The story of the 19-year-old who killed her boyfriend while trying to make a Youtube video sets a new record in “hold my beer and watch this” stupidity, while both shooter and shot were cold sober at the time.

1. He convinced her it was safe, because he’d shot at a book before and the bullet didn’t go all the way through it.

2. She believed this claim.

3. He held the book against his chest.

4. She shot from one foot away.

5. With a .50 AE Desert Eagle.

6. With their 3-year-old daughter nearby. (do the math, 18-year-old knocked up 15-year-old that he started dating when she was 13)

7. While pregnant with their second child.

8. All of this was announced in advance, both online and to friends and family, who couldn’t talk them out of it but took no steps to actually stop them.

The words “tragic” and “accident” are twisted out of shape to cover this dangerous, reckless, deliberate, stupid stunt, which was designed to make these two imbeciles Youtube celebrities.

Predictable “if only we had more gun control” arguments are being made, but fall to pieces if you so much as breathe on them, because people stupid enough to do this are doing other stupid things. If she hadn’t killed him, they’d likely have killed their daughter eventually with carelessly stored household chemicals, matches, etc.

(via)

(via, and he’s got lots more!)

Ask your friend about trigger discipline.

When she gets out of the hospital, her new nickname will be “Lefty”.

Mr. Lion is rightfully angry with the Minnesota dentist whose African trophy hunt recently blew up in his face.

It’s possible he’s not a willing criminal, if he really did get all his permits and relied on his well-paid “professionals” to keep him legal. It’s definite that he’s not, as his statement claims, a responsible hunter. Jacklighting for leopards with a crossbow and shooting at a lion that takes the bait is not the act of a “responsible hunter”, especially when it leaves one of Ma Nature’s best killers pissed-off and on the loose for 40 hours.

Setting aside the issue of whether luring an animal to your position and blasting it with spotlights counts as “hunting”, if you’re using a single-shot weapon, you have a responsibility to get a clean kill. Especially at night. Especially large carnivores. If you can’t guarantee that, don’t take the shot.

Not that it matters now, since Cecil is dead, the mob has destroyed Our Villain’s business, and his money is going to be spent on lawyers instead of trophies for quite a while.

I’ve never really understood the trophy-hunter mentality. I’ve read Capstick and Cooper, I’ve known plenty of folks who hunt for meat, and I’ve considered a guided boar hunt to do my part in California Pest Control and fill the freezer with sausage, but trophies? What are you really celebrating, if the animal didn’t have a decent chance of taking you home?

The usual claim is that if someone (particularly a woman) tries to use a gun in self-defense, it will just be taken away and used against them by the bad guy.

Well, this well-equipped serial killer is now in the morgue because his latest victim fought back, hitting him with a rake (? details have changed in a few stories) until he dropped his gun, and then shooting him with it. She didn’t need months of professional training and a government-issued license, “I just grabbed the gun and shot behind me.”

The wild cheering you hear might be coming from my house.

The latest in Kickstarter fantasies is GunDetect, a home-monitoring gadget that promises to use computer vision to detect the presence of armed intruders.

$20 says they never ship a working product. $100 says that if they do, they’ll refuse liability for any customer who actually has an undetected “incident”.