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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

the gun is the result of thousands of years of humans coming up with more and more effective ways to kill each other. its so god damn effective the only real training involved is learning how to NOT to kill someone unintentionally. if it were safe it would be a pretty fucking awful weapon, it being safe isnt the point, societies ability to control it is. any given atom is the most unsafe thing in the world when it splits, but its pretty hard to do that, hence why there is no debate over atom control.

this man foolishly killed himself for a mistaken cause.

Smolderin:
And that is Florida folks. I should know, I have lived in Tampa for more than a decade, and this entire cesspool of state is breeding ground for ignorance and stupidity. Out of all the states in America, I guarantee Florida is one of those states, high up on the list of "States with a high population of idiots".

It is tragic, but damn if he doesn't have himself to blame for his own death. As a comment on facebook so adequately put, "Darwin shoots! And he scores"!

Can anyone answer me why Florida gets such a bad rap when it comes to people that act like morons. I've been to several countries and more than a few states in my life and have never seen, heard or read of any reason to single out Florida ahead of any other place.

For whatever reason, Florida may get more national coverage, but if you take a few minutes to read keep up with the news in your own areas you will find just as many stories of idiots running rampant.

OT: Besides the normally quoted rules of firearm safety, you should also remember to learn "HOW" your firearm operates. Few, if any, revolvers have actual safeties. Having an empty chamber under the hammer is a good way to avoid shooting your foot off from the hammer being jarred strongly enough to set off a primer. However, pulling the trigger without the hammer cocked rotates the cylinder to place the next chamber under the hammer, thus negating the "safety" aspect of keeping a spent round or empty chamber under the hammer.

I actually think he may have been going for a demonstration about how he kept one chamber empty to avoid accidental fire. But he may have placed the empty chamber in the wrong location. So the empty chamber would have been directly in front of the firing mechanism. To someone who is inexperienced, this would seem like the best place for it to be, but to someone who knows how revolvers work, it is a very stupid idea. When a revolver is fired, it first rotates the drum with the rounds then fires, so he would have thought he was on the safe one, but didn't know it would rotate when he pulled the trigger. I do feel for everyone who witnessed. It may be one of the most horrific things they will ever see.

2012 Wont Happen:

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.

Not really, i found myself guilty of accidentally breaking safety rules in non-stressful situations. An example: we were on one of those fun walks with compass and map and i dropped my compass on the ground and off course there was that annoying assault rifle i had to carry and while picking my compass the barrel of my FNC ended up aiming at someone's foot. This was a clear violation of a safety rule and unless you're drilled like a mad man this is the kind of thing you wouldn't think of watching out for in such a situation.

Dense_Electric:

HellbirdIV:

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.

You know most civilian-owned guns in the United States are purchased with the intention of target shooting, right? Are you claiming that paper targets and clay pigeons are living things?

Last time I checked, guns were invented for killing people and in fact are still being used for killing people. US citizens in particular are renowned for killing people with guns, moreso than other developed countries.

The principal and almost exclusive use of a gun is to kill people. Just kidding. Other popular uses for guns are opening beer cans and switching channels on your TV.

HellbirdIV:
snip

Don't you see the connection though? Both of these "accidents" are caused by human stupidity. The only way a gun accidentally kills someone is through stupidity and not following proper gun etiquette. The same thing applies to the fork and outlet scenario. It could only happen through human stupidity. Do you blame a nail for a flat tire, or do you blame the driver who ran over the board the nail was in?

I think you have a skewed way of looking at things. The responsibility is always due to the person who engineered the accident, not the inanimate objects involved in the accident. Blaming inanimate objects is a way to skirt responsibility. I don't know who you are in real life, or how you live, but if you make a habit out of blaming objects then you may want to reconsider your stance on things. You will never get rid of the problem by making a scapegoat out of something that has zero control over its situation.

Kecunk:

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.

Both ideas are equally negative, either he was stupid and irresponsible, or he was weak willed and cowardly. Regardless as funny as some people make this out to be. This loss of life was truly pointless...

As tragic as this is, there is a reason the rules of firearms are in place. All guns are to be considered loaded especially if they are not, especially ones pointed at you, and never point it at anything you aren't willing to destroy, even if unloaded. These should be obvious.

JudgeGame:

Dense_Electric:

HellbirdIV:

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.

You know most civilian-owned guns in the United States are purchased with the intention of target shooting, right? Are you claiming that paper targets and clay pigeons are living things?

Last time I checked, guns were invented for killing people and in fact are still being used for killing people. US citizens in particular are renowned for killing people with guns, moreso than other developed countries.

The principal and almost exclusive use of a gun is to kill people. Just kidding. Other popular uses for guns are opening beer cans and switching channels on your TV.

It is probably used on animals more so than people every year.

http://www.idausa.org/facts/hunting.html

^I would take this article with a grain of salt however.

It claims that 200 million animals are killed by hunters every year in the US. Even if we take 1% of that number, still vastly outnumbers the # of people killed.

Live by the gun. Die by the gun. I know that people who have own guns are more likely to be killed with one of their own guns than the gun of someone else. That really says it all.

My grandpa had a saying that fits this quite well.

''Too young to die,
Too stupid to live.''

Johnny Novgorod:
Darwin Award over here!

you have to live to be eligible for darwin awards.

Putting guns in people's hands is creating unnecessarily dangerous situations.

Then again, banning them has very little use too, due to them being so embedded in certain cultures.
Quite simply, guns for sports should be kept in a safe at the shooting range and allow each household to have some of their most precious methods of getting themselves killed, a small firearm for "self-defense"

Strazdas:

Johnny Novgorod:
Darwin Award over here!

you have to live to be eligible for darwin awards.

Nope, the awards "salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it". Here's a link: http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/.

my condolences to the family but seriously, one should never forget the primary purpose of a gun: death

Strazdas:

Johnny Novgorod:
Darwin Award over here!

you have to live to be eligible for darwin awards.

really? i thought the darwin awards were given to people who died? actually im sure of it, there were some people who took padding of a pole on a ski slope and slid into the very pole they had taken the padding off of, and they died.

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

It gets funnier when you realise that a revolver's action first rotates, then fires. He could've blown his head off 5 times before it'd go "click". Now -that's- Russian Roulette for manly men. Or idiots. Probably idiots.

There is something wrong with people who in one hand claim how guns are bad, and in the other mock someone for shooting themselves.

As a person against any form of lethal weaponry, this is incredibly funny to me. It shows that loads of people are dumb, and should be taught to let dangerous toys be used only by those who know their stuff. However, with all the anti-gun stuff going around with all the idiots killing children and then offing themselves because they feel inadequate, this should be of at least some use to an anti-weapon law. Only if you're fully trained and equipped to handle a firearm to protect( /hunt/whatever it is people use guns for besides that), you should, [within reason of course,] be able to carry a firearm.

So stop selling guns to idiots, and it'll certainly help a lot. Perhaps a standardized weapon safety training course should be held before you're even allowed to look at a gun.

*DISCLAIMER* I don't actually know that much about the entire gun-situation in America, or anywhere. It's just that it seems that any person can buy a gun there, as long as they fill out a form and wait a few days.

Johnny Novgorod:

Strazdas:

Johnny Novgorod:
Darwin Award over here!

you have to live to be eligible for darwin awards.

Nope, the awards "salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it". Here's a link: http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/.

you are right, i have mixed it up with another "awards for stupid". thank you for correcting me.

America, I have no problem with guns being publically available but seriously, tighten up your gun laws so stupid people can't get them, at least this guy got himself instead of one of his family when displaying how safe his gun was.

I like how people take this tragic accident and use it to selfishly support their own agendas.

I nominate this guy for a Darwin Award.

Flaery:
I like how people take this tragic accident and use it to selfishly support their own agendas.

You say that as though that wasn't the case for every argument ever.

A basic part of responsible government is using past experience and facts to influence future policy decisions.

barbzilla:

HellbirdIV:
snip

Don't you see the connection though? Both of these "accidents" are caused by human stupidity. The only way a gun accidentally kills someone is through stupidity and not following proper gun etiquette. The same thing applies to the fork and outlet scenario. It could only happen through human stupidity. Do you blame a nail for a flat tire, or do you blame the driver who ran over the board the nail was in?

They are indeed both caused by human stupidity. The problem in America is that guns are off the table for any sort of safety and regulation.

Cars can easily kill people. So we require drivers to take driver's training classes and pass a test. If someone is unable to pass the tests, blind, or crazy, we refuse them licenses. We also mandate that they register their cars so we can make sure all are accounted for. We include safety features like seat belts, rear cameras for reversing, and keys to make it harder for anyone but the owner to use. Over the decades, there is a huge list of safety features that have been added to cars. Heck, even with the fork in the wall socket example, I bet you can't buy a two tong fork that exactly fits in a light socket. Because it has been designed to reduce risk.

But guns have not have had any improvement in safety features. Weigh 30 years of car saftey improvements vs. zero gun safety improvements.

Guns are not solely to blame for shooting rampages, but the way the US treats them as inviolate from any sort of safety or regulation based on even something as simple as we do for cars is absurd.

Accidental suicide to prove a gun isn't dangerous. Well done. Score one for evolution, but thoughts go out to everyone on that deck who witnessed that.

Can't help but wonder if he was drunk at the time..

The 4 basic points of gun safety are:

1. Always assume a gun is loaded with live ammunition.
2. Do not point a gun at anything that you do not want to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Be aware of your target, and what's beyond it.

This fool ignored points 1 and 2. If he wanted to demonstrate it wasn't dangerous, he should have unloaded all of the bullets instead of just one, or pointed it at a patch of dirt.

Genocidicles:
This is irony right? I'm pretty sure that's irony.

/facepalm Yeah...It's irony....LOL That poor knucklehead.. XD Captcha: Get the Hopper! Hoopa?

Belaam:

barbzilla:

HellbirdIV:
snip

Don't you see the connection though? Both of these "accidents" are caused by human stupidity. The only way a gun accidentally kills someone is through stupidity and not following proper gun etiquette. The same thing applies to the fork and outlet scenario. It could only happen through human stupidity. Do you blame a nail for a flat tire, or do you blame the driver who ran over the board the nail was in?

They are indeed both caused by human stupidity. The problem in America is that guns are off the table for any sort of safety and regulation.

Cars can easily kill people. So we require drivers to take driver's training classes and pass a test. If someone is unable to pass the tests, blind, or crazy, we refuse them licenses. We also mandate that they register their cars so we can make sure all are accounted for. We include safety features like seat belts, rear cameras for reversing, and keys to make it harder for anyone but the owner to use. Over the decades, there is a huge list of safety features that have been added to cars. Heck, even with the fork in the wall socket example, I bet you can't buy a two tong fork that exactly fits in a light socket. Because it has been designed to reduce risk.

But guns have not have had any improvement in safety features. Weigh 30 years of car saftey improvements vs. zero gun safety improvements.

Guns are not solely to blame for shooting rampages, but the way the US treats them as inviolate from any sort of safety or regulation based on even something as simple as we do for cars is absurd.

Guns are not off the table for safety and regulation. That is what we are advocating. While I don't want guns banned by any means, I do want them to have stricter checks in place for people to purchase firearms. As well as fines for those who do not store said firearms safely. As it stands now there is a 30 day waiting period when you go to purchase a firearm. During that time the store has to check on your background. If you have any felonies or 3rd degree misdemeanors involving violence, you are not allowed to purchase the firearm. Same thing if you don't fit into a certain age requirement. The only two things we are missing is to check for mental instability and require a gun safety course. Enhancing these checks and balances would only increase safety and not cause any issues that don't already exist.

Guns have had improvements in safety features. While they may be spread out, and most of them involve exterior accessories that lock the firearm from firing, they do exist. I have to wonder what exactly you think should be added to a gun to make it "safe". There really isn't anything to add that will make it safer. Gun safety relies on the person who owns the gun to use common sense. All of our gun accidents happen because of a lack of common sense. The same can not be said of cars. Cars are inherently dangerous, and since they cause more deaths per year than many other dangerous items, they are subjected to more safety checks. Cars, unlike guns, can be improved to make them safer for the driver. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Once again, what do you suggest we do to make a gun "safer". We are trying to pass legislature to require more checks and balances on people who purchase guns, but I haven't heard anyone say anything about that. The discussion was on banning guns. Banning guns, and increasing the requirements to own a firearm are two different things.

barbzilla:

Guns have had improvements in safety features. While they may be spread out, and most of them involve exterior accessories that lock the firearm from firing, they do exist. I have to wonder what exactly you think should be added to a gun to make it "safe".

I think training and licensing should be mandatory. As it is with cars. Also, we should look into making optional gun safety features mandatory. (ie. built in keyed trigger locks as a minumum)

Cars are inherently dangerous, and since they cause more deaths per year than many other dangerous items, they are subjected to more safety checks. Cars, unlike guns, can be improved to make them safer for the driver. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Not true. Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington all had more gun deaths than auto deaths in 2009. Which by your own statement means guns should be regulated. Guns can certainly be improved for safety. Aside from basics like training and gun locks, there are grip identification systems and a variety of other systems that have been created, but never mandated, because there are no federal guidelines for gun safety. Mainly because the tin-hat contigent comes out in force whenever anything like it comes up for discussion.

The discussion was on banning guns. Banning guns, and increasing the requirements to own a firearm are two different things.

No, no it wasn't. The OP was on how an idiot with a gun killed himself. I am a veteran (in fact, with a medal for marksmanship) and a hunter. I've also lived in cities with major crime/gun problems and in high school I attended the school with the most suicides per capita in the state (all were committed via firearm). I have never advocated banning all guns. However, I absolutely think that to get a gun you should A) have to pass a gun safety test, both written and practical and B) license all guns owned. Wouldn't mind seeing safety checks too. I mean, if I'm driving around for months without headlights, they will eventually take my license - if I were shown to be consistently unsafe with my guns (yes I have four), they should take them away as well. Additionally, pretty much anything that disqualifies you from driving should also disqualify you from owning guns. To drive a car, I need to prove that I can operate one, keep track of the ones I have, and use them safely. The same should be true of guns.

Oh, and finally, I do think that guns designed for battlefield use should require substantial additional training and review for anyone who wants one. Again, as you need a lot of extra training if you're going to drive a semi or a motorcycle instead of a car.

disgruntledgamer:
Even putting a gun to your head with no bullets is retarded, because there is no reason to do this.

Also, because it violates the first two rules of gun safety: ALWAYS treat a gun as loaded, no matter how sure you are that it isn't, and NEVER point a gun at someone you don't intend to shoot.

EDIT: Here's a handy list of all four.

mew4ever23:
1. Always assume a gun is loaded with live ammunition.
2. Do not point a gun at anything that you do not want to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Be aware of your target, and what's beyond it.

Belaam:

barbzilla:

Guns have had improvements in safety features. While they may be spread out, and most of them involve exterior accessories that lock the firearm from firing, they do exist. I have to wonder what exactly you think should be added to a gun to make it "safe".

I think training and licensing should be mandatory. As it is with cars. Also, we should look into making optional gun safety features mandatory. (ie. built in keyed trigger locks as a minumum)

Cars are inherently dangerous, and since they cause more deaths per year than many other dangerous items, they are subjected to more safety checks. Cars, unlike guns, can be improved to make them safer for the driver. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Not true. Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington all had more gun deaths than auto deaths in 2009. Which by your own statement means guns should be regulated. Guns can certainly be improved for safety. Aside from basics like training and gun locks, there are grip identification systems and a variety of other systems that have been created, but never mandated, because there are no federal guidelines for gun safety. Mainly because the tin-hat contigent comes out in force whenever anything like it comes up for discussion.

The discussion was on banning guns. Banning guns, and increasing the requirements to own a firearm are two different things.

No, no it wasn't. The OP was on how an idiot with a gun killed himself. I am a veteran (in fact, with a medal for marksmanship) and a hunter. I've also lived in cities with major crime/gun problems and in high school I attended the school with the most suicides per capita in the state (all were committed via firearm). I have never advocated banning all guns. However, I absolutely think that to get a gun you should A) have to pass a gun safety test, both written and practical and B) license all guns owned. Wouldn't mind seeing safety checks too. I mean, if I'm driving around for months without headlights, they will eventually take my license - if I were shown to be consistently unsafe with my guns (yes I have four), they should take them away as well. Additionally, pretty much anything that disqualifies you from driving should also disqualify you from owning guns. To drive a car, I need to prove that I can operate one, keep track of the ones I have, and use them safely. The same should be true of guns.

Oh, and finally, I do think that guns designed for battlefield use should require substantial additional training and review for anyone who wants one. Again, as you need a lot of extra training if you're going to drive a semi or a motorcycle instead of a car.

First off;
Thank you for serving. I appreciate all vets as well as current military members.

I am retired law enforcement myself, so I can identify with you on gun training and safety. I actually agree with your purposed safety changes, I have always advocated better gun control. I am very against banning of any and all firearms though. As for gun related deaths vs vehicle related deaths, in the US the tendency is towards vehicle related deaths (as a matter of fact everything I am finding says that cars have always outstripped guns (since the 50s)(though guns are estimated to outstrip cars by 2015 according to analysts). This doesn't mean that I disagree with you (as a matter of fact the only thing I disagreed with you on is the analogy you used early in the thread).

I agree that we need mandatory gun safety classes for everyone who owns or wants to own a firearm. They should be issued a license similar to if they wanted to go hunting. People found in possession of a firearm without proper licenses should be arrested. I think that they should be required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation prior to being allowed into the gun safety class as well.

As for your rule on battlefield weapons, how would you classify them? Do you mean only assault rifles and large magazine pistols, or would it apply to any weapon able to be used as such? I think we should just have a rigorous gun safety class for all firearms and not differentiate. It wouldn't hurt for people who just want to own a 20 gauge to get the extra training as well. Hell did you know that most professional killers prefer the .22. The .22 is one of the deadliest rounds we have, and you are allowed to own a suppressor for them. (If you are wondering why it is one of the most deadly rounds, it is because it doesn't have the penetration power that the other rounds have, so it punches into the rib cage and then bounces around since it can't penetrate a second time. It is similar to the internal damage caused by buckshot, with almost no noise if you use subsonic rounds.) So it would only make sense to have rigorous training involved for everyone wanting to own a firearm. The license would also help to prevent people from borrowing other people's guns without proper training (if they got caught it would be a 3rd degree misdemeanor under my proposed system [punishable by up to 1 year in jail and $10,000 fine]).

Edit: Oh and sorry for the comment about the original discussion. I mistook the thread I was posting in as I just replied after reading your post in my inbox. I am having a very similar discussion with someone else in a thread about gun bans on another forum, and i got confused.

mew4ever23:

This fool ignored points 1 and 2. If he wanted to demonstrate it wasn't dangerous, he should have unloaded all of the bullets instead of just one

Actually no. When it comes to the safety rules you cannot make any compromises. Always assume a weapon is load is always. It doesn't matter whether you just emptied all the bullets. The reason is quite simple, it creates very dangerous habbits. One time you may have indeed emptied all the bullets but than an other time you forgot to the check the chamber and *bam*. You can only let the barrel of a gun point towards something or someone you do not wish to hit if the gun is disassembled.

Let's just cut all the *explicit*. We all know what guns do. They shoot stuff for the majority of their uses. What they shoot is a variable. The people getting their hands on one is variable. Regulation is going to have the same effect as it did when we tried it with the booze. Let's focus on something that we can actually do something about like say ... *thinks* driver qualifications to be on the road or something. It is the leading cause of death amongst the youth.

He should have made sure that the safety was on the bloody fool. Overall we can all agree that this guys death was caused by his own stupidity, guns are weapons and should be treated as such.

Rogue Trooper:
He should have made sure that the safety was on the bloody fool. Overall we can all agree that this guys death was caused by his own stupidity, guns and weapons and should be treated as such.

Remind me to never trust you with a gun.
Man Fatally Shoots Himself While Flaunting Gun Safety Mechanism

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked