A man taking his trash to an apartment dumpster was shot and killed after he slipped while walking and the gun he was carrying went off accidentally, according to San Antonio police.
So…we needed…some bad guys with guns to…save this guy…from shooting…himself. By shooting him first. Am I doing this right?
At least nobody stole his trash, which was bound to happen if he had been unarmed.
No, they needed a good gun, with a guy.
Schrodinger’s Gun Owner is simultaneously the Good Guy With a Gun and the Bad Guy With a Gun until the gun discharges and collapses the wave function.
I mean, I this case the problem (improper and irresponsible use of a firearm) kind of fixed itself, didn’t it?
Like… Nothing to see here, just a Darwin Award recipient.
USE THE FUCKING SAFETY YOU IDIOTS
Some guns, shockingly, don’t have a safety.
Don’t buy those guns idiots
I have a couple without external safeties. The idea is to carry them in a fitted holster that covers the trigger. Kydex holsters are like $25 or $30 for any given model, it’s a no-brainer.
Also, they have internal safeties to prevent firing when dropped. Also, they have long and hard trigger pulls.
Don’t buy those guns idiots
You need to pass this wisdom on to thousands and thousands of police and military forces across the planet. Because Glock.
Do you expect Lemmy to disagree with the implication that cops are fundamentally idiots?
LOL, not a Glock fan, but the special forces guys dropped by camp this weekend and I got to shoot one. What can I say? I worked flawlessly, but I had to ask what it was when it was handed to me. Didn’t look like the typical black Glock.
Also, if you’re an idiot, don’t buy any gun! You may think “I’ll do what I want, I’ll be fine!” This guy probably did, too…
S&W SD9 is one of those. Designed for first time home protection. The trigger has two steps to fire, preventing it from going off if dropped.
I remember reading the manual for a new powertool and it said something like this:
To start the blade, disengage the safety (European models), then press the trigger.
Baffled me.
What? And those are legal in the US? It’s worse than I thought.
Well first of all there is more than one kind of “safety.” There are guns that don’t have a switch on the side that says “go bang” and “don’t go bang.” Glocks, for example.
A Glock pistol doesn’t have a manual safety. It has a drop safety, which is a little tab that prevents the firing pin from going forward that is moved out of the way by the pull of the trigger. That way there’s no way you can drop, hit or shake the gun to make it go off without actually pulling the trigger. If you look at the trigger of a Glock, it looks like there’s two; like there’s a second trigger that sticks out of the first one. You see this on power tools too, it’s a little lever that prevents the trigger from being pulled unless you first push that out of the way. That makes it a lot less likely to fire if you brush the trigger against something; you have to put your finger in the trigger guard, push the trigger safety down out of the way, and then pull the trigger.
Also, the way a Glock works, you can’t load a round into the chamber without cocking the action, and you can’t decock the action without pulling the trigger and firing the gun. (assuming no ammunition malfunctions here) When the gun is cocked, the trigger snaps forward, when the gun isn’t cocked, the trigger stays back. It is common practice when carrying a Glock to carry it with a full magazine, an empty chamber and the action uncocked. With no cartridge in the chamber and the action uncocked, trying to pull the trigger won’t do anything because it’s already “back”. You’d need to pull the slide back to cock the gun and chamber a round, then it’ll go bang. If you’ve fired a couple rounds, and the chamber is loaded and the gun is cocked, the way you return it to the carry state is to remove the magazine, pull back the slide to eject the round in the chamber, point the gun in a safe direction and pull the trigger to dry fire the gun.
On the more primitive side, you have single-action revolvers. A single-action only revolver means the trigger ONLY does the job of releasing the hammer so it can fire the cartridge. If the hammer is forward, it has to be pulled back with the user’s thumb or other hand to cock the action and rotate the cylinder to the next chamber. There’s no need for a lever on the side of the gun because you already need to fiddle with a lever on the back of the gun. If the gun has been recently fired, the hammer will be resting on a spent cartridge. I have heard some say it is good practice to carry such a gun with the hammer resting on an empty chamber, which is basically the same idea as the Glock above; you’re loaded with one fewer round than the absolute maximum but carrying in a way where there’s no bullet aligned with the barrel and ready to go.
Regardless how many types of “safety” for a gun exist, this one obviously didn’t have the one it shuld have had.
I have absolutely no doubt he pulled the trigger when he fell. Only certain types of mechanisms can stop the gun from firing when you pull the trigger, and there’s reasons to not want that mechanism on your gun.
Just not having his finger on the trigger probably would have saved his life.
Have you ever heard of a revolver? Most of those do not, and are one of the oldest designs still in use.
A gun like that needs the firing pin removed and put in a museum.
LOL that’s ridiculous. Revolvers are still great firearms, quite useful for target shooting, hunting, and self defense. A good one can last generations, as they are simple and reliable.
And they are unsafe for the owner and environment.
Am I missing something or are there just no gun owners here. This is incredibly disingenuous, and even dangerous, “advice”.
A loaded gun with a round in the chamber should fire when the trigger is pulled, every single time. They should not fire when the trigger is not pulled.
Following any one of the three safety rules prevents 100% of “accidents”. There are no real gun accidents besides catastrophic mechanical failure (which does happen, but usually with shit ammo and shit guns or poorly maintained guns).
Depending on traditional safeties encourages poor gun handling habits and adds precious time to fire when milliseconds count. “Safety-less” pistols will not fire unless the trigger is pulled, period.
Yeah, no shit. And having a safety makes it near impossible to pull the trigger. I don’t think anyone here doesn’t understand the concept of a safety mechanism.
There’s also a safety on some guns, which I personally hate, that allows you to pull the trigger, but the safety disconnects the mechanism from the pin, or blocks the pin from going forward.
Personally I’d rather they just not allow a trigger pull at all. It’s especially freaky when you get one that still moves the hammer.
There’s loads of people who have no idea how guns work. It’s somewhat specialized knowledge.
This too. You’d be bafflef how many people think the shell casing is part of the bullet that’s fired. Like little rockets lol.
It’s literally that xkcd geologist cartoon, where they think the average person knows the chemical formula for feltzbar and quartz. Everyone vastly overestimates the average person’s knowledge level for areas they themselves already understand.
Safty-less pistol owner here. Glock-19 Gen3. Even though the gun is resistant to firing unless the trigger is pulled (ie dropping it) it won’t go off. That being said, I never carry with a round chambered because of this. It takes a half a second extra to chamber the round, I’d rather take that than carry a loaded round pointed at my spine or crotch all day.
Yeah, this idea that you are going to just be on the street and need to quickdraw a weapon like ten paces at dawn style is the biggest fucking delusion on top of a mountain of delusions in the gun community.
Watch Active Self Protection and you will find piles examples where a quick draw is necessary with no time to rack the slide.
Modern designed production firearms have internal safeties that prevent the firing pin from moving forward if the trigger isn’t pulled.
That video is on single action revolvers which have been out of vogue for over a century.
Skip to 1:40
For all the gun owners in the thread, GarandThumb recently did a video (youtube gun guy) where he drop tested several handguns and a couple of them actually did go off. As many of you are saying, firearms shouldn’t go off without the trigger being pulled and that’s for sure the case a large majority of the time.
Frustratingly the article doesn’t mention anything about the make, model or condition of the firearm here. It’s totally possible it went off just from being dropped.
1911 and 2011 are not drop safe as they do not mitigate the firing pin carrying forward and striking the primer when the gun is dropped. Known issue for a long time with the design of the 1911 and was addressed in the manual of arms. The failure is when the crown of the barrel strikes first. It was deemed acceptable for use as the round was most likely to be discharged when the barrel was pointed at the ground.
Most firearms designed after 1940 are drop safe. The exceptions are the ones that follow the flawed design of the 1911
The sidearm that replaced the 1911 in military service the Beretta 92 was, some say, primarily selected as it was hammer fired and drop safe so as to stay as close to the then current manual of arms and sidearm doctrine.
He almost certainly tested the very few modern handguns known to have that problem, for which they rightly got a lot of hate. You’d have to link the specific video, I don’t watch GT.
Wild West Pimp Style says they’re back in vogue.
Are you saying his parents should have used a condom?
Or perhaps don’t carry a gun when doing mundane tasks such as taking out the trash?
A lot of guns don’t have safeies. But having holstered or even just not having his finger on the trigger would have saved his life.
Thank God he was safe from whatever threat he was so afraid of that he thought he needed a loaded gun to take his trash to the end of his driveway.
I’m so fucking glad that I’m not so terrified of everything and everyone that I think I need a loaded gun 24 hours a day to protect myself.
take his trash
I was this-many reads in when I finally understood he wasn’t TALKING trash to his dumpster.
“You want a piece of me, you smelly filth, you rubbish heap, you trumpsterfire of human indecen–BANG! Arghhhhhh…”
That’s what you get for talking trash to your trash!
His biggest threat was himself.
Glad he took care of that.
Now he is no longer a threat to himself.
Try living in Alaska or northern Canada and you’d delete your comment.
Doubt it. While there are wild areas with actual dangerous animals and it’s prudent to have a way to protect yourself, I find it hard to believe I’d ever be in such fear of the place I live to carry a weapon at all times.
Okay then, here’s a better one: try living in Gaza, Israel, or Ukraine and you’d delete your comment.
Ah, ok, that explains it …. The guy was taking his trash to the curb in San Antonio, in an active war zone. He needed a hand gun to protect himself from incoming artillery shells and anti-personel drones. That sounds much more sane
Likely, that moron believed Texas was being “invaded by the Queers” and Darwin’ed himself as a favor to all of us.
Yeah but he wasn’t in those areas was he.
It’s like saying he should be wearing cold weather gear because in some parts of the world it’s freezing. Yeah but if you’re not in those parts of the world it’s a pointless comment isn’t it.
I’m assuming you’re referring to wildlife and not suggesting that Canadians are just vicious
Damn, should have had a good gun to stop his bad one.
I don’t know why people keep saying this. He DID take out the person threatening his neighborhood.
Guns don’t kill people… Wait, yes they do, this article proves it.
If only there was a good gun with a gun there to save him…
Good for the gun. It had nothing to lose but its chains.
Actually it was the bullet, not the gun.
Guns don’t killed people I kill people
Sounds like a comment on one of those tell me where you’re from without mentioning the country type of threads.
Yet if there’s any discussion about better gun safety and education it turns into “you’re taking our rights away!”
That’s honestly impressive.
Eh. The Darwin Awards have seen countless examples of:
- Police, firearm instructors, etc. shooting themselves.
- People “proving” (incorrectly) that a gun is unloaded by pointing it at their head & pulling the trigger.
- Hunters being shot by their dogs that step on the triggers of shotguns etc.
- People using waistbands as holsters.
- People playing Russian roulette, sometimes with semiautomatic pistols.
And on and on…
It’s so wild to me to hear these things, because it’s been a good 15 years since I took hunter safety training in my state, but the literal first thing they taught us was about considering where your bullet’s going to go.
Isn’t there a thing that’s like “don’t point a gun at something you won’t shoot”
Yes, the technical term is muzzle control.
But in my state there are lots of wooded areas bumped up against residential areas, so it’s also important to consider that your bullet might travel a few miles and through someone’s window too.
People using waistbands as holsters.
I like the cases where the perpetrator survived, but still qualified for the Darwin Award. There are a lot of reasons not to tuck a gun into your waistband, especially not in the front.
Not a gun person so no idea how common it is but I saw a YouTube short the other day of an overheated rifle discharging shots while laying on a table.
Yeah, yeah, but notice how no trash thief attacked him on his way to the dumpster thanks to him having a gun on his person!
/s
I misread this as “talking trash to dumpster” and thought “The police will come up with any excuse to shoot innocent people and make it look like a suicide now, won’t they?”
I definitely need a gun to take out my trash. You never know when trash-monsters might jump out of the dumpster and then what.
Have you been to Texas? There are trash monsters everywhere around here!
I talk shit, but I would absolutely have a firearm some places when taking out the trash. We’ve got a crazy feral hog problem some places. I’ve been trapped in a building by them. A friend got charged heading to his car by a pack of them. Another friend had his driver’s side door fucked up by one while stopped at a stop sign. They will absolutely fuck you up.
Of course none of this was in San Antonio, it was all in rural Texas. I have no idea whether they’re out there causing havoc.
@thefartographer@lemm.ee care to weigh in? How bad is it out there?
Hey! So, the outskirts of San Antonio where I used to live definitely had a wildlife problem but most of the hogs here are more interested in garbage and farm fowl than attacking humans. We do have issues with foxes, coyotes, and mountain lions though.
This area from the article is an older part of San Antonio with pretty high crime levels. This is the area where you’d be more likely to feel the need to carry a gun to take out the garbage, but only because other people are carrying guns to take out the garbage.
Where I live now, we used to get somewhat frequent gunshots back when there was a party-house nearby, now it’s much more seldom and sounds less… aggressive? When that happens, I just load up the shotgun and wait for about 30 minutes or so (or until the police arrive, if they even bother to come out) to make sure no one is coming into my house to harm me or my family. I’m all for hosting people, as long as they don’t try to hurt me or the people I love. (If they come in to rob or steal, they probably need it more than I do, plus that’s what insurance is for. No need to go blasting people over something as fleeting as stuff)
Funnily enough, my shotgun was my grandfather’s that he used in his oilfields for snakes. I’ve never shot anything living with it and the worst snake I’ve seen at my house is a rat snake. My sister, on the other hand, got bit by a water moccasin when she lived out by you.
Houston doesn’t fuck around with their wildlife.
Moccasins ain’t nothing to mess around with. I assume she’s alright and living elsewhere now? Over here we have most of the stuff from southern Louisiana that will kill you plus scorpions and a bunch of other crap.
Appreciate the info. I figured you’d know SA better than I do.
Yeah. It took a long fucking time to heal, but she’s alright now.
And I know San Antonio like the back of my anus. You name any part of town and I’ll tell you a time I got lost trying to get there
I’m suddenly interested in the story of how you got lost on your way to your anus.
I tend to go around wiping holes in the ground
LiberalGunNut™ here!. I’m very much like you. For one, never shot an animal that wasn’t dying horribly. LOL, I can’t even bring myself to hunt squirrels. And yes, while we have some serious wildlife around here, I’m far more concerned with the 2-legged sort.
Love what a conservative gun nut, and longtime cop, had to say:
“In the anti-gun Spokane newspaper, internet comments indicated that many people had the clueless idea that Gerlach had shot the man – in the back – to stop the thief from stealing his car. One idiot wrote in defense of doing such, “That ‘inert property’ as you call it represents a significant part of a man’s life. Stealing it is the same as stealing a part of his life. Part of my life is far more important than all of a thief’s life.”
Analyze that statement. The world revolves around this speaker so much that a bit of his life spent earning an expensive object is worth “all of (another man’s) life.” Never forget that, in this country, human life is seen by the courts as having a higher value than what those courts call “mere property,” even if you’re shooting the most incorrigible lifelong thief to keep him from stealing the Hope Diamond. A principle of our law is also that the evil man has the same rights as a good man. Here we have yet another case of a person dangerously confusing “how he thinks things ought to be” with “how things actually are.”
As a rule of thumb, American law does not justify the use of deadly force to protect what the courts have called “mere property.” In the rare jurisdiction that does appear to allow this, ask yourself how the following words would resonate with a jury when uttered by plaintiff’s counsel in closing argument: “Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant has admitted that he killed the deceased over property. How much difference is there in your hearts between the man who kills another to steal that man’s property, and one who kills another to maintain possession of his own? Either way, he ended a human life for mere property!”
― Massad Ayoob, Deadly Force - Understanding Your Right To Self Defense
Maybe San Antonio has a trash monster problem.
I can think of a few realistic situations where someone might. Bears, geese, waterbears, meese, gators, hell you might even run into an acorn. Gotta stay safe out there.
hell you might even run into an acorn
I’m hit! I’m hit! *Does a barrel roll*
Then it lays its eggs in your ear
^ Says man who has never encountered violence in his white-bread suburb.
I live in downtown Oakland.
sounds like he might have a coon problem.
those damn procyons, not humans. Obviously.
You guys are making jokes but we can all be grateful he died free with his 2nd amendment rights intact. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Did he breed? Is this a Darwin Award win?
Edit: I was going to try to add to the comedy but I feel like it’s not actually funny. I get the irony, but I started thinking how I’d feel if I had a family member or friend that died in such a dumb way.
Well he’s in the arms of Jesus now. If there’s any lesson here it’s use a damn holster, people, and take your safety training seriously.
Arms of Jesus:
I just started the hildibrand quests yesterday, what a coincidence
So he was carrying an unsecured weapon? It’s good that he just shot himself, and not some innocent bystander.
Loaded weapons poorly carried by inbred hillbillies is a significant cause of injury and death to their betters.
Literally the ONLY way to have Prevented this was if he Shot his GUN first before his Gun could shoot HIM! LITERALLY nothing else could have Prevented this! Nothing like background checks or safe storage laws or other things to ensure only safe gun owners have Guns!
A “good guy with a gun” should have shot him first, so we wouldn’t have this problem
Guy should’ve just called in an airstrike on his trash
How would background checks or safe storage laws prevented this?
Presumably because they wouldn’t have given the loon a gun in the first place.
Imagine how much of a pussy you have to be to need to wear a gun at all times.
From my read of the article he wasn’t wearing it, he was holding it in his hands along with the trash…
What’s the line of thinking on that?
Get up. Realize it’s trash day and grab the trash to go outside - but wait! What if some ne’er-do-well has been lying in ambush until 6 in the fucking morning to rob me of my precious trash? Better grab my heat. Shit I’m still in my pajamas and my holster is in the other room. I’ll just walk out like some romcom librarian, except instead of books I have a heap of trash and a loaded gun and the part where I trip is a lot less cute.
Idk I’m a very small woman who lives alone in a bad neighborhood. Had a man try to break in my house. He simply saw me with a gun and ran away. Don’t want to imagine what he could have done if something didn’t scare him away, because it wasn’t my Great Dane and it damn sure wasn’t me that intimidated him.
Yes but do you wear it at all times?
This logic I’ll agree with you on. It is strange that a grown man felt the need to wear his weapon to take the trash out, whereas I never felt like I had to even in my neighborhood. I keep mine in the house purely for defense.
Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.
Punishment (2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-15.html#:~:text=86 (1) Every person commits,for the safety of other
It is also a felony in the states, and against the law in most countries.
The fact that the person had criminally trespassed, made no due announcement of their presence and was attempting to enter her property absolutely falls within acceptable brandishment in all states of the Union. There is no question that brandishing a firearm in that situation is with lawful excuse.
Now, if she had pulled the trigger, had an unlicensed or illegal firearm in her state, or sought after the fleeing person, then there’s an argument that she commited a crime.
I am not a lawyer. But every state in the u.s. has different laws, about stand your ground. Even in Canada we are only allowed to use as much force as they use against us.
Brandishing a weapon and firing it are two completely different things. I would advise caution on making suggestions to people that live in a country whose laws you are not directly familiar with.
Make special note of “lawful excuse”
He was attempting to break down my door. According to the castle doctrine, I could have defended myself in that instance if he would have made it across the threshold. I had my weapon at the ready when he opened my front door without permission. Then he retreated. I called the cops and reported it. Filed a report. The cop said I did everything right.
deleted by creator
I’m sure that will turn out well for you.
Honestly if I lived in the US I probably would. Not because I feel the need to pull it out and show everyone, but because I don’t want to die without a chance to defend myself.
That said - I think the fact that guns are so readily available in the US is bad and should be stopped so that people don’t feel the need to carry themselves.
Edit: woah boy this comment really got some people excited. Look, I’m not pro gun and I’m not American - I’m just saying how I feel…nothing more, or less. Over here in Europe I have the luxury of not needing to even think about it…and without any desire to live in America I also don’t need to think much beyond what i shared. Have a great weekend all!
Defend yourself how? Really imagine the scenario. Someone wants you dead, so they walk up behind you and shoot you. Where is your opportunity for defense?
Indeed. I don’t imagine that’s how most deaths by gun violence occur.
I imagine most of them could be defended against by being better trained than someone looking to steal your stuff.
I may be wrong. It’s just how I feel on the balance of my current knowledge.
I will observe: no one in this thread has brought any new facts to the table, just downvotes and hypotheticals.
Most deaths by gun violence are self-inflicted. And most of the murders are gang-related.
Not owning a gun and not joining a gang are far more effective ways to prolong your life than joining in on some Old West shootout.
Fair…I have no reason to dispute you and no reason to believe you…but it sounds sensible and hence if I had to actually make the decision for real I’d look into it!
I know I sound flippant, and that’s because I am. I don’t need to choose - that choice was made for me. And I’m glad it was.
I worked in the US for a long time and at no point did I ever feel the need to carry a gun around. If anybody ever did mug me they’d just get my wallet It’s not worth fighting over it.
If somebody wants me dead then the gun isn’t going to do me any good, how am I going to get it out of the holster in time?
You should obviously keep it in your hand, finger on the trigger, at all times. Like the garbage guy in the article.
Do you have any empirical basis to believe that carrying a gun increases and does not decrease your life expectancy
No
Okay, so it’s a security blanket, then.
You call it whatever you like
I live in the US, you’re more likely to die in a car accident than get killed by someone with a gun. Plus all us Americans should be pretty desensitized to shootings and what not now, just get over it lol
Yes I believe that to be true. I wear a seat belt for a reason, so I’d carry a firearm for the same reason.
I am not saying it’s logical, or that it’s my preferred way to live. I am not advocating for gun rights. I am not an American.
My view is that all guns should be illegal to own. As they are where I live.
What kind of country do you think the US is where you need a gun to defend yourself?
The kind of country that has the NRA, The Republican Party, Florida, multiple mass shootings a month, a militarised police force, Donald Trump, the KKK…need I go on?
Honestly mate I’m well aware of the fact that most folks can lead entirely ordinary gun-free lives in the US. As a European I train in martial arts to ensure I can defend myself, in the US I’d also train in firearms - because that’s the worst case. Not the likely case. The worst case.
I’ve never owned a gun, and I’ve never felt the need to own a gun. Not when I lived in a small town and not when I lived in a big city.
Fair play, I believe you. I also have never felt that way, I am simply applying my views on self defence in Europe to a wildly different set of laws…so I’m guessing what I would do. Not saying that’s how everyone feels - just how I feel.
