Frank Mir on Guns, Self defense and realistic training.

**Iainkelt** · Posted On: 3/08/2010 3:44pm

Originally Posted by Suprore

The point where you have drawn a loaded gun gun, have a finger on or near the trigger, and have taken off its safety, and have a round in the chamber, it can fire. If a gun is kept safely it is never going to just magically explode and spray death around the carrier. People act like owning a gun is equivalent to walking around strapped with TNT, and at any moment an accident could cause disaster.

Don't hold the device at the ready, pointed at someone, in its weaponized state and nobody is going to get hurt.

It's kindof like cutting someone by accident when you're holding a knife to their throat. Of course there's a serious risk of accidental injury when you're doing something that stupid. Owning a knife or even holding one in your hand is pretty damn safe. The weapon itself is not prone to a lot of accidents unless you're already doing something specific and dangerous with it.

I agree that guns don't magically load themselves and shoot people. I've never said otherwise. However, what you said previously was:

Pointyshinyburn, handguns are not as scary as you think. We're talking about weaponry, not plagues of locusts or fires here. They cannot go out of your control, they do not just start killing people, they will never injure anyone unless you explicitly set out to fire them.

and that simply is not true. People do sometimes get accidentally shot and killed even if someone is not intentionally pointing a gun with their finger on the trigger. It's generally called an "accidental discharge" in my part of the world and on occasion (for the record, I'm not saying it is common) can occur when loaded guns without a "drop safety" are dropped or are otherwise malfunctioning because of poor design, abuse, or faulty ammo.

Guns have an unique inherent risk that many other things do not. That doesn't mean they should be banned, just that you have to recognize and respect that risk. Unfortunately some people don't and that is how you end up with someone, especially children, shooting themselves or others by accident. I think the vast majority of legal gun owners act like intelligent adults when it comes to securing their weapons, but there will always be those who do otherwise and unfortunately those are the ones who end up in the newspaper.

**Suprore** · Posted On: 3/08/2010 3:55pm

Originally Posted by Iainkelt

I agree that guns don't magically load themselves and shoot people. I've never said otherwise. However, what you said previously was:

Pointyshinyburn, handguns are not as scary as you think. We're talking about weaponry, not plagues of locusts or fires here. They cannot go out of your control, they do not just start killing people, they will never injure anyone unless you explicitly set out to fire them.

and that simply is not true. People do sometimes get accidentally shot and killed even if someone is not intentionally pointing a gun with their finger on the trigger. It's generally called an "accidental discharge" in my part of the world and on occasion (for the record, I'm not saying it is common) can occur when loaded guns without a "drop safety" are dropped or are otherwise malfunctioning because of poor design, abuse, or faulty ammo.

Guns have an unique inherent risk that many other things do not. That doesn't mean they should be banned, just that you have to recognize and respect that risk. Unfortunately some people don't and that is how you end up with someone, especially children, shooting themselves or others by accident. I think the vast majority of legal gun owners act like intelligent adults when it comes to securing their weapons, but there will always be those who do otherwise and unfortunately those are the ones who end up in the newspaper.

I believe what i said was true, but that comes down to semantics (what 'explicitly set out to fire them' means exactly -- to me it's preparing the weapon to be fired and pointing it in someone's direction) and it isn't really worth quibbling over.

As for accidental discharges, yes, they can happen, but they, once again, only real endanger people who are being very negligent. Potentially, also people who are not being negligent but are at gun ranges or armories, if you want to argue the 'people are really fucking clumsy' side. But even then, there is no real risk of an accidental discharge resulting in a death at a home or in public unless you are doing something extremely dangerous.

It's very easy to accidentally kill someone if you're juggling chainsaws in the middle of a crowd, and it's very easy to accidentally kill someone if you're juggling loaded guns with outdated or malfunctioning safety measures in the middle of a crowd.

Other accidental discharges primarily come from people pulling or disturbing the trigger of their firearm unintentionally. Which is a danger, but can only really lead to a shooting if you are handling the gun dangerously in the first place -- you need your gun loaded, drawn, safety off, pointed at someone, and your finger on or too near the trigger.

Anyone runs more of a risk cutting off their fingers preparing dinner than they do of shooting someone owning a gun, so i don't really see where guns stand out as especially dangerous.

As for kids/uneducated people, it takes a ridiculous level of negligence and stupidity to accidentally shoot someone outside of a warzone. It is a projectile weapon. Any time it is ready to fire and someone is down the barrel of it they are in extreme amounts of danger. We wouldnt blame the weapon if some teenagers were throwing hatchets at eachother and one got killed -- why is it a gun-specific danger if the same dumbasses are waving guns at eachother and ones goes off?

**Iainkelt** · Posted On: 3/08/2010 4:54pm

Originally Posted by Suprore

As for accidental discharges, yes, they can happen, but they, once again, only real endanger people who are being very negligent. Potentially, also people who are not being negligent but are at gun ranges or armories, if you want to argue the 'people are really fucking clumsy' side. But even then, there is no real risk of an accidental discharge resulting in a death at a home or in public unless you are doing something extremely dangerous.

Anyone runs more of a risk cutting off their fingers preparing dinner than they do of shooting someone owning a gun, so i don't really see where guns stand out as especially dangerous.

As for kids/uneducated people, it takes a ridiculous level of negligence and stupidity to accidentally shoot someone outside of a warzone. It is a projectile weapon. Any time it is ready to fire and someone is down the barrel of it they are in extreme amounts of danger. We wouldnt blame the weapon if some teenagers were throwing hatchets at eachother and one got killed -- why is it a gun-specific danger if the same dumbasses are waving guns at eachother and ones goes off?

Not true. Accidental shootings in the house happen. Again, not saying it is an every day thing, but it certainly does happen. Is it the result of doing something dangerous? Absolutely. It generally comes from some idiot not being an adult and handling his weapon in a careful manner. So unless you consider standing in your house while somebody accidentally discharges a gun to be doing something "extremely dangerous", we'll have to disagree on that point.

I agree that you are more likely to cut your hand cooking then you are to get accidentally shot. However, that doesn't mean that the result of those two accidents are comparable. One is generally solved by bandaids or stitches and the other by surgery if you are lucky. I can certainly buy the argument that guns aren't as dangerous as some people make them out to be, no problem. But you can't seriously tell me that you don't see how guns "stand out as especially dangerous" as opposed to a kitchen knife or other tool with multiple uses that don't involve shooting something or someone.

As far as hatchets go, if, in this country at least, there were thousands of hatchet related murders, robberies, and other associated crimes then I think people would start to look at them in a different way. That would likely include people asking why teenagers had access to hatchets in the first place. (For the record, I believe that most states already have laws that restrict people from carrying hatchets/machetes in public.) Is that fair? Probably not, and ultimately people have to take responsibility for their own actions, including gross negligence. But, even excluding emotional over reaction, at some point I don't think it's unreasonable for a society to ask where the line should be drawn between personal freedom and the welfare of the community.

Again, I'm not arguing that guns should be banned but the unfortunate reality is that the small percentage of jackasses who aren't mature enough to handle a gun are capable of causing, either directly or indirectly, a tremendous amount of harm. The same isn't as true, especially to scale, of people who own a kitchen knife or hatchet. Can you kill somebody with one? Absolutely, but in the U.S. it isn't the "weapon of choice" that pops up on the evening news or the front page of the paper when some horrible crime is committed.

**Whathappened** · Posted On: 3/08/2010 7:50pm

Originally Posted by Iainkelt

Not true. Accidental shootings in the house happen. Again, not saying it is an every day thing, but it certainly does happen. Is it the result of doing something dangerous? Absolutely. It generally comes from some idiot not being an adult and handling his weapon in a careful manner. So unless you consider standing in your house while somebody accidentally discharges a gun to be doing something "extremely dangerous", we'll have to disagree on that point.

haha, oh wow.

**Mr. Machette** · Posted On: 3/08/2010 7:53pm

Originally Posted by Iainkelt

Not true. Accidental shootings in the house happen. Again, not saying it is an every day thing, but it certainly does happen. Is it the result of doing something dangerous? Absolutely. It generally comes from some idiot not being an adult and handling his weapon in a careful manner. So unless you consider standing in your house while somebody accidentally discharges a gun to be doing something "extremely dangerous", we'll have to disagree on that point.

There is a difference between accidental discharge, and negligent discharge.

In fact, most "ad's" are really "nd's" when scrutinized.

For example, some models of AK will drop the hammer if the safety switch is pushed up beyond the top edge of the receiver. Possible "AD" from a kink in the design. (For those of you who own Ak's, I would recommend trying this when the weapon is unloaded to test. The machine in question when my friend discovered this was of Yugoslavian origin, but the glitch is common to many clones. Better to know in advance right?)

The Franci SPAS 12 has a common defect wherein the hammer will drop if the safety is engaged. A fatal design flaw, but also accidental discharge.

Now, the guy that shoots himself in the face while "cleaning" his weapon, is a NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE! Why was the weapon not properly cleared before he started to clean it? Negligence.

The asshole who's waving a loaded piece while drunk and shoots his friend. Negligent discharge.

The child who finds a loaded gun and shoot himslef. Negligence on many levels. The onus is on the parents for not securing the weapon, and not educating the child properly. But stil, negligent discharge.

That guy on youtube who is "the only person in this room qualified to handle a glock fo-tay" and shoots himself in the leg while trying to demonstrate firearms awareness... ...negligent discharged. Also reported as "accidental" so the officer in question could save face.

Just in case you haven't seen it:
YouTube- DEA Agent

Note he chambers a round with his finger on the trigger. It doesn't matter if he did not know a round was chambered, that is the "negligence" in effect. Also, if you know anything about the "Glock safety" or lack thereof, you could see why it would be so easy to discharge through negligence. I'm not even going to call that one an accident, because he violated two safety rules to make that happen. 1, always treat every weapon as if it is loaded,. 2, keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. Since he wasn't shooting, he shouldn't have had his finger in the hole. Simple. But Mr. big shot DEA agent gets to call it an "accident".

I mention this because most of the scenarios you describe are in fact Negligent discharge. Personal responsibility is a mother bitch eh? ;)

**bornaghost** · Posted On: 3/08/2010 8:00pm

Frank has some interesting points

**Iainkelt** · Posted On: 3/08/2010 8:28pm

Originally Posted by Mr. Machette

There is a difference between accidental discharge, and negligent discharge.

In fact, most "ad's" are really "nd's" when scrutinized.

For example, some models of AK will drop the hammer if the safety switch is pushed up beyond the top edge of the receiver. Possible "AD" from a kink in the design. (For those of you who own Ak's, I would recommend trying this when the weapon is unloaded to test. The machine in question when my friend discovered this was of Yugoslavian origin, but the glitch is common to many clones. Better to know in advance right?)

The Franci SPAS 12 has a common defect wherein the hammer will drop if the safety is engaged. A fatal design flaw, but also accidental discharge.

Now, the guy that shoots himself in the face while "cleaning" his weapon, is a NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE! Why was the weapon not properly cleared before he started to clean it? Negligence.

The asshole who's waving a loaded piece while drunk and shoots his friend. Negligent discharge.

The child who finds a loaded gun and shoot himslef. Negligence on many levels. The onus is on the parents for not securing the weapon, and not educating the child properly. But stil, negligent discharge.

That guy on youtube who is "the only person in this room qualified to handle a glock fo-tay" and shoots himself in the leg while trying to demonstrate firearms awareness... ...negligent discharged. Also reported as "accidental" so the officer in question could save face.

Just in case you haven't seen it:
YouTube- DEA Agent

Note he chambers a round with his finger on the trigger. It doesn't matter if he did not know a round was chambered, that is the "negligence" in effect. Also, if you know anything about the "Glock safety" or lack thereof, you could see why it would be so easy to discharge through negligence. I'm not even going to call that one an accident, because he violated two safety rules to make that happen. 1, always treat every weapon as if it is loaded,. 2, keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. Since he wasn't shooting, he shouldn't have had his finger in the hole. Simple. But Mr. big shot DEA agent gets to call it an "accident".

I mention this because most of the scenarios you describe are in fact Negligent discharge. Personal responsibility is a mother bitch eh? ;)

I completely agree, by the way, that a lot of "accidents" are really much more negligence then anything else and are often caused by idiots not following basic safety measures. Reminds me of a firearms safety expert who accidentally killed himself when showing his friends how not to foolishly handle a firearm by placing to his temple and pulling the trigger. I don't think that is the gun's "fault" at all, it just happened to be the way this particular fool punched his ticket.

**Mr. Machette** · Posted On: 3/08/2010 8:49pm

Originally Posted by Iainkelt

I completely agree, by the way, that a lot of "accidents" are really much more negligence then anything else and are often caused by idiots not following basic safety measures. Reminds me of a firearms safety expert who accidentally killed himself when showing his friends how not to foolishly handle a firearm by placing to his temple and pulling the trigger. I don't think that is the gun's "fault" at all, it just happened to be the way this particular fool punched his ticket.

Dang, loaded gun to the head. The problem with being an "expert" is getting comfortable enough to make a sloppy mistake.

One I've heard recently heard is the guy that got shot standing in front of a minigun. Apparently, the weapon is designed so that the hammer falls when one of the barrels locks into place as it rotates. It's is possible for one to be just slightly short of cambering when it slows to a stop, and if you rotate the barrel assembly till it clicks... BOOM! A combination of playing with a machine he didn't quite understand, and standing in front of a loaded gun. The first being nobodies fault, it's an obscure detail that most people don't know. The last being a regrettably bad Idea. Really sad all around.
http://forum.armyranger.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=36987

Another one is the eight year old who was allowed to fire off micro Uzi without assistance at a gun range. The recoil pushed the muzzle up under his chin, with obviously tragic results. This one is freaking heartbreaking.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6121915&page=1

Both of those kind of remind me of your story. Kind of borderline between negligence and accident. Slight missteps with horrible consequences. But none of them possible if the people involved had been absolutely pruddish in thier safety concerns.

A gun is a tool. A very powerful tool, and with that power comes great responsibility. Not just to yourself but everybody around you. That's the big kicker right there. A lot of gun owners get it, but the bad apples really screw things up for everybody.

**Gezere** · Posted On: 3/08/2010 11:06pm

Originally Posted by P Marsh

I don't think he should be talking about Columbine being avoidable if teachers had firearms. Columbine was a result of extreme social factors developing two exiles into people who wanted to use their classmates and themselves to express the quality of life that they lived (bad in a nutshell explanation). Teachers with firearms is a really bad idea because school shooters very rarely survive their own rampage as do workplace shooters. Guns on teachers would make them bigger targets for shooters because they are now legitimate threats and teachers would now be targeted first and foremost.

Can't disagree more. Frank was right on the fact that pple prey on the soft targets. If you had armed teachers (not saying that is the way to go but maybe more of an armed security presence) Columbine would most likely been avoided or at least very short. Simple fact is when they guys want to go on their rampages they don't want pple to fight back. Its been stated several times over by criminals and sociopaths themselves is the main thing they fear is an armed populace because someone who is armed is willing to fight back and even if the victim loses its too big of a risk.