An unidentified Chicago man, riding a Megabus in Madison, Wisconsin, shot himself in the junk early Wednesday morning. The 21-year-old passenger had a loaded pistola stuffed in the waistband of his pants. While adjusting it, the gun fired he pressed the trigger, perforating his penis and one of his testicles.

His fellow passengers became understandably alarmed by the sound of the early morning gunshot inside the bus. Meanwhile, our marksman hastily retreated to the bus’s bathroom, no doubt in great pain. Minutes later, he emerged and fled the bus despite the driver pleading with him to stay for medical treatment.

Madison police and paramedics arrived and stopped the fleeing bleeder. The po-po also found his pistol in the toilet of the bus.

The Madison State-Journal has the story:

A 21-year-old Chicago man shot himself in the groin early Wednesday morning, while on a commuter bus stopping on the UW-Madison campus en route from Minneapolis to Chicago.

The bizarre shooting incident happened at about 5 a.m. on a Megabus that stopped at its normal bus stop on Langdon Street at Lake Street, Madison police said.

The unidentified victim apparently had a loaded handgun in the waistband of his pants, and the gun fired, sending a bullet through his penis and one testicle, said police spokesman Howard Payne.

Police didn’t say if the bullet was recovered.
Mr. Chicago should have learned the four rules of gun safety (and bought a good holster) before stuffing that gun in his pants. For his careless and imprudent act, we bestow on him the irresponsible gun owner of the day award.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

64 COMMENTS

    • You get the other half of this bozo’s Darwin award. What is with you idiots. So this is an argument for not everyone having a gun. A few more of these idiots walking around and we can kiss our guns good-bye. What is it they say – you can’t fix stupid.

  4. He will now have to learn to play soprano flute, unless he wants to go all the way (he’s already halfway there) and become a spokeswoman for her brotherhood.

  8. Poetic justice.
    Has no one ever heard of trigger safeties?
    Maybe it was a Glock, and he pulled extra hard.

    • All you need to prevent this sort of thing is a holster that fits the gun.

      This ain’t rocket science. But of course, this particular Chicagoan was never a candidate for such a profession.

  11. Ouch…homie don’t play dat. Tardectomy?!?Darwin award nomineešŸ˜œ? No junk won’t make you popular with the ho’s.

    • Define “legal gun”. It is “possession” of said gun that is legal or illegal by jurisdiction. The gun is neutral (or in this case neutering) in the matter.

      He was a gun owner (legal ownership or not) and he was irresponsible with it. He qualifies.

      • If someone dumps his gun in the toilet on a bus, I don’t consider him to be a legal gun owner. Maybe “gun carrier” is more appropriate…

        • In your consideration there is something you are failing to consider. I took great pains to explain the distinction but I don’t think you got it.

          The “gun” itself is not illegal. The gun is just an inanimate thing. It is the “possession” by the irresponsible toilet dumper that is legal or illegal, responsible or irresponsible. The gun had no say in the matter.

          • No, I got it. That’s why I said “gun carrier” was more appropriate. You either own a gun or you possess it. I believe our partially castrated friend on the bus did the latter.

  14. So much for stopping power. Shot in the junk and still moving around.

    I’m glad I’m too fat for appendix carry.

  15. Unidentified? Let me picture him for you, if Obama had a son, he would look just like him. šŸ™‚

  17. “The unidentified idiot apparently had a loadedĀ handgunĀ in the waistband of his pants…”

    FIFY

  21. Ode to Joy. A whacking great bang, and we have another “good guy with a gun (exercising his natural, human, civil and constitutionally protected right to arms). A bugger who puts an entire busload at risk, just because he can. Fortunately, this one was a nitwit, and removed his hope of again being considered a man.

    And still you lot insist the general public must accept the risk that some dolt with a pistol might shoot you dead in public, with a mere “Oops, my bad.”

    • It’s called freedom. Not restricting my rights based on fear of what someone else might do. Ultimately, I can only be responsible for myself and those under my care, which is something you statists will never understand. I can attempt to guide others towards making the right decisions, but I cannot control them. You’d be a lot happier if you would just realize that and stop trying to cram your beliefs down everyone’s throat. I give the same advice to the religious conservatives, but they never listen. I’m sure you won’t either.

      • ‘Itā€™s called freedom.’

        Robbing me of my freedom of passage? Forcing me to be wary that you or someone else will “bust a cap” while adjusting your pants? Forcing me to avoid the mall because someone like you will have an “accident” and injure me? Forcing me to restrict my freedom of movement because you want your deadly toy, regardless of the potential threat you pose innocent bystanders. Robbing my of my freedom for peace of mind that I need to fear “good guys” fiddling with their guns and “accidentally” shooting me?

        You, and yours, cannot deny that if there is no gun present, there will not, cannot, be a negligent discharge. What threat of serious or deadly injury do I pose you while walking about unarmed? I’ve heard from you blokes there are two types of gun owners: those who have had a negligent discharge, and those who will. A bloody bomb waiting to go off. The public is not the threat; gun owners are the threat.

        Next time you learn one of your neighbors plans to attend the cinema with their children, tell them you also will be attending while carrying your gun on your person. And that you plan to sit right behind them. Their reaction will tell you that you are in the dangerous minority.

          • Nope. This is like the third time I have seen names “captured”. Tried it on a different blog, and it is just so easy to takeover someone’s handle. Thought you had to be registered under a single name, but the comments pages apparently do not have a validation capability.

        • Show me the statistics that ND’s are actually dangerous to anyone other than the person carrying the gun and I might give your rant a second read. I have friends carrying around me and in my house all the time. I don’t give it a second thought. I’m certainly not living my life in fear of being shot accidentally by someone at the mall or movie theater.

          And you completely missed my original point, which was some jackass carrying a gun illegally, who has not taken proper precautions, is not a fair example of why millions of law abiding citizens should be stripped of our rights.

          • Not my screed. Third time takeover. Went to another blog, using a one-time email address. I was able to submit a comment using someone else’s online identity. “Handles” apparently are not protected. My comment on that site indicated the comment was likely a takeover of another name.

            • I figured it wasn’t you. Had the tone of one of the paid trolls. Not Cisco Kid though, since his grammar, spelling, and organization of his thoughts are all so atrocious. The hijacker is someone who can actually write.

  23. Darwin award winner. No mention of the presence of an “appendix carry” holster. Could that be the culprit?

Comments are closed.