Are owning a gun a bad thing?

Post Reply New Topic

@ aceofspades

The term 'working parts' pretty much describes anything that moves when you operate bolt. Not removing the magazine before releasing the bolt during clearance is a much easier mistake to make on a bullpup weapon like the Steyr than it is on an AR15.

AspZ, any study that say if you buy a gun for home defense, then you're more likely to kill a family member, is Bunk. It is just an ant-gun piece. To avoid killing a family member, all one has to do is not point a loaded gun at a family member. Don't point a loaded gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Gun safety and common sense would also suggest treating all guns as if they are loaded.
Now, there are idiots who don't practice gun safety. Oh well, we can't just give up our rights to protect idiots.
As for Canada, I realize there are less guns there, but I went goose hunting in Manitoba and Ontario and many rural Canadians were avid hunters. Now, that was in 2000.

Exactly, out of all the gun myths out there the one about being more likely to shoot a family member is the stupidest one. Not only is it as simple as not pointing a f*****g gun at a family member, but it's common sense to have a plan for your family on what they should do if the need to use a gun arises, kinda like how it's common sense to have a plan should a fire occur in a building.

And yeah, I'd rather not have laws revolving around idiot proofing society.

@ 91: So does the accidental discharge occur without having the finger on the trigger? If so, what exactly engages the firing pin without the pull of the trigger? And what springs are you talking about?

If removing the magazine after releasing the bolt causes the gun to discharge without the finger on the trigger, then why not put the safety on before removing the magazine if it is so hard to remember to release the working parts before removing the magazine?

I hope you're not full of s**t cuz I've never heard of an accidental discharge occurring without the finger on the trigger other than being dropped to the ground, being overheated, or having some sort of mechanical problems with the firing mechanism in which case the gun shouldn't be loaded and should be sent to get fixed.

85% of accidental discharges occur with the trigger being pulled after the chamber was assumed to be empty, 7% are due to holstering a loaded firearm with the trigger finger not completely outside the trigger guard, and around 4% are due to a sh***y trigger job or a worn trigger and sear. So are accidental discharges really that rampant during the drills?

When the weapon is cocked most of the springs within the weapon are subject to tension. During the unload drill on most gas operated rifles the tension within those springs must be released. This involves using the trigger, if the weapon is empty then the gas system will not operate and the springs will not be reset to tension (hence in order to be used again the weapon will have to be cocked). If there is a round in the weapon it will fire during this drill.

ND's are not rampant during drills. They happen rather rarely (though I have seen two in one week in a single platoon, they were only using blanks though), however when you are around your weapon all day, every day, the amount of times you go through the drills is incredible. You only have to mess it up once. I remember one day I must have done it at least 20 times, since you have to unload when entering buildings.

On most modern firearms, it is nearly impossible to cause the gun to discharge without the trigger being intentionally pulled, automatic firing pin locks and other active and passive safety mechanisms see to that.
Some older firearms had a few situations in which they could go off without the trigger being touched, but that was usually contingent upon a very specific sequence of events. For example, many bolt action rifles can fire if dropped with a round chambered and the safety off, the impact can jar the sear in such a way that it releases the firing pin, which was put under spring tension when the bolt was cycled. Some older pistols with a light sliding trigger could fire if dropped straight down, due to inertia causing the trigger to literally "pull" itself when the gun hits the ground. There are a few others, but causing a gun to fire without touching the trigger almost universally requires dropping the gun, which is highly unlikely in a CCW situation given the laws on gun handling in public.

Since it involves pulling the trigger, then it can still be traced back to not following the golden rules of safety. This doesn't justify making concealed carry illegal to me. Plus I oppose an overprotective society on mere principle. I just don't believe in speed bumps around every corner and find the idea of gated communities ridiculous.

A good deal of your logic for general gun ownership is directly focused on the habits of a very careful and well trained owner which i concede you might well be. But the catastrophes that occur with a regularity that destroys many lives per year are contingent on the general behavior of gun owners who are not only not well trained in the care and use and storage of firearms but average out to being frequently incompetent in personal attention to their general awareness through drugs and alcohol and, as in the recent case in Arizona, mentally unstable. The frequently stated slogan that people kill people must be taken into account in these instances which are so common as to be the crux of the problem. The qualifications for promoting the ease of fatalities y firearms are so minimal as to be ludicrous. Surely you, as a careful gun owner must be aware that you too are under continuous threat by these incompetent owners.

It doesn't take a super attentive person to handle firearms responsibly. It's common sense for the most part. You just have to follow a few rules and be knowledgeable about how your firearm works.

That's a dangerous assumption that anti-gun people have. That you have to have an insane sense of awareness just to handle firearms safely.

But which is more dangerous? To assume that all gun owners are as careful as you are or to have positive evidence through imperative training that to own a gun you have to prove your competence and be certified?

I don't really get how the two options you present are supposed to contradict each other. I'm in favour of having people go through firearms training and being educated on firearm safety before owning a gun. And I didn't assume ALL gun owners responsibly handle em, but that the vast majority do and the few that don't doesn't justify denying everyone else the right to own firearms or carry em concealed.

0.8% of deaths are caused by negligent discharges. I know for a fact not everyone gets hit or die in the event that they do get hit. But the fact that it is so statistically low proves that the vast majority of firearm owners aren't prone to negligent discharges.

I got the impression he was more thinking about the kind of people who set fire to microwaves or flood their bathrooms and all other manner of day-to-day incompetence. It may take a small amount of common sense to safely own/operate a gun, but there are plenty of people who lack even that level of common sense, Besides which, one can be insanely careful when dealing with your own person, but dangerously irresponsible about other peoples. "Good" drivers and pedestrians springs to mind as an example where someone can be careful of themselves and ignorant of others.

I support the idea of an armed population if it is armed in order to protect itself from an outside force. Israel would be a good example of this (it is also one of the few exceptions to my near universal opposition to conscription). However it seems to me quite silly to arm a population for the primary means of defending itself against its own nature. A population that feels the need to protect itself from its neighbor and justifies it through a mistrust of government seems to me to be akin to an armed 'bunker state'. Which is no more preferable to a nanny state. A people who need firearms and not just bolt actions but military-level firearms to feel safe amongst its fellow man clearly does not view or understand social cohesion in the same manner as I do. I prefer a country that draws the line somewhere and states that the risk from crime is just something that one has to live with (its interesting how states that do this tend to have lower crime rates). In a world without guns you risk a fight over a parking ticket and not a gun fight over a parking ticket. If someone quarrels with you in the street you have a fair chance of knowing that he/she does not have a gun (how do you think that this changes your reaction?) Otherwise you will quite inevitably it seems, undermine your own civilization. If you need a gun to enforce the social contract, you do not have a social contract.

Ps. Your cavalier attitude towards gun safety is quite worrying.

Last edited by 91 on 12 Jan 2011, 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, the second amendment is to protect against the federal and possibly the state governments not your neighbors. Only a fool would use a gun as you describe and he/she wouldn't remain a free fool for long.

Ostensibly yes, but in reality no. I know very few people who purchased a weapon to protect themselves from Queen Elizabeth. Most people I know purchased their handguns and semiautomatic rifles for the purposes of self-defense. I grew up with firearms, in the country. We had weapons (nothing semi automatic) for putting down livestock, protecting ourselves from snakes and hunting. I would never consider owning one now that I live in a city,

Well its still self defense which is the purpose of the 2nd amendment, what would you have the constitution enforced by? This seems the best way to me.

Actually the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was the creation of a national militia (mostly for the purposes of the security of the state, see the text). I would prefer a society based on a Social contract built on the rule of law (see my previous statement).