Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Woman Shoots Herself in the Leg, through her purse...........without a gun

I don't know how it is possible for a woman to NOT KNOW she has live rounds of ammunition bouncing around loose in her purse.

And I would bet that this woman was unaware that bullets could be dangerous outside of a gun, short of doing something really stupid to intentionally fire them without a gun.

If there was ever an occasion to remind us that guns don't kill or wound people, it's the  BULLETS fired from them that do -- this would be it.  More precisely stupidity and other negative qualities, assisted by guns, are usually required for bullets to kill and wound people.

This woman found a shortcut.

This is why may of us do not put a great deal of faith in our fellow human beings to handle EITHER guns or ammunition safely -- safely for them OR safely for us. We have all these wonderful examples to illustrate why that is not a rational expectation of our fellow human beings.

From Yahoo news:

Bullet explodes inside woman’s purse, shoots her leg

A bullet mysteriously exploded inside a woman's purse (Dario Lopez-Mills/AP)A Pennsylvania woman was shot in the leg while shopping at a local department store on Tuesday. But in a nearly unbelievable twist, no gun was involved. Apparently, the woman was carrying the bullet in her purse, when it mysteriously exploded.
"She did not have a gun in her purse or on her," Montoursville Deputy Police Chief Jason Bentley told the Williamsport Sun-Gazette. Bentley said the woman, whose name has not been released to the public, "was not aware" she was carrying two or three bullets inside her purse at the time of the accident.
The 56-year-old woman was taken to a local hospital and was eventually discharged. In fact, the woman initially declined medical treatment, only heading to the Williamsport Regional Medical Center after her son reportedly encouraged her to do so.
"Something must of hit the primer of one of the bullets," Bentley said. "The bullet stayed in the purse, but its casing put a hole in the purse and caused a minor leg wound."

Bullets exploding outside of a gun are a rare occurrence but are not entirely unprecedented. In March, a bullet being used as evidence in a court case exploded in a bag and shot 20 feet across a courtroom. No one was hurt in the incident. It was surmised that the bullet exploded after its tip bounced against another bullet tip in the same evidence bag, according to the Telegram & Gazette.


  1. Dog gone,
    I'm confused... can you help me on this one? A bullet is a chunk of lead that may or may not be coated in a copper jacket. In other words, a bullet is a chunk of a soft, relatively nonreactive metal. The story repeatedly states that the bullet exploded in the woman's purse.

    My question is: how could a chunk of lead have possibly exploded? You're a self-described genius, so tell me how a piece of lead can explode, please.


  2. Silly Anonymous, allow me to expand your education by acquainting you with the dictionary.

    I direct your attention to the dictionary definition of bullet, which illustrates how both I and the reporters used the term correctly.

    World English Dictionary

    bullet (ˈbʊlɪt)

    — n

    1. a.a small metallic missile enclosed in a cartridge, used as the projectile of a gun, rifle, etc
    b.the entire cartridge

       [bool-it] Show IPA noun, verb, bul·let·ed, bul·let·ing.

    a small metal projectile, part of a cartridge, for firing from small arms.

    2. a cartridge.

    Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.

    1550s, from M.Fr. boulette "cannonball, small ball," dim. of boule "a ball" (13c.), from L. bulla "round thing, knob"
    Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

    So please cut the bull, stop being a 'knob', and acknowledge that the meaning used was the dictionary definition noted in bold type of cartridge. If you were honest - which remains to be determined here - you yourself almost engage in the same common usage regularly, and therefore are being inherently dishonest in your question.

    Is that habitual dishonesty with you, Anonymous? Please answer my question, since I answered yours.

    1. using clip for magazine drives them crazy even though the dictionary says they're interchangeable. Same with bullet and round.

      These guys like Anonymous are just pretending to be superior with this nonsense.

  3. The Mythbusters have studied this kind of thing. The bullet is too heavy without the gun barrel to go anywhere. It's the cartridge case that flies off and can cause minor injuries. This is a case of a freak accident.

    But Dog Gone, if you knew anything about how dictionaries work today, you'd realize that now they accept anything that passes into common usage. Correctly speaking, a bullet is the projectile that is contained in the case. The entire package--bullet, case, powder, and primer--is a cartridge. Surely, you understand that technical language is more precise than everyday usage?

  4. What is so incredible to me is that the gun loons on this blog continually pick away at minute details about definitions or terminology while ignoring the main problem. No matter what you call them, one of them went off in a purse and injured a woman. Bullets, projectiles, small pieces of metal or whatever, are potentially of risk if not taken care of. There are way too many careless gun owners in this country who are cavalier with their guns and ammunition causing way too many senseless shootings. That is the crux of the matter and not what we call the object that does the killing and injuring.

    1. you're right japete. The get so carried away in a purposeful attempt to divert attention, that they are a drag.

      I'm surprised they didn't tell us modern bullets don't go off when bounced around inside a purse, this must have been an old one.

  5. So tell us Dog Gone: how safe do people have to be with an object before you approve other people to use it?

    1. Hunh???? First off, someone should be able to be trusted with a lethal weapon before they are able to own them.

      In case you missed it, the Heller-McDonald cases allow for the regulation of firearms:

      Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

      The footnote notes that the above list is not exhaustive.

      So, Crunchy, if you are arguing that the insane, criminals, and other disqualified persons have a "right" to a firearm--guess again.

      Additionally, I have yet to see anything from a reputable source which demonstrates that the Second Amwendment has anything to do with non-Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 organised Militias.

    2. Crunchy, safe enough that our rates of death and injury are consistent with the rates of the majority of other similar civilize nations.

      That our stats are so much worse is a stain on this nation. You like to give the stain a name and call it freedom; it is not freedom, it is stupidity, insanity, and still a violent stain.

      A rose by any other name... a stain by any other name no matter how you try to spin it as something else is still a stain.

    3. Dog Gone complains that people with firearms are too dangerous. I want to know what her safety standard is. How safe do people have to be with an object in order for Dog Gone to bless them and allow them to possess/use the object?

    4. So Crunchy --- have you started to educate yourself yet on how police prevent crime, yet? A little fresh air of a factual nature would be healthier for you than your gun.

      Or are you going to pass on learning anything you don't like?

    5. Crunchy, asked and answered -- as safe as the standards of most other civilized countries that have far far far lower rates of firearms deaths than we do.

      In particular the fact that we have so many more times the deaths of children to firearms should be a big movtivator.

      If you want to compare this to prohibition, I would point out that it is a very very effective form of it that has been as great a success world wide as prohibition was a failure here.

      You need a better argument than that, given how badly we do with all our guns, and how well they do elsewhere.

    6. Well let's check the safety standards of other civilized countries. Since 1900:
      Nazi Germany executed 20+ million people.
      The Soviet Union executed 60+ million people.
      China executed 45+ million people.
      Cambodia executed 2+ million people.
      Turkey executed 1+ million people.

      I could go on but you get the point. Of course it is unclear if those governments actually murdered all of those people with bullets. (Obviously the Nazis gassed many people and starved others.) I guarantee you that those government agents used guns to control every single victim and line them up for slaughter. The victims certainly didn't march into the death camps because unarmed police used vulgar language. So I am going to attribute all of those murders to gun violence since the murderers used guns to coerce the victims to hold still for whatever specific murder method.

      The U.S. gun death rate and overall death rate are significantly better. So we are good to go.

    7. Wow, Crunchy, can you think for yourself, or do you just parrot crap you read from the internet?

      Hint, given that the "China executed 45+ million people" during a period called "the Age of Warlords should clue you in, unless you are dumber than I give you credit for being.

      That nonsense has been pretty much debunked all over the web, including on progun sites--yet people like you keep repeating the rubbish.

      Matthew White compiled the list Which has killed more people: Gun Control or Christianity? that begins to tear apart this argument.

      I reposted and made some additions to it as astroturfed Genocide

      As Matthew points out “whoever compiled this tally has a different definition of defenseless than I do. I myself wouldn’t declare the largest military machine on the planet “unable to defend itself”, but by adding 20 million from the Soviet Union, this list does. After all, Stalin’s most infamous terror fell heavily on the Soviet Army, culling tens of thousand of officers, and executing three out of five marshals, 15 out of 16 army commanders, 60 out of 67 corps commanders and 136 out of 199 division commanders. In one bloody year, the majority of the officer corps was led away quietly and shot. It may be one of life’s great mysteries as to why the Red Army allowed itself to be gutted that way, but obviously, lack of firepower can’t be the reason.“

    8. Matthew further points out that “this list of alleged genocides is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there’s a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it’s that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed — guns or no guns.“

      Actual armed resistance by Jews during the Holocaust led to mass annihilation. Despite being vastly outgunned and outnumbered, some Jews in ghettos and camps did resist the Germans with force. The failure to halt the genocidal policies of the Nazis has pretty much left Jewish resistance as a footnote to the holocaust. For example, The the largest single revolt by the Jews during the Holocaust, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, was crushed by the Militarily superior German forces: Casualties and losses during this uprising were 17 Germans killed and 93 wounded Versus 13,000 Jews killed and 56,885 captured. The captured Jews were sent to Treblinka. So much for armed resistance.

      Some people forget that inhabitants in the ghettos of Vilna, Mir, Lachva (Lachwa), Kremenets, Czestochowa, Nesvizh, Sosnowiec, and Tarnow, among others, resisted with force when the Germans began to deport ghetto populations. In Bialystok, the underground staged an uprising just before the final destruction of the ghetto in September 1943. Research into Jewish Resistance during the holocaust pretty much repeats the message that The Jews knew that uprisings would not stop the Germans and that only a handful of fighters would succeed in escaping to join the partisans. Still, some Jews made the decision to resist. Most of the ghetto fighters, primarily young men and women, died during the fighting. Unfortunately, this resistance did little to stop the German genocide.

      We can add in that Iraqis and Afghans are armed to the teeth, yet this didn’t stop the rise of Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.

      Matthew has “what I call the Cold-Dead-Hands Test. If the only way to get someone’s gun is to pry it from their cold, dead hands (literally or figuratively), that’s not gun control. When Grant disarmed the Confederates at Appomattox, that wasn’t gun control; that was taking prisoners. When the Soviets disarmed the remnants of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, that wasn’t gun control either. Mao didn’t come to power in China by tricking the populace into surrendering their arms. He pummeled his well-armed opponents in a stand-up fight. There’s a big difference between unable to fight back, and fighting back but losing.“

    9. Dog gone: “Crunchy, safe enough that our rates of death and injury are consistent with the rates of the majority of other similar civilize nations.”

      Are you saying those other nations have enough gun control and you would oppose any additional restrictions? Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you were all for Norway adding more gun control. How about the UK? Do you stand with us when their anti-gun people call for even more control?

    10. I have no problems with the UK's level of gun control.

      I think some people in the UK's wanting to ban airguns is a bit extreme.

      Although, it is amusing to hear most of my friends talk about firearms over here. The best was when I was in school and a friend made the comment that it was neat that I lived in the US and could shoot guns. I told him we had more guns in England than the US!

    11. TS, I'm fairly impressed with the intentional homicide rate difference between the UK and US. To me that one statistic is a show stopper, your show.

    12. Mike, the question raised is do you think the UK has too much gun control? They are already well past the level which you have claimed you would stop at.

    13. I don't think they have "too much." Their intentional homicide rate proves that it's working.

    14. So then why would you stop your efforts here before they reach UK levels of control? You have been on a crusade recently where you say that you (and the rest of gun control) are not about banning handguns.

    15. We are not about banning all hand guns, we are about restricting and regulating them more than we do. The UK is not the only nation to use for a comparison; they are brougt up as an example because arguably they provide the clearest relationthip to gun violence and gun ownership.

      That is not the same as advocating regulation as strict or as limited as the UK.

      There are better ways to manage gun ownership - hand gun and long barrel; there are better attitudes towards firearms and firearm ownershp than the U.S. gun culture.

      You make incorrect assumptions about what we advocate.

  6. Laci,

    Thank you reinforcing my point. The Nazis killed how many millions and used guns to accomplish it? As for the Chinese, I am referring to democide in the 20th century, not the warlords prior to that who killed countless millions more. You didn't say anything about the Soviets. This speaks to Dog Gone's safety standard. She wants the U.S. to be as safe or safer than civilized countries.

    You've also reinforced the point that citizens need weapons on par with the military if they ever have to face-off against the military.

    Oh, and I am not parroting gun rights websites. I found the democide data here:

    1. If you are referring to genocide or the holocaust, they mostly did not use guns to do their killing. Your point about the Nazis is not only fuzzier than my grannies slippers, it is about as intelligent and poorly educated as sock lint.

      If you want to talk democide, I suggest you include the number of native Americans caucasians / europeans or people of primarily european descent killed in this country, mostly with firearms, either directly through the government and military, or with the consent and connivance of the government.
      Authors such as the Holocaust expert David Cesarani have argued that the government and policies of the United States of America against certain indigenous peoples in furtherance of Manifest destiny constituted genocide. Cesarani states that "in terms of the sheer numbers killed, the Native American Genocide exceeds that of the Holocaust".[40] He quotes David E. Stannard, author of American Holocaust,[41] who speaks of the "genocidal and racist horrors against the indigenous peoples that have been and are being perpetrated by many nations in the Western Hemisphere, including the United States...."[42]

      Determining how many people died as a direct result of armed conflict between Native Americans, and Europeans and their descendants, is difficult as accurate records were not always kept.[43] Various statistics have been developed concerning the devastation of the American Indian Wars on the peoples involved. One notable study by Gregory Michno used records dealing with figures "as a direct result of" engagements and concluded that "of the 21,586 total casualties tabulated in this survey, military personnel and civilians accounted for 6,596 (31%), while Indian casualties totaled about 14,990 (69%)." for the period of 1850–90. However, Michno says he "used the army's estimates in almost every case" & "the number of casualties in this study are inherently biased toward army estimations".[44]"

      Laci didn't reinforce your point. You don't have a point. You are a painfully ignorant man.

    2. Crunchy, I'm going to ask this again--can you read, write, and understand the English language?

      I ask that since you need to try to reread what I wrote.

      Maybe even move your lips to work out the words.

      Because if you think what I wrote in anyway backs up what you said, then you have brown matter--not grey.

    3. I read and comprehend just fine, thank you. Let's review. I stated the fact that democide in civilized countries accounts for well over 125 million deaths since 1900. The offending governments used guns either to directly kill the victims or coerce them into a another method of killing. Since armed citizens in this country have murdered far fewer people, our safety level is better and satisfies Dog Gone's safety requirements.

      You wrote details about some democides ... including how the offending governments used firearms to achieve their goals. Those details support my claim. You also included a bunch of extraneous information that neither refutes my democide numbers nor speaks to them.

    4. No you don't, crunchy, you only think you do.

      Those "democides" as you call them, occurred during war time for the most part.

      Do you understand what "War" means, or are you too much of an ------- to understand what exactly happens in war time.

      I'll add in that you inflate the figure from the original 56 million, but what the fuck, they are only people.

      The offending govenments didn't just use firearms, they used artillery, they used bombs, they hanged people.

      But, Crunchy, you are demonstrating to me that you probably don't have the educational level to try to discuss this.

      I'd suggest educating yourself, but you have shown me that you are too far gone to be able to understand how to pour ---- out of your boots if the instructions were written on their soles.

  7. And Dog Gone redefined liberty: have any property you want as long as it satisfies Dog Gone's standards and is on par with other civilized countries -- er, on par with certain groups of people in certain civilized countries.

    That is NOT liberty. That is NOT this country. If you don't like liberty in the U.S., then move to a country that better suits your twisted notion.

  8. First of all Crunch -- I am the one who moderated your comment. Remember that as you now see me proceed to disagree with you.

    We have never in this country had unlimited property rights; you don't have the right to a bazooka, for example, or a nuke. Or certain dangerous explosives or other chemicals that are likely to harm others.

    Liberty is defined as things such as being able to come and go across the country unrestricted, liberty is being able to vote. Liberty is NOT unlimited capacity to harm other people. When we have laws which do not protect some people from other people, similar to those where we stringently regulate substances that could be lethal so that one person does not deliberately or accidentally harm themselves or others--- THAT IS NOT a REDDEFINITION OF FEEDOM. That is the same old definition of freedome we have alwasy had.

    You are an idiot. That is and always HAS BEEN THIS COUNTRY. If you don't like my definition, I suggest you educate yourself to understand it --- or go find somewhere like Yemen, or maybe Mexico, where YOU fit in. In other words, the ONLY place your definition of liberty belongs is in a country struggling to be civilized but not there yet.

    1. While I see some value in having explosives and nuclear weapons should our government ever direct our military against "We the People" (Laci provided good rationale), I am specifically arguing that it is my choice to carry a handgun or have a rifle ... and what other countries are doing has no bearing on my personal choices -- my liberty.

      As for any arbitrary, nebulous "public safety" criteria that you seek to employ to limit my liberty, we have reviewed the numbers in detail in the past. There are a few hundred accidental deaths annually with firearms. That is the lowest category that the Centers for Disease Control tabulates. Auto accidents, drownings, falls, poisoning, etc. take more lives annually. My modern pistol in its holster poses no danger to the public.

      If some people started yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater several times a year leading to several thousand annual deaths from the ensuing panic/stampede, would we limit everyone's liberty and force everyone to wear muzzles before allowing them to enter a theater?

    2. "Laci provided good rationale"

      Crunchy, I repeat, are you able to read, write, and understand the English language?

      Because you sure as hell can't find any support for any of your arguments in what I wrote.

      Maybe, I wrote too many words for you to understand.

      And big ones at that.

      Do you understand the statement:

      “whoever compiled this tally has a different definition of defenseless than I do. I myself wouldn’t declare the largest military machine on the planet “unable to defend itself”

      You follow the assertion that I in some way provide you with any rational basis for making your bizarre assertion with some things that demonstrate that we are dealing with ideas that are well over your head.

      Do you understand what society means?

      Or can I just assume from your last comment that you are in some alternative universe from the one the rest of us are inhabiting?

    3. Furthermore, Crunchy, did my "brown matter" comment exceed your intellectual level?

      Try to focus the foecal material in your skull to come up with a coherent thought that shows you have some idea of what is really going on, Crunchy

    4. Laci wrote,
      "... the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, was crushed by the Militarily superior German forces: Casualties and losses during this uprising were 17 Germans killed and 93 wounded Versus 13,000 Jews killed and 56,885 captured."

      You provided the rationale for why citizens could benefit from having the explosives and nuclear weapons that Dog Gone mentioned.

      The training, organization, armament, defenseless status, etc. of any victims of democide is not relevant. The concrete fact is that civilized governments used firearms to murder over 125 million people since 1900. That vastly outnumbers victims in the U.S. Hence the U.S. is safer than other civilized countries which satisfies Dog Gone's arbitrary and irrelevant criteria.

      I don't respond to your insulting comments because I am above that type of behavior. But thank you for demonstrating the type of person who favors gun control.

    5. Crunchy wrote:
      "Let's review. I stated the fact that democide in civilized countries accounts for well over 125 million deaths since 1900. The offending governments used guns either to directly kill the victims or coerce them into a another method of killing.

      Since armed citizens in this country have murdered far fewer people, our safety level is better and satisfies Dog Gone's safety requirements.

      Um, no. It does not.

      This is one of those flawed arguments where you do a bait and switch, make a false analogy, a false comparison, and in the process, you hit the trifecta - you throw in false causation.

      The correct analogy is that civilized nations have dramatically fewer instances of some armed citizens killing other citizens, to the tune of tens of thousands. Further they have far fewer crimes committed with guns.

      Under the widely recognized and understood RIGHT TO BE SAFE (see preamble to the Constitution where that is expressed as provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,)AND the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for which we voted -- Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. SECURITY - NOT GUNS).

      No, Crunchy, your argument is not legtimate. Deathy by dumbasses with guns are not the same as democide and they do not fall under the same provisions. Compare similar things. It is as flawed and argument as comparing rates of deaths and injuries by firearms in this country to rates of food poisoning in other similarly developed countries as if they were the same thing - they are not.

      You are either intellectually dishonest, or too unintelligent and ill-educated to understand that difference; we are not. In Laci's case he holds a degree in the subject of logic from one of the top tier universities in the world. So, I certainly understand his frustration in trying to hold a logical discussion with you - it is entirely one sided, on his side. There is no logic or fact on your side.

    6. Dog Gone,

      Logical discussion is not possible when you want government to have ultimate power and control over everyone's lives and I want citizens to have ultimate power and control over their own lives as well as government.

      Logical discussion is not possible because anyone who does not share your view is an idiot, moron, nut, loon, etc. and therefore has no intellectual standing for discussion.

      Logical discussion is not possible when you want to limit my liberty choices because there is any chance, however infinitesimal, that my choices are somehow dangerous as you define them.

      To summarize: logical discussion is not possible because my philosophy is "live and let live" and your philosophy is "others will live if/how the intellectual/power elite say so".

  9. By carrying loose ammunition, this woman stupidly injured herself; she could as easily have injured someone else. The direction of the projectile was random.

    People with firearms and ammo are dangerous; they are not safe. Making a claim that uses the word safe when it contradicts the reality as Crunchy does by insisting he is safe with a firearm doesn't undo events like this.

    That Crunchy says stupid things, reflecting his belief in stupid things, and his lack of judgment only underlines WHY he is not safe - he doesn't appear to grasp the concept of actual safety for himself or others.

    It is late, so I'm going to leave it to Laci to provide the numbers to Crunchy as to why open and concealed carry are more dangerous than not carrying.

    As to the premise that we only kill an acceptable number of people every year with firearms, when those are largely avoidable deaths, that is too obscene and immoral a statement to deserve respect. Clearly, those countries with far fewer deaths from firearms have a higher value for human life, both quality and quantity, including FREEDOM and human freedom from avoidable threats to their citizens security.

    Crunchy misspelled it; what he wants is Free DUMB.

    1. What do you want from the government in light of this case? Do you want arrests of anyone who carries loose ammunition in a purse, pocket, or bag? Define loose ammunition. What steps should the government take to protect its people from sustaining injury, needed to be talked into seeking medical care by a family member, and being treated for minor injuries and released? Please save me.