Guy seeks to prove how safe guns are, kills himself by mistake

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

I have every sympathy for the guy's family, but by the same token, anyone who is stupid enough to put a gun to their own head, and pull the trigger, deserves everything they get for it. Especially if they know the gun has bullets in it.

captcha: gift horse

is that offensive? I'm not sure, it sounds like it should be offensive

Shock and Awe:
That guy is possibly the biggest fucking moron in the entire world. Who does that?

thejackyl:
1. Always assume the weapon is loaded
2. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire
3. Never point a gun at something unless you want it dead

There's a 4th rule? As far as I remember these were the only 3 covered in my concealed carry class.

I'm sorry, but this guy is an idiot.

And the whole point of a gun is that it isn't safe. They aren't toys, they're weapons. This would be pretty much the same if someone was trying to say "Knives are completely safe!" and than slitting his throat with one to prove it.

4. Be sure of your target and what lies beyond.

The fourth rule there is just as important as the rest, as unlike movies and games, most things in the real world (including people) are not bullet proof. Walls in your house? Unless your house is made of concrete or something of the like, bullets will most likely go through them. Couches, or perhaps that table you just flipped on it's side for cover? Bullets are going to go through them. And if someone breaks into your house and you're about to put a round through their chest, you'd better be sure that your child's room isn't in line behind your target because it's a very real possibility that the bullet will punch straight through your target and the wall. Also just be aware that modern houses are pretty much death traps.

Because guns can protect you from the gov'ment but not from your own stupid self >.>

Feel bad for the family, not for the victim.

Well this kind of sucks. Now people on both sides will continue attacking or defending the position of guns in society and there will be a whole lot more bitching and complaining without any constructive argument or agreement arising for weeks to come. On the plus side, I guess we can sleep easy now knowing that this man's genes are out of the pool, right?

Nile McMorrow:

Or we could blame Kim from Scott Pilgrim.

image
Also according to google the internet does not have an image of the graphic novel version of Kim doing this.

Really, I found it in 10 seconds flat.

image

Just search "kim scott pilgrim bang".

SanAndreasSmoke:
"Always assume a gun is ready to fire."

"Don't even POINT a gun a something you do not wish to shoot."

"Keep your finger off the trigger unless you actually intend for a bullet to come out."

"Do not accidentally shoot yourself in an attempt to prove a point."

C'mon, I've only handled a gun maybe 3 times in my lifetime (all for sport, needless to say), and even I can remember the rules. Although my heart does go out to his family. What a terrible thing to witness.

I've never handled a gun but I know these.

Not because I've heard them but because its obvious >.>...this is how I have always treated nerf weapons :p.

Justank:
The fourth rule there is just as important as the rest, as unlike movies and games, most things in the real world (including people) are not bullet proof. Walls in your house? Unless your house is made of concrete or something of the like, bullets will most likely go through them. Couches, or perhaps that table you just flipped on it's side for cover? Bullets are going to go through them. And if someone breaks into your house and you're about to put a round through their chest, you'd better be sure that your child's room isn't in line behind your target because it's a very real possibility that the bullet will punch straight through your target and the wall. Also just be aware that modern houses are pretty much death traps.

This is something that most definitely bears repeating. Anything capable of reliably killing a human is going to be a serious threat to anyone through an internal wall or two.

With certain houses, you can shoot through internal walls, the external wall of the house and the external wall of a house nearby.

(As an aside, there are some good penetration tests on youtube, but many of them are made by the sort of people that fit various stereotypes about gun owners. I remember one comparing the penetration power of a 20 gauge compared to a 12 gauge shotgun...they proved the 12 gauge was superior because more pellets passed through a jug of water than when the 20 gauge was fired at it...which left it full of holes and half empty for when they fired the 12 gauge)

Ah, the Darwin Awards. Not really natural selection as, believe it or not, there is no such thing as the stupid gene. Though stories like this are good for some dark schadenfreude fun!

For those who need this spelled out. If this was a preventable accident than, yes, its kinda funny. Its dark humour, but still humour.

However, as some have putted out, if this was a public suicide (think Dwyer on a smaller scale), then this wasn't funny, and giving him a Darwin Award for commiting suicide, Wendy Northcutt, the person that started the Darwin Award meme, would say it was sad and not an example of self-selection.

Perhaps I'm thinking to hard on this one but I have to say I feel a bit depressed by how people are reacting to this dude's accident. Of course what he did was pretty stupid, sure, but does that mean he "Deserves it"? Here is a man you know absolutely nothing about other than he made a stupid mistake and some of you people have the god-damn arrogance to say he doesn't deserve to live. He had a family, they're were people who loved him. Maybe he wasn't the smartest person in the world, OR MAYBE HE WAS, maybe he just was feeling very stupid that day, how the hell do we know? It just really depresses me that this guys entire existence, 18 years of life, has been reduced to "The fool who shot himself" because he screwed up. Anyway my point is that none of you people are qualified to judge whether or not a person deserves life based only on the knowledge that he died because of a stupid mistake. Ill probably regret posting this in the morning because I'm half drunk :/ but still, the arrogance of people on the internet really bothers me sometimes.

I think the real problem people who are not accustomed to firearms have is understanding what "safe" means. Modern firearms are safe in the sense that they reliably function as intended without catastrophic failure being common (though one can invite such catastrophic error by doing something as simple as using 9mm +P ammunition in a Glock 17, though it should be noted this is explicitly forbidden by the manual) and that the weapon is unlikely to fire unless the trigger is depressed.

When you put you finger on the trigger, the only thing that can make the weapon "safe" is the person holding it - and that's simply achieved by only pointing the weapon at an object they intend to destroy.

In other words, firearms can only be made safe in the sense that they are unlikely to catastrophically malfunction. To put it another way, one does not accidentally discharge a firearm - they negligently discharge a firearm.

MPerce:
Guns are never safe.

Lies

image

This one is safer than a knife thank you very much. You would need a good 20 minutes to kill anyone with that gun! :P

Thats why I prefer my springfield which has about 5 parts, easy to clean and get working again in a fire fight!

OT: Guy was an idiot, and I got a good laugh out of it.

FelixG:

MPerce:
Guns are never safe.

Lies

image

This one is safer than a knife thank you very much.

Small parts! Choking hazard!

*ahem* Apologies, I just had to. But yes, it's a lot less not-safe than if it was assembled.

As for the laughing part, I didn't laugh, I sat here with an expression of disbelief of my face. "Who'd...why would...where...? *syntax error, now restoring brain to last known working configuration*"

Vegosiux:

FelixG:

MPerce:
Guns are never safe.

Lies

image

This one is safer than a knife thank you very much.

Small parts! Choking hazard!

*ahem* Apologies, I just had to. But yes, it's a lot less not-safe than if it was assembled.

As for the laughing part, I didn't laugh, I sat here with an expression of disbelief of my face. "Who'd...why would...where...? *syntax error, now restoring brain to last known working configuration*"

Your brain is coded in BASIC? It is time for an upgrade my man!

Though that is a good point, you could choke someone to death with them if you were very dedicated xD

Hardcore_gamer:
http://www2.tbo.com/news/pinellas-news/2013/jan/10/st-pete-man-18-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-se-ar-603022/

I know this isn't something that one should make fun of, but I will anyways:

What are your thoughts on this guy's claim that this proves guns are safer?

This is why you should be made to get a liscence to be allowed to use a gun. Morons and crazies need not apply.

tippy2k2:
Firearms are safe as long as you follow the rules about handling them

See, that's the thing. They aren't.

The "rules about handling them" are, rather, "instructions on how to temporarily prevent an extremely deadly weapon from causing massive injuries and/or death". Note the "temporarily" because guns are meant to cause massive injuries and/or death when handled properly.

It's not like sticking a fork in the electrical outlet - The gun didn't "create an accident" because it was "handled improperly". Gun did exactly what gun was meant to do.

It's like saying that polar bears should be kept as pets, because "as long as you follow the rules about handling them" they're perfectly safe. Yeah, in theory that is sound, but the difference is that if you have a dog instead of a giant half-tonne murder beast in your living room, if you slip up with discipline it might crap on the rug as opposed to tear your head clean off your shoulders.

So, yeah. Don't keep polar bears in your living room, kids. And probably not guns either. They belong in their natural habitat, the North Pole.

Because guns are just like Santa Claus.

Dangit2019:

Nile McMorrow:

Or we could blame Kim from Scott Pilgrim.

image
Also according to google the internet does not have an image of the graphic novel version of Kim doing this.

Really, I found it in 10 seconds flat.

image

Just search "kim scott pilgrim bang".

And make sure you have safe search on.
Unless the door is locked =P

2012 Wont Happen:
He was bad with firearms, and judging on how bad probably drunk.

It is very easy to safely handle a firearm.

No. Knowing the four safety rules and not breaking them on purpose is easy. Not breaking them accidentally is something else. And i'm speaking from experience here. That's why gun safety is something that is being DRILLED in the army, not just told.

"Shaw tried to prove the gun was safe by placing it to his head and pulling the trigger, which is when the gun fired"

I refuse to offer any sympathy at all for that. If you place a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger fully expecting the gun to not do the thing the mechanism was designed to do if you load ammunition into it and pull the trigger, you're not trying to prove that a gun is safe, you're trying to prove that a gun does not fire bullets. You're also wrong. And dead.

disgruntledgamer:
Let me guess he's American.

Being American has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately stupidity and lack of common sense exists in every nation. However, I will say that you're most likely right since the gun debate seems to be far more active there than elsewhere among first world nations. Well, that and sheer population size.

HellbirdIV:

It's not like sticking a fork in the electrical outlet - The gun didn't "create an accident" because it was "handled improperly". Gun did exactly what gun was meant to do.

I'm sorry, this analogy makes no sense to me. Are you accusing the fork of creating the accident. In your explanation the fork is just as much of a culprit as the firearm. I won't pretend guns are "safe", but handled properly (with the proper intentions) a gun is as safe as a propane tank. That is to say, if proper caution is not used, bad shit will happen.

I won't continue the argument as that isn't the intention of the thread, but I will read anything you decide to respond with (if you so choose to).

OT:
I am of two minds on this incident. On the one hand; If this was an accident, this young man was not the best person to be giving a speech on gun safety to his friends and family. Any number of accidents could of occurred, including the accidental shooting of a child or friend. I won't go so far as to call him out on his intelligence, but there was a serious lack of judgement on his part that directly resulted in the mental trauma that all of the witnesses have likely suffered.

On the other hand; This may well have been a suicide. I don't know the exact details of his life or the events leading up to it, but it sounds like this was a traumatized young man. I also can't speak for his mindset, nor can anyone claim this. Nobody knew what exactly went through his head leading up to the event. I do know that if he was a regular user of firearms, or at least moderately practiced, he would have known that the chamber behind the barrel is rotated to the next in line during the trigger pull. He should have also known to treat every firearm as they are ready to fire.

If suicide was actually his intent I believe that this was a very selfish act. He not only left grieving friends and family, but traumatized the audience he gathered. At the same time, most suicide attempts are not done in front of a live audience.

busterkeatonrules:

DrunkenMonkey:
There's got to be a translation error or something right? I mean leaving out one bullet from a revolver hardly qualifies as a safety measure to prevent accidental discharge right? right!? I mean nobody is this stupid, this has to be a joke or something. I mean what the shit seriously.

No facepalm will ever be enough to describe the stupidity that just occurred. Either he had a death wish, or he greatly overestimated his skill with handling a gun, forget about the loaded part.

Actually, leaving one chamber empty is a standard rule of revolver safety. The trick is to keep track of WHICH chamber.

Yeah most people don't realize a revolver doesn't fire the chamber directly in front of the of the hammer, it fires the next chamber about to be in front of the hammer.

VanQQisH:

sky14kemea:
Wait, let me get this straight.

Shaw told them that he kept one round out of the firing chamber to prevent an accidental shooting, according to police.

Out of a revolver?

So he did the opposite of Russian Roulette?

I was actually gonna feel bad for this guy. I still do for the family, but jeez.

I can't fathom why you'd hold a gun to your head with 5 bullets still in it. O-o

I don't think it actually stated whether it was a Revolver or not. Even if it was a semi-auto, I'm pretty sure their chambers are spring loaded, meaning if there's a missing bullet, the spring in the chamber simply pushes the next one up into line. It might just be a case of the poor bastich not doing his research and thinking it worked like a revolver and that he'd have to pull the trigger twice to actually fire.

Not 100% sure on this as I honestly know very little about guns. Never liked guns so I've never willingly handled one in my life. I'd never point one at a living creature let alone myself, even if I was 100% sure it was unloaded and the safety was on. Fuck that for a joke.

Witness told officers that Shaw, his uncle, grandparents and some friends were on the back patio talking when he showed them a .38-caliber revolver, police said.

It says it right there, I think? Granted I'm really bad with gun knowledge myself. xD Only stuff I know about revolvers is from movies and MGS....

Aesir23:

disgruntledgamer:
Let me guess he's American.

Being American has nothing to do with it.

Oh, I don't know about that. We have a gun culture. We also have a culture of bluster, bravado, and "I don't need to be told how to do it!" And assuming his suicide wasn't intentional, those two factors were probably major components of the accident. There are many countries in the world where this sort of accident would be far more unlikely, either because guns are not casually available or because even stupid people wouldn't feel inclined to prove how clever they are by sticking a gun to their head.

NightmareExpress:
I just...don't see why he did that.
He could have just as easily demonstrated his point by putting six rounds into the revolver and setting it on a table.
That would be six people in a room that could have their brains blown out, but it wouldn't happen because it would require a person to pull the trigger and aim. Thus, one would conclude that guns are truly the most dangerous when there's a person behind the trigger.

Case in point would be this incident, I guess.

(Also, lol at the judgmental people)

The article said his life wasn't going so great, could be suicide.

Either way, sympathies for the friends and family.

barbzilla:

HellbirdIV:

It's not like sticking a fork in the electrical outlet - The gun didn't "create an accident" because it was "handled improperly". Gun did exactly what gun was meant to do.

I'm sorry, this analogy makes no sense to me. Are you accusing the fork of creating the accident. In your explanation the fork is just as much of a culprit as the firearm.

Nah, see, sticking a fork into an electrical outlet means that you're putting two things that, individually, are relatively safe (compared to guns, that is. forks and electrical outlets aren't exactly the safest things in the house to begin with) but by being put together - handled improperly, and indeed, used in such a way that they were never intended - they create an electrical hazard.

It's not really an analogy; It's an example household accident that can happen (generally to children, I've never known of an adult to do this) but is a result of putting two things together that have no reason to be.

It's completley different from a gun "accident" killing or hurting someone, because a gun was made to kill or injure. No additional reagents required in this recipe for disaster.

A fork, or a car, or a glass bottle can all be used to kill people - but that is not their intended purpose. Guns are intended to kill and have no other function than causing grievous harm - so, gun did exactly what gun was meant to do.

EDIT:

If the rumors that it was suicide are true, then I like to think he did it this way on purpose to show people that no, guns are in fact not safe - it'd make sense, if his father really was killed in a home intrusion incident, possibly with a firearm? But I'm just speculatin hereg.

DrunkenMonkey:
There's got to be a translation error or something right? I mean leaving out one bullet from a revolver hardly qualifies as a safety measure to prevent accidental discharge right? right!? I mean nobody is this stupid, this has to be a joke or something. I mean what the shit seriously.

No facepalm will ever be enough to describe the stupidity that just occurred. Either he had a death wish, or he greatly overestimated his skill with handling a gun, forget about the loaded part.

Well leaving the first chamber empty is a safety precaution for revolver but its only to prevent to weapon from fireing if you like bump into something while wearing it.

If you pull the trigger its still going to fire because the cylinder rotates when you pull the trigger meaning the second chamber actually is the first bullet that fires.

Too bad this guy didn't know that or he might still be alive. or maybe he did know that if you believe the suicide angle.

Dangit2019:

Just search "kim scott pilgrim bang".

With those search terms you'd wanna be using the strictest of safe search settings...

anthony87:

Dangit2019:

Just search "kim scott pilgrim bang".

With those search terms you'd wanna be using the strictest of safe search settings...

Oh my, your right. I'm just lucky Googles restricting itself automatically for me.

Dangit2019:

anthony87:

Dangit2019:

Just search "kim scott pilgrim bang".

With those search terms you'd wanna be using the strictest of safe search settings...

Oh my, your right. I'm just lucky Googles restricting itself automatically for me.

I took safe search off and googleimaged that phrase.

Nothing remotely disturbing as far as I can see. A pic of Ellen Page, who I don't think was in that movie...does that count?

Disappointed :(

disgruntledgamer:
Let me guess he's American.

I sense a condescending foreigner.

OT: Why he would keep a round in a revolver is beyond me, and besides that always assume a gun is loaded.

generals3:

2012 Wont Happen:
He was bad with firearms, and judging on how bad probably drunk.

It is very easy to safely handle a firearm.

No. Knowing the four safety rules and not breaking them on purpose is easy. Not breaking them accidentally is something else. And i'm speaking from experience here. That's why gun safety is something that is being DRILLED in the army, not just told.

Being in the military is stressful beyond civilian life. Things get harder with stress.

If you're a civilian range shooting for recreation there is just no excuse for breaking safety rules.

TizzytheTormentor:
Wow, this was unexpected!

Heart goes out to grieving family and such, but this was a pretty ironic way to go!

I also hope this doesn't devolve into a flame-war between gun supporters and people who want guns banned...

Ah, even when this thread is on the verge of bashing the dude for killing himself to a pulp, you still show sympathy and want peace- I salute you good sir. Not often do I see someone actually feeling bad for the families that lost the loved one regardless of reasons why the person died.

OT: It's sad that he died.. he just wanted to show why guns could be safe.
Then again, the way he did it wasn't the best idea. I would of researched or got intelligent people together to discuss methods or to invent a device that could make guns non lethal. Then again, guns are solely made to shoot and kill, so that's one hard feat to overcome. Unless you replace the bullets with foam? .. I don't know.

Ed130:
Well, another Darwin Award goes to someone who really deserved it.

By their nature, Darwin Awards always go to someone who deserves it.

Caramel Frappe:

TizzytheTormentor:
Wow, this was unexpected!

Heart goes out to grieving family and such, but this was a pretty ironic way to go!

I also hope this doesn't devolve into a flame-war between gun supporters and people who want guns banned...

Ah, even when this thread is on the verge of bashing the dude for killing himself to a pulp, you still show sympathy and want peace- I salute you good sir. Not often do I see someone actually feeling bad for the families that lost the loved one regardless of reasons why the person died.

OT: It's sad that he died.. he just wanted to show why guns could be safe.
Then again, the way he did it wasn't the best idea. I would of researched or got intelligent people together to discuss methods or to invent a device that could make guns non lethal. Then again, guns are solely made to shoot and kill, so that's one hard feat to overcome. Unless you replace the bullets with foam? .. I don't know.

I always wanted those guns that had a loaded boxing glove!

Not that I would use it to play...at all...

Honestly, why not rubber bullets? They hurt like hell but are way less lethal than regular bullets (I think)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here