majority of gun owners put guns in a drawer, meaning fewer opportunities to fail (which also may mean untrained people who don’t think about gun safety much pose a risk of ND above the active gun people; can’t know).

        • They are by your ilk as it is.

          They will be by our side once a wide spread cert program is accepted. That is the way of humanity.

          “Can you know that for certain? ” Nothing is certain, and it doesn’t matter. I know for certain mine are safe.

        • I am not an NRA member…..yet.
          I do not belong to any clubs as a matter of preference. I DO BELIEVE IN THEIR VOICE AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR .
          IF YOU are onethat believes all guns should be taken away from non authorities then you have no clear knowledge of the AMERICAN HISTORY AND HOW OUR COUNTRY CAME TO BE..
          Am I againstreasonable expectations? NO! Am I against yours?? YES!!!
          IF you are ever in danger and a civilian comes to your aide with a firearm I am sure he/ she will be willing to save themselves the Hassel of defending you.

        • I think it’s a matter of mindset and moral compass. What I mean by that is, looking at Jamie, she claimed to have gun sense, her own pics and statements refute that she practiced safe weapon handling and this incident wasn’t an isolated lapse, but a result of her ongoing poor practices. While we can’t confirm what training she had, we can most definitely conclude that she didn’t apply anything properly or consistently.

          While I would love to find a means of implementing a feasible, local/state, proficiency class, I’m very leery about how that would work, if at all. There are plenty of classes out there already for those who intend to own/do own firearms: If they took the initiative to purchase a weapon, they take on accountability, one way or another. Owners manuals have safety sections, whether or not someone reads, doesn’t read it, applies it or not: Those who take the initiative can still fall into the willfully ignorant class, so I’m very hesitant to push for mandatory training, among other things. I’ve been around prior service and civilian who mishandle, the common thread being choice and mindset. Doesn’t do a damn bit of good to buy or be mandated to buy a trigger lock if you have no intention of using it anyways. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make ’em drink…The stupid; it burns.

          Am I saying everything is fine the way it is? Nope, that’s why I said it’s the dope behind the weapon. Unfortunately, there are those people, trained or not, who will remain ‘willfully ignorant’. Jamie had ample opportunity to seek and apply proper and responsible handling but CHOSE not to. She, as an individual, should be held accountable for that because her mindset wasn’t in the right place in the first place.

          Policing stupid gets really dicey, real quick. I don’t want to be held responsible for her ignorant bs any more than I want to deal with insurance over someone else who chose to drive dangerously. What if I have to insure my weapon/s because of the Jamie’s or get a license, be on a registry? (Cans are HIGHLY regulated and EXPENSIVE; so you do have that but…) It was publicly obvious on her FB page that she was off the path, and I don’t know what ‘interventions’ were attempted. We have no way of knowing how many people tried to set her straight or what her response was, other than piss-poor safety habits, ergo her mindset thriving in Stupidville.

          You and I are like-minded in the desire for a solution/improvement to this issue because I will dare to say we both apply self-discipline to life as a rule and not cherry-picked for arrogant, selfish reasons. The willfully ignorant crowd cannot/does not and throwing more laws at all of us to police them doesn’t seem like a logical or practical solution.

        • I find it odd to be trying to “teach” gun owners how to improve their image in the public view, but…

          The private sector has dozens of “certifying” bodies that are used to establish performance credentials and provide assurances to industry that “certified” professionals will improve the opportunities for companies to capture business. These “certifying” bodies are not mandated by any government agency. The reason these “certifying” organizations are successful is they convince their market that it is smart, and good business to have employees who demonstrate the ability to complete and pass education programs related to their industry. Why aren’t the major pro-gun organizations (whoever they are) promoting safety training and certification as good business for the organizations, gun dealers, weapons instructors, and individuals (insurance companies might offer attractive pricing for liability and theft insurance to gun owners, like they do for car owners who complete safe driving courses)?

          Why does the gun-owning crowd believe the world is divided between coercive government, and zero constraints on activity? There is truly a middle-ground, and you guys are squandering the opportunity. While I would like to see government involved in forcing gun owners to be safety-checked on a schedule, I would yield the point to an industry-led, and owner supported, organized voluntary effort. I admit, right here, that a full industry campaign to formally improve gun safety would take away some of our steam for gun control, I am not a mindless drone.

        • “Why does the gun-owning crowd believe the world is divided between coercive government, and zero constraints on activity?”

          Because that is the way of human nature. Power corrupts and absolute powers corrupts absolutely. Any government will inevitably attempt to become a dictatorship.

          “There is truly a middle-ground, and you guys are squandering the opportunity.” Yeah we lost that in 1865. We can’t get it back until your side stops pushing. I have reports to indicate that collectively your side will never compromise, never settle for the middle ground.

        • “Paranoia strikes deep. Into your heart it will creep. It starts when you’re always afraid.”

          Interesting how pro-gun folks would associate/lump together, voluntary industry action with some sort of government coercion.

        • Because it can and will be coopted by government and used as a coercive measure.

          I know what people are capable of an i am not in the habit of trusting people to not kill me when I hand them a gun.

        • “Because it can and will be coopted by government and used as a coercive measure.”

          – And what of the dozens, tens of dozens, of voluntary, non-mandatory, industry-sponsored certifying agencies (including doctors) that have not been co-opted, and face no threat of same? If you fear having voluntary gun safety certifications effects the co-opting, then it is more likely government will simply mandate standards (and maybe control them). There is nothing standing in the way of mandatory recurring gun safety education, right now, today.

          Avoiding a good thing because someone might misuse it sounds sorta like what you guys complain about when people talk about common sense gun controls to prevent the situation where something bad MIGHT happen.

        • I ask that you read the article I posted as this is an exerpt from. It directly answers why there is no industry-sponsored initiative; THEY’RE NOT INTERESTED. LEGISLATORS AND INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS are what people like you me, are up against. Do you understand ME any better?!

          “Tort liability plays an important role in injury prevention. In circumstances where legislators have been unwilling to enact regulations to improve safety, dangerous products and careless industry practices are normally held in check by the possibility of civil litigation that enables injured individuals to recover monetarily. As noted above, policies designed to hold gun sellers accountable can curtail the diversion of guns to criminals. Litigation can do the same thing.73 The firearms industry, however, has recently obtained unprecedented immunity from this long-standing system of accountability.

          A series of lawsuits in the 1990s held certain members of the firearms industry liable for particularly reckless practices. As a result, the industry began to push legislation in statehouses that limited this avenue of relief. Then, in 2005, after intense lobbying from the gun industry, Congress enacted and President Bush signed a law that gives gun manufacturers and sellers unprecedented nationwide immunity from lawsuits. This law, known as the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” requires the dismissal of almost any lawsuit brought against a member of the gun industry for irresponsible or negligent behavior in the business of making or selling guns.74 This law enables gun makers and sellers to market their products in ways that are intended to appeal to criminals and other ineligible purchasers without facing any legal consequences. It also allows the industry to make available increasingly dangerous weapons and to fail to monitor inventory, even in the face of evidence that thousands of guns are being stolen from dealerships and end up in the hands of criminals.

          In 2012, the gun industry made an estimated $11.7 billion in sales and $993 million in profits.75 There is no good reason for the firearms industry to receive special treatment in the hands of the law or to be immune from the same kind of civil lawsuits that are used to hold business practices.”

        • Ok, the article looks like something the anti-gun campaign would publish. But your comment that even the gun lobby would oppose establishing gun safety and proficiency training is actually new (to me). Would never think that national spokes people for gun rights would do something to disadvantage gun owners. Your comment would seem to put an end to this discussion as you are not only up against the gun-sense portion of the public, but your own people. Gun-rights people may be more doomed that feared.

        • “and face no threat of same?” Oh but they do. When their field becomes the most hotly controversial topic in the national discussion the threat level they face will rise to actionable levels.

          “Avoiding a good thing because someone might misuse it sounds sorta like …” Yeah it kinda does except I don’t believe for one second that government won’t do it.

        • Easy now; I didn’t insult you or lump you into the gun-grabber group. Just treat me the same.

          1) I’m not sure how or who would be promulgating these measures.

          2) Sound legislation is an imperative and so is enforcement, reviewing existing laws, overhauling arcane ones. Then, there’s solid data and assessments to gauge progress by to maintain a working and magageable framework for risk, weakness, and strengths. Throwing legislation and money at anything bodes poorly and I don’t trust gun lobbyists any more than I do gun-grabbers. Getting sensible legislation past those groups is already an ongoing headache. That doesn’t mean stop trying, just has to be a concerted, well-organized effort and I don’t have much faith that infighting to get that going won’t kill it before leaves the ground!?

          2) FAR has excellent examples to look at and possibly implement, as long as the objective maintains a professional approach and not just police stupidity.

        • “1) I’m not sure how or who would be promulgating these measures.”

          – I found 50 industry certifying organizations that are not, not government-controlled. There are literally hundreds of sub-category certifying organizations. To list a few more commonly known: ANSI (American National Standards Institute), ISO 9000, Project Management Institute, American Society of Quality Engineers…and so on. The gun lobby could form a consortium to establish gun safety training and certification. NRA or NSSF could do the same. The potentials are not limited to current industry bodies. There isn’t even a need for a single standards board. Members of the certifying body would decide what standards would be taught, gun owners would decide which certification would be meaningful/useful. C’mon guys, come up with something. It isn’t even a fun fight anymore.

        • “”

          – My peeps are all over this, but it is nothing related to what I propose. The link points to recommendations for government coercive activity. That should be a last resort. I propose voluntary training (not licensing or list-building). But you guys are misguided if you think abject resistance to any industry attempt to improve the pool and present a positive image to the public will result it the elimination of current gun controls, or forestall future law.

        • “…the NRA’s self-described “point person” Congressman Jay Dickey (R-AR) has completely changed his position from 1996 and recently wrote in favor of funding scientific research into firearm injuries. In a 2012 Washington Post op-ed co-authored by former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention Mark Rosenberg, Dickey emphasized his “strong agreement now that scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners.”

          Civility check and letting things soak in are also good. Thanks again for the ‘you people’ label.

          Yeah, you read the article and this has nothing to do with what you’re proposing, feeding directly into government coersion. Good luck with your quest. Out.

        • As per my just now comment prior to this, it is news that your own people would be an obstacle. Not looking good for your side.

    • Where are the calls for industry supported, standard, continuing gun safety classes ? Gun Grabbers call for them all the time.

      • “Where are the calls for industry supported, standard, continuing gun safety classes ? Gun Grabbers call for them all the time.”

        Did you intend to admit that “Gun Grabbers” are more responsible about gun safety than gun owners?

        • No, because he didn’t concede that “mandatory” anything solves any problems; he only said those calls are frequently made by the grabbers.

          Gun folks are pretty hard core about safety….real safety that starts with personal responsibility, not externally mandated solutions that generally amount to nothing more than feel-good symbolism.

        • “Gun folks are pretty hard core about safety….real safety that starts with personal responsibility, not externally mandated solutions that generally amount to nothing more than feel-good symbolism.”

          – Who said anything about “mandatory” ? I am looking for the same sense of professionalism that inhabits the American Society for Quality (ASQ), which established professional standards for Certified Quality Engineer (voluntary private organization). And there are many others who are proud to have “standards” where professionals can go to improve their industry. Why nothing like that among gun owners?

          The public face of gun owners is, “We don’t need no stinking standards. We are happy to let the public live in fear of our accidents.”

        • “The public face of gun owners is, “We don’t need no stinking standards. We are happy to let the public live in fear of our accidents.””

          That is incorrect and you know it.

          That might be the way the MSM or anti-gun activists try to portray gun owners, but that’s not reality at all.

        • When the thrust of the arguments on this blog dictates that the public should just trust a bunch of strangers to be inherently proficient, safe and competent, that there should be no standards for certifying safe gun handling, then what do you expect “the public” to think of such?

        • That’s quite a list of false premises. The main error in this reasoning is assuming a collectivist worldview. The entire statement a tautological fallacy.

          “When the thrust of the arguments on this blog dictates that the public should just trust a bunch of strangers to be inherently proficient”

          It’s not up to any one, free, individual man to dictate what “the public” trusts. If someone doesn’t trust me with a firearm, when I’ve never given them ANY reason whatsoever to NOT trust me, that’s THEIR problem. Not mine.

          This is another way of saying “It’s none of their business.”

          In our society, the legal system we TRIED to create (over centuries of Common Law) is to punish actual behaviors. Where’s the implied “Trust” that some random guy won’t commit assault and battery? Answer: We base that ‘trust’ on what the guy is doing now and has done in the past.

          That is, we punish individuals for individual behaviors.

          Without having ever given a reason for someone to mistrust me, I really don’t give a rat’s backside if “the public” does or not. It’s not up to them to decide what I do.

          “that there should be no standards for certifying safe gun handling”

          Lots going on here. It’s not as simple as what you are distilling it down to.

          First, we DO have standards for safe gun handling. And, it’s on display here – in spades – every time a ND related article comes out. The standards we have begin with The Four Rules codified by Jeff Cooper and every gun owner is at least vaguely aware of them with a huge majority of gun owners following them religiously. From the Four Rules we also have longer lists such as the Ten Commandments of Gun Safety and quite a few others.

          It’s simply false to say we don’t have ‘safety standards.’ What we don’t have is GOVERNMENT IMPOSED safety standards, and that’s the way it should be. It is not a proper role of government to try to “keep people safe.”

          Second: Social pressure can be more powerful than externally imposed “standards” and “certifications.” The blasting folks get from fellow gun owners is often FAR in excess of the punishment they would ever get from violating some “certification.”

          No one can read the comments here and other gun sites in regard to ND’s and honestly say we don’t have ‘safety standards.’ POTG are quite vocal about safety and calling out breaches of safety…to the point of downright hatred when someone gets hurt due to a safety infraction.

          Third: A certification is just a piece of paper. Violate the standard and lose the cert and all you’ve lost is a piece of paper that supposedly says someone else says you are ok.

          A cert has no real meaning or value in itself. A certification only has symbolic meaning to the certified person to continue to live up to the ‘standards’ of the certification. Lack of a certification does not imply lack of competence (except to a bureaucratic minded Statist), nor does the presence of a certification imply competence.

          The cert brings nothing to the table. Having legalistic standards and certifications on ‘safety’ would not lower negligent discharge incidence, because by their very definition these events are negligent. How is a certification going to stop negligent behavior? Certs don’t in other fields, or have “professional standards” completely eliminated medical and legal malpractice?

          Fourth: Your statement assumes that “the public” accepts that the only way a person can behave responsibly is via top-down fiat, which in turn probably was meant to imply government involvement.

          I, and many like me, reject this outright. First, I reject that that the only way to be ‘safe’ is to have some externally imposed hunky dory saying so. Second, I reject that “the public” believes that en masse.

          There are all manners of dangerous behaviors in our society that do not require externally imposed standards and certifications. Within groups of people that do such activities, there are organizations that codify ‘self imposed’ and ‘self policed’ standards. Gun owners are one such group, with many gun organizations (like the NRA) massively invested in promoting safety.

          Fifth: To many gun owners, externally state-imposed mandatory (or otherwise) safety standards are but a step on a path that leads to disarmament. The list of “can nots” is growing ever longer when the government should not be in the business of “can not” in the first place. Adding one more “hook” to disarm people is enough for a lot to simply say “no more.”

          It’s not that gun owners don’t believe safe gun handling is imperative, it’s that gun owners reject the talk of “safety standards” and such as being more a deception.

          It’s all empty talk anyway when it comes from the anti-gun crowd because they “conveniently” ignore, as you have done here, the tremendous efforts toward gun safety that gun owners and gun rights organizations make.

          Sixth: Your use of “the public” is a Begging the Question fallacy, and I saved this one for last. You are starting with the premise that “the public” en masse stands with you on this “trust” issue you have invented, then are using that premise to attempt to prove that that reason POTG don’t have the public trust is because we reject ‘safety standards.’

          That is illogical. It’s improper argument. But, more than that, the premise itself is false on its face. “The public” for the most part does not care about people carrying guns.

          The only ones that do care and have this “trust issue” are anti-gun activists trying to gin up “support” for their cause by trying to paint themselves as “the public.” Such use of “the public” is an attempt at a “Bandwagon Fallacy” in addition to all the other fallacies contained in your short, seemingly simple statement.

        • Nicely done. Well written.

          The situation, though, is not one of absolutes, as in “it’s none of your business”. Gun safety IS absolutely my business because failure to act properly can result in devastating injury to me. The world has turned a bit since 1789. “The public” is such a large sea that one can no longer pretend that each is an isolated individual, accountable only to oneself. My concern for a zillion strangers handling firearms without even the slightest glance at practiced safety is a Public Safety issue, not a personal one.

          Nowhere in my comments did I propose government safety mandates, although such is one measure that could be employed. My point is that there are no nationally recognized gun organizations seeking to “professionalize” gun handling through industry agreed safety training certifications. There are certified “professionals” who don not adhere to the standards, but, (to borrow from gun owners) the incidents are minuscule compared to the numbers of certificate holders. Recurring training has the effect of bringing safety to mind at least once every certification cycle. And what world do you live in where voluntary recurring gun safety training is a punishment?

          To add an element, you possess a gun and promise to be really good about being safe. Ok. But, do you have training and equipment to deal with a gunshot wound? Why not? Are you (and all you guys) so perfect that there are no circumstances where you would fail to be perfect and injure another? And after that injury, are you competent to render immediate, proper first aid?

          On the whole, considering the political climate, I would think gun owners would find advantage in supporting formal gun safety standards and training. However, I admit that if such standards and certifications were established, it would result in a political disadvantage for proposing reasonable gun safety and violence reduction measures.

          Stay the course.

        • “We intend to stay the course. It’s been wildly successfull for us and will continue to be.”

          You guys consider dead bodies and life-long injuries due to NDs to be “successful” ?

          Glad you defined it for yourselves, because that definition is simply callous, mean-spirited and uncaring. Just the vision people for sensible gun laws (and the majority of the population) have of you.

        • See. This comment you made is my proof of you being a troll. You put words in my mouth that I didn’t speak and qoute stats that are patently false.

          Keep it up, trollboy. All the while gun rights are advancing and more and more people are joining the gun owner ranks.

        • “See. This comment you made is my proof of you being a troll. You put words in my mouth that I didn’t speak and qoute stats that are patently false.”

          Pay attention, here…
          – I quoted no stats.
          – Your response pointed-out that “gun-grabbers” were calling for better gun safety training, but made no note of any pro-gun efforts. My conclusion was that you were admitting the “gun-grabbers” are more concerned about gun safety training than are the pro-gun people. The implication is pro-gun people are not interested in improving gun safety, or creating gun safety programs.

        • Majority may not be a stat in your mind but it makes a claim that is untrue. And I never said anything about gun grabbers calling for safety training unless it was as a means to bar gun ownership.

          Once again: Troll.

        • You are again making the case that “gun-grabbers” are more supportive of on-going gun safety training than are gun owners. You still have not identified a national gun-rights organization proposing professional standards of safe gun handling training. So if “gun-grabbers” are calling for more safety training, and gun-lovers are not, what is the logical conclusion?

        • The gun grabbers, like you, are pushing for gun safety for dishonest reasons. They simply want to impede gun onwership.

          Like smart guns that don’t work and microstamping and handgun safety rosters. All bogus “gun safety” moves designed to disarm honest people.

        • It is possible to honestly be concerned with truly reducing the number of NDs. As noted in another response, a full industry press for formal recurring gun safety courses would take some steam out of our gun control efforts, if gun lovers took the initiative and were able to promote success, I would endorse that; no government involvement.

          As to other elements of gun control, there are some areas where significant work on our side needs to be done. Any serious effort must include some means of addressing the roots of gun violence, like: no gun charges for criminals using a firearm (that is a big problem); improving mental health support to reduce gun-related suicide; too lenient sentencing for repeat gun offenders…just to name a few things that might get us where complete gun confiscation can never succeed.

        • “Gun safety IS absolutely my business because failure to act properly can result in devastating injury to me. “

          This is a subtly disguised False Dichotomy. This is presented as if only the following two choices exist:

          (1) Let “the public” set the terms of what private property a free individual can own/carry on their person


          (2) Devastating injury CAN happen to “me,” which is a vague sense of “outcome” anyway.

          We are not in the business of arguing what “can” happen. An asteroid CAN hit the earth, or a meteorite CAN hit your in the head. A car’s steering linkage CAN break, thus causing an on-coming car to hit you head-on. Just about anything “can” happen.


          Let’s switch gears from what “can” happen and look at data to discern what “does” happen with statistically significant likelihoods.

          If we approach this issue rationally, we would observe the facts that people that carry firearms for self-protection are among the most law abiding and ‘safety aware’ people in society. They certainly exceed the safety and law-abiding-ness statistics for police, which is a group that is often held up as the “standard” we should meet.

          Yes, Gilt was a member of this set. The only reasons this story has any legs at all is:

          (a) It’s a rare event that a “known” (I had never heard of her) firearms activist had something go wrong


          (b) The presence of the child as an actor in the event.

          So, the false dichotomy presented is broken: there is at least one additional choice:

          Leave people alone to choose for themselves, complete with the “none of your business” response intact, and never notice they were carrying because they did not hurt anyone. The odds of them hurting you are, demonstrably, lower than you being “accidentally” shot by a police officer or being killed in a motor vehicle collision.

          There are probably a few tens of millions of concealed carriers in the US that actively carry every day….some ‘legally’ and some ‘illegally’ doing so. How many such stories do you see? Not many, really. Again, Gilt’s story only has legs because it is sensational.

          For total accidental firearms related deaths, we can look at:

          Less than 1000 per year (or less than half that), which is buried in the noise of those hurt and killed by intentional total violence (gun and otherwise) committed by known violent actors. And, that 1000 per year is all firearms accidental deaths, not just those committed by “law abiding carriers.”

          If you are “concerned” about a law abiding concealed carrier hurting you accidentally or through negligence, your worry is irrational. It is misplaced. It is better directed at the real, verifying threats that exist.

        • The unintentional killing and injuring of people are not “CAN”, they are “DO”. We are not talking “theory”, these events happen. If I drive a car (which I don’t), I voluntarily accept the associated risks. If I am walking down the street, or sitting in my living room, I do not voluntarily accept the risk some gun-owning yahoo (anyone who commits and ND is a yahoo) will rip one off that kills me.

          If there is no consideration of others for a free person to own property (firearms), why are their safety features built into any of them ? Especially guns, going all the way back to the first closed trigger guard on Colt revolvers (or earlier non-revolvers)?

          We already settled the issue of “the public” determining what private property a “free person” can own and use, specifically prohibitions against unfettered possession and use of “ususual weapons”, like artillery, flame throwers, tanks, IEDs, etc. BTW, a use tax is a restriction implemented by the public, for the public good. In another arena, you cannot do anything you like with a home, or raw property; usage restrictions abound.

    • It’s ok because she’s hot? SERIOUSLY?! Ted Bundy was considered “cute and smart” by some. There’s a term for that: hybristophelia…Unbelievable, you and some others are sticking up for her because she’s hot. Worst.logic.ever.

      • Um,. you might want to check that “logic” yourself, there, dude.

        Where did he defend her? All he said was a comparison between her looks and the looks of the MDA crowd. Nowhere in that statement was a defense of her negligence.

      • Her being hot contributes not a whit to my argument that she (or anyone) shouldn’t be prosecuted for stupidity that results in injury only to themselves.

        Her being hot DIRECTLY contributes to my quest to see if any pictures exist of her not wearing pants. 😉

        • I agree (for criminal but there may be a case for a fine if tax payers money had to be spent dealing with the stupid but that’s a whole other argument) but we should check the kids hearing before we decide if the injury is only to her.

  31. I’m sure she feels bad enough as it is, she is “of the gun” after all.
    I will be praying for her safe and speedy recovery along with her sons mental well being, and that the whole family can come away from this as a lesson learned [as we all should]

  32. Tragedy? Yes.
    Criminal? Not in my opinion.
    She deserves public well wishes and private admonition.

    Some one here said “if you handle enough guns long enough eventually you will have an ND” to which the counter argument was made “100% adherence to the 4 Rules would prevent NDs”.
    Well both statements are true. Humans are not perfect so 100% adherence is not statistically possible over an indefinite period. I.E. shit happens.

    Point of fact, I’ve had my own ND. I was practicing a quick draw with my Heritage Arms Rough Rider, needless to say I’m not very good. Granted it’s only a .22lr but I’m still glad it missed my foot and buried harmlessly into the dirt.

    Ironically it wasn’t my first. If I recall correctly (no guarantee) my first was far less preventable. I had my antique 10ga S×S at the range to show it off. I cocked the right hand hammer but as soon as my thumb leaves it, the gun fires. The old girl has light triggers so it took two rounds to figure it out. You could hear it cock but the sear wouldn’t hold it. Turns out a tiny piece of the lock broke loose and interfered with the sear. All is well with my favored museum piece, fully functional, but now that I possess a veritable arsenal of more modern firearms the Civil War coach gun has earned the honor of remaining in permanent display.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here