Head shot: In which I take a conspiracy nut to school

I hope readers will forgive a small side trip away from real politics, but the exchange I just had with a hate-mail author may be of sufficient general interest to warrant a post of its own. Normally I delete hate mail after scanning the opening words (one whiff usually suffices) but this case was an exception.

Be forewarned: Our subject today is grim.

Call my correspondent Mr. Anonymous Crank, since he provides no better name. He took offense at a short piece published a couple of days ago -- a piece on Gary Webb, the troubled investigative reporter who took his life some years ago. Here, in pertinent part, are the words of Mr. Crank (I excise the incomprehensible coda):

Webb then took out his father’s pistol and shot himself in the head. The first shot was not lethal, so he fired once more.

I can see it all right now. The concussion of that first shot was inconsequential and he was sort of non plussed, so he simply dd it again? What a heroic act indeed and nearly impossible to believe so why do you? Is it because you have no "support" from the "progressive" community?

Has it ever occurred to you that you are "regressive"? If not, let me be the first to educate and inform. You are such a nobody in the forward looking population that you will go down, down down, as a footnote within a footnote within a toenote. And a filthy toe at that so "get over it!

And he "typed" a letter to his x wife and kids. Not!

Normally, an attack by an anonymous illiterate is unworthy of response. But in this case, the exchange gives us an excuse to discuss the truth about suicide by gunshot.

A surprising number of self-inflicted head wounds are NOT immediately fatal -- and yes, a second shot will sometimes occur. Not in the majority of cases, but not infrequently. The Webb case would be suspicious if it were unprecedented; it is not.

Some years ago, my ex- had a good friend who was, I am sorry to report, an ear-witness to such a tragedy. This lady (the friend of my ex-) listened on the telephone while her husband (in another city) shot himself in the head. He was a troubled man who had failed in business; the final failed transaction was, as I recall, an absurd and trivial matter. Frankly, I was angry at him for forcing his wife to listen while he committed the act. I still recall the funeral well; what does one say to the widow under such circumstances?

In that case, there was not a second shot. But I can assure you -- having heard the facts of the matter directly from one who knows -- that death was gruesomely far from instantaneous. If you are ever in that unfortunate lady's position, you can expect to hear a sound like a burst water faucet. Plus a lot of screaming and perhaps even a few half-formed words. You will wish that such things were momentary.

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that a head shot is instant and painless. Sorry, but there ain't no easy way out of here.

In a study here, 6.1% of gunshot-to-the-head suicides had multiple entries and exits.

There have even been cases of people who have shot themselves in the head twice using the same livestock stunners seen in No Country for Old Men.

I'm not persuaded that an assassin would shoot someone in the head twice except under extreme circumstances, such as fear of discovery. A suicide victim has a motive to end the pain as soon as possible -- from his point of view, his final thirty seconds can seem like an eternity. But an assassin would want the matter done quickly and cleanly. I've read that pros working at close range usually fire toward the back of the skull, firing somewhat upward toward the cerebral cortex. A shot like that is as close to instant death as human engineering can achieve. Of course, for obvious reasons, someone trying to fake suicide would not fire from that angle. But it seems to me that such an assassin would also hesitate to fire twice. Why raise suspicion?

It sickens me when paranoia junkies claim to have a special expertise on the Webb case, as though the word of an Anonymous Crank should overrule that of the Webb family or his friends and colleagues. The man was known to be depressed. He had suffered professional setbacks far more debilitating than those experienced by that failed businessman whose funeral I attended. Those are the facts of the matter, whether or not anyone chooses to believe them.

About myself: I have no idea (and certainly no illusions) as to my own importance in the grand scheme of things. At this point I don't much care. Every one of my critics seems to be under the impression that all bloggers are desperate for glory and fame, and are thus engaged in a nonstop game of king-of-the-hill. The accusation is silly; writers write for many reasons. I write to write, not to be read.

The truth is simple: I discourage links to this site (even on PUMA-friendly pages), I demanded that sites like Raw Story and HinesSite de-list me (against their protest), I have turned down offers to write for pay, I have turned down offers to appear on the radio, I have turned down offers to lecture, I do not attend parties given by bloggers, and I have cut off all social links to all other writers -- indeed, I have deliberately gone out of my way to piss off everyone who has ever tried to befriend me.

Anyone determined to become a proverbial big fish in the blog-pond would take a very different attitude.

I spurned the progressive community even in the days when that community courted my talents. Frankly, I now consider the progressive movement to be worse than unworthy of those talents -- it is a bowl unworthy of my vomit.

People like Mr. Anonymous Crank cannot understand my motives, because the Cranks of the world secretly do covet fame, and they presume that everyone else feels likewise.

Alas, the anonymous cowards who write nasty emails to blogs truly are insignificant. When these anonymous hate-mailers die, their passing will go unnoticed outside the small circle of people who have personally met the deceased. And damn few of them will mourn.