RE: Another "successful" carry story

RE: Another "successful" carry story (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 8:57:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten Pulling a trigger isnt that hard... It is if you're a two-year old and it's a 6.5 pound trigger (see here). quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten Show me where they say the gun was a model with a safety... Read the thread. See also here. quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten Prove its an issue with the gun.. It has come to our attention that some users of Smith & Wesson handguns may stage the trigger in anticipation of firing a shot. Staging is the act of pulling the trigger rearward toward – stopping just short of – the point where the handgun fires. Such manipulation of the trigger can reduce the user’s control of the handgun and can result in an unintentional discharge. Furthermore if the user decides not to fire, release of the trigger from a position close to the firing point in the staging process could result in an unintentional discharge. ~Smith & Wesson K.

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 9:01:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I'm pretty sure firearms and pools will require different solutions in preventing the deaths of those children. And I'm pretty sure that going after something twelve times as deadly would be more productive, if preventing accidental deaths of children was the real concern. K. This is a red herring, and you know it. Of course it's a concern. That's why safety regulations exist for it. But then there's not a national association fighting it, one that isn't really concerned with the safety of children. If we're going to play that game. Must we?

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 9:04:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The laws in both are very different indeed. THIS is why I roll my eyes at "gun-nuttery" (vs. responsible gun-owning citizens). You are being deliberately obtuse and ridiculous. But if you think requiring a fence around guns will help, like we do swimming pools, make your case. But fences around pools arent required in all states and even eith a fence kids drown.... Ergo the magical law doesnt keep kids safe from pools anymore then the countless already in place gun laws do to keep kids away from guns... It all comes down to parental negligence.... solve that and youll have less of these tragic situations Not at all. The unmagical but existing fences do indeed prevent child drownings. Here's your logic--There are laws against murder. Hasn't stopped it. Therefore murder should be legal. People should just be responsible, and not murder. How's that working out? Of course, in Texas, they don't believe in that shit. And Texas has more child drownings. http://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/Texas-Legislature-Ignore-Recommendations-to-Prevent-Childhood-Drowning-215761181.html The American Academy of Pediatrics notes this type of fencing can cut the risk of drowning by more than 50 percent.

mnottertail -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 9:05:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR I noticed on as the collar turns (didn't catch the poster) that someone displayed their firearms knowledge by pointing out there are 3 safeties on the side of the gun. For the education of whoever that was and others who speak without knowledge. The first is to disconnect the slide for cleaning. The second holds the slide open, allowing clearing of the chamber. The third, and only the third is a safety. Holding the gun open is a safety holding the slide open also makes it helpful to change magazines and chamber the next round. No slide on a gun is a safety. Thanks for playing. Anything that renders it immediately inoperable is a safety. If you have no knowledge whatsoever as you demonstrate, drool elsewhere, you are too fucking stupid to be pontificating in an untutored spew with your dumb ass.

Kirata -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 9:18:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I'm pretty sure firearms and pools will require different solutions in preventing the deaths of those children. And I'm pretty sure that going after something twelve times as deadly would be more productive, if preventing accidental deaths of children was the real concern. This is a red herring... In my opinion, the real red herring here is the smug posture of concern over the accidental deaths of children coming from people who never met a gun they didn't hate. K.

Lucylastic -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 9:25:21 AM)
its a shame that your opinion is riddled with strawmen

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 9:25:27 AM)
Well, I can't help you there, any more than you can help me with the posters who never met a firearm regulation/safety-feature they didn't hate. There's no point in my continually repeating yet more that I've no problem per se with gun ownership or the second amendment, and in fact, many in my circle own and use firearms (primarily for hunting--I live in a rural area). But I am concerned when that ownership threatens the safety of others, and for all the vigilante stories, they do indeed threaten the safety of others in the hands of irresponsible owners, who I think we agree number far too many. Hence, reasonable approaches -- like effective safety features and mandatory training -- are I think common ground for you and I at least. The nuts at both ends aren't every going to agree on anything, and they don't even seriously consider the points made. I do appreciate when you weigh in. I quite admittedly know next to nothing about firearms, and you bringing a knowledgeable, supported, researched, non-dramatic presentation of the physical facts is quite helpful, to me at least. So thank you for that.

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 9:40:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten Pulling a trigger isnt that hard... It is if you're a two-year old and it's a 6.5 pound trigger (see here). quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten Show me where they say the gun was a model with a safety... Read the thread. See also here. quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten Prove its an issue with the gun.. It has come to our attention that some users of Smith & Wesson handguns may stage the trigger in anticipation of firing a shot. Staging is the act of pulling the trigger rearward toward – stopping just short of – the point where the handgun fires. Such manipulation of the trigger can reduce the user’s control of the handgun and can result in an unintentional discharge. Furthermore if the user decides not to fire, release of the trigger from a position close to the firing point in the staging process could result in an unintentional discharge. ~Smith & Wesson K. Thanks for the info. Its not listed in the original article or the few ive read that the gun was one with a safety. As ive stated. I shoot this exact model regularly and it doesnt happen for me. But then mine was manufactured in 2014 and does not have the listed defect. Do we have information on when her gun was manufactured and if it was repaired or open for this problem? Im all for safety classes and the guns being made better... im also for stupid people being regulated.

Kirata -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 9:42:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten mine was manufactured in 2014 and does not have the listed defect. Don't bet anyone's life on it. It affects all M&P models, and Smith & Wesson does not consider it a defect. K.

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 9:49:44 AM)
Enter the role of regulation, which can require them to consider it a defect.

lovmuffin -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 10:03:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR I noticed on as the collar turns (didn't catch the poster) that someone displayed their firearms knowledge by pointing out there are 3 safeties on the side of the gun. For the education of whoever that was and others who speak without knowledge. The first is to disconnect the slide for cleaning. The second holds the slide open, allowing clearing of the chamber. The third, and only the third is a safety. Holding the gun open is a safety holding the slide open also makes it helpful to change magazines and chamber the next round. No slide on a gun is a safety. Thanks for playing. Anything that renders it immediately inoperable is a safety. If you have no knowledge whatsoever as you demonstrate, drool elsewhere, you are too fucking stupid to be pontificating in an untutored spew with your dumb ass. What you're saying would pretty much change the criteria on what would normally be defined as a safety.

igor2003 -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 10:06:12 AM)
--FR-- One safety feature, already available on all guns, is to simply leave the firing chamber empty. That, alone, would virtually eliminate all accidental shootings where a toddler discharges the weapon, and would definitely (in my opinion) drastically reduce accidental shootings by older children. Getting the adult owners of said weapons to actually do this would be the real trick, since it reduces the available firepower by one round. But more laws aren't going to do the trick. Since automobiles are often used as a sort of comparison, I'll do the same. Automobile laws are there mainly to prevent loss of life and property. You have laws (varying from state to state and country to country) that regulate who can own or register a car. You have classes and tests that have to be taken in order to get a license to operate the car. You have multitudes of laws concerning what you can do while operating the car. There are speed limits. There are laws concerning lane changes. There are laws concerning stopping at intersections. And on...and on...and on... Law after law after law, and regulation after regulation after regulation. But guess what. People still die in traffic "accidents". Why? Because all too often, once the classes and tests have been taken, and once the person has their license and they get behind the wheel, those lessons, and tests, and rules, and regulations...get ignored. The person thinks, "Those rules are for people that aren't as careful as I am," or some such idiocy...if they even THINK at all. More safety features? Cars have safety features like seat belts, turn signals, parking brakes, etc. etc. But those safety features, even if required to be there by law, don't do a bit of good if they aren't used. You can require more and more safety features on guns, but if you can't get the people to use what is already there, then what good are more and more safety features going to do? I WOULD BE WILLING TO BET that when it comes to cars and driving that most (or at least many) of the people that are anti-gun, and/or who want more gun regulations, are going to be people that at least occasionally speed, or roll through stop signs, or make illegal lane changes because they are about to miss their exit. And if more regulations "don't apply" to them, why do they think more regulations for guns will make any difference? I know there are people that will argue, and often rightly so, that just because present laws, rules, and regulations aren't working, does that mean we should make it legal?...or not write more laws? SOMETIMES new laws and regulations can and should be called for. But new laws and regulations aren't some kind of fix all. Adding laws just to "do something" isn't the answer. More often than not those new laws and regulations only effect people that are already doing their part, and have no effect at all on the people that are going to ignore them anyway. I freely admit that I don't have any ready answers that will work. At least if you can't get people to comply with the rules, regulations, and safety features that are already there. And I don't think stricter gun control laws will work either. I know we have people that say, "See what it did for the UK and Australia." But the history, culture, and people of the United States is considerably different from those countries. If you want to compare countries, you might as well try comparing to Jamaica. I've never seen that comparison before. Jamaican gun laws, from what I understand, are every bit as strict...or more so...than either the UK or Australia. There, even the possession of a single bullet, even without the presence of a gun, can get you as much as 10 years in prison at hard labor. The fees to get a gun license are as much or more than most of their citizens make in a year...or several years, and then is subject to extreme scrutiny by the government. And yet they have one of the highest gun/murder rates in the world. (I have to admit that this information was read several years ago, and may not be 100% accurate today, but I openly invite anyone to look up the present information and post it. I won't argue with what they find!) Anyway...I'm not sure you would call this a "rant", and I'm probably not going to keep coming back to argue the finer points just because someone disagrees. These are just my thoughts and opinions. You are entitled to your own.

lovmuffin -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 10:18:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ~ FYI ~ Experts are still scratching their heads over how this tragic accident could have happened. Veronica Rutledge grew up around guns and knew gun safety. The weapon was a 9mm Smith & Wesson M&P Shield, a striker-fired pistol with a manual thumb safety and a 6.5 pound trigger. It was stored in a specialty carry-purse with a zippered closure. [image]http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/images/firearms/detail_md/180021_01_md.jpg[/image] I suspect at least one factor in this accident is what I would consider a design flaw in the weapon. The child didn't have to overcome the 6.5 pound trigger for the gun to go off. With this weapon, once the trigger has been staged, i.e., pulled partially rearward but stopping before the point of firing, releasing it can cause the weapon to discharge. K. Thank you, Kirata. That's exactly the kind of thing I was trying to look at until the circus arrived. Aside from mom's negligence/abandonment/reckless-endangerment/whatever then, addressing this design flaw would/should prevent incidents, yes? After all, sounds like someone could also end up firing when they had changed their mind about it, i.e., not pulled the trigger completely. A dangerous feature. For the rest, "knowing" and "doing" aren't the same--I'd argue that's not truly "knowing" (like the ER visits that start with "I knew I really shouldn't, but ..."). But it does address my query into my the gun itself wasn't safe from a toddler. I certainly hope Smith and Wesson revisit the design. I'm boggled by the folks who don't seem to want it safe from a toddler, but probably nothing can be done about that. We re-call cars with unsafe design features. Are there recalls of unsafe guns? Even if the design flaw on this particular model is addressed, and I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be, it still wouldn't be safe from a toddler. Correcting a defect is not the same thing as calling for more safeties added to all handguns as you have suggested.

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 10:26:47 AM)
From Kirata's description, seems fixing this flaw would indeed stand a good chance of preventing unsafe toddler gun-handling. Since it clearly needs to be addressed anyway, it's a place to start -- and given the manufacturer refuses to acknowledge the flaw, it will take legal action of some sort.

Kirata -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 10:42:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 One safety feature, already available on all guns, is to simply leave the firing chamber empty. That, alone, would virtually eliminate all accidental shootings where a toddler discharges the weapon, and would definitely (in my opinion) drastically reduce accidental shootings by older children. Getting the adult owners of said weapons to actually do this would be the real trick, since it reduces the available firepower by one round. It would also reduce the number of gun owners. A firearm without a round in the chamber is called a "paperweight," and people without one in the pipe when they need to shoot are called "dead" (like this guy). K.

lovmuffin -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 10:44:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery From Kirata's description, seems fixing this flaw would indeed stand a good chance of preventing unsafe toddler gun-handling. Since it clearly needs to be addressed anyway, it's a place to start -- and given the manufacturer refuses to acknowledge the flaw, it will take legal action of some sort. It would stand a chance from an accidental toddler discharge, (ATD) [8D] I don't know what the probability is but it certainly wouldn't be toddler proof. When you say it's a start, is that code for adding more safeties to all handguns is next ? [;)] But yes, design flaws and defects should clearly be addressed.

lovmuffin -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 10:52:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 One safety feature, already available on all guns, is to simply leave the firing chamber empty. That, alone, would virtually eliminate all accidental shootings where a toddler discharges the weapon, and would definitely (in my opinion) drastically reduce accidental shootings by older children. Getting the adult owners of said weapons to actually do this would be the real trick, since it reduces the available firepower by one round. It would also reduce the number of gun owners. A firearm without a round in the chamber is called a "paperweight," and people without one in the pipe when they need to shoot are called "dead" (like this guy). K. Not to mention that it would be meaningless with a revolver. I guess you could leave the entire cylinder empty[8D]

Kirata -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 10:53:21 AM)
Here's a modified M&P for Lucy... [image]local://upfiles/235229/192B9D303E1E4767866591BEE0C8A864.jpg[/image] It don't get safer than that. [:)] K.

BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 10:55:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Which is why, O Insult-Prone One, I'm looking at better training and addressing the design flaw. You are guys who keep bringing up "well, it's already illegal to leave the loaded weapon unattended," but you've got no way to enforce it. So stop hiding behind that, and lets look at approaches that will actually help. We can charge the dead mom after the fact. Not sure that will help a lot. I asked you before and you never answered how do you enforce it? And you just said that just because it is part of of the training doesn't mean it gets to the students, so that makes (according to you) useless. Of course flaws should be fixed, but that is covered under product law.

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 10:56:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery From Kirata's description, seems fixing this flaw would indeed stand a good chance of preventing unsafe toddler gun-handling. Since it clearly needs to be addressed anyway, it's a place to start -- and given the manufacturer refuses to acknowledge the flaw, it will take legal action of some sort. It would stand a chance from an accidental toddler discharge, (ATD) [8D] I don't know what the probability is but it certainly wouldn't be toddler proof. When you say it's a start, is that code for adding more safeties to all handguns is next ? [;)] But yes, design flaws and defects should clearly be addressed. And that's how you got included in the gun-nutter-defensive-no-matter-what crowd. Any reasonable change triggers your paranoia. Hopefully you're simply joking here. Your last sentence gives me hope.

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02