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  
•       •       •

9529 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 2:55 PM (20 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 03:58:47 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?
 
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