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
    More: Dumbass, accidental discharge, gunshots  
•       •       •

3352 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 10:05 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



127 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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...
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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