Shooting accidents


PDA






brigadier
May 9, 2012, 07:23 AM
I'm doing this thread partially by suggestion but also for the obvious awareness reason.

I had mentioned earlier that I'm doing a documentary about shooting accidents and am currently in the research phase. I Do think this was misread as an indication of per-conception where in fact the (currently on hold) research still to be done is stuff surrounding a solution to the problem and tying up a few loose ends.

The second misconception, which seams to happen more often then not is forum members putting words in my mouth that claim the exact opposite of my actual statements. In this particular case, claiming that I think the Glock is a bad gun because I dislike the trigger and find the take-down to be an invitation for shooting accidents (which we'll get in to a little later) even though I went out of my way to say it's a good gun despite these issues, one of which should be obvious to everyone is a matter of personal preference.

Anyway, that's really just the debate that brought up the thinking of this thread and IS NOT the topic.

The real topic I want to cover is shooting accidents.

TBH, my shooting accident documentary is on hold, awaiting the starting of a whole series about proving people we were taught to believe were heroes were bad guys, vice versa, which I am sure some of you would much rather me finish first (since one is set on proving Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant) but in an episode I have planned about hollow points, I will be doing most of the closing video stuff, so both will probably come out around the same time.

The description of the documentary about shooting accidents SOUNDS like it may be politically motivated but in reality, it's purpose is very pure and straightforward. It's strictly about education for the purpose of prevention of shooting accidents. Nothing more or less.

As this is still months away and some people have called me on the matter, I'll give you this thread as a look in to what this is all about.

First, I DO want to stress that the rate of shooting accidents in the USA is going down and has been for decades. Gun safety is getting better, not worse both in firearm design as well as user responsibility.

None the less, an old saying that often holds true is that there are only those who have had accidental discharges and those who will.

While FATAL shooting accidents tend to be mostly limited to drug addicts, drunks and generally impulsive types, we DO see a huge portion of NON FATAL accidents being caused by shooting hobbyists. Exactly how many is hard to determine since, by their very nature, non-fatal shooting accidents, especially those that do not result in serious injury tend to go unreported. But there have been private and independent surveys done over the years and in every case I have studied, the results were very consistent that the rate of accidental discharges among gun hobbyists in particular is extremely high.

There is on very good thing here though. Most of the cases reviewed involve individual testimony by the person who had the accident themselves. This is typically because their accident involved observation of at least SOME of the rules of gun safety which resulted in little or no harm and therefor no reason for the case to be reported prior to the survey or interview.

One good example is one I witnessed in person. It involved a .50AE Desert Eagle. The gun owner at the time broke all of the rules of gun safety except 1. He had the gun pointed in a safe direction. Because of this, no one was injured and there was no reason to report it. In fact, I am talking about it now for the first time almost exactly a decade after it happened.

One of the problems is that not everyone is so lucky. What really peaked my interest in this matter (as well as the issue regarding the Glock) was when a friend of mine, a 30 year gun enthusiast and one of the most knowledgeable people I know when it comes to firearms shot himself while cleaning his gun.

That is not to say that I blamed his gun. Rather, that it occurred to me that this is not the first time a veteran gun hobbyist or professional user had shot themselves in a shooting accident. It then occurred to me that most of the non-fatal shooting accidents that resulted in injury that I know of were caused by people who are genuinely responsible gun owners who have had gun safety drilled in to them.

So the question became, what is it that causes people who know better to have a bad moment and discharge their firearm accidentally? The reason I took interest in this is because the evidence suggested there's a flaw in gun safety education that is going completely unnoticed and maybe even ignored, though in this case, I think it's mostly just an unnoticed problem.

This is really a left brain VS right brain thing. Left brain attitude is, "Follow the rules of gun safety and you'll be fine." It should be obvious but the problem here is that human beings are not robots. No one is perfect, we all make mistakes and get caught off guard. Declaring that simply knowing the rules of gun safety and making a vigilant effort to follow them is the final answer to the problem with gun safety is an invitation for trouble.

So, where does that leave us? Well, we must then examine what leads us to those moments of imperfection when we're caught off guard and study what happens in the mind of the shooter leading up to a shooting accident.

While I was unfortunately limited mostly to the study of body language, expressions and circumstances in shooting accidents by experts and professionals caught on tape (that DEA agent shooting himself in the foot during a gun safety class for instance), I WAS able to get some first hand accounts from individuals who had shooting accidents. The accounts matched up perfectly with the indications in almost every piece of video footage I examined.

It comes down to the way the conscious and subconscious mind work and most importantly, the relationship between the two. While many people, particularly religious folks like to deny this sort of thing exists, scam artiest and pick pockets depend on this mind limitation. For instance, pick pockets often catch their victim when they are giving their full attention to a person or subject matter and handling commotion at the same time. While dealing with these factors, soft bumps and nudges are often dealt with by the subconscious. As result, you may FEEL the pick pocket going for your belongings, but your conscious mind makes no notice of it.

In a show of his own, the British celebrity Derren Brown demonstrated an even more extreme manipulation of the subconscious and criminal usage of it by asking people for directions on the street with very confusing talk and gestures and then very casually asking for their wallets, which the victims unknowingly handed over.

The problem is that the mind can only handle a few separate tasks consciously. Once the conscious mind has reached it's limit, other active tasks are transferred to the subconscious. These tend to be causal tasks that are ingrained in muscle memory that take little brain power to accomplish. But perhaps the most scary thing about this transition is that, by the very nature of subconscious it's self, always happens without the individual even being aware that of it.

Shooting accidents often happen to gun people when they're very nervous or involved in deep conversation or conversation with multiple people, all of which are tasks that can quickly fill up your conscious mind and leave your subconscious dealing with gun safety without you even knowing it.

One of the most common things I have seen or heard testimony to, which is also my concern with the Glock is the accident resulting from the individual following all the correct safety protocols out of sequence.

The Glock actually has my favorite take-down system. I love the simplicity and reliability. The reason I have issues with it in the Glock is because it's a great take-down system for hammer fire guns. Striker fire guns however require the pulling of the trigger to disengage it. In terms of sheer mechanics, there's nothing particularly wrong with it. Clear the weapon and then follow procedure. The issue is that, because disassembling the gun requires the trigger to be pulled one way or another, following proper safety and disassemble protocol OUT OF SEQUENCE with the Glock or similar actions can have dire consequences as where with guns such as the Beretta, the risk is still there but; without needing to pull the trigger at any point during take-down, is reduced and able to handle SOME (not all) mistakes without going off accidentally.

This is NOT to say that the Glock is necessarily at fault or that the Glock is a highly accident prone gun (though I would say that in some ways, it's more vulnerable then other guns) or that linking the take-down to a decocking mechanism is somehow going to fix the overall problem.

As everyone here should and probably does know, gun safety is the soul responsibility of the shooter. I personally view the mechanical safeties in guns as last hopes when the shooter fails.

TBH, I have yet to come up with any text book solution to the problem, other then simply making people aware of this potential danger. Simply being aware can help one avoid these issues.

Now that I have become aware of it, I have made an effort to halt social activity at all times when clearing a weapon. My experience is that responsible gun owners respect you if you ask for a moment of peace and quiet so you can give soul attention to clearing and making safe your firearm, and when around people who know little about guns, they tend to show the same respect out of caution. Is this an end-all answer to the problem? Absolutely not. I can only say that awareness of the danger and practicing such policy has made me feel allot safer and more confident against being caught off-guard.

Sometimes the safest road to drive down is the most dangerously paved. Keeping your guard up at all times, complimented by awareness of the potential dangers of lowering it can save you allot of hardship and tragedy.

That said, the matter is still being researched.

Be safe.

If you enjoyed reading about "Shooting accidents" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Loosedhorse
May 9, 2012, 08:59 AM
You seems to chiefly mean "NDs" when you say shooting accidents; but perhaps you also mean gross hunting mistakes (like shooting at a sound or movement instead of an identified animal)--what I usually think of when I hear "shooting accident."

As you probably suspect, I worry that your documentary will chiefly be known for the use that propagandists will make of it in trying to "prove" that guns and gun-owners are unsafe.

I also disgree with your take on Glocks. Unloading any semi-auto "out of sequence" will result in a weapon that isn't cleared. Therefore, any pull of the trigger on an "empty" gun could result in an ND. Pulling the trigger on an "empty" gun is not done only on Glocks, to field strip them, but to all guns for dry-fire or just to "drop the hammer" after the gun has (supposedly) been cleared. And of course, Glocks now have a "loaded chamber indicator," so that NDs while stripping the pistol are even less "understandable" than they used to be.

I don't think we have any statistics saying that there are more NDs "per user" with Glocks than with other semi-autos--there are, however, an awful lot of hobbyists--and perhaps especially, inexperienced hobbyists--who are using Glocks.While FATAL shooting accidents tend to be mostly limited to drug addicts, drunks and generally impulsive types, we DO see a huge portion of NON FATAL accidents being caused by shooting hobbyists.The most common ND is one that injures no one. For a host of reasons, you may want to concentrate your attentions there.

NDs of any stripe have to do with putting your finger on the trigger when it doesn't belong there, and/or failing to confirm that the gun is in fact unloaded before pulling the trigger for a non-firing reason.

In NDs that injure someone, Rule 2 has also been violated. I agree with your idea that NDs often have something to do with the failure to be completely focused on handling your gun when you do so; but they also speak to our failure to have drilled ourselves in such redundant safety procedures (like re-checking the chamber everytime you pick up an "unloaded" gun, even if you just set it down unloaded a minute ago) so thoroughly that they are done every time, even without conscious thought.

goalie
May 9, 2012, 09:03 AM
Accidents involving guns are very, very rare.

Negligent discharges are a different story.

1911Tuner
May 9, 2012, 09:19 AM
The occurrences of experienced gun owners having negligent discharges resulting in accidental shootings...both themselves and others...aren't all that rare. I think that it happens precisely because they have so much experience, and they become complacent and nonchalant with their gun handling. Very much like the old adage concerning motorcycles. "When you reach the point that you're not afraid of (a motorcycle) it's probably time to sell it."

I try to maintain that fear...or respect may be a better term...any time that I pick up a gun, and doubly so whenever I know or even suspect that it may be loaded...and unless I've personally inspected the chamber, I always suspect a loaded gun.

I believe that another part of the problem lies in loading a round into the chamber almost in robotic fashion...and actually forgetting it that the sequence was accomplished...and then continuing to handle the gun as though it was never loaded.

A perfect example comes to mind with a friend who makes a habit of walking around his home with an empty revolver, picking targets of opportunity, and dry-firing. One morning when we had a range date, I was to pick him up and head out for a nice day of burning powder and impromptu shooting matches...and he was warming up by drawing and "firing" at his wife's candlesticks that sat on the fireplace mantle.

When I came in, he loaded his revolver and put it in the holster...made a quick trip to the head...walked into the kitchen, and executed a last draw/fire sequence at a piece of refrigerator art...and killed his spankin' new Frigidaire. The silence was truly deafening.

He broke a rule, pure and simple. He wasn't treating the empty gun as though it were loaded, and forgot that he'd loaded it. At that suspended moment, he came to understand why I never dry-fire except at the range. Ever.

Skribs
May 9, 2012, 01:17 PM
I have a similar philosophy with the Glock take-down system. It is why I went with an XDm over a Glock. Some people say it's a trivial difference, but I think its a safety thing.

Is this specifically for gun owners, or is it for non-gun-owners as well? Because I'd also like to know the number of NDs from people who want to touch a firearm as little as possible, and try to use the trigger guard as a hook for a finger or pen.

brigadier
May 9, 2012, 02:48 PM
If you're asking about the documentary, it's geared specifically towards addressing the limitations of the human mind, the resulting vulnerability to shooting accidents (including negligent discharges) and possible solutions. Addressing the fact that these accidents are often caused by veteran firearm hobbyists and professionals is (at least according to current plans) for the soul purpose of showing that no one is exempt from these dangers and that all of us, rookies and vets alike are at risk of an accident if we're not consciously dealing with it.

Basically, the documentary is specifically about a danger in gun safety that doesn't seam to be getting addressed.

Regarding the Glock, apart from preventing discharge when dropped, gun safety mechanics exist for the soul purpose of reducing the probability of accidents as result of user error.

I often tell people that the best mouse trap in the world is useless if not placed in areas where mice are likely to encounter it.

Likewise, the most mechanically sound gun safety in the world is of little use if it doesn't catch the mistakes people actually make.

I have a hard time understanding the logic behind a gun that has a mechanism that prevents you from pulling the trigger unless you pull the trigger but doesn't safely decock the striker during take-down. Seams like a classic example of going out of your way to fix a problem that doesn't exist while leaving you vulnerable where people actually mess up.

That all said, last year I talked someone in to buying a Glock. It's a good gun and I respect it, but I am also no fan worshiper of the Glock or any other gun. It has it's flaws.

Manson
May 9, 2012, 02:49 PM
If I remember correctly what you said was there were more ND's with Glocks because of the take down design. You implied that that human mind being unable to think about more than two things at once was unable to safely take down a Glock. You indicated you were yet to gather data.

What that means in you already drew conclusions and than you would gather stats to support it.

I believe it is possible given what I have read so far that your documentary is anti gun. If you for example were able to televise a documentary which addressed ND's for an hour how does that help the gun community? Will showing self inflicted gun wounds and talking about deaths from ND"S help our position?

CountryUgly
May 9, 2012, 02:56 PM
I've seen 2 ND's and zero accidents in the couple dozen years I've been shooting. Both ND's were by non-shooters. One a guy was wanting to see how his friends revolver felt in his hand since he had never held one so his buddy opened the cylinder tapped the ejector rod dumping the rounds on the kitchen table. The other guy pointed the gun at the wall and proceeded to pull the trigger. Before I could tell him to stop...Bang...4 rounds dropped when it was unloaded not 5. Thankfully no one was hurt but that .38spl made it past 3 different walls before stopping in the brick exterior. The other ND was at the range. A guy there was trying to get his girlfried to shoot. She was having none of it because she was the guns are dangerous type. He had a Glock lying on the table and was encourging her to pick it up. She eventully complied and used something from her purse to pick it up by the trigger guard. While dangling from what ever it was she was holding it with it "went off". she then proceeded to tell everyone that would listen to her yell that the gun going off by it's self just then was her proof to the world that guns were dangerous. She was quickly corrected on what was really the danger on the range at that time and her and her boyfriend were booted.

Skribs
May 9, 2012, 02:56 PM
His purpose is to give us warning against NDs. It is educational, not political.

ETA: Country, I think we have finally figured out why the XD line has a grip safety. That prevents the "ew, guns" nimrods from sticking a rod into the trigger guard and having a ND.

brigadier
May 9, 2012, 03:11 PM
Manson, I just finished saying that the info I am still gathering regarding the documentary is based on tying up a few loose ends (making contacts and stuff like that) and working out possible solutions.

And I never said that Glocks are the prime cause of this, just that their action is very incompatible with the limitations of the human mind. I think I also specified that the TYPE of action is the issue as some of the accidents reviewed had the same type of action and take-down as the Glock and had the same type of accidents as see with Glocks but were not themselves Glock handguns. I also never said 2 things at once. Most of the info I've been able to come up with suggest 3 to 5 tasks is the average. I think my actual words were, "a few" not "a couple". Even in your short post, much of your claims are placing words in my mouth I never said.

As far as anti-gun, if you can't look at anything without thinking of political implications, present or not, that's your problem. American culture largely appreciates gun rights right now. Documentaries like this demonstrate that the gun community is responsibly looking after it's self and making an effort to be as safe as possible. Covering it up to avoid political attacks is what will hurt us in the long run.

Based on your comment, I suspect that like many critical points, you missed the part about the fact that shooting accidents resulting in serious injury or death are in a decline and have been for decades. Don't think for a minute that won't get any coverage.

Manson
May 9, 2012, 03:25 PM
You may have said that humans can not handle three or twenty seven things at once. You still implied for whatever reason Glock was unsafe by design. I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth. A simple look at your posts are proof enough you need no help there.

I simply don't see any pro gun reason for a documentary on ND's. And what I suspect is, that no matter what your intention the type of material you are gathering can easily be used as anti gun.

Your statement about the Glocks unsafe design is an example of that. No matter what your point is I could easily use this as anti gun fodder. You may not think it political but that may be naive.

Loosedhorse
May 9, 2012, 03:49 PM
Likewise, the most mechanically sound gun safety in the world is of little use if it doesn't catch the mistakes people actually make.
I guess I have to agree with Manson on this. This idea of yours that guns can be made safe by design--by catching "the mistakes people actually make"--is, IMHO, just silliness. The mistake is pulling the trigger with the chamber loaded if you don't want it to fire. That's not the gun's fault, and not the designer's fault.

I've seen this before with all manner of things: magazine-disconnect versus not, Series 70 Colts vs Series 80, external safety vs decocker only, and--most famously--SA vs DA semiautos. If it helps, I've witnessed two NDs: one with a Glock, one with a 1911. Any guess which two semi-autos are the most popular in my area? So, it may be that both of those guns are "unsafe"--or it may be that both of those guns are used by a lot of people.

I understand that you may not think you're Glock-bashing, but one of the things about writing a post--or, most importantly, filming a documentary--is that it doesn't just matter "what you meant to say"; it also matters how you are reasonably percieved. I perceive you as Glock-bashing (how "reasonable" that perception is up to others, too, not just you and me).I suspect that like many critical points, you missed the part...Attacking someone who disagrees with you? Why am I beginning to believe, more and more, that Manson has a solid point. I don't think he missed that point (and neither did I), but I for one doubt your "disclaimer" about declining accident rates is what one will remember about your film--especially if you show images of injuries that resulted from negligence.

Again, it doesn't really matter if you don't mean your piece to be "anti-gun"--if it turns out that most gun-owners and gun-haters later agree that that's what it looks like...then that's what it is.

(You have a choice now: consider seriously the concerns that Manson and I have mentioned, or shout me down, too, as having "missed many critical points.")

brigadier
May 9, 2012, 03:54 PM
The very existence of the AR-15 is anti-gun fodder. The gun grabbers will grab on to anything out there and attempt to twist it to their own ends. You can't live your whole life worrying about it. What's important is that you do the right thing.

Even so, presentation, as much as I hate to admit it, is an issue with people. It's allot easier to get someone one on one to overcome "how it sounds" as opposed to "what's actually being said/done".

Fortunately, what I lack in spare of the moment speech I make up for in the long and painstaking art of word crafting and video editing. I think even you, after actually watching the program (which I will be publishing free on youtube) will recognize it as a program that is very favorable to gun rights and the standing responsibility of gun owners.

Loosedhorse
May 9, 2012, 03:59 PM
I think even you, after actually watching the program (which I will be publishing free on youtube) will recognize it as a program that is very favorable to gun rights and the standing responsibility of gun owners. I have no reason to doubt that. As I said, I was only voicing my (I think reasonable) concerns, with the hope that they might serve as a "Caution" sign on a stretch of road that might be real tricky.

Best of luck.

brigadier
May 9, 2012, 04:06 PM
The mistake is pulling the trigger with the chamber loaded if you don't want it to fire. That's not the gun's fault, and not the designer's fault.

I've made that point twice in this thread.

We're not going to argue about this all day. The bottom line is my program is built on tested and proven factors and geared towards presenting things in a way to portray them to the viewer as they really are and WITHOUT the influence of fan worship or frenzied hate.

There are allot of people who've agreed to help and participate in the project, and many of them already have. Every single person who has chosen to contribute to the project so far is a gun owner and strong supporter of gun rights.

Likewise, I have every reason to believe that the vast majority of gun hobbyists and professionals who see it will appreciate and respect it for what it is. But is is certainly not favorable to some biased people. If you end up not liking it, all I can say is tough beans. You can't always get what you want.

I don't have all day to argue with you about this and I certainly can't be dumping all the months of study in to this one thread right now, and even if I did, I'm sure you would still come up with some reason to fight with me about it.

Manson
May 9, 2012, 04:12 PM
I agree with your last point. The existence of Ar's is anti gun fodder. Those darn assault weapons. And I'm not attempting to color you in any way as anti gun. I can sum up my point very simply. As a member of the gun community we all have a duty to be careful. Your words (as you have seen) about a gun design, the limitations of the human mind and ND's can very easily be distorted. If I were a true anti 2A person I could pick apart everything you have said thus far and use it to prove the dangers of gun ownership.

I recently read an alarming statistic that so called self defense deaths have tripled. This is designed to alarm. Now the gun community reads this and thinks. "OK three times the bad guys have died". Do you think Anti's or folks on the fence think this.

ETA I've annoyed you long enough. I will not add to this thread as I feel it may be unfair to the OP. I had one important point I thought needed to be made and I've done that.

ARIZONA ROSE
May 9, 2012, 04:23 PM
Hi All,
Reading this blog is just one more reason I am very uncomfortable about autos. I have a 22 high standard that the slide is so quick an ND is easy to happen when it is being unloaded, the one in the "Chamber" I have asked my hubby not to keep it loaded at all at home til I can have it looked over by a gun smith. I don't think all firearm accidents are the person's fault sometimes it's mechanical. I just don't hear much about people shooting themselves or someone else due to mechanical issues with a wheel gun.Yes I know you all like your autos and I need to get proficient with one.An accident with a wheel gun, I would deem probably an ND caused by someone again too complacent in handling their firearms, or just don't have a clue how to handle one. Forgive me if I am wrong but I think that is why women have fewer accidents with firearms because we have no egos about them and are more fearful of doing something wrong that could hurt another person. I know there are guys out there too that are very careful and advocate a gun is always loaded. I agree completely. I will let you all know after an assessment by our local gun smith. If there is nothing wrong with it I will also let you know, I am more inclined to believe it has mechanical issues but it could also be me.
Thanks,
Arizona Rose

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
________________________________________

Loosedhorse
May 9, 2012, 04:32 PM
to portray them to the viewer as they really areSo--you believe that you hold the franchise on seeing things "as they really are?" Anyone who sees things differently is seeing things as they really are not?

Well, I guess that might just be "artistic arrogance."certainly not favorable to some biased people. If you end up not liking it, all I can say is tough beansThat's pretty defensive of you. You seem to have already decided that I won't like your program, and if so, that's only because I'm biased, so "tough beans" to me.

Is your program so bad that it needs this level of hostility to prop it up? Not sure how many artists show similar contempt toward their (supposed) target audience.

Hey, I can't yet decide whether or not I like your youtube, because I haven't seen it. But I'm beginning to get a clear idea of your "communication" style--and perhaps therefore of you. Clear enough to see I can be of no help to you.

So, as I said, good luck.

1911Tuner
May 9, 2012, 04:34 PM
I don't think all firearm accidents are the person's fault sometimes it's mechanical.

Sometimes it is mechanical...but it's an extremely small percentage compared to the operator-induced NDs.

I've had several 1911s brought to me to find out what caused an unintentional discharge. After careful examination, followed by test-firing...all but one checked out fine, and the one that didn't passed all checks after I tore it down and cleaned the lint out of the lockwork that was interfering with free sear movement.

I'm not familiar with the HS pistol that's earned your concern, but a detail strip and a good cleaning may clear things up.

Teachu2
May 9, 2012, 05:28 PM
Fortunately, what I lack in spare of the moment speech I make up for in the long and painstaking art of word crafting and video editing.

I believe that you meant spur of the moment....

per-conception preconception

which seams to happen more often then not which seems to happen more often than not

[scam artiest/QUOTE] either scam artist or scam atheist

[QUOTE]pick pockets pickpockets

text book solution textbook solution

allot a lot

the Glock is a highly accident prone gun (though I would say that in some ways, it's more vulnerable then other guns) accident-prone ... more vulnerable than

There are more, but these provide far more evidence to discredit your editing skills than you have provided about accidental shootings and negligent discharges.

If you want to be respected as a writer, editor, or publisher, everything you publish must be as professional as you can make it. Your writings here do not represent you as a professional.

As far as a documentary, I have yet to see you provide any evidence to support any of your claims. But there have been private and independent surveys done over the years and in every case I have studied, the results were very consistent that the rate of accidental discharges among gun hobbyists in particular is extremely high. How about backing this claim up with even ONE published study? Show us some data - I question if you are confusing rate with occurrences.

The more of your writing I read, the more I believe that you are very young, have grand ideas, and know just enough to be dangerous.
.

kb58
May 9, 2012, 10:36 PM
I simply don't see any pro gun reason for a documentary on ND's. And what I suspect is, that no matter what your intention the type of material you are gathering can easily be used as anti gun.
Agreed. The problem that we humans have is that we're all idiots to some degree. Part of that "degree" is how much we can admit that - and admitting that we screwed up and not the firearm. Making a show about people screwing up is theoretically a positive thing to learn from. But, since we're idiots, people who don't like what they see will "decide" that the product being used wrong is at fault - it can't be the user because "we" don't make mistakes like that. It's a no-win situation.

If you want an analogy that people can relate to, replace the word "firearm" with "car." Every accident (caused by us idiot drivers) is no different, so ban cars, right? They're unsafe, right? The analogy works just fine for any case you wish to pose. "Can" a pistol go off if it's dropped? Maybe. Can a car get in an accident if it rolls down a hill with no one behind the wheel? Maybe. So they're both dangerous, why not ban the car?, since a LOT more people die in car accidents. The odd thing is that you just get a blank stare from people when comparing the two, yet it's perfectly valid.

crossrhodes
May 9, 2012, 10:55 PM
You have much research to do my friend. You could do the same with drunk driving. I think the local paper police blotter will have more DUI's/DWI's and alcohol related incidence then it will about ND's. You should compare the percentage of ND's and firearms owners to the percentage of those that pilot a two thousand missile down the road when under the influence. I would like to see those numbers.:evil:

al123
May 10, 2012, 12:22 AM
brigadier wrote: The problem is that the mind can only handle a few separate tasks consciously. Once the conscious mind has reached it's limit, other active tasks are transferred to the subconscious. These tend to be causal tasks that are ingrained in muscle memory that take little brain power to accomplish. But perhaps the most scary thing about this transition is that, by the very nature of subconscious it's self, always happens without the individual even being aware that of it.

As previous mentioned, you can apply this to any activity. I suppose when you see drivers shaving, texting, applying eyeliner while handling the steering wheel with their knees, you don't need to be genius to guess that just maybe they've reached their limit.

IMO, one doesn't require a mountain of federally funded studies to show that bad things can happen while being distracted.

The most important item I have taken from this thread (and other recent ones) is DON'T LOSE RESPECT FOR YOUR FIREARM. This applies to handling that 3,000 lb vehicle or any other potentially dangerous activity.

This can come by way of treating your weapon casually, or allow yourself to be distracted. It could also be "messing" around with your firearm without any real purpose.

When you let your guard down, that's when you're asking for a swift kick in the a**.

jdooner
May 10, 2012, 12:40 AM
Were I devious and hostile, that is how I would write. But what do I know?

1911Tuner
May 10, 2012, 08:17 AM
It could also be "messing" around with your firearm without any real purpose.

Probably one of the more profound and accurate statements of the thread...and a point that I often make.

Guns don't fire themselves. They fire when people handle them... intentionally or not.

Load it, engage whatever manual safety is available or that you deem necessary...holster it...and don't touch it further until it's time to clear it or fire it.

Another line from a movie comes to mind. It's surprising the gun wisdom that surfaces from Tinsel Town sometimes...and from whom.

Sean Connery: The Untouchables.

"Did you check it already?"

"Yes."

"Then, leave it alone."

gym
May 10, 2012, 06:44 PM
Unless you are changing holsters or firing, or cleaning your gun, it should be safe in it's holster.Mine usually go from place to place in the holster, unless I change guns or holsters, there isn't really a reason to touch the gun. Kitchen knives and hammers can cause worse accidents than any firearm, it's the user that causes the problem not the inatimate object. A table saw will cut off your fingers if you aren't paying attention to what you are doing. Just walk into a machine shop and ask the guys missing fingers, how it happened. If you take your eyes off the road, you will crash, it is a very dangerous world for peiple who aren't paying attention.
To blame an object for harming the user is like a child yelling "he did it", the object alone can do nothing without the interaction of the person.
People make mistakes every day, they have all kinds of accidents, from slipping and falling and breaking a hip or leg, to cutting themselves with a piece of glass or a knife while cooking or washing the dinner dishes. You can't blame a lawnmower for cutting off someones toes who isn't paying attention.
The gun is the same thing, a good debater can use any object as a substitute for the "gun" and make a biased argument as to why lead pencils are dangerous and should be banned, after all you can lose an eye to one. There is no safety or holster for one and anyone can buy one. Now what was your point again.Cars, Cigarettes, Alcohoal, these all
Kill more people than any gun. I bet more agents died from car accidents than Glocks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Shooting accidents" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!