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

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



Message


Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 12:40:21 PM)

And that's why the less knowledgeable people step up to address it. You've left a void.




BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 12:45:20 PM)

FR

I currently own 2 S&Ws one has a safety flaw.
I would contact the company about it except that they stopped making this model in the 1880s and fixed the problem about 120 years ago.
In fact that is the only firearm I have owned with a safety flaw.




Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 12:51:56 PM)

That's the point -- you've covered yourself, but everyone else is on their own.

That leaves it to others to step up. You can't fairly whine when they do.




BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 1:05:27 PM)

FR

The most important safety feature on a firearm is the shooter.
I teach gun safety at every reasonable opportunity.




BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 1:08:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And that's why the less knowledgeable people step up to address it. You've left a void.

If I had known that there was no one on the pro gun side in a position to do something about it I would have stepped up.
Programs and standards set up by people who don't know what they are doing are usually worse than nothing.
For example when you supported Peons suggestion for child proof safeties.




BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 1:09:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That's the point -- you've covered yourself, but everyone else is on their own.

That leaves it to others to step up. You can't fairly whine when they do.

I can when they function from ignorance.




Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 1:10:57 PM)

If you think a toddler should be able to fire a gun, yeah, we're never going to agree.

And this gun has a design flaw making it possible for a toddler to pull a 6.5 lb. trigger.

Not just a child -- a toddler. The kid can barely walk...but can fire this gun. That doesn't need to happen.




BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 1:15:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

If you think a toddler should be able to fire a gun, yeah, we're never going to agree.

And this gun has a design flaw making it possible for a toddler to pull a 6.5 lb. trigger.

Not just a child -- a toddler. The kid can barely walk...but can fire this gun. That doesn't need to happen.

There you go again, making up positions for me. But that is what you have to do to bolster your clearly shaky ego.




Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 1:17:58 PM)

Actually, it's what you just said, characterizing Peon's suggestion for child proof safeties.

In this case--that's a toddler. And I'm sorry if it offends your "hand-off" sensibilities, but it's reasonable to design a gun a toddler can't fire.




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


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Actually, it's what you just said, characterizing Peon's suggestion for child proof safeties.

In this case--that's a toddler. And I'm sorry if it offends your "hand-off" sensibilities, but it's reasonable to design a gun a toddler can't fire.

But the kind of safety he suggested would make the firearm unusable in a crises. You shouldn't even have to know anything about firearms to know that. And knowing that a particular solution is unworkable is a far cry from saying that I approve of firearms for toddlers to shoot. I guess that is to fine a point for you to understand.




Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 1:34:24 PM)

Are you going to post any post without including a gratuitous insult?

Since I've already explained, multiple times, the safety flaw that not only I but others including at least one gun owner on this forum see is that one I want addressed, just what is your beef at this point?

Why shouldn't it be fixed? What "fine point" am I not understanding?

[8|]




BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 1:53:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Are you going to post any post without including a gratuitous insult?

Since I've already explained, multiple times, the safety flaw that not only I but others including at least one gun owner on this forum see is that one I want addressed, just what is your beef at this point?

Why shouldn't it be fixed? What "fine point" am I not understanding?

[8|]

I didn't say there wasn't a flaw.
I said any flaw should be fixed.
I said that peons solution was unworkable and you extrapolated that to mean, in spite of my statements to the contrary that I didn't want the flaw fixed. True that is not a fine point, it is gross deliberate misinterpretation of what I have said. That was not an insult. Remember asking me if I had a head injury before I "insulted" you, now that was an insult. Of course any comment you make is not an insult, just an "observation" based on your unique viewpoint. You take any negative assessment of your position but anything you say is supposed to be excepted as a fair assessment.




Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 1:56:49 PM)

So extrapolating any possible points from that rant . . .

You agree there's a flaw?
You agree the flaw should be fixed?
You agree you're not going to do anything about it, so others will need to step up?

And from there, you're going way back to Peon's point about a safety you didn't like, even though this design flaw would likely handle the problem and without making the gun harder for an adult to fire in a crisis, while doing more to prevent a toddler from firing it?

And listing the usual litany of my sins. But other than that I'm a horrible person, those are the facts?




BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 2:07:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So extrapolating any possible points from that rant . . .

You agree there's a flaw?
You agree the flaw should be fixed?
You agree you're not going to do anything about it, so others will need to step up?

And from there, you're going way back to Peon's point about a safety you didn't like, even though this design flaw would likely handle the problem and without making the gun harder for an adult to fire in a crisis, while doing more to prevent a toddler from firing it?

And listing the usual litany of my sins. But other than that I'm a horrible person, those are the facts?

There is the point you missed, it would make it harder for adults to use in a crisis this is the point you don't seem to comprehend.
And I have never agreed that the ignorant should "step up" and do things based on their ignorance.
What is in my power to do is teach people around me about gun safety and so that is what I do, I already stated that but you of course you ignored that because it didn't fit your preconceived notions.




Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 2:13:30 PM)

That's nonsense.

The trigger is already on the weapon. That isn't changing. Is it too hard to fire NOW?

The flaw is that when the trigger is staged but the weapon not fired, the weapon can then discharge without the trigger being squeezed.

That's not safe. And fixing it doesn't make it harder to fire.

So you appear to think (and I'm sure you'll insult me if I'm wrong):
* there is a flaw
* you don't think it should be fixed
* you don't believe people who don't know guns should have the right to demand a safety flaw should be fixed.
* you think that because you teach gun safety sometimes that this means you're doing something about the safety flaw you don't want fixed.
* you think fixing a firearm that will discharge when the trigger is only staged would make it too hard to fire in a crisis.




BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 3:50:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That's nonsense.

The trigger is already on the weapon. That isn't changing. Is it too hard to fire NOW?

The flaw is that when the trigger is staged but the weapon not fired, the weapon can then discharge without the trigger being squeezed.

That's not safe. And fixing it doesn't make it harder to fire.

So you appear to think (and I'm sure you'll insult me if I'm wrong):
* there is a flaw
* you don't think it should be fixed
* you don't believe people who don't know guns should have the right to demand a safety flaw should be fixed.
* you think that because you teach gun safety sometimes that this means you're doing something about the safety flaw you don't want fixed.
* you think fixing a firearm that will discharge when the trigger is only staged would make it too hard to fire in a crisis.

I never said that it shouldn't be fixed, exactly the opposite.
Pointing out as I did that this is covered by product law and doesn't need a new law doesn't mean any of the things you claim I said.
People who don't know anything about guns don't know what to ask for, "fixes" based on ignorance leads to ignorant fixes.
What in the world would make you think that people who use guns don't want them to be as safe as possible, you would have to believe gun owners are idiots to think that.
Gun owners do demand safety, that is why the Adams and Jenkins companies are no longer with us.
It wasn't from pie in the sky demands of people who don't know what they are talking about demanding "something" be done.
What you are arguing for now is like saying that since NASA isn't putting a man on Mars we should just pull people off the street and let them do it. Doesn't matter that they don't know what they are doing the people who do haven't done as much as we want them to.
Why not let a plumber fix your car? Makes as much sense.




PeonForHer -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 3:51:06 PM)

FR

I keep seeing my nick brought up in relation to this thread. Have people here any idea of how bizarre this is to me? I know nothing about guns, as I have frequently stated. I am as a mere child in this debate, I freely admit. So ... how the hell can someone like me make a point about gun safety that you in the USA, so used to guns as you are, haven't already hammered to death and sorted out decades ago?




BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 3:54:32 PM)

The trigger is already on the weapon. That isn't changing. Is it too hard to fire NOW?


Lets see once the safety is off it fires, a true statement which ignores the point.
The more complex you make the safety the longer it takes to get to the point where the finger is on the the trigger.
Again you should be able to figure that out even without knowing the first thing about firearms.




Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 4:01:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That's nonsense.

The trigger is already on the weapon. That isn't changing. Is it too hard to fire NOW?

The flaw is that when the trigger is staged but the weapon not fired, the weapon can then discharge without the trigger being squeezed.

That's not safe. And fixing it doesn't make it harder to fire.

So you appear to think (and I'm sure you'll insult me if I'm wrong):
* there is a flaw
* you don't think it should be fixed
* you don't believe people who don't know guns should have the right to demand a safety flaw should be fixed.
* you think that because you teach gun safety sometimes that this means you're doing something about the safety flaw you don't want fixed.
* you think fixing a firearm that will discharge when the trigger is only staged would make it too hard to fire in a crisis.

I never said that it shouldn't be fixed, exactly the opposite.
Pointing out as I did that this is covered by product law and doesn't need a new law doesn't mean any of the things you claim I said.
People who don't know anything about guns don't know what to ask for, "fixes" based on ignorance leads to ignorant fixes.
What in the world would make you think that people who use guns don't want them to be as safe as possible, you would have to believe gun owners are idiots to think that.
Gun owners do demand safety, that is why the Adams and Jenkins companies are no longer with us.
It wasn't from pie in the sky demands of people who don't know what they are talking about demanding "something" be done.
What you are arguing for now is like saying that since NASA isn't putting a man on Mars we should just pull people off the street and let them do it. Doesn't matter that they don't know what they are doing the people who do haven't done as much as we want them to.
Why not let a plumber fix your car? Makes as much sense.

I don't know if this is clear to you, judging from that tirade -- but we weren't thinking of fixing it ourselves. We figured that would be the job of the manufacturer. And nobody called for any new law in the entire thread.

So....let's see if you've settled on an articulated position:

* you agree there's a flaw
* you agree it should be fixed
* you feel it shouldn't be fixed by people who don't know anything about guns, even though that's not in dispute
* you feel no one should pass a new law to get it fixed, since a suit under existing law could force the fix
* apparently, you've abandoned your position that fixing it would make it too hard to fire in a crisis
* you're still upset that people who don't know guns would have the nerve to say it should be fixed
* that you sometimes teach gun safety means that you have no interest in doing anything about the fix
* that your guns are as safe as can be means you don't care about making this one any safer -- hell, shit happens
* moms with toddlers have every right to go packing in the supermarket
* existing training is perfect, leave it be

From there your rant is silly -- wanting to address this isn't "pie in the sky," street people putting men on the moon, or plumber fixing cars (though my plumber would probably do a decent job).

That about it?




Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/22/2015 4:03:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The trigger is already on the weapon. That isn't changing. Is it too hard to fire NOW?


Lets see once the safety is off it fires, a true statement which ignores the point.
The more complex you make the safety the longer it takes to get to the point where the finger is on the the trigger.
Again you should be able to figure that out even without knowing the first thing about firearms.

You, who know firearms, should be about to figure out that staging the trigger but not firing the weapon and then having it discharge on its own is bad, and that fixing that defect isn't making the weapon "more complex." It just means the trigger works the way it's supposed to work.

[8|]





Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.296875E-02