Friday, October 7, 2011

How Fitting, But(t) Not For Sitting - Butt Shot!

cross posted from the wonderful Microdot's blog the Brain Police:

Barber Shot In Butt In Ohio Bar

This piece really belongs on Mikeb302000's blog...but it is too good!
 Ohio’s new law allowing concealed guns into bars took effect last week. Bar and restaurant owners naturally view the law as a pain in the butt, and given a recent mishap, they have good reason to. The Columbus Dispatch reports that Ohio barber Kurt Voelkel got a bullet in his butt after his customer’s “9 mm handgun fell from his holster, struck the ground and went off.” The bullet “passed through the chair where Voelkel was sitting and also went through his wallet before coming to rest deep in his buttocks.” He spent more than two hours at the hospital, where doctors opted to leave the bullet where it is. The customer was just “adjusting his clothing and sitting down” when the gun fell; presumably alcohol was not involved. It’s hard to see how adding it into the mix will prevent this or worse situations from occurring. Ohio, the place I'm definitely not planning to visit  in the near future for my next vacation.....


6 comments:

  1. I was going to send this to you anyway today...but I was given an opportunity to collect all the walnuts I could fit into my car and never got back to the computer until just now! This is the walnut capital of the planet!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow. Ohio bars are safer already, right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks microdot and Laci. It sure didn't take long for Ohio.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, it was cross posted by Dog Gone. Although, I can understand the confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another angle on this story is that bullshit they keep telling us that modern guns don't fire when dropped is just not true.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The problem is that these "inanimate objects" are weapons which are designed to injure or kill. That is a fact that cannot be denied since it is part of the allure of firearms. Note how these people refuse to accept that there might be other methods of self-defence, but the gun crowd refuses to accept them since they aren't as effective as guns (only if this statement is tacitly made).

    When one is around an inherently dangerous object there is the possibility of harm. That is something which should not be denied--yet the gun crowd tries as hard as they can to deny, or minimise that fact.

    ReplyDelete