One dead after gun malfunction in Lackawanna County

[shootstraight57]

From what the grapevine says the owner of the handgun was firing it and the person at his side wanted to shoot it, so he gave it to him to shoot and at that point there was a bullet lodged in the barrel. When he fired the handgun it exploded killing the gun owner and wounding the shooter.
Now this is all I heard true or not!

 

[DoubleMag]

''A) You are still wrong about... ''

Could be a lil more NICER , among friends, as ''A) You are still incorrect about...''

U say flies with sugar perhaps? Still gets the point across I suppose.

GEE I HAVE NEVER BEAN WRONG B4. ALL OTHER ANGELS PLEASE HANG WINGS IN BACK OF CHAT ROOM B4 STEPPING TO PODIUM PLEASE

...just a little more HIGH ROAD , and we'll all be fine....

 

[DoubleMag]

Hey! That DMag guy just might have a hidden point...

SOMETIMES this stuff is tilted, er, reported a certain way to assist dividing those of similar opinions...

 

[gyp_c2]

If you were writing about this incident, what would the headline have been?

Unexplained fatal incident at(so&so). Details to follow.

 

[blue32]

"The death of ruled accidental and due to forceful impact and penetrating wounds to the chest."

I'm pretty sure this article was written by a robot or an idiot.

 

[Waveski]

Unexplained fatal incident at(so&so). Details to follow.

But the truth of the matter is - a man did die as the result of a gun malfunction. If the victim had been hit by a train would it make sense to leave out the train part? Wouldn't the story then be incomplete?

GEE I HAVE NEVER BEAN WRONG B4. ALL OTHER ANGELS PLEASE HANG WINGS IN BACK OF CHAT ROOM B4 STEPPING TO PODIUM PLEASE

Being mature , sensible individuals , surely we can do better ...

 

[gyp_c2]

Being mature , sensible individuals , surely we can do better ...

Actually, it was shooter malfunction.
The gun did as guns do. If you are mature enough to know the difference, you should also be mature enough to know that
words mean something.
I'll bow out on this, but it's the truth that is continually sacrificed to propaganda in the media that is a threat right now.
Not me.

 

[Waveski]

Alright then -
"Man dies as result of exploding gun."

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I like how y'all are going on and on about how bad the reporting is and that the details are not what you want. The reporter cited the sources for the information. If you have problem with the information, I would look to the sources.

The level of reporting seems to fit typical short accidental sorts of death stories.

 

[Monac]

Unexplained fatal incident at(so&so). Details to follow.

So, in fatal accident in which a gun was directly involved, the gun should not be mentioned? That seems odd.

Look, people have accidents. It is not an attack on something to say that someone died from an accident involving that thing. Is it an attack on cars to mention one when someone dies in a car crash? Is it an attack on alcohol as well if drunk driving was involved? Not to me.

To call this article an attack of any kind, or objectionable in any way, seems to me like the kind of over-sensitivity that makes "woke culture" so objectionable.

 

[stillquietvoice]

It is not an attack on something to say that someone died from an accident involving that thing. Is it an attack on cars to mention one when someone dies in a car crash? Is it an attack on alcohol as well if drunk driving was involved? Not to me.

To call this article an attack of any kind, or objectionable in any way, seems to me like the kind of over-sensitivity that makes "woke culture" so objectionable.

No it's not an attacking those things, but those are not subject to bans by govt, are not blamed for any incidents where they are involved like guns are.

I didn't hear a knee jerk reaction against rental box trucks when they were used as weapons.

 

[Hartkopf]

I’m ok with the headline and reporting of this incident but I don’t blame anyone for suspecting the worst from the media. The media will twist facts and outright lie at any moment (usually in coordinated unison) to demonize guns. With what most of have seen, it’s hard for the average gun enthusiast to care about being fair to the media.

 

[Rex B]

I was at a match where a guy blew up his 9mm Glock pistol. ...
The funny thing is that it wasn't like the shooter was fooling anyone, the barrel he showed everyone was very obviously heavily leaded and at the time, there was almost no 9mm factory ammo that wasn't jacketed.

I have always heard that lead (unjacketed) bullets were incompatible with the Glock polygonal rifling. Maybe this is the reason

 

[Monac]

No it's not an attacking those things, but those are not subject to bans by govt, are not blamed for any incidents where they are involved like guns are.

I didn't hear a knee jerk reaction against rental box trucks when they were used as weapons.

Well, your first sentence is just not true (dare I say wrong?). "Driving is a privilege, not a right", remember? The government doesn't ban cars, they take away the licenses of people who have proved they cannot be trusted behind the wheel. Same effect on the individual, and unlike guns, there is nothing in the Constitution about vehicles.

And your second line makes no sense, because the box trucks were not the weapon. They were just the transportation for the weapon. IIRC, those attacks did result in new restrictions on explosives and/or the components used to make explosives.

 

[Monac]

Actually, it was shooter malfunction.
The gun did as guns do. If you are mature enough to know the difference, you should also be mature enough to know that
words mean something.
I'll bow out on this, but it's the truth that is continually sacrificed to propaganda in the media that is a threat right now.
Not me.

This may very well be the absolute truth of this incident. I think it the most likely explanation, really. However, what if it does turn out be faulty ammunition, and that it was loaded by someone the shooter had every reason to trust, or at least none to doubt? Is it still a shooter malfunction then?

And I for one don't see propaganda in the news I read. If you do, I think you are either reading something much different, or finding something you have already made up your mind is there. Anyone who thinks the news report that started this thread, for example, is propaganda, is finding what they want to find, not what is there.

I do see propaganda that is called news, but it is generally from outlets that have declared they are actually entertainment, not news, and that no reasonable person could believe that what they say is true. They have said as much in court, actually. That is the kind of media that is a threat right now, in my opinion. We found out as much on January 6th of this year.

 

[Slamfire]

So, in fatal accident in which a gun was directly involved, the gun should not be mentioned? That seems odd.

Thinking reporters know the difference between one "gun" and another is assuming these people know something about firearms. At best, you can believe they understand that a hand gun is smaller than a long gun, and that shiny guns are pretty. They don't know which end of the tube the round comes out of.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

I guess we can all futilely debate the accuracy and intent of media, but that seems pretty fruitless. We all know that most of the media gets things wrong both by neglect and intent. All we can really do is make other media choices and use this event to influence what we do better in the future. I for one never like casually recommend reloading and honestly tend to deter many people from it unless they demonstrate a real aptitude and interest in doing it right. People who have the primary goal of "saving money" really aren't people who I recommend reload. Anyone who will ask random internet strangers for a reloading "recipe," doesn't give a hoot about having clean brass or doesn't maintain a clean workstation are all people I don't recommend reload.

 

[Monac]

Thinking reporters know the difference between one "gun" and another is assuming these people know something about firearms. At best, you can believe they understand that a hand gun is smaller than a long gun, and that shiny guns are pretty. They don't know which end of the tube the round comes out of.

Did they need to know that, in this event? It seems like the whole problem was that the bullet didn't come out of the tube.

The reporter here doesn't seem to have made any mis-statements about firearms; they relied on the police chief for any specific gun-related information involved.

Like I said, I think looking for reasons to be offended is a symptom of "woke culture". Maybe the people who engage in that have good intentions, but personally, I don't like the results.

 

[stillquietvoice]

Well, your first sentence is just not true (dare I say wrong?). "Driving is a privilege, not a right", remember? The government doesn't ban cars, they take away the licenses of people who have proved they cannot be trusted behind the wheel. Same effect on the individual, and unlike guns, there is nothing in the Constitution about vehicles.

And your second line makes no sense, because the box trucks were not the weapon. They were just the transportation for the weapon. IIRC, those attacks did result in new restrictions on explosives and/or the components used to make explosives.

Attack in manhatten rented pick up truck ran over runners and cyclists Oct 2017, London bridge terrorist attack with large truck then stabbed people as he was running away. What part is wrong?

 

[P5 Guy]

Thinking reporters know the difference between one "gun" and another is assuming these people know something about firearms. At best, you can believe they understand that a hand gun is smaller than a long gun, and that shiny guns are pretty. They don't know which end of the tube the round comes out of.

Gregg Jarrett Bullet Button fully automatic AR15 fubar - YouTube

 

[Robert]

Wait, what was the original topic...