An antigun article based on someone's tragic incompetence

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/i-killed-my-friend.html

It was the second week in August, a Friday the 13th, in fact, in 1982. I was with a group of college roommates who were getting ready to go to the Omak Stampede and Suicide Race. Three of us piled into a red Vega parked outside a friend’s house in Okanogan, Wash., me in the back seat. The driver, who worked with the county sheriff’s department, offered me his service revolver to examine. I turned the weapon onto its side, pointed it toward the door. The barrel, however, slipped when I shifted my grip to pull the hammer back, to make certain the chamber was empty, and turned the gun toward the driver’s seat. When I let the hammer fall, the cylinder must have rotated without my knowing. When I pulled the hammer back a second time it fired a live round.
Click to expand...

This is a strange manipulation. The author then states that he suffers from various psychological maladies that he treats with drugs.

Is this supposed to convince one that guns should be banned. One can come up with many more cases of tragic car accidents due to alcohol or the stupidty of youth.

It is a clear case of a vivid instance that is really meaningless in the gun debate being used as an emotional tool.

The author had little idea of how to manipulate a gun, if the story is true -and the officer is certainly a fool, if true for giving someone a loaded gun.

A low point in journalism.
 
I read that yesterday. In spite of the author's disclaimer to the effect that he, not the gun, is responsible, the message is exactly the opposite: guns just aren't safe, even in the hands of someone who grew up around them.

The NYT is completely shameless on this issue.

I'm still fuming over the op-ed piece they published in January titled "Please Take Away My Right to a Gun."
 
She would have enjoyed a visit from the Petit family attackers or the professional boxing champion who stalked a young woman in San Antonio.

He also broke in - she had a Glock 21. Guess who won that fight?

There is a fundamental difference in make up between those who can see themselves as being able to defend or being helpless.

However, the latter's views should not be extended to controlling the former.
 
I'm having difficulty understanding how cocking the hammer on a revolver allows one to verify that "the" chamber is empty.

The person says he accepted responsibility, but that's not what he means. He very clearly blames the gun. His description of the incident is nothing other than a classic "IT went off" statement.
 
So there is the total idiot who doesn't know the difference between the cylinder release and the hammer nor the function of each. Then there is the poor, dumb, hammerhead who gives said idiot a loaded revolver, presumably not aware of just how stupid his buddy actually is. I have zero compassion for either, and only hope he wakes up screaming from nightmares of killing his friend. It is just ironic that the driver was headed to The Omak Stampede and Suicide Race.
 
Good Lord.

So, the fact that some can not seem to drive cars safely or, manage to walk in a straight line without winding up in a wall, means those and other things should be banned, I suppose.

This is truly a stellar example of why some folks need a keeper. Not a logical reason to regulate "things":mad:
 
I'd be interested in Glenn expanding his comments here. It almost seems to me that there's a form of psychopathology (cognitive dissonance?) abroad in the land. It seems to be characterized by beliefs that --

  1. An idiosyncratic event is a sound basis upon which to make public policy; and

  2. A bad outcome clearly traceable to user error, personal fault or stupidity needs to be addressed by a law; and

  3. If you can't do something, manage something or understand something, no one can.
 
The moral of the story isn't to outlaw guns, but to keep them out of the hands of idiots...

...also didn't they go to Jimmie's house after that?
 
Yes, I am puzzled with the statement about pulling the hammer back to see if the chamber was empty. On my SAAs the cylinder rotates in the half cock positions, on my Colts, S&Ws and Ruger, the cylinders swing out, my Enfield No. 2 Mk I is a top break. All my semiautomatic pistols-well, we all know you remove the magazine then retract the slide to check for a loaded round while pointing the gun a safe direction AND keeping the trigger finger well away from it. Sounds like neither the author-nor his friend who "worked for" the sheriff's department knew the first thing about proper gun handling. Methinks there's more to this story than has been written.
 
The guy in the story described the gun as his friend's "service revolver," so we can most likely assume that it was a double action. As such, it's highly probable that the cylinder swung out. So the guy didn't know how to manipulate the firearm he was handling.

There is so much fail in the story one doesn't know how to begin.

The barrel, however, slipped when I shifted my grip to pull the hammer back
Click to expand...
Why, then, did he not move the barrel back to point in a safe direction (not that the door of a Vega is a safe direction) before continuing his check?

When I let the hammer fall, the cylinder must have rotated without my knowing.
Click to expand...
How could the hammer have fallen, unless he had his finger on the trigger? And how could the cylinder rotate without his knowing it? It's not like the cylinder is concealed inside the gun where you can't see it or touch it.

When I pulled the hammer back a second time it fired a live round.
Click to expand...
The hammer didn't fire a live round. And rounds don't go off when someone pulls the hammer back, they go off when the hammer is allowed to strike a live round.

My take is that the guy somehow believed that, because he slept in a room full of guns even though he didn't much care about them, he therefore knew all about them. Either he was never properly indoctrinated with the basic rules of firearms safety, or he didn't pay attention because he wasn't "into" guns.

And this is why I posted in another thread that in an EOTWAWKI situation, my brother is on his own. We both learned to shoot at the same time. However, my little bro' was never "into" shooting, and I don't think he has fired a firearm of any kind for over fifty years. If I'm busy fending off the invading zombie horde, I won't have time to teach my brother (or anyone else) how to use a gun ... safely.
 
Why bother wasting time trying to understand what was written?
The person handling the gun didn't know squat about guns and their actions and subsequent explanation don't make any sense because they don't know squat about guns.

I'll take from this story that the gun handler was ignorant about handling guns. I'll also take from this story that they haven't learned anything about guns since 1982 or they would have made more sense when they wrote the story.

They also don't know much about cars and the reason they had a picture of a gun room in North Dakota when the action happened in Washington state is beyond my understanding.

A friend of my used to say 'I don't know what you're talking about and don't think you do either.'

That sums this story up for me.
 
Last edited:
Well, this is where the trouble started, and it's largely where the blame falls:

The driver, who worked with the county sheriff’s department, offered me his service revolver to examine.
Click to expand...

Irregardless, it's a tragic event, but the author is using it both to generate sympathy for himself and ammunition for the gun-control crowd.
 
the reason they had a picture of a gun room in North Dakota when the action happened in Washington state is beyond my understanding
Click to expand...

My guess is so that rag of a newspaper can sensationalize that pointless story, maybe add some validity to his nonsense by using a odd-ball photo of a bedroom like that.

The NYTimes would be so much more useful if they just made toilet paper.
 
We need articles written that debunk garbage like that, or a least shine a light on just how much nonsense it is. The problem I find is that "anti" gun folks won't even bother to read something from a "pro" gun standpoint.

That makes the discussion even more difficult when people refuse to see, recognize, or even take a little peek at the truth.
 
I read that yesterday. In spite of the author's disclaimer to the effect that he, not the gun, is responsible, the message is exactly the opposite: guns just aren't safe, even in the hands of someone who grew up around them.
Click to expand...

The disclaimer is not really a disclaimer. The author does not claim to misunderstand how guns work but he blames his misunderstanding of the purpose of guns was somehow responsible. In truth, I am thinking his therapy failed since it did not deal with the issue honestly if that is the understanding of the issue he walked away with.

The gun lobby likes to say guns don’t kill people, people do. And they’re right, of course. I killed my friend; no one else did; no mechanism did. But this oversimplifies matters (as does the gun control advocates’ position that eliminating weapons will end violent crime).

My friend was killed by a man who misunderstood guns, who imagined that comfort with — and affection for — guns was a vital component of manhood.
Click to expand...
 
I think its a good thing to get people to put stupid in writing and then print it for the public. It just needs a bit of editing. It should read: This is how a gun I did not own shot someone while I was holding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top