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

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



Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 6:58:49 PM)

I was talking about the reckless endangerment, since that's the incident here.

And I was talking about it because you brought it up under the heading of existing law covers this already.

I asked you how you'd enforce it -- you just moved on to new insults.



BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 7:04:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I was talking about the reckless endangerment, since that's the incident here.

And I was talking about it because you brought it up under the heading of existing law covers this already.

I asked you how you'd enforce it -- you just moved on to new insults.

It doesn't become endangerment until she leaves it unattended.
Need to inform you of something, not starting a post with yes sir does not constitute an insult.
Not agreeing with you does not constitute and insult.
So you agree that no reasonable law would have detected the firearm before the accident. After all nothing illegal happened until that time, assuming there is a flaw in the gun it didn't matter till then, and her training didn't fail till then.



Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 7:09:30 PM)

Oh good grief.



ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 2:27:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Hmmmm. Should this lead one to investigate the meaning of the word, safety, as it is used in firearms?





Saying If you take it apart, it's safe. So the disassembly lever is a safety. is about the stupidest assertion I've ever heard. While it's technically true, it's also ludicrous.

Let's try a few other statements that are factual, but ludicrous.

If I shoot my dog, I won't have to pay anymore vet bills. So a gun is a cost savings device.

If I burn down my house, I won't slip in the shower. So arson is safety tool.

If I quit my job, I won't have to pay income taxes. So quitting will save me money.

And lastly, if I put the gun in a box and bury it in the back-yard, no one will ever be shot with it. So the shovel is a safety by your logic, since it made the gun not immediately available to shoot.



ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 3:08:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

1) I want a clear design flaw fixed
2) I want to take a look at effectiveness of training.



1) If there's a design flaw, they should fix it. If they won't do so voluntarily, then they should be sued. But, someone has to first prove an actual design flaw, they don't recall any product without a verified problem. Ok, put that one to bed.

2) You've been told by someone who attended training classes that women are told not to carry a gun in their purses, and if they do, never put them down. The mother in question ignored that, or forgot, or was stressed out from shopping with 4 kids. So, now what? Is the training flawed because someone ignored it after the fact?

We all were taught to drive. We were all told to obey posted speed limits. I bet there's no one here who's never sped in their lives, so is the training at fault? If I get a speeding ticket, can I sue my driver's ed teacher for improperly instructing me? If someone is driving erratically because they're stressed from having 4 kids in the car, is there a problem with driver's training, or is it that stressed people sometimes make stupid decisions?



ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 3:16:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I was talking about the reckless endangerment, since that's the incident here.

And I was talking about it because you brought it up under the heading of existing law covers this already.

I asked you how you'd enforce it -- you just moved on to new insults.

It doesn't become endangerment until she leaves it unattended.
Need to inform you of something, not starting a post with yes sir does not constitute an insult.
Not agreeing with you does not constitute and insult.
So you agree that no reasonable law would have detected the firearm before the accident. After all nothing illegal happened until that time, assuming there is a flaw in the gun it didn't matter till then, and her training didn't fail till then.


And replying to this with "Oh good grief" shows where you think the problem really is. It's not that a child got hold of the gun, it's that she brought a loaded gun into the store at all. Because Bama is right, until she left the bag unattended, nothing she did was illegal. She had a valid carry permit, she was legally allowed to carry in that locale. As was pointed out earlier, the purse it was carried in was one designed for the purpose. She didn't just shove a loaded weapon into a regular purse. So no law was broken until she left the weapon unsecured and allowed a child to access it.



Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 6:30:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

1) I want a clear design flaw fixed
2) I want to take a look at effectiveness of training.



1) If there's a design flaw, they should fix it. If they won't do so voluntarily, then they should be sued. But, someone has to first prove an actual design flaw, they don't recall any product without a verified problem. Ok, put that one to bed.

2) You've been told by someone who attended training classes that women are told not to carry a gun in their purses, and if they do, never put them down. The mother in question ignored that, or forgot, or was stressed out from shopping with 4 kids. So, now what? Is the training flawed because someone ignored it after the fact?

We all were taught to drive. We were all told to obey posted speed limits. I bet there's no one here who's never sped in their lives, so is the training at fault? If I get a speeding ticket, can I sue my driver's ed teacher for improperly instructing me? If someone is driving erratically because they're stressed from having 4 kids in the car, is there a problem with driver's training, or is it that stressed people sometimes make stupid decisions?


We're back to the knee jerk defensiveness now.

Training classes may be fine. But as someone who has designed and implemented dozens of programs for private business and academic institutions, one key point we're always examining is (1) what outcomes are we seeking and (2) measuring those outcomes. If we're not seeing what we hoped to see, we look at why, and update the training to accommodate the improvements.

In something so dangerous as poor firearm safety, if people are ignoring their training, I'd want to investigate why, what happens in these situations. And, if it's something that can be addressed at least in part in training, it should be.

What's wrong with that?



Kirata -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 7:10:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

one key point we're always examining is (1) what outcomes are we seeking and (2) measuring those outcomes. If we're not seeing what we hoped to see, we look at why, and update the training to accommodate the improvements...

What's wrong with that?

Nothing, in concept. But you neglect to say what level of outcome success would satisfy you. For example, the latest available CDC data (2012) reports 548 non-intentional deaths by firearm in the context of an estimated 11.1 million concealed carry permits, and not all of those deaths were necessarily related to concealed carry accidents. But since the data doesn't distinguish, we'll go with what we've got. Those numbers reflect a fatal accident rate of 1 per 20,255 permits.

K.



Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 7:21:34 AM)

Since it *is* at the concept level here, and not a program I'm designing, of course not. Granted, actual application will need specific targets.

But in the environment of a thread where the audience seems all too often to be in the "we should do nothing because shit happens and kids die lots of other ways and you just want to ban carry and repeal the second amendment and anyway we'd all be safer if every mom had one in her purse" camp, simple grudging acknowledgement that progression toward greater safety and responsibility is possible and maybe even (*gasp*) feasible and responsible is the standard for outcome here.

Three posters, even once they're there, continue to argue and snipe even though the matter is largely settled for the moment. It's an automatic knee jerk circling of the wagons, simply because there's a gun involved. That worries me. It's not a healthy context for policy.

So if the doors to recognizing that indeed there are steps that don't threaten these nervous trigger holders toward safety have opened, even a crack, then for the moment, that's the desired outcome. Yeah, the knee-jerkers will whine about slippery slopes, but maybe they're stop thinking in black and white and begin to look at the situation as it is, rather than as they project it in their heads.



Kirata -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 7:34:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Granted, actual application will need specific targets.

Of course. I'm just asking if a 99.995% success rate in preventing fatal accidents would be in the acceptable range.

K.




Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 7:37:55 AM)

I get that. And if all is well, then that's something we can cross off our to do list.

Clearly the design flaw is the place to start anyway.



Kirata -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 7:48:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Clearly the design flaw is the place to start anyway.

Yeah. I'm kinda stunned that S&W doesn't think it's a flaw. They cite the rule about not putting your finger on the trigger until you intend to shoot. But you can very much intend to shoot, and still change your mind or not have to. Rightly or wrongly, from what I've seen it's not that uncommon to stage the trigger on a DAO pistol before squeezing one off if you're going for maximum accuracy.

K.



lovmuffin -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 10:30:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

............in the environment of a thread where the audience seems all too often to be in the "we should do nothing because shit happens and kids die lots of other ways and you just want to ban carry and repeal the second amendment and anyway we'd all be safer if every mom had one in her purse" camp, simple grudging acknowledgement that progression toward greater safety and responsibility is possible and maybe even (*gasp*) feasible and responsible is the standard for outcome here.

Three posters, even once they're there, continue to argue and snipe even though the matter is largely settled for the moment. It's an automatic knee jerk circling of the wagons, simply because there's a gun involved. That worries me. It's not a healthy context for policy.

So if the doors to recognizing that indeed there are steps that don't threaten these nervous trigger holders toward safety have opened, even a crack, then for the moment, that's the desired outcome. Yeah, the knee-jerkers will whine about slippery slopes, but maybe they're stop thinking in black and white and begin to look at the situation as it is, rather than as they project it in their heads.



No one anywhere on this thread has said you wanted to " ban carry and repeal the second amendment and anyway we'd all be safer if every mom had one in her purse" camp,". No one is arguing against "progression toward greater safety and responsibility". No one has "knee jerked or circled the wagons". No one has "whined about slippery slopes".

You're the one who went on and on whining for 24 pages talking in circles and riddles until you finally watered down your position into something specific we can agree on. Though the matter seems to be "largely settled for the moment", you continue to "argue and snipe". And furthermore, none of us are "nervous trigger holders".

We're all in favor of gun safety but I wouldn't want to see it implemented by those of you who don't know anything about firearms. Though I wouldn't see it as a bad thing if all moms, or at least those in the upper half of the gene pool carried guns in their purses.



Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 11:18:12 AM)

And right on cue.

It's fascinating that, while "I never said that" is one of your (and some other posters) favorite tools to dodge the intent and implications of your arguments, you're also (and these other posters) quick to play the same ignorance of rhetoric game in ascribing content other than reality.

If your school didn't cover the use of quotation marks other than direct quotation, I'm sorry the educational system is flawed in your district. Here's a clue: when I directly quote someone, I also include the speaker I'm quoting.

You can find additional tips here: http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/02/quotation-mark-uses-other-than-quotes.html

Now...on to the actual topic . . .

You note (<--see the direct reference to the speaker I'm about to quote directly?) that "We're all in favor of gun safety but I wouldn't want to see it implemented by those of you who don't know anything about firearms."

So where are the knowledgeable firearms folk leading the charge to address the design flaw? Or any other gun safety charge?

Until "those of [us] who don't know anything about firearms" see that happening, it's understandable we'd be concerned we might have to step up and do it ourselves. And if you don't like that, you've only yourself (as a group) to blame.

Doesn't help that the NRA is infamous for fighting gun safety laws.



BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 12:22:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And right on cue.

It's fascinating that, while "I never said that" is one of your (and some other posters) favorite tools to dodge the intent and implications of your arguments, you're also (and these other posters) quick to play the same ignorance of rhetoric game in ascribing content other than reality.

If your school didn't cover the use of quotation marks other than direct quotation, I'm sorry the educational system is flawed in your district. Here's a clue: when I directly quote someone, I also include the speaker I'm quoting.

You can find additional tips here: http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/02/quotation-mark-uses-other-than-quotes.html

Now...on to the actual topic . . .

You note (<--see the direct reference to the speaker I'm about to quote directly?) that "We're all in favor of gun safety but I wouldn't want to see it implemented by those of you who don't know anything about firearms."

So where are the knowledgeable firearms folk leading the charge to address the design flaw? Or any other gun safety charge?

Until "those of [us] who don't know anything about firearms" see that happening, it's understandable we'd be concerned we might have to step up and do it ourselves. And if you don't like that, you've only yourself (as a group) to blame.

Doesn't help that the NRA is infamous for fighting gun safety laws.

Being ignorant, as you are about firearms is one thing, being proud of it is worse, and thinking that those of us who no more are wrong for not taking your advise is arrogant
As far as what we implied that is just what you wanted to believe it is what we meant. Your refusal to accept when we say we didn't say it is just your refusal to leave your fantasy world.



Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 12:29:38 PM)

And none of that is what I said. Well done!

So...what *are* you doing to improve firearm safety?



BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 12:29:58 PM)

So where are the knowledgeable firearms folk leading the charge to address the design flaw? Or any other gun safety charge?

How would you know?
You dismiss anything we say as wrong anyway. Everyone here supports safer firearms but you persist in the fantasy that we don't.
Which firearms safety group do you head up?
Oh wait you can't because you don't know straight up about firearms. Don't demand what you won't do.



Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 12:33:31 PM)

So....you don't actually do anything to promote safer firearms? You just snipe at others about it?



BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 12:36:52 PM)

It's fascinating that, while "I never said that" is one of your (and some other posters) favorite tools to dodge the intent and implications of your arguments, you're also (and these other posters) quick to play the same ignorance of rhetoric game in ascribing content other than reality.


That is what you said.



BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 12:38:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So....you don't actually do anything to promote safer firearms? You just snipe at others about it?

I wasn't the one demanding that the other side do something.



Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.640625E-02