Arizona Man Accidentally Kills Himself During Gun Safety Demostration

imagesSamuel Benally Jr., 26, of Phoenix, Arizona wanted to show how dangerous it is to keep loaded guns in the house. He succeeded too well. Benally, who thought that his own gun was unloaded, put a 9mm to his head and pulled the trigger — killing himself in front of the two neighbors.

Such tragedies have befallen officers who mistakenly believe that guns at home are either unloaded or have a safety on, here.

For the full story, click here.

50 thoughts on “Arizona Man Accidentally Kills Himself During Gun Safety Demostration”

  1. Mojo:

    I’m of like mind. These conceal carry folks have every right to own and carry handguns. But their thought processes would be the end of me.
    When at home:
    Can I get the hand gun from the safe fast enough?
    Will the trigger lock cooperate.
    Ammo in the basement. Damn it Marge did you move the ammo again?
    I’ve got to practice getting the hand gun and the ammo together in under 12 seconds. Need more practice.

    Then the kicker, the most destructive stories. Guy looses job, out of work.
    Owes more on the house than it’s worth. Kids pulled from private school, car repossessed. Self esteem flat lining. Lets take everyone for one final drive. Wife 3,4 kids….

    Gunning for it, yep, sad too.

  2. Mojo-

    Do you actively fear a car accident?
    Do you actively fear a house fire?

  3. jw –

    “I am no more fearful of being attacked than I am of my home catching fire or getting in a car accident. Yet I legally carry a gun, I have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in my home, and I wear my seatbelt. When I go places which do not allow me to carry, I do not feel naked or unsafe, simply bemused and amused by the notion of a “gun free zone.”

    And yet you carry a gun around. Well, then I think you are more fearful than most, don’t you think? Considerably more fearful, I’d say.

    You seem to spend a lot more time worrying than most of us here. But have a good day, friendo. Have a pleasant day, indeed. You’ve earned it. You’re gunning for it.

  4. Gyges-

    We are talking about a crime with no victims and a law with no utility. I think there’s a difference in there somewhere but I’m kind of stupid. So if I’m wrong, good on ya. How about this –

    Here in Ohio, businesses can prohibit concealed carry by putting a sign saying so in clear view (a right I support regardless of how stupid I think it is). This is usually at the entrance or behind the counter. Very few big chains do this, but one is Costco.

    So let’s pretend we work for Costco and we’ve been tasked to analyze what could go wrong gun-wise in our stores and what effect these signs might have. The first thing that pops into our heads is obvious – robbery. Now we imagine our robber, gun tucked into small of the back, mouth watering at the pallet full of Miracle Whip with which he is soon to abscond. But ho! A sign on the door! He can’t take his gun in! Curses, foiled!

    I submit that this is not likely.

    Back to our work. How about an active shooter scenario? Dude goes cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, blames his wife, ex-wife, liberals, Atheists, fascists, , Jonathan Turley, Rachel Maddow, and socialists for everything going wrong and figures he’s going to take it out on Costco members. He packs up his AK and as much ammo as he can carry and goes to Costco. And sees the sign. And his batsh*t insane brain has one moment of clarity and he thinks, “Eh, I think I’ll just get a puppy instead.”

    This too I find unlikely.

    And then there’s someone like me. I have a spotless criminal record. I’ve had my background checked repeatedly. I’ve been fingerprinted. I’ve taken a class on safety, gun handling, and Ohio firearm laws. I or someone like me goes to Costco carrying and sees the sign. We do one of two things. We leave or we secure our gun in the our and do our shopping.

    Arrest rates have shown pretty consistently that CCW holders commit less gun crime than the general public, which shouldn’t be surprising. So simply put, the no gun signs are literally filtering out the demographic of people who are least likely to commit gun crime and who *might* actually manage to stop one (and yes, it does happen). What’s more, business owners are indemnified against civil suits based on anything a CCW holder does in their establishment.

    Damn this was long. What were we talking about again?

  5. Rcambell,

    Why do you always assume that hunters hunt for fun?

    Sally and JW,

    So, we should only have laws that criminals will obey?

  6. As has been noted.
    Just because one carries house insurance does not mean you are expecting a fire. It just means you are prepared in case the commensurately unthinkable and unlikely happens.

    On the firearms in restaurants law, I would imagine this law doesn’t mandate that an establishment must permit firearms in their businesses?
    It would behoove them to make a private property rule, no shirt, no shoes, or guns, no service.

  7. Amati-

    We are getting off course here into a general gun control debate (well, already are), but do you realize that concealed weapons are already legal in bars and restaurants in many states and have been for many years? It hasn’t been a problem. Why does it make sense that here in Ohio, I can eat a burger, fries and a soft drink while legally carrying in a Burger King, but if I walk across the street and do the same in an Applebee’s, I’m a felon? This is actually possible by the way, about two blocks from my home, and I don’t drink.

    Those who carry weapons with ill intent will carry them anywhere. The only people who obey the no gun zone laws are people inclined to follow laws in the first place, i.e. the ones least likely to cause problems.

  8. In its boundless stupidity, the Tennessee legislature has just made it legal to carry guns in restaurants and bars where alcohol is served. There was much opposition to this bill from restaurant owners and state law enforcement, but their voices were ignored. Sadly, it appears there are enough votes (mostly Republican, of course) to overturn the governor’s almost certain veto. The NRA and the Republican Party will not rest until there are bullet holes in every home, church and restaurant in the country. Let’s not forget that the national parks, too, will soon be shooting ranges. “…gun safety demonstration.” The only “safe” gun is a melted one.

  9. JW, I’m with you on that.

    Because you know that everyone obeys those “gun free zone” signs, especially those who have do not have a permit to even carry the handgun that’s in their back pocket.

  10. I am no more fearful of being attacked than I am of my home catching fire or getting in a car accident. Yet I legally carry a gun, I have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in my home, and I wear my seatbelt. When I go places which do not allow me to carry, I do not feel naked or unsafe, simply bemused and amused by the notion of a “gun free zone.”

  11. Mea culpa. I referred to multiple studies but did not specifically say 13. Just wanted to rectify that.

  12. I guess I’d say to them sorry you live in a society that you feel so threatened by and fearful of that you feel compelled to arm yourself.

    I’m headed outside to enjoy the sunshine. Unarmed and everything.

  13. “The principle of matter is independent of the practical results.”

    I was afraid that this might be too abstract, but I was hopeful that my point was still understandable.

    Buddha, you basically got my point and rexpressed it correctly.

    The point being that given an established legal principle, be it the right to bear arms, or the illegality of torture.

    I.E., the dangerousness of firearms, and the tragedies that have occurred, do not affect the legality and established right to own them.
    I.E. The effectiveness (or non) of torture in no way comments on the fact that it is illegal.

    In both cases people will try to sidestep a clear legal mandate, by arguing the practicalities, e.g., guns: it is too dangerous to be a right, torture: it is too effective to not use.

    That is what Mojo is arguing, “So what its a Constitutional right, its too dangerous anyway as evidenced by all these examples”

  14. Mojo-

    Forgive me for length.

    “You were correct; that was an incredibly pro-gun site, using Kleck and Gertz research, but thanks for pointing that out beforehand ….”

    This is a cheap shot and has nothing to do with the argument. It’s also a half truth. It *includes* Kleck and Gertz and also includes the research of many others. For those without the time to wade through it, the site also has links to dissenting opinions.

    “From ‘Myths About Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws'”

    I tried to see if Kleck had responded specifically to this paper. If he has, I couldn’t find it. It might have something to do with the fact that it wasn’t done for a peer reviewed criminology journal, but by a media advocacy group. Here are the first two paragraphs on the “What We Do” section of their website:

    “Media Advocacy Planning

    Organizations that want to change policy or influence decision-makers enlist BMSG to help them develop a media advocacy plan, a message strategy, and an access strategy for becoming part of the public debate in the news media.

    Strategic Consultation

    We help public health advocates plan strategic media opportunities and provide feedback and coaching during every step of implementation, from writing letters to the editor to preparing for a tough media interview.”

    This particular “study” was funded in part by the Joyce Foundation, who are notoriously anti-gun. Say what you will about Kleck, he wasn’t funded by the NRA or any other advocacy group.

    As for the study itself….

    “As David Hemenway of Harvard University has pointed out, inaccurate reporting of these events by a relatively small number of respondents could lead to population projections that are orders of magnitude different from the true incidence.”

    Kleck issued a response to Hemenway’s critique of his work. You can read it here: And again, his response was published in a relevant peer reviewed criminology journal rather than prepared and paid for by advocacy groups.

    But believe it or not, everything I’ve pointed out so far represents the least of your intellectual dishonesty. Because in the post you were responding to, I referred to *13* studies or surveys with a range of hundreds of thousands to millions of defensive gun uses. Clearly, the scientific consensus is somewhere in that range otherwise a whole lot of researchers are screwing up wildly. So what did you do? You immediately ran to the high number (and I was mistaken, it wasn’t the highest number), hoping to grab the most controversial. Ok, I’ll play along. Let’s go with the *lowest* number: about 800,000. I’ll ask the question again, what do you say to the roughly 800,000 people who use guns to defend themselves every year?

  15. FFLEO –

    Oh, man. I am ashamed to say I really laughed hard at that comment.

    “And remember to never, ever do this …”

  16. Gary,

    Principle and action, either pro-principle or anti-principle, are intimately intertwined. To say otherwise is like saying cause isn’t related to effect, but in reading your statement I don’t think that’s where you were going. The only reasons to assert gun ownership rights are 1) the Constitutional guarantee of the 2nd Amendment and 2) the rationale of Founding Fathers in including it which not only included the very real military concern that they relied heavily upon civilian militias early on, but the stated intent that the citizenry should be armed as recourse to abusive or tyrannical government. That’s all that’s required. Self defense statistics have nothing to do with it. But torture, on the other hand, has no legal or ethical justification ever no matter what the results are. It’s simply wrong and illegal where gun ownership is your right and not in question by people who have read and understand the nature of the 2nd Amendment. Is that where you were going?

  17. “To assert legalized gun ownership should hinge upon whether people have successfully used them in self-defense, is like saying whether we should torture hinges upon whether the torture produces useful intel.”

    An odd comparison. What does that even mean?

Comments are closed.