Sunday, March 6, 2011

The Darwin Awards

via Dog Gone of Penigma from The Darwin Awards.


(28 February 2000, Texas) A Houston man earned a succinct lesson in gun safety when he played Russian roulette with a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol. Rashaad, nineteen, was visiting friends when he announced his intention to play the deadly game. He apparently did not realize that a semiautomatic pistol, unlike a revolver, automatically inserts a cartridge into the firing chamber when the gun is cocked. His chance of winning a round of Russian roulette was zero, as he quickly discovered.
Some of our commenters don't like it when I post stories like this. They feel my message is that all or most gun owners are like this. Nothing could be further from the truth, which I continually assert. So, why do they hate it so much?

I have a theory. They hate these stories because they know that what I keep saying is absolutely true. A small, but significant, percentage of them is comprised of folks who are not the responsible, squared-away, savvy gun owners they themselves are, at least according to them.

What's your opinion? Is the Russian Roulette story too far-fetched? Isn't it just a bit stupider than leaving a round in the chamber when you begin cleaning the weapon?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

2 comments:

  1. As the name "Darwin Award" implies, the problem is somewhat self-correcting--the number of gun owners stupid enough to play Russian roulette with a semi-auto declined (declined by a significant percentage, I would argue) when he pulled the trigger.

    I notice also that this story is from the year 2000--one year, in other words, after the events of a story you chided me for using, because my story was supposedly too old for relevance.

    Does that one year make such a big difference, or does the fact that you can't find a story like this from within a decade of now imply that such stupidity is quite rare?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Allit implies, Mr. Z., is that I liked the cartoon and wanted to use it. Besides, the kind of behaviour depicted is rather timeless, is it not?

    ReplyDelete