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  
•       •       •

9535 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 2:55 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report