Man installing satellite TV kills wife
Ronald Long of Deepwater, Missouri was having a tough time installing his satellite TV system on Saturday. He couldn't seem to puncture through his exterior wall, so he decided to fire his gun at the wall. One of the shots killed his wife who was standing outside. Link (Thanks, Carlo Longino!)
the latest
latest episodes
That's horrible!
only in america : )
I love Missouri, I have family there and have considered moving there on occasion, but I've noticed an upswing in "Crazy Shit Happened in Missouri" stories recently (That kids doing ultimate fighting story is out of Missouri, for example). I think that the Show Me State is trying to give Florida a run for its money as the official state of ridiculous news.
This is very sad, but i can't help but be reminded of that Simpsons episode where homer gets a gun and proceeds to use it for everything form opening bottles of beer to changing the channel on his TV.
in a side note, according to the recent "Moderation Policy" post, this entry is likely to "generate a huge thrash that goes nowhere".
so i might as well get the ball rolling by saying that licensing firearms will not stop stuff like this from happening but it certainly can help reduce this kind of stuff, and while i understand the notion that "guns are our right so you can regulate them, period", we all recognize freedom of speech as a right just as (if not more) fundamental, yet we accept a government's right to demand licenses for protests, radio stations, and any number of activities that are fully protected by the 1st amendment.
also, guns are fun to shoot.
I'd say he'd be eligible for a Darwin Award, but sadly he didn't kill himself, so he's still free to contaminate the gene pool with his DNA.
Schmuck.
After reading this deeply disturbing story can anyone continue to doubt that television is increasing violence in America?
This reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun and starts using it as a tool that can open beers for him (among other things).
I thought that people this dumb were a joke. Guess I was wrong.
maybe he missed his wife, and she was killed from the accidental discharge on that plane...
I like that they're against pressing charges. Apparently you can shoot people to death out of your own stupidity in Missoury without any consequence at all! "Bad things happen to good people”?? More like bad things happen to women who marry retards : )
Accidental discharge on a plane is no laughing matter.
I believe the Darwin Award is still appropriate, but awarded to the wife for marrying the guy.
I also immediately thought of a Darwin award, (I'm the kind of guy who finds the idea of removing all safety labels and "letting the problem solve itself" hilarious) but this is just awful :(
Plus, I'm cynical enough to doubt this will lead the guy to swear off firearms...
#5: Well, and the couple already had kids, so their genes have been spread and now those poor kids don't have a mother.
Let's hope they learn from this example.
jesus, you're right. imagine being one of the kids of a father who killed your mum because he was too dumb to drill a hole in the wall. how do you cope with something as ridiculously, tragically stupid as that? wht n dt...
Miss your loved ones? http://xkcd.com/101/
Did he manage to install it in the end?
http://www.thesculpturestudio.com/images/Drill.jpg
could have saved that woman's life
Wait - he could understand the instructions to install and configure a satellite receiver, but he didn't have the know-how to buy a 24" drill bit?
@6 -- I have to assume that's a joke, so to continue on it, it makes me think of a great "retort" game to GTA-style sandbox games. I want a sandbox game that revolves around the violence of incredible stupidity instead of violence qua violence. It would be great to see a different kind of video game insanity.
@4: I'm actually a big proponent of gun rights (though I don't own one myself), and I still think that people should have to jump through plenty of hoops to get them. I mean, I like that we get to drive, too, but I think that driving tests should be 1,000 times "harder" (more thorough). ALL rights have rational limits, as well they should. That said, I'd still prefer to err on the side of rights (as opposed to the side of security) when it comes down to it. I just don't think that gun licensing is "when it comes down to it." :P
It isn't time for April Fools until Monday...
@5
Maybe his wife is eligible for her death being caused by marrying a dumb ass.
That's one of those things that read funny if it were a comic, but truly tragic in real life...
@19 - I'm not a gun owner either, yet i do support the right to own. I mean really, cars are the leading cause of accidental death in this country and i drive one every day, how can i do that and demand others give up their guns.
A while back, a friend of mine went to a gun show and bought himself an AK-47 with 20 round Banana clip for 150 bucks and walked out with it in less then 30 minutes. no background check, nothing more then "sign here and yer set". He tolled me it was ridiculous that he was able to get that gun so easy.
as for gun licensing, i don't think a license per gun is what I'm talking about.. more a "license to own", we already require some serious licensing for people who want to own fully automatic assault rifles, and silencers, and things like that. this would just be a lesser restrictive version of that.
Well, you realize that this story is about culture and class.
Nearly every day when I am walking in the city of Toronto, I have to dodge idiots behind the wheels of a car who recklessly endanger my life. Every day in Toronto, like any major city, idiots who aren't paying attention will *KILL* several people. That is every single day! Nearly every single day in any big city a child is horribly killed, and a couple more crippled for life, by reckless automobile drivers.
The difference between guns and cars, though, is that guns are associated with the lower classes in North America (either "stupid rural red-neck white trash", or "inner city black criminal thugs", or possibily both depending on your own prefered forms of bigotry). Where as an upper-class respectable white person can drive a car like an idiot - driving an automobile carries no class-stigma, unlike owning a gun.
For the European folks, it gives an extra kick of ethnic and cultural superiority (we are better than those Americans) to the thrill of class superiority (we are better than those poor people).
There is some really ugly deep-rooted bigotry in Western culture that people need to deal with. You might not be a follower of the old school racist stereotype of a bigot (as race is no longer an indicator of social class, old school forms of hatred like the KKK or Nazis are a bit outdated)... but there is still a lot of hate and judgement coming from people in these message boards.
.22 cal isn't big enough for an RG6 run. He should've used at least a .38 or 9mm.
Except the hoops that people are required to jump through are often times racist.
An example: In the post-civil war South, in order to keep blacks from voting, they instituted poll-taxes and literacy requirements.
Since most blacks where denied an education when they were slaves, they were not able to meet the literacy requirements and prevented from voting. Since most blacks were former slaves and therefore quite poor, they were not able to pay the poll tax.
Even though the law didn't outright say "Blacks are not allowed to vote", those requirements for voting effectively took away black people's right to vote.
The first gun-control laws in America began the same way - Creating some arbitrary restriction on gun-ownership that was easy for wealthy white people to meet, but difficult for poor black people to meet. In many cases, for blacks who were attacked and abused at the hands of racist law enforcement for so many generations, the fact that they had to go to the law to get a licence was enought to keep them disarmed.
While modern day America is a far cry from the post Civil War South, any reasonable person should understand that requiring long expensive classes to exercise a right is going to be a disproportionate burden on the poor - or even visiting a police station to get permission, is going to be a much more difficult task to someone who has been a victim of police racism and brutality than it would be for a privledged white person.
If any gun control law doesn't include very strong and very specific protections to make sure it doesn't discriminate against minorities and the poor, then the effect of the law is likely to be racist. (Just look at the war-on-drugs for an example of laws, that while not explicitly racist, seem to be mostly just an excuse for mass-jailing black men).
One of the things I notice about a certain subset of DIYers is an extraordinary impatience with completing a job. Their frustration leads to some very unusual and extreme measures to complete a task quickly, almost always at the expense of completing it properly. If this story is true I'd expect that the husband simply did not want to take the time to go out and buy the necessary tools (or read the instructions on how to use them) and instead made what he may have thought was an inspired improvisation.
It is extremely saddening that the price of this improvisation, this moment of misguided inspiration, was a woman's life.
That's a great excuse! Yha, uh, I was installing a Dish. What? Yes she did just sign up for life insurance why do you ask?
This is a very sad story. Please, everyone, remember the rules:
1 All guns are always loaded.
2 Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4 Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
Please forgive me for using the tragedy of a woman's death to be pedantic, but these rules are critical. Anyone who owns a firearm needs to internalize these rules to the point where they're as natural as breathing.
(And @previous posters: An "accidental discharge" is a discharge due to a mechanical failure of the weapon. It looks very much like what happened on that aircraft was a "negligent discharge", which is an unintended discharge caused by operator error. Namely caused by the operator not observing the rules.)
Actually, we don't (assuming that "we" is the USA, other countries may vary). To purchase NFA firearms (full auto or select fire, destructive devices, short barreled shotguns or rifles, Any Other Weapons, or silencers) requires the payment of a tax, $200 for everything but AOWs (they're $5). If the item is out of state you may have to pay the tax twice, as it's a "transfer" tax, and it may need to be transfered from out of state to your dealer, then from him to you. Two transfers, two taxes.
When you pay the tax, the ATF has the FBI run a pretty thorough background check on you, and if you don't pass it then you paid and don't get the tax stamp (and thus no fun gun or thing), and if you are a felon or something like that then they arrest your ass.
But there is no license to own such things, despite lots of people thinking there is. There is a federal license required to deal in such items, but not to own them.
This jackass was an idiot. He clearly broke rule four of the four rules of firearm safety.
http://www.thehighroad.org/library/rules.html
"1. All guns are always loaded (until you establish whether they are or not).
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. Keep your gun pointed in a safe direction at all times: on the range, at home, loading, or unloading.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target (and you are ready to shoot).
4. Be sure of your target. Know what it is, what is in line with it and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you haven't positively identified."
But do we really believe that if he'd used a 24 inch drill he wouldn't (possibly) have drilled into his wife with that? If he was dumb enough to not pay attention if she was there with a pistol, why would we think he'd check before drilling? ;)
And this is off topic, but I for one would love for firearms to be licensed like cars! You can buy as many cars as you want, you don't need a license to buy a car, you can soup up your car as much as you like, you can drive it without a license as long as it's on private property, there are no size limits on ownership: I can own a moped or an 18 wheeler or even a ginourmous dumptruck like they use at monster sized mines, you can import cars (even ones that are not allowed on the highways) from all over the world, and you only need a license if you want to drive your car(s) on public roads.
I suppose that if we did guns the same way I could buy them without a license, build my own full auto firearms with no fees or license needed, import them from wherever, import or build my own cannons, and only need a license to shoot them at publicly owned ranges. That would be quite a refreshing change. :)
Krhainos: LOL!
Yet another example of why having a gun around your house is a dangerous and usually stupid thing to do. Would you feel safer if you had a few grenades too, gun fans?
I'll quote Mr. Natural: "Always use the right tool for the job".
The good news is that now he gets all the sports channels, plus Cinemax.
@30: I totally agree about how misinformed many people are about what's required to get a gun.
Another false belief that seems pretty common (and propagated by many action movies) is that things like a standard 2x4 and gyp board wall will stop a bullet. It takes quite a bit of solid wood to stop a bullet of any kind, a layer of plaster or exterior siding probably wouldn't do much of anything, and even a hollow concrete block wall isn't totally effective (if it is filled with reinforcing and concrete, that works). Water, sand or other more fluid substances stop projectiles very well. Anyway, this is just so sad to me, because any gun really should know these things.
Perhaps testing and licensing should be required, but I can only imagine the vitriolic response that would get from a lot of the gun community.
Oh, look. A nascent gun control debate. This always goes well. I wonder when our regular gun troll will show up.
Tragic. We can berate him for his stupidity and (sort of) laugh about it. The guy who did it will be berating himself for the rest of his life, and will likely never be able to smile about it. I just hope I never have a lapse of judgment that leads to someone else's injury or death.
@30 - i stand corrected. we certainly do need more regulation.
Driving is something the state lets you do if you behave, firearm ownership is (arguably) a fundamental right for everyone in this country. How would you feel if you needed a government permit for public speech or to avoid unlawful searches?
All constitutional rights come with some downsides. We let KKK members march on our streets. Criminals get let go because we're unable to use illegally obtained evidence. Too often, people get killed by guns. In return, we're granted the ability to overthrow the government if it goes bonkers, or defend against an occupation.
Context is important. In today's world, it seems preposterous that we can own guns without licenses. A lot of the constitution seems ridiculous, though; when was the last time we had to worry about troops being quartered in our houses? The constitution has a few insurance policies that might only be relevant once every 500 years, which is hard to put in perspective when we only live 80 years.
Is it hard to imagine a scenario, 20 years down the road, in which some nut detonates a nuke in NYC? Maybe the government cracks down on us in a way that makes Bush look like Jimmy Carter. People get rounded up for stuff said on the internet (like this!) decades ago and detained because of some statistical association they have with a known bad guy. Then the government takes the next step and ban guns. In that world, you might be happy that you're allowed to own a shotgun without a paper trail.
That said, we can lower the premium on our anti-tyranny insurance policy. Go ahead and regulate machine- and hand guns. Instate mandatory conscriptions for a weekend so people can get firearm training, or make it part of the curriculum in schools, or spend the money we waste on anti-drug ads on firearm safety PSAs. There are ways to alleviate the problem without trampling anyone's rights if we're able to get past stupid pro/con NRA-style rhetoric.
@#32...
Just... stop it... please?
Everyone here can pretty much agree that the gun did not make the decision to be an idiot. The gun probably would have been completely content to have been left in the closet that night.
The problem here is that for a well deserved change of events- Stupidity DID become painful. Unfortunately the pain was just a little bit off the mark.
Why do anti-gun people always sink to the level of equating the Second Amendment to people possessing "landmines and grenade launchers"?
If you don't want a gun- fine. I don't care. Your choice. But as for me? Well, that would be my choice wouldn't it?
@30 as to the comparison you provided likening auto licensing to gun licensing, i would just like to point out that the government requires licenses for cars on public roads because there is where you actions go form self endangerment to public endangerment. i know you know this, but i think this story is a perfect example of why guns endanger the public even when you are on your own private property.
Saying "i shouldn't need a license as long as I'm not shooting the gun in public" doesn't do much to protect the people living in the apartment above or below you.
we need licenses to handle explosives because they can dangerous to us and dangerous to others, both of those dangers apply to firearms.
@39 - our best protections from a tirranical government are our sons and daughters in our all volunteer military.
@32 "Why do anti-gun people always sink to the level of equating the Second Amendment to people possessing "landmines and grenade launchers"?"
because people defending the Second Amendment always point out, as #39 did, that we need the guns to protect us from our own government.
you aren't going to get far against our military without any explosives, and last i checked, you need a license for those.
can you understand why our government would require a license for handling explosives?
If you make drilling holes for satellite dishes with guns illegal, then only criminals will drill holes for satellite dishes with guns.
Routing out sewage lines with guns will remain a gray area.
@41:
I think they were talking about your OWN gov't being tyrannical, not an opposing one. Wow...I didn't mean it that way...but in the FUTURE...you may have a gov't that becomes tyrannical.
I'm all for 'licencing' of firearms. Basics of firearm safety (don't shoot the wall your wife is behind for example), how to maintain a weapon in good working order (if you need it, you don't want it to jam), and other things. Limiting weapons to those who do not have serious criminal records, and making it a crime for those who cannot possess.
Not that that will make any difference.
In addition, if you want to carry...I want you to be able to hit your target. So, before you can carry, I would love to see a mandatory range test. If I remember from an earlier article correctly, pilots who carry have to pass a test like this...and its apparently quite easy.
Hopefully these things will cut down the whole innocent bystander thing.
Anyone here watch Jericho? Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment played a really big part in the finale.
"It's much easier for a corrupt government to take over when it's citizens can't shoot back".
For a dramatic visualization of the penetrating power of bullets through residential materials, I highly recommend the ongoing blog http://www.theboxotruth.com/
It's like a Texas version of Mythbusters.
The best argument against "the 2nd Amendment says we all get guns!" is that it also says "well regulated militia".
Well-regulated, or a militia, this guy ain't.
Here in Philly, where illegal guns are a huge problem and definitely contributing to the obscene murder rate, we can't get a law limiting handgun purchases to one a month thanks to the 2nd Amendment people in the rural areas. I fail to see how the 2nd Amendment in any way excuses you from planning a little if you want to take your kid deer hunting next month.
And yes, I'm fine with people being allowed to own and carry guns. But I'd be all for mandatory gun safety classes as part of high school, background checks to prevent felons from buying guns, limiting number of guns per person, requiring reporting of lost or stolen guns, requiring people to lock up guns when NOT being carried, so their 4 year olds can't find them in the drawer and shoot themselves, and so forth. The "well-regulated militia" isn't going to be eliminated by rules like that. For that matter, no, shotguns are NOT going to be able to bring down the US Military if things go that far. The military has tanks, bomber planes... unless you're planning on making shoulder-mounted rocket launchers legal, firearms aren't going to save us from a corrupt government.
So let me get this straight. You Americans believe that the best way to hold your government accountable is through the threat of gun nuts able to do assassinations?
I lived in America for a few years, but decided to leave when I realised what a dangerous combination widespread gun ownership and lack of basic education makes.
Why would you want to own a gun? Because you are scared. Why would you be scared? Because any fool in your vicinity might have one too. A vicious circle.
Europe (where I live) has very strict gun control laws and not nearly as many gun deaths. Google "US gun death statistics".
The arms industry via the NRA lobby spends millions of dollars to keep you scared, to make you believe you need a gun.
Think for yourself. If 150 million people do something stupid, it's still something stupid.
If 150 million people do something stupid...
...we'll just call it democracy! That makes it all better.
just as a mental experiment; how would the ordinary people of America armed with what they have actually resist an imposition of martial law and suspension of the Constitution? Assume Cheney will have access to all current weapons held by the military. Will he he use chemicals and biologicals first and make an example to the rest of the country by say,liquidating oh, I don't know; Chicago?
How would it play out?
"Officials are trying to decide whether to file charges"
WHAT??? TRYING TO DECIDE?! WTF! A STUPID STUPID STUPID IDIOT KILLED HIS WIFE AND YOU HAVE TO ***THINK*** ABOUT WHETHER TO FILE CHARGES?
If this guy doesn't get manslaughter, I can't go on living in this country.
Guns don't kill people, installing satellite TV kills people.
I'm thinking this would make a great cable industry ad.
I had no idea this would become a gun debate. I guess I should provide my 2 cents worth:
Regarding the rules of responsible gun use, there was at least one left out:
5) Never put anything smaller than a .45 in your ear. Or was it your elbow? I always get these mixed up.
Regarding gun ownership:
- If guns were illegal, then only criminals would get to install their cable TV with a gun.
Regarding the last episode of Jericho and the 2nd ammendment:
- Jericho is a television show.
Regarding the ownership of hand grenades:
- Probably not a good idea in Missouri.
Regarding whether the discharge on the plane was an "accidental" or "negligent":
- Regardless of which it was, discharge on an airplane is no laughing matter.
It was only in the 20th century that US governemnt soldiers started having better than the citizens typically used. Previously the trend ran the other way.
In the 18th century, many of the cannons used in battle were in fact privately held.
I'm still baffled that a .22 had enough punch to actually go through the walls of a house. You'd think the outer wall at least would stop it, since .22 isn't exactly the caliber of choice to piercing....
BUt yes, it sucks for the wife, and I can see why no charges would result... although I feel that revocation of a gun licence (I assume he had one) would be an obvious consequence.
I just don't believe it was an accident. Make it look as an accident and you look like the dumb one but not the cold cut killer that you really are... ;)
@56 actually if you look at them the .22 has the most punch until you get into ridiculously high calibers (.50, etc.). Want to slice through body armor? You use a .22.
@50 I will take on your experiment. Maybe you haven't been following the news, but ther eis this insurgency in a place called Iraq, you see, they didn't really ave much for explosives, but they are still kicking the best military in the world in the ass. Go google asymmetrical warfare. Oh, and I know you are going to say it, but yeah, the private citizens of the US already have more explosives then the Iraqis did when we walked in the door. And we have a hell of a lot more guns. You will also bring up that they are getting outside help. Do you really think we wouldn't given the same situation? Hell, Putin would ship you an AK-47 and kiss you on the lips. I will pose the logical next scenario. You and your friends have no guns, and Cheney has all of the arsenal of the US, what exactly do you do? Hold up signs? He melts down Chicago (your scenario) and you do what?
armed or not, the US military versus the US citizenry will be, "not a contest".
Iraq? Some say almost 1,500,000 Iraqis have been killed - to 4,000 Americans. They no longer have a country and the US military will one day blithely walk away as if nothing at all had ever happened - to them. Just like Viet Nam is forgotten.
A gun in every hand or not, the idea of armed civilian resistance against a fully armed modern army with no constraints is ludicrous. Ask Tibet.
The second amendment re: defense against tyrants is a joke. Otherwise you would have shot every member of BushCo by now.
The only defense against your own government nerve-gassing you in your homes is to not vote for scum or worse, not vote at all. Which is how they got in.
Except of course, you have not answered your own question. What do YOU do. Chicago just melted, you have no guns, the fascists are in the street - WHAT DO YOU DO? Vote? lol!!
I fear the point eludes you.
My only defense against people nerve gassing me is to not vote for them? Wow. I guess I can pray against bullets too.
It doesn'r elude me at all - answer the question - your own question I might add - what do YOU do?
the only defense against poison is not to drink it
That is not an answer. What do you do? I have told you that I will form an armed resistance. I will pull my fellow citizens together and create an armed resistance. You, it seems will do nothing. Yeah, Owning firearms to resist the Federal Gov is bad, you have a much better solution.
That is not an answer.
I think that we all know what this discussion is really about.
Takuan's inability to admit she is wrong?
oh-keyyy doookeyyy verrrry slowllly now;
if you try to fight the people with big guns and all you have is little guns; you will LOSE. This is called "reality".
You might feel bad that your guns are littler than their BIG guns,but they ARE.
It is too bad you feel bad, but this is still called REALITY.
The conclusion you should draw from this lesson is that while there might be reasons to own guns, fighting your own government is not one of them.
Or are you the last Koreshite?
So Takuan your answer is that when Cheney boils Chicago you will...object. I guess that I reserve the right (and it is a right) to respond violently. You and your ilk can sit and (chant, complain, hold hands, moan, find God, open a vein) fun! pick one! While the rest of us actually DO something.
And again, the insurgents in Iraq are doing badly because...we have big guns?
Oh, and you are still dodging the question - just thought I would point that out.
not at all Zippy. In fact I am counting on you to spearhead the first wave. A proud but lonely honour, I am sure you are up to it.
And still you dodge the question, Republican much?
@72, Oddly enough I am up for it. I wil die for my country -will you?
Takuan, perhaps we should take this off board. I have a place to go if you are willing. I personally would rather not see BB reduced to well..our level. I assure you that all decorum is expected at where I propose, and in fact any impropriety will have me banned in short order. I would however like to discuss this further.
what asteroid do you dwell on? Stop. Go back. Read everything. Think. Get back to me.
My wa.
Let me sho u it.
Answer. That is all, just do that one thing.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_DY3YhPwA0lI/R8SAOihzvKI/AAAAAAAAAQo/mzqA0aCvL2A/s1600-h/funny-pictures-farting-kitten.jpg
This is inversely reminiscent of your fabled conversation with Moonbat, Tak-kun.
though this is good too
http://www.lolcat.net/v/animated/machine_gun_cat.gif.html
I only want you to answer your own question. That is all.
So that is all? lolcat pictures is the best you have? Pathetic. No answer to the melt down YOU proposed, no answer to anything really. Just lolcats. Amazing.
the Klein Bottle question?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabine01/1827438589/
Are you two trying to Bush/Cheney me? Takuan asked me a question, I answered, asked her back...and I have gotten nothing. So what is it?
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Are you prillvenging me?
Purposely stupid is not something that you are Takuan. You are better then that. Feigned ignorance is even worse. Man up and admit your faults. Admit you lost a war of wits. It really is OK.
@87
That you have a handful of dirt?
http://www.thegodetroit.com/uploaded_images/marx-brothers-01-749847.jpg
sorry, forgot me
http://thegrandnarrative.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/marx_brothers.jpg
People mostly regret asking me what I have in my hand. Mostly.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Thomas_Becket_Murder.JPG