JohnRich 4 #76 May 5, 2004 QuoteSo he told he could leave it loaded with the safety on....and procedded to demonstrate that the gun would not fire with the safety on.... Yes he should have cleared the weapon before doing this. Yep, he could have demonstrated the same thing with the gun unloaded. And should have. It's pretty obvious when the hammer drops, and you hear a "click". One way to demonstrate this is to unload the gun, then put a pencil down the barrel, eraser-end first. When you pull the trigger, the firing pin will pop the eraser, and shoot the pencil out the end. It's fun to stick pencils in soft ceiling tile this way. You can do this a couple of times, then put the safety on, and demonstrate that nothing happens to the pencil when the trigger is pulled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #77 May 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteHmm, I could swear I've heard of a gun with a defective barrel killing the guy who fired it. Yup. About 15 years ago a colleague of mine who is an expert on fracture analyzed some rifle barrels that had been manufactured incorrectly and had a tendency to split, causing injury to the operators. Psst. Hey kallend... You're now answering your own questions... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,154 #78 May 5, 2004 >Well, if you're gonna install the qualifier "when a gun is fired at > someone," then I guess we CAN say hammers are dangerous by > adding, "when a hammer is smashed on someone." I agree. But if you treat a gun with as much care as you treat a hammer you're not going to live very long. Guns require extraordinary care because they can very easily inflict grievous bodily harm; they are more dangerous than hammers, and more care must be paid to their operation if you are to operate them safely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,196 #79 May 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteHmm, I could swear I've heard of a gun with a defective barrel killing the guy who fired it. Yup. About 15 years ago a colleague of mine who is an expert on fracture analyzed some rifle barrels that had been manufactured incorrectly and had a tendency to split, causing injury to the operators. Psst. Hey kallend... You're now answering your own questions... Where were the questions? All I see is a tentative statement, followed by a confirmation.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #80 May 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote I myself can use a gun 100,000 times and because I am doing it according to the safe methods that are time- and experience-proven, I will escape injury every time. It's a pleasure to learn that you are so wonderful. However, I suspect that human nature being what it is, most other humans can't do anything 100,000 times without making at least one mistake. Sure they can. All it takes is that you care about what you're doing, and do it patiently and attentively. Ask Kennedy or AggieDave if they feel that they could handle a gun 100,000 times and manage to not shoot themselves or something else by accident, and I'm pretty sure they'll say yes. See, when they put a gun in their hands, their minds say, "Well, better do this the right way," and so they do. It's no miracle, no secret, no arcane magic. It's just training and responsible action. And thanks for recognizing how wonderful I am. You don't know the half of it! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #81 May 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHmm, I could swear I've heard of a gun with a defective barrel killing the guy who fired it. Yup. About 15 years ago a colleague of mine who is an expert on fracture analyzed some rifle barrels that had been manufactured incorrectly and had a tendency to split, causing injury to the operators. Psst. Hey kallend... You're now answering your own questions... Where were the questions? All I see is a tentative statement, followed by a confirmation. All that aside, Kallend, you said "Yup," as if to confirm your initial statement, but then you went on to say "injured" but not "killed," so how does that qualify for a "YUP" to the initial statement? Maybe you're thinking about Glocks. It has been advised that shooters not use unjacketed lead bullets in them, because buildup of lead can occur, eventually increasing pressure in the barrel and chamber, and since the chambers of Glocks are not "fully supported," they can erupt in that direction. Glocks are still extremely safe pistols, but you gotta know their limitations, like anything else. Do an internet search for "kaboom" and you'll find comments on Glocks and what can cause this to occur. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #82 May 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteHowever she was not strong enough to pull the slide back.. Then he should have stopped what he was doing and bought a revolver. If she can't pull the slide, then she can't clear a jam, thus she's in a world of hurt. If she had a revolver, then all she has to do is keep pulling the trigger. I'm a BIG advocate of SAs for self defense, but there's a time when a revolver should be used. That is one of them. Careful. "SA" could be taken to mean "single actions," not "semi-autos," and usually is. (Think SA, DA, DAO...) I agree that he should give her a revolver instead of sticking her with a semi-auto she can't adequately operate. And if she's too weak to operate the slide, chances are she's also too weak to avoid "limp-wristing" the gun on firing, and that really will result in a malfunction she has to clear (probably a stovepipe). Then, as you said, she's screwed. If I were the guy, I'd send that gun back to the manufacturer and have them either make it so that the safety cannot be "worked off," or I would tell them that I expect compensation for the purchase price, either voluntarily or through force of law. A gun that can do that should not be offered for sale, period. That's what design engineers are for. I suspect that it is possible that the actual working of the trigger over and over against the safety is not what disengaged it. I suspect that during the repeated pulling of the trigger, the operator's hand nudged the safety once, twice, etc., until it worked itself into the fire position. That's just my guess. After all, when you hear hoofbeats, before you think zebras, you should think horses. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #83 May 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt's a pleasure to learn that you are so wonderful. However, I suspect that human nature being what it is, most other humans can't do anything 100,000 times without making at least one mistake. Sure they can. All it takes is that you care about what you're doing, and do it patiently and attentively. Ask Kennedy or AggieDave if they feel that they could handle a gun 100,000 times and manage to not shoot themselves or something else by accident, and I'm pretty sure they'll say yes. See, when they put a gun in their hands, their minds say, "Well, better do this the right way," and so they do. It's no miracle, no secret, no arcane magic. It's just training and responsible action. I lost count at 100 lbs of lead down range when I was about 15. (yeah, it's nice when relatives own and operate a range) I don't know that I've put 100,000 rounds down range, or even held a gun 100,000 times, but yes, I'm sure I can and will do it safely (unless I die driving on a public street first). The only time I ever shoot something "by accident" is when I miss the bullseye and hit other paper or dirt. QuoteAnd thanks for recognizing how wonderful I am. You don't know the half of it! You know, I have a woman saying the same thing about me... witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,196 #84 May 6, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I myself can use a gun 100,000 times and because I am doing it according to the safe methods that are time- and experience-proven, I will escape injury every time. It's a pleasure to learn that you are so wonderful. However, I suspect that human nature being what it is, most other humans can't do anything 100,000 times without making at least one mistake. Sure they can. All it takes is that you care about what you're doing, and do it patiently and attentively. Ask Kennedy or AggieDave if they feel that they could handle a gun 100,000 times and manage to not shoot themselves or something else by accident, and I'm pretty sure they'll say yes. See, when they put a gun in their hands, their minds say, "Well, better do this the right way," and so they do. It's no miracle, no secret, no arcane magic. It's just training and responsible action. Oh, I'm sure you three believe that you don't make mistakes. I expect the Fed that shot himself thought the same thing. I expect the many expert skydivers (names available on request) with medals and world records but who went on to bounce thought the same thing too. But I'm much older than you three, and I have seen lots of very confident people make grievous mistakes during my lifetime.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #85 May 6, 2004 QuoteOh, I'm sure you three believe that you don't make mistakes. I expect the Fed that shot himself thought the same thing. I expect the many expert skydivers (names available on request) with medals and world records but who went on to bounce thought the same thing too. But I'm much older than you three, and I have seen lots of very confident people make grievous mistakes during my lifetime. I'm not very old, and still I've seen a great many confident people make mistakes they would probably have said they expected never to make. And still, I am confident enough when I say that there are certain things I do with enough of an element of care that I WILL NOT make a dangerous mistake with them. All it takes is discipline. It is the breakdown of procedural discipline that allows us to make mistakes in methodical procedures we do over and over again, thinking we'll always do them right. I think it is bordering on a personal ad hominem attack to say, "Oh, I'm sure you three believe that you don't make mistakes." That's an accusation that we believe we're infallible human beings in general, and are arrogant and pious. We're not, and this discussion should be limited to the topic at hand. I'd appreciate it if you did not cause it to degenerate. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #86 May 6, 2004 QuoteCareful. "SA" could be taken to mean "single actions," not "semi-autos," and usually is. (Think SA, DA, DAO...) Good point. I guess I've been used to the really recent application of SA for semi-automatic and NSA for non-semi-automatic. Next time I'll be much more clear.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #87 May 6, 2004 I'm still sceptical, dispite what you saw. I'm glad you stand up for your brother. It's what brothers should do. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #88 May 6, 2004 QuoteOh, I'm sure you three believe that you don't make mistakes. I expect the Fed that shot himself thought the same thing. I expect the many expert skydivers (names available on request) with medals and world records but who went on to bounce thought the same thing too. But I'm much older than you three, and I have seen lots of very confident people make grievous mistakes during my lifetime. Gosh, people sometimes make mistakes. Therefore we shouldn't trust anyone to do anything! Confiscate all driver's licenses, immediately! No skydiving allowed! You might hurt someone! Seriously; freedom isn't free. If we are going to be free to own guns and skydive, we have to allow society to accept responsibility for dangerous activities, and even to screw up once in a while. I prefer that, to not having the freedom at all. We could eliminate skydiving fatalities by making skydiving illegal. But is that what we want to happen? Hell no! We want the freedom to skydive, despite the fact that we recognize this means that some of our friends will die. The same is true of gun ownership. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #89 May 6, 2004 QuoteGosh, people sometimes make mistakes. Therefore we shouldn't trust anyone to do anything! Confiscate all driver's licenses, immediately! No skydiving allowed! You might hurt someone! Seriously; freedom isn't free. If we are going to be free to own guns and skydive, we have to allow society to accept responsibility for dangerous activities, and even to screw up once in a while. I prefer that, to not having the freedom at all. We could eliminate skydiving fatalities by making skydiving illegal. But is that what we want to happen? Hell no! We want the freedom to skydive, despite the fact that we recognize this means that some of our friends will die. The same is true of gun ownership. You don't see that there is a difference between skydiving or driving a car and owning a gun? At least for the first two there are classes and tests involved before one is allowed to participate. That doesn't seem to be the case in owning and playing with a gun. Just as long as you have the money to buy one, aren't a criminal, you are fine. At least compare apples and apples. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #90 May 6, 2004 QuoteYou don't see that there is a difference between skydiving or driving a car and owning a gun? At least for the first two there are classes and tests involved before one is allowed to participate. That doesn't seem to be the case in owning and playing with a gun. Just as long as you have the money to buy one, aren't a criminal, you are fine. At least compare apples and apples. There are abundant classes for people to take so that they can learn safe firearm handling skills. Also, all guns are sold with owners manuals that clearly outline the major safety rules of handling a gun safely. These really are all you need to know. As with many products, the burden is on the user to apprise himself of what he needs to know in order to use it safely. A user's manual is all you truly need to be safe with a gun, but many many people avail themselves of good training -- because they want to be proficient and safe with their guns. If you want to acquire a permit to carry a concealed handgun, in many or most jurisdictions you are required to take a class on how and when to use the gun. (Florida, where I live, requires a class that teaches legality of use, but not actual gun-handling.) There is nothing to stop someone who wants to be safe from learning how to be. And by the way, one can purchase a car and never take a lesson or even get a license. There is no requirement there. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,154 #91 May 6, 2004 >There is nothing to stop someone who wants to be safe from > learning how to be. And by the way, one can purchase a car and > never take a lesson or even get a license. There is no requirement > there. Not true. You have to have a license and get a registration on-site to be able to take a car off a lot, unless you have it towed off. Heck, in CA, you either have to get a registration or a PNO (planned nonoperation permit, which is free) to own a car at all. But in any case, I would agree that if you buy a car and never drive it, or buy a gun and never use it, you shouldn't need any training/licenses/registration/experience at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #92 May 7, 2004 Quote>There is nothing to stop someone who wants to be safe from > learning how to be. And by the way, one can purchase a car and > never take a lesson or even get a license. There is no requirement > there. Not true. You have to have a license and get a registration on-site to be able to take a car off a lot, unless you have it towed off. Heck, in CA, you either have to get a registration or a PNO (planned nonoperation permit, which is free) to own a car at all. But in any case, I would agree that if you buy a car and never drive it, or buy a gun and never use it, you shouldn't need any training/licenses/registration/experience at all. Who said I wasn't talking about having it towed off? All I said was a license was not required to buy a car. For all that specifies, I could mean some guy drives his used car to your house and sells it to you right there on your property. I'm glad you agree with the other part. We both understand, of course, that most people do not buy either a car or a gun with the intention of not using it. I like the idea of people getting proper training to safely use either, but the idea of government-mandated training for something as hotly debated as guns does not sit well with me. "Passing the training" becomes a judgment made by government or police authorities, and is therefore discretionary. We have enough experience with discretionary permiting in this country. Technically, you "can" get a permit to carry in New York City, but you and I wouldn't have a prayer of getting one issued because the police can turn down requests for any reason they wish. In some places, the permit system is "in place," but "Oh, gee, sorry Mr. Permit-Applicant, we're out of the forms you'd need to fill out, and we just won't be ordering more. No form, no application, no permit. Have a nice day, peasant." The risk inherent in having the government require gun owners to pass a test for ownership is that the government, if it decided to never let anyone have guns, could simply make the passing grade impossibly difficult to achieve. Voila, no one is "good enough" to own a gun. My preference is that people who want to own a gun have the smarts on their own to want to be proficient with it, and seek training and knowledge on their own. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #93 May 7, 2004 QuoteAlso, all guns are sold with owners manuals that clearly outline the major safety rules of handling a gun safely. So are parachutes. Do you think it would be a good idea for people to start using parachutes without any training, just because they can read the provided manual? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #94 May 7, 2004 "Also, all guns are sold with owners manuals" Absolutely all of them including those that are second hand, bought at pawn shops, gun fairs and the likes?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #95 May 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteAlso, all guns are sold with owners manuals that clearly outline the major safety rules of handling a gun safely. So are parachutes. Do you think it would be a good idea for people to start using parachutes without any training, just because they can read the provided manual? There is a huge difference in the ease of use between guns and parachutes. Guns are "point and shoot", something that anyone can do. Anyone that can read an instruction manual to assemble a kid's bicycle, can read a gun owner's manual and understand the proper way to handle a gun. Parachutes require the unnatural phycial act of freefall, which is not already inherent in our upbringing, and goes way beyond basic mechanical aptitude and following instructions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #96 May 7, 2004 Quote"Also, all guns are sold with owners manuals" Absolutely all of them including those that are second hand, bought at pawn shops, gun fairs and the likes? All major gun manufacturers provide *free* owner's manuals to anyone who asks for one, regardless of whether or not they bought the gun new, or second-hand. Example Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #97 May 7, 2004 QuoteGuns are "point and shoot", something that anyone can do Since it is so incredibly easy to seriously hurt or kill some one, that just further proves to me that it should be mandatory to follow a safety course to own a gun. Just would make sense to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #98 May 7, 2004 QuoteSince it is so incredibly easy to seriously hurt or kill some one, that just further proves to me that it should be mandatory to follow a safety course to own a gun. Just would make sense to me. Should this principle also apply to lawn mowers, power saws, ladders, swimming pools, fire places, tractors and cigarettes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,630 #99 May 7, 2004 (Wendy kicking herself for posting in a gun thread) In the case of swimming pools, where there is a danger to others, most communities have fence laws for pools. Most of the other examples you gave present more of an immediate danger to the owner/user than to people standing around. Even cigarettes. You have to have a license to drive a car; not because you might hurt yourself as much as because you might hurt someone else. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #100 May 7, 2004 QuoteIn the case of swimming pools, where there is a danger to others, most communities have fence laws for pools. Most of the other examples you gave present more of an immediate danger to the owner/user than to people standing around. Even cigarettes. You have to have a license to drive a car; not because you might hurt yourself as much as because you might hurt someone else. So the public policy should be that it is okay to be a danger to yourself, as long as you don't hurt someone else? That's kind of goofy... Dead is dead - it shouldn't really matter who caused it. So how about this: No mandatory government training to buy a gun and keep it in your own home. However, if you want to carry it in public, then you must be trained. Oh wait, that's already the way it is working, with concealed carry laws in 34 states. (Kicking Wendy for responding to a gun thread. ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
peacefuljeffrey 0 #81 May 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHmm, I could swear I've heard of a gun with a defective barrel killing the guy who fired it. Yup. About 15 years ago a colleague of mine who is an expert on fracture analyzed some rifle barrels that had been manufactured incorrectly and had a tendency to split, causing injury to the operators. Psst. Hey kallend... You're now answering your own questions... Where were the questions? All I see is a tentative statement, followed by a confirmation. All that aside, Kallend, you said "Yup," as if to confirm your initial statement, but then you went on to say "injured" but not "killed," so how does that qualify for a "YUP" to the initial statement? Maybe you're thinking about Glocks. It has been advised that shooters not use unjacketed lead bullets in them, because buildup of lead can occur, eventually increasing pressure in the barrel and chamber, and since the chambers of Glocks are not "fully supported," they can erupt in that direction. Glocks are still extremely safe pistols, but you gotta know their limitations, like anything else. Do an internet search for "kaboom" and you'll find comments on Glocks and what can cause this to occur. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #82 May 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteHowever she was not strong enough to pull the slide back.. Then he should have stopped what he was doing and bought a revolver. If she can't pull the slide, then she can't clear a jam, thus she's in a world of hurt. If she had a revolver, then all she has to do is keep pulling the trigger. I'm a BIG advocate of SAs for self defense, but there's a time when a revolver should be used. That is one of them. Careful. "SA" could be taken to mean "single actions," not "semi-autos," and usually is. (Think SA, DA, DAO...) I agree that he should give her a revolver instead of sticking her with a semi-auto she can't adequately operate. And if she's too weak to operate the slide, chances are she's also too weak to avoid "limp-wristing" the gun on firing, and that really will result in a malfunction she has to clear (probably a stovepipe). Then, as you said, she's screwed. If I were the guy, I'd send that gun back to the manufacturer and have them either make it so that the safety cannot be "worked off," or I would tell them that I expect compensation for the purchase price, either voluntarily or through force of law. A gun that can do that should not be offered for sale, period. That's what design engineers are for. I suspect that it is possible that the actual working of the trigger over and over against the safety is not what disengaged it. I suspect that during the repeated pulling of the trigger, the operator's hand nudged the safety once, twice, etc., until it worked itself into the fire position. That's just my guess. After all, when you hear hoofbeats, before you think zebras, you should think horses. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #83 May 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt's a pleasure to learn that you are so wonderful. However, I suspect that human nature being what it is, most other humans can't do anything 100,000 times without making at least one mistake. Sure they can. All it takes is that you care about what you're doing, and do it patiently and attentively. Ask Kennedy or AggieDave if they feel that they could handle a gun 100,000 times and manage to not shoot themselves or something else by accident, and I'm pretty sure they'll say yes. See, when they put a gun in their hands, their minds say, "Well, better do this the right way," and so they do. It's no miracle, no secret, no arcane magic. It's just training and responsible action. I lost count at 100 lbs of lead down range when I was about 15. (yeah, it's nice when relatives own and operate a range) I don't know that I've put 100,000 rounds down range, or even held a gun 100,000 times, but yes, I'm sure I can and will do it safely (unless I die driving on a public street first). The only time I ever shoot something "by accident" is when I miss the bullseye and hit other paper or dirt. QuoteAnd thanks for recognizing how wonderful I am. You don't know the half of it! You know, I have a woman saying the same thing about me... witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,196 #84 May 6, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I myself can use a gun 100,000 times and because I am doing it according to the safe methods that are time- and experience-proven, I will escape injury every time. It's a pleasure to learn that you are so wonderful. However, I suspect that human nature being what it is, most other humans can't do anything 100,000 times without making at least one mistake. Sure they can. All it takes is that you care about what you're doing, and do it patiently and attentively. Ask Kennedy or AggieDave if they feel that they could handle a gun 100,000 times and manage to not shoot themselves or something else by accident, and I'm pretty sure they'll say yes. See, when they put a gun in their hands, their minds say, "Well, better do this the right way," and so they do. It's no miracle, no secret, no arcane magic. It's just training and responsible action. Oh, I'm sure you three believe that you don't make mistakes. I expect the Fed that shot himself thought the same thing. I expect the many expert skydivers (names available on request) with medals and world records but who went on to bounce thought the same thing too. But I'm much older than you three, and I have seen lots of very confident people make grievous mistakes during my lifetime.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #85 May 6, 2004 QuoteOh, I'm sure you three believe that you don't make mistakes. I expect the Fed that shot himself thought the same thing. I expect the many expert skydivers (names available on request) with medals and world records but who went on to bounce thought the same thing too. But I'm much older than you three, and I have seen lots of very confident people make grievous mistakes during my lifetime. I'm not very old, and still I've seen a great many confident people make mistakes they would probably have said they expected never to make. And still, I am confident enough when I say that there are certain things I do with enough of an element of care that I WILL NOT make a dangerous mistake with them. All it takes is discipline. It is the breakdown of procedural discipline that allows us to make mistakes in methodical procedures we do over and over again, thinking we'll always do them right. I think it is bordering on a personal ad hominem attack to say, "Oh, I'm sure you three believe that you don't make mistakes." That's an accusation that we believe we're infallible human beings in general, and are arrogant and pious. We're not, and this discussion should be limited to the topic at hand. I'd appreciate it if you did not cause it to degenerate. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #86 May 6, 2004 QuoteCareful. "SA" could be taken to mean "single actions," not "semi-autos," and usually is. (Think SA, DA, DAO...) Good point. I guess I've been used to the really recent application of SA for semi-automatic and NSA for non-semi-automatic. Next time I'll be much more clear.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #87 May 6, 2004 I'm still sceptical, dispite what you saw. I'm glad you stand up for your brother. It's what brothers should do. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #88 May 6, 2004 QuoteOh, I'm sure you three believe that you don't make mistakes. I expect the Fed that shot himself thought the same thing. I expect the many expert skydivers (names available on request) with medals and world records but who went on to bounce thought the same thing too. But I'm much older than you three, and I have seen lots of very confident people make grievous mistakes during my lifetime. Gosh, people sometimes make mistakes. Therefore we shouldn't trust anyone to do anything! Confiscate all driver's licenses, immediately! No skydiving allowed! You might hurt someone! Seriously; freedom isn't free. If we are going to be free to own guns and skydive, we have to allow society to accept responsibility for dangerous activities, and even to screw up once in a while. I prefer that, to not having the freedom at all. We could eliminate skydiving fatalities by making skydiving illegal. But is that what we want to happen? Hell no! We want the freedom to skydive, despite the fact that we recognize this means that some of our friends will die. The same is true of gun ownership. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #89 May 6, 2004 QuoteGosh, people sometimes make mistakes. Therefore we shouldn't trust anyone to do anything! Confiscate all driver's licenses, immediately! No skydiving allowed! You might hurt someone! Seriously; freedom isn't free. If we are going to be free to own guns and skydive, we have to allow society to accept responsibility for dangerous activities, and even to screw up once in a while. I prefer that, to not having the freedom at all. We could eliminate skydiving fatalities by making skydiving illegal. But is that what we want to happen? Hell no! We want the freedom to skydive, despite the fact that we recognize this means that some of our friends will die. The same is true of gun ownership. You don't see that there is a difference between skydiving or driving a car and owning a gun? At least for the first two there are classes and tests involved before one is allowed to participate. That doesn't seem to be the case in owning and playing with a gun. Just as long as you have the money to buy one, aren't a criminal, you are fine. At least compare apples and apples. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #90 May 6, 2004 QuoteYou don't see that there is a difference between skydiving or driving a car and owning a gun? At least for the first two there are classes and tests involved before one is allowed to participate. That doesn't seem to be the case in owning and playing with a gun. Just as long as you have the money to buy one, aren't a criminal, you are fine. At least compare apples and apples. There are abundant classes for people to take so that they can learn safe firearm handling skills. Also, all guns are sold with owners manuals that clearly outline the major safety rules of handling a gun safely. These really are all you need to know. As with many products, the burden is on the user to apprise himself of what he needs to know in order to use it safely. A user's manual is all you truly need to be safe with a gun, but many many people avail themselves of good training -- because they want to be proficient and safe with their guns. If you want to acquire a permit to carry a concealed handgun, in many or most jurisdictions you are required to take a class on how and when to use the gun. (Florida, where I live, requires a class that teaches legality of use, but not actual gun-handling.) There is nothing to stop someone who wants to be safe from learning how to be. And by the way, one can purchase a car and never take a lesson or even get a license. There is no requirement there. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,154 #91 May 6, 2004 >There is nothing to stop someone who wants to be safe from > learning how to be. And by the way, one can purchase a car and > never take a lesson or even get a license. There is no requirement > there. Not true. You have to have a license and get a registration on-site to be able to take a car off a lot, unless you have it towed off. Heck, in CA, you either have to get a registration or a PNO (planned nonoperation permit, which is free) to own a car at all. But in any case, I would agree that if you buy a car and never drive it, or buy a gun and never use it, you shouldn't need any training/licenses/registration/experience at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #92 May 7, 2004 Quote>There is nothing to stop someone who wants to be safe from > learning how to be. And by the way, one can purchase a car and > never take a lesson or even get a license. There is no requirement > there. Not true. You have to have a license and get a registration on-site to be able to take a car off a lot, unless you have it towed off. Heck, in CA, you either have to get a registration or a PNO (planned nonoperation permit, which is free) to own a car at all. But in any case, I would agree that if you buy a car and never drive it, or buy a gun and never use it, you shouldn't need any training/licenses/registration/experience at all. Who said I wasn't talking about having it towed off? All I said was a license was not required to buy a car. For all that specifies, I could mean some guy drives his used car to your house and sells it to you right there on your property. I'm glad you agree with the other part. We both understand, of course, that most people do not buy either a car or a gun with the intention of not using it. I like the idea of people getting proper training to safely use either, but the idea of government-mandated training for something as hotly debated as guns does not sit well with me. "Passing the training" becomes a judgment made by government or police authorities, and is therefore discretionary. We have enough experience with discretionary permiting in this country. Technically, you "can" get a permit to carry in New York City, but you and I wouldn't have a prayer of getting one issued because the police can turn down requests for any reason they wish. In some places, the permit system is "in place," but "Oh, gee, sorry Mr. Permit-Applicant, we're out of the forms you'd need to fill out, and we just won't be ordering more. No form, no application, no permit. Have a nice day, peasant." The risk inherent in having the government require gun owners to pass a test for ownership is that the government, if it decided to never let anyone have guns, could simply make the passing grade impossibly difficult to achieve. Voila, no one is "good enough" to own a gun. My preference is that people who want to own a gun have the smarts on their own to want to be proficient with it, and seek training and knowledge on their own. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #93 May 7, 2004 QuoteAlso, all guns are sold with owners manuals that clearly outline the major safety rules of handling a gun safely. So are parachutes. Do you think it would be a good idea for people to start using parachutes without any training, just because they can read the provided manual? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #94 May 7, 2004 "Also, all guns are sold with owners manuals" Absolutely all of them including those that are second hand, bought at pawn shops, gun fairs and the likes?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #95 May 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteAlso, all guns are sold with owners manuals that clearly outline the major safety rules of handling a gun safely. So are parachutes. Do you think it would be a good idea for people to start using parachutes without any training, just because they can read the provided manual? There is a huge difference in the ease of use between guns and parachutes. Guns are "point and shoot", something that anyone can do. Anyone that can read an instruction manual to assemble a kid's bicycle, can read a gun owner's manual and understand the proper way to handle a gun. Parachutes require the unnatural phycial act of freefall, which is not already inherent in our upbringing, and goes way beyond basic mechanical aptitude and following instructions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #96 May 7, 2004 Quote"Also, all guns are sold with owners manuals" Absolutely all of them including those that are second hand, bought at pawn shops, gun fairs and the likes? All major gun manufacturers provide *free* owner's manuals to anyone who asks for one, regardless of whether or not they bought the gun new, or second-hand. Example Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #97 May 7, 2004 QuoteGuns are "point and shoot", something that anyone can do Since it is so incredibly easy to seriously hurt or kill some one, that just further proves to me that it should be mandatory to follow a safety course to own a gun. Just would make sense to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #98 May 7, 2004 QuoteSince it is so incredibly easy to seriously hurt or kill some one, that just further proves to me that it should be mandatory to follow a safety course to own a gun. Just would make sense to me. Should this principle also apply to lawn mowers, power saws, ladders, swimming pools, fire places, tractors and cigarettes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,630 #99 May 7, 2004 (Wendy kicking herself for posting in a gun thread) In the case of swimming pools, where there is a danger to others, most communities have fence laws for pools. Most of the other examples you gave present more of an immediate danger to the owner/user than to people standing around. Even cigarettes. You have to have a license to drive a car; not because you might hurt yourself as much as because you might hurt someone else. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #100 May 7, 2004 QuoteIn the case of swimming pools, where there is a danger to others, most communities have fence laws for pools. Most of the other examples you gave present more of an immediate danger to the owner/user than to people standing around. Even cigarettes. You have to have a license to drive a car; not because you might hurt yourself as much as because you might hurt someone else. So the public policy should be that it is okay to be a danger to yourself, as long as you don't hurt someone else? That's kind of goofy... Dead is dead - it shouldn't really matter who caused it. So how about this: No mandatory government training to buy a gun and keep it in your own home. However, if you want to carry it in public, then you must be trained. Oh wait, that's already the way it is working, with concealed carry laws in 34 states. (Kicking Wendy for responding to a gun thread. ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
peacefuljeffrey 0 #85 May 6, 2004 QuoteOh, I'm sure you three believe that you don't make mistakes. I expect the Fed that shot himself thought the same thing. I expect the many expert skydivers (names available on request) with medals and world records but who went on to bounce thought the same thing too. But I'm much older than you three, and I have seen lots of very confident people make grievous mistakes during my lifetime. I'm not very old, and still I've seen a great many confident people make mistakes they would probably have said they expected never to make. And still, I am confident enough when I say that there are certain things I do with enough of an element of care that I WILL NOT make a dangerous mistake with them. All it takes is discipline. It is the breakdown of procedural discipline that allows us to make mistakes in methodical procedures we do over and over again, thinking we'll always do them right. I think it is bordering on a personal ad hominem attack to say, "Oh, I'm sure you three believe that you don't make mistakes." That's an accusation that we believe we're infallible human beings in general, and are arrogant and pious. We're not, and this discussion should be limited to the topic at hand. I'd appreciate it if you did not cause it to degenerate. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #86 May 6, 2004 QuoteCareful. "SA" could be taken to mean "single actions," not "semi-autos," and usually is. (Think SA, DA, DAO...) Good point. I guess I've been used to the really recent application of SA for semi-automatic and NSA for non-semi-automatic. Next time I'll be much more clear.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #87 May 6, 2004 I'm still sceptical, dispite what you saw. I'm glad you stand up for your brother. It's what brothers should do. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #88 May 6, 2004 QuoteOh, I'm sure you three believe that you don't make mistakes. I expect the Fed that shot himself thought the same thing. I expect the many expert skydivers (names available on request) with medals and world records but who went on to bounce thought the same thing too. But I'm much older than you three, and I have seen lots of very confident people make grievous mistakes during my lifetime. Gosh, people sometimes make mistakes. Therefore we shouldn't trust anyone to do anything! Confiscate all driver's licenses, immediately! No skydiving allowed! You might hurt someone! Seriously; freedom isn't free. If we are going to be free to own guns and skydive, we have to allow society to accept responsibility for dangerous activities, and even to screw up once in a while. I prefer that, to not having the freedom at all. We could eliminate skydiving fatalities by making skydiving illegal. But is that what we want to happen? Hell no! We want the freedom to skydive, despite the fact that we recognize this means that some of our friends will die. The same is true of gun ownership. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #89 May 6, 2004 QuoteGosh, people sometimes make mistakes. Therefore we shouldn't trust anyone to do anything! Confiscate all driver's licenses, immediately! No skydiving allowed! You might hurt someone! Seriously; freedom isn't free. If we are going to be free to own guns and skydive, we have to allow society to accept responsibility for dangerous activities, and even to screw up once in a while. I prefer that, to not having the freedom at all. We could eliminate skydiving fatalities by making skydiving illegal. But is that what we want to happen? Hell no! We want the freedom to skydive, despite the fact that we recognize this means that some of our friends will die. The same is true of gun ownership. You don't see that there is a difference between skydiving or driving a car and owning a gun? At least for the first two there are classes and tests involved before one is allowed to participate. That doesn't seem to be the case in owning and playing with a gun. Just as long as you have the money to buy one, aren't a criminal, you are fine. At least compare apples and apples. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #90 May 6, 2004 QuoteYou don't see that there is a difference between skydiving or driving a car and owning a gun? At least for the first two there are classes and tests involved before one is allowed to participate. That doesn't seem to be the case in owning and playing with a gun. Just as long as you have the money to buy one, aren't a criminal, you are fine. At least compare apples and apples. There are abundant classes for people to take so that they can learn safe firearm handling skills. Also, all guns are sold with owners manuals that clearly outline the major safety rules of handling a gun safely. These really are all you need to know. As with many products, the burden is on the user to apprise himself of what he needs to know in order to use it safely. A user's manual is all you truly need to be safe with a gun, but many many people avail themselves of good training -- because they want to be proficient and safe with their guns. If you want to acquire a permit to carry a concealed handgun, in many or most jurisdictions you are required to take a class on how and when to use the gun. (Florida, where I live, requires a class that teaches legality of use, but not actual gun-handling.) There is nothing to stop someone who wants to be safe from learning how to be. And by the way, one can purchase a car and never take a lesson or even get a license. There is no requirement there. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,154 #91 May 6, 2004 >There is nothing to stop someone who wants to be safe from > learning how to be. And by the way, one can purchase a car and > never take a lesson or even get a license. There is no requirement > there. Not true. You have to have a license and get a registration on-site to be able to take a car off a lot, unless you have it towed off. Heck, in CA, you either have to get a registration or a PNO (planned nonoperation permit, which is free) to own a car at all. But in any case, I would agree that if you buy a car and never drive it, or buy a gun and never use it, you shouldn't need any training/licenses/registration/experience at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #92 May 7, 2004 Quote>There is nothing to stop someone who wants to be safe from > learning how to be. And by the way, one can purchase a car and > never take a lesson or even get a license. There is no requirement > there. Not true. You have to have a license and get a registration on-site to be able to take a car off a lot, unless you have it towed off. Heck, in CA, you either have to get a registration or a PNO (planned nonoperation permit, which is free) to own a car at all. But in any case, I would agree that if you buy a car and never drive it, or buy a gun and never use it, you shouldn't need any training/licenses/registration/experience at all. Who said I wasn't talking about having it towed off? All I said was a license was not required to buy a car. For all that specifies, I could mean some guy drives his used car to your house and sells it to you right there on your property. I'm glad you agree with the other part. We both understand, of course, that most people do not buy either a car or a gun with the intention of not using it. I like the idea of people getting proper training to safely use either, but the idea of government-mandated training for something as hotly debated as guns does not sit well with me. "Passing the training" becomes a judgment made by government or police authorities, and is therefore discretionary. We have enough experience with discretionary permiting in this country. Technically, you "can" get a permit to carry in New York City, but you and I wouldn't have a prayer of getting one issued because the police can turn down requests for any reason they wish. In some places, the permit system is "in place," but "Oh, gee, sorry Mr. Permit-Applicant, we're out of the forms you'd need to fill out, and we just won't be ordering more. No form, no application, no permit. Have a nice day, peasant." The risk inherent in having the government require gun owners to pass a test for ownership is that the government, if it decided to never let anyone have guns, could simply make the passing grade impossibly difficult to achieve. Voila, no one is "good enough" to own a gun. My preference is that people who want to own a gun have the smarts on their own to want to be proficient with it, and seek training and knowledge on their own. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #93 May 7, 2004 QuoteAlso, all guns are sold with owners manuals that clearly outline the major safety rules of handling a gun safely. So are parachutes. Do you think it would be a good idea for people to start using parachutes without any training, just because they can read the provided manual? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #94 May 7, 2004 "Also, all guns are sold with owners manuals" Absolutely all of them including those that are second hand, bought at pawn shops, gun fairs and the likes?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #95 May 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteAlso, all guns are sold with owners manuals that clearly outline the major safety rules of handling a gun safely. So are parachutes. Do you think it would be a good idea for people to start using parachutes without any training, just because they can read the provided manual? There is a huge difference in the ease of use between guns and parachutes. Guns are "point and shoot", something that anyone can do. Anyone that can read an instruction manual to assemble a kid's bicycle, can read a gun owner's manual and understand the proper way to handle a gun. Parachutes require the unnatural phycial act of freefall, which is not already inherent in our upbringing, and goes way beyond basic mechanical aptitude and following instructions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #96 May 7, 2004 Quote"Also, all guns are sold with owners manuals" Absolutely all of them including those that are second hand, bought at pawn shops, gun fairs and the likes? All major gun manufacturers provide *free* owner's manuals to anyone who asks for one, regardless of whether or not they bought the gun new, or second-hand. Example Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #97 May 7, 2004 QuoteGuns are "point and shoot", something that anyone can do Since it is so incredibly easy to seriously hurt or kill some one, that just further proves to me that it should be mandatory to follow a safety course to own a gun. Just would make sense to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #98 May 7, 2004 QuoteSince it is so incredibly easy to seriously hurt or kill some one, that just further proves to me that it should be mandatory to follow a safety course to own a gun. Just would make sense to me. Should this principle also apply to lawn mowers, power saws, ladders, swimming pools, fire places, tractors and cigarettes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,630 #99 May 7, 2004 (Wendy kicking herself for posting in a gun thread) In the case of swimming pools, where there is a danger to others, most communities have fence laws for pools. Most of the other examples you gave present more of an immediate danger to the owner/user than to people standing around. Even cigarettes. You have to have a license to drive a car; not because you might hurt yourself as much as because you might hurt someone else. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #100 May 7, 2004 QuoteIn the case of swimming pools, where there is a danger to others, most communities have fence laws for pools. Most of the other examples you gave present more of an immediate danger to the owner/user than to people standing around. Even cigarettes. You have to have a license to drive a car; not because you might hurt yourself as much as because you might hurt someone else. So the public policy should be that it is okay to be a danger to yourself, as long as you don't hurt someone else? That's kind of goofy... Dead is dead - it shouldn't really matter who caused it. So how about this: No mandatory government training to buy a gun and keep it in your own home. However, if you want to carry it in public, then you must be trained. Oh wait, that's already the way it is working, with concealed carry laws in 34 states. (Kicking Wendy for responding to a gun thread. ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
