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.

(KOLO TV Reno)   "Hey Dad, take a look at this new gun I bought to keep us safe from-" **BANG**   (kolotv.com) divider line 193
    More: Obvious, safe  
•       •       •

9551 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 2:55 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-28 01:52:01 PM  
A little detail on just how the gun decided to fire on its own would have been nice.  I mean, there are tens of millions of pistol owners in this country that might want to be on the look out for this poltergeist behavior.

Also: from the comments "a gunshot to the leg can put you in critical condition?"

Yeah, dummy, they're callled "femoral arteries."
 
2014-02-28 01:56:10 PM  
I seem to recall a rule about not pointing a weapon at something unless you want a hole in it. Although with these magic poltergeist weapons, all the rules are right out the window.
 
2014-02-28 02:02:20 PM  

luniz5monody: I seem to recall a rule about not pointing a weapon at something unless you want a hole in it. Although with these magic poltergeist weapons, all the rules are right out the window.


Rule #1 of Poltergeist Gun Safety: do what the gun says or ELSE
 
2014-02-28 02:15:23 PM  

factoryconnection: luniz5monody: I seem to recall a rule about not pointing a weapon at something unless you want a hole in it. Although with these magic poltergeist weapons, all the rules are right out the window.

Rule #1 of Poltergeist Gun Safety: do what the gun says or ELSE


It is getting tiring....

When I come home from work, I have to put on the entire set of body armor before I get through the front door. I can't trust that all my weapons are still in the safe in the basement. If they have truly gone full poltergeist, I can't know if they've let themselves out of the safe or not. They could have made it out and are waiting for me to walk through that door. I will not take that chance. The body armor stays on until I leave for work the next morning.
 
2014-02-28 02:17:22 PM  

luniz5monody: The body armor stays on until I leave for work the next morning.


That's not too bad during the winter, though.  Probably saves on heating bills.
 
2014-02-28 02:19:48 PM  

factoryconnection: luniz5monody: The body armor stays on until I leave for work the next morning.

That's not too bad during the winter, though.  Probably saves on heating bills.


This is true...it has been a nasty Iowa winter. It has strained the relationship with the wife, but her body armor is mossy oak pink, and she likes it. Better to be safe than sorry.
 
2014-02-28 02:45:36 PM  

luniz5monody: This is true...it has been a nasty Iowa winter. It has strained the relationship with the wife, but her body armor is mossy oak pink, and she likes it. Better to be safe than sorry.


And at least, unlike Spanx, body armor isn't made of LIES.
 
2014-02-28 02:57:14 PM  
No true responsible gun owner...
 
2014-02-28 02:58:07 PM  

factoryconnection: A little detail on just how the gun decided to fire on its own would have been nice.  I mean, there are tens of millions of pistol owners in this country that might want to be on the look out for this poltergeist behavior.

Also: from the comments "a gunshot to the leg can put you in critical condition?"

Yeah, dummy, they're callled "femoral arteries."


It gets trotted out here from time to time.

See all the morans calling for cops to stop shooting center mass.
 
2014-02-28 02:59:38 PM  
If only the woman had had her own gun, this wouldn't have happened.
 
2014-02-28 03:00:45 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-28 03:01:34 PM  
I hope they have to pay for the transport.
 
2014-02-28 03:02:20 PM  
I shot my mom in Dayton just to watch her fly.
 
2014-02-28 03:03:07 PM  
A woman was transported to a hospital after her son's gun accidentally went off and shot her.

I like how he didn't accidentally shoot her the gun did...
 
2014-02-28 03:03:56 PM  
From what son?  You didn't finish your sentence.  What does it protect us from?  Idiots?  Is the gun supposed to protect us from idiots?  Good jerb gun.
 
2014-02-28 03:04:45 PM  

H31N0US: I hope they have to pay for the transport.


yeah, god forbid people use the emergency services their taxes pay for.
 
2014-02-28 03:05:45 PM  
Turns out there's home video of the event (starts at 1:15).
 
2014-02-28 03:06:00 PM  
I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.
 
2014-02-28 03:09:03 PM  
Remember folks, all people who buy guns are responsible and law abiding citizens who do not need training, or really, anything other than a shadow of sanity and a pulse.
 
2014-02-28 03:10:24 PM  

Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.


You think somebody too stupid to keep their finger off the trigger is going to remember to engage a manual safety?
 
2014-02-28 03:10:24 PM  

Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.


 img.4plebs.org
 
2014-02-28 03:11:33 PM  

Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.


Police departments who primarily use Glock model handguns would likely issue strong objections.
 
2014-02-28 03:11:55 PM  

Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.


Not sure if serious...
 
2014-02-28 03:12:46 PM  
The only thing that can stop a good mom with a gun is a good kid with a gun.  No wait, you can get good look at a t-bone by sticking a gun up your mom's vagina, no that isn't right either.
 
2014-02-28 03:12:49 PM  
headline could have been more effective, there was no "dad" in the story.
 
2014-02-28 03:12:57 PM  
There are NO accidents if a gun is discharged.

Absolutely none. It's total negligence and incompetence.
 
2014-02-28 03:13:07 PM  

Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.


The safety seems like an excellent feature, however...

I wonder as to whether it actually increases or decreases safety. I can elaborate on this further if it's not clear, but I get the distinct impression that all having a safety does is add one more thing for the idiot-that-shouldn't-have-a-gun-to-begin-with to forget

disclosure: I have lots of guns, none of my pistols have safeties (2x glocks and a s&w highway patrolman), all my rifles/AR/shotties do

further disclosure: None of any of them have ever become haunted and shot innocent people/family members unexpectedly
 
2014-02-28 03:13:36 PM  
Wow. There are a LOT of these guns accidentally firing nowadays. Who knew they would just go off by themselves so frequently?
 
2014-02-28 03:13:56 PM  

Bane of Broone: Wow. There are a LOT of these guns accidentally firing nowadays. Who knew they would just go off by themselves so frequently?


There are NO accidents if a gun is discharged.

Absolutely none. It's total negligence and incompetence.
 
2014-02-28 03:14:36 PM  
Hey, maybe the last word of that sentence was supposed to be 'mother', then things went according to plan and we wouldn't be having this little argument, now would we?
 
2014-02-28 03:14:39 PM  

jbuist: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

You think somebody too stupid to keep their finger off the trigger is going to remember to engage a manual safety?


I think it makes it worse. I think it makes him less likely to follow other safe practices. Now this same idiot will be keeping his finger on the trigger and doing fun whacky shiat like pointing it at the people he shows it to.

Ok, well, this idiot already does that apparently, but you know he wouldn't be better about it with the safety. I've seen too many people make idiotic moves with guns and follow it up with "don't worry, the safety is on".  Right because you totally offered the room to check for the safety prior to flagging us all.
 
2014-02-28 03:14:49 PM  
media.graytvinc.com

Thanks, helpful image!
 
2014-02-28 03:15:06 PM  

Bane of Broone: Wow. There are a LOT of these guns accidentally firing nowadays. Who knew they would just go off by themselves so frequently?


The industry claims a near perfect safety record, and our benevolent leaders have arranged that they cannot be sued. Kind of sad for the victims of these poorly constructed weapons.
 
2014-02-28 03:15:47 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Bane of Broone: Wow. There are a LOT of these guns accidentally firing nowadays. Who knew they would just go off by themselves so frequently?

The industry claims a near perfect safety record, and our benevolent leaders have arranged that they cannot be sued. Kind of sad for the victims of these poorly constructed weapons.


Please cite legislation prohibiting lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.
 
2014-02-28 03:16:34 PM  
media.graytvinc.com

Oh, look. A gun thread. I guess it's time to come on in and tell liberals how farked up they are because they don't have guns and don't get to experience things like this.

Also a good chance to let everybody know that I have fewer terrorists living around me because I have a gun.

If liberals only knew how to live. If they could only realize how awesome this shiat is.
 
2014-02-28 03:17:21 PM  

TrainingWheelsNeeded: headline could have been more effective, there was no "dad" in the story.


FTFA: "According to the Sergeant with the Lyon County Sheriff Dayton Substation, on Thursday, February 27, 2014, a young man was showing his new gun to his father."

I think you need reading comprehension classes in addition to training wheels.
 
2014-02-28 03:18:00 PM  
I've been on the fence when it comes to gun ownership. I want one but will not get one until I can get some training.

One thing I've learned is that guns don't fire themselves. Fingers resting on triggers fir the guns.content.artofmanliness.com

Even then, most guns require a deliberate amount of pressure on the trigger. Like: pull..... keep pulling..pull some more.. BANG!
 
2014-02-28 03:19:12 PM  

fisker: Oh, look. A gun thread. I guess it's time to come on in and tell liberals how farked up they are because they don't have guns and don't get to experience things like this.


This might be a shock and terrifying thought to you, but many of those liberals are gun owners themselves, and some of us even carry concealed. :)
 
2014-02-28 03:19:20 PM  
Look, no matter what side of the gun debate you are on, can we all laugh at this idiot?
 
2014-02-28 03:19:21 PM  

Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.


Just in case you aren't trolling....

ALWAYS treat a firearm as if it's loaded
NEVER point it at something you aren't willing to destroy
NEVER put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot
ALWAYS be sure of your target and what's beyond it.

There is no reason for a mechanical safety under these circumstances.  In fact most if not all revolvers have no safety to speak of .
 
2014-02-28 03:19:40 PM  
Only 99,999 more to go before we hit the quota of gun-shot injuries for the year.

GO USA!
 
2014-02-28 03:19:48 PM  
I reference to the idea that a gun is always loaded, it's story time...

Years ago, my father in law died.  While cleaning out his house, my wife found a small gun under his pillow.  I told everyone to leave the room, locked myself in the bathroom, and carefully opened up the gun.  It had a single short-shot .22 in the chamber.  It was loaded.

So I took out the bullet, and made it a point to pack away the gun and the box of bullets in seperate places.

A few weeks ago, we decided to search the basement because neither my wife or I could remember where the hell we packed the thing away.  We found it in a locked briefcase in the basement.  So, I'm looking at the instruction booklet that came with it, and I was astonished to find out, it was NOT a single shot pistol after all.  It has a magazine in the handle.  Once I got that out, I found that the entire magazine was loaded.

In other words, even though I thought I unloaded it, I didn't actually completely.  And that's scary as hell.
I'm still a little baffled as to how this gun works as a semiautomatic, as the only way to discharge the spent shell is to open up the barrel.  (perhaps someone could explain that one.)

The point of the story is, the gun is ALWAYS loaded.  Never assume otherwise.
 
2014-02-28 03:21:08 PM  

hardinparamedic: There are NO accidents if a gun is discharged.

Absolutely none. It's total negligence and incompetence.


By the same logic, there are no accidents while driving, standing on ladders, or working high steel. There are only negligence and incompetence of someone somewhere being at fault. You drove too fast or paid too little attention to swerve, you had the ladder in a flimsy position, and you weren't careful enough walking the beams. Heck, look at the old factory lines and all the people missing various bits of themselves. All of those accidents were actually the result of operator error.

I get the point, that we should place blame on various parties, but the term accident doesn't prevent the placing of blame. At the same time, the switching over to the phrase negligent discharge, imo, leads too many people to view the accidents of others and think to themselves "good thing I'm not like those folks, that could never happen to me, and hasn't because I'm not negligent". Plus, humans are a pretty fallible lot even when they all do try to follow best practices (and they should, of course).  Somebody, somewhere, even in the best world I can imagine, is going to let something slip their mind and have a little fark up.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I see no advantage to the terminology change, and think it comes with more potential downside than upside.
 
2014-02-28 03:21:47 PM  

BigLoser: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Not sure if serious...


Yes, I'm serious.  What's your problem?
 
2014-02-28 03:21:59 PM  
"The woman was transported by Careflight to Renown Regional Medical Center in Reno.
Careflight arrived on scene around 3:40 p.m., according to an official with Careflight.
According to an official with Careflight, the woman's injuries are critical."

This article sponsored by Careflight
 
2014-02-28 03:23:55 PM  

Smackledorfer: So I guess what I'm saying is, I see no advantage to the terminology change, and think it comes with more potential downside than upside.


The difference is that an accident in a vehicle only has, at best, 50% of the situation in your own control. So that party can be involved in an incident that is genuinely not their fault.

That gun is 100% under your control. You have the conscious thought to place your finger on the trigger. You have the conscious thought of where to point that weapon, whether it's loaded, and whether any of this is done in a manner that endangers another human being.

It is 100% your choice to pull the trigger. So yes, negligence is a great descriptor for any "accidental" shooting. Unless there is some form of mechanical failure of the weapon's firing pin or assembly itself, it is not an accident.
 
2014-02-28 03:24:27 PM  
Two years ago my dad comes home with a gun strapped to his hip. My heart leaps into my throat and I fall back on the couch in shock.

I say, "Dad ...  What the HELL?!!!"
He says, "I thought I should start carrying. She's a Sig P229, wanna hold her?"

"Dad, you've been dead since 2007!"

Then he let out a high-pitched scream, became a translucent mist and vanished ...  leaving behind the scent of almond extract.
 
2014-02-28 03:24:27 PM  

durbnpoisn: I reference to the idea that a gun is always loaded, it's story time...

Years ago, my father in law died.  While cleaning out his house, my wife found a small gun under his pillow.  I told everyone to leave the room, locked myself in the bathroom, and carefully opened up the gun.  It had a single short-shot .22 in the chamber.  It was loaded.

So I took out the bullet, and made it a point to pack away the gun and the box of bullets in seperate places.

A few weeks ago, we decided to search the basement because neither my wife or I could remember where the hell we packed the thing away.  We found it in a locked briefcase in the basement.  So, I'm looking at the instruction booklet that came with it, and I was astonished to find out, it was NOT a single shot pistol after all.  It has a magazine in the handle.  Once I got that out, I found that the entire magazine was loaded.

In other words, even though I thought I unloaded it, I didn't actually completely.  And that's scary as hell.
I'm still a little baffled as to how this gun works as a semiautomatic, as the only way to discharge the spent shell is to open up the barrel.  (perhaps someone could explain that one.)

The point of the story is, the gun is ALWAYS loaded.  Never assume otherwise.


OMG. Why did you not call the bomb squad?
 
2014-02-28 03:25:37 PM  

AngryDragon: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Just in case you aren't trolling....

ALWAYS treat a firearm as if it's loaded
NEVER point it at something you aren't willing to destroy
NEVER put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot
ALWAYS be sure of your target and what's beyond it.

There is no reason for a mechanical safety under these circumstances.  In fact most if not all revolvers have no safety to speak of .


Nope, not trolling.  Sure, if the above 4 points are followed, no problems.  But there are problems, so I simply wondered if having an extra option might not be some small help.  If it's too big of a deal to keep the safety on when the gun isn't in use, leave it the fark off.  I'm not a gun owner - I didn't know there was a big hatred of safeties among gun folks.
 
2014-02-28 03:25:59 PM  

durbnpoisn: I reference to the idea that a gun is always loaded, it's story time...

Years ago, my father in law died.  While cleaning out his house, my wife found a small gun under his pillow.  I told everyone to leave the room, locked myself in the bathroom, and carefully opened up the gun.  It had a single short-shot .22 in the chamber.  It was loaded.

So I took out the bullet, and made it a point to pack away the gun and the box of bullets in seperate places.

A few weeks ago, we decided to search the basement because neither my wife or I could remember where the hell we packed the thing away.  We found it in a locked briefcase in the basement.  So, I'm looking at the instruction booklet that came with it, and I was astonished to find out, it was NOT a single shot pistol after all.  It has a magazine in the handle.  Once I got that out, I found that the entire magazine was loaded.

In other words, even though I thought I unloaded it, I didn't actually completely.  And that's scary as hell.
I'm still a little baffled as to how this gun works as a semiautomatic, as the only way to discharge the spent shell is to open up the barrel.  (perhaps someone could explain that one.)

The point of the story is, the gun is ALWAYS loaded.  Never assume otherwise.


It's a Beretta Jetfire, one of the few semi-autos that can be unloaded by tipping up the barrel. That's not the only way to discharge the spent shell; the action pulls back when it's fired and allows the shell to eject.

Looks like this when it's open, right?

www.berettacollection.com
 
2014-02-28 03:26:04 PM  
A 2nd Amendment resolution to an idiotic situation.
 
2014-02-28 03:26:41 PM  

Aquapope: Nope, not trolling.


if you're not trolling, you have no clue what you're talking about then. All pistols have some form of safety, the effectiveness of which is the thing that varies. (I.e. Glock's horrible safety design)
 
2014-02-28 03:26:57 PM  
Do NOT - I repeat - do NOT read the comments following that article. No sense in kicking off the weekend by dong that to yourself.
 
2014-02-28 03:28:49 PM  

Aquapope: BigLoser: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Not sure if serious...

Yes, I'm serious.  What's your problem?


He's just checking to see if you're that mechanically ignorant. Most handguns have mechanical safeties of one sort or another, but requiring them on all new guns would be dumb and unproductive. For technical reasons you don't have the background knowledge to understand, obviously, or you wouldn't have asked the question.
 
2014-02-28 03:29:32 PM  

Bane of Broone: Wow. There are a LOT of these guns accidentally firing nowadays. Who knew they would just go off by themselves so frequently?


Without Egon to keep all the Not Me Poltergeists in check...
 
2014-02-28 03:31:40 PM  
I think we can all agree that the biatch deserved what she got, for raising such a stupid child...
 
2014-02-28 03:32:16 PM  

hardinparamedic: The difference is that an accident in a vehicle only has, at best, 50% of the situation in your own control. So that party can be involved in an incident that is genuinely not their fault.


you do realize car accident was just like 1 of 5 things he mentioned? If  you partake in a dangerous activity your chances of having an accident involving that are higher than if you didn't, it's pretty much common sense.
 
2014-02-28 03:32:27 PM  
 
2014-02-28 03:33:06 PM  

hardinparamedic: The difference is that an accident in a vehicle only has, at best, 50% of the situation in your own control. So that party can be involved in an incident that is genuinely not their fault.


Strange phrasing.  Plenty of accidents don't involve two vehicles, and of the multiple vehicle ones the accident would still be caused by the negligent party.  Why is the victim vehicle of a car accident involved in an accident, whereas the person shot by the idiot with the gun is the victim of negligence?

Not to mention my other examples that you deliberately left out so that you could define the difference by being X% in control.

What I am saying is that if you plot accident and negligence into a venn diagram, the vast majority of accidents will fall under negligence. But we don't see people who've been told a million times 'nuh uh its negligence' running around and claiming every other use of accident in the world is incorrect.  I am not defending idiots with guns. I am saying they do not warrant a redefining of language.
 
2014-02-28 03:35:47 PM  

Aquapope: I didn't know there was a big hatred of safeties among gun folks.


It is not hatred.

ooc, do you have more arguments in favor of a safety to counter those against, or have you changed your mind and now feel the safety is a pointless addition to the weapon?
 
2014-02-28 03:36:32 PM  

mbillips: Aquapope: BigLoser: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Not sure if serious...

Yes, I'm serious.  What's your problem?

He's just checking to see if you're that mechanically ignorant. Most handguns have mechanical safeties of one sort or another, but requiring them on all new guns would be dumb and unproductive. For technical reasons you don't have the background knowledge to understand, obviously, or you wouldn't have asked the question.


Yes, I'm that mechanically ignorant about guns.  I've only fired a rifle and a pistol a couple of times.  How would I know the prevalence of safeties on handguns?  I asked the question BECAUSE I don't have the background - don't be a dick about it.  You could have simply said "Most handguns do have some kind of mechanical safety" and be done with it.

I'd like to have asked more things about guns, and you could have shown off how much you know by explaining to a complete newby.  Answers from more knowledgeable people in a community are better than digging around on a wiki somewhere, especially when you don't really know the jargon specific to the target.
 
2014-02-28 03:37:30 PM  

Smackledorfer: Aquapope: I didn't know there was a big hatred of safeties among gun folks.

It is not hatred.

ooc, do you have more arguments in favor of a safety to counter those against, or have you changed your mind and now feel the safety is a pointless addition to the weapon?


Oh, God, don't start. Aquapope doesn't know anything about handgun design; he's said as much. Don't start some stupid Socratic dialogue with him.
 
2014-02-28 03:38:55 PM  

Smackledorfer: What I am saying is that if you plot accident and negligence into a venn diagram, the vast majority of accidents will fall under negligence. But we don't see people who've been told a million times 'nuh uh its negligence' running around and claiming every other use of accident in the world is incorrect.  I am not defending idiots with guns. I am saying they do not warrant a redefining of language.


dvdmedia.ign.com 

Danny: Hey, why can't we say "accident," again?
Nicholas: Because "accident" implies there's nobody to blame.
 
2014-02-28 03:39:08 PM  
Followup for hardin:

On the chance you wish to tell me I'm being pedantic, my Weeners is to point out that the pedantry begins with people trying to redefine the term mechanic to filter out any definition in which the responsibility is not on the fault of the actor in question.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident

Only one definition of many involves zero fault on the actor. So saying this person itfa was involved in an accident is absolutely correct, unless he intentionally shot another person. I think it safe to occam's razor our way to "he did not".
 
2014-02-28 03:39:09 PM  

Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Bane of Broone: Wow. There are a LOT of these guns accidentally firing nowadays. Who knew they would just go off by themselves so frequently?

The industry claims a near perfect safety record, and our benevolent leaders have arranged that they cannot be sued. Kind of sad for the victims of these poorly constructed weapons.

Please cite legislation prohibiting lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.


First result from Bing:
Gun Control And The New Federal Law Shielding Gun Manufacturers From Lawsuits

/I use it for free Redbox movies
 
2014-02-28 03:39:45 PM  

hardinparamedic: Smackledorfer: What I am saying is that if you plot accident and negligence into a venn diagram, the vast majority of accidents will fall under negligence. But we don't see people who've been told a million times 'nuh uh its negligence' running around and claiming every other use of accident in the world is incorrect.  I am not defending idiots with guns. I am saying they do not warrant a redefining of language.

[dvdmedia.ign.com image 460x276] 

Danny: Hey, why can't we say "accident," again?
Nicholas: Because "accident" implies there's nobody to blame.


I'll assume you've got nothin' then.
 
2014-02-28 03:39:48 PM  

Aquapope: mbillips: Aquapope: BigLoser: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Not sure if serious...

Yes, I'm serious.  What's your problem?

He's just checking to see if you're that mechanically ignorant. Most handguns have mechanical safeties of one sort or another, but requiring them on all new guns would be dumb and unproductive. For technical reasons you don't have the background knowledge to understand, obviously, or you wouldn't have asked the question.

Yes, I'm that mechanically ignorant about guns.  I've only fired a rifle and a pistol a couple of times.  How would I know the prevalence of safeties on handguns?  I asked the question BECAUSE I don't have the background - don't be a dick about it.  You could have simply said "Most handguns do have some kind of mechanical safety" and be done with it.

I'd like to have asked more things about guns, and you could have shown off how much you know by explaining to a complete newby.  Answers from more knowledgeable people in a community are better than digging around on a wiki somewhere, especially when you don't really know the jargon specific to the target.


Dude, you're in a Fark gun thread. Are you THAT much of a newbie that you think people will gently take you by the hand and teach you the fine points of why you just asked a stupid question that had the appearance of pure trollery? Bless your heart.
 
2014-02-28 03:39:55 PM  
Not sure if its been covered yet, but I'll throw in my 2 cents.
Iraq March2003. Thousands of soldiers. 3 weeks of hell on earth. 1 negligent discharge. Outside of an MKT at BIAP. As hardin put it, there are no "accidental" discharges with firearms. Luckily the soldier had his rifle pointed in the clearing barrel, but still. It takes a real moran to have a negligent discharge.
 
2014-02-28 03:40:39 PM  

Smackledorfer: Aquapope: I didn't know there was a big hatred of safeties among gun folks.

It is not hatred.

ooc, do you have more arguments in favor of a safety to counter those against, or have you changed your mind and now feel the safety is a pointless addition to the weapon?


I was never in favor of safeties, I just wondered about them.  I don't know enough about guns to have an opinion one way or another.  Read my original post - I asked if it would be hard to require.  I didn't advocate doing it.  It could be difficult for mechanical, political, financial or some other reason.  That's why I asked.  I've been told it's pointless by you, and that almost all handguns already have mechanical safeties by somebody else, but not why it's pointless enough not to add it to a weapon, in spite of almost all of them having them.  Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
 
2014-02-28 03:42:08 PM  

Dr gLove: Not sure if its been covered yet, but I'll throw in my 2 cents.
Iraq March2003. Thousands of soldiers. 3 weeks of hell on earth. 1 negligent discharge. Outside of an MKT at BIAP. As hardin put it, there are no "accidental" discharges with firearms. Luckily the soldier had his rifle pointed in the clearing barrel, but still. It takes a real moran to have a negligent discharge.


Fortunately, there is no shortage of morons in this country with enough cash to buy themselves an equalizer.*

*Equal to an inanimate object
 
2014-02-28 03:42:31 PM  

Smackledorfer: Followup for hardin:

On the chance you wish to tell me I'm being pedantic, my Weeners is to point out that the pedantry begins with people trying to redefine the term mechanic to filter out any definition in which the responsibility is not on the fault of the actor in question.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident

Only one definition of many involves zero fault on the actor. So saying this person itfa was involved in an accident is absolutely correct, unless he intentionally shot another person. I think it safe to occam's razor our way to "he did not".


No, I'm pointing out that the use of the word "accident' is a loaded term, and pointing out technically it is not an accident when someone is shot. It's due to negligence and a complete lack of sense on the part of the gun owner.
 
2014-02-28 03:42:54 PM  

Aquapope: I was never in favor of safeties, I just wondered about them.  I don't know enough about guns to have an opinion one way or another.  Read my original post - I asked if it would be hard to require.  I didn't advocate doing it.  It could be difficult for mechanical, political, financial or some other reason.  That's why I asked.   I've been told it's pointless by you, and that almost all handguns already have mechanical safeties by somebody else, but not why it's pointless enough not to add it to a weapon, in spite of almost all of them having them.  Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.


Actually in the post in which I said my reasons against a safety, I included sufficient points to answer your the second underlined part.

Stop trolling.

mbillips: Oh, God, don't start. Aquapope doesn't know anything about handgun design; he's said as much. Don't start some stupid Socratic dialogue with him.


You are correct, and I am done with him now.
 
2014-02-28 03:42:54 PM  

Aquapope: mbillips: Aquapope: BigLoser: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Not sure if serious...

Yes, I'm serious.  What's your problem?

He's just checking to see if you're that mechanically ignorant. Most handguns have mechanical safeties of one sort or another, but requiring them on all new guns would be dumb and unproductive. For technical reasons you don't have the background knowledge to understand, obviously, or you wouldn't have asked the question.

Yes, I'm that mechanically ignorant about guns.  I've only fired a rifle and a pistol a couple of times.  How would I know the prevalence of safeties on handguns?  I asked the question BECAUSE I don't have the background - don't be a dick about it.  You could have simply said "Most handguns do have some kind of mechanical safety" and be done with it.

I'd like to have asked more things about guns, and you could have shown off how much you know by explaining to a complete newby.  Answers from more knowledgeable people in a community are better than digging around on a wiki somewhere, especially when you don't really know the jargon specific to the target.


Just on the chance that AquaPope is genuinely interested...

Here ya go, they are local to ya.
https://shesapistol.com/cgi/cart.pl

You should not start learning about these things over the internet, you should learn about them in person.
 
2014-02-28 03:43:04 PM  

mbillips: Aquapope: mbillips: Aquapope: BigLoser: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Not sure if serious...

Yes, I'm serious.  What's your problem?

He's just checking to see if you're that mechanically ignorant. Most handguns have mechanical safeties of one sort or another, but requiring them on all new guns would be dumb and unproductive. For technical reasons you don't have the background knowledge to understand, obviously, or you wouldn't have asked the question.

Yes, I'm that mechanically ignorant about guns.  I've only fired a rifle and a pistol a couple of times.  How would I know the prevalence of safeties on handguns?  I asked the question BECAUSE I don't have the background - don't be a dick about it.  You could have simply said "Most handguns do have some kind of mechanical safety" and be done with it.

I'd like to have asked more things about guns, and you could have shown off how much you know by explaining to a complete newby.  Answers from more knowledgeable people in a community are better than digging around on a wiki somewhere, especially when you don't really know the jargon specific to the target.

Dude, you're in a Fark gun thread. Are you THAT much of a newbie that you think people will gently take you by the hand and teach you the fine points of why you just asked a stupid question that had the appearance of pure trollery? Bless your heart.


New to gun threads.  I don't think I'll hang out in many in the future.  Politics and religion threads seem much more civilized.
 
2014-02-28 03:43:12 PM  

Serious Black: TrainingWheelsNeeded: headline could have been more effective, there was no "dad" in the story.

FTFA: "According to the Sergeant with the Lyon County Sheriff Dayton Substation, on Thursday, February 27, 2014, a young man was showing his new gun to his father."

I think you need reading comprehension classes in addition to training wheels.


shoot
 
2014-02-28 03:43:28 PM  

durbnpoisn: The point of the story is, the gun is ALWAYS loaded.  Never assume otherwise.


Useful story, bro. In your case, you were dealing with an unfamiliar firearm. But my guess is that most gun accidents happen when people are handling guns they are familiar with in an unsafe manner.

Smackledorfer: Somebody, somewhere, even in the best world I can imagine, is going to let something slip their mind and have a little fark up.


Which is probably preventable. The benefit of having this "there is no such thing as an accident" mentality is that it gets you to think about what could go wrong before it goes wrong.

Think of all the things this guy did that goes against standard, safe gun-handling protocols. He was probably not thinking of those protocols when he reached for his weapon. If he had, we're probably talking about something else, not what a moron this guy was.

I don't care what you call this: "accident" or "negligent discharge." The fact that it was negligence with a deadly weapon should be prosecuted, IMO. If we did that, maybe people might be more proactive about gun safety. And it wouldn't affect safe gun owners at all.
 
2014-02-28 03:44:30 PM  
Let's see. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot if you have a gun in the house.  Someone brought a gun into the house. A person living in that house got shot.

Yup. The math works.
 
2014-02-28 03:45:18 PM  

Aquapope: mbillips: Aquapope: mbillips: Aquapope: BigLoser: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Not sure if serious...

Yes, I'm serious.  What's your problem?

He's just checking to see if you're that mechanically ignorant. Most handguns have mechanical safeties of one sort or another, but requiring them on all new guns would be dumb and unproductive. For technical reasons you don't have the background knowledge to understand, obviously, or you wouldn't have asked the question.

Yes, I'm that mechanically ignorant about guns.  I've only fired a rifle and a pistol a couple of times.  How would I know the prevalence of safeties on handguns?  I asked the question BECAUSE I don't have the background - don't be a dick about it.  You could have simply said "Most handguns do have some kind of mechanical safety" and be done with it.

I'd like to have asked more things about guns, and you could have shown off how much you know by explaining to a complete newby.  Answers from more knowledgeable people in a community are better than digging around on a wiki somewhere, especially when you don't really know the jargon specific to the target.

Dude, you're in a Fark gun thread. Are you THAT much of a newbie that you think people will gently take you by the hand and teach you the fine points of why you just asked a stupid question that had the appearance of pure trollery? Bless your heart.

New to gun threads.  I don't think I'll hang out in many in the future.  Politics and religion threads seem much more civilized.


Now, THAT was a true statement that added to the thread. Keep that up.
 
2014-02-28 03:45:35 PM  

hardinparamedic: No, I'm pointing out that the use of the word "accident' is a loaded term, and pointing out technically it is not an accident when someone is shot. It's due to negligence and a complete lack of sense on the part of the gun owner.


And once again, do you get this upset over the use of accident in all the other examples given? Do you then want ZERO accidents in which anything less than 100% of the fault lies with the actor to be redefined?

Or, as I suspect, this is merely you parroting something you were taught when being trained with firearms, and never really thought through?

If you want to call them negligent, have at it. But the rest of us are still well within the bounds of correct to use the term accident.

Because when you correct other people who are correctly using the term accident, you are the one who is incorrect. See my venn diagram example if you still don't get it.
 
2014-02-28 03:45:56 PM  

Farking Canuck: Let's see. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot if you have a gun in the house.  Someone brought a gun into the house. A person living in that house got shot.

Yup. The math works.


Iimgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-02-28 03:46:51 PM  

factoryconnection: Also: from the comments "a gunshot to the leg can put you in critical condition?"

Yeah, dummy, they're callled "femoral arteries."


One of the biggest problems in the country (including with guns, but also with everything) is people who think reality is like TV and movies.

A gunshot wound to the leg or shoulder is no big deal!  Just shrug it off and keep going!

Idiots.
 
2014-02-28 03:46:54 PM  

AngryDragon: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Just in case you aren't trolling....

ALWAYS treat aEVERY firearm as if it'sis ALWAYSloaded
NEVER point it at something you aren't willing to destroy
NEVER put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot
ALWAYS be sure of your target and what's beyond it.

There is no reason for a mechanical safety under these circumstances.  In fact most if not all revolvers have no safety to speak of .


CSB:
When I was a kid of, oh, maybe 11 or so, I went to the gun range with my dad.  We shot our .22 pistols for a couple of hours, then we came home.  Dad asked me to clean the guns, and I was still young enough to think that was fun, so I said, "Okay!"  I went into Mom and Dad's bedroom, where I cleaned Dad's gun.  I then very carefully pulled out my Ruger .22 revolver and took 6 bullets out of the cylinder and placed them in a pile on the bed.  As I was taught by my dad, I continued on around the cylinder twice, pushing the ejector until I had pushed it 12 times.  I then put the gun back in the holster on my hip and proceeded to do fast-draws.  The third time I drew, cocked and fired, the gun went off.  Once I got over my freakout and my dad had taken the gun out of my shaking hands, I was able to show him the 6 bullets I had removed, laying in a pile on the bed.  I will swear to my dying day that I removed 6 bullets from that gun.  So now, whenever I am handed a weapon of any kind, I immediately clear the chamber, even if the person handing me the gun just did the same in my presence.
/CSB
 
2014-02-28 03:47:35 PM  

Farking Canuck: Let's see. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot if you have a gun in the house.  Someone brought a gun into the house. A person living in that house got shot.

Yup. The math works.


But you're ignoring the equally valid statement that statistically, you are more likely to gun down a drug-crazed urban thug rapist werewolf zombie home invader if you have a gun in the house. The math means nothing unless you compare the cost-benefit.

/You're still going to be correct, but you haven't shown all your work.
 
2014-02-28 03:48:36 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Which is probably preventable.


Human error is not preventable. It can be minimized, but never eliminated. 

Mitch Taylor's Bro: The benefit of having this "there is no such thing as an accident" mentality is that it gets you to think about what could go wrong before it goes wrong.


And I view it as having the opposite effect: with people convincing themselves the accident couldn't occur to them because they think themselves superior (which as I'm sure you know is a very common dissonance for people, thinking that X won't happen to them).  The more you make X a factor of the person and less something that could happen to anyone, the more people you have who start with the assumption they are competent and responsible and fark up from there.
 
2014-02-28 03:48:42 PM  
No charges...of course.  Why would responsible gun owners want any responsibility to be held to?
 
2014-02-28 03:49:18 PM  

mbillips: Dr gLove: Not sure if its been covered yet, but I'll throw in my 2 cents.
Iraq March2003. Thousands of soldiers. 3 weeks of hell on earth. 1 negligent discharge. Outside of an MKT at BIAP. As hardin put it, there are no "accidental" discharges with firearms. Luckily the soldier had his rifle pointed in the clearing barrel, but still. It takes a real moran to have a negligent discharge.

Fortunately, there is no shortage of morons in this country with enough cash to buy themselves an equalizer.*

*Equal to an inanimate object


Amen to that! I've never had the privelage of being dumb enough to put my nose picker on the bang switch until it was time to go hot. In 20 years of shooting I've never had a firearm just jump out and shoot me. Scary world we live in.. inanimate objects getting animated all on their own? Scary...
 
2014-02-28 03:49:22 PM  
The world would be a better place if people with guns would stick strictly to shooting only other people with guns.  It has become a serious problem all this shooting of unarmed people.  Dammit people, quit being such chickenshiats and pick on armed people only.
 
2014-02-28 03:49:39 PM  

Aquapope: Smackledorfer: Aquapope: I didn't know there was a big hatred of safeties among gun folks.

It is not hatred.

ooc, do you have more arguments in favor of a safety to counter those against, or have you changed your mind and now feel the safety is a pointless addition to the weapon?

I was never in favor of safeties, I just wondered about them.  I don't know enough about guns to have an opinion one way or another.  Read my original post - I asked if it would be hard to require.  I didn't advocate doing it.  It could be difficult for mechanical, political, financial or some other reason.  That's why I asked.  I've been told it's pointless by you, and that almost all handguns already have mechanical safeties by somebody else, but not why it's pointless enough not to add it to a weapon, in spite of almost all of them having them.  Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.


All modern guns have safeties of some sort or another that will prevent the firing pin from coming into contact with the primer of a bullet unless the trigger is pulled.

You may be thinking of (from your earlier post) of Glock or other striker fired pistols with no clear external safety that prevents trigger pull. Glocks have a trigger safety that requires a significant amount of force for the initial trigger pull, mainly to prevent accidental trigger pull from withdrawing from a holster. Person shooting it does need to make a deleberate pull of the trigger to fire the gun.

There are other safety styles like on a 1911 where a level in the grip needs to be depressed before the trigger can be pulled or  a switch/lever that needs to be flipped before the trigger can be pulled.

This is only for semi-automatics and not revolvers which are different.
 
2014-02-28 03:49:53 PM  

Carthax: AngryDragon: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Just in case you aren't trolling....

ALWAYS treat aEVERY firearm as if it'sis ALWAYSloaded
NEVER point it at something you aren't willing to destroy
NEVER put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot
ALWAYS be sure of your target and what's beyond it.

There is no reason for a mechanical safety under these circumstances.  In fact most if not all revolvers have no safety to speak of .

CSB:
When I was a kid of, oh, maybe 11 or so, I went to the gun range with my dad.  We shot our .22 pistols for a couple of hours, then we came home.  Dad asked me to clean the guns, and I was still young enough to think that was fun, so I said, "Okay!"  I went into Mom and Dad's bedroom, where I cleaned Dad's gun.  I then very carefully pulled out my Ruger .22 revolver and took 6 bullets out of the cylinder and placed them in a pile on the bed.  As I was taught by my dad, I continued on around the cylinder twice, pushing the ejector until I had pushed it 12 times.  I then put the gun back in the holster on my hip and proceeded to do fast-draws.  The third time I drew, cocked and fired, the gun went off.  Once I got over my freakout and my dad had taken the gun out of my shaking hands, I was able to show him the 6 bullets I had removed, laying in a pile on the bed.  I will swear to my dying day that I removed 6 bullets from that gun.  So now, whenever I am handed a weapon of any kind, I immediately clear the chamber, even if the person handing me the gun just did the same in my presence.
/CSB


This is why I always look down the barrel before I pull the trigger. Safety first!
 
2014-02-28 03:50:40 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Which is probably preventable. The benefit of having this "there is no such thing as an accident" mentality is that it gets you to think about what could go wrong before it goes wrong.


You do that when you are doing anything dangerous.
 
2014-02-28 03:50:51 PM  

asmodeus224: No charges...of course.  Why would responsible gun owners want any responsibility to be held to?


Because we have a 2nd amendment in this country.
 
2014-02-28 03:51:15 PM  

Smackledorfer: Strange phrasing. Plenty of accidents don't involve two vehicles, and of the multiple vehicle ones the accident would still be caused by the negligent party. Why is the victim vehicle of a car accident involved in an accident, whereas the person shot by the idiot with the gun is the victim of negligence?


Car accidents also result from negligence combined with environmental factors and other drivers' actions, but stories like these shootings are more of a "gross negligence" where even the most rudimentary clue of what was going on would have prevented it.  Cars and roads also exhibit mechanical and structural faults far more often than guns do (at least the kind that cause discharge).  There are a ton of unpredictable and transient variables in most drives.  Also: cars have a purpose other than putting an end to things.  A car's primary purpose isn't "to cause crashes," but a gun's primary purpose is "to put holes in things, usually living if you're not just practicing."

This dummy, the guy who shot his wife in the diner while fishing around in his pocket full of change, a pistol, and other assorted junk, and the drunk one last week that blew his own brains out by demonstrating that his pistols were "clear" by pulling the trigger while they were aimed at his head are pure, unadulterated negligence.  They weren't distracted, just completely ignoring every lesson ever taught in firearms safety.

Now, on the other hand, if they were at the range and a ricochet caught a patron in the leg, that would be an accident.
 
2014-02-28 03:52:25 PM  

Witty_Retort: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Bane of Broone: Wow. There are a LOT of these guns accidentally firing nowadays. Who knew they would just go off by themselves so frequently?

The industry claims a near perfect safety record, and our benevolent leaders have arranged that they cannot be sued. Kind of sad for the victims of these poorly constructed weapons.

Please cite legislation prohibiting lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.

First result from Bing:
Gun Control And The New Federal Law Shielding Gun Manufacturers From Lawsuits

/I use it for free Redbox movies


The Act to which that article refers only shields firearm manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits related to injuries caused by criminal or unlawful use of the firearm by a third party. The law states that prohibited civil actions "shall not include" actions against a firearm transferror convicted of illegally transferring a firearm, actions against a manufacturer who knowingly violated laws relating to the sale or marketing of their product, any action against a manufacturer who demonstrably conspired to provide a firearm to a prohibited person, any action relating to a violation of a product warranty or any action relating to injury resulting from a defect in a manufacturer's product.

As such, a manufacturer can be sued following injury resulting from a manufacturing defect, and a firearm seller can be sued for damages resulting from that seller knowingly providing firearms to a felon. A firearm manufacturer may also be sued for failing to abide by a product warranty.

HotWingConspiracy claimed that "the industry" "cannot be sued". For that claim to be honest, those exceptions to the law must be nullified by further legislation, as the Act to which you referred explicitly defines conditions under which a firearm manufacturer may be sued. Please identify the legislation that nullifies those exceptions.
 
2014-02-28 03:53:12 PM  

durbnpoisn


I'm still a little baffled as to how this gun works as a semiautomatic, as the only way to discharge the spent shell is to open up the barrel. (perhaps someone could explain that one.)


mbillips provided some info already.

The tip-up barrel is there to make loading the first round easier: tip the barrel up, insert the cartridge, push the barrel back down. You can also pull the slide back to chamber the first round but since you're fighting a fairly tough spring it can be difficult to do.

Beretta still makes a .22 like that, called the Bobcat, and a .32 called the Tomcat (although they may have ceased production on that one). Taurus makes a similar model called the PT22.
 
2014-02-28 03:53:26 PM  

mbillips: Farking Canuck: Let's see. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot if you have a gun in the house.  Someone brought a gun into the house. A person living in that house got shot.

Yup. The math works.

But you're ignoring the equally valid statement that statistically, you are more likely to gun down a drug-crazed urban thug rapist werewolf zombie home invader if you have a gun in the house. The math means nothing unless you compare the cost-benefit.

/You're still going to be correct, but you haven't shown all your work.


I'm mostly kidding as that was not a correct way to interpret the statistic.

The statistic also does not differentiate between "Fark Gun Owners"* and regular gun owners. I'm sure the statistics would clearly show that "Fark Gun Owners" are statistically safer having firearms in the house.

* gun owners who are so vigilant with gun handling rules that it is impossible for them to have a "gun accident",
 
2014-02-28 03:53:57 PM  

factoryconnection: if they were at the range and a ricochet caught a patron in the leg, t


I've never been a range where someone can ricochet a round back up range. Wtf are they doing, shooting into the air? Because that seems to be something covered by the basic point of paying attention to where the pistol aims.

factoryconnection: Car accidents


I see next time I should leave car accidents out, since everyone seems stuck on them.  I mean, I know WHY you guys are stuck on them, because your points fall apart using the other examples of things commonly called accident. But I I'll make a mental note not to get you started down that path :)
 
2014-02-28 03:55:41 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I don't care what you call this: "accident" or "negligent discharge." The fact that it was negligence with a deadly weapon should be prosecuted, IMO. If we did that, maybe people might be more proactive about gun safety. And it wouldn't affect safe gun owners at all.


I concur.

Ideally, such acts should be felony offenses. In many states, felony reckless endangerment statutes would already be applicable to such incidents.
 
2014-02-28 03:55:54 PM  

Headso: H31N0US: I hope they have to pay for the transport.

yeah, god forbid people use the emergency services their taxes pay for.


Where do you live that ambulance service isn't privatized? Taxes pay for police, fire, and 911. But if you need transport to the hospital, you will find that charge on your bill. Because FREE MARKET.
 
2014-02-28 03:57:05 PM  

Doc Daneeka: factoryconnection: Also: from the comments "a gunshot to the leg can put you in critical condition?"

Yeah, dummy, they're callled "femoral arteries."

One of the biggest problems in the country (including with guns, but also with everything) is people who think reality is like TV and movies.

A gunshot wound to the leg or shoulder is no big deal!  Just shrug it off and keep going!

Idiots.


As an avid video game player, I am aware that firearm-related injuries are not as depicted in television and movies.

I know that, if shot, I should immediately seek cover and remain motionless for several seconds to allow the injury to spontaneously heal.
 
2014-02-28 03:57:43 PM  

factoryconnection: Smackledorfer: Strange phrasing. Plenty of accidents don't involve two vehicles, and of the multiple vehicle ones the accident would still be caused by the negligent party. Why is the victim vehicle of a car accident involved in an accident, whereas the person shot by the idiot with the gun is the victim of negligence?

Car accidents also result from negligence combined with environmental factors and other drivers' actions, but stories like these shootings are more of a "gross negligence" where even the most rudimentary clue of what was going on would have prevented it.  Cars and roads also exhibit mechanical and structural faults far more often than guns do (at least the kind that cause discharge).  There are a ton of unpredictable and transient variables in most drives.  Also: cars have a purpose other than putting an end to things.  A car's primary purpose isn't "to cause crashes," but a gun's primary purpose is "to put holes in things, usually living if you're not just practicing."

This dummy, the guy who shot his wife in the diner while fishing around in his pocket full of change, a pistol, and other assorted junk, and the drunk one last week that blew his own brains out by demonstrating that his pistols were "clear" by pulling the trigger while they were aimed at his head are pure, unadulterated negligence.  They weren't distracted, just completely ignoring every lesson ever taught in firearms safety.

Now, on the other hand, if they were at the range and a ricochet caught a patron in the leg, that would be an accident.


I don't know how it works where you live, but in my state, firearms safety education is completely optional and irregular. I doubt any of these idiots shooting themselves and others have had the first firearms safety class. So you can claim a diminished level of negligence, because they lacked the knowledge of proper operation. Now, you can claim THAT is tantamount to negligence, but then you'd be ignoring human nature. If you can go to a store and buy a gun with no safety training required, and nobody else in the trailer park is talking about safety classes, then it's perfectly reasonable for you to assume that guns don't require safety training.
 
2014-02-28 03:58:47 PM  
Is this another Marc Jacobs thread?
 
2014-02-28 04:00:04 PM  

Farking Canuck: mbillips: Farking Canuck: Let's see. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot if you have a gun in the house.  Someone brought a gun into the house. A person living in that house got shot.

Yup. The math works.

But you're ignoring the equally valid statement that statistically, you are more likely to gun down a drug-crazed urban thug rapist werewolf zombie home invader if you have a gun in the house. The math means nothing unless you compare the cost-benefit.

/You're still going to be correct, but you haven't shown all your work.

I'm mostly kidding as that was not a correct way to interpret the statistic.

The statistic also does not differentiate between "Fark Gun Owners"* and regular gun owners. I'm sure the statistics would clearly show that "Fark Gun Owners" are statistically safer having firearms in the house.

* gun owners who are so vigilant with gun handling rules that it is impossible for them to have a "gun accident",


Fark Gun Owners™ also are at no risk of a firearms suicide in the house, because they are mentally strong like bull, and their guns are completely secured against unauthorized use by other family members.
 
2014-02-28 04:00:55 PM  
it's really encouraging that the gun owners in this thread seem to be complete standoffish assholes. aquapope asked about the pros and cons of safeties and every answer involved calling him either an idiot or a troll.  nice job.
 
2014-02-28 04:03:03 PM  

RobotSpider: Headso: H31N0US: I hope they have to pay for the transport.

yeah, god forbid people use the emergency services their taxes pay for.

Where do you live that ambulance service isn't privatized? Taxes pay for police, fire, and 911. But if you need transport to the hospital, you will find that charge on your bill. Because FREE MARKET.


No shiat! And they will make up a random cost in the many thousands of dollars for the 5-mile ride, and bill you for the half your insurance doesn't cover, and threaten to wreck your credit if you don't pay. The next time I fall and knock myself out in the bathtub, I'm calling a cab to get me to the hospital.
 
2014-02-28 04:05:12 PM  

johnny queso: it's really encouraging that the gun owners in this thread seem to be complete standoffish assholes. aquapope asked about the pros and cons of safeties and every answer involved calling him either an idiot or a troll.  nice job.


Yeah, that's not what happened. Aquapope made an inaccurate statement about a prior gun thread, a trollish aside about the NRA, and then got butthurt when he got called on it. The reason nobody explained about safeties to his satisfaction is that a proper explanation would run into several hundred words and involve diagrams and photos.
 
2014-02-28 04:07:55 PM  

Smackledorfer: factoryconnection: if they were at the range and a ricochet caught a patron in the leg, t

I've never been a range where someone can ricochet a round back up range. Wtf are they doing, shooting into the air? Because that seems to be something covered by the basic point of paying attention to where the pistol aims.


OK, fine, somebody's handgun had a manufacturing defect and blew up, sending half the slide into the head of the guy in the next lane. That's an accident. You can claim it's negligence by the manufacturer if you want to continue to be pedantic about it.
 
2014-02-28 04:08:15 PM  

there their theyre: Aquapope: Smackledorfer: Aquapope: I didn't know there was a big hatred of safeties among gun folks.

It is not hatred.

ooc, do you have more arguments in favor of a safety to counter those against, or have you changed your mind and now feel the safety is a pointless addition to the weapon?

I was never in favor of safeties, I just wondered about them.  I don't know enough about guns to have an opinion one way or another.  Read my original post - I asked if it would be hard to require.  I didn't advocate doing it.  It could be difficult for mechanical, political, financial or some other reason.  That's why I asked.  I've been told it's pointless by you, and that almost all handguns already have mechanical safeties by somebody else, but not why it's pointless enough not to add it to a weapon, in spite of almost all of them having them.  Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

All modern guns have safeties of some sort or another that will prevent the firing pin from coming into contact with the primer of a bullet unless the trigger is pulled.

You may be thinking of (from your earlier post) of Glock or other striker fired pistols with no clear external safety that prevents trigger pull. Glocks have a trigger safety that requires a significant amount of force for the initial trigger pull, mainly to prevent accidental trigger pull from withdrawing from a holster. Person shooting it does need to make a deleberate pull of the trigger to fire the gun.

There are other safety styles like on a 1911 where a level in the grip needs to be depressed before the trigger can be pulled or  a switch/lever that needs to be flipped before the trigger can be pulled.

This is only for semi-automatics and not revolvers which are different.


an actual, polite answer.  thanks.
 
2014-02-28 04:08:27 PM  
Aquapope


I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties. Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?

Someone who is admittedly completely ignorant about a topic demanding legislation passed to control a topic (s)he has no fracking clue about.

"It's the democrat way!"
 
2014-02-28 04:10:19 PM  

mbillips: johnny queso: it's really encouraging that the gun owners in this thread seem to be complete standoffish assholes. aquapope asked about the pros and cons of safeties and every answer involved calling him either an idiot or a troll.  nice job.

Yeah, that's not what happened. Aquapope made an inaccurate statement about a prior gun thread, a trollish aside about the NRA, and then got butthurt when he got called on it. The reason nobody explained about safeties to his satisfaction is that a proper explanation would run into several hundred words and involve diagrams and photos.


actually he seemed to be asking about safeties.  from an uninterested bystander most of you sound like defensive jerks.
 
2014-02-28 04:15:21 PM  

Smackledorfer: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Which is probably preventable.

Human error is not preventable. It can be minimized, but never eliminated.  Mitch Taylor's Bro: The benefit of having this "there is no such thing as an accident" mentality is that it gets you to think about what could go wrong before it goes wrong.

And I view it as having the opposite effect: with people convincing themselves the accident couldn't occur to them because they think themselves superior (which as I'm sure you know is a very common dissonance for people, thinking that X won't happen to them).  The more you make X a factor of the person and less something that could happen to anyone, the more people you have who start with the assumption they are competent and responsible and fark up from there.


It's not about whether or not the person thinks something will or won't happen to them. It's about actions and accountability. As a few people have mentioned ITT, there is an established protocol for handling any gun. A safe gun owner follows it every time. An unsafe gun owner is one who assumes anything about the weapon s/he is handling and skips part of that protocol. You could be the safest gun owner in the world, but the moment you skip one of those steps, you become negligent. And if someone gets shot because:

1. the gun was loaded.
2. your finger was on the trigger.
3. the gun was pointed in an unsafe direction.

you should lose your 2A right. #1 could be an accident, but #2 and #3 are still under your control.
 
2014-02-28 04:16:21 PM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: Do NOT - I repeat - do NOT read the comments following that article. No sense in kicking off the weekend by dong that to yourself.


Hey, it's the weekend.  What's wrong with dong it to myself?
 
2014-02-28 04:17:58 PM  

Headso: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Which is probably preventable. The benefit of having this "there is no such thing as an accident" mentality is that it gets you to think about what could go wrong before it goes wrong.

You do that when you are doing anything dangerous.


Maybe you and I do, but obviously not everyone shares our philosophy. And that's why we have Fark, so we can read about them and mock them :-)
 
2014-02-28 04:19:42 PM  

Dimensio: Witty_Retort: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Bane of Broone: Wow. There are a LOT of these guns accidentally firing nowadays. Who knew they would just go off by themselves so frequently?

The industry claims a near perfect safety record, and our benevolent leaders have arranged that they cannot be sued. Kind of sad for the victims of these poorly constructed weapons.

Please cite legislation prohibiting lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.

First result from Bing:
Gun Control And The New Federal Law Shielding Gun Manufacturers From Lawsuits

/I use it for free Redbox movies

The Act to which that article refers only shields firearm manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits related to injuries caused by criminal or unlawful use of the firearm by a third party. The law states that prohibited civil actions "shall not include" actions against a firearm transferror convicted of illegally transferring a firearm, actions against a manufacturer who knowingly violated laws relating to the sale or marketing of their product, any action against a manufacturer who demonstrably conspired to provide a firearm to a prohibited person, any action relating to a violation of a product warranty or any action relating to injury resulting from a defect in a manufacturer's product.

As such, a manufacturer can be sued following injury resulting from a manufacturing defect, and a firearm seller can be sued for damages resulting from that seller knowingly providing firearms to a felon. A firearm manufacturer may also be sued for failing to abide by a product warranty.

HotWingConspiracy claimed that "the industry" "cannot be sued". For that claim to be honest, those exceptions to the law must be nullified by further legislation, as the Act to which you referred explicitly defines conditions under which a firearm manufacturer may be sued. Please identify the legislation that nullifies those exceptions.


Using pedantry to move the goalposts? They cannot be sued for some things. Some lawsuits are prohibited.
Neither you or HWC mentioned prohibiting all law suits.

/gun owner, btw.
/they should be as regulated as cars, imho.
 
2014-02-28 04:21:13 PM  

mbillips: durbnpoisn: I reference to the idea that a gun is always loaded, it's story time...

Years ago, my father in law died.  While cleaning out his house, my wife found a small gun under his pillow.  I told everyone to leave the room, locked myself in the bathroom, and carefully opened up the gun.  It had a single short-shot .22 in the chamber.  It was loaded.

So I took out the bullet, and made it a point to pack away the gun and the box of bullets in seperate places.

A few weeks ago, we decided to search the basement because neither my wife or I could remember where the hell we packed the thing away.  We found it in a locked briefcase in the basement.  So, I'm looking at the instruction booklet that came with it, and I was astonished to find out, it was NOT a single shot pistol after all.  It has a magazine in the handle.  Once I got that out, I found that the entire magazine was loaded.

In other words, even though I thought I unloaded it, I didn't actually completely.  And that's scary as hell.
I'm still a little baffled as to how this gun works as a semiautomatic, as the only way to discharge the spent shell is to open up the barrel.  (perhaps someone could explain that one.)

The point of the story is, the gun is ALWAYS loaded.  Never assume otherwise.

It's a Beretta Jetfire, one of the few semi-autos that can be unloaded by tipping up the barrel. That's not the only way to discharge the spent shell; the action pulls back when it's fired and allows the shell to eject.

Looks like this when it's open, right?

[www.berettacollection.com image 394x320]


Holy shiat!  Very good homework!  That's exactly it!
And from the photo, you could probably guess that, not being familiar with that type of gun, I figured it was a single-shot gun.
Having never fired it, I hadn't seen the reloading mechanism at work.
 
2014-02-28 04:22:53 PM  

Witty_Retort: Independence Township man shoots, kills himself while demonstrating gun safety


Drinking all day and demonstrating gun safety by aiming at head and pulling trigger. Too bad the coroner can't list official cause of death as stupidity.
 
2014-02-28 04:24:54 PM  

johnny queso: it's really encouraging that the gun owners in this thread seem to be complete standoffish assholes. aquapope asked about the pros and cons of safeties and every answer involved calling him either an idiot or a troll.  nice job.


To quote Aquapope: " I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage."

I'm sure the responses would've been different had the last two sentences been omitted.
 
2014-02-28 04:28:11 PM  

Witty_Retort: Using pedantry to move the goalposts? They cannot be sued for some things. Some lawsuits are prohibited.Neither you or HWC mentioned prohibiting all law suits.


HotWingConspiracy stated "The industry claims a near perfect safety record, and our benevolent leaders have arranged that they cannot be sued."

The statement did not imply that "the industry" could be sued under certain circumstances.

/gun owner, btw.
/they should be as regulated as cars, imho.


You are saying, then, that my Kentucky-issued concealed weapons permit should be honored in the state of New York?
 
2014-02-28 04:29:18 PM  

mbillips: RobotSpider: Headso: H31N0US: I hope they have to pay for the transport.

yeah, god forbid people use the emergency services their taxes pay for.

Where do you live that ambulance service isn't privatized? Taxes pay for police, fire, and 911. But if you need transport to the hospital, you will find that charge on your bill. Because FREE MARKET.

No shiat! And they will make up a random cost in the many thousands of dollars for the 5-mile ride, and bill you for the half your insurance doesn't cover, and threaten to wreck your credit if you don't pay. The next time I fall and knock myself out in the bathtub, I'm calling a cab to get me to the hospital.


I hate to break this to you, but 99% of those "tax-paid" fire departments which do ambulance transport also charge a fee comparable to the private or hospital-based services.

And the bolded part tells me you live in a state with crappy laws, or don't have a clue what you're talking about.
 
2014-02-28 04:30:10 PM  
DAYTON, NV - A woman was transported to a hospital after her son's gun accidentally went off and shot her.

Damn those guns, always "going off".  Here is what REALLY happened:

DAYTON, NV - A woman was transported to a hospital after her son's gun accidentally went off and shot her.
 
2014-02-28 04:33:06 PM  
You know, I am going to look at this differently.

Instead of wondering how the gun could have ACCIDENTLY discharged... Maybe he meant to shoot her and just SAID it was accidental to avoid the attempted murder / manslaughter charge.

"Hey Dad, let me show you my new gun. Yeah, that b#%ch can see it too...." BANG..

Oh my god, I can believe I just shot her. I am soooo (hahahaha) sorry! It was an accident!
 
2014-02-28 04:33:12 PM  

Witty_Retort: Dimensio: Witty_Retort: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Bane of Broone: Wow. There are a LOT of these guns accidentally firing nowadays. Who knew they would just go off by themselves so frequently?

The industry claims a near perfect safety record, and our benevolent leaders have arranged that they cannot be sued. Kind of sad for the victims of these poorly constructed weapons.

Please cite legislation prohibiting lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.

First result from Bing:
Gun Control And The New Federal Law Shielding Gun Manufacturers From Lawsuits

/I use it for free Redbox movies

The Act to which that article refers only shields firearm manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits related to injuries caused by criminal or unlawful use of the firearm by a third party. The law states that prohibited civil actions "shall not include" actions against a firearm transferror convicted of illegally transferring a firearm, actions against a manufacturer who knowingly violated laws relating to the sale or marketing of their product, any action against a manufacturer who demonstrably conspired to provide a firearm to a prohibited person, any action relating to a violation of a product warranty or any action relating to injury resulting from a defect in a manufacturer's product.

As such, a manufacturer can be sued following injury resulting from a manufacturing defect, and a firearm seller can be sued for damages resulting from that seller knowingly providing firearms to a felon. A firearm manufacturer may also be sued for failing to abide by a product warranty.

HotWingConspiracy claimed that "the industry" "cannot be sued". For that claim to be honest, those exceptions to the law must be nullified by further legislation, as the Act to which you referred explicitly defines conditions under which a firearm manufacturer may be sued. Please identify the legislation that nullifies those exceptions.

Using pedantry to move the goalposts? They cannot be sued for some things. Some ...


I thought when HWC said ^^^Bolded^^^ that he was saying "they cannot be sued". Maybe he meant something other than "they cannot be sued", but "they cannot be sued" generally means "they cannot be sued". I think Dimensio took that as HWC saying that "they cannot be sued", then there was a link posted to legislation that didn't say what the poster thought it said, and Dimensio actually read the link and came back with his argument. I don't see how this qualifies as moving goalposts....

Dimensio, please correct me if I am wrong.

/cannot be sued
 
2014-02-28 04:33:50 PM  

johnny queso: it's really encouraging that the gun owners in this thread seem to be complete standoffish assholes. aquapope asked about the pros and cons of safeties and every answer involved calling him either an idiot or a troll.  nice job.


Did you expect anything else, honestly?
 
2014-02-28 04:34:41 PM  
Yup. Mandatory training and licensing is a terrible idea. I'm sure a little education and respect for the weapon NEVER could have prevented this incident. NEVAR.
 
2014-02-28 04:36:24 PM  

Witty_Retort: Dimensio: Witty_Retort: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Bane of Broone: Wow. There are a LOT of these guns accidentally firing nowadays. Who knew they would just go off by themselves so frequently?

The industry claims a near perfect safety record, and our benevolent leaders have arranged that they cannot be sued. Kind of sad for the victims of these poorly constructed weapons.

Please cite legislation prohibiting lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.

First result from Bing:
Gun Control And The New Federal Law Shielding Gun Manufacturers From Lawsuits

/I use it for free Redbox movies

The Act to which that article refers only shields firearm manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits related to injuries caused by criminal or unlawful use of the firearm by a third party. The law states that prohibited civil actions "shall not include" actions against a firearm transferror convicted of illegally transferring a firearm, actions against a manufacturer who knowingly violated laws relating to the sale or marketing of their product, any action against a manufacturer who demonstrably conspired to provide a firearm to a prohibited person, any action relating to a violation of a product warranty or any action relating to injury resulting from a defect in a manufacturer's product.

As such, a manufacturer can be sued following injury resulting from a manufacturing defect, and a firearm seller can be sued for damages resulting from that seller knowingly providing firearms to a felon. A firearm manufacturer may also be sued for failing to abide by a product warranty.

HotWingConspiracy claimed that "the industry" "cannot be sued". For that claim to be honest, those exceptions to the law must be nullified by further legislation, as the Act to which you referred explicitly defines conditions under which a firearm manufacturer may be sued. Please identify the legislation that nullifies those exceptions.

Using pedantry to move the goalposts? They cannot be sued for some things. Some ...


Gun manufacturers have had an odd quasi-immunity from manufacturer defect suits, as well. The Wall Street Journal did a long take on it 20 years ago or so, long before the PLCAA, citing the case of Sturm, Ruger's Blackhawk revolver, which originally had an "authentic" 19th century design that meant the gun could easily go off if it were dropped when fully loaded. Despite hundreds of the guns being involved in accidental shootings, and several deaths, Ruger was never really hurt by the liability suits against them.

The conclusion of the piece, iirc, was that gun owners will make reasonable settlements with gun makers even if they're badly injured or their relatives die. Most of the people who were injured by Blackhawks going off unexpectedly didn't file suit.
 
2014-02-28 04:37:23 PM  

jankyboy: Witty_Retort: Independence Township man shoots, kills himself while demonstrating gun safety

Drinking all day and demonstrating gun safety by aiming at head and pulling trigger. Too bad the coroner can't list official cause of death as stupidity.


In his defense, he was drunk at the time.
 
2014-02-28 04:37:46 PM  

Dr gLove: Not sure if its been covered yet, but I'll throw in my 2 cents.
Iraq March2003. Thousands of soldiers. 3 weeks of hell on earth. 1 negligent discharge. Outside of an MKT at BIAP. As hardin put it, there are no "accidental" discharges with firearms. Luckily the soldier had his rifle pointed in the clearing barrel, but still. It takes a real moran to have a negligent discharge.


I had a negilgent discharge once and now I'm a father.....
 
2014-02-28 04:38:34 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: johnny queso: it's really encouraging that the gun owners in this thread seem to be complete standoffish assholes. aquapope asked about the pros and cons of safeties and every answer involved calling him either an idiot or a troll.  nice job.

To quote Aquapope: " I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage."

I'm sure the responses would've been different had the last two sentences been omitted.


Fair enough. I will say that a fair number of gun owners think the NRA is off their rockers, so I don't necessarily consider questioning them to be trolling.
 
2014-02-28 04:38:45 PM  

hardinparamedic: mbillips: RobotSpider: Headso: H31N0US: I hope they have to pay for the transport.

yeah, god forbid people use the emergency services their taxes pay for.

Where do you live that ambulance service isn't privatized? Taxes pay for police, fire, and 911. But if you need transport to the hospital, you will find that charge on your bill. Because FREE MARKET.

No shiat! And they will make up a random cost in the many thousands of dollars for the 5-mile ride, and bill you for the half your insurance doesn't cover, and threaten to wreck your credit if you don't pay. The next time I fall and knock myself out in the bathtub, I'm calling a cab to get me to the hospital.

I hate to break this to you, but 99% of those "tax-paid" fire departments which do ambulance transport also charge a fee comparable to the private or hospital-based services.

And the bolded part tells me you live in a state with crappy laws, or don't have a clue what you're talking about.


I live in a state with crappy laws.
 
2014-02-28 04:45:12 PM  

johnny queso: Mitch Taylor's Bro: johnny queso: it's really encouraging that the gun owners in this thread seem to be complete standoffish assholes. aquapope asked about the pros and cons of safeties and every answer involved calling him either an idiot or a troll.  nice job.

To quote Aquapope: " I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage."

I'm sure the responses would've been different had the last two sentences been omitted.

Fair enough. I will say that a fair number of gun owners think the NRA is off their rockers, so I don't necessarily consider questioning them to be trolling.


Also, this line?  I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.

The correct answer is, no you didn't. You did not find that out, because it isn't true. The answers he got were all "not sure if serious," because it was tough to tell if he was trolling, or had a reading comprehension problem.
 
2014-02-28 04:47:07 PM  

mbillips: Aquapope: mbillips: Aquapope: BigLoser: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Not sure if serious...

Yes, I'm serious.  What's your problem?

He's just checking to see if you're that mechanically ignorant. Most handguns have mechanical safeties of one sort or another, but requiring them on all new guns would be dumb and unproductive. For technical reasons you don't have the background knowledge to understand, obviously, or you wouldn't have asked the question.

Yes, I'm that mechanically ignorant about guns.  I've only fired a rifle and a pistol a couple of times.  How would I know the prevalence of safeties on handguns?  I asked the question BECAUSE I don't have the background - don't be a dick about it.  You could have simply said "Most handguns do have some kind of mechanical safety" and be done with it.

I'd like to have asked more things about guns, and you could have shown off how much you know by explaining to a complete newby.  Answers from more knowledgeable people in a community are better than digging around on a wiki somewhere, especially when you don't really know the jargon specific to the target.

Dude, you're in a Fark gun thread. Are you THAT much of a newbie that you think people will gently take you by the hand and teach you the fine points of why you just asked a stupid question that had the appearance of pure trollery? Bless your heart.


I expect all of the gun fanatics already have been stroking their respective barrels in anticipation of the massive circle jerk that always erupts whenever there's a gun thread. Or do you have fluffers?
 
2014-02-28 04:53:40 PM  

Tharagleb: "The woman was transported by Careflight to Renown Regional Medical Center in Reno.
Careflight arrived on scene around 3:40 p.m., according to an official with Careflight.
According to an official with Careflight, the woman's injuries are critical."

This article sponsored by Careflight


Best comment I've seen in ages. Good work.
 
2014-02-28 04:54:04 PM  

mbillips: johnny queso: Mitch Taylor's Bro: johnny queso: it's really encouraging that the gun owners in this thread seem to be complete standoffish assholes. aquapope asked about the pros and cons of safeties and every answer involved calling him either an idiot or a troll.  nice job.

To quote Aquapope: " I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage."

I'm sure the responses would've been different had the last two sentences been omitted.

Fair enough. I will say that a fair number of gun owners think the NRA is off their rockers, so I don't necessarily consider questioning them to be trolling.

Also, this line?  I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.

The correct answer is, no you didn't. You did not find that out, because it isn't true. The answers he got were all "not sure if serious," because it was tough to tell if he was trolling, or had a reading comprehension problem.


Yet in this thread someone stated that none of his pistols have safeties and his rifles and shotguns do, so it may not be obvious to all.
 
2014-02-28 04:54:50 PM  

hardinparamedic: There are NO accidents if a gun is discharged.

Absolutely none. It's total negligence and incompetence.


Okay.  There are, however, quite a lot of negligent and incompetent people.
Even people who aren't generally negligent or incompetent sometimes do careless things because they're, you know... human.
 
2014-02-28 04:58:09 PM  
FTFA : No one was taken into custody.

Why the fark not?

I'm completely in favor of gun ownership, but you can't just go randomly shooting people.  If you're "showing off your new gun", you're probably an asshole anyway.  If you're "showing off your new gun" and shoot someone, I can't see any reason you shouldn't be charged.
 
2014-02-28 04:58:27 PM  

mbillips: if you want to continue to be pedantic about it.


Again, the pedantry isn't on my end, it is on the end of people who get upset that people correctly and validly use one of the many definitions of accident without specifically switching over to negligence solely for firearms.

Mitch Taylor's Bro: It's not about whether or not the person thinks something will or won't happen to them.


Do I seriously need to link the definition of 'accident' again?

Mitch Taylor's Bro: 1. the gun was loaded.
2. your finger was on the trigger.
3. the gun was pointed in an unsafe direction.

you should lose your 2A right. #1 could be an accident, but #2 and #3 are still under your control.


Number one is never an accident either. You should check the condition of a weapon upon picking it up. If unchecked, it is to be considered loaded until properly cleared. See, and this is why I find this brand new redefining of accident to be so silly. There isn't really a rhyme or reason to the new definition; its all just based on gut feelings afiact.

Here is my point: I don't care if anyone else wants to call it a negligent discharge. I do care if someone else tells me I am wrong in calling it an accident -which is what my replies to HardinParamedic were about. It is both.  Now, if anyone wants to say that it is negligence but not an accident, they should do themselves a favor and be consistent in that application of language, thus my other accident examples. As you can see throughout this thread, people have deliberately ignored the other examples, including the possibility of a single vehicle car accident, in order to force through their argument.
 
2014-02-28 05:04:23 PM  
I don't care what people say.

There needs to be an IQ test just to walk in the door of a gun shop. Better still: there should be an IQ test to walk within fifty miles of anything that even resembles a firearm.

Note that this also helps us exclude crazy teachers who think gun-shaped Pop-Tarts are weapons of mass destruction.
 
2014-02-28 05:05:24 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I don't care what people say.

There needs to be an IQ test just to walk in the door of a gun shop. Better still: there should be an IQ test to walk within fifty miles of anything that even resembles a firearm.

Note that this also helps us exclude crazy teachers who think gun-shaped Pop-Tarts are weapons of mass destruction.


Your proposal would destroy many police departments.
 
2014-02-28 05:06:13 PM  

johnny queso: there their theyre: Aquapope: Smackledorfer: Aquapope: I didn't know there was a big hatred of safeties among gun folks.

It is not hatred.

ooc, do you have more arguments in favor of a safety to counter those against, or have you changed your mind and now feel the ...

an actual, polite answer.  thanks.


Just trying to do my part and educate people who may be unfamiliar with guns. They are nothing to be scared of and shooting can be a fun and safe past time if proper respect is given to a fire arm.

I've found that explaining and (if possible showing) guns and their intricacies to people who are otherwise unfamiliar with gun can ease their fears about them.
 
2014-02-28 05:06:44 PM  

Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.


www.operatorchan.org
 
2014-02-28 05:07:44 PM  

luniz5monody: I thought when HWC said ^^^Bolded^^^ that he was saying "they cannot be sued". Maybe he meant something other than "they cannot be sued", but "they cannot be sued" generally means "they cannot be sued". I think Dimensio took that as HWC saying that "they cannot be sued", then there was a link posted to legislation that didn't say what the poster thought it said, and Dimensio actually read the link and came back with his argument. I don't see how this qualifies as moving goalposts....

Dimensio, please correct me if I am wrong.


I must admit to neglecting the possibility that HotWingConspiracy's statement was intended to be a lie.
 
2014-02-28 05:09:12 PM  

durbnpoisn: Years ago, my father in law died.  While cleaning out his house, my wife found a small gun under his pillow.  I told everyone to leave the room, locked myself in the bathroom, and carefully opened up the gun.  It had a single short-shot .22 in the chamber.  It was loaded.


Jesus.

The things that you gun nuts get off on.

/It's a joke.
 
2014-02-28 05:21:28 PM  

there their theyre: johnny queso: there their theyre: Aquapope: Smackledorfer: Aquapope: I didn't know there was a big hatred of safeties among gun folks.

It is not hatred.

ooc, do you have more arguments in favor of a safety to counter those against, or have you changed your mind and now feel the ...

an actual, polite answer.  thanks.

Just trying to do my part and educate people who may be unfamiliar with guns. They are nothing to be scared of and shooting can be a fun and safe past time if proper respect is given to a fire arm.

I've found that explaining and (if possible showing) guns and their intricacies to people who are otherwise unfamiliar with gun can ease their fears about them.


seems like a better course of action that browbeating.
 
2014-02-28 05:25:26 PM  

Aquapope: Nope, not trolling. Sure, if the above 4 points are followed, no problems. But there are problems, so I simply wondered if having an extra option might not be some small help. If it's too big of a deal to keep the safety on when the gun isn't in use, leave it the fark off. I'm not a gun owner - I didn't know there was a big hatred of safeties among gun folks.


To provide a fair and un-assholish answer (and to expand on my thoughtful Black hawk Down pic), if you keep the booger hooks off the bang switch, you shouldn't have a problem. For one, you should NEVER rely on a manual safety. It's great if you're a dumbass, and you leave your gun on hte table and your 4 year old picks it up only to not be able to use it because the safety is on, but like anything mechanical, it can fail. You don't want to be swinging your gun around like Revolver Ocelot only to find the safety didn't fully engage and you end up doing a desk pop.

Don't really need one on a double action. With a DA you don't need to cock the hammer. pulling the trigger does that for you, and it will be a harder pull because you have to pull the hammer back as well. It's hard (I guess easy for morons) to do by accident. Now with a 1911, it won't fire unless the hammer has been locked back, and then it will be a real light trigger pull. If you want to be ready to fire in an emergency (and you do. If you ever find yourself *needing* to fire, you need to fire it now, and really don't have time to be dicking with the hammer) you need to carry it cocked and with a round in the chamber. In that case, a safety is useful.

If you are carrying a pistol in your pocket, a safety is useful so that other crap which you should really *not* have in that same pocket won't bump against the trigger and set it off. But for a standard double action, I really see no need for a safety. Don't play with it, and don't be an idiot, and the gun won't fire.
 
2014-02-28 05:26:31 PM  

Jill'sNipple: mbillips: Aquapope: mbillips: Aquapope: BigLoser: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Not sure if serious...

Yes, I'm serious.  What's your problem?

He's just checking to see if you're that mechanically ignorant. Most handguns have mechanical safeties of one sort or another, but requiring them on all new guns would be dumb and unproductive. For technical reasons you don't have the background knowledge to understand, obviously, or you wouldn't have asked the question.

Yes, I'm that mechanically ignorant about guns.  I've only fired a rifle and a pistol a couple of times.  How would I know the prevalence of safeties on handguns?  I asked the question BECAUSE I don't have the background - don't be a dick about it.  You could have simply said "Most handguns do have some kind of mechanical safety" and be done with it.

I'd like to have asked more things about guns, and you could have shown off how much you know by explaining to a complete newby.  Answers from more knowledgeable people in a community are better than digging around on a wiki somewhere, especially when you don't really know the jargon specific to the target.

Dude, you're in a Fark gun thread. Are you THAT much of a newbie that you think people will gently take you by the hand and teach you the fine points of why you just asked a stupid question that had the appearance of pure trollery? Bless your heart.

I expect all of the gun fanatics already have been stroking their respective barrels in anticipation of the massive circle jerk that always erupts whenever there's a gun thread. Or do you have fluffers?


Youll need a dab or three of this if your interesting in applying for the position.

www.onpointsupply.com
 
2014-02-28 05:38:39 PM  

MythDragon: Aquapope: Nope, not trolling. Sure, if the above 4 points are followed, no problems. But there are problems, so I simply wondered if having an extra option might not be some small help. If it's too big of a deal to keep the safety on when the gun isn't in use, leave it the fark off. I'm not a gun owner - I didn't know there was a big hatred of safeties among gun folks.

To provide a fair and un-assholish answer (and to expand on my thoughtful Black hawk Down pic), if you keep the booger hooks off the bang switch, you shouldn't have a problem. For one, you should NEVER rely on a manual safety. It's great if you're a dumbass, and you leave your gun on hte table and your 4 year old picks it up only to not be able to use it because the safety is on, but like anything mechanical, it can fail. You don't want to be swinging your gun around like Revolver Ocelot only to find the safety didn't fully engage and you end up doing a desk pop.

Don't really need one on a double action. With a DA you don't need to cock the hammer. pulling the trigger does that for you, and it will be a harder pull because you have to pull the hammer back as well. It's hard (I guess easy for morons) to do by accident. Now with a 1911, it won't fire unless the hammer has been locked back, and then it will be a real light trigger pull. If you want to be ready to fire in an emergency (and you do. If you ever find yourself *needing* to fire, you need to fire it now, and really don't have time to be dicking with the hammer) you need to carry it cocked and with a round in the chamber. In that case, a safety is useful.

If you are carrying a pistol in your pocket, a safety is useful so that other crap which you should really *not* have in that same pocket won't bump against the trigger and set it off. But for a standard double action, I really see no need for a safety. Don't play with it, and don't be an idiot, and the gun won't fire.


jesus dude, i'm not superhuman!
 
2014-02-28 05:44:53 PM  

Smackledorfer: Here is my point: I don't care if anyone else wants to call it a negligent discharge.


So either you're greatly confused, don't understand the power and nuance of language (hence, the BS "Do I seriously need to link the definition of 'accident' again?" comment) or just have your internet discussion forum dander up and want to argue for no reason.

Whatever it is, if you don't care what other people call it, then we're cool. It's a negligent discharge, not an accidental discharge. Have a nice weekend!
 
2014-02-28 05:45:23 PM  

Smackledorfer: Aquapope: I was never in favor of safeties, I just wondered about them.  I don't know enough about guns to have an opinion one way or another.  Read my original post - I asked if it would be hard to require.  I didn't advocate doing it.  It could be difficult for mechanical, political, financial or some other reason.  That's why I asked.   I've been told it's pointless by you, and that almost all handguns already have mechanical safeties by somebody else, but not why it's pointless enough not to add it to a weapon, in spite of almost all of them having them.  Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Actually in the post in which I said my reasons against a safety, I included sufficient points to answer your the second underlined part.

Stop trolling.

mbillips: Oh, God, don't start. Aquapope doesn't know anything about handgun design; he's said as much. Don't start some stupid Socratic dialogue with him.

You are correct, and I am done with him now.


Googles "Glock leg" -holster. "Glock cock" - holster.
Googles: "M1911 leg" - holster,   clicks ONLY result.
Hmm.
Yeah. Manual safeties are farking pointless.
 
2014-02-28 05:51:30 PM  

mbillips: Witty_Retort: Dimensio: Witty_Retort: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Bane of Broone: Wow. There are a LOT of these guns accidentally firing nowadays. Who knew they would just go off by themselves so frequently?

The industry claims a near perfect safety record, and our benevolent leaders have arranged that they cannot be sued. Kind of sad for the victims of these poorly constructed weapons.

Please cite legislation prohibiting lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.

First result from Bing:
Gun Control And The New Federal Law Shielding Gun Manufacturers From Lawsuits

/I use it for free Redbox movies

The Act to which that article refers only shields firearm manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits related to injuries caused by criminal or unlawful use of the firearm by a third party. The law states that prohibited civil actions "shall not include" actions against a firearm transferror convicted of illegally transferring a firearm, actions against a manufacturer who knowingly violated laws relating to the sale or marketing of their product, any action against a manufacturer who demonstrably conspired to provide a firearm to a prohibited person, any action relating to a violation of a product warranty or any action relating to injury resulting from a defect in a manufacturer's product.

As such, a manufacturer can be sued following injury resulting from a manufacturing defect, and a firearm seller can be sued for damages resulting from that seller knowingly providing firearms to a felon. A firearm manufacturer may also be sued for failing to abide by a product warranty.

HotWingConspiracy claimed that "the industry" "cannot be sued". For that claim to be honest, those exceptions to the law must be nullified by further legislation, as the Act to which you referred explicitly defines conditions under which a firearm manufacturer may be sued. Please identify the legislation that nullifies those exceptions.

Using pedantry to move the goalposts? They cannot be sued for some ...


The other reason they weren't hurt is because the "unexpected" discharge of Single Action revolvers (such as the "old" version of the Blackhawk) were not unexpected.  The fact that a weapon designed in that manner would fire when dropped/struck on the hammer was well known, explaining why it was common practice even in the 19th century to carry a SAO revolver with the chamber under the hammer empty.  It wasn't a manufacturing defect, merely a "side-effect" of SAO revolvers at the time.

Also, transfer bar safeties were adopted in modern SAO revolvers to prevent a discharge without the trigger being depressed, something ALL manufacturers of revolvers adopted.  Essentially, once the problem was identified and it was decided to be "significant," it was solved. 

Not saying you're wrong, but the firearms industry fixes defects and design flaws rather quickly compared to many other industries (e.g. automobile manufacturers).  But for people to insinuate that firearms manufacturers are somehow LEGALLY protected from lawsuits is incorrect.  Unless someone considers misuse or illegal use of a weapon to be the manufacturers fault, something we don't do with automobiles, garbage disposals, rope manufacturers, or alcohol.

/Don't know why I included garbage disposals.
 
2014-02-28 05:51:42 PM  

mbillips: I don't know how it works where you live, but in my state, firearms safety education is completely optional and irregular. I doubt any of these idiots shooting themselves and others have had the first firearms safety class. So you can claim a diminished level of negligence, because they lacked the knowledge of proper operation. Now, you can claim THAT is tantamount to negligence, but then you'd be ignoring human nature. If you can go to a store and buy a gun with no safety training required, and nobody else in the trailer park is talking about safety classes, then it's perfectly reasonable for you to assume that guns don't require safety training.


Yeah. Sure.
 
2014-02-28 05:55:27 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Googles "Glock leg" -holster. "Glock cock" - holster.
Googles: "M1911 leg" - holster,   clicks ONLY result.
Hmm.
Yeah. Manual safeties are farking pointless.


Did you have a point?
 
2014-02-28 05:55:45 PM  

Dimensio: Gyrfalcon: I don't care what people say.

There needs to be an IQ test just to walk in the door of a gun shop. Better still: there should be an IQ test to walk within fifty miles of anything that even resembles a firearm.

Note that this also helps us exclude crazy teachers who think gun-shaped Pop-Tarts are weapons of mass destruction.

Your proposal would destroy many police departments.


*heh*
 
2014-02-28 05:58:55 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Smackledorfer: Here is my point: I don't care if anyone else wants to call it a negligent discharge.

So either you're greatly confused, don't understand the power and nuance of language (hence, the BS "Do I seriously need to link the definition of 'accident' again?" comment) or just have your internet discussion forum dander up and want to argue for no reason.

Whatever it is, if you don't care what other people call it, then we're cool. It's a negligent discharge, not an accidental discharge. Have a nice weekend!



The statement "there are no accidents if a gun is discharged" is patently false, and to disagree with that is to disagree with the dictionary itself, and probably 90% of all the usage of the term accident in common language.

The underlined bit may well be playing a role too :)
 
2014-02-28 06:06:19 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH: Smackledorfer: Aquapope: I was never in favor of safeties, I just wondered about them.  I don't know enough about guns to have an opinion one way or another.  Read my original post - I asked if it would be hard to require.  I didn't advocate doing it.  It could be difficult for mechanical, political, financial or some other reason.  That's why I asked.   I've been told it's pointless by you, and that almost all handguns already have mechanical safeties by somebody else, but not why it's pointless enough not to add it to a weapon, in spite of almost all of them having them.  Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Actually in the post in which I said my reasons against a safety, I included sufficient points to answer your the second underlined part.

Stop trolling.

mbillips: Oh, God, don't start. Aquapope doesn't know anything about handgun design; he's said as much. Don't start some stupid Socratic dialogue with him.

You are correct, and I am done with him now.

Googles "Glock leg" -holster. "Glock cock" - holster.
Googles: "M1911 leg" - holster,   clicks ONLY result.
Hmm.
Yeah. Manual safeties are farking pointless.


Much of the injuries that result from drawing Glocks occur because of their piss poor design, not the lack of a manual safety.  Glocks have a"safe action trigger" which prevents them from firing unless the trigger is depressed.  The problem is that Glocks have 1) fairly light trigger pulls and 2) fairly short trigger pulls.  You don't read about "Colt Python leg" or "M1911 leg" because of factors other than manual safeties. Double action revolvers have longer, stiffer (giggity) trigger pulls (unless at full-cock) and 1911s have grip safeties (grip safeties are NOT manual safeties and would not prevent shootings like this because the jagoff was likely holding the weapon when he fired).
 
2014-02-28 06:07:46 PM  

Smackledorfer: demaL-demaL-yeH: Googles "Glock leg" -holster. "Glock cock" - holster.
Googles: "M1911 leg" - holster,   clicks ONLY result.
Hmm.
Yeah. Manual safeties are farking pointless.

Did you have a point?


How long have millions of M1911s with their manual safeties been around?
How long have millions of  Glocks with no manual safeties been around?

Now tell us all again that manual safeties for semiautos are pointless.
(Pointless must be why some gunsmiths make a good living retrofitting external safeties to Glocks.)
 
2014-02-28 06:12:59 PM  

deadlyplatypus: demaL-demaL-yeH: Smackledorfer: Aquapope: I was never in favor of safeties, I just wondered about them.  I don't know enough about guns to have an opinion one way or another.  Read my original post - I asked if it would be hard to require.  I didn't advocate doing it.  It could be difficult for mechanical, political, financial or some other reason.  That's why I asked.   I've been told it's pointless by you, and that almost all handguns already have mechanical safeties by somebody else, but not why it's pointless enough not to add it to a weapon, in spite of almost all of them having them.  Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Actually in the post in which I said my reasons against a safety, I included sufficient points to answer your the second underlined part.

Stop trolling.

mbillips: Oh, God, don't start. Aquapope doesn't know anything about handgun design; he's said as much. Don't start some stupid Socratic dialogue with him.

You are correct, and I am done with him now.

Googles "Glock leg" -holster. "Glock cock" - holster.
Googles: "M1911 leg" - holster,   clicks ONLY result.
Hmm.
Yeah. Manual safeties are farking pointless.

Much of the injuries that result from drawing Glocks occur because of their piss poor design, not the lack of a manual safety.  Glocks have a"safe action trigger" which prevents them from firing unless the trigger is depressed.  The problem is that Glocks have 1) fairly light trigger pulls and 2) fairly short trigger pulls.  You don't read about "Colt Python leg" or "M1911 leg" because of factors other than manual safeties. Double action revolvers have longer, stiffer (giggity) trigger pulls (unless at full-cock) and 1911s have grip safeties (grip safeties are NOT manual safeties and would not prevent shootings like this because the jagoff was likely holding the weapon when he fired).


*AHEM*
www.balloongoesup.com
 
2014-02-28 06:14:30 PM  

luniz5monody: factoryconnection: luniz5monody: I seem to recall a rule about not pointing a weapon at something unless you want a hole in it. Although with these magic poltergeist weapons, all the rules are right out the window.

Rule #1 of Poltergeist Gun Safety: do what the gun says or ELSE

It is getting tiring....

When I come home from work, I have to put on the entire set of body armor before I get through the front door. I can't trust that all my weapons are still in the safe in the basement. If they have truly gone full poltergeist, I can't know if they've let themselves out of the safe or not. They could have made it out and are waiting for me to walk through that door. I will not take that chance. The body armor stays on until I leave for work the next morning.


How can one tell if it's a good poltergeist with a gun or a bad poltergeist with a gun?
 
2014-02-28 06:17:53 PM  

Kiriyama9000: Tharagleb: "The woman was transported by Careflight to Renown Regional Medical Center in Reno.
Careflight arrived on scene around 3:40 p.m., according to an official with Careflight.
According to an official with Careflight, the woman's injuries are critical."

This article sponsored by Careflight

Best comment I've seen in ages. Good work.


Just "critical" not "OMG Critical!"?
I think we are being soft soaped here.
Single GSW that can be fixed with some super glue and cotton balls should be Air Evaced for sure.
 
2014-02-28 06:20:07 PM  

Apatheist: luniz5monody: factoryconnection: luniz5monody: I seem to recall a rule about not pointing a weapon at something unless you want a hole in it. Although with these magic poltergeist weapons, all the rules are right out the window.

Rule #1 of Poltergeist Gun Safety: do what the gun says or ELSE

It is getting tiring....

When I come home from work, I have to put on the entire set of body armor before I get through the front door. I can't trust that all my weapons are still in the safe in the basement. If they have truly gone full poltergeist, I can't know if they've let themselves out of the safe or not. They could have made it out and are waiting for me to walk through that door. I will not take that chance. The body armor stays on until I leave for work the next morning.

How can one tell if it's a good poltergeist with a gun or a bad poltergeist with a gun?


Is it shooting at you?
 
2014-02-28 06:26:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: Gyrfalcon: I don't care what people say.

There needs to be an IQ test just to walk in the door of a gun shop. Better still: there should be an IQ test to walk within fifty miles of anything that even resembles a firearm.

Note that this also helps us exclude crazy teachers who think gun-shaped Pop-Tarts are weapons of mass destruction.

Your proposal would destroy many police departments.

*heh*


The funny thing is, police departments are already legally allowed to do this..they are just allowed to set a MAXIMUM limit on IQ, rather than a MINIMUM.

Link:  http://nationalreport.net/mccormick-sc-police-force-drastically-lower s -required-iq-minimum-new-officers/
 
2014-02-28 06:49:07 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: deadlyplatypus: demaL-demaL-yeH: Smackledorfer: Aquapope: I was never in favor of safeties, I just wondered about them.  I don't know enough about guns to have an opinion one way or another.  Read my original post - I asked if it would be hard to require.  I didn't advocate doing it.  It could be difficult for mechanical, political, financial or some other reason.  That's why I asked.   I've been told it's pointless by you, and that almost all handguns already have mechanical safeties by somebody else, but not why it's pointless enough not to add it to a weapon, in spite of almost all of them having them.  Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Actually in the post in which I said my reasons against a safety, I included sufficient points to answer your the second underlined part.

Stop trolling.

mbillips: Oh, God, don't start. Aquapope doesn't know anything about handgun design; he's said as much. Don't start some stupid Socratic dialogue with him.

You are correct, and I am done with him now.

Googles "Glock leg" -holster. "Glock cock" - holster.
Googles: "M1911 leg" - holster,   clicks ONLY result.
Hmm.
Yeah. Manual safeties are farking pointless.

Much of the injuries that result from drawing Glocks occur because of their piss poor design, not the lack of a manual safety.  Glocks have a"safe action trigger" which prevents them from firing unless the trigger is depressed.  The problem is that Glocks have 1) fairly light trigger pulls and 2) fairly short trigger pulls.  You don't read about "Colt Python leg" or "M1911 leg" because of factors other than manual safeties. Double action revolvers have longer, stiffer (giggity) trigger pulls (unless at full-cock) and 1911s have grip safeties (grip safeties are NOT manual safeties and would not prevent shootings like this because the jagoff was likely holding the weapon when he fired).

*AHEM*
[www.balloongoesup.com image 640x480]


Your point? I didn't say that 1911s lack any manual safety, just that GRIP SAFETIES are  not manual safeties. 1911s are safer than Glocks (really, very few modern guns aren't safer than Glocks) for a number of reasons that aren't remotely related to manual safeties.

1. A 1911 can be carried in numerous conditions (all are assuming a loaded magazine is in the weapon, without one it is Condition 4)
     -No round in chamber, not cocked, no safeties engaged (Condition 3)
     -No round in chamber, cocked, all safeties on (why?)
     -No round in chamber, cocked, no safeties on (why?)
     -Round in chamber, not cocked, no safeties on (Condition 2)
     -Round in chamber, cocked, all safeties on (Condition 1)
     -Round in chamber, cocked, no safeties on (Condition 0)
A Glock has two Conditions:
     -Round in the chamber, cocked
     -No round in the chamber, not cocked
This means there is noway to "decock" a Glock, or prevent it from being cocked as you load the chamber

2. Glocks' trigger pulls tend to be short

3. Glocks' trigger pulls tend to be light

4. 1911s have a grip safety, which is NOT a manual safety and would not prevent shootings like this but do prevent the weapon from firing if the trigger gets snagged on something but you aren't holding the grip (Glock's safe action trigger ONLY prevents discharge if the trigger isn't pulled...essentially it won't go off if you drop it.) A 1911 won't go off if dropped or if the trigger is snagged unless something is depressing the grip safety.

5. A higher percentage of Glock owners are cops and idiots compared to 1911s. (I have no scientific data to prove the latter, just informal experience with Glock fan-boys).
 
2014-02-28 06:53:48 PM  

OnlyM3: Aquapope


I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties. Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?
Someone who is admittedly completely ignorant about a topic demanding legislation passed to control a topic (s)he has no fracking clue about.

"It's the democrat way!"


Uh huh.

Why don't you tell us more about how gay marriage destroys families.
 
2014-02-28 06:56:47 PM  
"I shot my mom in Reno, just to watch her die......"
 
2014-02-28 07:02:14 PM  
img.fark.net

Keep Your Booger Hooks Off The Bang Button!

To help you follow this rule, whenever you go to pick up a firearm, extend your index finger and make sure none of your other fingers get inside the trigger guard.
 
2014-02-28 07:11:44 PM  

deadlyplatypus: Your point? I didn't say that 1911s lack any manual safety, just that GRIP SAFETIES are  not manual safeties. 1911s are safer than Glocks (really, very few modern guns aren't safer than Glocks) for a number of reasons that aren't remotely related to manual safeties.


That metal thing by the slide in the center of the picture up there is the M1911's manual, external  thumb safety. (Army calls it the slide lock safety.)
The beavertail grip safety is something else entirely.
/TMYK.
//YMMV, nimrod, you mighty hunter, you.

www.koreanwaronline.com
 
2014-02-28 07:21:48 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: deadlyplatypus: Your point? I didn't say that 1911s lack any manual safety, just that GRIP SAFETIES are  not manual safeties. 1911s are safer than Glocks (really, very few modern guns aren't safer than Glocks) for a number of reasons that aren't remotely related to manual safeties.

That metal thing by the slide in the center of the picture up there is the M1911's manual, external  thumb safety. (Army calls it the slide lock safety.)
The beavertail grip safety is something else entirely.
/TMYK.
//YMMV, nimrod, you mighty hunter, you.

[www.koreanwaronline.com image 590x247]


You might want to actually read the bolded part before you start the unwarranted ad homs...either that or learn how to read, I'm sorry if your education was sub standard.
 
2014-02-28 07:39:23 PM  

deadlyplatypus: You might want to actually read the bolded part before you start the unwarranted ad homs...either that or learn how to read, I'm sorry if your education was sub standard.


Or I could remind you that you left out a great deal of what you wrote earlier:

deadlyplatypus: Double action revolvers have longer, stiffer (giggity) trigger pulls (unless at full-cock) and 1911s have grip safeties (grip safeties are NOT manual safeties and would not prevent shootings like this because the jagoff was likely holding the weapon when he fired).


Nice attempt at a dodge.
Even the deity of your Church of WeDon'tNeedNoStinkin'ManualSafeties*BANG*Ow,MyBalls says to use the farking manual external safety.
 
2014-02-28 08:01:37 PM  
you know what, I may have to stay out of gun threads from now on.  Not for the partisan bullshiat, not for the round an' round an' round semantic arguments, not for the ad hominem attacks or massive dick waving, but because if I hear one more person say "keep your nose picker off the bang switch" as if it's a hilarious gun retort, I'm going to pull my own face off.
 
2014-02-28 08:03:48 PM  
I apologize for leaving it out the first time, that does not absolve you of being a shiatstain after the second post.  Nor did I say that 1911s DON"T have manual safeties, just that grip safeties are not manual safeties.  Nice ad homs. Not attempting to dodge, why are you? Too smart to be able to read BOTH posts?

I don't think manual safeties are a BAD idea. I'm saying that its NOT the manual safety on 1911s that make them safer than Glocks.

I know who Jeff Cooper is...I also know how to read...unlike you "dodger."
 
2014-02-28 08:18:35 PM  

Farking Canuck: Let's see. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot if you have a gun in the house.  Someone brought a gun into the house. A person living in that house got shot.


Statistically you are more likely to get shot if someone in the house owns a gun.   If nobody in the house owns a gun, then the members of the household are less likely to end up with a bullet hole in them.

Presumably, the argument is that owning a gun keeps your family safe from being shot by a firearm, but the statistics don't bear that out.  You're far more likely to use your household's gun on a family member or a friend than on an armed intruder that is meaning to do your family harm.
 
2014-02-28 08:35:36 PM  

teenytinycornteeth: you know what, I may have to stay out of gun threads from now on.  Not for the partisan bullshiat, not for the round an' round an' round semantic arguments, not for the ad hominem attacks or massive dick waving, but because if I hear one more person say "keep your nose picker off the bang switch" as if it's a hilarious gun retort, I'm going to pull my own face off.


Keep your booger hooks of the bang switch.
Now record that shiat and post to YouTube. Never seen someone pull his own face off. Will you use a tool, or just booger hooks?
 
2014-02-28 08:55:10 PM  
Seems like the gun did the trick, it did neutralized a threat.
 
2014-02-28 09:04:23 PM  

simkatu: Farking Canuck: Let's see. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot if you have a gun in the house.  Someone brought a gun into the house. A person living in that house got shot.

Statistically you are more likely to get shot if someone in the house owns a gun.   If nobody in the house owns a gun, then the members of the household are less likely to end up with a bullet hole in them.

Presumably, the argument is that owning a gun keeps your family safe from being shot by a firearm, but the statistics don't bear that out.  You're far more likely to use your household's gun on a family member or a friend than on an armed intruder that is meaning to do your family harm.


That's a statistical artifact. You're more likely to get shot if someone in the house owns a gun, because it means there is a gun in the house for someone to be shot with. If there is no gun in the house to be shot with, your odds of being shot with that gun drop to zero. I'm statistically unlikely ever to be shot in my own home, simply because I don't own a firearm. Therefore, the only person who can shoot me would, obviously, have to bring in his own gun, which is statistically less likely a scenario.

The real question is, or should be, what percentage of individuals, in homes that possess firearms, are injured by weapons which were not being used for personal defense during the time of shooting? Admittedly, that's a much more difficult statistic to assess, but it would be the more realistic number. How many homes in America ACTUALLY have weapons, and then of those, how many people are ACTUALLY injured or killed by guns fired not because they were being used for defense of self or property, but because some idiot was twirling the thing around on his index finger like a cartoon cowboy?

I'd bet it's much much higher than 80%
 
2014-02-28 09:20:15 PM  

deadlyplatypus: I apologize for leaving it out the first time, that does not absolve you of being a shiatstain after the second post.  Nor did I say that 1911s DON"T have manual safeties, just that grip safeties are not manual safeties.  Nice ad homs. Not attempting to dodge, why are you? Too smart to be able to read BOTH posts?
I don't think manual safeties are a BAD idea. I'm saying that its NOT the manual safety on 1911s that make them safer than Glocks.
I know who Jeff Cooper is...I also know how to read...unlike you "dodger."


A quick review:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Googles "Glock leg" -holster. "Glock cock" - holster.
Googles: "M1911 leg" - holster,   clicks ONLY result.
Hmm.
Yeah. Manual safeties are farking pointless.


deadlyplatypus: Much of the injuries that result from drawing Glocks occur because of their piss poor design, not the lack of a manual safety.  Glocks have a"safe action trigger" which prevents them from firing unless the trigger is depressed.  The problem is that Glocks have 1) fairly light trigger pulls and 2) fairly short trigger pulls.   You don't read about "Colt Python leg" or "M1911 leg" because of factors other than manual safeties. Double action revolvers have longer, stiffer (giggity) trigger pulls (unless at full-cock) and 1911s have grip safeties (grip safeties are NOT manual safeties and would not prevent shootings like this because the jagoff was likely holding the weapon when he fired).


deadlyplatypus: 4. 1911s have a grip safety, which is NOT a manual safety and would not prevent shootings like this but do prevent the weapon from firing if the trigger gets snagged on something but you aren't holding the grip (Glock's safe action trigger ONLY prevents discharge if the trigger isn't pulled...essentially it won't go off if you drop it.) A 1911 won't go off if dropped or if the trigger is snagged unless something is depressing the grip safety.


Not even Mills Lane would allow it.

You're arguing against using manual safeties, indirectly claiming that the beavertail is good enough.
O, that way madness lies; let us shun that. No more of that.
 
2014-02-28 09:25:57 PM  

MythDragon: teenytinycornteeth: you know what, I may have to stay out of gun threads from now on.  Not for the partisan bullshiat, not for the round an' round an' round semantic arguments, not for the ad hominem attacks or massive dick waving, but because if I hear one more person say "keep your nose picker off the bang switch" as if it's a hilarious gun retort, I'm going to pull my own face off.

Keep your booger hooks of the bang switch.
Now record that shiat and post to YouTube. Never seen someone pull his own face off. Will you use a tool, or just booger hooks?


It's like when people keep saying "people should need a license to have children" as if they just now thought of it and are presenting us with some incredibly witty and brand new knowledge.
 
2014-02-28 11:02:47 PM  
I have many different types of handguns.  I am a fan of the 1911 as well as Glocks, S&W M&P series and Springfield XD series. Of course the 1911s I own have external safeties.  None of my other guns do.  In my career I have had to carry a weapon on a daily basis for 22 years.  I have never had a single incident of my weapons firing other than when purposely fired.  The guns I most often carry are Glocks.  When carried in a proper holster, even a concealment holster,  I have never had anything "snag" there trigger.  I am willing to bet when people claim that happened they are only doing so because they are embarrassed that they exercised poor discipline handling the weapon and had a negligent discharge.  This issue is never in the design.  When you carry a weapon you should be aware of its operations and any thing you need to do to carry and operate that weapon safely.  Glocks are one of the most commonly carried weapons by police officers.  Police officers shoot far less often than recreational shooters and yet they rarely have negligent discharges.  If the problem with Glocks was their design I think you would see this far more often.  Any gun can discharge when gripped and your finger is on the trigger.
 
2014-02-28 11:44:09 PM  

hardinparamedic: fisker: Oh, look. A gun thread. I guess it's time to come on in and tell liberals how farked up they are because they don't have guns and don't get to experience things like this.

This might be a shock and terrifying thought to you, but many of those liberals are gun owners themselves, and some of us even carry concealed. :)


*Liberal gun-owner chestbump*
 
2014-03-01 12:53:47 AM  

hardinparamedic: There are NO accidents if a gun is discharged.

Absolutely none. It's total negligence and incompetence.


There are a few models that had trigger issues. Even the ubiquitous Remington 700 suffered from one. The rifle would fire even if you didn't touch the trigger. Luckily it was usually upon returning the bolt to battery which if you're following the rules means it is pointed down range.

Not everybody followed the rules.

So yes, there are accidental discharges. But there are only like 10 models of guns total (out of tens of thousands) including only 5 pistols that it could happen with, and 6 of those models were recalled and fixed. Be careful around WWII era Lugers, Remington 700s older than 1982, ALL Jennings models in any caliber (4 of the 5 pistols), Mauser Ottoman M93's, Winchester Model 1911 shotguns (technicality, but they DID slamfire without input from the trigger, still counts), and a few others.

If they aren't any of the above listed guns? Yeah some dumbass didn't keep their booger hook off the bang button. If they are one of the above guns? It's still most likely some bisynaptic, monosyllabic mouthbreather couldn't keep his god damn booger hook of the motherfarking bang button.
 
2014-03-01 01:09:46 AM  

Aquapope: mbillips: Aquapope: BigLoser: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Not sure if serious...

Yes, I'm serious.  What's your problem?

He's just checking to see if you're that mechanically ignorant. Most handguns have mechanical safeties of one sort or another, but requiring them on all new guns would be dumb and unproductive. For technical reasons you don't have the background knowledge to understand, obviously, or you wouldn't have asked the question.

Yes, I'm that mechanically ignorant about guns.  I've only fired a rifle and a pistol a couple of times.  How would I know the prevalence of safeties on handguns?  I asked the question BECAUSE I don't have the background - don't be a dick about it.  You could have simply said "Most handguns do have some kind of mechanical safety" and be done with it.

I'd like to have asked more things about guns, and you could have shown off how much you know by explaining to a complete newby.  Answers from more knowledgeable people in a community are better than digging around on a wiki somewhere, especially when you don't really know the jargon specific to the target.


The only firearms I've ever handled that had absolutely no form of "safety" have been the muzzleloading variety.

Pretty much everything from 1818 on up has some form of mechanical safety built into the firing mechanism. Most rifles and pistols today have various redundant safeties. Take the Glock for example, which people rail against because of the lack of a thumb safety or decocker (DON'T get me started on the disassembly procedure). It has 4 redundant safeties built into it: It has an out of battery safety, a magazine safety (yes I know not ALL models), some of them even have magazine release safeties (mostly police contracts), and of course the famous trigger safety. Even the Colt SAA which is famous for being recommended to be carried in a 5+0 configuration had a half cock notch on the hammer/sear, which is a safety. A safety is anything that prevents the gun from firing for one reason or another, take the Winchester Model 1892. It has a two piece firing pin that won't allow for the firing pin to protrude from the breech face until the weapon is in battery. That is a safety. The Model 1895 (another lever action) has that AND a disconnector safety that won't allow the trigger to actuate the sear until the lever is being pressed against the tang of the receiver, another form of Out Of Battery safety but still a safety.

Safeties are built into every handgun manufactured today, and into pretty much every handgun manufactured since 1902. Rifles too, although for quite a bit longer.
 
2014-03-01 01:16:27 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: deadlyplatypus: demaL-demaL-yeH: Smackledorfer: Aquapope: I was never in favor of safeties, I just wondered about them.  I don't know enough about guns to have an opinion one way or another.  Read my original post - I asked if it would be hard to require.  I didn't advocate doing it.  It could be difficult for mechanical, political, financial or some other reason.  That's why I asked.   I've been told it's pointless by you, and that almost all handguns already have mechanical safeties by somebody else, but not why it's pointless enough not to add it to a weapon, in spite of almost all of them having them.  Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Actually in the post in which I said my reasons against a safety, I included sufficient points to answer your the second underlined part.

Stop trolling.

mbillips: Oh, God, don't start. Aquapope doesn't know anything about handgun design; he's said as much. Don't start some stupid Socratic dialogue with him.

You are correct, and I am done with him now.

Googles "Glock leg" -holster. "Glock cock" - holster.
Googles: "M1911 leg" - holster,   clicks ONLY result.
Hmm.
Yeah. Manual safeties are farking pointless.

Much of the injuries that result from drawing Glocks occur because of their piss poor design, not the lack of a manual safety.  Glocks have a"safe action trigger" which prevents them from firing unless the trigger is depressed.  The problem is that Glocks have 1) fairly light trigger pulls and 2) fairly short trigger pulls.  You don't read about "Colt Python leg" or "M1911 leg" because of factors other than manual safeties. Double action revolvers have longer, stiffer (giggity) trigger pulls (unless at full-cock) and 1911s have grip safeties (grip safeties are NOT manual safeties and would not prevent shootings like this because the jagoff was likely holding the weapon when he fired).

*AHEM*
[www.balloongoesup.com image 640x480]


Are those from your personal stock? That's a nice job on that beavertail. Almost as good as my work.
 
2014-03-01 01:19:06 AM  

simkatu: Presumably, the argument is that owning a gun keeps your family safe from being shot by a firearm, but the statistics don't bear that out. You're far more likely to use your household's gun on a family member or a friend than on an armed intruder that is meaning to do your family harm.


Presumably, you think that any asshole like you who wants to break into my house should be able to do it with no risk.  Go fark your mother.

I grew up in Texas, and I know a ton of people who own guns.  I don't know anyone who has been shot because of your "statistics say if you have a gun in your house you will be shot" nonsense.

I know several people who have avoided trouble because the assholes who are trying to break in have left when a gun showed up.  It's happened to me.  Asshole tried to break in, I pointed a gun and told him "Leave, now, never come back" and I never saw him again.

So you can biatch and whine about how everyone who owns a gun is statistically going to die because of that gun.  It just makes you a lying asshole who thinks that the thugs should be able to do whatever they want with no risk.
 
2014-03-01 02:03:09 AM  
The "no such thing as an accident" is one of those sayings that's false but speaks a lot of truth. It's just like the "gun is always loaded." The gun isn't always loaded but it's a saying to establish a mindset and first assumed fact.

If a gun discharges and you say "It was an accident" immediately you have an uphill battle because the established fact is contrary. It may very well be an accident but the burden of proof is large. Additionally and more importantly it actively combats the notion that it's OK to have an accident and that accident precludes negligence or fault. An accident is simply an outcome contrary to intention or design. There are negligent accidents and blameful accidents just like there are the innocent variety.

However as we all know "accident" is the first refuge of the negligent and due to sophistry of language the subtleties of definition aren't reliable. By reserving the word "accident" and even automatically applying the label "negligent" it forces any discharge to be explained in more illuminating language.

By not allowing "accidents" leaves the gun operator no recourse but to make full effort not for such discharges to occur which is the attitude he should have had in the first place.
 
2014-03-01 02:26:11 AM  
 
2014-03-01 05:18:35 AM  
Hey, look,someone bought a car and got in an accident, it's obvious. #Libtards
 
2014-03-01 09:57:49 AM  

MythDragon: teenytinycornteeth: you know what, I may have to stay out of gun threads from now on.  Not for the partisan bullshiat, not for the round an' round an' round semantic arguments, not for the ad hominem attacks or massive dick waving, but because if I hear one more person say "keep your nose picker off the bang switch" as if it's a hilarious gun retort, I'm going to pull my own face off.

Keep your booger hooks of the bang switch.
Now record that shiat and post to YouTube. Never seen someone pull his own face off. Will you use a tool, or just booger hooks?


I suggest The Ark.
When he opens it, don't look.
 
2014-03-01 12:15:32 PM  
Why is it that people have to go through months of practice, classes, and a test before they can get a driver's license?  As best I can tell, it's because being an unskilled or irresponsible driver can put other people's lives at risk.

Want to buy a gun? Go right ahead! Maybe there's a waiting period in your state so you can't do a convenient same-day killing, but otherwise it's easy and there's no "safety" or "responsibility" involved.   Because FREEDOM!
 
2014-03-01 01:32:58 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Smackledorfer: demaL-demaL-yeH: Googles "Glock leg" -holster. "Glock cock" - holster.
Googles: "M1911 leg" - holster,   clicks ONLY result.
Hmm.
Yeah. Manual safeties are farking pointless.

Did you have a point?

How long have millions of M1911s with their manual safeties been around?
How long have millions of  Glocks with no manual safeties been around?

Now tell us all again that manual safeties for semiautos are pointless.
(Pointless must be why some gunsmiths make a good living retrofitting external safeties to Glocks.)


So you still, through all this thread, have nothing.  All the posts you wasted your time on, to present us with absolutely nothing.

Not one specific articulation of your argument.  Hell I would even accept "I think safeties help because X", but you couldn't even bring that to the table. I could agree to disagree with that or explain my argument against it.

No, all you've got it "people hurt themselves with guns, and the word safety reassures me", backed up by some lmgtfy's. You don't even have a correlation between lacking a safety and increased accidents, much less a causation.

Pointless must be why some gunsmiths make a good living retrofitting external safeties to Glocks

Well, I guess if your pro-safety stance is based off the continued income of gunsmiths, then is a KIND of point to their existence.  Not really one that has any bearing on people shooting one another unintentionally, but ok.  I'll give that to you

Gun safeties serve a purpose: getting people to buy them.  That is right up there with Best Buy selling you all the extra crap with your 5 dollar cable. Yes I'd love to pay for that extended service protection plan! Service and protection must be good, the word is right there.
 
2014-03-01 02:32:16 PM  

luniz5monody: factoryconnection: luniz5monody: I seem to recall a rule about not pointing a weapon at something unless you want a hole in it. Although with these magic poltergeist weapons, all the rules are right out the window.

Rule #1 of Poltergeist Gun Safety: do what the gun says or ELSE

It is getting tiring....

When I come home from work, I have to put on the entire set of body armor before I get through the front door. I can't trust that all my weapons are still in the safe in the basement. If they have truly gone full poltergeist, I can't know if they've let themselves out of the safe or not. They could have made it out and are waiting for me to walk through that door. I will not take that chance. The body armor stays on until I leave for work the next morning.


THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DENY EGON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE!
 
2014-03-01 03:47:18 PM  
A woman was transported to a hospital after her son's gun accidentally went off and shot her.

There is so much wrong with that sentence that I don't even know where to begin...
 
2014-03-01 04:36:46 PM  

Aquapope: AngryDragon: Aquapope: I found out from a gun thread a week or two ago that most pistols don't have safeties.  Would that be a hard thing to require on new pistols?  How could the NRA have a freakout over that?  I'm sure they would, but I'm not sure how their raccoon-nest thinking would come up with outrage.

Just in case you aren't trolling....

ALWAYS treat a firearm as if it's loaded
NEVER point it at something you aren't willing to destroy
NEVER put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot
ALWAYS be sure of your target and what's beyond it.

There is no reason for a mechanical safety under these circumstances.  In fact most if not all revolvers have no safety to speak of .

Nope, not trolling.  Sure, if the above 4 points are followed, no problems.  But there are problems, so I simply wondered if having an extra option might not be some small help.  If it's too big of a deal to keep the safety on when the gun isn't in use, leave it the fark off.  I'm not a gun owner - I didn't know there was a big hatred of safeties among gun folks.


I am looking to get a CCW pistol this year, and I am going with no manual safety.  When I need to pull it out I dont need anything extra to think about it.  Who wants to worry about a safety check in a life threatening situation where milliseconds could matter?  not me.
 
2014-03-01 07:13:05 PM  

Headso: hardinparamedic: The difference is that an accident in a vehicle only has, at best, 50% of the situation in your own control. So that party can be involved in an incident that is genuinely not their fault.

you do realize car accident was just like 1 of 5 things he mentioned? If  you partake in a dangerous activity your chances of having an accident involving that are higher than if you didn't, it's pretty much common sense.


Being defenseless is most dangerous activity...
 
2014-03-01 07:13:41 PM  
*THE most

/preview is my friend
 
2014-03-01 09:40:55 PM  

Smackledorfer: demaL-demaL-yeH: Smackledorfer: demaL-demaL-yeH: Googles "Glock leg" -holster. "Glock cock" - holster.
Googles: "M1911 leg" - holster,   clicks ONLY result.
Hmm.
Yeah. Manual safeties are farking pointless.

Did you have a point?

How long have millions of M1911s with their manual safeties been around?
How long have millions of  Glocks with no manual safeties been around?

Now tell us all again that manual safeties for semiautos are pointless.
(Pointless must be why some gunsmiths make a good living retrofitting external safeties to Glocks.)

So you still, through all this thread, have nothing.  All the posts you wasted your time on, to present us with absolutely nothing.

Not one specific articulation of your argument.  Hell I would even accept "I think safeties help because X", but you couldn't even bring that to the table. I could agree to disagree with that or explain my argument against it.

No, all you've got it "people hurt themselves with guns, and the word safety reassures me", backed up by some lmgtfy's. You don't even have a correlation between lacking a safety and increased accidents, much less a causation.

Pointless must be why some gunsmiths make a good living retrofitting external safeties to Glocks

Well, I guess if your pro-safety stance is based off the continued income of gunsmiths, then is a KIND of point to their existence.  Not really one that has any bearing on people shooting one another unintentionally, but ok.  I'll give that to you

Gun safeties serve a purpose: getting people to buy them.  That is right up there with Best Buy selling you all the extra crap with your 5 dollar cable. Yes I'd love to pay for that extended service protection plan! Service and protection must be good, the word is right there.


A. For the Browning Hi-Power, M1911 and its many, many, many clones, and some models of the XD, a manual safety is OEM equipment.
2. Glocks and its many imitators do not.
Would you care to tell the class which category of sidearms has a much, much higher rate of negligent discharge?

I know, we all know: You are perfect and never make mistakes.
But the rest of us are mere human beings, flawed, and mistake prone.

All of those internal safeties for Glocks count for naught when the trigger is pulled, and Glocks have comparatively light (and quite nasty, in my opinion) trigger pulls.

And even though the FBI issues Glocks, their 1988 report panned the Glock due to its  "high potential for unintentional shots."  When they started issuing them a decade later, they claimed that the empirical data wasn't in. Their 2004 review of shooting incidents by Department of Justice armed officers showed that a third of firearm discharges were unintentional. Washington DC and NYPD experienced a huge increase in unintentional discharges when they went to Glocks. DCPD paid out a ton of money in wrongful death and woundings. NYPD had Glock increase the trigger pull and issued the dual-stage trigger when it came out.

Do I consider an external manual safety to be some panacea to unintended discharges? No.
Do I consider an external manual safety to help prevent unintentional and negligent discharges? Yes.
Would the Glock be a much safer firearm with a manual safety and if it didn't require pulling the trigger for disassembly? Yes.

The thumb safety on the 1911 is located where I have to put my thumb to fire it. Muscle memory - and untrained, poorly-trained and undertrained shooters are a threat to themselves and everybody around them - is gained through practice, practice, practice.
 
2014-03-01 09:43:09 PM  

iq_in_binary: Are those from your personal stock? That's a nice job on that beavertail. Almost as good as my work.


No. Interweb picture, although my brother is a 'smith. Farker JesseL is a local 'smith and does beautiful work.
 
Displayed 193 of 193 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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