Teen Takes His Last Selfie Ever

z1ggy

Lifer
May 17, 2008
10,010
66
91
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/teen-accidentally-shoots-himself-while-taking-a-128206482252.html

Already had 2 kids by age 19, I'm sure he was a real gem in society, too. Darwin award winner for sure.

A teenager trying to take a risky selfie died Tuesday after he accidentally shot himself.

The 19-year-old victim, who has not been named in the press, was attempting to take a selfie while holding a gun to his head when the weapon fired, according to USA Today. Though his uncle ran into the home and tried to revive him, the victim died immediately. He had two daughters, and his family insists he was not suicidal. “All indications are this is an accident,” the Houston Police Department, which is investigating the incident, told USA Today.

The tragedy highlights many teenagers’ difficulty exercising impulse control, says teen behavior expert Josh Shipp. “The prefrontal cortex, sometimes referred to as the executive functioning part of the brain, controls reasoning and helps us think before we act, and that part is changing and maturing well into adulthood,” Shipp tells Yahoo Parenting. “So teens are more likely to take risk and act on impulse.”

Shipp says parents can help train their kids to work on reasoning and thinking before they act. “What parents usually do, which is understandable because they love and want to protect their kids, is lecture. We lecture because we care and we want to prevent things like this, or even things far less severe, from happening. We don’t want to see our kids hurt,” he says. “But impulse is like a muscle that needs training, and just as you can’t lecture your bicep to make it stronger, it won’t work here, either. The equivalent of muscle training for impulse control is not telling your kid what to think and instead teaching them how to think.”


Parents should focus on asking questions that will encourage critical thinking, Shipp says. “When they do something foolish, which they inevitably will because they’re human, instead of saying, ‘I cant believe you did that,’ ask questions like, ‘I know you’re not stupid, so what made you think that was a good idea? How did that turn out? What will you do differently next time?’”

It won’t work overnight, which Shipp acknowledges can be frustrating for a parent, but by engaging in these types of conversations on an ongoing basis, teens will slowly get more skilled at making smart decisions. Parents can also use news events as teachable moments, he says. “Try, ‘Hey, did you hear about what this celebrity did? Why do you think they did that? If you were in that situation, or if your friend was, what would you advise them?’ Then your teen will either say something smart and you’ll say, ‘Thank God,’ or they’ll say something that startles you and you’ll realize they still don’t get it and you need to address it as soon as possible,” Shipp says.

These kinds of conversations are vital in order to avoid potentially dangerous situations like the one this 19-year-old victim found himself in, Shipp explains. “One day your teen will have to make a critical decision, like whether or not to get in the car with someone who’s been drinking, and you will not be there,” he says. “If you have not trained them to think critically, it’s likely they won’t make a good decision.”

Could go on and on about gun safety yadda yadda, but honestly this is just a derp who had a gun. Really no way to control that. Just glad he only took himself out.
 
Last edited:

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Darwin Award winner for sure. Already had 2 kids by age 19...

Not sure why this is so hard to understand. If you have surviving offspring, you can't qualify for a Darwin Award.

[edit]
This is incorrect.

http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/rules1.html

The existence of offspring, though potentially deleterious to the gene pool, does not disqualify a nominee. Children inherit only half of each parent's genetic material and thus have their own chance to survive or snuff themselves. If, for instance, the offspring has inherited the "Play With Combustibles" gene, but also has inherited the "Use Caution When..." gene, then she is a potential innovator and asset to the human race. Therefore, each nominee is judged based on whether or not she has removed her own genes, without consideration to the number of offspring or, in the case of an elderly winner, the likelihood of producing more offspring.

In any case, these are complicated questions. And (when this was written in the 1900's) it would take a team of researchers to ferret out the actual reproductive status or potential of the nominee--a luxury Ms. Darwin of the Darwin Awards lacks--therefore, if she no longer has the physical wherewithal to breed with a mate on a desert isle, then she is eligible for a Darwin Award.

Jerome B. Martin notes:
"The purpose of Darwin Awards is to applaud victims for removing their genes from the gene pool. This act can have varying degrees of merit, depending upon whether the victim has procreated, and if so, how frequently. Removing ones genes from the pool clearly has less merit if the genes have already been passed on to several offspring, unless you can rely on the offspring to also find creative ways of eliminating their genes before they reproduce. Thus, a weighting factor should be applied to the criteria, giving maximum benefit to a victim who has never procreated, decreasing as the number of offspring increases."

Darwin replies, "I agree with your assessment in principle, Jerome, but argue that it is impossible for a mortal, non-omniscient, to weight such factors in the Darwin Awards."

[Advanced discussion of Offspring]
What if a Darwin Award nominee has reproduced?

Is a nominee automatically disqualified if he has offspring? Since genetic and environmental factors both play a role in determining our choices and behaviors, we will need to discuss each as a source of potential Darwin Award candidates, then attempt to answer the question posed above.

A concrete example will help illuminate the discussion. Imagine the sole reason a man wins a Darwin Award is because he has the hypothetical Explosive Stupidity gene, a gene that causes him to ignore the potential downside of playing with bombs. The man who possesses this imaginary gene tends to minimize potential dangers by rationalizing that he is "good with explosives" and will not be harmed. No matter how many hours of film footage he sees showing flying body parts, and no matter how many friends he knows who were injured in explosions, he will never be convinced that he is anything but "good with explosives" and beyond harm's reach. So one day he blows himself up playing Russian roulette with a land mine, like the three fellows you'll read about in "Fatal Footsie" (page 186), and his son is left to bury the ashes.

The Explosive Stupidity son inherited half of his father's genes and half of his mother's. The son can be thankful that he has only a fifty percent chance of possessing Dad's fatal Explosive Stupidity gene. Since children have a good chance of not carrying a particular parental gene, the presence of offspring will not disqualify the Explosive Stupidity man from winning a Darwin Award.

Genetic contributions, however, are only part of the story. Our environment also plays a role in risk-taking behavior. This dichotomy is known as the "nature vs. nurture" controversy, and professors regularly air competing opinions on the subject. Let's see how environmental factors might figure into a Darwin Award.

If a child's father has the Explosive Stupidity gene, he will learn from his father that it is okay to play with explosives. Even if the child lacks the Explosive Stupidity gene himself, he will be more likely to win a Darwin because he's conditioned to feel omnipotent around explosives. As long as the father is around to encourage risky behavior, the son's social environment makes it more likely that he will take the same dangerous risks.

But suppose Dad tosses a cigarette into a bucket of TNT like the detectives in military intelligence: "Intelligence Blunders" and blows himself up. In that case it is highly unlikely that any child will follow in his footsteps. The environmental contribution is negated by the act that wins the Darwin Award. Again we are led to the conclusion that men who have reproduced are eligible to win a Darwin Award.

And finally, the child who inherits an unlucky gene will have his own shot at notoriety one day. So the rules do not disqualify nominees who have already reproduced.
 
Last edited:

z1ggy

Lifer
May 17, 2008
10,010
66
91
Not sure why this is so hard to understand. If you have surviving offspring, you can't qualify for a Darwin Award.

Good point. It's still early here. Hopefully his 2 kids aren't as stupid as he is.
 

edro

Lifer
Apr 5, 2002
24,326
68
91
shens

He intentionally killed himself.
A gun cannot accidentally go off while you're holding it to your head.
Only a suicidal person would hold a loaded gun to their head AND put their finger on the trigger.

I don't feel sorry for him at all; I feel sorry for those little girls.
 

clamum

Lifer
Feb 13, 2003
26,256
405
126
It's a bit hard for me to feel sympathy for this kid. I guess I feel bad for his parents. But...

500px-Simpsons-nelson-ha-ha-93-p-672x480.jpg


Kid was obviously never thought fuck all about gun safety, or he wouldn't have done what he did. Although a little common sense always helps too.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,024
1,131
126
Did he actually take the selfie, or was his trigger finger faster than his camera finger?
 

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
shens

He intentionally killed himself.
A gun cannot accidentally go off while you're holding it to your head.
Only a suicidal person would hold a loaded gun to their head AND put their finger on the trigger.

I don't feel sorry for him at all; I feel sorry for those little girls.

Idiots may not realize that they need to ensure the chamber is cleared :confused:
 

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
8
0
Don't be stupid.

I am mocking the jackasses who state "If only they were armed" when a mass shooting or a murder is committed - because that will always solve the problem,.. oh, wait,.. it won't; http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...reates-charlie-hebdo-attack-article-1.2081534

Don't get me wrong, I am all for gun ownership - but claiming if everyone was armed there would be less deaths is a raging moron's argument (thus the mockery / strawman post).

Nonetheless, this person is was an idiot.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
Lot's of people think taking pics of them with their guns is cool. Never really understood that.

I wonder if the wrong finger twitched when trying to take the photo :p
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,070
17,865
136
I am mocking the jackasses who state "If only they were armed" when a mass shooting or a murder is committed - because that will always solve the problem,.. oh, wait,.. it won't; http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...reates-charlie-hebdo-attack-article-1.2081534

Don't get me wrong, I am all for gun ownership - but claiming if everyone was armed there would be less deaths is a raging moron's argument (thus the mockery / strawman post).

Nonetheless, this person is was an idiot.
That got me to thinking, if the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, maybe he was both?
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
Looks like this was clearly a case of...
*puts on sunglasses*
One hand not knowing what the other was doing.

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
 

Jeeebus

Diamond Member
Aug 29, 2006
9,181
901
126
I am mocking the jackasses who state "If only they were armed" when a mass shooting or a murder is committed - because that will always solve the problem,.. oh, wait,.. it won't; http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...reates-charlie-hebdo-attack-article-1.2081534

Don't get me wrong, I am all for gun ownership - but claiming if everyone was armed there would be less deaths is a raging moron's argument (thus the mockery / strawman post).

Nonetheless, this person is was an idiot.

Your sarcasm meter must be broken or you didn't read the remainder of my reply.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,997
126
Not sure why this is so hard to understand. If you have surviving offspring, you can't qualify for a Darwin Award.

You're right, this shouldn't be hard to understand. Which just makes you look that much more stupid for not understanding it.

The only qualification for a Darwin award is to remove yourself from the gene pool by death or sterilization. The fact that he had kids already is of no bearing, he was capable of reproducing more, now he can't, he's eligible.

http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/rules1.html

The existence of offspring, though potentially deleterious to the gene pool, does not disqualify a nominee. Children inherit only half of each parent's genetic material and thus have their own chance to survive or snuff themselves. If, for instance, the offspring has inherited the "Play With Combustibles" gene, but also has inherited the "Use Caution When..." gene, then she is a potential innovator and asset to the human race. Therefore, each nominee is judged based on whether or not she has removed her own genes, without consideration to the number of offspring or, in the case of an elderly winner, the likelihood of producing more offspring.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,070
17,865
136
When did this happen? I was also always under the impression that those who had already reproduced were disqualified.