The full logic problem as I heard it is as follows:

"There was a man who walked into a shop. He asked the man behind the counter for a glass of water. The man behind the counter pulled out a gun. The man thanked him, and then left."

Someone answered the following: The man had the hiccups, which is why he wanted a glass of water. The shopkeeper instead pulled out a gun, and scared the man's hiccups away.

Either that answer is illogical, or the question has been modified to nonsense. Let's discuss the answer above: If the man didn't know the bartender would pull out a gun, he would have retreated or said "Hey, hey, chill out" when the bartender did so. This is because from both the question and the answer, they give the assumption that the bartender didn't explain it to him afterward. Therefore, the man wouldn't say thanks and leave as if nothing had happened, because the question gives another assumption that the process happened smoothly and continuously.

If the man knew the bartender was pulling out the gun to help with the man's hiccups, then the man would not be scared. Then, of course, the problem wouldn't be solved and he would not give his thanks. Also, when the man asked for a cup of water, the time between the request and when the received the water may not be enough for the man to actually have a hiccup.

Therefore, without telling, how did the bartender know his problem? If the man told the bartender/had a hiccup during the request, again, the man wouldn't thank him and leave as if nothing had happened; he didn't know the bartender would pull out a gun.

Moreover, someone argued the man realized that his hiccups were gone, he was grateful, no longer needed a drink of water, thanked the bartender and left. I highly doubt it! After a normal person was frightened (assuming the bartender didn't explain it to him), his mind must be mixing up by a lot of things, or at least not calm. Therefore, that PETTY thing would not come to his mind right after.

See, this is why I hate these kinds of questions - lacking details, causing confusion, illogical in a way. Some idiots think that would make the question harder by hiding the details, but then it turned out to be a stupid, illogical question.

in conclusion, I'm just analyzing it in details and in a logical way. However, this question should not even exist due to its extreme impossibility. In real life, who, as a bartender would pull out a gun to cure hiccups? in a public place? These kind of abnormal, ridiculous matters will only appear in criminology and rarely in real life.

OR

the bartender didnt want the guy drinking his water, so he pulled his shotgun -Shotgun ; the gun used when pouring shots, not a real gun- out for the guy to GTFO. This then scared the man out of his hiccups, he then realized this, said thanks, and left before the guy shot him.

Because he had the hiccups and he wanted the water to cure the hiccups but the bartender scared him and cured the hiccups

The man had the hiccups. So he asked for water. The bartender instead scares the hiccups out by pointing the gun at him. The man thanked him and left.

The Man had Hiccups.

It is simpler, he pointed at the glass of water with his shotgun, not at the man!

...............is it a water gun thingy majigy

Technically the hiccups are really synchronous diaphragmatic flutters or also known as singultus. an involuntary contraction (myoclonic jerk) of the diaphragm that may repeat several times per minute.

Just thought you'd like to know...