As the resident Arizonan of the board I figured I may as well break the news. Sen. Lori Klien pointed her rasberry pink handgun that has no safety directly at a jounalist, even using the laser sight to prove that it was aimed directly at his chest. She is also the same woman who attempted to bring a gun into the senate shortly after the Giffords shooting in Tucson. In defending herself after the fact, she said that he was in no danger because her finger was not on the trigger.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
. . . . . . . . .yeah, I still don't have anything to say but, "Wow."
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Can South Dakota please do something stupid and embarrasing please? What about Wyoming, they havent been in the news for what... decades?
Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
First off Se. Klien is a bonehead and her actions are indefensible. But, it annoys me when the media describes her gun as *gasp* having no safety. It is fairly common for modern automatics not to have a safety. The firing pin is not aligned with the primer until the trigger is squeezed, making an accidental discharge due to mishandling unlikely. Her gun not having a safety is salacious, but meaningless bit of trivia.
[ July 13, 2011, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Selran ]
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
It's also meaningless in the sense that even if it had a safety, she shouldn't be pointing it at anything she's not okay with putting a bullet through. That's . . . kind of rule number one of gun handling, at least as I've been taught it. Loaded or unloaded, safety on or safety off, finger on or off the trigger.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Agreed, ambyr. The safety part is immaterial. You don't point a gun at people unless you intend to kill them, safety or not.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Apparently the senator has made a statement in response to this story in which she claims the reporter walked in front of where she was pointing the gun which she claims to have checked to make sure the chamber was empty.
quote:Klein did not respond to calls for comment Monday and Tuesday, but she issued a statement in which she said Ruelas placed himself in front of the gun while she was demonstrating its sight.
Still, one would think she should lower the gun if someone is walking into its line of fire.
It does make me nervous that she feels there is some justification in pointing out that the chamber was empty. One safety check doesn't obviate other safety rules. If you allow yourself to let certain rules slip because you already checked something else, eventually you'll make a mistake.
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Agreed, ambyr. The safety part is immaterial. You don't point a gun at people unless you intend to kill them, safety or not.
I completely agree with this.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Agreed, ambyr. The safety part is immaterial. You don't point a gun at people unless you intend to kill them, safety or not.
Pointing a loaded firearm at someone in a threatening manner is a serious felony. Its either assault with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon or aggravated assault depending on the jurisdiction. In most places, pointing an unloaded firearm at someone in a threatening manner is also consider a felony assault.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Rabbit, I think you probably already realize this, but just in case (and for anyone else who might not know): from the details available about this incident, it doesn't appear that there was any "threatening manner" involved.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Is it me, or is pink just a silly color for something that you would hope you'd want to use more as a threat than to actually have to use to kill someone?
Obviously, the purpose of a gun is to kill or injure, but it can also be used to change the balance of power and diffuse a situation before someone gets hurt. But since she keeps it lying around in her purse, it's not going to be immediately obvious when she takes it out, if it's a gun, a water pistol or, at a distance, a hairbrush.
Since her gun-safety training is clearly non-existent, I just hope she never puts down her bag somewhere a little barbie-obsessed girl can accidentally get hold of it.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Exactly how is pointing a deadly weapon at a person not threatening?
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
Pointing a gun at someone... whether it is loaded or unloaded... is threatening.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Even if it seemed completely non-threatening in context, I'd hope that there exists some sort of criminal negligence/stupidity law for firearm usage that would apply.
(or that the existing laws for assault cover this, like Rabbit mentions)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
*shrug* she was showing off her gun upon request. Pointing it is somewhat risky, but not (in this context) what I would call "threatening" in the sense of intending to convey a threat. Stupid, yes. Assault, I don't think so.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
When I teach gun safety rule one is "Don't put your finger inside the trigger guard until you are ready to fire." Nearly all modern firearms will not go off unless the trigger is depressed. The rest of the safety rules ARE important, but this one is number one for a reason (the reason older firearms can go off without depressing the trigger is the firing pin is sitting directly on the primer of the round, so if the hammer is lowered, and the gun is dropped on the hammer, it will go off).
It was wrong of her to not instantly lower her gun as soon as the reporter entered her line of site. But "pointing a gun at someone" generally means you intentionally level your weapon on them.
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: You don't point a gun at people unless you intend to kill them, safety or not.
This statement is nonsense. Cops point their guns at people all the time, and then say, "Show me your hands!" and then "Put your hands on top of your head!" And then they arrest them. No shots fired, no killing intent.
You should never point a gun at someone if you are not willing to kill them (as you are now threatening deadly force, and if you aren't willing to go through with it then you only put yourself in danger of the other person trying to kill you). But intend to do so...hardly.
All that said, the intent of shooting someone isn't to kill most of the time. It is to get them to stop being a threat to yourself and others. If after you shot someone, they were lying on the floor groaning and had dropped their weapon, you wouldn't walk over and shoot them in the head twice "just to make sure they were dead". Because their death isn't the goal.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: *shrug* she was showing off her gun upon request. Pointing it is somewhat risky, but not (in this context) what I would call "threatening" in the sense of intending to convey a threat. Stupid, yes. Assault, I don't think so.
This.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Your country fails to meet the basic criteria for normal civilised conduct. Please try again.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bet you wouldn't say that to a woman with a pink handgun, you commie. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The fact that she thinks her gun is "so cute" and draws analogies between liking guns and liking chocolate ice cream suggests a lack of understanding of the basic issues.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:"I don't like chocolate ice cream," she told the Arizona Republic. "Am I going to force you not to have any?"
I'd like to know when the last time was that someone was hurt or seriously injured by someone else's chocolate ice cream? When was the last time that a child died because they got hold of the ice cream in their parents freezer? When was the last time someone stole chocolate ice cream and used it to commit a crime? When was the last time someone traded chocolate ice cream to a drug cartel for heroin? When American made chocolate ice cream becomes a leading cause of death in Central America and the Caribbean, then I'll believe this woman has a leg to stand on. Until then, she doesn't seem responsible enough to be allowed to carry a loaded automatic pistol in her purse.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You have made me really want to seriously injure myself with chocolate ice cream now, Rabbit. I hope you're happy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have injured myself with ice cream on more than one occasion, but never seriously.
I'm trying to decide how I might commit a felony with stolen chocolate ice. I wonder if its a felony to throw ice-cream at a police officer.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or an AZ state senator.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
People like this hurt the pro-gun position so much. Chocolate icecream? Really? Like having guns around is simply a matter of taste? And then brandishing it in public? *slow sad head shake* If I were on the fence about guns, this would push me into the "take them all away" camp.
Having guns is important, and safe handling is equally important. At the backbone of this country is the idea that our citizens will defend themselves and this country.
Not to down play the importance of chocolate icecream, as it is one of the major 4 food groups, but seriously, why does our side have so many fruit bats?
ETA: That last was rhetorical, please do not attempt to answer it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As long as you make an attempt to answer it yourself. Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Well apparently Klein and I disagree on yet another topic, I happen to take my ice cream quite seriously. Legumes have no place in my desserts and I will not stand idly by while knotted little bits of tooth crackers ruin good frozen sugar milk.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Cacao is not a legume, its not even in the same order. Its about as closely related to legumes as people are to clams. Vanilla beans are the seed of an Orchid, also not even in the order as legumes.
Peanuts are legumes and they can be quite tasty in ice cream. I had red bean ice cream when I was in Japan. It wasn't bad but I wouldn't put in my top 50 ice cream flavors.
[ July 14, 2011, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ohhhhh...is that what AH was saying...I was looking over what the Sen. said looking for a reference to peanuts (or black beans) in her icecream.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:When I teach gun safety rule one is "Don't put your finger inside the trigger guard until you are ready to fire.
Then I don't really want you teaching gun safety. As I've been taught many times, the NUMBER ONE rule of gun safety is to always be aware of which way the gun is pointing, and to not point it at a person unless you intend to shoot them. More specifically, point it in a direction where there isn't a person, like straight up, or straight down.
As to the issue of safety or no safety, it's a bad idea to assume that a gun is modern, and therefore designed safe. I'd be willing to bet that most guns manufactured in the 20th century still exist in some form. My father had a 22 magnum revolver in which the "safety" was having the hammer in the half-cocked position, in which pulling the trigger could not cause the hammer to fall on the primer. At one point he put it in "safety" and handed me the gun. My hand hit the hammer, not the trigger, and the gun went off. Because we were following rule #1, I only received a powder burn from where my hand grasped the cylinder, and the bullet went into a nearby sand pile.
quote:You should never point a gun at someone if you are not willing to kill them (as you are now threatening deadly force, and if you aren't willing to go through with it then you only put yourself in danger of the other person trying to kill you). But intend to do so...hardly.
First of all, I change the word "kill" to "shoot." It works even with water pistols. If you aim a gun at a person, you should intend to shoot them, conditionally. That is, in your police example, the police intend to shoot, unless the person lowers their gun/raises their hands, stops threatening, etc. At which point the cop should refer to rule #1 and avert the muzzle.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Then I don't really want you teaching gun safety.
Allow me to borrow from the Matrix and say, I'm thankful it isn't up to you.
I made it clear that all the rules are important. But you should realize that the vast majority of accidental shootings are because people pull the trigger when they do not mean to and not because their turn of the century gun got bumped. I don't have the number in front of me, or even know if that kind of stat is even collected, but I'd bet you my custom AR-15 that it's higher then 90%, and that actual hammer malfunctions are less then 10%.
Knowing what you are covering is very important, but not as important as keeping your finger out of the trigger guard until you are ready to fire...by an order of magnitude.
Getting nitpicky to the point of insisting on "intend conditionally" vs "willing" which is not only more correct, but easier to comprehend...I struggle for a kind word. If I aim a gun at someone, my intent is not to shoot them, it is to have them follow my orders explicitly and stop whatever it that caused me to draw down on them. I am willing to shoot them if they do not follow my instructions or in anyway present a threat, but my intent is simply compliance, i.e. "Don't move, show me your hands, lay down on your stomach, don't move, we are waiting for the police."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have to agree with glenn that sweep safety is more important than trigger safety (not less important, certainly not moreso than 'an order of magnitude'), so I'd preference that in terms of having a 'rule one.'
I have to agree with stone that 'don't point your gun at something you don't intend to shoot' is impractical in favor of 'don't point your gun at something you are not prepared to shoot' but the former advice is typically more viable information for gun trainees as opposed to, say, policemen.
I agree with just about everyone on the planet that Senator Arizona Yeehaw Iloveguns (R-AZ) is an idiot.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:More specifically, point it in a direction where there isn't a person, like straight up, or straight down.
Preferably DOWN!! NOT UP!!! For gosh sakes. What goes up, comes down. There may not be any people above you, but the bullet's not going up for ever.
In certain parts of the west, its common for drunken gun nuts to shoot their guns at the sky on holidays like the fourth of July. There are frequently people injured from falling bullets.
For that matter, if we are going to have a #1 gun safety rule, it ought to be never handle a gun if you've been drinking or are terminally stupid (which seems to be the case for the AZ senator).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I can't believe we are still arguing gun safety when the more important issue of most delicious ice cream flavors has yet to be resolved.
Why don't we start with ice cream flavors that should be banned. I think bubble gum and licorice should top the list.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
There was a CSI episode where a person was killed streets away by a bullet fired into the air (although not directly up).
Also, interesting QI fact: if you drop a bullet and you fire a bullet parallel to the ground they will both hit the ground at the same moment.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Also, interesting QI fact: if you drop a bullet and you fire a bullet parallel to the ground they will both hit the ground at the same moment.
This would be true in a vacuum, but since we don't live in vacuum, it won't be.
Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Not to down play the importance of chocolate icecream, as it is one of the major 4 food groups, but seriously, why does our side have so many fruit bats?
The other three being bacon, cheese, and fried.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Not to down play the importance of chocolate icecream, as it is one of the major 4 food groups.
Get serious. Chocolate and Ice Cream are each major food groups.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Ohhhhh...is that what AH was saying...I was looking over what the Sen. said looking for a reference to peanuts (or black beans) in her icecream.
Nope, I literally meant what I said. I dont care what Klein said, I simply found an excuse to push my anti-cashew agenda.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Selran:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Not to down play the importance of chocolate icecream, as it is one of the major 4 food groups, but seriously, why does our side have so many fruit bats?
The other three being bacon, cheese, and fried.
I know there is fried ice cream and I know there is bacon ice cream. Put them together for all your nutritional needs!
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Where does macaroni and cheese fit in to this? You can not exclude mac'n cheese.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fun fact: Cashews are not nuts or legumes...they are seeds.
quote:Fun fact: Cashews are not nuts or legumes...they are seeds.[/quotes]
Nuts and legumes are also seeds.
[quote]The reason you probably haven't heard much about the cashew apple or seen them in the produce section of your grocery store is that the fruit spoils so quickly. It can only be eaten fresh from the tree because it starts to ferment after only 24 hours and is too perishable to export to the United States.
They don't mention that Cashew fruits would be unlikely to capture much of a market even if they didn't ferment because they're rather bad. They are very astringent. I keep thinking I just had a bad one and should give it another try, but no, it turns out their all like that. Yuck.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Nope, I literally meant what I said. I dont care what Klein said, I simply found an excuse to push my anti-cashew agenda.
Like Cacao and vanilla, cashews also aren't legumes. They also aren't even in the same order as legumes. Once again, no more closely related than people and clams.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Ooooh yummmmm Cashew fruit. I ate those all the time in Brazil, they are really tasty.
The actual cashew nut right off the fruit can kill you though. It constricts, and there are always a few children in Brazil every year that suffocate because they eat the stem/seed. That is why you never really see truly "raw" cashews.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
An argument for why keeping your finger out of the trigger guard until you decide to fire should be the #1 rule: (note the change in wording, not "ready to fire", but "decide to fire")
At times, you will point a gun at people and things which you do not wish to destroy: Two examples, room clearing and holstering your sidearm. In room clearing you attempting to acquire threatening targets with a "ready" stance (firearm pointed, ready to fire) it is entirely probably that you will cover non combatants and continue to cover them until such time as you decide they are harmless or they are secured. In the second example, you do not get to really decide where the muzzle of your sidearm is pointed, it must be pointed at the bottom of your holster, which likely has much of your leg and foot directly beneath the muzzle.
Now, in both of these scenarios, placing your finger on the trigger, inside the trigger guard can cause unintended death/injuries. In the latter example, a good holster will cover the trigger guard completely restricting access while holsterd, so, if your finger is inside the guard and you try and holster your sidearm, the holster will cause you to depress the trigger and you end up shooting yourself in the leg.
In the former example, it is possible to be startled by any number of things and to "jump" causing your finger to twitch, and if it is on the trigger, badness follows.
Controlling what is covered by the muzzle of your firearm is VERY important. But as some posters pointed out, even aiming your firearm into the sky can cause unintentional death/injury.
I looked for statistics of accidental shootings which delineated between mechanical malfunction and accidental trigger depressions, and couldn't find any. I contacted the NRA and they said they didn't think that those statistics were kept. I am writing the NRA to suggest that trigger finger discipline be bumped up in order, as currently #1 is "1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction." I'm also writing them to change the wording from "2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot." to "ALWAYS keep your finger outside of the trigger guard until you decide to shoot."
You may now return to discussing crazy senators, chocolate ice cream and cashews.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Like any good lobbyist intent on forcing thier will upon others, your facts mean nothing to me.
Cashews, almonds or any other hard plant product has no place in dessert.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, creamy peanut butter swirl is okay, but not chunky AH?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:But you should realize that the vast majority of accidental shootings are because people pull the trigger when they do not mean to and not because their turn of the century gun got bumped.
I think you need to draw a Venn diagram showing how many accidental shootings happened when someone accidentally pulled the trigger while the gun was not pointing at anyone.
quote:I am writing the NRA to suggest that trigger finger discipline be bumped up in order, as currently #1 is "1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction." I'm also writing them to change the wording from "2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot." to "ALWAYS keep your finger outside of the trigger guard until you decide to shoot."
Wait, you checked with the NRA, found that you were wrong, and posted it here? And also that you have the chutzpah to tell them that THEY should change their rules? Wow.
quote:Preferably DOWN!! NOT UP!!! For gosh sakes. What goes up, comes down. There may not be any people above you, but the bullet's not going up for ever.
Rabbit: the rule is to not point your gun at a person, or where a person is likely to be. It's not really possible to create a rule that covers all bases, you have to use judgment. But up or down is generally preferred to some kind of sideways. Bear in mind, that pointing a gun down at a cement, tile or rock ground can result in a ricochet, which, at close range can be much worse than a falling bullet. Also, if you're on the second floor of a house, it's generally safer to fire through an unoccupied attic than into the occupied first floor.
And of course, the real goal is to not have the gun fire in any direction, unless you have an intended target.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Wait, you checked with the NRA, found that you were wrong, and posted it here?
Reason does not stop working when an authoritative organization happens to disagree. I'm not wrong.
If individuals simply accepted they were wrong because organizations said otherwise then those organizations would become static and even more wrong.
Gosh Glen, you've never fought for something you believe in?
And for the record, I'm made up of 34% chutzpah, 29% guts and 47% balls. And an extra 10% beard.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Fun fact: Cashews are not nuts or legumes...they are seeds.[/quotes]
Nuts and legumes are also seeds.
[quote]The reason you probably haven't heard much about the cashew apple or seen them in the produce section of your grocery store is that the fruit spoils so quickly. It can only be eaten fresh from the tree because it starts to ferment after only 24 hours and is too perishable to export to the United States.
They don't mention that Cashew fruits would be unlikely to capture much of a market even if they didn't ferment because they're rather bad. They are very astringent. I keep thinking I just had a bad one and should give it another try, but no, it turns out their all like that. Yuck.
Point of fact, they are canned and exported in cans.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Reason does not stop working when an authoritative organization happens to disagree. I'm not wrong.
You didn't draw that Venn diagram, did you?
The NRA defines gun safety standards. If you teach rules that oppose NRA standards, then you're wrong by definition.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I already furnished two examples.
The NRA is not the only authority on the matter, and even if they were, that doesn't mean they are infallible and anyone who teaches anything except their exact doctrine is wrong.
I never pegged you as such a conformist or lazy thinker GA.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Two examples of people who were shot by a gun that wasn't pointing at them? I must have missed that.
Curious, just what authority claims that trigger safety is rule number one?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Two examples of when covering people is necessary. Need more, how about ricochets and bullets going through walls/floors/ceilings?
I never claimed there was an authority saying what I'm saying...there might well be...-I- am saying that trigger discipline is more important, -and- that there are other authorities on the subject.
Saying that anyone who doesn't fully agree with an authoritative group is automatically wrong is lazy thinking.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And for the record, the Marine Corp puts trigger finger discipline higher then sweep discipline.
quote:The four rifle range safety rules are:
Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire.
Never point your weapon at anything you don’t intend to shoot.
Keep your weapon on safe until you intend to fire.
That's an unranked list, but whatever. I'll just go ask an outspoken marine about it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The priorities might be a little different in a military situation anyway. For everyone else, I'll go with the NRA.
I do agree with the first rule though. I got my name due the the actions of a Marine that ignored it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have a question for you GA: -If- my partition to the NRA is successful will you still say "Go with the NRA"? Or will you stick to your guns (no pun intended) and say, I don't care what anyone says, sweep discipline is the most important and here is why...
Or to put it more succinctly, do you think sweep discipline is the most important rule out of self conviction or because you trust the authority, and would agree to whatever they said?
Also I have no idea how you got your name...I googled it, but it didn't tell me anything.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yonder response from outspoken marine
quote:I would have lit her the **** up and given her a taste of gun safety training ala Marine NCO.
Seriously, and Gornul can back me up on this, flagging people with loading weapons is like the one area in the modern military where hazing, physical abuse, etc, all goes out the window. No one is going to say a word if you bust someone in the head for pointing a loaded weapon at you, regardless of safety, trigger, etc. Hell, that even applies to loaded weapons
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Let me back up at say that I had (ironically) forgotten that "always treat a gun as loaded" is the real RULE NUMBER ONE.
That was the rule that should be intrinsic to my identity, because it's the rule that was broken. My cousin Glenn Crosnoe died before I was born, and I was named after him. He was shot by a friend of his, who had just gotten out of Marine boot camp. The exact details of the shooting have been different depending on who is telling the story, but the one thing that is consistent is that the Marine believed the gun was not loaded.
Many times as a child I asked my father if a gun was loaded. Sometimes he responded "my guns are always loaded" but others he simply responded "yes." At least twice I've continued by cocking, aiming and pulling the trigger, only to hear a click as the firing pin falls on an empty chamber. His guns were never loaded until he was preparing to use them, but gun safety was like a religion. It's why I'm adamant about it as well.
In answer to your question about whether my opinion will change if the NRA changes theirs, then no, it will not. But neither will the NRA change their position. As I've demonstrated logically, "sweep discipline" is more important than trigger discipline, because if a gun isn't pointed as anyone, an accidental discharge won't hit anyone. Not that either rule should be ignored.
You say you've given examples of where covering people is necessary, and I would respond that those cases are extremely rare in a non-military situation, especially in comparison to the number of cases where a gun is being casually handled in a nonthreatening social situation. Even police usually extend their guns with the muzzle pointed down. You don't need to aim a gun at a person in order to intimidate, or threaten.
I have given one example where an accidental discharge did not involve the trigger. In addition, a trigger could get caught on an article of clothing, or a tree branch. I've also seen situations where a primer sizzled for a half second or so before the bullet went off. In that situation, keeping your finger off the trigger will not help, but remembering to maintain the direction of aim is essential.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp: Is your outspoken marine buddy referring to me as a she? And I think you have one too many "loaded" and one too few "unloaded". A bit confusing.
GA: Sorry about your namesake. I respect your reasons for thinking the way you do, thanks for putting in the time for that answer.
Perhaps I will always be in the minority when it comes to which of the safe firearm handing rules is paramount. Since I teach that all of them should be followed at all times, it's hardly the most controversial view I hold (or even advocate here on the 'rack).
The bigger concern is the wording change from "ready to fire" to "decide to fire"...I was reading an article online (I'll find it and link to it later today) about how police training needs to be changed in this as "ready to fire" is being misunderstood to mean "anytime you want to be ready to fire" and not "when you are about to deliberately pull the trigger"...which is apparently causing negligent deaths.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Samp: Is your outspoken marine buddy referring to me as a she?
He is referring to Sen. Lori Klein as a she.
Anyway, if the message is unclear, then here's the unambiguous translation.
Sweep discipline >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trigger discipline
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)