4 ms·

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/06/concealed_weapons_holder_accid.html http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/06/concealed_w... http://www

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/06/concealed_weapons_holder_accid.html http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/06/concealed_w... http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/us-usa-guncontrol-idaho-idUSKBN0GY2E620140903 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/us-usa-guncontrol-... I'd say the lack of basic gun safety skill among concealed weapons holders is sufficient evidence to be concerned. This is just in the last 3-4 months with a quick google search. If I can't trust people with guns to reliably follow basic safety procedures [e.g. Both of these sound like someone had the safety off] with a weapon that can cause serious injuries why would I trust their fire discipline?

Crito 12y ago
Many very popular types of guns do not have "safeties" in the sense that you are likely thinking. They do not have a switch that can be toggled between "safe" and "fire". Glocks are one prominent example (they lack some sort of safety switch, although they have other sorts of safety features.) Truly mechanically induced accidents are nevertheless exceptionally rare. The guns only fire when the trigger is pulled, which is why gun owners stress the importance of trigger discipline.
- mitchty 12y ago
  Another note on the glock, you have to pull the trigger to pull it apart. All the more reason you follow the 4 rules of gun safety to a T with that brand. Especially the part about ensuring its not pointed anywhere it shouldn't be and unloaded check about a million times. (note, I own no firearms but have enough friends that do I gain a ton of knowledge on them.) One exception to firearms going off on their own might be a misfire after trigger pull. That means you have a possibly live round in the chamber that could go off at any time. Need to be really careful on that one.
  - hga 12y ago
    And you can't really follow Rules 2 & 4 when you holster it, unless you remove your holster first, which is often not a good option (like after the shooting appears to be over, but before others like the police arrive). I will never willingly carry a striker fired weapon: no external hammer, so if something, like a windbreaker tie or finger catches on the trigger, you can't DTRT with your thumb on the nonexistent hammer to stop it from firing. Flip side is what one of my instructors called manual safeties: "death levers". If you forget to flick it to safe.... Another side is that manual safeties make guns somewhat "proprietary" as Massad Ayoob puts it. Some police officers have avoided bad outcomes when their weapons were grabbed, as the criminal struggled to make it fire they could take effective action. Not so much of an issue for those who carry concealed.
- opendais 12y ago
  That is why you wouldn't carry such a weapon as a CCW and hope for the best. You'd pick one with a safety if your goal was safety. "Exceptionally rare" events that send you to the hospital should be minimized if you are acting rationally. Choosing an "unpopular" gun with a safety vs. a "popular" gun with a safety...well, that isn't giving up the gun now is it? That is why I have an issue with gun enthusiasts. They don't think and they literally get people killed/injured because of it. Then go "well its rare..." So fucking what. Cars have a ton of safety features to reduce fatalities too even tho such fatalities are "rare". If gun owners continue to show poor judgement when they have time to think about it rationally, why should I think they'll do any better under pressure?
hga 12y ago
Out of 8 million licensees, plus anyone who wants to with a clean record in Vermont, Alaska, Whyoming, and Arizona, there's going to be people who screw up. Police do at a much higher rate, in my observation over the years (there are, after all, a lot less of them). Years, as in the wave of "shall issue" concealed carry regimes started with Florida in 1987, and now includes 43 states and most of the population. Every time a state goes shall issue the usual suspects scream "blood in the streets", yet it never comes to pass, as they mean it. Here you're stretching quite a bit to go form "normal" accidents to postulated future bad actions in a shooting event, because you can't find any of the latter. (You can't because there aren't any, at least that I've learned about since the early '70s and my readings of prior modern history.) There are going to have to be a lot more, and much more worse screwups, before the toll is a fraction of the massacres in NewSpeak "Gun Free" zones.
- opendais 12y ago
  > Out of 8 million licensees, plus anyone who wants to with a clean record in Vermont, Alaska, Whyoming, and Arizona, there's going to be people who screw up. Police do at a much higher rate, in my observation over the years (there are, after all, a lot less of them). Police also frequently have long shifts where they are exhausted and are carrying a firearm. Its not surprising they'd screw up more frequently than a population with relatively ideal operating conditions. > Years, as in the wave of "shall issue" concealed carry regimes started with Florida in 1987, and now includes 43 states and most of the population. Every time a state goes shall issue the usual suspects scream "blood in the streets", yet it never comes to pass, as they mean it. Here you're stretching quite a bit to go form "normal" accidents to postulated future bad actions in a shooting event, because you can't find any of the latter. (You can't because there aren't any, at least that I've learned about since the early '70s and my readings of prior modern history.) I didn't scream blood in the streets. I pointed out that questioning the competence of people who carry weapons as they've been shown to be injure themselves through carelessness...is very reasonable. You are attacking other people and somehow relating that to what I said. You've pointed out there was 1 event at which someone with a CCW permit and a weapon existed in recent history. Attempting to draw conclusions from such a small number of events is idiocy. But you go ahead. > There are going to have to be a lot more, and much more worse screwups, before the toll is a fraction of the massacres in NewSpeak "Gun Free" zones. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=5& http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-h... 1) They are undercounted because they are sometimes labeled homicides. 2) Lets use the CDC #s: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf Firearm (*U01.4,W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24,Y35.0) 32,351 10.4 10.2 Unintentional (W32-W34) 591 0.2 0.2 591 "Unintentional" deaths in 2011. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/26/1077930/-Statistics-Guns-and-Wishful-Thinking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/26/1077930/-Statistics... 2008-2009 was over 1000. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-nra/1937041/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/mass-sh... This puts the number at 934 over 7 years. So you are just ignorant is the underlying problem. 2 years of unintentional fatalities is more than 6 years of mass shootings. I'd say that is a problem more dangerous than the delusion that the guy with the CCW is going to alter the outcome significantly.

Crito 12y ago

Many very popular types of guns do not have "safeties" in the sense that you are likely thinking. They do not have a switch that can be toggled between "safe" and "fire". Glocks are one prominent example (they lack some sort of safety switch, although they have other sorts of safety features.) Truly mechanically induced accidents are nevertheless exceptionally rare. The guns only fire when the trigger is pulled, which is why gun owners stress the importance of trigger discipline.

mitchty 12y ago
Another note on the glock, you have to pull the trigger to pull it apart. All the more reason you follow the 4 rules of gun safety to a T with that brand. Especially the part about ensuring its not pointed anywhere it shouldn't be and unloaded check about a million times. (note, I own no firearms but have enough friends that do I gain a ton of knowledge on them.) One exception to firearms going off on their own might be a misfire after trigger pull. That means you have a possibly live round in the chamber that could go off at any time. Need to be really careful on that one.
- hga 12y ago
  And you can't really follow Rules 2 & 4 when you holster it, unless you remove your holster first, which is often not a good option (like after the shooting appears to be over, but before others like the police arrive). I will never willingly carry a striker fired weapon: no external hammer, so if something, like a windbreaker tie or finger catches on the trigger, you can't DTRT with your thumb on the nonexistent hammer to stop it from firing. Flip side is what one of my instructors called manual safeties: "death levers". If you forget to flick it to safe.... Another side is that manual safeties make guns somewhat "proprietary" as Massad Ayoob puts it. Some police officers have avoided bad outcomes when their weapons were grabbed, as the criminal struggled to make it fire they could take effective action. Not so much of an issue for those who carry concealed.
opendais 12y ago
That is why you wouldn't carry such a weapon as a CCW and hope for the best. You'd pick one with a safety if your goal was safety. "Exceptionally rare" events that send you to the hospital should be minimized if you are acting rationally. Choosing an "unpopular" gun with a safety vs. a "popular" gun with a safety...well, that isn't giving up the gun now is it? That is why I have an issue with gun enthusiasts. They don't think and they literally get people killed/injured because of it. Then go "well its rare..." So fucking what. Cars have a ton of safety features to reduce fatalities too even tho such fatalities are "rare". If gun owners continue to show poor judgement when they have time to think about it rationally, why should I think they'll do any better under pressure?

hga 12y ago

Out of 8 million licensees, plus anyone who wants to with a clean record in Vermont, Alaska, Whyoming, and Arizona, there's going to be people who screw up. Police do at a much higher rate, in my observation over the years (there are, after all, a lot less of them). Years, as in the wave of "shall issue" concealed carry regimes started with Florida in 1987, and now includes 43 states and most of the population. Every time a state goes shall issue the usual suspects scream "blood in the streets", yet it never comes to pass, as they mean it. Here you're stretching quite a bit to go form "normal" accidents to postulated future bad actions in a shooting event, because you can't find any of the latter. (You can't because there aren't any, at least that I've learned about since the early '70s and my readings of prior modern history.) There are going to have to be a lot more, and much more worse screwups, before the toll is a fraction of the massacres in NewSpeak "Gun Free" zones.

opendais 12y ago
> Out of 8 million licensees, plus anyone who wants to with a clean record in Vermont, Alaska, Whyoming, and Arizona, there's going to be people who screw up. Police do at a much higher rate, in my observation over the years (there are, after all, a lot less of them). Police also frequently have long shifts where they are exhausted and are carrying a firearm. Its not surprising they'd screw up more frequently than a population with relatively ideal operating conditions. > Years, as in the wave of "shall issue" concealed carry regimes started with Florida in 1987, and now includes 43 states and most of the population. Every time a state goes shall issue the usual suspects scream "blood in the streets", yet it never comes to pass, as they mean it. Here you're stretching quite a bit to go form "normal" accidents to postulated future bad actions in a shooting event, because you can't find any of the latter. (You can't because there aren't any, at least that I've learned about since the early '70s and my readings of prior modern history.) I didn't scream blood in the streets. I pointed out that questioning the competence of people who carry weapons as they've been shown to be injure themselves through carelessness...is very reasonable. You are attacking other people and somehow relating that to what I said. You've pointed out there was 1 event at which someone with a CCW permit and a weapon existed in recent history. Attempting to draw conclusions from such a small number of events is idiocy. But you go ahead. > There are going to have to be a lot more, and much more worse screwups, before the toll is a fraction of the massacres in NewSpeak "Gun Free" zones. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=5& http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-h... 1) They are undercounted because they are sometimes labeled homicides. 2) Lets use the CDC #s: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf Firearm (*U01.4,W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24,Y35.0) 32,351 10.4 10.2 Unintentional (W32-W34) 591 0.2 0.2 591 "Unintentional" deaths in 2011. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/26/1077930/-Statistics-Guns-and-Wishful-Thinking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/26/1077930/-Statistics... 2008-2009 was over 1000. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-nra/1937041/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/mass-sh... This puts the number at 934 over 7 years. So you are just ignorant is the underlying problem. 2 years of unintentional fatalities is more than 6 years of mass shootings. I'd say that is a problem more dangerous than the delusion that the guy with the CCW is going to alter the outcome significantly.