make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Wilmington man's gun goes off at gun show, hurts three

READ MORE:
 

RALEIGH, NC (WTVD) -- Law enforcement officials have confirmed a shooting at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds Saturday afternoon.

Agency spokesman Brian Long says a 12-gauge shotgun discharged while its owner, 36-year-old Gary Lynn Wilson, of Wilmington, unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check it at a security entrance.

Three people were injured when the gun went off, officials said, including a retired Wake County Sherriff's deputy working the show.

Click here to read more at ABC11.com

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

The hits

Just keep on coming

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/shooting-texas-college-campus-report...

Shooting on Texas college campus?????

Vog

the cat

is out of the bag. the leftist media for the masses (and its sycophants..are you??) will over report anything negative associated with firearms and ignore the tens of millions of guns and owners that: did nothing wrong, harmed no one and used their firearms in a lawful manner. they certainly will not report when a firearm is used to thwart a crime, because it doesn't fit the agenda. those of us that have dendritic expansion beyond the average know the mickey mouse media game. meanwhile i'll continue to sign more people to the NRA.

Thank you! About time someone pointed this out!

The doom and gloom goes to the forefont and gets sensationalized. The good that comes from responsible gun owners gets stifled and buried. Typical leftist propoganda.

Vog here actually wants a law that charges a homeowner with a Felony if a criminal breaks into his "locked and secured home" and steals his weapon (if the weapon isn't locked). This means every gun owner must have 40 locks on his front door and the guns secured in a 5ooo dollar safe that can't be breached by the average criminal. We all know that most gun locks are a deterrent at best and will not prevent a criminal from breaching. On top of that, he wants gunowners to carry "liability insurance" to cover the injuries of someone that may be affected by a thief who steals your weapon.

Now tell me, is that some clear thinking or what? Yep, just like the Mississippi river, clear as mud...

Nope

In your rush to judgement your forgot your ability to read.
Gunlocks.
Homeowner not home? Burglar breaks in steals the locked guns?
No problems
Homeowner not home and guns NOT locked? Charge the gun owner (Misdemeanor for first offense - I'll be kind)
Homeowner there? Locks not needed.

Of course if everyone was a responsible gun owner and took care of their weapons we wouldn't be talking about guns going off at the fairgrounds, or someone taking Mommy and Daddys guns and shooting up the family now would we? (Then later WalMart). Nuts like Adam Lanza "happen"
Of course if we want background checks to weed out "nut cases" I suppose current gun owners would have to undergo a shrink exam.
Would YOU Pass?
You could always get your union organizer buddies at the NRA to defend you you know.
Pay your dues to lobby the government - sounds so "AFL-CIO" doesn't it?
Registration
Testing
Annual renewals
Training
Background checks
Insurance

If I get 80% of what I want to see I'll be happy.
But if we undergo shrink exams be prepared to have 20% of gun owners lose their ability to own.

Vog

another

flaky post. a sure sign of intellect is being able to get to the point, quickly, in a conversation. i usually lose interest with your many posts somewhere in the old testatment. you're one of those retirees that needs to stick to clipping coupons.

Irony

The title says it all, although I do feel bad for the people that got wounded. How's that 2nd Amendment working out for ya?

This article is about a case

This article is about a case of negligence. I'm sure the guy didn't mean to have a loaded shotgun there that could go off and injure people, but a person who is texting and driving or the inattentive driver who runs a red light or drifts over the center line is not intending to injure anyone either. The fact is that gun ownership is a politically charged issue and other situations that can cause injury through negligence are not. As is the case with most automobile wrecks and other "accidents," the "accident" would not occur without someone being negligent. Fatal wrecks are not usually reported on outside of the local area and this would not be either if disarming citizens was not one of the left's most "sacred cows."

The real issue

This is really getting out of control. I am a retired state officer with over 20 years experience handling all types of firearms. I have had a concealed handgum permit for the last 6 years and am presently awaiting for my renewal license which expired on 12-10-12. I turned in all my paperwork for the renewal 60 days prior to the expiration of my license as required by the sheriffs dept. i was informed that this was the earliest i could start the renewal process. Now I can not even go purchase a new weapon until they issue new license

Reagan went further

“Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a March 29, 1991 New York Times op-ed in support of the Brady Bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.htm...

Of course when people put Dem or Rep in front of something the opposition goes apoplectic.
Funny how looking back at Reagan and his stances makes him look different eh?
It's kinda like people opposed to Obama Care.
Nixon had legislation ready that created a single payer (government) insurance system. Yet today we rail against so called liberalism of Obama Care. Its a decidedly republican idea like Mass Care under Romney.
The same political slants hold true for guns....

Vog

ha!!

The turkeys have come home to roost.

Enjoy your rights gun lovin Mericans.

Remember

The Second Amendment

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

"We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand." -- A Japanese Admiral 15 years after VJ day on why Japan didn't invade the US mainland after Pearl Harbor.

Yeah

And remember Justice Scalia's opinion about some guns:

http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-201...

"Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms.
"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote

Vog

If only there had been an armed citizen nearby..

This would have never happened

between this guy

And the family shooting in New Mexico with an AR-15 and the anti gun crowd has plenty to talk about.
Good grief

Vog

Thanks for making us ALL look bad....

Forget something on that safety check there, pal?

humm

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offender...

Looks like the shooter has a little criminal record.

Looks like

they were all misdemeanors; the most recent was 12 or so years ago.

Sadly, they do not charge you with "Stupid". He would qualify. Carrying a loaded weapon, whether pistol or shotgun, with the safety apparently off, qualifies as First Degree Stupid.

"Little" is right

All misdemeanors, no felonies, and no incarcerations, all probation. One weekend bender, and I could rack up a minor record like that one, without even trying too hard.

if you gun nuts were looking for a sign from above...

I think you just got it.

you need to control

your fear. accidents can and do happen. they always will, no matter how many rules you fantasize about making. people aren't "gun nuts" because they like to hunt, shoot or collect. the name calling and devisive comments by the fringe left in this country have made the NRA stronger & solidified their cause.

115 people were killed by cars on the same day...

So God wants you to stop driving your Prius as well.

no

But I think guns should be treated like cars:
Education (mandatory)
Testing (Mandatory)
Registration (Mandatory)
Annual renewals and renewals upon sale
Eye exams
And mandatory insurance

Now as far as mental health goes it is a problem when guns are involved.
But this raises an interesting problem.
Do we check ALL gun owners for possible mental illness? Then remove the weapons if the owner is on an anti depressant?
Its a curious situation but it involves a third person being invvolved in the gun ownership equation.

“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.

Vog

You forget the "basic premis".

Statistics are only numbers that are manuiplated to get a result you want to see. So lets drop the "...statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.” and try this:

Just when in the hell do we start "drying up" the criminals, keep them off the streets and making THEM less accessible to weapons? When the judges start enforcing laws and STOP returning criminals to society over and over again, we'll all be better off!

Common sense isn't your virtue. Understanding root cause and solution to a problem isn't either.

Apparently

You mistook Reagans quote as my opinion.
I agree that criminals should be incarcerated for crimes - especially those that involve guns.
That said just who will pay for the prisons needed? For the guards? For their state pensions?
I say let the free market make it cost prohibitive up front. Testing gets SOME stupid people away from guns.
Registration lets the police (and judges) know who's got guns so that if a crime is committed with a gun we have more knowledge of where that gun came from.
Eye exams keep us old folks from owning guns when our "aim" might not be so good.
And insurance?
Try this. Make having an unlocked, UNATTENDED gun in your home a FELONY. Insurance required for protecting you against liability for injuries incurred during the committing of a crime where your stolen gun was used.
Gun owners are our own worst enemies - as witnessed by this shooting in Raleigh. We do not know if Mrs Lanza had her guns locked in Newtown - but again - irresponsible gun owners should also be punished, so make it a criminal offense to have unsecured weapons unless the owner is present.
If it's a felony and the gun owner is convicted - then his/her right is taken away - because they are felons and the law is already on the books and tested in the courts.
Sure put the criminals in jail as they should be.
But gun ownership comes with responsibility. It should be taken seriously.
At least I can see past my gun sights to look at the entire problem

Vog

Go ahead, put new tires on a car with a blown engine...

...and try to drive it to Colorado. That makes about as much sense as the majority of your points.

So your mentality suggests that we should allow violent criminals to go free because of money? Paying for prisons, turnkeys, pensions? If this country has enough money to provide free healthcare for those that don't pay, free cellphones to those that don't need them, free housing and food for those that won't get off their duffs and absorb the cost of illegal aliens invading our country, we can sure as hell afford to keep criminals behind bars! You put them to work and strip their free benefits.

You actually want to charge a homeowner with a felony because a thief breaks into his house and steals his weapon? You want "insurance" to protect a gun owner in the case his weapon is stolen and used in a crime? Where is your head and what could you possibly think any of these things will do to curb criminal violence with firearms? That IS the goal, right? It appears you simply don't want guns in the hands if law abiding citizens because you insinuate they are all stupid. WRONG. More people die at the hands of educated doctors that screw up than with misplaced, mishandled and stolen firearms. Plain out stupidity is a problem, just as it is in any factor of life and it cannot be ruled out and we all know it can't be "fixed".

I don't have a problem with proper gun training and qualification. I don't have a problem with registration and I don't have a problem with background checks and mental evaluations, but the remainder of your pipe dreams serve no purpose and only add even more complexity to an existing series of fully ineffective laws that already go unenforced!

so Guest 461

"I don't have a problem with proper gun training and qualification. I don't have a problem with registration and I don't have a problem with background checks and mental evaluations, but the remainder of your pipe dreams serve no purpose and only add even more complexity to an existing series of fully ineffective laws that already go unenforced!"

Lets assume you are a gun owner and you now have to undergo a psych exam to maintain your ability to own a gun. You are depressed but don't know it.
Are you then allowed to keep your guns?
What if you are taking meds for your affliction?
See how this can go?
The meds might have the warning on them "Do not drive or operate machinery while taking this medicine" - should it not include do not shoot or handle guns while taking this medicine?

The mental health issue IS problematic - as 20% of the population is under the care of a doc for mental illness and are taking meds for them.
I wholeheartedly agree that criminals will get guns by whatever means.
But a responsible gun owner won't make it easy for them.....

Vog

Again try reading

A person who's guns are LOCKED up suffers NOTHING if stolen. The owners insurance may or may not have to kick in
The person who leaves home and leaves their guns unlocked gets charged.

Of course you want to allow gunowners all sorts of indiscretions so that when they bring their loaded unlocked shot guns to the Raleigh gun show they can kill or maim anyone.
And you wonder why the anti gun nuts go off when something like this happens?
If Adam Lanza's Mom knew her son was mentally challenged don't you think it would make her be MORE careful with her guns? Maybe lock them up and hide the key? Change thelocks if in fact he was aware of where the existing keys were? Maybe move the guns until Adam was committed?
My point about the prisons was that we ALL want "the other guy" to pay, or the other guy to be responsible - then we rail against criminals as if they were the cause of all gun violence.
We never, NEVER point the finger of blame at ourselves. Adam Lanza should have NEVER been allowed to shoot a gun. And Mrs Lanza - should not have had that much firepower available for Adam to steal - if that is in fact what he did.
And that idiot in Raleigh? He should be charged.
But if you want mentally ill people to not have guns you will need to evaluate them first. Supposedly 20% of all people suffer some sort of paychological disorder - are you ready for 20% of current gun owners to be deemed unfit by a doctor?
This subject is complex, but a comparison to cars is in fact kinda cool. A doc can restrict your driving ability without taking away your keys. Meds can affect your ability to drive reponsibly - both autos and guns can be deadly

Vog

Just when in the hell do we

Just when in the hell do we start "drying up" the criminals, keep them off the streets and making THEM less accessible to weapons? When the judges start enforcing laws and STOP returning criminals to society over and over again, we'll all be better off!

No offense but you comment has no basis in fact. The US has the largest prison population in the world. You seem to have an incorrect worldview and just tailor make any facts to fit your view. Trying reading more and learning more about your country.

The incarceration rate in the United States of America is the highest in the world. As of 2009, the incarceration rate was 743 per 100,000 of national population (0.743%).[2] In comparison, Russia had the second highest, at 577 per 100,000, Canada was 123rd in the world as 117 per 100,000, and China had 120 per 100,000.[2]

Why not apply

the same standards as are present in some third world countries?

First offense for stealing -- 4 years hard time.

Second offense -- cut off a hand.

Drug dealing -- 6 years hard time.

Second Offense -- death penalty with no right to appeal.

Apply the same immigration standards in this country which our citizens face if they wish to migrate to Mexico

Apply those penalties in this country; lay in a good supply of body bags; and then wait for the whiners to appear.

Tom-

Because we're not a third world country, and we don't have U.S. citizens wanting to immigrate to Mexico. (Sarah Palin wants Canadian Healthcare but that's different)

I'm all for harsh penalties and enforcing them. Stealing - for the second time, should be a felony - regardless of how much was stolen. But cut off the perps hand? That qualifies him for disability in today's entitlement world - we may want to re-think that. I would propose hard labor for all criminals starting with building "The damn fence" on the Mexican border.

Vog