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 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 43 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