Regarding Nugent and Guns…


A 7-year-old boy died on Saturday when he was shot by his father in an apparent accident outside a Mercer County gun shop, state police said. Joseph V. Loughrey, 44, was getting into his truck holding a .9mm Taurus handgun when it discharged. The bullet struck his son, Craig Allen Loughrey, 7, in the chest, state police said. The boy died at the scene.

“I know that little kid was everything to him,” said Mark McLaughlin of Fredonia, a friend and co-worker of Loughrey’s at Superior Well Services in Fredonia.

State police said Loughrey told them he had emptied the magazine of the gun, but had no idea a bullet was still in the chamber.

The common denominator in all of these cases is a gun. I can't help but to think that if they had been walking out of a Baskin-Robbins with ice cream cones, this wouldn't have happened.

  • bphoon

    This is truly tragic, no question. But I have to say that for every anecdotal story of tragedy such as this, the pro-gun lobby can come up with a story of how a law abiding citizen was able to defend him/herself and/or his/her property by being armed and properly bringing their arms to bear. Or alternatively, cite another tragedy perpetrated by “bad guys” that could have been avoided if only the “good guy” in the scenario had been armed.

    Statistics don’t lie, however. That’s why, I’m sure, IrishGrrrl rightly says what she says above. The facts are that more people are hurt or die from accidental weapons discharges than from any other factor. The facts are that when an armed citizen brings arms to bear, the majority of the time, those arms are taken from them and used against them. The facts are that anyone of age who can pass a NICS check can purchase a weapon and keep it in his or her home/business/or, in our town, car without a lick of training. The facts are that law enforcement has no earthly idea how many weapons are in their jurisdiction or who has them at any given time.

    Guns are going to be with us whether anyone likes it or not. It’s in our Constitution, it’s in our culture. Banning them would do no good–cocaine and heroin are banned and how long do you think it would take for someone who is determined to find either of them to succeed in that endeavor wherever they may be? That would only expand the black market for weapons several fold.

    I’m convinced, as I said in my earlier post, that training, licensing, registration and insurance requirements are some things that would help mitigate the risk we face every day from the flood of firearms in our society .

    • BD

      Have you ever had a solution that doesn’t involve a government monopoly of force using their guns to impose their will upon peaceful people?

      • bphoon

        Generally speaking, BD, our government monopoly of force uses their guns to impose their will on unpeaceful people.

        I have an idea: Since you hate the “government monopoly of force”, the Constitution, the revenue collectors, blah, blah, blah, so much why don’t you go off to Alaska somewhere and dig yourself a hole to live in and and make your own little libertarian paradise? It’d be a helluva lot less irritating to the rest of us.

        • BD

          If you believe that the guns of government do NOT murder innocent then there is no hope for you. The veil will never be lifted until the day comes that the state threatens your life for being what they declare “un-peaceful”. You are a statist shill. Lick that boot!

    • Alan Fors

      Insurance requirements alone, if they were strictly enforced, might be sufficient. Try to get insurance for carrying a gun without being trained – it’ll cost you big time, if available at all. Try to claim you’re insured on a weapon your insurance company doesn’t know about, your rates go up for everything else.

      Lost your gun? Your insurance is still responsible for any damage it might do, and they’ll pass that cost on to you, and other gun owners.

      You have to carry proof of insurance. If you can’t prove it’s insured, it’s confiscated on the spot.

      A free market solution. No restrictions, as long as you can pay the insurance.

      • BD

        I like your thinking but let me evaluate the proposal.
        In a truly free market all land is privately owned. So if, say a mall, allows individuals onto such property they have requirements and this is a contractual obligation for patrons to honor. If the mall determines that it will allow armed patrons with the agreement that such persons and firearms are registered with a legitimate insurance provider then this is the agreement and penalties will apply. I doubt the mall will inspect individuals with the premise of confiscation but rather in the event of a “situation” they can have legal recourse or deniability of fault.
        The problem is public land and this is where those in public wish to control others by limiting their rights. This is an issue only because public property has no owner, but rather owned in common, and hence the state steps in to claim such ownership. Now the public can use democracy (majority rule) to suppress any freedoms and rights of the public.
        But you are correct in the application of insurance in a free market. Insurance providers and entities of the like, are a very important aspect of free society as responsibility is shifted to the individual and away from some “social good” or whatever other euphemisms for tyranny one uses.

  • Victor_the_Crab

    I really have to shake my head at this.

  • trgahan

    What I’ll never understand in any of these cases is why. Why, unless you directly engaging in criminal behavior, do you need to walk around with sem-automatic hand gun with a chambered round in the first place? In Mercer County, PA none the less….unless the deer have just gotten really mean.

    I can only imagine the mental gymnastics the dad is going through to justify having to be so armed in the first place.

  • stacib23

    I don’t know anything about guns, but don’t they all have a safety? Would a responsible gun owner always have it engaged unless he or she were about to shoot something?

    • zirgar

      Without knowing the handgun model, I can’t say for certain, but I think all Taurus semi-auto handguns (the 9mm round tells me it was a semi-auto) have a round indicator on the slide to show if a round is chambered. If the man had known his gun better he may have avoided this awful situation.

  • IrishGrrrl

    This story is incredibly tragic. What’s even more tragic is the father should have known, probably did know, that you ALWAYS check the chamber too. Always, always, always. And this is precisely why having guns around 24/7 is a bad idea. Human beings, even trained ones, make mistakes. People are venal, stupid, irresponsible assholes on their worst days and on their best days? They have good intentions but make incredibly horrible mistakes. Why conservatives don’t get that, I will never understand.

    • max perez

      “Human beings, even trained ones, make mistakes.”

      What leads you to believe he had any training? It’s possible, sure, but from the nature of the accident as reported, it seems unlikely.

      • IrishGrrrl

        I wasn’t speaking of the man in this story but about people in general. Even if someone has training, even really good training, it only takes one moment to eff up–one distraction, being tired, rushing….humans aren’t perfect. That’s all I was saying.

    • BD

      “And this is precisely why having guns around 24/7 is a bad idea”
      Please enlighten me to the appropriate hours of bearing firearms. This will be very informative for me seeing as I have a firearm on or near me virtually 24/7. Also are there exceptions to your rule…perhaps the loving and benevolent hired revenue collectors and protectors we refer to as “Americas Finest”…or are these individuals considered exempt from the standards of society? After all they do, for the most part, resent an armed populace.
      Please explain to me why your beloved document “the Constitution” has failed to secure my “inalienable” right “to keep and bear arms” which by my understanding “shall not be infringed”?

      • IrishGrrrl

        Well, thanks Mr. Literal! Could you be any more dense–you know damn well what I meant by 24/7. Personally think it is stupid to carry around a gun all the time since this isn’t the Wild Wild West anymore (nor would we want it to be like that again, except some do, and I’m betting you’re one of those loons).

        In regards to the IRS agents you’re so fearful of…..I explained that to someone, I thought it was you, in detail, on another thread in the past month. Maybe you should go read it again because obviously you didn’t understand the first time around. And if that still doesn’t work for you, you need to up the dose on your anti-psychotics because your paranoia is a bit out of hand.

        In re: the Constitution, funny how gun nuts always forget the part about gun ownership being part of a “well regulated” militia. So who regulates? The government by the people and for the People. If you don’t think our government is by the people and for the people, you need to shut up and just revolt or go find your own country.

        I think that pretty much says it all.

        • BD

          First, your personal opinion on limited gun carry is most likely not shared by the victims of today’s mass shooting spree at a mall. Good thing there are cops to count bodies.
          Second, the “Wild Wild West” was in actuality NOT that wild. Just because Hollywood makes movies about it and becomes regurgitated “facts” by educational institutions does not make it true. (
          Third, I was not referring to IRS agents (we have discussed this and I disagree with your convoluted reasoning behind tax collection) but rather police. They are revenue collectors in the sense that they impose penalties and court appearances which rob the peaceful public for violating statutes, not laws.
          Fourth, please explain to me the display of psychotic or paranoia behavior that I exemplify. One could argue that life is risk management and call me paranoid, but I am uncomfortable with certain agents of the state being granted the power to murder, while those of your ilk wish to disarm me.
          Fifth, our rights to bear arms is NOT reliant upon a government regulated militia, as the government is not for the people or by the people. Any belief in this is nonsensical indoctrination. Slogan based arguments do not work outside grade school classrooms.
          For the people, by the people?
          I do not wish to take the property of others, to invade foreign lands and murder their people. I do not wish to disarm a public to become childlike victims of criminals by creating a reliance upon the few granted the privilege of being armed. I do not wish to find my “own country” for this is the land which I was born to, and it is the sociopathic trash, such as yourself, which need to stop advocating hitting other kids on the playground. YOU leave the sandbox and take your bully, thug friends with you. This is why you defend (and if my memory serves me were employed by) the state. You are a recipient of thievery and you will always justify force of such a nature as anything else will have contradicted the basis of your very existence.

          • IrishGrrrl

            First, HUGE assumption. Civilians in a shoot out with a perp in a crowded location = DISASTER. Second, I have studied the history of law enforcement as part of my two majors in Criminal Justice….the Wild West was a mess. Citing a partisan and not a REAL research oriented historical journal proves you have no ideas of what you are talking about, again. Third, “police” have existed in every society. They only have the right to kill you if you use deadly force against them. You really need to go back to school but I’m not sure how it would help you since it didn’t do much good the first time around. Fourth, I’m not happy with paranoid people like you running around with guns all the time. Almost every single post you make goes back to your paranoia about governmental authority. Fifth, you prove my point. You don’t actually believe we live in a representative democracy. Your choices are: 1) leave, 2) revolt, 3) work within the system, 4) take some Thorazine. I recommend 3 and 4.

          • BD

            Believe whatever historical source you wish as it will most likely support your agenda. Police forces can and have been private and there is no reason to force such criminal agencies upon people. Also, if you do not believe that there is police brutality and murder then you live in a fiction or are in denial.
            The outcome of any shoot out is not going to be good. I would wish to be armed. This does not mean that I must use it and those trained will know when and when not to engage. As for those who don’t, bullets are flying regardless and to limit self defense is disgusting for your to support. Would you not want to reserve the right to be armed in that situation?
            My disapproval of authoritarianism does not negate the fact that this is the land which I was born to. You are in support of the most oppressive elements in society, I just want to associate with whom I wish on a voluntary basis. You leave if you can’t play nice. But rarely can statists do so.

          • IrishGrrrl

            My disapproval of authoritarianism does not negate the fact that this is the land which I was born to.

            Since I was born here too, your argument carries no weight with me whatsoever. You’re a traitor to your country in your heart, which is by no means a crime. Thank goodness for the First Amendment and the Rule of Law here (in our functioning democracy) because in most other countries you’d already be sitting in jail. See you just don’t get that. You have the luxury of saying horrible things from the comfort of your home and nothing will happen to you except someone like me will call you out on it. But the government is evil is the ONLY thing you focus on. So sad and so myopic.

            You are in support of the most oppressive elements in society….

            Nothing could be further from the truth–showing that you have no idea who I really am. I think people like you who want to let corporations have their way with us through the “Free Market”, allow any idiot a gun, and think they have the right to violently overthrow the government any time they don’t like who is elected President are in support of the most oppressive elements in society. To you might makes right…to you threatening is a good way to get what you want….to you if a person can’t fight back against the multi-million dollar corporation, oh well…..That’s what I see when I read your posts.

            You leave if you can’t play nice. But rarely can statists do so.

            See, I don’t have to leave because I believe my country is good and I believe my government is good (not perfect, but good). I think the system works so I don’t have to leave or revolt or anything else. I only have to work in the system and try to reform it where there are flaws. YOU on the other hand bear the burden of proof and action since YOU are the one accusing the government of being some giant evil entity. I’m not a statist, I”m a liberal and your calling me one just shows you are limited to viewing others through a dichotomous lens. From everything you’ve stated to date, I would say you are either an anarchist or a corporatist shill–probably both. But liberty? You don’t truly understand what it means either in a historical context nor in the modern U.S.A.

            Just go away and play in the sandbox with people who only agree with you. You’ll feel so much better. Oh, don’t forget the Thorazine….that will definitely help.

          • BD

            “Since I was born here too, your argument carries no weight with me whatsoever. You’re a traitor to your country in your heart, which is by no means a crime.” It is you and others here which proclaim that I should leave the land i was born to if I do not like/accept the legitimacy of an authoritarian state. I have no problem with people of different thoughts and beliefs living among one another (in fact civilization as a whole benefits) but anyone advocating using force is not welcome. As for being a traitor, I would rather be a traitor of the illusion of an arbitrary region represented by the filth of the earth than a betrayer of humanity. I continually advocate a society of non-aggression and you and your brethren here continually excuse coercion, theft and murder because you refuse to accept that such things are wrong, even if performed by your masters under the guise of providing protection and other services you believe cannot be provided but by the barrel of a gun.
            “You have the luxury of saying horrible things from the comfort of your home and nothing will happen to you except someone like me will call you out on it.”
            I expose horrible things and those which legitimize them! At no point do I advocate any immoral, unethical or ill-natured positions. As stated above, I advocate non-aggression. Why is this frowned upon? Why are peaceful individuals not allowed to associate on a voluntary basis? Why must a mafia style system be thrust upon those who have never been given the chance to opt out? As for “calling me out”, congratulations! Yet you will not address the ethical issues which I present but rather use slogan based arguments to justify your position (common good; will of the people; for the people by the people; greater good; fairness…..). I will give you the appreciation of not using the tactic of Argumentum Ad Hominem, unlike most on this, and other, sites…but I still have yet had someone address the actual basis of an argument. Rather there are knee-jerk reactions to statements and no room for debate it seems.
            “YOU on the other hand bear the burden of proof and action since YOU are the one accusing the government of being some giant evil entity.”
            More than half a million innocent Iraqis murdered by sanctions placed on this country with our assistance.
            Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulting in a quarter of a million deaths within first day.
            Largest prison population on planet. Nearly half of which are in for non-violent drug offenses.
            (We lock people in cages for the statutes made which have nothing to do with property or person protection. It is social engineering and disgusting)
            Federal government land grabbing, often for fascist agendas, through EPA and transportation agencies. Federally owned land is 1/3 of U.S. acreage.
            NDAA: indefinite detection, suspension of habeas corpus
            Emergency Preparedness executive order: basic peacetime martial law powers with control of all major industries including agriculture, energy, health, transportation, etc….
            Roosevelt confiscating all gold in country making its possession illegal and then price fixing it. Also declared “bank holiday” to protect over-leveraged banking cartel from falling victim to run on banks. In other words prohibiting people from getting their own money.
            Bailout of GM and handing over majority of shareholdings to autoworkers union.
            Bailout of banks forcing serfs of the nation to fit the bill for their extravagant ventures in monetary manipulation.
            Federal Reserve bank given privilege to collect interest on money it creates out of thin air to loan to the U.S. This can be done by treasury and appropriated by congress with out paying a banking cartel interest.
            Inflationary economics imposed by FED and Government manipulation with legal tender laws which further decrease purchasing power of serfs, more dramatically effecting the poor than any other class do to them being closer to subsistence level living.
            Police brutality and unjust home invasions on a daily basis, including innocent being gunned down on street (Seattle seems to be quite good at this).
            CIA installing puppet dictators throughout world to control regimes and resources.
            Execution of prisoners later found to be innocent
            Confiscation of citizens earnings by force, no choice, amendment pushed through on holiday break in congress, 1913.
            Forced payment of and mandated attendance of federally funded and regulated schools. (Must pay for everyone’s children to receive government indoctrination).
            Drone strikes throughout Middle East and in Africa’s Libya. Also permitted to fly over American soil.
            This could go on and on to which I do not have enough time in my day to do.
            “I’m not a statist, I”m a liberal and your calling me one just shows you are limited to viewing others through a dichotomous lens.”
            stat·ism: n.The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
            I beg to differ and stand by my claim to labeling you as a statist.
            It is a dichotomy between those who believe in forced central authority and those who believe such entities are illegitimate.
            ” I would say you are either an anarchist or a corporatist shill” anarchist, yes. Corporate shill, ha! Support your claim with quotation.
            “But liberty? You don’t truly understand what it means” does liberty involve coercion and force? Does liberty mean one does not have the right to the fruits of ones labor? The property they own? The body they own?
            You know nothing of liberty! Nothing!

  • Alan Fors

    Of course the 7yo should have had a gun of his own, he could have protected himself.