United Airlines worker accidentally shot by passenger at Louis Armstrong International Airport

[RamboLiberal]

A United Airlines employee was accidentally shot by a passenger who was trying to check a hunting rifle for a flight at Louis Armstrong International Airport in Kenner.

The mishap was reported about 10:15 a.m. Deputies issued Edward Deubler, 65, of Harvey a misdemeanor summons for negligent injury, said Sgt. Larry Dyess, spokesman for the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office.

Deubler had been trying to check the rifle with an employee at the United ticket counter when the weapon discharged, Dyess said. The bullet struck a counter and a piece of the bullet struck the male employee in the leg.

He was transported to a local hospital to be treated for non-life threatening injuries, Dyess said.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/07/deputies_on_scene_of_accidenta.html

Arrrrrgh! What a doofus! Why the F' didn't he double-check the rifle at home?

[arcane1]

1. The term "dumb-ass" comes to mind n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Asshole.

Another complete asshole.

[gejohnston]

3. there is a reason you ship

unloaded, and why airlines, FAA, and AMTRAK want them unloaded. We know that already. That said, did the employee know what he was doing? My policy would be a wire tie or similar device to ensure it is unloaded. I mean, every gun show I have been to, a cop at the door does just that.

[RamboLiberal]

4. Why blame the employee? Blame the stupid gun owner

I don't expect an airline employee to know how to safety check every kind of gun.

[gejohnston]

10. not blaming the employee, just struck me as dumb

that the company would have some guy who may not be familiar with the rifle. The owner clearly screwed up and should be held accountable.

[SteveM]

54. When I checked in a rifle, the poor guy didn't know one end from another...

So I unscrewed the knurled thumbscrew and broke the little .22 down, pushed the forearm plunger down to reveal an empty chamber, and pulled out the magazine access keeper. I didn't expect him to find the safety on a 100+ yr. old semi-auto.

Even though this is the first time I have ever heard of an errant round being fired at the check-in counter, this passenger should see some time in the county slam so he can read up on firearm safety, and FAA rules.

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. I would expect a cop to know what to look for. Airline employee? Not so much.

[Euromutt]

17. Not saying you're wrong, but that illustrates a flaw in the system

If federal law and airline regulations require you to present the firearm to the desk agent so that he or she can verify the weapon is unloaded (which they do), it's a bit of a pointless exercise if the desk agents is insufficiently familiar with firearms in general to tell whether the chamber and bolt face are clear.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. +1

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. So call a cop over and have him inspect the weapon

Is their only job to stand around in uniform and look intimidating? Put them to work in what they are trained to do.

Personally, I would feel hella lot better knowing a cop was checking weapons boarding my flight than an airline employee or (God forbid) the inept TSA.

[oneshooter]

31. Most cops are not trained "gun" people.

There are many diffrent typs of weapons. The last time I travelled with a firearm I had to show the inspector (a TSA agent) how to check a Sharps Rifle (open the chamber to check for empty). He had no idea and had never seen one.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[spooky3]

26. This weekend I was sent to the wrong gate, was told a flight was delayed when it

was not, was shown (on the electronic board) the wrong baggage carousel to pick up luggage, and after a long wait I checked with an employee who told me in a very surly manner that the board was correct. I eventually located the bag on a different carousel, along with at least a dozen other "orphaned" bags that people hadn't yet found.

If the airlines (and I know my experience isn't unique to the airline I used this weekend) are incapable of hiring and training and rewarding employees to do such simple things correctly, how can they be trusted to be more capable for doing this for higher level skills?

[SteveM]

56. I went to a carousel at Austin-Bergstrom to retrieve my rifle...

...but found it on a shelf in an unsecured area, unattended with passengers walking about. No notice it would end up somewhere else.

[spooky3]

60. I would say "unbelievable" but unfortunately, these days, it's very believable.

And very bad practice.

[SteveM]

55. Agreed. Like putting me in charge of proper storage of Rembrandts. nt

[petronius]

9. I would say a huge amount of blame attaches to the owner. Whether any

attaches to the agent depends on whether he was even handling the rifle. I'd also be curious to know what training and instructions United gives its agents about checked firearms - are there specific gate agents to deal with them, are they supposed to handle them directly, etc. It's been a long time since I flew with a firearm, but as I recall the gate agent never actually took it from me - I just demonstrated that it was unloaded, and the agent attached a little tag, and I locked it all back up...

[gejohnston]

11. let me clarify

I was not letting the owner off the hook, sorry if it came off that way. All of the blame belongs to him. The only time I flew with a firearm, it was sealed in the case and the airline did not ask to open it to check. It might have been because it was a USAF property instead of mine. I could not help but wonder if the airline had someone trained to check or not. But I do think an airline reg demanding that anyone could see it would be clear without picking it up would be a reasonable idea.

[one-eyed fat man]

28. Odds are

Since less than 15% of the US population are veterans, and the median age of vets is 56 the odds of an airline employee having weapons training are pretty slim.

Fifty years ago, a high percentage adult males had at least a couple years military service.

[X_Digger]

12. I flew about 6 weeks ago.

I had the gun case inside a checked suitcase. Pulled out the case, opened it, agent looked in, nodded and had me close it / lock / put it back into the suitcase. Never touched it at all. She put a small tag on the handle, then asked about ammunition.

She then had another official wheel my bag away.

Pretty painless.

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. He couldn't have been bothered to unload it?

Irresponsible. Hes lucky he didn't kill someone.

[gejohnston]

14. posts 2 and 8 put it pretty well, unless

you want to go with brain fart, had his head up his ass, total space cadet etc.

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. All that and irresponsible to boot.

*nods*

[damntexdem]

7. Why was someone trying to check a LOADED firearm?

rhetorical question

[petronius]

8. Because he's a fucking idiot?

(Oh, sorry, missed the "rhetorical" caveat. :))

Glad the agent will be all right, at least...

[melm00se]

42. rhetorical answer:

he was in a rush to get fined (up to $10K), arrested and possibly thrown in jail?

[ileus]

13. Remove the bolt or lock the action open before you leave.

[KT2000]

15. "Accidentally"

is often used when guns harm innocent people. There are better terms such as criminal negligence. The owner needs to be charged.

[Euromutt]

18. That applies to almost everything

Most motor vehicle collisions are caused by negligence of at least one driver (to paraphrase Sgt. Nicholas Angel in Hot Fuzz, "we don't call them 'accidents' because 'accident' implies nobody's to blame"). Ditto with accidents involving power tools, heavy machinery, swimming pools, you name it.

I'm not saying this gun owner wasn't criminally negligent; I'm just saying it's not just guns this happens with.

[KT2000]

21. Power tools, heavy machinery,

and swimming pools were not maufactured to kill. Guns are. There is a huge difference and a greater standard of responsiblity.

[petronius]

23. I think that's a distinction without a difference, really. Guns aren't

really "manufactured to kill," they're tools designed to propel a small bit of metal very fast. The purpose they're put to depends on the user, and the majority of guns (and owners) never kill a thing. The standard of responsibility should be based on the potential for harm, and I don't agree that one thing which can kill if negligently used somehow requires a higher standard of care than something else with the same amount of potential lethality. For example, would you consider that a nail gun could reasonably be treated with less care than a .22 pistol? Or a chainsaw compared to a shotgun?

Perhaps it's a philosophical nit, but I don't see the validity in the 'guns are different' argument. Negligence is negligence, criminality is criminality, regardless of the tool you (mis)used...

[ileus]

27. +1 guns are made to enhance our lives...not endanger them.

[Euromutt]

40. Yeah, like I haven't heard the "manufactured to kill" argument before

And it never gets and less disingenuous nor more persuasive, no matter how often it's repeated.

A motor vehicle is a two-ton-plus bludgeon made to travel at dozens of miles an hour, by dint of which it is capable of inflicting more than enough blunt force trauma to kill a human. A swimming pool is a structure made to hold a volume of water more than sufficient to fully submerge a fully grown human, by dint of which a person can drown in one. Whether they were "manufactured to kill" doesn't make a difference to the "standard of responsibility"; what matters is that they can kill, and quite readily too.

By your "greater standard of responsibility," it would be more deplorable to wound one person with a negligent discharge than to cause a motor vehicle collision resulting in multiple deaths.

[KT2000]

53. You have explained

perfectly why I am for gun control.

[DonP]

58. OK, that statement makes no sense at all

You can be for anything you want, but you'll have a lot more luck and a faster response being for the Easter Bunny.

Or are you for gun control because you just don't like those dirty gun owners in the first place?

That's alright, it's still OK here at DU to be bigoted against gun owning Democrats. You just have to watch how you express that according to Skinners rules of civility. That's why we don't have as many people here as we used to. It seems we lost quite a few that were incapable of expressing themselves without using improper references to gun owners. Gun control supporters seem to be either tiresomely verbose or inarticulate and obscene.

But most people that support more gun control usually don't make much sense anyway. They look at the facts from places like the DoJ, CDC and FBI and the reality, totally ignore it and wring their hands and demand more gun control "for the children" or some such twaddle like, "if it only saves one life ...".

The Bad News ... you aren't getting any more gun control, so you'd best adjust to the new reality. Unless you live in Chicago you are surrounded every day by people with concealed firearms and because they are concealed, you don't know who they are. Oh, in Chicago you are still surrounded by them, but they are all criminals and gang members. No law abiding citizens with guns in Chicago. The pendulum is moving increasingly in the other direction, away from gun control, with all but one state now allowing CCW and more gun control laws being dropped every week.

All this and the sky is not falling but the crime rate is. You see the difference is this time the law abiding people are carrying the guns, not just the criminals.

[SteveM]

57. "Designed to kill" is a statement never explained.

[Hoyt]

19. Even gun safety trainers make such mistakes -- you can't make these things "safe." Yet gunners

want more and more folks walking around in public with one or two.

[oneshooter]

22. Speeking of which, were is the "cowboy picture" you spoke of earlier? We are waiting. n/t

[Hoyt]

29. You seem to be the only one anxious for a photo of a cowboy with guns poking out.

"Search" is your friend.

[Blown330]

35. Actually...

you are the anxious party when it comes to people carrying guns. They probably care less that you exist but you twist your knickers in a bunch at the mere thought.


Might see if we can get this changed to :hoyt: :yoiks:

[DonP]

43. No actually several of us have been asking for it

You claimed to have pictures of a CCW permit holder with "two guns sticking out" that you were going to show us as proof of how ignorant "toters" were.

Then you said you were "just making a point", as in lying again, as you have so many times here, trying desparately and in vain, to come off as actually having some degree of knowledge on things related to firearms.

They are asking to determine how often you lie to "make a point" to clue us all in on how much attention anyone should bother paying to any of your posts.

[ileus]

24. I transport one or two a day...safe as a baby. My safety devices are safe...

[Hoyt]

30. Here's problem. You might be the safest gun toter in history-- but toter next to you may be a fool.

What days do you need two? Well, what days do you really need one?

[ileus]

32. Remember the old sayin' "One is none, two is one." M-F one...

I don't go by that rule most of the time because I make sure I carry a reliable pistol.

M-F I normally carry the 380...it's cheap because I can't carry in the hospital. For at work I keep my Kimber pepper blaster handy.

Sat I normally carry the 45, but will have the 380 in my bag. I don't know if that qualifies as carrying two or not...

Sun I carry the 380 because it's small and light.


Every evening when I ride the bike I carry the 380....I love my little 380 it makes being safe a lot more convenient.

[Hoyt]

37. Ileus, I couldn't care what rotation you have, or think is cool.

I'd carry a machete 24/7 if I really thought I needed it on the streets, in parks, Chuck E Cheeze, etc.

[ileus]

48. It's not about being cool it's about being safe...you shouldn't carry if that's the only reason

you can find to carry....

[ileus]

33. It's true the toter may be a fool, that's why I'd prefer open carry.

I'd know they were a friend and would be able to watch for any violations of handling/carrying a firearm. Then I could offer advice to help make the world a safer place.

I think the biggest threat is females that carry their sidearm in their purse....unsafe for everyone IMHO.

[Hoyt]

36. Women who carry in purse, don't concern me. Otherwise, open or concealed carry do.

Unless they've got a 31 cap mag, special loads, and all that other BS too many gunners get into. I'd be concerned about Annie Oakley in the 21st Century.

[gejohnston]

41. why?

She was a safe and responsible owner.

[S_B_Jackson]

44. Do you mean "in a purse" or "in a purse designed for concealed carry"

because for my self, I've seen the jumbled mess that is many women's purses and the idea of someone fumbling around in that small piece of luggage that many women use as a purse, is a sure way to guarantee that an accidental/negligent discharge is a very high likelihood - it's akin to the guy "carrying" by simply tucking the barrel into the waistband of his pants sans holster.

A purse, specially designed for that purpose, OTOH, I have no problem with at all.

[ileus]

46. I know one professor lady friend of mine that carries properly.

She has a purse designed with an internal pocket, she also wears it over her neck so it can't be snatched away. I know two women that carry on a daily basis, and neither one has their PSD in a holster (one LCP one lady smith) both dug around and searched at the bottom for the pistol before showing it to me. I know my wife she won't carry a pistol and it's probably better that way, I can never locate her Kimber pepper blaster for all the trash she carries. She carries it without care sits it in the buggie when shopping. A simple stolen purse can end up being a lost firearm...

[PavePusher]

45. "special loads"?

What are you talking about?

[DonP]

50. He has no damn idea what he's talking about

Please allow time for him to google "special loads" and check out what Wikipedia has to say, then he'll be the resident expert - at least in his mom's basement.

Maybe then he can explain what all his rants and whines on CCW have to do with a guy checking in a hunting rifle at an airport.

[Hoyt]

63. Maybe this will help you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmYahlqr2fc&feature=related

[PavePusher]

64. Nothing "special" at all.

Very common, and with a long history, and used by most police forces.

[Hoyt]

66. I figured you'd spent hours/days studying loads that do the most damage.

[PavePusher]

69. Pulling more stuff out of your colon again, I see... n/t

[petronius]

65. I think he means .38 special. I mean c'mon, they wouldn't have named

a band after it if it wasn't something super badass dangerous, right? :shrug:

[ileus]

47. How they conceal carry should, OC shouldn't bother anyone.

[iverglas]

62. "females"

Female ... cats? baboons? rattlesnakes?

I don't think girls carry firearms in their purses. Not legally, anyhow.

So what's the aversion to using the right word here?

You may not be familiar with it, so let me help.

WOMEN

Say it a few times every day. Try to insert it into your conversations, just for practice. Soon you will find that it comes naturally to you. It will stop sounding like a dirty word. You will lose the reflex of denial.

Women are not the strange second sex of a species of mammal.

Women are human beings.

By the way, are you okay with "males" carrying firearms in their purses too? I should hope so!

[gejohnston]

68. depends

I don't think girls carry firearms in their purses. Not legally, anyhow.

If you define girl as teenager under 18, Vermont and now Wyoming since minors can possess, but can not buy. Girls carried their rifles to school during rifle club day like the rest of us. Vermont had no rule on concealed carry. Wyoming at the time, 1887-1995, no one got CCWs.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

[petronius]

34. Nobody wants "more and more folks" to carry

What pro-RKBA liberals want is to protect the right of each individual to make that choice for themselves...

[Hoyt]

38. Nope, some folks on here promote gun proliferation. Some profit by it.

[petronius]

39. You're free to believe what you choose, of course

But my statement describes reality, your fantasy notwithstanding...

[ileus]

49. No harm in the profit of legally selling firearms.

[PavePusher]

51. Cite, please.

And hey, while you're at it, I want to see that cowboy picture too.

[DonP]

52. Same place he gets most of his "facts"

The picture of the "cowboy" story was just to "make a point", you know a lie?

I'm a little let down, I thought he had one of the Lone Range at Starbucks in the drive thru lane with Silver.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. That brings up another aside: Where are all those bloodbaths at Starbucks we were promised?

It's been almost a year and a half, the various boycotts have failed, there have been mass shootings elsewhere-

But not at a Starbucks.


One might just get the slight impression that gun control proponents are all hat and no cattle....

[oneshooter]

61. I really believe that Hoyt has no cattle. Only hot air. Picture please hoyt. n/t

[ileus]

67. Hoyt makes a good bow....could it be he's invested in ditching firearms?