Sharp as a Marble - So much for inanimate lumps of metal

<< Don't do it Rusty!!! | Home | Why we win >>

PSH

This headline is so full PSH-like fail it's pathetic. No wonder papers are dying off

The Strange Story of the Gun that Murdered McNair

Got that, the gun murdered McNair.

This is the strange story of the gun that killed professional football great Steve McNair.

That the gun found its way into the hands of McNair’s 20-year-old mistress, Sahel Kazemi, is a tale of strange twists and turns and no small amount of misfortune. At any one of those turns, had something happened differently, McNair might still be alive. No one can know.

Or, maybe, had Sahel not pulled the trigger…

Nah, that's not poetic enough for a opinion paper (it's not really news anymore, is it?). Besides, if you can't breathe life into the gun, how could you write such pedantic tripe as this?

The gun was a 9mm and by 2002 it had made its way into a Tenn. pawn shop, where it likely sat under locked glass, flickering fluorescent bulbs shining off its metal skin.

Wow. I wonder if the gun also realized it could kill a famous NFL quarterback then twirled its pencil thin mustache and laughed villainously?

posted @ 7/20/2009 6:38:37 PM

Comments

Linoge says:

on 7/20/2009 8:35:47 PM

At any one of those turns, had something happened differently, McNair might still be alive.

Yeah, because if Kazemi could not buy that exact gun, she obviously would have given up on the whole "murder/suicide" thing!

Oh, wait, that is a gorramed idiotic argument. Flipping nitwit newspaper "reporters".

That piece of gos-se never even strayed into the realm of "news"... The morbidly stylistic writing was just adding insult to injury.

Hypnagogue says:

on 7/20/2009 10:40:20 PM

Grandpa: "Evil! Eviiiiillll!!!"
Marge: "Grandpa, you said that about all the presents."
Grandpa: "I just want attention."

Ken says:

on 7/20/2009 10:44:15 PM

Just think. General Motors could have shut down earlier that day in 1966, and that 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 might have gone to a different dealer. Or it could have been defective and taken off the line. Or maybe a customer could have taken it for a test drive, so that it wouldn't have been sold when it was.

Sadly, these things didn't happen. And thanks to that evil car, Mary Jo Kopechne is now dead.

Anonymous says:

on 7/21/2009 12:56:27 AM

How about a real simple one, DON"T cheat on your wife with 19YO girls and feed them full of lies,

UBU52 says:

on 7/21/2009 3:54:00 AM

Amazing! The readers of Sharp as a Noodle (sorry, but marbles are never sharp) don't understand wordplay?

Sheesh! Will wonders never cease?!!

UBU52 says:

on 7/21/2009 4:09:28 AM

I just read this whole story and I have to be honest: I think people who buy guns should be responsible for whatever happsn to the gun. In other words, if your gun is stolen and used to commit murder, you should also be reponsible for that murder. If you don't want to be responsible, you won't let your gun be stolen.

Gary Kleck, who does all the nifty gun crimes statistics for the NRA, has said that most crime guns are stolen. Obviously, the way to prevent gun crimes would be to crack down on gun owners who allow their weapons to be stolen.

Interesting that this article shows that is is possible to trace guns back a lot farther than I thought.

UBU52 says:

on 7/21/2009 4:30:22 AM

There is nothing in the Second Amendment or in any of the other Amendments that precludes gun registration or ammunition registration. There is also nothing that says you aren't responsible for guns you own or purchase.

Wouldn't we all love to know all the hands the McNair murder weapon passed through?

emdfl says:

on 7/21/2009 5:14:36 AM

And if someone steals your car and kill a few people with it while using it in some other crime, the police should come after you. Ooooookay. And don't forget if your chainsaw is stolen out of your garage and used to break into the house next door, well, there you go.
And you do realize that back when the Second and the rest of the Amendments were being written and debated, individuals owned the equivalent of modern-day warships and artillery pieces?
And by the way, rampant stupidity on display by a dumb journalist(RIK) doesn't excuse that dj from being hammered for its stupidity.

Robb Allen says:

on 7/21/2009 8:07:15 AM

Obviously, the way to prevent gun crimes would be to crack down on gun owners who allow their weapons to be stolen.

I'm praying that's sarcasm because if not, that's a whole truckload of dumb right there.

I know you've been reading me since I've posted several stories about COPS (you know, the magical people you say should be the only ones with guns) having guns stolen left and right.

Blaming the victim for having something stolen is the same as blaming the girl for being raped rather than the rapist.

As for the hands the gun passed through, no - none of it matters. The ONLY thing that matters is the last pair of hands that held it and pulled the trigger. You put a lot of faith in criminals to keep good paper trails of every gun they've had, given away, stolen, etc. Because the instant it's stolen, that trail you seek goes quite cold. Only an idiot would think that by forcing the law abiding to jump through hoops that the criminals would follow suit.

Linoge says:

on 7/21/2009 8:31:14 AM

I think people who buy guns should be responsible for whatever happsn to the gun.

And I think you are full of gos-se. The only person responsible for their actions is the person actually executing the actions in question. If someone steals a firearm of mine, and goes to use it in a crime, I am not responsible for those actions - I am not responsible for the theft, and I am not responsible for the crimes perpetrated by the criminal with what was my firearm.

If a criminal decides to prey on me, that is not my responsibility. If a criminal decides to perpetrate crimes, that is not my responsibility. Furthermore, once a tool I used to own passes out of my possession, I am no longer responsible for it. In a perfect world, we should be able to go to sleep at night with our doors unlocked and our firearms in plain view, and we should be able to wake up to them still there. But the imperfection of this world is also not my responsibility.

Obviously, the way to prevent gun crimes would be to crack down on gun owners who allow their weapons to be stolen.

Obviously, the way to prevent rapes would be to crack down on women who allow themselves to be raped.

Obviously, the way to prevent domestic abuse would be to crack down on domestic partners who allow themselves to be abused.

Obviously, the way to prevent murder would be to crack down on people who allow themselves... well, actually, that one might be a bit hard.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment or in any of the other Amendments that precludes gun registration or ammunition registration.

Apparently, "shall not be infringed" is a difficult phrase to understand. I assume, then, given your opinions concerning the Second Amendment, that you have similar opinions concerning the First: registering methods of expressing yourself would be perfectly fine with you (for example, registering weblogs with the government), and issuing permits for "Free Expression" would likewise be acceptable?

Wouldn't we all love to know all the hands the McNair murder weapon passed through?

Honestly, no, I simply do not care, because it simply does not factor into the situation. It is not like the firearm in question picked up some manner of murderous mentality from its previous owners. It is not like the previous owners in any way affected the outcome of this situation (if the murderer could not have bought that gun, she would have bought another). It is not like the previous owners had any input, control, or responsibility for the situation as it played out. Sorry, but the world simply does not work that way.

The readers of Sharp as a Noodle (sorry, but marbles are never sharp) don't understand wordplay?

Uhm, the sheer irony of this sentence is mind-boggling.

Weer'd Beard says:

on 7/21/2009 8:33:18 AM

Wow Robb, looks like you have a bona-fide troll (Triple posts, strawmen, name calling...I'm sure there's more but I can only be bothered to skim UBU52's insipid posts)

I bet over the last few days you have enough posts for a full-length fisking.

I will take ONE minor issue with you, Robb:
"As for the hands the gun passed through, no - none of it matters. The ONLY thing that matters is the last pair of hands that held it and pulled the trigger."

More-or-less true statement, as the only serious crime is that of murder, and is all in the hands of Ms. Kazemi (and we certainly wouldn't be hearing from the anti-tobacco lobby if she had distilled some cigarettes and mixed some extracted nicotine in his cocktail to commit the murder....or about GM if she had backed over him in an Escalade)

Of course some blame could be shifted if it could be proved she asked for the gun for the expressed purpose of killing her lover. But that's hard to prove.

Still for the gun to get to her multiple federal felonies had to happen dealing with possession and sale of a firearm (which with the exception of some minor quibbles, I think are good laws that do indeed keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people like Ms. Kazemi), and I would like to see all guilty parties brought to justice.

Of course I in no way impart the crime of murder to any but the departed shooter.

Mike W. says:

on 7/21/2009 9:08:54 AM

I'm praying that's sarcasm because if not, that's a whole truckload of dumb right there.

I'll take "truckload of dumb" for 1000.

UBU52 says:

on 7/21/2009 4:36:09 PM

If your car is stolen and used to hit other cars, run over people, etc., the people affected are going to go after YOUR car insurance. You are still responsible for the car even though it is no longer in your control.

Perhaps a better solution would be to have gun insurance for those whose guns are stolen?

dan R says:

on 7/21/2009 6:49:33 PM

"UBU52 says:
on 7/21/2009 4:36:09 PM
If your car is stolen and used to hit other cars, run over people, etc., the people affected are going to go after YOUR car insurance. You are still responsible for the car even though it is no longer in your control.

Perhaps a better solution would be to have gun insurance for those whose guns are stolen? "

Okay....and if someone steals a la,p off my desk and beats someone to death with it and I responsible?What if they steal a stone from my backyard and throw it and it hits someones head?
What if the steal my belt and hang someone?

OR, what if your post enrages me so much that I end up losiong my mind and killing someone. Are you responsible?

Reputo says:

on 7/21/2009 8:59:22 PM

Actually, if your car is stolen and someone goes on a crash binge, and those hit go after your insurance, a smart insurance company would laugh in your face and then send them a nicely worded letter from their lawyers explaining that auto insurance policies are issued to individuals driving a certain vehicle. Most will allow incidental use of your vehicle if you give permission (which usually precludes stolen vehicles), but if you are in an accident in your friend's car, your friend's insurance company may initially pay the claim, but they will most definitely go after your insurance company. Additionally, smart insurance companies include in their policies that there is no coverage if damage is caused during the commission of a crime. Remember, insurance companies goal is to make money, not pay out claims.

Linoge says:

on 7/21/2009 10:56:12 PM

Reputo beat me to it. I am fairly certain all major car insurance policies have a very substantial "commission of crimes" exception.

Please try again. Or, actually, do not - the "shared responsibility" argument is a failed one before it even leaves your fingers.

mike w. says:

on 7/22/2009 1:26:45 PM

I'm sure UBU BELIEVES what he writes, therefore it MUST be true, reality be damned.

If someone steals my computer and uses it to distribute kiddie porn am I responsible? What if they gain access to my wireless network in order to do so? Am I responsible. Of course not.

What the hell is with the aversion to personal responsibility you anti-gun liberals all have?

UBU52 says:

on 7/23/2009 2:47:53 AM

"Additionally, smart insurance companies include in their policies that there is no coverage if damage is caused during the commission of a crime."

This is totally untrue. Say you murder Robb, and while you are trying to escape, you hit me with your car. Your car insurance is going to pay. "Commission of a crime" has nothing to do with it.

Matt says:

on 7/23/2009 11:07:07 AM

UBU: Prove it. I am almost certain that if I asked State Farm if I was in accident fleeing a murder I had just committed in my car, ran over a Girl Scout in the process and would they cover the girl's damages, they'd howl with laughter in my face.

And that's not what is even being talked about. If a criminal steals my car from my driveway, are you seriously telling me my insurance company would be required to pay the claims of every drive-by victim they attack or every innocent person they hit during a police chase? Are you really that dense?

There is no "shared responsibility". I have no collective duty to the community at large to secure my own property in my own home. Why on earth should I be held responsible as the victim of a crime simply because of the type of property stolen? A criminal kills someone with a gun stolen from me that they had to pry out of a safe and cut locks off of and somehow I'm responsible?

Grow up. You are ascribing a sense of responsibility and duty to me that isn't even required of the State! The State and their police forces have NO DUTY WHATSOEVER to protect me as an individual. Numerous court cases confirm this time and time again. Yet, you argue I somehow have a higher duty as an individual to safeguard the community when the State itself is immune from the same?

I don't understand people like you. I just don't.

mike w. says:

on 7/23/2009 11:14:05 AM

If a criminal steals my car from my driveway, are you seriously telling me my insurance company would be required to pay the claims of every drive-by victim they attack or every innocent person they hit during a police chase? Are you really that dense?

Yup, apparently UBU really IS that stupid. Jesus this guy is almost up there with Don Viti and his spoon idiocy.

UBU52 says:

on 7/23/2009 4:59:14 PM

Car insurance doesn't cover drive-bys -- it covers auto accidents.

Try again.

Linoge says:

on 7/23/2009 6:22:05 PM

And yet despite the endless claims, you still provide no proof to support your assertation, UBU.

Please, point out in your friendly neighborhood car insurance policy where it says that your insurance company will pay for actions committed by a criminal who stole your automobile. After all, you are the one making the irrational and illogical claims - back them up, or put up, already.

Robert says:

on 7/23/2009 7:26:09 PM

Guns have skin? Fluorescent flickers on it? What a strange article.

UBU52 says:

on 7/23/2009 9:30:47 PM

Here's a recent Florida case for you. The owner of the car let his friend drive it and his friend hit and killed two people:

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2009/04/ryan_levin_civil_suit_porsche_fort_lauderdale.php

Note this portion: "Even if LeVin wasn't driving, Grossman says that under Florida law, the owner of the vehicle is primarily liable for what happens when it's in someone else's care and that the driver is secondarily liable."

Matt says:

on 7/23/2009 10:06:19 PM

UBU52,

The fact you fail to cite in that case is that the owner loaned the vehicle WILLINGLY. Very different than if a criminal steals your car and uses it in a crime against your will.

That is the best you can come up with?

You still haven't answered my primary question. Why should a gun owner be held responsible when a criminal steals their property without their permission (just so I'm making it clear) and uses it in a crime?

mike w. says:

on 7/23/2009 10:19:22 PM

UBU - That is COMPLETELY different. Are you really that dense? Seriously now? If I willingly loan my car out and the person commits a crime it is not legally or morally the same as if they STEAL my property and then commit a crime.

I swear Robb, some folks just have no capacity for rational, intellectual thought. How they get through life at all amazes me.

Linoge says:

on 7/24/2009 6:44:14 AM

The fact you fail to cite in that case is that the owner loaned the vehicle WILLINGLY. Very different than if a criminal steals your car and uses it in a crime against your will.

Wow. You have some pretty significant problems with misrepresenting reality, UBU - of course, I should have known that, given your anti-rights stance.

Here - let me make this simple for you. Email your car insurance company, and ask them if they would be liable for damages incurred by a criminal after he stole your vehicle without your permission (hence "stole"). Post the response.

Really, now, how hard is that?

emdfl says:

on 7/24/2009 8:36:06 AM

Come on guys cut it some slack. I'm betting that UB's world doesn't interact with reality very often.

Comments have been closed on this topic.