Mor Chit employee detained after innocent passenger shot waiting to buy a bus ticket

[Damrongsak]

17 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

Well most revolvers (except very old ones) have a US government mandated interlock system which prevents the hammer reaching the primer unless the trigger is pulled all the way to the rear, at the same time as the hammer is released or forced forward, as in a fall.  ...

No "interlock" (transfer bar hammer blocking device) on my 1990's Smith & Wesson 686 .357 revolver.  I don't think it is mandated, though it is a good idea in case the weapon is dropped or severely jarred.  A quality cocked revolver generally has a scary-light trigger pull compared to an average semi-auto pistol, especially if the semi-auto is double action.

[hawker9000]

No "interlock" (transfer bar hammer blocking device) on my 1990's Smith & Wesson 686 .357 revolver.  I don't think it is mandated, though it is a good idea in case the weapon is dropped or severely jarred.  A quality cocked revolver generally has a scary-light trigger pull compared to an average semi-auto pistol, especially if the semi-auto is double action.

What conceivable business would this nutjob have had cocking this loaded pistol? Or is the suggestion that it wasn't cocked but still managed to discharge when it was dropped?

[The Deerhunter]

21 hours ago, JAG said:

Mmm, better still, don't cock it or wave it about in the first place?

Agree   How about, "Why was he carrying them both around at work in the first place?"  I was just commenting on his lame excuse.

[The Deerhunter]

3 hours ago, Damrongsak said:

No "interlock" (transfer bar hammer blocking device) on my 1990's Smith & Wesson 686 .357 revolver.  I don't think it is mandated, though it is a good idea in case the weapon is dropped or severely jarred.  A quality cocked revolver generally has a scary-light trigger pull compared to an average semi-auto pistol, especially if the semi-auto is double action.

Copied from a USA gun website.  "The only S&W swing-out cylinder models made without hammer blocks are guns made before 1919, and later guns with fully concealed hammers (Models 40 & 42, and series x32, x40, and x42). The latter models lack hammer blocks because they, by definition, cannot be dropped on the hammer.

S&W's made from 1919 to mid-1944 had a pivoting or "wing" style hammer block that was hinged to the sideplate. While better than nothing, this design is prone to jamming in the disengaged position or breaking off altogether, with no external warning to the shooter.  IMHO this type should not be relied upon unless it is inspected regularly for proper function- and arguably not even then. 

Most 1944 and later S&W's- including those with floating frame-mounted firing pins- have a sliding hammer block that is nearly 100% reliable. Other than the aforementioned concealed-hammer models, IIRC the only postwar S&W's without the sliding hammer block are a few hundred small-frame, target-sighted .32's that were stored in partially-assembled condition when WWII production started, and then completed postwar using prewar parts."

 

(And added by The Deerhunter: "Transfer bars were installed to replace hammer blocks from 1997 to do with the change of location of the firing pin from hammer to frame."

__________________

Edited February 21, 2017 by The Deerhunter
detail

[Arkady]

4 hours ago, Damrongsak said:

No "interlock" (transfer bar hammer blocking device) on my 1990's Smith & Wesson 686 .357 revolver.  I don't think it is mandated, though it is a good idea in case the weapon is dropped or severely jarred.  A quality cocked revolver generally has a scary-light trigger pull compared to an average semi-auto pistol, especially if the semi-auto is double action.

 

This is a common feature of 1911 style semi-automatic pistols which are all single action only. If you manually cock or uncock and your thumbs the hammer will go into a half cock position where it cannot fire. But this feature is not present on a new S&W 686 .357 bought in Thailand last year or on any other revolvers I have handled in Thailand. It may be required for revolvers in some jurisdictions but is not in Thailand and revolvers are shipped here without it.

 

Trigger pull on the S&W 686 revolver mentioned above is 10lb 8oz double action and 4lb 10oz in single action.  That is quite typical for new revolvers on the legit market in Thailand, if no one has messed around with the trigger mechanism to make it lighter.  That long double action trigger pull is what makes revolvers relatively safe for  law enforcement use.  The single action pull of about 4-5lb is about the same as a semi-auto factory single action and this is quite unsafe to use in a stressful situation without a safety (which is the situation with Glocks that are around 5lbs).  It is by no means a hair trigger which would be around 1.5-2.5lbs and is not usually supplied in a factory production gun these days for liability reasons, but is certainly light enough for an accidental discharge under stress or carelessness. 

 

This is the reason that people trained in the use of revolvers are always taught to use them in double action and not to cock them manually which in and of itself creates a severe high of an accidental discharge, as does uncocking when the danger is past.  Even with a trigger pull of 10-11lbs you will still have no trouble getting off several shots, if you really need to with the proper training. Apart from in movies, single action in a revolver is really only useful for precision shooting at the range and cowboy competitions.

[fstarbkk]

On 2/20/2017 at 10:59 AM, MaxLee said:

 

You coudn't make this up....... Only in Thailand, baby............. 

Not really. I could show you neighborhoods in every major urban area of the US, where guns mysteriously "go off" and hit sleeping babies, elderly residents and single mothers on their way to work, all the time. 

[outsider]

On 2/20/2017 at 0:07 PM, colinneil said:

Gun went off accidently.

What the hell was the dipstick doing with a gun at work????

Works at a busy bus station carrying a bloody gun!!!

Brain dead bloody brain dead.

 

I'm no gun expert/owner/enthusiast but if I remember correctly, there are some regulations about carrying guns in public, right? I.e., they have to be holstered, the gun cannot be loaded and the ammo had to be carried separately - something like that?

 

Anyway, what's worse than gun-totting nutters in Thailand is that these idiots carry them locked, cocked and ready-to-rock. That's the scary bit.

[Arkady]

1 hour ago, outsider said:

 

I'm no gun expert/owner/enthusiast but if I remember correctly, there are some regulations about carrying guns in public, right? I.e., they have to be holstered, the gun cannot be loaded and the ammo had to be carried separately - something like that?

 

Anyway, what's worse than gun-totting nutters in Thailand is that these idiots carry them locked, cocked and ready-to-rock. That's the scary bit.

 

Basically you need a Por 12 permit to carry a loaded gun in a public place.  These are now virtually impossible for mere mortals to obtain, are only valid for one year and may only be valid for the province of residence, rather than nationwide. Even if you get one, there is no guarantee of renewal or it might take months but start from the date the previous one expired, meaning the renewal is for less than a year and you can't use it while the renewal is pending. I think we can rule out the possibility that this guy who worked in a bus station had the connections and/or wealth to get a Por 12 permit. 

 

So we can assume he just had regular Por 4 permits for them which entitle him to own and use the guns for protection of life and property.  This is all poorly defined in the 1946 Firearms Act but, going on precedents, the current interpretation seems to be that the Por 4 permit for .38 and 9mm calibre pistols entitles him to keep the weapons and ammunition at the address of his tabien baan for self defence.  To take the guns out of his registered address, he would need a 'good reason'.  Taking the gun to a firing range or to be repaired has generally been accepted by courts as a good reason, providing the gun was not loaded and was packed up in such a way as to be not readily accessible and any ammunition carried was packed up separately. Locking them in separate boxes in separate parts of the car seems to be a good way to go in.  There are some other 'good reasons' which might include going to help your neighbour who has been attacked by robbers or something.  In addition, there is a weird loophole that allows Por 4 holders to take a loaded gun if they are going to deal with cash over B200,000 in a different province.  This is why you see the defence that the offender was going to withdraw B200,000 from a bank in the next door province which surprisingly is sometimes accepted by courts.  There is no good reason acceptable for having a loaded gun near a school or a temple as this is specifically prohibited by the law. 

 

I think this guy will be struggling to come up with a good reason for carrying two loaded guns in a bus station which was his place of work.  Ordinarily each offence could get him 3 years, i.e. 3 years for each gun, 3 years each for the two calibres of ammunition, and at least 3 years for discharging a gun in a public place without a good reason. But I wouldn't be surprised to see him get off, assuming there is any follow up at all in the media.  The Thais seem quite interested in this type of legal issue at the moment, as evidenced by case of the engineer who shot a teenage thug that was menacing him and his family with a registered gun he carried illegally in his car.  It will be more interesting to see the outcome of that case. Whilst it could be deemed a good reason to shoot the youth, he clearly didn't know he was going to have a good reason to carry the loaded gun in his car ahead of time but watch out for the money handling excuse to come out.

[Jim walker]

A hefty 500 Baht fine will insure something like this never happens again a warning to others who need a gun instead of manhood.

[Pukehina1]

Remove his firearms license and guns with an option of never holding a license or firearms ever, A fine commensurate with a brain dead idiot being placed in charge of possibly taking lives or maiming due to displaying lack of control(s) as required by gun license and failing miserably and a custodial sentence to reflect the severity of the crime of wounding via uncontrolled discharge of a firearm........ 

[jackspratt498]

On 2017-02-20 at 10:59 AM, MaxLee said:

 

You coudn't make this up....... Only in Thailand, baby............. 

Oh I can think of another country where things like this happen so often it doesn't even make the news...

[Damrongsak]

OK, some of you guys may have gotten me on the hammer block, I'll have to check.  "Transfer bar" for a floating firing pin is just one method.  But whatever, a cocked revolver can have a scary light trigger release.  My Browning Hi-Power (single action) 9mm takes a bit of effort to fire.  My S&W 686 .357 does not in single action.  My son has an older S&W .38 that is slick as snot in either single or double action. 

[optad]

Choking on my toast here. Modern day Python skit.  Makes a mockery of the 'truth being stranger than fiction' as there is naught strange or unusual about this.