Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patch)   Sure, he could've made sure the gun was unloaded before cleaning it, but where's the challenge in that?   (barrow.patch.com) divider line 127
    More: Dumbass, accidental discharge, gunshots  
•       •       •

3349 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 10:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



127 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-09 09:18:42 AM  
FFS people. Quit playing with your goddamn guns at home. Buy a farking airsoft if you want to play mall ninja in your living room.
 
2014-01-09 09:20:54 AM  
"Treat every firearm as if it is loaded."  Fairly clear.  Who goes jerking on the trigger without checking the weapon clear?

F'n morons, that's who, just like that state rep from Kentucky yesterday.
 
2014-01-09 09:22:44 AM  
American people problems.
 
2014-01-09 09:31:15 AM  
But no, we shouldn't have a conversation about who should and should not be owning guns in this country.
 
2014-01-09 09:53:18 AM  

factoryconnection: "Treat every firearm as if it is loaded."  Fairly clear.  Who goes jerking on the trigger without checking the weapon clear?

F'n morons, that's who, just like that state rep from Kentucky yesterday.


More to the point, how do clean a gun without unloading it first?

/like drewogatory pointed out above, "cleaning" in this case is code for "playing"
 
2014-01-09 09:55:33 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: But no, we shouldn't have a conversation about who should and should not be owning guns in this country.


Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.
 
2014-01-09 10:05:06 AM  

drewogatory: cameroncrazy1984: But no, we shouldn't have a conversation about who should and should not be owning guns in this country.

Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.


reckless discharge of a firearm is usually a felony, as long as people are being prosecuted for this shiat it's a more or less self-correcting problem.
 
2014-01-09 10:08:17 AM  
and religious zealots say Darwin was wrong

/claim your award
 
2014-01-09 10:08:19 AM  
I think the moral here is: never, ever clean a gun.
 
2014-01-09 10:10:30 AM  
"It went off while I was cleaning it!" is translated to English as "I was waving it around like a dumbass while it was loaded". It's virtually impossible for a gun to go off during cleaning because Step 1 is REMOVE THE GODDAM BULLETS.

/lib
//gun owner
 
2014-01-09 10:11:01 AM  

drewogatory: cameroncrazy1984: But no, we shouldn't have a conversation about who should and should not be owning guns in this country.

Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.


Go dry your shorts. He said, "...have a conversation..."
 
2014-01-09 10:11:54 AM  
Got a neighbor you don't like?

"DON'T WORRY, IT'S NOT LOADED! SEE?"

BANG!

Problem solved and they CAN'T press charges, right?
 
2014-01-09 10:12:33 AM  
" Off the kitchen table...........through a window frame, ...........across two yards .........across the garage .......Through the drywall ......into the neighbor's wall.....nothing but net.

compass.ups.com
 
2014-01-09 10:13:32 AM  

Paul Baumer: "It went off while I was cleaning it!" is translated to English as "I was waving it around like a dumbass while it was loaded". It's virtually impossible for a gun to go off during cleaning because Step 1 is REMOVE THE GODDAM BULLETS.

/lib
//gun owner


you'd be surprised how many people forget the first step

/let alone those who think there aren't any rules to follow with guns
 
2014-01-09 10:14:12 AM  
It's impossible for a firearm to go off while cleaning it.
It can go off when you're beginning to take it down for cleaning and don't clear the chamber.
It can go off when you're wiping it down and don't clear the chamber.
It can go off when you're monkeying around with it, and don't clear the chamber.
There is no firearm in existence, however, that can be cleaned with a round still in the chamber.
 
2014-01-09 10:14:33 AM  
Not a gun owner. It sounds like it was a pretty powerful round, no? What kind of ammo, do you think?
 
2014-01-09 10:15:21 AM  
It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.
 
2014-01-09 10:15:36 AM  
through an interior wall, exterior siding and lodged in another exterior wall.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why birdshot and a shotgun are the ideal home defense firearm set up, and NOT a hi powered pistol round or an assault weapon like an AR-15 or AK-47. If you managed to fark up your life so badly that you need a firearm in the home to defend yourself, THIS is what you should have.

images.tribe.net

Hope we're all crystal clear on that by now.

.
 
2014-01-09 10:16:02 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: But no, we shouldn't have a conversation about who should and should not be owning guns in this country.


Sure.  Everyone should be owning guns.
 
2014-01-09 10:16:05 AM  

drewogatory: Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.


Question I've never gotten a good answer for:  If, hypothetically, the second amendment was never included in the bill of rights and American gun fetishism didn't exist, what argument would you make in the year 2014 that we should pass a gun rights amendment now?

Less hypothetical version: Tell me why England (for example) should change its ways and make guns much more easily available.  Optionally: Explain why no one in England is trying to do this right now.


And if you can't answer that question, then explain how "b..b..but second amendment" is different from any other group of zealots imposing their dangerous behavior on the world around them just because their sacred text of choice tells them they can.
 
2014-01-09 10:16:07 AM  

Schmerd1948: Not a gun owner. It sounds like it was a pretty powerful round, no? What kind of ammo, do you think?


Take your pick. http://www.theboxotruth.com/
 
2014-01-09 10:18:00 AM  

drewogatory: Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.


And yet we remove other rights all the time when people break the law.

I assume you're fine, of course, with this map receiving a hefty jail sentence?
 
2014-01-09 10:23:27 AM  

dookdookdook: drewogatory: Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.

Question I've never gotten a good answer for:  If, hypothetically, the second amendment was never included in the bill of rights and American gun fetishism didn't exist, what argument would you make in the year 2014 that we should pass a gun rights amendment now?

Less hypothetical version: Tell me why England (for example) should change its ways and make guns much more easily available.  Optionally: Explain why no one in England is trying to do this right now.


And if you can't answer that question, then explain how "b..b..but second amendment" is different from any other group of zealots imposing their dangerous behavior on the world around them just because their sacred text of choice tells them they can.


Both those questions are irrelevant. The fact is, the constitution is and has been the law of the land since the founding. And there is a provision to change it if you don't like it. Otherwise quit infringing on ANY part of it.
 
2014-01-09 10:23:57 AM  
Should be a law that says that all registered gun owners should take a gun safety /range safety class. Seriously. He was probably playing with it loaded, not cleaning it. Moran.
 
2014-01-09 10:24:28 AM  

Schmerd1948: Not a gun owner. It sounds like it was a pretty powerful round, no? What kind of ammo, do you think?


You'd be surprised what a bullet goes through. Check out youtube, I saw a video the other day of guys doing penetration tests on steel plate. Despite what ever movie ever has shown with guys hiding behind car doors or refrigerators made of sheet metal, regular old rifle ammo goes right though half-inch steel plate with no problem at all.

Even handguns go through quite a bit.

http://youtu.be/h3XNWU8xaxk
 
2014-01-09 10:26:45 AM  
Yet another in a long string of isolated incidents.

And I'm sure this type of thing is always reported and the perpetrators properly punished.
 
2014-01-09 10:28:12 AM  

dookdookdook: drewogatory: Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.

Question I've never gotten a good answer for:  If, hypothetically, the second amendment was never included in the bill of rights and American gun fetishism didn't exist, what argument would you make in the year 2014 that we should pass a gun rights amendment now?

Less hypothetical version: Tell me why England (for example) should change its ways and make guns much more easily available.  Optionally: Explain why no one in England is trying to do this right now.


And if you can't answer that question, then explain how "b..b..but second amendment" is different from any other group of zealots imposing their dangerous behavior on the world around them just because their sacred text of choice tells them they can.


in many areas of the US hunting is essential for controlling the population of pest species like deer.
 
2014-01-09 10:28:58 AM  

Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.


accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.
 
2014-01-09 10:29:01 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Got a neighbor you don't like?

"DON'T WORRY, IT'S NOT LOADED! SEE?"

BANG!

Problem solved and they CAN'T press charges, right?


Wrong. But you go ahead and try it. Let us know how it works out for you.
 
2014-01-09 10:30:42 AM  
I think the easiest tell of if a person should have a gun or not is if they get mad dog frothing at the mouth upset if you say they shouldn't have one.
 
2014-01-09 10:31:46 AM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.


neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
adjective: negligent
1
.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
 IE, "Cleaning" a firearm without checking if it's loaded first.
 
2014-01-09 10:32:29 AM  
Schmerd1948


Not a gun owner. It sounds like ...
you know nothing about firearms
 
2014-01-09 10:33:33 AM  

drewogatory: Both those questions are irrelevant. The fact is, the constitution is and has been the law of the land since the founding. And there is a provision to change it if you don't like it. Otherwise quit infringing on ANY part of it.


So because the BibleQuranConstitution says so; no rational justification necessary.  Got it.
 
2014-01-09 10:35:41 AM  

AgentPothead: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.

neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
adjective: negligent
1.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
 IE, "Cleaning" a firearm without checking if it's loaded first.


St

AgentPothead: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.

neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
adjective: negligent
1.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
 IE, "Cleaning" a firearm without checking if it's loaded first.


It's still accidental.
Why do gun people have a problem with that word, accident?
Traffic accidents, OK.
Falling accidents, OK.
Any sort of accident, except involving a gun, is OK.
 
2014-01-09 10:35:49 AM  

ChaosStar: There is no firearm in existence, however, that can be cleaned with a round still in the chamber.


Well, just to be pedantic, you could I suppose:
i660.photobucket.com

But you'll miss a few spots during the cleaning.
 
2014-01-09 10:35:55 AM  

willfullyobscure: through an interior wall, exterior siding and lodged in another exterior wall.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why birdshot and a shotgun are the ideal home defense firearm set up, and NOT a hi powered pistol round or an assault weapon like an AR-15 or AK-47. If you managed to fark up your life so badly that you need a firearm in the home to defend yourself, THIS is what you should have.

[images.tribe.net image 640x480]

Hope we're all crystal clear on that by now.

.


Well, just in case of the Zombie Apocalypse, I'm aiming to get my hands on this one...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-09 10:37:01 AM  

Schmerd1948: Not a gun owner. It sounds like it was a pretty powerful round, no? What kind of ammo, do you think?


Eh, ricochets can do some weird stuff.  But yeah, the fact that it then went through the window frame and subsequent siding...probably a peppy round like a 9mm full metal jacket, which has a tendency to penetrate rather than hit-and-expand (thus stopping).
 
2014-01-09 10:37:16 AM  

AgentPothead: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.

neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
adjective: negligent
1.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
 IE, "Cleaning" a firearm without checking if it's loaded first.


accidental is not a term of legal significance.  negligence, on the other hand, is a term of art (meaning, it has a specific legal definition, regardless of what a normal lexicon might suggest)

when discussing a potential legal liability, it's more appropriate to use the legal term than the lay term.  regardless if the lay term would also satisfactorily describe the event.

while "negligence" is the more appropriate word in the context, that does not mean "accidental" is incorrect.  the terms are not mutually exclusive.
 
2014-01-09 10:37:43 AM  

drewogatory: cameroncrazy1984: But no, we shouldn't have a conversation about who should and should not be owning guns in this country.

Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.


Kids under 10 can't.  Felons can't.  We already decide.
 
2014-01-09 10:38:33 AM  

dookdookdook: drewogatory: Both those questions are irrelevant. The fact is, the constitution is and has been the law of the land since the founding. And there is a provision to change it if you don't like it. Otherwise quit infringing on ANY part of it.

So because the BibleQuranConstitution says so; no rational justification necessary.  Got it.


Because it's an intrinsic right no justification is necessary.

Also, the rest of you stop thinking that the Constitution gives you rights.  You have these rights regardless of what a piece of paper says.  Get that through your thick skulls and maybe we can stop this country from completely devolving into a totalitarian police state.
 
2014-01-09 10:39:21 AM  

mod3072: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Got a neighbor you don't like?

"DON'T WORRY, IT'S NOT LOADED! SEE?"

BANG!

Problem solved and they CAN'T press charges, right?

Wrong. But you go ahead and try it. Let us know how it works out for you.


Someone's been charged under those circumstances?
 
2014-01-09 10:39:58 AM  

willfullyobscure: through an interior wall, exterior siding and lodged in another exterior wall.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why birdshot and a shotgun are the ideal home defense firearm set up, and NOT a hi powered pistol round or an assault weapon like an AR-15 or AK-47. If you managed to fark up your life so badly that you need a firearm in the home to defend yourself, THIS is what you should have.

[images.tribe.net image 640x480]

Hope we're all crystal clear on that by now.

.

Hey, you know what's easier to control, especially for smaller-framed people?  An AR-15 or AK-47.  Birdshot is great with the ideal of stopping over-penetration, but you can also get good 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm that fragments and stops pretty quickly.

Besides, why the extra rounds?  After all, all you have to do is go out on your porch and shoot two shots into the air; that'll drive off those home invaders!
 
2014-01-09 10:41:34 AM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: Traffic accidents, OK.


most car accidents aren't. My experience is that they're usually caused by gross negligence on the part of one or more of the parties involved.

/sure I was texting and speeding and I forgot to turn on my headlights and it was raining and foggy and I was arguing with my passenger and I drifted onto the hard shoulder but the accident was totally something that just happened, act of god, no way I could have prevented it.
 
2014-01-09 10:42:10 AM  

pute kisses like a man: AgentPothead: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.

neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
adjective: negligent
1.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
 IE, "Cleaning" a firearm without checking if it's loaded first.

accidental is not a term of legal significance.  negligence, on the other hand, is a term of art (meaning, it has a specific legal definition, regardless of what a normal lexicon might suggest)

when discussing a potential legal liability, it's more appropriate to use the legal term than the lay term.  regardless if the lay term would also satisfactorily describe the event.

while "negligence" is the more appropriate word in the context, that does not mean "accidental" is incorrect.  the terms are not mutually exclusive.


I understand all of that, which is why I linked the definition of the word negligent. I never said that the word accidental was incorrect.
 
2014-01-09 10:42:53 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Inflatable Rhetoric: Traffic accidents, OK.

most car accidents aren't. My experience is that they're usually caused by gross negligence on the part of one or more of the parties involved.

/sure I was texting and speeding and I forgot to turn on my headlights and it was raining and foggy and I was arguing with my passenger and I drifted onto the hard shoulder but the accident was totally something that just happened, act of god, no way I could have prevented it.


It still fits the definition of accident.
 
2014-01-09 10:45:21 AM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: Voiceofreason01: Inflatable Rhetoric: Traffic accidents, OK.

most car accidents aren't. My experience is that they're usually caused by gross negligence on the part of one or more of the parties involved.

/sure I was texting and speeding and I forgot to turn on my headlights and it was raining and foggy and I was arguing with my passenger and I drifted onto the hard shoulder but the accident was totally something that just happened, act of god, no way I could have prevented it.

It still fits the definition of accident.


pedantic and you missed the joke. :-(
 
2014-01-09 10:46:06 AM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: AgentPothead: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.

neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
adjective: negligent
1.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
 IE, "Cleaning" a firearm without checking if it's loaded first.

StAgentPothead: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.

neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
adjective: negligent
1.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
 IE, "Cleaning" a firearm without checking if it's loaded first.

It's still accidental.
Why do gun people have a problem with that word, accident?
Traffic accidents, OK.
Falling accidents, OK.
Any sort of accident, except involving a gun, is OK.


I don't have a problem with the word accident, I was pointing out the word negligent much better defines the case in hand. All gun owners are taught how to responsibly use their firearms. If somebody tries and reload their gun without checking if it's chambered, that's negligence not an accident. If they fire the gun in the house, that's negligence not an accident. The only way to fire a gun is to remove the safety and to have it loaded, both things you are taught not to do until you are ready to fire. I love accidents. That hole in the condom that made me? Awesome accident. Mishandling a firearm is negligence.
 
2014-01-09 10:46:24 AM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: Why do gun people have a problem with that word, accident?


It really depends on how you want to look at it. If you're driving drunk and crash should it really be considered an accident?

The word "accident" typically implies that there was some lack of foreseeability involved in the outcome. Like getting blitzed and going for a joyride, cleaning a gun with a round chambered has entirely foreseeable and obvious consequences and suffering those consequences requires that you ignore them almost entirely and act with a willful disregard for yourself, your property and the safety and property of people around you.

I think it's VERY useful to disabuse people of the notion that these sorts of incidents are accidents. The gun fanatics always want to screech about responsibility. The constant stories of those same people cleaning guns with live rounds in them, leaving the guns within the reach of children, and just generally being willfully negligent are reduced in their severity if they're treated as accidents instead of what they should be: negligent criminal acts.

It's not an accident. It's proof that the argument of implicit responsibility in gun ownership is largely bullshiat and that these people cannot be trusted to be responsible with their firearms without the threat of serious and irrevocable consequences hanging over them.

These aren't accidents, they're willful acts that put other people in danger, they should be prosecuted as such, and they should result in a permanent ban on firearm ownership for the people who commit them upon conviction.

/ same goes for drunk drivers and their licenses
 
2014-01-09 10:48:00 AM  
You need to make your suicide look like an accident so your family can collect the insurance policy. Cleaning your gun is a good solution.
 
2014-01-09 10:49:18 AM  
I had a co-worker put a hole though his hand while cleaning his gun once. He though it was empty, had the barrel against his palm, pulled the trigger.... Lucky for him he didn't completely destroy the ligaments in his hand and he was able to have it repaired.
 
2014-01-09 10:51:58 AM  

Molavian: Because it's an intrinsic right no justification is necessary.


So if the right to guns exists independent of the constitution, do I also have an "intrinsic right" to own a trailer full of meth or a tiger or fissionable uranium or a car that will explode if it ever drops below 80 mph?  Why are guns special?  Is there some branch of philosophy that deals with the intrinsic morality of different weapons?

Jesus couldn't possibly have endorsed them, unless we're talking about Mormon Jesus.  Did the Virgin Mary appear in Thomas Jefferson's Cheerios and tell him that guns were just awesome and everyone should have one?
 
2014-01-09 10:53:24 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: mod3072: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Got a neighbor you don't like?

"DON'T WORRY, IT'S NOT LOADED! SEE?"

BANG!

Problem solved and they CAN'T press charges, right?

Wrong. But you go ahead and try it. Let us know how it works out for you.

Someone's been charged under those circumstances?


For "accidentally" shooting another person? Are you serious? Here is one example that took me almost 5 seconds to find and that fits your scenario almost perfectly. Do you want me to link to 1,000 more similar stories, or are you going to admit that you're either trolling or have no clue how the law works?

http://www.kltv.com/story/16159209/charges-filed-in-accidental-shoot in g-near-ut-tyler
 
2014-01-09 10:53:39 AM  

AgentPothead: All gun owners are taught how to responsibly use their firearms.


Would that this were both true and statutory.  Regrettably it is neither.
 
2014-01-09 10:53:42 AM  

ToastmasterGeneral: drewogatory: cameroncrazy1984: But no, we shouldn't have a conversation about who should and should not be owning guns in this country.

Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.

Kids under 10 can't.  Felons can't.  We already decide.


Wrongly. Not even getting into the farce that is criminal justice in this country, the constitution clearly states the government has no power to restrict gun ownership. Their attempts to do so are clearly infringement.
 
2014-01-09 10:54:22 AM  

dookdookdook: do I also have an "intrinsic right" to own a trailer full of meth or a tiger or fissionable uranium or a car that will explode if it ever drops below 80 mph?


I'll take what is reductio ad absurdum for $500, Alex.
 
2014-01-09 10:55:29 AM  

Paul Baumer: AgentPothead: All gun owners are taught how to responsibly use their firearms.

Would that this were both true and statutory.  Regrettably it is neither.


Yeah, if it was true we wouldn't have stories like this. I like to hope.
 
2014-01-09 10:57:33 AM  

drewogatory: Their attempts to do so are clearly infringement.


So how is it that some level of restriction has continually passed Supreme Court muster?  Have they all just been getting it wrong for 200 years?
 
2014-01-09 10:58:20 AM  

drewogatory: Wrongly. Not even getting into the farce that is criminal justice in this country, the constitution clearly states the government has no power to restrict gun ownership. Their attempts to do so are clearly infringement.


You do realize the US Constitution is what the Federal government can and cannot do and that every single state in the US has some sort of gun laws in place?
 
2014-01-09 10:58:39 AM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.


It wasn't by chance. It was negligent.
neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
1.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
"directors have been negligent in the performance of their duties"

Negligent discharges should be prosecuted as felonies.
 
2014-01-09 11:00:10 AM  

AgentPothead
2014-01-09 10:55:29 AM


Paul Baumer: AgentPothead: All gun owners are taught how to responsibly use their firearms.

Would that this were both true and statutory. Regrettably it is neither.

Yeah, if it was true we wouldn't have stories like this. I like to hope.
Which explains why after years (often decades) of the government training you pray for we never hear stories of badge-wearing-thugs negligently discharging their firearms .... and not being punished.
 
2014-01-09 11:01:19 AM  
There is no such thing as "accidental" discharge of a firearm, unless you define an accident as "anything a moron does".

Having a gun is just like having a motor vehicle. If you are too damn stupid to learn the basics, people are likely to get hurt.

That isn't an argument for or against gun or car control; it's an argument for enforced birth control.
 
2014-01-09 11:01:32 AM  

Ouze: Schmerd1948: Not a gun owner. It sounds like it was a pretty powerful round, no? What kind of ammo, do you think?

You'd be surprised what a bullet goes through. Check out youtube, I saw a video the other day of guys doing penetration tests on steel plate. Despite what ever movie ever has shown with guys hiding behind car doors or refrigerators made of sheet metal, regular old rifle ammo goes right though half-inch steel plate with no problem at all.

Even handguns go through quite a bit.



You'd be surprised at what stops some smaller rounds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_cjU-WoBbc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBotRUTN1NQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Evpkj_Y9EE
 
2014-01-09 11:04:06 AM  

AgentPothead: I don't have a problem with the word accident, I was pointing out the word negligent much better defines the case in hand. All gun owners are taught how to responsibly use their firearms. If somebody tries and reload their gun without checking if it's chambered, that's negligence not an accident. If they fire the gun in the house, that's negligence not an accident. The only way to fire a gun is to remove the safety and to have it loaded, both things you are taught not to do until you are ready to fire. I love accidents. That hole in the condom that made me? Awesome accident. Mishandling a firearm is negligence.


True.  Traffic accidents usually involve at least a bit of negligence, but there are really hundreds or thousands of rules associated with driving, all manner of environmental variables, and other drivers to account for.

With firearms, there are three basic and one graduate-level rule:
1. Finger off the trigger until ready to shoot
2. Treat every gun as if it were loaded
3. Muzzle should only point at something you want to shoot
4. Know your target AND what is beyond it

That's it.  Both this dipsh*t and the KY rep yesterday ignored #1 and #2, and this one also fell short on #3 and #4.

drewogatory: Wrongly. Not even getting into the farce that is criminal justice in this country, the constitution clearly states the government has no power to restrict gun ownership. Their attempts to do so are clearly infringement.


If you ignore the entire con-law history of the United States, you could both equate "regulation" with "infringement" as well as assuming that all rights are completely, 100% absolute and not up for interpretation.

Fortunately, that's not how things operate.
 
2014-01-09 11:06:02 AM  

dr_blasto: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.

It wasn't by chance. It was negligent.
neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
1.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
"directors have been negligent in the performance of their duties"

Negligent discharges should be prosecuted as felonies.


Most state laws regarding reckless endangerment, or wanton reckless endangerment, define the crime as being related to reckless conduct that is likely to produce injury or death; some states differentiate between classes of endangerment based upon the severity of injury risk. Typically, endangerment that creates a risk of severe injury or death is a felony.

Mishandling a firearm in a way that produces a negligent discharge is itself a reckless action likely to cause serious injury or death. This is especially true in public places, but it is easily applicable when a negligent discharge results in damage to a nearby property not owned by the handler of the firearm.

Therefore, most states already have existing laws that allow for prosecution of a negligent firearm discharge as a felony. I suspect that one reason that such incidents are not always prosecuted as such is concern that establishing such a precedent would put many police officers at risk of arrest and conviction.
 
2014-01-09 11:06:39 AM  

AgentPothead: drewogatory: Wrongly. Not even getting into the farce that is criminal justice in this country, the constitution clearly states the government has no power to restrict gun ownership. Their attempts to do so are clearly infringement.

You do realize the US Constitution is what the Federal government can and cannot do and that every single state in the US has some sort of gun laws in place?


From a purely semantic P.O.V., he's correct - the term used in the Constitution is "regulated". It specifies that the "militia" (which at that time meant the sum total of the armed, able-bodied populace) be "well regulated".
 
2014-01-09 11:06:39 AM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: AgentPothead: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.

neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
adjective: negligent
1.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
 IE, "Cleaning" a firearm without checking if it's loaded first.

StAgentPothead: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.

neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
adjective: negligent
1.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
 IE, "Cleaning" a firearm without checking if it's loaded first.

It's still accidental.
Why do gun people have a problem with that word, accident?
Traffic accidents, OK.
Falling accidents, OK.
Any sort of accident, except involving a gun, is OK.


Ugh, that word, "Accident," I despise it. While I acknowledge that there are true accidents, I believe the number of them is minuscule compared to the number of people claiming accident to avoid personal responsibility.

Traffic accidents--most can be easily traced back to negligence, largely distraction
Falling accidents--don't usually hear falls described that way, but did the "victim" properly consider ability, footwear, terrain, sobriety...also, if inside, was the floor properly maintained, dry and free of debris and obstacles
Gun accidents--I'd consider a case where the gun wielder was handling the firearm properly and had an unexpected stroke and dropped the gun and it discharged, but mostly no. Extra vigilance and care are required when using a tool specifically designed to harm. Treat every gun as loaded and know what is down range. That would eliminate a lot of gun accidents.
 
2014-01-09 11:06:48 AM  

mod3072: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: mod3072: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Got a neighbor you don't like?

"DON'T WORRY, IT'S NOT LOADED! SEE?"

BANG!

Problem solved and they CAN'T press charges, right?

Wrong. But you go ahead and try it. Let us know how it works out for you.

Someone's been charged under those circumstances?

For "accidentally" shooting another person? Are you serious? Here is one example that took me almost 5 seconds to find and that fits your scenario almost perfectly. Do you want me to link to 1,000 more similar stories, or are you going to admit that you're either trolling or have no clue how the law works?

http://www.kltv.com/story/16159209/charges-filed-in-accidental-shoot in g-near-ut-tyler


I couldn't find a conviction there.
 
2014-01-09 11:07:39 AM  

Dimensio: dr_blasto: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.

It wasn't by chance. It was negligent.
neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
1.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
"directors have been negligent in the performance of their duties"

Negligent discharges should be prosecuted as felonies.

Most state laws regarding reckless endangerment, or wanton reckless endangerment, define the crime as being related to reckless conduct that is likely to produce injury or death; some states differentiate between classes of endangerment based upon the severity of injury risk. Typically, endangerment that creates a risk of severe injury or death is a felony.

Mishandling a firearm in a way that produces a negligent discharge is itself a reckless action likely to cause serious injury or death. This is especially true in public places, but it is easily applicable when a negligent discharge results in damage to a nearby property not owned by the handler of the firearm.

Therefore, most states already have existing laws that allow for prosecution of a negligent firearm discharge as a felony. I suspect that one reason that such incidents are not always prosecuted as such is concern that establishing such a precedent would put many police officers at risk of arrest and conviction.


I have no argument or disagreement with that.

But it still fits the definition of accident.
 
2014-01-09 11:08:57 AM  

Speef: There is no such thing as "accidental" discharge of a firearm, unless you define an accident as "anything a moron does".

Having a gun is just like having a motor vehicle. If you are too damn stupid to learn the basics, people are likely to get hurt.

That isn't an argument for or against gun or car control; it's an argument for enforced birth control.


Get a dictionary, look up accident.
Get back to us.

www.dictionary.com works.
 
2014-01-09 11:11:11 AM  

willfullyobscure: through an interior wall, exterior siding and lodged in another exterior wall.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why birdshot and a shotgun are the ideal home defense firearm set up, and NOT a hi powered pistol round or an assault weapon like an AR-15 or AK-47. If you managed to fark up your life so badly that you need a firearm in the home to defend yourself, THIS is what you should have.

[images.tribe.net image 640x480]

Hope we're all crystal clear on that by now.

.


Birdshot is worthless as a defense round.  If you're gonna shoot someone then you're intending to kill them.  Use a round that will kill them, moran.
 
2014-01-09 11:14:50 AM  

willfullyobscure: through an interior wall, exterior siding and lodged in another exterior wall.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why birdshot and a shotgun are the ideal home defense firearm set up, and NOT a hi powered pistol round or an assault weapon like an AR-15 or AK-47. If you managed to fark up your life so badly that you need a firearm in the home to defend yourself, THIS is what you should have.



Hope we're all crystal clear on that by now.

.


Frangible ammo says no
 
2014-01-09 11:15:54 AM  

dookdookdook: drewogatory: Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.

Question I've never gotten a good answer for:  If, hypothetically, the second amendment was never included in the bill of rights and American gun fetishism didn't exist, what argument would you make in the year 2014 that we should pass a gun rights amendment now?

Less hypothetical version: Tell me why England (for example) should change its ways and make guns much more easily available.  Optionally: Explain why no one in England is trying to do this right now.


And if you can't answer that question, then explain how "b..b..but second amendment" is different from any other group of zealots imposing their dangerous behavior on the world around them just because their sacred text of choice tells them they can.


Because people have a natural right to self defense
 
2014-01-09 11:18:49 AM  

stevarooni: willfullyobscure: through an interior wall, exterior siding and lodged in another exterior wall.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why birdshot and a shotgun are the ideal home defense firearm set up, and NOT a hi powered pistol round or an assault weapon like an AR-15 or AK-47. If you managed to fark up your life so badly that you need a firearm in the home to defend yourself, THIS is what you should have.

[images.tribe.net image 640x480]

Hope we're all crystal clear on that by now.

.
Hey, you know what's easier to control, especially for smaller-framed people?  An AR-15 or AK-47.  Birdshot is great with the ideal of stopping over-penetration, but you can also get good 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm that fragments and stops pretty quickly.

Besides, why the extra rounds?  After all, all you have to do is go out on your porch and shoot two shots into the air; that'll drive off those home invaders!


Birdshot will just get someone angry. Cheney blasted a 70 year old in the face point blank with birdshot and the guy lived.
 
2014-01-09 11:19:50 AM  

jso2897: AgentPothead: drewogatory: Wrongly. Not even getting into the farce that is criminal justice in this country, the constitution clearly states the government has no power to restrict gun ownership. Their attempts to do so are clearly infringement.

You do realize the US Constitution is what the Federal government can and cannot do and that every single state in the US has some sort of gun laws in place?

From a purely semantic P.O.V., he's correct - the term used in the Constitution is "regulated". It specifies that the "militia" (which at that time meant the sum total of the armed, able-bodied populace) be "well regulated".


and regulated, at the time, meant well equipped, not the overseen by someone definition it has today.
 
2014-01-09 11:20:08 AM  

Doom MD: dookdookdook: drewogatory: Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.

Question I've never gotten a good answer for:  If, hypothetically, the second amendment was never included in the bill of rights and American gun fetishism didn't exist, what argument would you make in the year 2014 that we should pass a gun rights amendment now?

Less hypothetical version: Tell me why England (for example) should change its ways and make guns much more easily available.  Optionally: Explain why no one in England is trying to do this right now.


And if you can't answer that question, then explain how "b..b..but second amendment" is different from any other group of zealots imposing their dangerous behavior on the world around them just because their sacred text of choice tells them they can.

Because people have a natural right to self defense


Attempting to use a firearm in self-defense only escalates the situation. The best response to victimization by a criminal is to allow the crime to occur, to potentially suffer injury if the criminal wishes it, and then to physically recuperate and to replace anything lost afterward.

At least, the opinion of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety for the District of Columbia.
 
2014-01-09 11:22:58 AM  

Dimensio: Attempting to use a firearm in self-defense only escalates the situation. The best response to victimization by a criminal is to allow the crime to occur, to potentially suffer injury if the criminal wishes it, and then to physically recuperate and to replace anything lost afterward.

At least, the opinion of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety for the District of Columbia.


Yeah, well, D.C. cops don't like the fact that they've been forced by the SCotUS to recognize that D.C. citizens have rights similar to those outside of the District.  :D
 
2014-01-09 11:26:45 AM  

Dimensio: Doom MD: dookdookdook: drewogatory: Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.

Question I've never gotten a good answer for:  If, hypothetically, the second amendment was never included in the bill of rights and American gun fetishism didn't exist, what argument would you make in the year 2014 that we should pass a gun rights amendment now?

Less hypothetical version: Tell me why England (for example) should change its ways and make guns much more easily available.  Optionally: Explain why no one in England is trying to do this right now.


And if you can't answer that question, then explain how "b..b..but second amendment" is different from any other group of zealots imposing their dangerous behavior on the world around them just because their sacred text of choice tells them they can.

Because people have a natural right to self defense

Attempting to use a firearm in self-defense only escalates the situation. The best response to victimization by a criminal is to allow the crime to occur, to potentially suffer injury if the criminal wishes it, and then to physically recuperate and to replace anything lost afterward.

At least, the opinion of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety for the District of Columbia.


You can't blame the man for trying to protect his constituency
 
2014-01-09 11:29:52 AM  

willfullyobscure: through an interior wall, exterior siding and lodged in another exterior wall.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why birdshot and a shotgun are the ideal home defense firearm set up, and NOT a hi powered pistol round or an assault weapon like an AR-15 or AK-47. If you managed to fark up your life so badly that you need a firearm in the home to defend yourself, THIS is what you should have.

[images.tribe.net image 640x480]

Hope we're all crystal clear on that by now.

.


Wrong for so many different reasons. Someone needs to read The Box O' Truth where through extensive simulations they have shown time and again that Birdshot is for little birds, 00 Buckshot is for bad guys .  The short of it is that while birdshot doesn't penetrate drywall very well, it also doesn't penetrate bad guys very well either.  All you'll likely do is give the bad guy a flesh wound and piss him off.  Any ammo that has sufficient penetration to stop a bad guy, is also going to go right through walls.

That being said, there is absolutely no excuse for negligent discharge of a firearm. None. Zero. Period.

However, some weapons are more prone to these incidents than others. Take the older glocks.  For whatever asinine reason, you have to de-cock the weapon by pulling the trigger before you could remove the slide.  This means if you removed the chambered round prior to removing the magazine (stupid), and closed the slide prior to removing the magazine (double stupid), than when the slide closed you just re-chambered a new round. Now, magazine is dropped, trigger is pulled to de-cock, and BOOM! Preventable, absolutely. But I've been at the range with the so called professionals (cops) who got their order wrong.

That is why I prefer a weapons system like my XDm where the slide can be removed without having to de-cock the weapon. Not that I would intentionally leave a round chambered, but was nice to have on the one occasion when I have a misfire and had to tear down the weapon with a live round still inside.

As an aside, while I would be in favor of prosecuting all cases of negligent discharge, there are some states like my own where this is not a specific crime, and it is questionable whether or not you could prove the elements necessary for the statutes that we do have.
 
2014-01-09 11:35:21 AM  

Dimensio: dr_blasto: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ouze: It wasn't accidental, as the article's headline says. It was negligent. He should be charged and prosecuted.

accidental

adjective 1.

happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting.

It wasn't by chance. It was negligent.
neg·li·gent
ˈnegləjənt/
adjective
1.
failing to take proper care in doing something.
"directors have been negligent in the performance of their duties"

Negligent discharges should be prosecuted as felonies.

Most state laws regarding reckless endangerment, or wanton reckless endangerment, define the crime as being related to reckless conduct that is likely to produce injury or death; some states differentiate between classes of endangerment based upon the severity of injury risk. Typically, endangerment that creates a risk of severe injury or death is a felony.

Mishandling a firearm in a way that produces a negligent discharge is itself a reckless action likely to cause serious injury or death. This is especially true in public places, but it is easily applicable when a negligent discharge results in damage to a nearby property not owned by the handler of the firearm.

Therefore, most states already have existing laws that allow for prosecution of a negligent firearm discharge as a felony. I suspect that one reason that such incidents are not always prosecuted as such is concern that establishing such a precedent would put many police officers at risk of arrest and conviction.


The laws exist but aren't applied in these circumstances, or at least aren't applied evenly. Some people plainly prove they have no business handling any firearms. I'm all for a single ND causing one to lose their ability to have another ND.

As far as accidental vs negligent discharge: the terms share overlap (unintentional) but negligent better describes the cause of the unintentional discharge of that firearm and therefore should be the term used. When two words could be interchangeably used to describe a situation, pick the one that offers the more appropriate description.
 
2014-01-09 11:36:27 AM  

An_American_Thinker: However, some weapons are more prone to these incidents than others. Take the older glocks. For whatever asinine reason, you have to de-cock the weapon by pulling the trigger before you could remove the slide.


Glocks do not have hammers, so they can never be cocked.

There is no difference between older Glocks and Newer Glocks in the way you remove the slide.
Asinine reason? You're silly.
 
2014-01-09 11:36:47 AM  

An_American_Thinker: That is why I prefer a weapons system like my XDm where the slide can be removed without having to de-cock the weapon. Not that I would intentionally leave a round chambered, but was nice to have on the one occasion when I have a misfire and had to tear down the weapon with a live round still inside.


That was the main reason behind my acquiring a 3.8 XDm. I just really don't like the thought of pulling the trigger (or using a decocker, I just hate the hammer dropping action those have) in order to strip a weapon.

/get a Powder River trigger...
//cleans up the stock action immensely
 
2014-01-09 11:37:52 AM  

drewogatory: ToastmasterGeneral: drewogatory: cameroncrazy1984: But no, we shouldn't have a conversation about who should and should not be owning guns in this country.

Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.

Kids under 10 can't.  Felons can't.  We already decide.

Wrongly. Not even getting into the farce that is criminal justice in this country, the constitution clearly states the government has no power to restrict gun ownership. Their attempts to do so are clearly infringement.


That's your interpretation.  The fact is, it's not's 100% clear that "shall make no law infringing the right to bear arms" means that setting conditions for that right are improper.  The no-guns-for-felons laws have been around for many years.  Many liberal and conservative courts have had an opportunity to declare them unconstitutional.  They haven't.

However, if you're going to say that the the words mean exactly what they look like on the paper, then I'll agree, felons, and everybody else should be able to own fireams, unrestricted.  As long as they're members of a well-regulated militia.
 
2014-01-09 11:39:16 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: mod3072: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: mod3072: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Got a neighbor you don't like?

"DON'T WORRY, IT'S NOT LOADED! SEE?"

BANG!

Problem solved and they CAN'T press charges, right?

Wrong. But you go ahead and try it. Let us know how it works out for you.

Someone's been charged under those circumstances?

For "accidentally" shooting another person? Are you serious? Here is one example that took me almost 5 seconds to find and that fits your scenario almost perfectly. Do you want me to link to 1,000 more similar stories, or are you going to admit that you're either trolling or have no clue how the law works?

http://www.kltv.com/story/16159209/charges-filed-in-accidental-shoot in g-near-ut-tyler

I couldn't find a conviction there.


You didn't say convicted, you said charged. I'm sure I can find plenty of convictions if you really want me to look.
 
2014-01-09 11:44:49 AM  

croesius: An_American_Thinker: That is why I prefer a weapons system like my XDm where the slide can be removed without having to de-cock the weapon. Not that I would intentionally leave a round chambered, but was nice to have on the one occasion when I have a misfire and had to tear down the weapon with a live round still inside.

That was the main reason behind my acquiring a 3.8 XDm. I just really don't like the thought of pulling the trigger (or using a decocker, I just hate the hammer dropping action those have) in order to strip a weapon.

/get a Powder River trigger...
//cleans up the stock action immensely


I regularly carry an XD Compact, which does require pulling the trigger prior to disassembly. I have, thus far, managed to avoid any negligent discharges when dismantling the firearm for cleaning, likely because I force myself to follow a very specific procedure when doing so.
 
2014-01-09 11:45:06 AM  
willfullyobscure
2014-01-09 10:15:36 AM


through an interior wall, exterior siding and lodged in another exterior wall.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why birdshot and a shotgun are the ideal home defense firearm set up, and NOT a hi powered pistol round or an assault weapon like an AR-15 or AK-47.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is how you demonstrate you have no farking clue what you're talking about and that you bring nothing to the table but volume.
 
2014-01-09 11:45:43 AM  

croesius: An_American_Thinker: That is why I prefer a weapons system like my XDm where the slide can be removed without having to de-cock the weapon. Not that I would intentionally leave a round chambered, but was nice to have on the one occasion when I have a misfire and had to tear down the weapon with a live round still inside.

That was the main reason behind my acquiring a 3.8 XDm. I just really don't like the thought of pulling the trigger (or using a decocker, I just hate the hammer dropping action those have) in order to strip a weapon.

/get a Powder River trigger...
//cleans up the stock action immensely


I've always preferred a hammer to striker. I don't like the Glock's takedown process either. Decockers don't bother me, there's a firing pin block. I like FNH's safety/deckocker on the FNX pistols and the Sig-style takedown lever.
 
2014-01-09 11:45:56 AM  
The discharge was negligent, and accidental.

Why "accidental" in reference to a gun causes such a reaction is curious.
 
2014-01-09 11:47:01 AM  

An_American_Thinker: . Take the older glocks. For whatever asinine reason, you have to de-cock the weapon by pulling the trigger before you could remove the slide.


A little fuzzy on the technicals, but right in that the Glock requires the trigger to be pulled.  S&W tried to prevent people from shooting themselves while cleaning by placing a lever in the gun that can only be manipulated by locking the slide open, thus forcing a visual inspection of the chamber.  Idiots still shoot themselves.
 
2014-01-09 11:49:31 AM  

An_American_Thinker: willfullyobscure: through an interior wall, exterior siding and lodged in another exterior wall.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why birdshot and a shotgun are the ideal home defense firearm set up, and NOT a hi powered pistol round or an assault weapon like an AR-15 or AK-47. If you managed to fark up your life so badly that you need a firearm in the home to defend yourself, THIS is what you should have.

[images.tribe.net image 640x480]

Hope we're all crystal clear on that by now.

.

Wrong for so many different reasons. Someone needs to read The Box O' Truth where through extensive simulations they have shown time and again that Birdshot is for little birds, 00 Buckshot is for bad guys .  The short of it is that while birdshot doesn't penetrate drywall very well, it also doesn't penetrate bad guys very well either.  All you'll likely do is give the bad guy a flesh wound and piss him off.  Any ammo that has sufficient penetration to stop a bad guy, is also going to go right through walls.



Here is bird shot in ballistic gel.

img228.imageshack.us

If you're hypothetical scary black mahome invader doesn't get discouraged by that, feel free to shoot him twice.


But don't take it from me, oh no. Take it from Clint Smith, Clint Smith, President and Director of Thunder Ranch, Marine Corps veteran of two infantry and Combined Action Platoon tours in Vietnam, also 7 years a cop, SWAT, sniper, and firearms combat trainer.

"The shotgun is deeply woven into American firearms traditions. It has often been used by civilians as a hunting and gathering device and, if required, it crossed over into a personal defense tool as well[...]much of the current buckshot offered is too heavy to shoot inside your sheetrock house because of possible or potential over penetration issues. As mentioned, the advent of the issues. As mentioned, the advent of the reduced load ammunition makes the buckshot loads more manageable and maybe in reality a good No. 4, 5 or 6 shot load would rank pretty well when centered up on a knotheaded home invader "
 
2014-01-09 11:50:40 AM  

ChaosStar: An_American_Thinker: However, some weapons are more prone to these incidents than others. Take the older glocks. For whatever asinine reason, you have to de-cock the weapon by pulling the trigger before you could remove the slide.

Glocks do not have hammers, so they can never be cocked.

There is no difference between older Glocks and Newer Glocks in the way you remove the slide.
Asinine reason? You're silly.


What would you prefer to call it then, if not cocked? Without a round chambered, you pull the trigger, the striker pin is released, but does not reset. To reset you must rack the slide, thus "cocking" the striker pin. In the older models, the slide cannot be removed when the striker pin is "cocked".

And yes, there appears to be a difference between the older and newer Gen 4 models.  In handling the new Gen 4's, the slide can be removed with the striker pin "cocked", at least on the ones that I've tried w/o mods, factory new.
 
2014-01-09 11:51:01 AM  

ToastmasterGeneral: However, if you're going to say that the the words mean exactly what they look like on the paper, then I'll agree, felons, and everybody else should be able to own fireams, unrestricted.  As long as they're members of a well-regulated militia.


As all able-bodied (men) fit this definition as long as they keep in practice with their arms, it wouldn't be hard for anyone to be part of the (unorganized) well-regulated militia.  Then again, that right doesn't state that it's required, just that the purpose of the law is to maintain a well-regulated militia...and as all adult (men) were considered part of the militia....
 
2014-01-09 11:57:07 AM  

factoryconnection: "Treat every firearm as if it is loaded."  Fairly clear.  Who goes jerking on the trigger without checking the weapon clear?

F'n morons, that's who, just like that state rep from Kentucky yesterday.



Yeah, who would do such a thing???
 
2014-01-09 11:58:10 AM  
Dimensio:

I regularly carry an XD Compact, which does require pulling the trigger prior to disassembly. I have, thus far, managed to avoid any negligent discharges when dismantling the firearm for cleaning, likely because I force myself to follow a very specific procedure when doing so.

That's why I ruled out the XD series and went with the XDm. While I too follow a specific take down procedure, it is just one less thing that I can accidentallynegligently screw up. A good part of avoiding "accidents" is pre-planning ways to reduce the risk, IMHO.
 
2014-01-09 12:08:03 PM  
ToastmasterGeneral: However, if you're going to say that the the words mean exactly what they look like on the paper, then I'll agree, felons, and everybody else should be able to own fireams, unrestricted. As long as they're members of a well-regulated militia.

Maybe you should have an adult look up the meaning of words before you use them.
 
2014-01-09 12:11:00 PM  
ts3.mm.bing.net
Its such a hassle to check "all" the barrels.
 
2014-01-09 12:14:34 PM  

Farkage: Yeah, who would do such a thing???


That definitely takes the cake. In TFA we have someone goofing around with their gun, which is stupid.  Yesterday we had the lady with no clue about the condition or operation of her weapon, which is stupid.  But this cop deliberately cocked and fired a weapon in a crowded, public space.  That's dumber than Plaxico Burress wearing sweat pants at a night club and then shooting himself.
 
2014-01-09 12:17:48 PM  

factoryconnection: Farkage: Yeah, who would do such a thing???

That definitely takes the cake. In TFA we have someone goofing around with their gun, which is stupid.  Yesterday we had the lady with no clue about the condition or operation of her weapon, which is stupid.  But this cop deliberately cocked and fired a weapon in a crowded, public space.  That's dumber than Plaxico Burress wearing sweat pants at a night club and then shooting himself.


It's okay though.  In a followup article the Police spokesman said the department is investigating. Because, you know, it's quite possible that this poor upstanding officer has learned his lesson.
Too bad any of the rest of us would have been arrested on the spot and immediately had their permit revoked.
 
2014-01-09 12:19:25 PM  

stevarooni: ToastmasterGeneral: However, if you're going to say that the the words mean exactly what they look like on the paper, then I'll agree, felons, and everybody else should be able to own fireams, unrestricted.  As long as they're members of a well-regulated militia.

As all able-bodied (men) fit this definition as long as they keep in practice with their arms, it wouldn't be hard for anyone to be part of the (unorganized) well-regulated militia.  Then again, that right doesn't state that it's required, just that the purpose of the law is to maintain a well-regulated militia...and as all adult (men) were considered part of the militia....


Just so I'm clear, I absolutely believe in the individual right to bear.

I was just trying to argue that if somebody wanted to interpret the second part of the amendment (make no law infringing) to mean that any and all conditions, such as being a violent felon, are improper infringments, then we'd have to also view the first part of the amendment with similar, plain-text interpretations.

And there isn't universal acceptance as to what "well-regulated militia" meant.  Yes, yours is probably the best, and the correct interpreation (again, since I believe in the individual right, I agree with you).  But again, my only use of it was to point out that if we interpret what they meant by that, we can do so with the what constitutes infringement part.
 
2014-01-09 12:20:22 PM  

dookdookdook: Molavian: Because it's an intrinsic right no justification is necessary.

So if the right to guns exists independent of the constitution, do I also have an "intrinsic right" to own a trailer full of meth or a tiger or fissionable uranium or a car that will explode if it ever drops below 80 mph?  Why are guns special?  Is there some branch of philosophy that deals with the intrinsic morality of different weapons?

Jesus couldn't possibly have endorsed them, unless we're talking about Mormon Jesus.  Did the Virgin Mary appear in Thomas Jefferson's Cheerios and tell him that guns were just awesome and everyone should have one?


You're acting like you can't own any of that right now.
 
2014-01-09 12:20:58 PM  

willfullyobscure: Here is bird shot in ballistic gel.


What's the penetration there?  Was it shot with a clothing barrier in front of it or rib bones?

willfullyobscure: But don't take it from me, oh no. Take it from Clint Smith, Clint Smith, President and Director of Thunder Ranch, Marine Corps veteran of two infantry and Combined Action Platoon tours in Vietnam, also 7 years a cop, SWAT, sniper, and firearms combat trainer.


Clint Smith is an outstanding instructor, and you are sorely mistaken in thinking that he's suggesting using bird shot for home defense.  Notice he says "maybe" in your quote.  I've also seen Clint Smith advocate using a fire extinguisher to brain an intruder.  He's a huge advocate of using the tools at hand, combined with proper training to make the best of a bad situation.

What your linked quote is really saying is that if you shoot bird shot better than buck, then bird shot is the tool you work with and you work to get the best results out of it.

In fact, if you take the Thunder Ranch Defensive Shotgun course, they will tell you they don't recommend Bird Shot for a defensive load.  But hey, what do I know... having actually been through Clint Smiths course and all...
 
2014-01-09 12:21:04 PM  

OnlyM3: ToastmasterGeneral: However, if you're going to say that the the words mean exactly what they look like on the paper, then I'll agree, felons, and everybody else should be able to own fireams, unrestricted. As long as they're members of a well-regulated militia.

Maybe you should have an adult look up the meaning of words before you use them.


Well then today's apparently my lucky day, since from your attitude, you seem to think you're an adult.

So, please learn me, pa!  What do they mean?
 
2014-01-09 12:28:24 PM  

An_American_Thinker: ChaosStar: An_American_Thinker: However, some weapons are more prone to these incidents than others. Take the older glocks. For whatever asinine reason, you have to de-cock the weapon by pulling the trigger before you could remove the slide.

Glocks do not have hammers, so they can never be cocked.

There is no difference between older Glocks and Newer Glocks in the way you remove the slide.
Asinine reason? You're silly.

What would you prefer to call it then, if not cocked? Without a round chambered, you pull the trigger, the striker pin is released, but does not reset. To reset you must rack the slide, thus "cocking" the striker pin. In the older models, the slide cannot be removed when the striker pin is "cocked".

And yes, there appears to be a difference between the older and newer Gen 4 models.  In handling the new Gen 4's, the slide can be removed with the striker pin "cocked", at least on the ones that I've tried w/o mods, factory new.


I was being facetious, as there really doesn't exist a word to take the place of "cocked" although the very (literal) definition of cocking requires a weapon with a hammer.

There is no way to remove the slide from a Glock, any Glock, while it's in battery, without pulling the trigger. You can, however, fully open the slide, detail strip the firing pin assembly out the back, put the slide back into the battery position, and then pull down on  the slide stop allowing the slide to go forward and off the frame but you could always do this and it's not new to Gen 4's.

I don't know who told you otherwise, but they lied to you.
 
2014-01-09 12:28:26 PM  

Voiceofreason01: More to the point, how do clean a gun without unloading it first?


Well, he did unload it.
 
2014-01-09 12:32:37 PM  
willfullyobscure:

If you're hypothetical scary black mahome invader doesn't get discouraged by that, feel free to shoot him twice.


Since when did this conversation become about race? Is this the new Godwin??

Just so we are clear, I am much more concerned about the redneck down the road, whom I prosecuted for beating his baby mama, getting his drunk on and coming over to get "revenge" than I am about anyone in our African-American community.

I also don't own a shotgun for home defense, so the gun is locked up (unloaded) at all times while in the house, in a place very inconvenient for either myself or "the bad guy" to get to easily (or more importantly, my kids).  And the only ammo I keep is for hunting birds or shooting trap.

Beings as I do work with law enforcement, I have just seen too many cases where the "bad guy" was too drunk/high/whatever to be effected by tasers/pepper spray. So I just think its silly to argue that birdshot, which doesn't even penetrate little birds fully, is a good home defense round. You don't shoot to wound, you shot to stop.
 
2014-01-09 12:54:11 PM  

ChaosStar: An_American_Thinker: ChaosStar: An_American_Thinker: However, some weapons are more prone to these incidents than others. Take the older glocks. For whatever asinine reason, you have to de-cock the weapon by pulling the trigger before you could remove the slide.

Glocks do not have hammers, so they can never be cocked.

There is no difference between older Glocks and Newer Glocks in the way you remove the slide.
Asinine reason? You're silly.

What would you prefer to call it then, if not cocked? Without a round chambered, you pull the trigger, the striker pin is released, but does not reset. To reset you must rack the slide, thus "cocking" the striker pin. In the older models, the slide cannot be removed when the striker pin is "cocked".

And yes, there appears to be a difference between the older and newer Gen 4 models.  In handling the new Gen 4's, the slide can be removed with the striker pin "cocked", at least on the ones that I've tried w/o mods, factory new.

I was being facetious, as there really doesn't exist a word to take the place of "cocked" although the very (literal) definition of cocking requires a weapon with a hammer.

There is no way to remove the slide from a Glock, any Glock, while it's in battery, without pulling the trigger. You can, however, fully open the slide, detail strip the firing pin assembly out the back, put the slide back into the battery position, and then pull down on  the slide stop allowing the slide to go forward and off the frame but you could always do this and it's not new to Gen 4's.

I don't know who told you otherwise, but they lied to you.


To be fair I don't own a Glock for the above stated reasons, so I am obviously not as familiar with them and only handle them from time to time at the range. I was just using the platform as an example of one where it can be necessary to pull the trigger as part of the take-down process, which can contribute to the "accidental shooting" of said platform is the operator hasn't properly removed the ammunition.

You probably know better than I, but is this even a concern with 1911's? The ones I own at least you can removed the slide with the hammer cocked. This is why I called it asinine to design a platform where the trigger must be pulled before before it can be disassembled.
 
2014-01-09 01:02:24 PM  

drewogatory: Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.


How about small children and convicted felons? Who got to annul their constitutionally guaranteed rights?
 
2014-01-09 01:18:06 PM  

Click Click D'oh: willfullyobscure: Here is bird shot in ballistic gel.

What's the penetration there?  Was it shot with a clothing barrier in front of it or rib bones?

willfullyobscure: But don't take it from me, oh no. Take it from Clint Smith, Clint Smith, President and Director of Thunder Ranch, Marine Corps veteran of two infantry and Combined Action Platoon tours in Vietnam, also 7 years a cop, SWAT, sniper, and firearms combat trainer.

Clint Smith is an outstanding instructor, and you are sorely mistaken in thinking that he's suggesting using bird shot for home defense.  Notice he says "maybe" in your quote.  I've also seen Clint Smith advocate using a fire extinguisher to brain an intruder.  He's a huge advocate of using the tools at hand, combined with proper training to make the best of a bad situation.

What your linked quote is really saying is that if you shoot bird shot better than buck, then bird shot is the tool you work with and you work to get the best results out of it.


Why don't we read the words again, they're in plain English:
1)" much of the current buckshot offered is too heavy to shoot inside your sheetrock house because of possible or potential over penetration issues ":
2)" maybe in reality a good No. 4, 5 or 6 shot load would rank pretty well when centered up on a knotheaded home invader as delivered down the length of a hallway in the average home "

Therefore, I personally, based on ballistic evidence, common sense and Clint Smith's endorsement, heartily reccomend birdshot as a home defense round over more dangerous rounds.


In fact, if you take the Thunder Ranch Defensive Shotgun course, they will tell you they don't recommend Bird Shot for a defensive load.  But hey, what do I know... having actually been through Clint Smiths course and all...

Ah! But they don't say it WON'T work. And given it's advantages for home defense, I'm saying you SHOULD use it because it won't go through walls very well. Which is also what Clint says.
 
2014-01-09 01:21:29 PM  

AgentPothead: I think the easiest tell of if a person should have a gun be allowed to marry or not is if they get mad dog frothing at the mouth upset if you say they shouldn't have one can't.


AgentPothead: I think the easiest tell of if a person should have a gun be allowed to vote or not is if they get mad dog frothing at the mouth upset if you say they shouldn't have one can't.


AgentPothead: I think the easiest tell of if a person should have a gun be allowed to speak freely or not is if they get mad dog frothing at the mouth upset if you say they shouldn't have one can't.


etc.
 
2014-01-09 01:27:06 PM  

An_American_Thinker: To be fair I don't own a Glock for the above stated reasons, so I am obviously not as familiar with them and only handle them from time to time at the range. I was just using the platform as an example of one where it can be necessary to pull the trigger as part of the take-down process, which can contribute to the "accidental shooting" of said platform is the operator hasn't properly removed the ammunition.

You probably know better than I, but is this even a concern with 1911's? The ones I own at least you can removed the slide with the hammer cocked. This is why I called it asinine to design a platform where the trigger must be pulled before before it can be disassembled.


No, a 1911 can be disassembled without a required trigger pull but a 1911 also has a hammer.

Don't let the simple design fool you, I don't think the Glock was designed with idiots in mind.
Having to pull the trigger to release tension against the slide stop so that you can take the weapon down isn't a big deal as long as you're paying attention to what you're doing or you're so safety conscious that checking your chamber and knowing it's clear is just instinctual.
I've never understood why it's such a big deal with people. Drop your mag and check your chamber, not just visually but with your finger to. If there's no round there, you're safe to pull the trigger and proceed. It's really not even as hard as 2+2 and it's hardly asinine.
 
2014-01-09 01:33:43 PM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: Why "accidental" in reference to a gun causes such a reaction is curious.


Because it implies that shiat happens and there isn't much that can be done about it. Anti-gunners like this because it reinforces their assinine beliefs that banning guns is the only way to solve the problem. Pro-gunners know that solving the problem is as simple as pulling your head out of your ass and not being negligent.
 
2014-01-09 01:46:43 PM  

ChaosStar: An_American_Thinker: To be fair I don't own a Glock for the above stated reasons, so I am obviously not as familiar with them and only handle them from time to time at the range. I was just using the platform as an example of one where it can be necessary to pull the trigger as part of the take-down process, which can contribute to the "accidental shooting" of said platform is the operator hasn't properly removed the ammunition.

You probably know better than I, but is this even a concern with 1911's? The ones I own at least you can removed the slide with the hammer cocked. This is why I called it asinine to design a platform where the trigger must be pulled before before it can be disassembled.

No, a 1911 can be disassembled without a required trigger pull but a 1911 also has a hammer.

Don't let the simple design fool you, I don't think the Glock was designed with idiots in mind.
Having to pull the trigger to release tension against the slide stop so that you can take the weapon down isn't a big deal as long as you're paying attention to what you're doing or you're so safety conscious that checking your chamber and knowing it's clear is just instinctual.
I've never understood why it's such a big deal with people. Drop your mag and check your chamber, not just visually but with your finger to. If there's no round there, you're safe to pull the trigger and proceed. It's really not even as hard as 2+2 and it's hardly asinine.


You've just described how I was taught to unload the ammunition from a weapon. And since my instructor is also one of the range masters at our police academy, I am certain all incoming police recruits are taught the same way. However, that doesn't prevent even experienced officers from pulling a boner and racking the slide first, before dropping the mag. Too busy shooting the shiat with their buddy to pay attention to what they were doing. It's carelessness plain and simple, but I've seen it happen.

While I agree that Glock didn't design their platform with idiots in mind, and while I would be the first to assert that LEO's should be held to a higher standard, if even LEO's occasionally have negligent discharges that could be prevented by idiot proofing that part of the design, like Springfield and S&W have, than I think it is asinine for Glock to not follow suit.  But then again, I am an attorney and subscribe to the theory that if a manufacture could make their product "safer" for idiots, for minimal cost, than they should do so. It's as much about protecting me and mine from the idiots with the product, as it is about protecting the idiots from themselves.
 
2014-01-09 01:56:02 PM  
I just want to know if this guy was the "responsible gun owner" or the "good guy with a gun" that we need more of in this country?
 
2014-01-09 02:16:47 PM  

umad: AgentPothead: I think the easiest tell of if a person should have a gun be allowed to marry or not is if they get mad dog frothing at the mouth upset if you say they shouldn't have one can't.

AgentPothead: I think the easiest tell of if a person should have a gun be allowed to vote or not is if they get mad dog frothing at the mouth upset if you say they shouldn't have one can't.

AgentPothead: I think the easiest tell of if a person should have a gun be allowed to speak freely or not is if they get mad dog frothing at the mouth upset if you say they shouldn't have one can't.

etc.


Still agreed with myself. If you can't form an articulate reason for why you think something is a right, then no, you don't farking deserve it. If you're response to somebody even questioning you is to jump into attack mode, you are automatically wrong.
 
2014-01-09 02:34:50 PM  

OnlyM3: Schmerd1948


Not a gun owner. It sounds like ... you know nothing about firearms


Because clearly, gun ownership is the only thing that allows your brain to physically retain information about gun safety, gun types, or any other firearm fact that may be relevant. You sound like you own a gun, so how about you enlighten us--how does that physically work? Is there a built-in block in our brains with special chips in guns to release information? Are guns coated in some sort of hormone? This is a scientifically revolutionary question, man. We need answers!
 
2014-01-09 02:52:40 PM  

AgentPothead: Still agreed with myself. If you can't form an articulate reason for why you think something is a right, then no, you don't farking deserve it. If you're response to somebody even questioning you is to jump into attack mode, you are automatically wrong.


Sorry, but what?  That's not how rights work.  You have a right to do anything until and unless there's a strong enough reason to deny you that right.
 
2014-01-09 03:00:18 PM  

umad: Inflatable Rhetoric: Why "accidental" in reference to a gun causes such a reaction is curious.

Because it implies that shiat happens and there isn't much that can be done about it. Anti-gunners like this because it reinforces their assinine beliefs that banning guns is the only way to solve the problem. Pro-gunners know that solving the problem is as simple as pulling your head out of your ass and not being negligent.


I don't think it implies that about guns any more than other things.
Gun accident, shooting accident, car accident, airplane accident.
Most could have been prevented if...   something.
 
2014-01-09 03:51:40 PM  

willfullyobscure: Therefore, I personally, based on ballistic evidence, common sense and Clint Smith's endorsement, heartily reccomend birdshot as a home defense round over more dangerous rounds.


Except that Clint Smith doesn't endorse the use of bird shot in a defensive shotgun.

willfullyobscure: Which is also what Clint says.


In fact, Clint Smith says that bird shot is good for training, but crappy for defense.

Don't believe me?  How about another person who has actually heard directly from Clint Smith.

Unless you've actually taken a class from Clint Smith, I'd suggest you do it.  Because he sure as heck does not suggest you load your shotgun with bird shot, no matter how you mus-interpret an old article.
 
2014-01-09 04:09:21 PM  

stevarooni: AgentPothead: Still agreed with myself. If you can't form an articulate reason for why you think something is a right, then no, you don't farking deserve it. If you're response to somebody even questioning you is to jump into attack mode, you are automatically wrong.

Sorry, but what?  That's not how rights work.  You have a right to do anything until and unless there's a strong enough reason to deny you that right.


And I'm still 100% agreeing with myself from my Boobies. If you can't articulate why you think you deserve a right, how can you even get upset if people try to deny you that right? Baring your teeth and acting like a wild animal doesn't prove you deserve anything. I'm not calling out specific people either, I mean you as in people in general.
 
2014-01-09 09:19:09 PM  

AgentPothead: stevarooni: AgentPothead: Still agreed with myself. If you can't form an articulate reason for why you think something is a right, then no, you don't farking deserve it. If you're response to somebody even questioning you is to jump into attack mode, you are automatically wrong.

Sorry, but what?  That's not how rights work.  You have a right to do anything until and unless there's a strong enough reason to deny you that right.

And I'm still 100% agreeing with myself from my Boobies. If you can't articulate why you think you deserve a right, how can you even get upset if people try to deny you that right? Baring your teeth and acting like a wild animal doesn't prove you deserve anything. I'm not calling out specific people either, I mean you as in people in general.


Isn't the concept of "deserving a right" contradictory?
 
2014-01-09 10:14:39 PM  

drewogatory: cameroncrazy1984: But no, we shouldn't have a conversation about who should and should not be owning guns in this country.

Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.


No. Not right. Stupid people have no right to own or discharge a firearm.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/portage/portage-man-arrest ed -for-firing-gun-outside-his-home/article_35bfc8ed-6ef2-5962-83a7-13c9d 67ecbb8.html

Stupid people are not helping defend the second amendment. They make a case for overturning the second amendment. FOID applications should include an IQ test. Or replace background checks.
 
2014-01-09 10:37:52 PM  

Click Click D'oh: willfullyobscure: Therefore, I personally, based on ballistic evidence, common sense and Clint Smith's endorsement, heartily reccomend birdshot as a home defense round over more dangerous rounds.

Except that Clint Smith doesn't endorse the use of bird shot in a defensive shotgun.

willfullyobscure: Which is also what Clint says.

In fact, Clint Smith says that bird shot is good for training, but crappy for defense.

Don't believe me?  How about another person who has actually heard directly from Clint Smith.

Unless you've actually taken a class from Clint Smith, I'd suggest you do it.  Because he sure as heck does not suggest you load your shotgun with bird shot, no matter how you mus-interpret an old article.


If Clint Smith was forced to read this thread, he would try and slap the silly shiat out both of us, but I would be smart enough to duck, and he would automatically give me a certification passing his course.

(he calls it a 'skeet load', best for bedroom defense. skeet, skeet, skeet.)
 
2014-01-09 10:48:02 PM  

dookdookdook: drewogatory: Guess what? If you want to try and overturn the 2nd, have at it. Otherwise you don't get to decide who is and isn't able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right.

Question I've never gotten a good answer for:  If, hypothetically, the second amendment was never included in the bill of rights and American gun fetishism didn't exist, what argument would you make in the year 2014 that we should pass a gun rights amendment now?

Less hypothetical version: Tell me why England (for example) should change its ways and make guns much more easily available.  Optionally: Explain why no one in England is trying to do this right now.


And if you can't answer that question, then explain how "b..b..but second amendment" is different from any other group of zealots imposing their dangerous behavior on the world around them just because their sacred text of choice tells them they can.


That's not exactly taking fair account of inertia. Once large numbers of guns are in circulation, it's harder to pull them back.
 
2014-01-09 11:14:57 PM  

Click Click D'oh: willfullyobscure: Here is bird shot in ballistic gel.

What's the penetration there?  Was it shot with a clothing barrier in front of it or rib bones?


for teh lulz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=97sjv11yesc #t =152

enjoy your crow, I hear it is a very tasty bird...
 
2014-01-09 11:24:10 PM  

willfullyobscure: through an interior wall, exterior siding and lodged in another exterior wall.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why birdshot and a shotgun are the ideal home defense firearm set up, and NOT a hi powered pistol round or an assault weapon like an AR-15 or AK-47. If you managed to fark up your life so badly that you need a firearm in the home to defend yourself, THIS is what you should have.

[images.tribe.net image 640x480]

Hope we're all crystal clear on that by now.

.

Yup. So many armed birdgurlars.
/Buckshot. Because birdshiat is effective for stopping birds.
 
2014-01-09 11:25:18 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: willfullyobscure: through an interior wall, exterior siding and lodged in another exterior wall.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why birdshot and a shotgun are the ideal home defense firearm set up, and NOT a hi powered pistol round or an assault weapon like an AR-15 or AK-47. If you managed to fark up your life so badly that you need a firearm in the home to defend yourself, THIS is what you should have.

[images.tribe.net image 640x480]

Hope we're all crystal clear on that by now.

.
Yup. So many armed birdgurlars.
/Buckshot. Because birdshot is effective for stopping birds.


/*sigh*
 
2014-01-10 06:29:49 AM  

Farkage: AgentPothead: stevarooni: AgentPothead: Still agreed with myself. If you can't form an articulate reason for why you think something is a right, then no, you don't farking deserve it. If you're response to somebody even questioning you is to jump into attack mode, you are automatically wrong.

Sorry, but what?  That's not how rights work.  You have a right to do anything until and unless there's a strong enough reason to deny you that right.

And I'm still 100% agreeing with myself from my Boobies. If you can't articulate why you think you deserve a right, how can you even get upset if people try to deny you that right? Baring your teeth and acting like a wild animal doesn't prove you deserve anything. I'm not calling out specific people either, I mean you as in people in general.

Isn't the concept of "deserving a right" contradictory?


If you aren't willing to at the very least ennunciate why you deserve something, and at the very most be willing to die for that thing, you don't farking deserve it.  That's the thing so many of you guys seem to forget. Unless you are truly willing to die for a right, no you don't farking deserve it. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Keep re reading that until it sinks in enough you "get it".
 
2014-01-10 09:09:15 PM  

AgentPothead: Farkage: AgentPothead: stevarooni: AgentPothead: Still agreed with myself. If you can't form an articulate reason for why you think something is a right, then no, you don't farking deserve it. If you're response to somebody even questioning you is to jump into attack mode, you are automatically wrong.

Sorry, but what?  That's not how rights work.  You have a right to do anything until and unless there's a strong enough reason to deny you that right.

And I'm still 100% agreeing with myself from my Boobies. If you can't articulate why you think you deserve a right, how can you even get upset if people try to deny you that right? Baring your teeth and acting like a wild animal doesn't prove you deserve anything. I'm not calling out specific people either, I mean you as in people in general.

Isn't the concept of "deserving a right" contradictory?

If you aren't willing to at the very least ennunciate why you deserve something, and at the very most be willing to die for that thing, you don't farking deserve it.  That's the thing so many of you guys seem to forget. Unless you are truly willing to die for a right, no you don't farking deserve it. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Keep re reading that until it sinks in enough you "get it".


I was just curious how it was meant. A right is a right. By definition, a right is something that can't be taken away, no? (In theory)
Of course, in practice that isn't how it actually works...
 
Displayed 127 of 127 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report