unintended consequences? firearm edition

[HYHYBT]

I wasn't aware I was required to be an english major to post

I very obviously never said or implied you had to be one either, so why do you pretend otherwise?

Hint when you start arguing semantics, and proper word usage(as opposed to common usage), it's usually because you don't have an argument. Want to nitpick some typos too?

Not even remotely the same thing as pointing out a typo. Nor is it "opposed to common usage." You are insisting the word carries an implication which, in common usage, it usually doesn't. Only sometimes is it there. And you went out of your way, not just to avoid the word, but to point out that it means something it doesn't. Why?

Citing common usage and understanding of the word, not standard "oxford dictionary definition", as far as I'm aware stating common usage, rather than using a word to mean something it doesn't, is not "abuse of language".

First, dictionaries *follow* usage. Second, I only looked it up *because* my experience of that word has been that the shade of meaning that includes that implication is rarer than the one without it; sure enough, the dictionary essentially confirmed that by listing the version you're using second.

Minimum level of readiness means UNLOADED

Either this is a gross misdefinition of "minimum level of readiness," or that rule is only to be applied at certain times, or your definition of "negligence" is completely outside the realm of reason. An unloaded gun is useless. You cannot carry it around unloaded and expect it to do any good at all. Yet, according to your bizarre setup here, loading is negligent. Of COURSE if you define negligence that way, every unintentional shooting is negligent. But that's not even on the same planet as what "negligent" means in the "common usage" you insist on.

[draco664]

In the US, at least, toy guns HAVE to be either brightly colored plastic OR if they are black have colored tips to keep them from being mistaken for guns by people with real guns . . . like law enforcement.

Some cops can't tell the difference between a chair leg and a shotgun, a bible and a handgun, or a blind person's cane and a sword. If a cop is paranoid and thinks he's in danger, putting a tiny orange plastic nib on the barrel isn't going to do shit.

[AccountingDrone]

Some cops can't tell the difference between a chair leg and a shotgun, a bible and a handgun, or a blind person's cane and a sword. If a cop is paranoid and thinks he's in danger, putting a tiny orange plastic nib on the barrel isn't going to do shit.

*cough*functional Hello Kitty AK *cough* All it takes IRL is a bit of paint and decals.

[HYHYBT]

The thing is, depending on distance, position, lighting, etc. it can be perfectly reasonsble to mistake any of those things for guns.

[Andara Bledin]

I really don't think the Bible is really fair, considering that the man was holding it up over his head for use as a bludgeoning weapon.

However, also considering that the guy was actively attacking the officers in question and was decidedly trying to bludgeon somebody, the fact that it was "only a bible" is a little on the quibbling side.

[draco664]

The thing is, depending on distance, position, lighting, etc. it can be perfectly reasonsble to mistake any of those things for guns.

The thing is, that if someone doesn't confirm what the hell it is before opening fire, then I sure as hell don't want them being a cop.

For crying out loud, the guy in my last example was a blind retiree who walks at a snails pace. Any cop who feels endangered in that situation and mistakes such a guy's white cane for a sword and decides that opening with a taser shot to the back is a good move cannot be trusted with anything more dangerous than a nerf bat.

[Andara Bledin]

The one with the cane was definitely deplorable. I remember when that hit the news. That officer deserves to get sat at a desk for the rest of his career.

For the others, it's easy to say what they should have done while outside the situation at hand. To condemn them all without proper reflection is just as reactionary as the actions being condemned.

[s_stabeler]

The thing is, that if someone doesn't confirm what the hell it is before opening fire, then I sure as hell don't want them being a cop.

For crying out loud, the guy in my last example was a blind retiree who walks at a snails pace. Any cop who feels endangered in that situation and mistakes such a guy's white cane for a sword and decides that opening with a taser shot to the back is a good move cannot be trusted with anything more dangerous than a nerf bat.

um, yes and no. It DOES occur that there isn't time to check the suspected weapon is actually a weapon. To give a counter example, if the suspected weapon is pointed at somebody, with the weilder starting to use the weapon ( hand on trigger/swinging sword/you get the idea) then the police will damn well use lethal force.

on the other hand, the retiree? the police crewed up.

[BlaqueKatt]

Either this is a gross misdefinition of "minimum level of readiness," or that rule is only to be applied at certain times, or your definition of "negligence" is completely outside the realm of reason. An unloaded gun is useless. You cannot carry it around unloaded and expect it to do any good at all. Yet, according to your bizarre setup here, loading is negligent. Of COURSE if you define negligence that way, every unintentional shooting is negligent. But that's not even on the same planet as what "negligent" means in the "common usage" you insist on.

why is it when links are provided to give more in depth information, and definitions no one ever reads them and then argues something that is explained in the link, letting the person that posted the link KNOW you didn't bother reading before spouting off.

[Gravekeeper]

Since clicking a link seems rather hard here:

(5) Keep your gun at the minimum level of readiness.

This usually means keeping your gun unloaded when you're not using it. Obviously, if you expect trouble at any moment, your gun should be loaded and ready. On the other hand, you shouldn't leave a loaded gun around the house if it isn't for self defense.

If you're at the shooting range, keep the action open until just before you start shooting so other shooters can clearly see that your gun is safe.

If you're out hunting, keep the gun unloaded until you get to the hunting area. Keep the firing chamber empty until you need to load it, and the action open until you're ready to shoot. (Obviously, for some types of game, the gun has to be ready at all times).

>.>

[HYHYBT]

Obviously, there is a gap between what you "KNOW" and the truth. My posts have repeatedly and unambiguously stated that they were based on taking the rules literally and absolutely and NOT about the common-sense reading of them. How does that leave rational room to claim I don't understand rhe intent or haven't read the particular explanation of that which you posted? Especially when the point is that ONLY the absolute reading you agree with me to be incorrect is the ONLY WAY to claim that following the rules makes non-negligent unintentional shootings impossible? Argue against THAT if you like, but please have the decency to stop claiming I'm saying things I haven't and basing them on ignorance I don't possess and on not reading what I have.

[bara]

I like the idea of background checks that take mental health and past crimes into consideration. If someone has a violent history, or has a mental issue that includes anger, or depression then yeah. That person shouldn't have a gun.

The kid who robbed a liquor store with a knife shouldn't be able to own a gun, by extension I would say that it would probably be in everyone's best interest if no one he lived with owned a firearm.

People like to cry that guns don't kill people. This is true, which is why no one is saying 'hey lets do a background check on the guns!'. But some guns are far more lethal than others in terms of fire rates, ranges, round penetration, and I really don't see why someone out hunting would need a 30 round magazine with armor piercing bullets. Well... unless there is a bear out there that is armed cause someone got the 'right to bear arms' a little wrong.

[KitterCat]

Dunno - over here we sometimes like to let children be children

Some times when dealing with guns and children parents choose to teach there kids about proper safety measures when dealing with fire arms. There are many ways to do this. One is to actually teach your child by hands on contact. This is more time consuming, but very enjoyable for both the parent and the child. It also from my own experience gets the best results. Your kid gets to see and feel what its like to actually fire a weapon*. They learn through strict supervision what is allowed on a firing range and how to handle the weapon with out harming themselves or others. In my husbands family we have also made very firm under what circumstances they are even allowed to touch their rifles. Most of the time there under lock and key in a gun cabinet. Much like any sport many rules have to be followed in order for the sport to be safe.

From personal experience dealing with this specific brand, I’m actually trying to figure out what you mean by calling it toy like? It’s a miniature .22 rifle sized to a child’s hands. Miniature rifles have been around for a while. They need to be miniature in order for the child to properly handle them. Do you mean the pink ones? The pink ones are for the girls. And you can find plenty of pink adult rifles/handguns for lady’s. Please be aware that this is meant for adults to purchase. In fact only an adult can purchase it. So its not like the kids in the photos went up to a Wal-Mart and pulled it off the toy shelves to go with their Nerf water gun.

Originally Posted by Andara Bledin 
That page you just linked isn't bad. The baby with the rifle is in poor taste, but there's almost nothing a baby could do with a gun that large that could hurt someone.

The earlier one, however, with the "Hold ma beer" girl, was terrible. And, yes, I'm fairly certain that was a 40 of beer.

If you look closely at the photo you notice the can is warped. As in shot and hit warped. You can actually make out at least 6 holes. That’s not a “hold mah beer look”, that’s a “heck yah I can shoot, just like mah Dad”look.

*Yes I will fully acknowledge that this is a weapons. They may be only .22 but while its small a .22 can still take a person down.

**http://www.shootingillustrated.com/i...just-for-kids/

[Andara Bledin]

If you look closely at the photo you notice the can is warped. As in shot and hit warped. You can actually make out at least 6 holes. That’s not a “hold mah beer look”, that’s a “heck yah I can shoot, just like mah Dad”look.

That doesn't really make it any better.

Beer and firearms are not two things that should really go together. Ever.

[HYHYBT]

Using beer cans for target practice doesn't really qualify as putting beer and firearms together unless you emptied the one immediately before doing the other.