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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Strazdas:

Johnny Novgorod:
Darwin Award over here!

you have to live to be eligible for darwin awards.

Correction: You have to remove yourself from the gene pool to receive a Darwin award. To receive one while alive you have to remove your ability to reproduce. Most Darwin awards are posthumous.

Reference: http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/

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?

"Witnesses then said Shaw tried to prove the gun was safe by placing it to his head and pulling the trigger, which is when the gun fired, fatally wounding him, police said."

A cursory look on ANY GUN FORUM AT ALL and they will All with TOTAL UNANIMITY condemn such an action as uttelry outside any kind of proper handling, no part of how he described the safety working applies to what he did.

That's like proving a car is safe by driving one off a cliff and saying "it's okay, I've got chains on my tires"

There are Jeff Cooper's "Ironclad Rules" that you will be ridiculed and chastised by the "gun nuts" if you don't know them off by heart and follow them to the very letter:

1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are (ready to fire).
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule #1.) (this includes when held in holster and when drawn from a holster)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is THE Golden Rule.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

He broke ALL OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES! He didn't even identify that his head was the target.

What he did was as so ignorant... it is as dumb as stepping out of your car while it's speeding along at 70 miles an hour. That says far more about how incompetent they are than the machinery itself.

If he'd actual, consulted the very sober gun community rather than taking gun safety tips from pop-culture then this would have been entirely prevented.

But pop culture inexplicably never wants to consider real firearms safety, they constantly break the Ironclad Rules,

All the time you'll see actors with real looking blank firing guns, playing trained soldiers MUZZLE SWEEPING everyone (including themselves), with their FINGER ON THE TRIGGER, many many times saying ASSUMPTIONS IT CANNOT FIRE, and NOT CHECKING THEIR TARGET!

The closest film to ever recognise this was Pulp Fiction where Travolta's character accidentally shot a passenger in the head. Only the characters never admitted they were handling guns wrong, they just bickered and blamed each other, like maybe it was a bump in the road. No. It was ignorantly pointing a gun at someone's head with a finger on the trigger.

Ken Sapp:

Strazdas:

Johnny Novgorod:
Darwin Award over here!

you have to live to be eligible for darwin awards.

Correction: You have to remove yourself from the gene pool to receive a Darwin award. To receive one while alive you have to remove your ability to reproduce. Most Darwin awards are posthumous.

Reference: http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/

I hate the Darwin Awards.

Any award given for killing your own offspring is nothing I want associated with a humanitarian like Darwin.

Yes, that's what "removing your genes from the gene pool" is, being castrated or killed doesn't matter if you've already borne children. And most of the idiocy in Darwin wards have NOTHING to do with genes and EVERYTHING to do with education or simply bad luck.

Like someone getting struck by lighting. No. Fucking no. There is no way enough people can die by lighting strikes that humans could build up a genetic resistance to massive sudden electrical shocks.

The worst part is how the Darwin Awards excludes people who kill themselves through inheritable mental illness. That's clearly totally divorced from Darwinian evolution and shouldn't have anything to do with that name. This is where the Darwin Awards are deeply DEEPLY unfunny, considering if someone with clinical depression taking their own life qualifies for the Darwin Awards.

It should just be renamed the "Ha ha, you killed yourself accidentally Awards".

And it's causing serious problems with school councils even citing it in "debates" about teaching evolution in school, as if the Darwin Awards have anything to do with evolution. They don't. They only have anything to do with a poorly educated layman's false impression of evolution who mistakes unfortunate or unexpected death being funny somehow part of "survival of the fittest".

[/rant]

hmm this story reminds me of this one

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/motorcyclist-dies-helmet-protest_n_889427.html
(and many more links with a quick google search I just grabbed the first I saw)

yeah no sympathy if your going to do something stupid and poke murphy in the eye he will get revenge.

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.

Mr.BadExample:

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

The "the safety was on"?!?!? ON A FREAKING REVOLVER!!!!!

That's like talking about being locked out of your motorcycle, to say such things betrays such a level of ignorance it's like you've never even seen a firearm before, like they are as alien to you as helicopters are alien to some amazonian tribe.

NO REVOLVER HAS ANY SORT OF SAFETY CATCH!

You know what the primary "safety" for the trigger is? It's this:

image
the trigger guard

and this:
image

Your finger.

What is NOT SAFE, is putting your finger inside the trigger guard and pulling the trigger. You are deliberately bypassing the fundamental safety features.

Firearms when they aren't in your hand need to be where nothing can snag inside the trigger guard, like in a holster or gun bag/case or resting on an uncluttered table.

The safety has ALWAYS been there primarily to stop the mechanism firing by means OTHER than the trigger being pulled. Such as an impact or drop jolting the mechanism releasing the sear that holds the hammer or knocks the hammer down onto the primer.

I have no idea, no idea at all where people get the insane idea that the safety catch that is on some weapons is there so they can carelessly pull the trigger without it firing. And it is insane.

Most weapons don't have a safety catch. All revolvers, all Glocks, all Sigs, in fact most combat pistols the safety is entirely dependant on the user NOT sticking their booger hook in the trigger guard and start pulling the trigger at any time they get the inclination.

PS: there is every chance in the linked example he didn't even know if the safety was in the on or off position. Some safeties flip up for safe, others flip down and in investigation it may never have been determined what position it was actually in and what position was actually "safe".

This is my whole problem with "safety catches" and why the Ironclad Rules of safe firearm handling don't mention safety catches at all. Safety catch isn't on when you need it on, and is on when you need it off. Any interference which may activate the trigger is far more likely to disengage the safety catch first.

What is needed is simply for all guns to be constantly be in a drop-safe condition, so they will ONLY fire if the trigger is pulled then they just need to focus on not pulling the trigger to prevent it firing.

Treblaine:

Like someone getting struck by lighting. No. Fucking no. There is no way enough people can die by lighting strikes that humans could build up a genetic resistance to massive sudden electrical shocks.

[/rant]

The only Darwin Award I saw for getting struck by lightning was for a guy who did the kite in a thunderstorm thing and extended it with copper wire. He was an electrician.

Treblaine:
The worst part is how the Darwin Awards excludes people who kill themselves through inheritable mental illness. That's clearly totally divorced from Darwinian evolution and shouldn't have anything to do with that name. This is where the Darwin Awards are deeply DEEPLY unfunny, considering if someone with clinical depression taking their own life qualifies for the Darwin Awards.

I'm confused by this. The Darwin Awards excludes depression related suicide, yet that's wrong or the fact that at one point they were considered is wrong?

Treblaine:
And most of the idiocy in Darwin wards have NOTHING to do with genes and EVERYTHING to do with education or simply bad luck.

I don't think I'd have fun reading about a child who is doomed to die young because of messed up genetics. The Awards are only here to highlight the idiocy in this world. Humor is the intent, along with words of caution.

NegaWiki:

Treblaine:

Like someone getting struck by lighting. No. Fucking no. There is no way enough people can die by lighting strikes that humans could build up a genetic resistance to massive sudden electrical shocks.

[/rant]

The only Darwin Award I saw for getting struck by lightning was for a guy who did the kite in a thunderstorm thing and extended it with copper wire. He was an electrician.

Treblaine:
The worst part is how the Darwin Awards excludes people who kill themselves through inheritable mental illness. That's clearly totally divorced from Darwinian evolution and shouldn't have anything to do with that name. This is where the Darwin Awards are deeply DEEPLY unfunny, considering if someone with clinical depression taking their own life qualifies for the Darwin Awards.

I'm confused by this. The Darwin Awards excludes depression related suicide, yet that's wrong or the fact that at one point they were considered is wrong?

Treblaine:
And most of the idiocy in Darwin wards have NOTHING to do with genes and EVERYTHING to do with education or simply bad luck.

I don't think I'd have fun reading about a child who is doomed to die young because of messed up genetics. The Awards are only here to highlight the idiocy in this world. Humor is the intent, along with words of caution.

Well I saw a "Darwin award" where someone was doing nothing as dangerous as flying a kite yet were ridiculed for being struck by lightning. And often these stories are hugely misrepresented, like the "thunderstorm" was in fact nothing but a slightly overcast day and the first sign of lightning was the lightning that hit them. I don't appreciate being bullshitted to, nor having dull witted hyenas expecting me to laugh along with a false sense of intellectual superiority that they did what they would have done but didn't.

I'm equally upset about a child dying from inherited genetic diseases as a mentally disabled person not understanding the dangers of electricity.

And I am filled with fury at the insinuation that ignorance, foolishness or inability to learn of individual humans have anything to do evolution by natural selection. It utterly misrepresents a science that so many schools refuse to teach ENTIRELY BASED ON SUCH MISAPPREHENSIONS!

"I'm confused by this. The Darwin Awards excludes depression related suicide, yet that's wrong or the fact that at one point they were considered is wrong?"

Yes, it's wrong, because that IS a significant aspect of Darwinian evolution but is excluded simply because it doesn't fit with the "joke". A crap joke which is just about mocking those led astray by societal conventions.

Most of this has nothing to do with innate intelligence, it has everything to do with people being properly educated on things and having a cultural attitude of safety rather than "don't be a whimp" instilled into them. Most of these are caused by people being urged to take risks to avoid certainty of chastisement if they don't do it.

The only thing the "Darwin awards" want to include are freak accidents to do with people being ignorant or led astray by misleading cultural conventions. I mean it excludes people who are clinically depressed, yet not those who have severe learning disability (formerly known as Mental Retardation) that prevents them learning about dangers of the world around them. That's just laughing at certain disabilities because they don't understand them and don't care.

Frankly if Charles Darwin was alive today, I have no doubt he'd sue the proprietor of such awards for gross defamation. Demand they change the name to "Freak Accident Awards" or something like that.

Take this accidental shooting case: what the FLYING FUCK can be achieved by just pointing your finger and saying "Ha ha, what an idiot" ??!?!

I'll tell you right now: absolutely NOTHING.

Saying "don't be an idiot" won't work as hardly anybody thinks they are an idiot. Some people on here even suggested he should have activated the safety catch.... ON A REVOLVER! That's like suggesting to open the sun-roof on a motorcycle.

The lesson here is that guns are complex and dangerous pieces of machinery, they must be handled in a VERY particular way and you must know EXACTLY how they work. Not understanding how the cylinder rotates on pulling the trigger cost him his life. If he hadn't foolishly disregarded the fundamental rules he might have at least learned the weapon function in a safe way. But pop culture doesn't encourage gun safety rules, all his action heroes break the rules all the time and they get away with it on film.

These are victims of societal conventions and bad education. Laughing at them is like laughing at Native Indians for not having natural resistance to Smallpox.

The Awards are only here to highlight the idiocy in this world.

EXACTLY!

NOTHING AT ALL to do with Darwin's theory of evolution.

EVERYTHING to do with society:
-the behaviours society encourages
-the education and information society empowers or disadvantages people with

Almost all the Darwin Awards are to those who are under pressure to do certain things and couldn't know the dangers because the only people who could know didn't tell them. I find it enraging and insulting how they Charles Darwin's cartoon face on the Darwin Awards website looking at people dying in industrial accidents with equipment they have not had proper training on then without a bit of humanitarian concern of sympathy, a snarky thought bubble "Maybe they should evolve?".

image

Treblaine:

The only thing the "Darwin awards" want to include are freak accidents to do with people being ignorant or led astray by misleading cultural conventions. I mean it excludes people who are clinically depressed, yet not those who have severe learning disability (formerly known as Mental Retardation) that prevents them learning about dangers of the world around them. That's just laughing at certain disabilities because they don't understand them and don't care.

Frankly if Charles Darwin was alive today, I have no doubt he'd sue the proprietor of such awards for gross defamation. Demand they change the name to "Freak Accident Awards" or something like that.

Naming them the Freak Accident Awards would not work since very few, if any, of the awards have gone to accidents. Accident implies no one is at fault and that the situation was not foreseeable. Last I checked, mental retardation is as disqualified as clinical depression.

Being a dark humour laugh at the expense of those who have died doing things they shouldn't and were capable and likely to know better, it is not kosher to poke fun at the deaths of those who are not capable of understanding the inherent dangers of a given situation.

Gun Safety 101: Never point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Always assume the gun is loaded and a round is chambered & ready to fire.

See ... here's the problem with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument: People are fucking idiots, and idiots with guns are that much more dangerous to themselves and others.

I know this is going to be spun different ways by different people, but the guys just an idiot who should never hold a gun. I may not actively fire, but even knowing gun safety I would never, EVER even under the most sure conditions put a gun to my head and pull the trigger. Not with the safety on, not without a magazine, not even if I know beyond a shadow of a doubt it was empty.

anyway, i thought this was kinda funny. mostly cause I read it and the first thought in my mind was the man played a one man russian roulette and lost in the most hilarious of manners. The irony is also delicious, looking at his reason and um... past family experiences mentioned in thes tory.

Mr.BadExample:

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

Great...another smart ass here to spread is all knowing wisdom about firearms.

It's a terrible shame.

Sure, it's a stupid way to go, but teenagers (generally) lack common sense and are bad at ascessing risks.

He probably would have learned not to do that again had he survived. But he won't.

So the tool designed to kill, killed someone when they didn't follow very simple safety procedure?
I am stunned and shocked at this development.

Ken Sapp:

Treblaine:

The only thing the "Darwin awards" want to include are freak accidents to do with people being ignorant or led astray by misleading cultural conventions. I mean it excludes people who are clinically depressed, yet not those who have severe learning disability (formerly known as Mental Retardation) that prevents them learning about dangers of the world around them. That's just laughing at certain disabilities because they don't understand them and don't care.

Frankly if Charles Darwin was alive today, I have no doubt he'd sue the proprietor of such awards for gross defamation. Demand they change the name to "Freak Accident Awards" or something like that.

Naming them the Freak Accident Awards would not work since very few, if any, of the awards have gone to accidents. Accident implies no one is at fault and that the situation was not foreseeable. Last I checked, mental retardation is as disqualified as clinical depression.

Being a dark humour laugh at the expense of those who have died doing things they shouldn't and were capable and likely to know better, it is not kosher to poke fun at the deaths of those who are not capable of understanding the inherent dangers of a given situation.

"Accident implies no one is at fault and that the situation was not foreseeable. Last I checked, mental retardation is as disqualified as clinical depression."

That's obviously not true.

Just as obvious that the "Darwin" Awards have nothing to do with Darwinian Evolution, to spite the awards repeatedly and directly make allusions to Charles Darwin and Evolution.

Accident is simply unexpected unintended injury. You find me a reputable dictionary where it includes "no blame" and "unforeseeable". Unexpected is very different from unforeseeable. You COULD have seen it coming... but didn't, so didn't expect it. Almost all accidents are foreseeable.

died doing things they shouldn't and were capable and likely to know better,

Rarely true. Mostly it's people who have not been informed and deliberately mislead.

The dark humour only comes from not giving as shit about the extreme suffering of others, by some completely illogical mental gymnastics that it's somehow acceptable because they could have known better.

What is the actually difference between someone who is mentally incapable of learning what they are taught and those who has not been taught at all?

But my main issue is the name IT HAS NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO WITH DARWIN! It does not fit with ANY part of the science, and it does not fit with the humanitarian nature of the man himself.

Brainpaint:
It's a terrible shame.

Sure, it's a stupid way to go, but teenagers (generally) lack common sense and are bad at assessing risks.

He probably would have learned not to do that again had he survived. But he won't.

Common sense was probably his enemy here.

The explanation we glean from the story of his reasoning shows a commoner's understanding of guns, someone who's read a few comic books or got some pop culture references on the bare basics of firearms, but lacks any specific understanding of it's operating principals.

Mainly he seems to have conflated an old-west gun-slinger's practice for making his gun safe from going off if knocked or dropped, and the feature of automatic weapons where a safety SWITCH will lock or disengage the trigger.

Though I still find it shocking that he'd try to demonstrate (his assumption of) the weapon safety betting on not shooting himself through the brain. So reckless.

Treblaine:
snip

We are not going to see eye to on this. I see it as dark humour, which is a natural part of the human psyche as much as some people would like to deny it. It is an extension, probably an extreme one, of the same type of humor that makes people find slapstick funny.

You choose to see it as an affront to the name of Charles Darwin, someone you obviously seem to respect, and to the science of evolutionary theory.

I have no trouble separating the humour of the Darwin Awards from Darwin's theory.

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

Fire fights much?

1. Doing something stupid, even incredibly stupid, does not mean you're a stupid person. Everyone posting on this thread has done something stupid before, I guarantee it. Hopefully you'll all be lucky enough to not be remembered solely for something stupid you've done and then have people judge you entirely on that one act.

2. Doing something stupid does not mean you deserve death. Numerous posters on here are saying they feel sympathy for the guy's family, but not for the guy, because he brought it on himself. What? Since when was stupidity a punishable offense? This was a tragic accident, the man didn't deserve to die, while ironic nothing about it was fitting or deserved.

I just needed to get that off my chest. What I'm taking away from this is

Guns are not toys

This doesn't prove guns are dangerous, only that they can be if not used safely and responsibly.

isn't that what firearm rules are for?
#1 DO NOT POINT A GUN AT SOMETHING UNLESS YOU WANT TO DESTROY IT!

I feel bad for his family, but not him. They had to witness it. His stupid ass got what was coming.

I feel bad for the guy. He wouldn't have just done it for a laugh, he did it because he believed something- strongly obviously or he wouldn't have committed an action against his common sense. He can't have been the sharpest tool though. The sad thing for us is that they'll find he had some old PSP or original xbox and it'll turn out that playing video games makes you shoot yourself in the head.

EDIT:

Brainpaint:

Sure, it's a stupid way to go, but teenagers (generally) lack common sense and are bad at ascessing risks.

Are you serious? You're saying
A) He killed himself because he is a teenager
B) Most teenagers lack common sense
Were you never a teenager? It's been scientifically proven that teenagers are at least as clever and sometimes cleverer than adults, as adult's brains tend to specialise as they get older and get a career and stuff. The media is the one talking there, not you.

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

generals3:
He broke a vital rule which any person with a firearm should know by heart:

Always consider any weapon as charged. The fact some people who obviously disregard one (or more) of the 4 basic rules can get firearms is worrying to say the least.

QFT

Rule #1: Always assume that the weapon you are handling is loaded. This is the very first thing that you are told whenever you do anything with a gun (I've never taken the classes for I do not own a firearm myself but this is always Rule #1 on courses/ranges).

First thing i ever herd when i was handed a gun as part of my military training

second was "if you don't get back in line i will shove that gun so far up your @$$ i could use you as a flag" ahh good times

Wintermoot:
isn't that what firearm rules are for?
#2 DO NOT POINT A GUN AT SOMETHING UNLESS YOU WANT TO DESTROY IT!

FTFY

#1 Always treat as if loaded

Arizona Kyle:

Wintermoot:
isn't that what firearm rules are for?
#2 DO NOT POINT A GUN AT SOMETHING UNLESS YOU WANT TO DESTROY IT!

FTFY

#1 Always treat as if loaded

I think that both are applicable in this situation/incident.

Ken Sapp:

I have no trouble separating the humour of the Darwin Awards from Darwin's theory.

It is precisely because of the "Darwin" Awards that leads to such disinformation. And how do you know you are separating them? How many false impressions have you taken as fact?

And I find the humour extremely misdirected and only comes to serve those who have responsibility to educate and warn people on such things. You can't excuse anything and everything with "oooh, it's dark humour" as if that means anything significant.

Treblaine:

Ken Sapp:

I have no trouble separating the humour of the Darwin Awards from Darwin's theory.

It is precisely because of the "Darwin" Awards that leads to such disinformation. And how do you know you are separating them? How many false impressions have you taken as fact?

And I find the humour extremely misdirected and only comes to serve those who have responsibility to educate and warn people on such things. You can't excuse anything and everything with "oooh, it's dark humour" as if that means anything significant.

I take everything I read on the internet with a grain of salt and I don't look to humor sites for my education. When I want to read about scientific theories or endeavors I go to peer-reviewed journals and textbooks.

As far as educating others, that is up to the educators to determine the best methods to teach and show examples. If you have a problem with that then take it up with them. I have never experienced an example of the Darwin Awards being used to "teach" evolutionary theory, but if my college professors tried it I would at least consider the point they were trying to make and then argue it with them.

Again, I have never experienced anyone using or advocating the use of the Darwin Awards as a teaching aid for Darwin's work. If I did I would advocate against it, it is not appropriate for the task and it would take a very convincing argument to change my mind.

Describing it as dark humour is not an excuse, merely a description of the humour that is found in the misfortune of others. Personally, I have little problem laughing at the misfortune that someone's own poor decision-making causes them. If nothing else they serve as object lessons of why you shouldn't do these things.

Ken Sapp:

Treblaine:

Ken Sapp:

I have no trouble separating the humour of the Darwin Awards from Darwin's theory.

It is precisely because of the "Darwin" Awards that leads to such disinformation. And how do you know you are separating them? How many false impressions have you taken as fact?

And I find the humour extremely misdirected and only comes to serve those who have responsibility to educate and warn people on such things. You can't excuse anything and everything with "oooh, it's dark humour" as if that means anything significant.

I take everything I read on the internet with a grain of salt and I don't look to humor sites for my education. When I want to read about scientific theories or endeavors I go to peer-reviewed journals and textbooks.

As far as educating others, that is up to the educators to determine the best methods to teach and show examples. If you have a problem with that then take it up with them. I have never experienced an example of the Darwin Awards being used to "teach" evolutionary theory, but if my college professors tried it I would at least consider the point they were trying to make and then argue it with them.

Again, I have never experienced anyone using or advocating the use of the Darwin Awards as a teaching aid for Darwin's work. If I did I would advocate against it, it is not appropriate for the task and it would take a very convincing argument to change my mind.

Describing it as dark humour is not an excuse, merely a description of the humour that is found in the misfortune of others. Personally, I have little problem laughing at the misfortune that someone's own poor decision-making causes them. If nothing else they serve as object lessons of why you shouldn't do these things.

Ahh, the old "I've never seen that" as if you've seen everything, and "It doesn't happen with me" as if everything that can happen happens with you.

Please. This isn't JUST about YOU.

Personally, I have little problem laughing at the misfortune that someone's own poor decision-making causes them.

Is THAT supposed to be an excuse? Or are you deliberately avoiding excusing such a sadistic attitude?

You have clearly been ignoring my oft repeated point that so many of these have nothing to do with poor decision making but them being let down by poor education and being deliberately misled, or doing something everyone else does but is victim of freak circumstance. This doesn't teach any sort of lesson as they shift the blame from those who had a responsibility to educate and inform to those who have been left in the dark. I've seen too many die and be horribly crippled in accidents and have them blamed for it by the powerful who call them idiots for doing what they encouraged them to do and/or led them to believe were safe enough.

If all you've learned is "they made a poor decision and everything they were taught or told was fine" you've done worse than learn nothing, you've learned something that will lead to more death and injury.

Treblaine:

Ken Sapp:
snip

Ahh, the old "I've never seen that" as if you've seen everything, and "It doesn't happen with me" as if everything that can happen happens with you.

Please. This isn't JUST about YOU.

Personally, I have little problem laughing at the misfortune that someone's own poor decision-making causes them.

Is THAT supposed to be an excuse? Or are you deliberately avoiding excusing such a sadistic attitude?

You have clearly been ignoring my oft repeated point that so many of these have nothing to do with poor decision making but them being let down by poor education and being deliberately misled, or doing something everyone else does but is victim of freak circumstance. This doesn't teach any sort of lesson as they shift the blame from those who had a responsibility to educate and inform to those who have been left in the dark. I've seen too many die and be horribly crippled in accidents and have them blamed for it by the powerful who call them idiots for doing what they encouraged them to do and/or led them to believe were safe enough.

If all you've learned is "they made a poor decision and everything they were taught or told was fine" you've done worse than learn nothing, you've learned something that will lead to more death and injury.

No, it is not about me but I have no more to go on than my own experiences and those that have been related to me through the internet, news, newspapers, etc. I do happen to have an open mind and a wider range of experiences than many people.

Do I have a sadistic streak? Yeah, I guess I do but then so do a majority of people based on your assertion.

As for whether these examples are instances of poor decision making vs ignorance, I have to wonder if you are reading the same site I have? I haven't seen many stories on that site where the cause was a lack of education. A couple that decides to have intercourse on a steeply pitched roof and then fall to their deaths? Poor decision making. An electrician that flies a kite using copper wire for string near power lines and gets zapped when the kite string touches the power lines? Poor decision making. The guy who has his friend drive down the road while he hangs on to the bottom of the truck in an attempt to find a problem? Poor decision making.

That is just a small random sampling, but I have read every Award story and Honourable Mention on that site and can not think of a single incident wherein the primary cause was not a poor decision. Occasionally there is a story where someone makes a poor decision about a situation they have no understanding of and don't take the time to acquire at least a rudimentary understanding.

Once you reach adulthood all decisions, including the furtherance of your education, is entirely your own responsibility. The only exception to this for me are those people who are mentally handicapped and can not make good decisions.

Ken Sapp:

Treblaine:

Ken Sapp:
snip

Ahh, the old "I've never seen that" as if you've seen everything, and "It doesn't happen with me" as if everything that can happen happens with you.

Please. This isn't JUST about YOU.

Personally, I have little problem laughing at the misfortune that someone's own poor decision-making causes them.

Is THAT supposed to be an excuse? Or are you deliberately avoiding excusing such a sadistic attitude?

You have clearly been ignoring my oft repeated point that so many of these have nothing to do with poor decision making but them being let down by poor education and being deliberately misled, or doing something everyone else does but is victim of freak circumstance. This doesn't teach any sort of lesson as they shift the blame from those who had a responsibility to educate and inform to those who have been left in the dark. I've seen too many die and be horribly crippled in accidents and have them blamed for it by the powerful who call them idiots for doing what they encouraged them to do and/or led them to believe were safe enough.

If all you've learned is "they made a poor decision and everything they were taught or told was fine" you've done worse than learn nothing, you've learned something that will lead to more death and injury.

No, it is not about me but I have no more to go on than my own experiences and those that have been related to me through the internet, news, newspapers, etc. I do happen to have an open mind and a wider range of experiences than many people.

Do I have a sadistic streak? Yeah, I guess I do but then so do a majority of people based on your assertion.

As for whether these examples are instances of poor decision making vs ignorance, I have to wonder if you are reading the same site I have? I haven't seen many stories on that site where the cause was a lack of education. A couple that decides to have intercourse on a steeply pitched roof and then fall to their deaths? Poor decision making. An electrician that flies a kite using copper wire for string near power lines and gets zapped when the kite string touches the power lines? Poor decision making. The guy who has his friend drive down the road while he hangs on to the bottom of the truck in an attempt to find a problem? Poor decision making.

That is just a small random sampling, but I have read every Award story and Honourable Mention on that site and can not think of a single incident wherein the primary cause was not a poor decision. Occasionally there is a story where someone makes a poor decision about a situation they have no understanding of and don't take the time to acquire at least a rudimentary understanding.

Once you reach adulthood all decisions, including the furtherance of your education, is entirely your own responsibility. The only exception to this for me are those people who are mentally handicapped and can not make good decisions.

An electrician that flies a kite using copper wire for string near power lines and gets zapped when the kite string touches the power lines?

An education system that praises Benjamin Franklin as clever and wise and recounts how he did such a thing without considering it a mark against him.

Any kite could touch power lines any time and the line being made of copper or twine would make virtually no difference, that's a freak accident where the electricity company has as much responsibility for warning of the dangers. That could happen to anyone flying a kite around poorly warned power lines.

Once you reach adulthood all decisions, including the furtherance of your education, is entirely your own responsibility.

That's a blame game that serves the fat cats and utterly fucks over the little person.

We tried that, we tried just shifting the blame to the dead and crippled and it DIDN'T DO ANY GOOD! It is the responsibility of those who expose people to such dangerous things. If someone swims on a beach contaminated with carcinogens and dies from that, is it a case of "HA HA! Should have been keeping an eye on what those companies were dumping in the water. Remember it's YOUR responsibility, not theirs".

Consider this sick story that's supposed to be funny:

2 February 2008, Bulgaria) It was a cold but sunny February afternoon. Lidia, a biology teacher from Sofia, was driving two friends home from a memorial service. Suddenly the vehicle stopped. Bystanders saw all three occupants dash from the car to a nearby manhole and start pouring down liquids and powders from various bottles and jars.
Apparently the biology teacher had been performing chemistry experiments in her free time, and had some leftover noxious chemicals. It is still not entirely clear what the chemicals were, but two of the bottles were labeled diethyl ether and methanol, both highly flammable liquids. The former is also used as a sedative, so one explanation for their actions is that they felt dizzy from the ether vapors and thought it was a good idea to pour them in the sewer.

As it turns out, a good idea it definitely was not. The cocktail of flammable substances in the enclosed space of the sewer caused an explosion so powerful that it launched the manhole cover into the air, decapitating the (briefly) surprised Lidia. Left without a head on her shoulders, she decided it was time to kick the bucket.

The other two people were not unharmed, but were alive. They were taken to the hospital with burns on their faces. They may not regain their eyesight, but hopefully will be able to speak clearly enough to tell their children that tossing random chemicals down the drain is not as wise as it might at first appear.

They had no instruction on how to safely handle dangerous chemicals they were given and were killed or horribly injured by it in a way they couldn't have foreseen. Those chemicals should NOT explode like that by any mechanism they could have known, if they did they wouldn't be allowed into chemistry labs which are equally enclosed spaces full of people.

It's fucking insulting that such tragic accidents are "funny" just because it was their own actions that led to it.

I wonder if you were there, seeing those poor girls with their faces burned off screaming in agony you'd find such "dark humour".

[edit]I hope you wouldn't, as if you did you would be definitively a psychopath. These people don't have any respawns, this isn't a fucking game, this is REAL!

Oh but good for you, people suffer and die for your amusement, I bet you'd have LOVED the gladiatorial games, people being tortured an raped to death if only they hadn't made the BAD DECISION of defying the Authorities.

Tom_green_day:

Are you serious? You're saying
A) He killed himself because he is a teenager
B) Most teenagers lack common sense
Were you never a teenager? It's been scientifically proven that teenagers are at least as clever and sometimes cleverer than adults, as adult's brains tend to specialise as they get older and get a career and stuff. The media is the one talking there, not you.

Technically he DID kill himself because he was a teenager, because their BRAINS (you can look this up) are still adjusting to hormone changes which causes them to do some crazy stuff. The parts that judge risk and reward is one of the areas that are affected by the transition from the child to adult brain. It's why you have teenagers and young adults (It still goes on during that time, too but not as strong) flooding youtube with videos of them firing fireworks from their ass cracks. They can't process the fact that they risk permanent scarring and sometimes possibly having to use a colostomy bag for the rest of their lives in order to get a few measly views on a video that might not even be noticed under the masses of other vids just like theirs.

Ask some teenagers why they put themselves in dangerous situations. They're freaking invincible and know everything. They think they're doing everything right and that it won't be them sent to the morgue.
Common sense takes a back seat. It doesn't mean they lack it or intelligence, it's just their brains doing cartwheels in their heads. It's not their faults. It's why I don't find what happened to that guy funny at all.
He probably based his idea of a "safe gun" on movie logic, but he lacked the foresight due to the aforementioned affect caused by puberty to think "What if that's wrong? I'd better go double check that before I turn my head into a Hula Hoop."

Yeah, I was a teenager. I'm twenty three right now so I was one for most of the past decade. A lot of my current friends are teens since they think more like me than most people my own age that I've met. Hell, I'm taking up SKATEBOARDING this year while a lot of my female peers back up in Scotland where I grew up are on their fifth pregnancy.

Also, intelligence is subjective. One person's idea of what's smart is different from other person's. The adults you think less smart than a teen may not as BOOK smart but may be more aware of social cues and better at solving specific problems more than others.
And there's a bunch of stuff we learn as teenagers and younger children that are forgotten over time since they're either useless or not brushed up on enough to make sure that we can still remember them. I was in the top Math, Chemistry, French and Physics classes in high school but I can only remember a little amount of each of the things I was taught because I haven't used them enough since I left school at 16 (Being an art student in college can do that).

"Stupid" is also a subjective term. Otherwise "intelligent" people can do "stupid" things and vice versa. A lot of the so-called "Darwin Awards" are usually momentary lapses of judgement. Anybody can make a mistake. Doesn't mean it's a good thing they're not contributing to the gene pool by killing themselves because of one.

In my opinion, THAT'S stupid. Assuming that an individual is either permanently one thing or the other based on a single act. Especially if it kills them and/or someone else.

Looks like Darwinism has taken it's course. :/

Rest in peace, ya utter moron.

Treblaine:

Ken Sapp:
snip

An electrician that flies a kite using copper wire for string near power lines and gets zapped when the kite string touches the power lines?

An education system that praises Benjamin Franklin as clever and wise and recounts how he did such a thing without considering it a mark against him.

Any kite could touch power lines any time and the line being made of copper or twine would make virtually no difference, that's a freak accident where the electricity company has as much responsibility for warning of the dangers. That could happen to anyone flying a kite around poorly warned power lines.

Once you reach adulthood all decisions, including the furtherance of your education, is entirely your own responsibility.

That's a blame game that serves the fat cats and utterly fucks over the little person.

We tried that, we tried just shifting the blame to the dead and crippled and it DIDN'T DO ANY GOOD! It is the responsibility of those who expose people to such dangerous things. If someone swims on a beach contaminated with carcinogens and dies from that, is it a case of "HA HA! Should have been keeping an eye on what those companies were dumping in the water. Remember it's YOUR responsibility, not theirs".

Consider this sick story that's supposed to be funny:

2 February 2008, Bulgaria) It was a cold but sunny February afternoon. Lidia, a biology teacher from Sofia, was driving two friends home from a memorial service. Suddenly the vehicle stopped. Bystanders saw all three occupants dash from the car to a nearby manhole and start pouring down liquids and powders from various bottles and jars.
Apparently the biology teacher had been performing chemistry experiments in her free time, and had some leftover noxious chemicals. It is still not entirely clear what the chemicals were, but two of the bottles were labeled diethyl ether and methanol, both highly flammable liquids. The former is also used as a sedative, so one explanation for their actions is that they felt dizzy from the ether vapors and thought it was a good idea to pour them in the sewer.

As it turns out, a good idea it definitely was not. The cocktail of flammable substances in the enclosed space of the sewer caused an explosion so powerful that it launched the manhole cover into the air, decapitating the (briefly) surprised Lidia. Left without a head on her shoulders, she decided it was time to kick the bucket.

The other two people were not unharmed, but were alive. They were taken to the hospital with burns on their faces. They may not regain their eyesight, but hopefully will be able to speak clearly enough to tell their children that tossing random chemicals down the drain is not as wise as it might at first appear.

They had no instruction on how to safely handle dangerous chemicals they were given and were killed or horribly injured by it in a way they couldn't have foreseen. Those chemicals should NOT explode like that by any mechanism they could have known, if they did they wouldn't be allowed into chemistry labs which are equally enclosed spaces full of people.

It's fucking insulting that such tragic accidents are "funny" just because it was their own actions that led to it.

I wonder if you were there, seeing those poor girls with their faces burned off screaming in agony you'd find such "dark humour".

[edit]I hope you wouldn't, as if you did you would be definitively a psychopath. These people don't have any respawns, this isn't a fucking game, this is REAL!

Oh but good for you, people suffer and die for your amusement, I bet you'd have LOVED the gladiatorial games, people being tortured an raped to death if only they hadn't made the BAD DECISION of defying the Authorities.

An electrician should know better due to his profession. Flying a kite next to power transmission lines with a conductive metal for a kite string is sheer stupidity and professional knowledge should have told him that if common sense didn't. If the kite string was made of twine it would have burned before enough voltage could be transferred to the flyer, if any were conducted at all.

No, my blame game places the blame for ignorance on those who don't value knowledge enough to seek to expand their education. You don't need to go to school to learn. Back in the day we had these marvelous buildings called libraries which were packed floor to ceiling with books on just about any topic you cared to read about. Guess what, they are still around although many local governments are reducing hours and closing outlying branches. And they are still free to use. Beyond that we now have the internet.

Contaminated beaches are a local government concern and should be marked clearly to keep people from using them. And people should be keeping an eye on the companies as well as their government in order to make sure the companies are keeping their noses clean and the government is doing its job.

Concerning the case from Bulgaria, it clearly says that the driver was a biology teacher which means that she should have had enough of an understanding of the chemicals and how to safely handle which includes not pouring them down drains. Therefor it was a poor decision on her part, someone who should have known better, which caused the incident.

Had I been on the scene I would have been administering first aid just as I would for any person who has been wounded. The one problem with that story is that others were injured by the poor decision making of one individual.

I am well aware of real life and the difference between it and games. If I were in Rome watching the gladiatorial games I would have likely been cheering at the bloodshed as I would have been raised in a society where that was not wrong. As someone who grew up in modern America I would not. Different cultures with different values on the subject pretty much invalidates that argument.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked