The narrator keeps a revolver in his store. When he married the girl and she began working in the shop, he introduced her to the gun. This reflects the narrator’s willingness to integrate his new wife into his life. She had to learn everything about him, he believed, including the use of a gun. Not only did he tell her about the gun, but he also made her practice with the weapon until she was at least familiar with how it worked.

The narrator introduces the gun casually into the story, representing his familiarity with the weapon. He doesn’t mention owning the gun until he describes himself standing outside the room in which his wife was meeting with Yefimovich. To the narrator, the presence of the gun is unremarkable, even expected. As a former military man, he is familiar with the constant presence of weapons in his life. A revolver is a natural choice in terms of security, he explains, and he much prefers the gun to keeping a dog. 

When the narrator burst into the room, brandishing the pistol and interrupting the secret meeting between Yefimovich and his wife, he showed the extent to which he interprets the world differently than other people. The gun may not shock or surprise him, but the girl and Yefimovich were both taken aback. Yefimovich leaped to his feet at the dramatic entrance; the sight of the armed narrator was not unremarkable to Yefimovich, a former military man himself. The casual way in which the narrator introduces the gun to the narrative, wielding it in a tense moment and presuming that his wife should become proficient in its use, reflects his singularity. He simply does not operate according to societal norms, which is evident in the way he treats his gun. 

That night, the girl placed the gun to his temple. This represents his failure to grasp the consequences of his actions. He didn’t truly understand his wife or her character, yet he brought her into his home, familiarized her with the revolver, and caused a dramatic and embarrassing scene with Yefimovich. He failed to grasp that his wife may be upset with him or that she may respond by taking up the gun. He failed to see her as an independent being.

When the narrator opened his eyes to find his wife gone, he saw it as a victory. He believed that he demonstrated that he “had seen everything, knew everything, and was awaiting death from her in silence” (83). To the narrator, this was a demonstration of his courage and resolve. He believed that he had stared down his wife and, in doing so, asserted his agency and his domination over her, responding with calm resolve. 

The narrator never thinks to question whether his interpretation is correct or shared by anyone else. This illustrates his alienation, in which he cannot comprehend that other people experience the world differently from him. His inability to empathize with or understand his wife is shown in his refusal to countenance her reaction.