Skip to content

Red Sox prospect outfielder Bryce Brentz accidentally shot himself in the leg while cleaning his gun

Feb 9, 2013, 11:44 AM EDT

Brentz AP AP

UPDATE: According to Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe, Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington said this morning that Brentz shot himself in the leg. There’s a chance he could play in games by the end of spring training, but Abraham notes that Cherington was “clearly displeased” about the incident.

11:33 AM: According to Alex Speier of WEEI.com, Red Sox prospect outfielder Bryce Brentz will not be in big league camp this spring because of an injury he sustained due to an accidental discharge of a gun he was cleaning. Brentz declined to disclose the specific nature of the injury, but said it was “nothing serious” and that he should be ready for the season.

“Everything is fine,” Brentz said. “After the rookie program, I had an accident. Everything is fine, but I was cleaning my gun and it accidentally discharged on me and I sustained an injury. Nothing serious. That’s why I was out of big league camp, because at the time I’m not able to participate fully, but I am recovering very fast and should be OK for the season.

Brentz, 24, was a supplemental first-round pick of the Red Sox in 2010. He owns a .276/.335/.479 batting line over his first three seasons in pro ball and made his way to Triple-A Pawtucket at the end of 2012. Baseball America ranked him as the organization’s No. 8 prospect during the offseason. Now he’s getting attention for all the wrong reasons.

139 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. chill1184 - Feb 9, 2013 at 11:44 AM

    As a gun owner I can sympathize (granted thankfully this has yet to happen to me). Hope he recovers.

    Further more I predict this thread will have a rational and just conversation on guns.

    • Old Gator - Feb 9, 2013 at 11:50 AM

      Guns don’t wound idiots who clean them while they’re loaded. Idiots wound idiots who clean their guns while they’re loaded.

      I learned that sort of lesson well when I tried to clean my Ouija Scrabble board while the planchette was still sitting on it.

    • hammyofdoom - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:06 PM

      I agree with Gator. Seriously, I know dozens if not hundreds of hunters up here in Maine and rule number one is to never clean the damn thing when you have ROUNDS INSIDE IT. How hard is it to check and see if there are bullets in the gun first, honestly. I hope Brentz ends up being great for the Red Sox in a few years but this was first class stupid

      • 18thstreet - Feb 9, 2013 at 3:29 PM

        We can tell that Mr. Brentz is a responsible gun owner, since this was an accident. The Second Amendment means that everyone can own any gun they want, much as the First Amendment protects my right to shout fire in a crowded theater.

      • manchestermiracle - Feb 9, 2013 at 8:18 PM

        Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court, 1919:

        “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

    • brianabbe - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:51 PM

      There is no such thing as an “accidental discharge.” It’s called a “negligent discharge.” That’s what we considered it when I was in the military. You cannot have accidents with a deadly weapon if you always take the proper precautions.

    • chiefagc5675 - Feb 9, 2013 at 4:26 PM

      There was way too much information on Brentz. All you had to tell me was that he was an athlete and he shot himself- baseball ploayer would have been my first guess since they’re the least educated of any sport.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 9, 2013 at 4:36 PM

        I think you meant to insult baseball ploayers [sic] but that run-on sentence was so poorly written, I didn’t get it all. Can you repeat with corrections?

      • stlouis1baseball - Feb 11, 2013 at 2:42 PM

        You have the letters “fag” in the middle of your handle.
        Yet…you throw stones in regards to someone’s level of education?

        Hello…Mr. Obvious.

    • cur68 - Feb 9, 2013 at 6:06 PM

      These are the rules:
      ACT:
      Assume every firearm is loaded.
      Control the muzzle direction at all times.
      Trigger finger must be kept off the trigger and out of the trigger guard.

      PROVE it safe.

      Point the firearm in the safest available direction.
      Remove all cartridges.
      Observe the chamber.
      Verify the feeding path.
      Examine the bore.

      THEN you clean it.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 9, 2013 at 7:43 PM

        Or, you know, skip the gun and just use trees to kill your enemy, the crafty porcupine.

      • cur68 - Feb 9, 2013 at 8:00 PM

        Takes some chops to use trees to deal death. Only a lucky few have those chops.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 9, 2013 at 8:11 PM

        “Chops” — interesting. In the States, we call them “ballz” — or in this case, “cheeseballz.”

  2. digbysellers - Feb 9, 2013 at 11:48 AM

    Guns are bad ummkayyy

    • manchestermiracle - Feb 9, 2013 at 8:20 PM

      Then so are ink pens, since bankers and lawyers use them to destroy others.

      • 4cornersfan - Feb 11, 2013 at 2:17 PM

        And you never see an NRA member drive a starving family from their home. Oh wait! Some of them are also bankers and lawyers.

    • stlouis1baseball - Feb 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM

      Idiots with guns are bad.
      Bad guys with guns are bad.

      Idiots with cars are bad.
      Bad guys with cars are bad.

      Idiots with baseball bats are bad.
      Bad guys with baseball bats are bad.

      Guns (in general) are not bad. Ummkayyy?

  3. unclemosesgreen - Feb 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM

    Furthermore, Mr. Brentz would like to apologize to Dick Cheney for wandering into his field of fire and looking vaguely pheasant-like.

  4. edelmanfanclub - Feb 9, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    Bryce Bentz > Plaxico Burress

    • unclemosesgreen - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:00 PM

      Not even close, Julian. Everyone who read your comment is now stupider. May God have mercy on your soul.

      • js20011041 - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM

        The quote uses the word “dumber.” I don’t believe that “stupider” is even a word.

      • unclemosesgreen - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:03 PM

        Allow me to educate you by using the word in a sentence. It was stupid of Julian to compare Brentz with Plaxico Burress, but it was stupider of you to correct a movie quote and then doubt the existence of an obvious word. Seriously, you’re all about Billy Madison quotes and can’t use a dictionary. Perfect representative of today’s youth. I hope you always text while you drive, and encourage you to save time by making toast while you bathe.

        See, it’s right between stupid and stupidest. Between Dumb and Dumberer.

        There are certainly a lot of single-celled organisms floating out here today.

      • bb2112 - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:14 PM

        Stupider is not a word lol that guy is right it is “more stupid” not stupider

      • unclemosesgreen - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM

        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupid?s=t

        I’m going to call you paramecium. Also a word. Look it up.

      • unclemosesgreen - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:20 PM

        By the way folks, there’s a lesson here about “beliefs” versus facts.

      • djpostl - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM

        Priceless, this tool thinks because it is found on Dictionary.com it is an actual word.

        You can also find muggle, screenager, blamestorming, bouncebackaability, gaydar and a host of other slang words that they incorporated onto their website.

        Just because they are dumbing themselves down to your level doesn’t mean everyone else needs to follow you down the rabbit hole.

      • sabatimus - Feb 9, 2013 at 3:56 PM

        The only thing you’ve taught me here today, unclemosesgreen, is how to hit the thumbs-down button ceaselessly.

      • cinfante54 - Feb 9, 2013 at 5:06 PM

        1) Use -er with one-syllable adjectives/adverbs (Example 1), with two-syllable adjectives ending in -y, -ple, -ble (Example 2), and occasionally with -tle and -dle.

        2) Use more with adjectives and adverbs of two or more syllables:
        more distant more arrogant
        more exact more intelligent
        more useful more beautiful
        more wretched more stupid

      • js20011041 - Feb 9, 2013 at 6:54 PM

        I’m calling troll on this one. No way this guy’s for real.

      • 4cornersfan - Feb 11, 2013 at 2:30 PM

        I am developing anatidaephobia from reading this stuff.

      • stlouis1baseball - Feb 11, 2013 at 2:47 PM

        “I hope you always text while you drive, and encourage you to save time by making toast while you bathe.”

        You’re killin’ me Moses!

      • stlouis1baseball - Feb 11, 2013 at 2:59 PM

        “But I do not believe anyone but law enforcement and the armed forces should have an AR-15.”

        Ahhh…but you haven’t shot one Moses.
        If you had…you would know they are incredibly fun to shoot…and just as accurate.

        Fortunately for the anti-gun crowd…the cost per round went from .25 per to $1.00 per in the last 6 months. Now…target shooting isn’t financially feasible for most law-abiding gun owners.
        Either way…you win right?

    • jaypace - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM

      I think it’s just as dumb to not check if a gun is loaded before you clean it, and to take a loaded gun to a night club. So this comparison is not far off base, they are both idiots.

  5. approvenothing - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:00 PM

    [Rational Conversation] Yes, people are killed on a daily bases by guns. Yes, guns are used by psychopaths to kill innocent civilians. But sadly, That is a necessary sacrifice for the real meaning of the second amendment. It is meant to protect the average American against the government in the case it becomes a tyranny. Is it horrible innocent people are harmed by guns? Yes. Is it necessarily to maintain weapons so we can defend ourselves in the case of a tyrant government? Yes.

    • chacochicken - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM

      I feel certain the tyrannical government read about Brentz and realized although he is wounded they clearly won’t be able to tyrannize him what with that hand gun and all. I don’t really care one way or the other about guns but Americans sure do shoot themselves a lot. You think we’d be better at not shooting ourselves.

      • approvenothing - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:25 PM

        Since im an American and own a gun im definitely going to cause bodily harm to someone else or myself? Right….

      • chacochicken - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:28 PM

        I bet Bryce thought the very same thing.

      • approvenothing - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:33 PM

        No, the whole point of this is he WASN’T thinking…

      • paperlions - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:41 PM

        In fairness, many guns (e.g. hand guns, assault rifles) are made for the express purpose of shooting people. So….really, we Americans seem to be pretty good at using those guns. I’m sure we’d shoot more non-Americans if there were more of them around or they tried to tyrannize us within our borders….but alas, we have had no such luck for a couple hundred years. You gotta practice though, right?

      • approvenothing - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:49 PM

        Uh oh, someone just got killed in a accident, we better take away everyone’s cars for one persons mistake.10.1 per 100,000 were killed by guns is the US is 2009. Compared to 11.1 for vehicles. So why aren’t we going to take away our cars. Its for the children!

      • ltzep75 - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:03 PM

        For gun control proponents, look on the bright side, with enough time and patience the opposition will likely dwindle to only a narrow majority.

    • indaburg - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM

      (rational voice) I disagree with your beliefs.

      • approvenothing - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM

        Only one question. Why?

      • indaburg - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:10 PM

        My reasons for disagreeing are pretty much what unclemoses said, although I probably would have phrased it a little more politely.

      • unclemosesgreen - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:05 PM

        One answer – because your beliefs are ignorant and ill-founded.

      • approvenothing - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:20 PM

        That’s not much of a answer… Thumbs up for the honesty though.

      • unclemosesgreen - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:25 PM

        Sir, your beliefs are as poorly expressed as they are ill-conceived. Anyone with even the slightest appreciation of how heavily armed our government is would not make the statements that you made. It is not possible in the modern world for the 2nd Amendment to be taken literally as pertains to militias.

        I believe in the rights of citizens to bear arms. I also believe in the right to arm bears. I believe in the change-up, and the knuckle curve.

        But I do not believe anyone but law enforcement and the armed forces should have an AR-15. It is a preposterous weapon to have in private hands.

      • unclemosesgreen - Feb 9, 2013 at 5:24 PM

        Inda – that’s what I like to call my “Irish Diplomacy.”

        I always joke that I’m going to write a book on negotiation titled “Go F’ Yourself.”

      • indaburg - Feb 10, 2013 at 8:32 AM

        Irish diplomacy, huh? Well, that definitely explains a lot.

        I’d read it.

    • djpostl - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:26 PM

      “It is meant to protect the average American against the government in the case it becomes a tyranny.”

      That is only part of the reason for its existence.

      The primary reason it was put in was because we had no standing army at the time and needed to have a way to defend ourselves from outside forces, ya know, like those pesky British who indeed decided to come back for a second round.

      • kinggw - Feb 9, 2013 at 5:12 PM

        Thank you. Most of the people are talking about their 2nd amendment rights have little understanding on why it was created or what it really means. All they are familiar with is the “right to bear arms.”

      • cur68 - Feb 9, 2013 at 6:26 PM

        Wait, what? Come back for seconds did you say? I think you mean that little border skirmish in which Washington ended up being burned (along with the White House)? YOU attacked Canada! It was the war of 1812. You lot decided to invade. With your guns and your free speech and all that. You just lucky we’d left the seal blubber on to boil and had to get back. Next time we annex Florida and we keep it.

      • manchestermiracle - Feb 9, 2013 at 8:25 PM

        cur: Be careful what you wish for, as far as I’m concerned you can have it without a fight.

      • nbjays - Feb 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM

        Waitaminute… you mean most of Florida hasn’t already been annexed by Quebec? Who knew?

    • historiophiliac - Feb 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM

      Sorry, late to the game here. I was busy literally tweeting snide stuff about my textbook re: the Revolution. Where were we? Ah, yes:

      You have misconstrued the purpose of the 2nd amendment here. The founders did not plan for an armed citizenry to be the main check on tyranny (that’s a last resort) — balance of powers, amending the Constitution, and other political means were for that. Representative government as a replacement for monarchy by its nature cut against tyranny too. The founders were concerned about standing armies (hence you keep it under civil control) but recognized that security was a problem if you didn’t keep one. Thus, the militia system, which had been the default practice was retained & Congress given limited power to set up an army too. (FYI, the amendment is similar in wording to existing state statutes/requirements.) The militia system was supposed to separate powers — giving local authority to the states, although the federal government could call up militias in times of national security threats. This decentralized control was intended as a check on centralized power (tyranny)…and also made military service mandatory. The national guard was set up under similar principle — which lasted until, in a moment of aberrant national fear, we handed centralized control over to Homeland security.

      Here’s a link if you want to read a nice legal history:

      http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

      • indaburg - Feb 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

        About time! I was wondering where you were. We needed some historical facts to school people on their misguided misinterpretation of militias as intended by the Constitution.

        Isn’t it amazing how other representative governments manage to not succumb to tyranny without arming their populace to the gills?

      • historiophiliac - Feb 9, 2013 at 4:24 PM

        You’d think they’d find it logical that the founders’ aim was to create a system that was tyranny-proof so you didn’t have to have another Revolution and kill one another. Wouldn’t that be smart?

      • cur68 - Feb 9, 2013 at 6:29 PM

        How do you let people get away with saying they were invaded in 1812, too? I mean, come on! You lot were COUNTER-invaded. By us. Let your people know to keep the facts straight otherwise we might have to do this all over again and we need some place warmer to call our next province home.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 9, 2013 at 7:36 PM

        You should totally gloat at our failure to take Quebec in 1775…and to convince the French to help us make you Unwilling States of America. It’s true we couldn’t beat you (Indian allies or no) and had to settle for that northern border. Are you happy now? (But, really, the Indians started the “War of 1812.”)

      • cur68 - Feb 9, 2013 at 7:59 PM

        American Indians started that war. Always startin’ trouble, your basic American.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 9, 2013 at 8:09 PM

        Yes, a crafty little porcupine named Tecumseh. If it makes you feel better, he didn’t like Staters any better than Canucks. (Is that an insult, I never did know.)

      • cur68 - Feb 10, 2013 at 3:23 AM

        What, Canucks an insult? No. We call ourselves that. Have a hockey team named that. I think even Les Quebecois will answer to “Canuck” (if only to be rude).

        its a descriptive term. Means “Mighty Eater of Seal Blubber”.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 10, 2013 at 9:33 AM

        Just checking. We have a nickname, but it’s not cool for people to call us that.

        Strangely, I have never asked any of the Canadians I’ve known about that. Weird.

      • 4cornersfan - Feb 11, 2013 at 4:54 PM

        Good analysis historio. There is also the 10th Amendment to consider. The 10th Amendment reserves powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution or prohibited to the States to the States or to the people. It could be argued that the Constitution, by granting the people the right to bear arms, forbids federal regulation of firearms. Under your state militia analysis it could be inferred that only the state may regulate firearms. I think that most federal laws pertaining to firearms are based on the commerce clause which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. Not real sure about that, I have never looked into it, but that is what comes to mind. However, in recent years the Supreme Court has rendered decisions that have narrowed the scope of the commerce clause in relation to state’s rights (such as in unions for state workers and the application of the FLSA to state employees). Interesting, no?

      • 4cornersfan - Feb 11, 2013 at 5:14 PM

        A brief follow-up on my spouting on the 10th Amendment: A bit of hasty research revealed that in the last few years several Western and Southern states have proposed or passed legislation that would make any firearms made within the state and not transported out of the state subject only to state law. This is an attempt to bypass federal authority under the commerce clause.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 11, 2013 at 5:33 PM

        Well, I wrote out a long response to you but WordPress apparently ate it…and I’m too lazy to do it all again right now. :(

    • 4cornersfan - Feb 11, 2013 at 2:41 PM

      I always wonder when the term “innocent civilians” is used in this context. Does the use somehow imply that all psychopaths and murderers are in the military, or that it’s somehow OK to kill a civilian with a criminal record? Can we kill innocent Marines or soldiers with impunity? Does it include members of the Coast Guard, which is under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security rather than the DOD? How did that term ever get into common usage?

  6. dondada10 - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:04 PM

    Glad to see Darwinism still making the rounds.

    • indaburg - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:29 PM

      Seeing as he can likely still pro-create and pass on his genius gene pool, not exactly.

      • paperlions - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:46 PM

        But it is also possible that he learned from the mistake and can pass on that knowledge. Yes, I realize that most people don’t have to shoot themselves while cleaning their gun (assuming you believe that BS story) before realizing that it is a good idea to ensure the gun is not loaded before cleaning it (or before fucking around with it, which seems far more likely). But a lesson learned via experience is far more powerful than one learned via conventional wisdom. Silver linings and all that.

      • indaburg - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:50 PM

        Yes, if you want to look at the bright side. But what an awfully painful way to learn a lesson.

    • 4cornersfan - Feb 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM

      I feel the same way about skateboarders.

  7. churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:06 PM

    Not a gun owner, but doesn’t the usual thought process of cleaning your gun go something like:

    Step 1 – Make sure gun isn’t loaded
    Step 2 – Make sure gun isn’t loaded
    Step 3 – Make sure gun isn’t loaded
    Step 4 – Get cleaning supplies
    Step 5 – Make sure gun isn’t loaded

    ?

    • unclemosesgreen - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:09 PM

      Maybe he was in a hurry because he thought he might have to shoot someone (else.)

    • indaburg - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:25 PM

      I am a gun owner, and you are 100% correct.

      Brentz just failed the IQ test for owning a firearm. Idiot.

      • 18thstreet - Feb 9, 2013 at 3:33 PM

        So you’re saying … what? That he shouldn’t be allowed to own one? Because I think that. He can’t be trusted with it.

      • indaburg - Feb 9, 2013 at 3:43 PM

        I agree, 18thstreet.

    • thebadguyswon - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:52 PM

      Exactly

  8. tjg25 - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:08 PM

    Steps 1-3 is quite accurate. Dumbass is lucky it didn’t discharge while he was looking down the barrel.

  9. paperlions - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:14 PM

    Man, people are slacking. First comment should have been: “Damn, guys will do anything to get out of playing for the Red Sox these days.”

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:13 PM

      http://i.imgur.com/U9vYbpp.gif

      • historiophiliac - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:27 PM

        second that

    • nbjays - Feb 9, 2013 at 6:36 PM

      I hear ya, Paper…. I expected half a dozen variations on the theme of “Red Sox” and “shooting themselves in the foot” by now.

      Slackers, all!

  10. uyf1950 - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:29 PM

    I am not a gun enthusiast by any means, But I would think as others have already mentioned here, I would think the very first think someone should do BEFORE cleaning the gun is make sure it’s empty. Hopefully he’s learned because the next timme he may not be so luck.

  11. onbucky96 - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:37 PM

    Dumb bastard! Fans, it called Darwinism, survival of the fittest, and also known as thinning the herd. How stupid do you have to be to clean a LOADED firearm? As a gun owner, this tool deserves to lose his right to bear arms. Good luck Sox, this clown isn’t goung to help.

    • paperlions - Feb 9, 2013 at 12:52 PM

      At this point, I feel it necessary to point out that within the context of Darwinian evolution, fitness is a measure of one’s contribution to the gene pool of the next generation. The most fit individual is the one with the most offspring. In addition, survival is not with respect to the individual but with respect to one’s lineage. Survival of the fittest really just means that the lineage that passes on the most copies of itself has the best chance of survival through time (as measured by generations).

      Think about that next time you make fun of someone with 12 kids on welfare…they are more fit than you are and their lineage more likely to survive. Pretty typical outcome when natural selection is removed from a system.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:27 PM

        You are on a role today.

      • paperlions - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:30 PM

        Probably a side effect from spending 3.5 hrs shoveling snow….and I’m not done yet. The dogs better appreciate all the trails and latrine areas dug in 30″ of snow.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM

        Oops, that was “roll.” he he

        Layer on your t-shirts. I guess your dogs don’t burrow.

      • djpostl - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:34 PM

        Thank. You.

        I have been pointing that out to people for what seems like ages…

  12. diamondd726 - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM

    Bryce and his homeboys were probably drunk and they had to come up with some story. Party on DUDE!

  13. breastfedted - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM

    Approvenothing, the government has tanks, bombs, jets, etc. If they really wanted to wipe us out, a couple thousand paranoid rednecks with guns isn’t going to stop them. And you demean our fine military members by inferring they would actually go along with attacking their own countrymen. And the tired, overused car argument doesn’t work because our entire nation, economy, etc. would come to a standstill with no cars. Whereas, we don’t need guns to go about our business and daily lives. And cars are heavily regulated for safety purposes, so why are gun nuts opposed to any kind of sensible gun legislation?

    • djpostl - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:46 PM

      The car argument is a moronic one because when a car kills someone it is “an accident” when a gun kills someone it is “something did what it was specifically designed to do”.

      • 18thstreet - Feb 9, 2013 at 3:37 PM

        Cars do kill people. That’s why we regulate the living crap out of them and license drivers. And deaths from automobile accidents keep dropping, because laws often work.

      • manchestermiracle - Feb 9, 2013 at 8:31 PM

        There is no such thing as an “accident.” There is inattention, inability, and inanity, but the term “accident” is a cop-out.

    • 4cornersfan - Feb 11, 2013 at 2:56 PM

      I’m not a gun nut, I haven’t owned one in a long while, but what you are saying about the US military was also said about the Chinese Army until Tienanmen Square in 1989. Also translate “a few thousand rednecks” into an estimated 270 million firearms owned by citizens in the US. Also remember that we now have a professional military rather than one principally manned by draftees and one-tour volunteers. A little tension between the government and the populace is not necessarily a bad thing, it tends to breed respect.

  14. unclemosesgreen - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM

    It’s that one in the chamber that always fools people. That’s why handguns are more dangerous to clean – there’s two whole places to look for ammo. S’complicated. It’s like, twice as many places to clear as a scout rifle.

  15. randygnyc - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:21 PM

    Breastfedted- a couple of thousand rednecks? There’s 300 civilian owned guns in the US and they own 15-20 BILLION rounds to go with them. The army that you speak of is clearly the most powerful in the world. You’d be mistaken though that to think that under just about any circumstance, including a revolution, that that very army would turn its guns on the American people. It’s folly to think that they would train these weapons on their brothers, sisters and mothers and fathers. If a large enough revolution occurred, it would go I opposed, except by other civilians.

    To wrap this up, the next US war will be of the Civil variety. Conservative vs liberal. The army won’t get involved, regardless of who holds the power.

    • historiophiliac - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:32 PM

      That’s a negative. Please review all of American history and the Civil War. Our army has turned its guns on civilians on multiple occasions and family members have fought against each other beginning with the Revolution. Also, good luck with your hand-held weapons against all the drone strikes.

  16. randygnyc - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:21 PM

    300 million guns.

    Edit function!!!!!

    • djpostl - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM

      You can have all the guns you want but you have to possess the nutsack, the nerve and the skill to use them on something that is actually shooting back, not paper targets and bambi.

      Simple fact is the vast, vast majority of those people holding the guns would be nothing more than fodder versus a trained military.

      It’d be like a hot knife passing through butter at the end of the day.

    • 18thstreet - Feb 9, 2013 at 3:38 PM

      Owned by one in eight households, I believe.

  17. Old Gator - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:36 PM

    Been thinking while showering and getting ready to mosey over to Macondo Banana Massacre Field to check out the ticket buyer’s crowds…I mean, really, speaking as a gun owner, dear Buddha, how stupid do you have to be to clean a loaded gun? I’m trying to fathom it. That’s, like, rule maybe two or three of gun ownership – you just don’t do it. Eddie the Eagle must be reading this blog with his beak hanging open.

    • unclemosesgreen - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:44 PM

      The first, and most imporant rule of any cogent gun safety list is: Always assume that every firearm is loaded.

      • indaburg - Feb 9, 2013 at 1:53 PM

        Exactly. If you think it’s empty, check it again. This is one instance when being OCD really pays off.

  18. beachnbaseball - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:14 PM

    Here’s a transcript of the conversation leading up to the discharge:

    Brentz: “I know what you’re thinking. “Did he fire six shots or only five?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”

    Brentz (to self): “I gots to know!”

    Gun: “Bang!!!”

    • mazblast - Feb 10, 2013 at 12:33 PM

      One of the greatest bits in movie history. Classic Clint, with his friend the late Albert Popwell (who played four bad guys and one good guy in Eastwood films).

  19. dukepatrol - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:43 PM

    Not going to get political but many would like us to go back to the time of the inception 2nd amendment.
    Now for a obvious statement -anybody that would clean their gun while it was loaded should not be ale to own a gun. That is a freakin dangerous dude.

  20. yepurwrong - Feb 9, 2013 at 2:55 PM

    you’ll shoot your thigh out.

    • ltzep75 - Feb 9, 2013 at 4:29 PM

      +1 fishnettedleg lamp

      • unclemosesgreen - Feb 9, 2013 at 5:15 PM

        fra-GEE-lay — That means it’s from Italy.

      • manchestermiracle - Feb 10, 2013 at 10:39 AM

        France

  21. lazlosother - Feb 9, 2013 at 3:07 PM

    Seriously? I own guns, and you can bet that when I handle one I check to see if it’s loaded. Even when I know it’s not. If I work for the Sox I’m more concerned about the lack of intelligence than anything else. There is just no excuse for this type of “accident”.

    Tripping over your own feet while transporting venison? I can buy it, along with a host of freak accidents. Shooting yourself accidentally? No. Someone who does this has screwed up big-time, and there is no excuse for it other than idiocy.

  22. historiophiliac - Feb 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM

    I am reminded of that great televisual moment when Deputy Barney Fife comically discharged his weapon negligently and was thereafter doled out his ammunition by one very wise Sheriff Andy Taylor.

  23. kingjoe1 - Feb 9, 2013 at 3:31 PM

    The GM should make example of him and trade him to the phillies for Dom Brown

  24. ltzep75 - Feb 9, 2013 at 4:31 PM

    Here’s to holding out hope that his baseball IQ > Real IQ.

  25. drewzducks - Feb 9, 2013 at 5:59 PM

    Someone may want to tell this guy that they fired Valentine 4 months ago.

    • mazblast - Feb 10, 2013 at 12:35 PM

      Like Ahnold to the Arab terrorist near the end of “True Lies”–“You’re fie-ahd!”

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who are the favorites for Rookie of the Year?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (3540)
  2. Y. Molina (3010)
  3. J. Soler (2907)
  4. D. Ortiz (2341)
  5. B. Colon (2307)
  1. D. Wright (2165)
  2. S. Doolittle (2087)
  3. Y. Darvish (2044)
  4. R. Cano (1981)
  5. T. Lincecum (1944)