A liberal gun owners cautionary tale about negligent firearm handling and eventual responsibility has been repackaged by a New York Times columnist into yet another sermon against private gun ownership, with key facts quietly stripped away.
Earlier in 2026, a user on the subreddit r/liberalgunowners described how his partner had purchased a Glock pistol for self-defense as the federal government does fascist things in our community, according to the Daily Caller. In a screenshot of the original Reddit post, later shared on X and flagged by BizPacReview, the user recounted a frightening incident at home that began as a misguided attempt at self-protection and nearly ended in disaster.
The poster, who said he was familiar with rifles and shotguns but not handguns, explained that his partner experienced an accidental discharge while practicing loading the Glock and racking the slide. She reportedly gave in to a compulsion to pull the trigger, sending a live round through the wall of the house they shared with several cats.
By sheer grace, no one in the home human or animal was injured when the bullet tore through the wall. Shaken by the near miss, the user said he immediately insisted that his partner never again load the pistol with live ammunition inside the house and that he took custody of the firearm.
Crucially, the Reddit user later posted updates describing how the couple responded to the scare by taking responsibility rather than doubling down on recklessness. The partner, he wrote, began therapy for PTSD and enrolled in a long-overdue professional firearms training course, and she has since visited a shooting range multiple times to learn proper handling and safety.
In other words, the story evolved into exactly what Second Amendment advocates often emphasize: a close call that prompts serious training, respect for the weapon, and a transition toward responsible gun ownership. It is a narrative about learning from mistakes, not proof that ordinary citizens should be disarmed.
That is not how New York Times Ethicist Kwame Anthony Appiah, a philosophy professor at New York University, chose to present it. In his column, he used a truncated version of the Reddit post as the basis for a readers question, omitting the subsequent updates about training, therapy, and range practice omissions that conveniently cleared the way for a familiar anti-gun lecture.
Alongside your partners worrisome compulsion, it would appear, is a perplexing belief system. How, exactly, does she believe that owning a handgun will help her or others in your community fend off the governments actions? Appiah wrote, casting the partners motives as irrational rather than rooted in legitimate concerns about state overreach. You say you want her to retain the security the gun provides, and yet her sense of security comes at a cost to her actual security.
Appiah then pivoted to a broader indictment of civilian gun ownership, invoking a standard progressive talking point about firearms and law enforcement. States with higher household gun ownership have higher rates of fatal law-enforcement shootings, especially of people who were armed with guns, he continued. Packing heat doesnt protect you from state power; it increases your odds of being its victim.
That sweeping claim ignores both history and the American founding, which was premised in part on the idea that an armed citizenry can resist tyranny. One need only recall April 19, 1775, when armed colonists at Lexington and Concord stood up to British regulars, or the subsequent British efforts to seize and destroy firearms in occupied Boston episodes constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook has chronicled in detail to see that Appiahs assertion is far from self-evident.
Rather than acknowledge that the Reddit couple ultimately moved toward responsible gun culture, Appiah recast the partner as the villain simply for buying the Glock in the first place. The ethical problem, in his telling, is not the lack of training or the unsafe handling, but the very presence of a firearm in a private home.
At the very least, the question of whether there should be a gun in a home should be subject to deliberation and consent, not something one party imposes on the other, Appiah wrote, framing the purchase as a unilateral imposition. Your partner ought to provide you with a cogent explanation of why she wants a gun in the first place. The disquiet you feel is justified. Why should her sense of security be maintained at the expense of yours?
There is no question the couple made serious errors before, during, and after the purchase errors that could have ended in tragedy rather than a damaged wall. They are fortunate that only drywall, and not a family member or pet, absorbed the consequences of that compulsion to pull the trigger.
Basic firearms safety rules, widely promoted by gun-rights advocates themselves, make clear that loading and practicing with live ammunition inside a residence is reckless, especially for a novice. Even without prior handgun experience, the user should have recognized that live-fire practice belongs at a range, under controlled conditions, and should have insisted on that from the outset.
A stern reminder about the dangers of accidental discharge and the importance of training is entirely warranted, and many gun owners would offer exactly that counsel. What the facts do not support is Appiahs broader moralizing against the very idea of civilian gun ownership, particularly when he sidesteps the part of the story where the couple takes responsibility and seeks proper instruction.
To be fair, it is not clear whether Appiah ever saw the full Reddit thread, including the later updates, or whether the partial account printed in his column was all he received from editors or readers. Requests for comment have reportedly been sent to Appiah, and any response he offers may shed light on why a story about a liberal gun owner learning hard lessons about safety was transformed into yet another argument for disarming law-abiding Americans.
Login