(courtesy nydailynews.com)

See that caption above? Yeah, that’s not what happened, exactly. “A Texas teenager was participating in a water gun fight when she was unsuspectingly hit in the shoulder with an actual bullet,” nydailynews.com reports. “The unidentified 15-year-old was at a party in the Houston suburb of Spring when a 40-year-old family friend’s 9mm handgun discharged during a barbecue. She was taken to a local hospital and is expected to survive after the bullet hit her in the shoulder, about an inch from her neck, according to KPRC.” Uh, that’s not really it, either. Sins of omission and all that. Here’s what really happened . . .

Witness Lawrence Martinez told KTRK that the adult man at the water gun fight was going to get his dry clothes and began spinning his real pistol on his finger before it went off.

Two shots were heard — one hitting the unsuspecting teenage girl and the other hitting a car five houses down the road.

So the negligent discharge had little to nothing to do with the water gun fight, except perhaps for the fact that harmless gun fun may have inspired the shooter to show off. Yet the media is happy to lead readers/viewers to think that somehow someone having a water gun fight “escalated” play time by introducing a real gun — with near disastrous consequences. Why? Because guns!

Yes, well, even without that so not happening, the Texas gun twirler well and truly qualifies for TTAG’s IGOTD award. Spinning a loaded gun is about as stupid as it gets (Hollywood gunslingers be damned).

79 Responses to Unidentified Texas Gun Spinner: Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day

  1. Hollywood gunslingers, at least before the movie studios went to hell and stayed there, were prone to spin single action revolvers if I remember my misspent youth watching Rawhide and Gunsmoke correctly. Pretty hard to shoot yourself without cocking the hammer, though I suppose anything is possible.

    • In the article it says 9mm handgun. That seems to imply a semiauto, which are very obviously not meant to be spun like a single action revovler

      • What may be obvious to you may not be so obvious to other people. Some people are just…thick, and not in the sexy way.

      • I get what you’re saying, although I think it should be noted that single action revolvers weren’t “meant” to be spun at all.

    • Weren’t plenty of cowboys shot in the leg by their own revolvers prior to the invention of hammer block safeties and transfer bars? Wasn’t that concern the rationale behind carrying with the hammer down on an empty cylinder back in the day?

      • Yes, but that had more to the with either the jostling of carrying a pistol while riding, or even more jarring (to the gun), falling off your horse. Not so much spinning it around.

  2. Well, just tough stuff. Crap happens. Gun owners have a right to spin their pistols, and sometimes someone gets hurt. All this cryin’ and whinin’ ’bout some little missey who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just the price people pay so that others can have personal firearms. Hey, it was an accident. Don’t getcher panties in a twist. The gun owner is real sorry. And that counts for something, right? I mean, damn, how ya gonna perfect your ability to twirl a pistol around your trigger finger ifn ya don’t practice? Sheesh people, get a life.

    • You used to claim you were only interested in non mandatory training for gun owners. Then you said you were afraid to walk across a parking lot for fear of being shot. And then it came out you weren’t even a US resident. Then you said guns were ‘evil” I believe. Your position keeps changing and your lies add up.

      But we’re not allowed to state the obvious. You’re a troll. Cause then you get butt hurt and claim we just don’t want to debate so we name call.

      Did I miss anything?

        • Not going to feed him. Just going to show up and call him a troll from time to time. No more arguing with him.

          Make one fact filled comment and then ride off into the sunset. Or, as I’m doing with you, comment to another in the thread.

        • Gonna do this one more time, then no more peanuts from me: You went from “I’m just for responsible gun ownership” to “Yes, we want guns confiscated from the law abiding folks because that’s the easy part, then we can concentrate on taking them from criminals” and “When guns are banned and confiscated, we will all be safe”, and then back to “I’m just for responsible gun ownership”, all in the space of about two weeks. You are trolling, plain and simple. You can try to play the “you all just want to shut off debate” card all you want, it doesn’t wash. Your totally un-edifying original comment here is evidence enough by itself; nobody here has ever called for an untrammeled “right” to recklessly shoot other people by playing with guns. Just another ‘straw man” (yes, that) you are trying to create.

        • Oh brother.

          Are you aware that it is possible for one person to have two separate views on a single subject?

          View One:
          Professional training to improve safety, mandatory if necessary to get the maximum number of gun owners trained to act safely.

          View Two:
          If gun owners persist in pushing the idea that they can never be made to suffer anything mandated by the government, then gun confiscation is a last resort.
          – Corollary to View Two: Once mandatory confiscation is successful, government (and the people) are morally bound to turn on the criminal and gang elements, forcefully removing guns if necessary.

          And on a related note, if it were possible to establish what “successful” means for “voluntary” gun safety programs, the government should then be pressured to deal with the criminal element.

        • Actually, yes, statists/liberals/progressives entertain two mutually-exclusive views on a subject all the time, it’s part of their insanity. But you’re just trolling, and I’m done with you. Go find Haruka Weiser and remind her that the danger isn’t from rapists and footpads and common criminals, it’s from law -abiding people who are licensed to carry handguns.

        • Option one is voluntary, recurring professional gun safety training
          If voluntary training doesn’t work…

          Option two is mandatory gun confiscation

          How are those two mutually exclusive?

          You are making the charge, here.

          Unfettered gun possession, anyone, anywhere, any time vs. No guns anywhere, anyone, any time. Those are mutually exclusive.

          “…remind her that the danger isn’t from rapists and footpads and common criminals, it’s from law -abiding people who are licensed to carry handguns.”
          – The danger is from both; two ideas that are not mutually exclusive.

        • “Once mandatory confiscation is successful, government (and the people) are morally bound to turn on the criminal and gang elements, forcefully removing guns if necessary.”

          The criminals will be overjoyed at lawful confiscation, so they may rob, murder, assault and rape with a smile on their face since their victims will be helpless.

          The American people will *never* allow that since 50 state carry permits have now proven lawful carriers nearly never commit crimes.

        • I would definitely support invading the criminal next anytime, like right now. However, reality is people believe they will never encounter the criminal element, and so-called “good guys with a gun” live and socialize where normal people do. So far, it seems “good guys” are the ones who commit the unexpected mass shootings (terrorists excluded). What you call anti-gun people fear the deranged more than the criminal. That is political reality, so going after criminal guns will be a tough sell until the law-abiding gun owners no longer present a potential for “going-off” without warning. I gotta go with what might be doable.

        • Hey, yousux, I know what you mean! I’m of the opinion that you’re a moron. But, if it turns out that’s not the case, then you’re certainly a fool. That about right?

        • “I’m of the opinion that you’re a moron. ”

          Larry, until this thread, I was impressed with you lot in Texas. Didn’t expect the reversion to name-calling and vituperation common to so many others.

      • (This is not going well; having trouble tagging onto the right person for the reply (also not fully completing the comment form). One last try:

        Oh yeah, you missed a whole bunch.

        But, working with what you left:
        “You used to claim you were only interested in non mandatory training for gun owners”.
        – Widespread, voluntary, recurring, professional training is still a goal (wish)

        “Then you said you were afraid to walk across a parking lot for fear of being shot.”
        – Still am. We have this story of a “stray bullet” into the neighborhood, somewhere. And we have the article about three days ago about the former Marine who shot at fleeing suspects (illegal; fleeing eliminates the deadly threat), missed three times: two into a door wall, one into the night (Marine had no idea where the third bullet went – Marines own words).

        ” Then you said guns were ‘evil” …”
        – Yes. The question was asked why gun sense advocates disliked guns so much. I presented a bit of the reasoning for your edification (then spent some time defending that reasoning); my personal reasoning is different.

        “You’re a troll. Cause then you get butt hurt …”
        – Not at all. I simply point out the sloppy and inaccurate use of the word “troll” (admittedly reflecting back a characteristic of sloppy thinking). If pointing out linguistic inaccuracy equates to “butt hurt” in your world, perhaps you would be happier in another.

        “…and claim we just don’t want to debate so we name call.”
        – Is that not true? Been looking at the same comments I see? Isn’t the personal attack (ad hominem ) the hated retort from “anti-gunners”? Do you really believe that name-calling validates anyone’s commentary? Makes it more true? To be so easily frustrated reinforces the image pro-gunners create.

      • I suspect 2asux is here tapping away using multiple names and from different view points.

        • “I suspect 2asux is here tapping away using multiple names…”

          Can you do that here? It is allowed?

        • I ask that same question whenever I hear about someone shooting up a “gun-free zone”…

    • Just how big a twit/twat are you?
      It is obvious from your posts that you have the brain power of a gerbil in heat. Which is demeaning to all gerbils everywhere.
      I can see you now, hiding in mommy’s basement with your footie pajamas’ all damp and twisted up around your waist. Don’t worry little guy somewhere is a strong womyn who will subjugate you for the rest of your useless life.

      • I guess a summary of the kinds of comments gun lovers post here is pretty difficult for gun lovers to take when reflected back.

        Truth: reckless, irresponsible, negligent gun owner shot a bystander
        Truth: bystander was innocently minding their own business when shot by a reckless, irresponsible, negligent gun owner
        Truth: (according to pro-gun postings here) the number of negligent dead and injured is “statistically insignificant”, nothing to get worked up about.
        Conclusion: the negligent shooting was business as usual, life is tough, stuff happens, get over it (“it” being statistically insignificant).

      • I learned quickly that NDs are just part of the cost of freedom, nothing to worry over, just another data point in the group of “statistically insignificant” deaths or injuries caused by negligent gun handling. I got enough pounding about worrying over the minutia of 500 unnecessary deaths attributable to irresponsible gun owners; coming along with the crowd, now.

  3. I tried spinning my Urberti Cattleman (unloaded) over my bed, because I knew I’d drop it. All I can say is I better not quit my day job. It’s heavy and that’s really kinda hard to do. I sure ain’t no Ringo!

    • That would be interesting to know. That’s the one thing I do like about my 229 with the DA/SA trigger. That first DA pull is pretty stout. I doubt even spinning the gun would pull the trigger in DA. You’d have to be a total and complete moron to do it though with a loaded gun and even if you could, what would be the point of it?

      • Somebody with an EMPTY glock needs to try it and get back to us. I’ve never tried to spin any gun except a revolver.

        • So I tried. Managed to spin it pretty quickly for about 20 seconds. Even though I triple checked it, that was uncomfortable. I did it with my finger straight up in the air. Even tried to switch directions.

          Never pulled the trigger. Also, never lost control of it, which would have probably increased the chances of pulling it.

        • I second what Kelly in GA said. I tried it with my G19, first on my index finger, then on my middle one. With my finger held horizontally, I tried spinning the (unloaded, safety checked) pistol towards me and away from me, and I couldn’t get the stock trigger to “fire.” I then repeated the scenarios with an (unloaded, safety checked) G42, with the same result. Obviously, I’m not saying it *can’t* happen with a stock Glock, but it didn’t work for me.

          Incidentally, an empty G19 is a lot heavier than one would think when supporting it with only one finger, and it’s also incredibly unbalanced, courtesy of its polymer frame.

        • I can spin my (empty) 1911 and Sig P380 all day without the hammer falling. But it looks better with the Ruger Bearcat.

  4. Well, the spinner should be stripped of his right to possess a firearm.
    He is not mentally capable of safe gun handling.

    Same goes for Dick Cheney.

  5. I truly doubt any of the actual old west gunslingers ever did that. As far as Hollywood folks doing it, most likely done with a revolver with the cylinder swapped for an aluminum partially drilled one. That makes it a lot lighter weight and prevents some idiot from loading a trick gun that would be handled in close proximity to other folks.

    • I have seen, first-hand, fancy gun handling by a “Hollywood-type”.

      I went to a gun show to see one of the Hollywood gun trainers demonstrate what can be done with a six-gun (SSA .45). The “gunslinger” invited a person from the audience to come on stage and handle the guns (after the trainer first fired two blanks through the gun), and verify that they were fully functional, and had spent cartridges. After that intro, the gun trainer proceeded to demonstrate every trick you have seen in movies and on TV, and a couple more not generally used in movies. From where I was standing, the gun looked authentic, including a fluted cylinder. I did not get to check the actual weight. One thing that was pretty obvious was that the “gunslinger” never attempted a “trick” with the hammer back.

      But more to the question of whether a modern revolver could be fired DA while doing gun tricks, I had the opportunity to observe the questioning of a police officer who claimed to be shot by a stranger, when in actuality, the cop had been trying to do fancy stuff with his service revolver. When he stated he never had the hammer back, but pulled the trigger while trying to stabilize the gun in mid-air. So, yes, it seems possible to have an ND while playing “gunslinger”.

  6. On the degrees of stupid scale this is only marginally better than the guy that plays Russian Roulette with a semi auto.

  7. BBQ Gun Rule # 1 – The BBQ gun stays in the holster at all times during the BBQ, unless at the firing line the host (should have) has set up…

    • Guy brought dry clothes to a water gun fight, but did not leave his EDC where it would stay dry? I thought *I* was stupid sometimes.

  8. Something not to do with:
    A) a double-action pistol;
    B) a cocked single-action pistol; or
    C) all of the above.

    If this sounds confusing, don’t spin your gun and do RTFM!

  9. Firing a gun within city limits without good cause (self-defense, pest control in some places, etc, but not including “warning shots”) is illegal in most places. Poor stupid bastard’s going to be prosecuted for this, and he deserves to be for injuring that kid.

    • I don’t suppose the shooter was wise enough to buy a large personal liability policy when he bought the gun. The family of the injured teen will probably get nothing in compensation.

      • Oh, they’ll get plenty. It’ll just come out of this moron’s pocket rather than some insurance company’s, which is as it should be. Do stupid stuff, suffer the consequences.

        • If the shooter is smart, he has nothing that can be attached or converted. Even though liable, gets away clean (except the gun charges?).

        • “If the shooter is smart, he has nothing that can be attached or converted.”

          What part of “shot someone while twirling a loaded gun” made you think this guy might be smart?

        • If the shooter is smart, he has nothing that can be attached or converted. Even though liable, gets away clean (except the gun charges?).”

          Now, that is just stupid. You’re thinking (I use the term loosely) that it is somehow “smart” to deliberately remain a pauper in case you accidentally shoot someone? Spoken like a teenager.

        • Come along, Larry; you gotta keep up.

          I am merely rebounding the POTG stated notion that liability insurance to compensate damage and victims of negligent gun use is of no regard because, well, ND carnage is “statistically insignificant”.

          I always advocate gun owners have financial capability to set right potential victims (persons or property) should a gun owner commit an ND. However, I would not actively pursue POTG as potential clients for liability insurance; not enough interest to make underwriting profitable.

  10. Spinning a semi auto. Jesus h tap dancing Christ. Makes about as much sense as Russian roulette with a semi auto.

    • The only safety worthy of relying upon is sitting on your shoulders. All others should never be relied upon to function. The same thing goes for clearing a weapon. All too many times I watch people rack the slide and never look. They assume any round will be ejected. Bad idea…

  11. You know, it’s regrettable that such an individual would use a method like this to broadcast the quality of their intelligence. Please refrain from it in the future.

  12. The strangest part is “two shots were heard”. Two. Shots. I wonder if Mr.Gunslinger paid attention to weapon at all.

  13. I’m going to assume alcohol was involved until proven otherwise. We need to totally ban aicohol. Or at least require non mandatory safety classes regarding alcohol and its uses.

    And insurance. Extra insurance on drinkers.

  14. If you do little Internet research….there still are professional “gun spinners”….most of them use Colt Single Action Army (or replicas thereof, or ‘dummy’ copies) and only loaded with blanks…gun spinning seems to have emerged and developed with the Western Movie era of the 1920’s through 1960’s…you can learn gun spinning even today…gun spinning seems to have had a resurgence with Cowboy Fast Draw competition.

    Hope the young lady recovers fully. Hope her Parents sue the crap out of this idiot and win.

  15. the first thing the guy who sold me my super blackhawk showed me was how to spin it. backwards, it’s easy and fun.
    the first thing the guy who sold me my 94ae big hoop was how to cycle it by spinning it backwards. it’s easy and fun.
    i haven’t been moderated for years either. must be mellowing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *