another child killed while dad is cleaning his gun

[engi-ninja]

"Nooooo, only different in your mind..."

-Yoda

 

[DoggyDaddy]

There seems to be a lot of "when stupid people demonstrate their stupidity with their guns it reflects badly on the rest of us" going on, and I think it's important to point out that this attitude is a symptom of the extraordinarily pervasive "guns are inherently bad" brainwashing that most of society suffers from. When people do stupid things that result in death using pretty much anything else, we do not have this reaction; we just say, "that guy is a dumbass." When idiot parents lock their kids in hot cars when it's 100 degrees out, we don't say "man, this is what gives car drivers with children a bad name." When people get drunk and kill people in a car crash we don't feel like it reflects poorly on the rest of the world's responsible imbibers of inebriatatory beverages.

Some people are stupid, and other people get hurt because of their stupidity; the inanimate object used to perpetrate said stupidity is irrelevant. People hurt and kill themselves and others all the time with things other than guns, so why is it that anytime it happens with guns, we suddenly get all defensive and feel like it's a bad reflection on the rest of us? I think it's because we've all been subtly affected by the "guns are bad and people who have them are evil" brainwashing, and we're constantly trying to prove to ourselves and everyone else that we're not evil, and when this sort of thing happens, undermines our self imaging.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, this guy is dumb, but he's no more dumb than anyone else who's child dies because his stupidity, and to make a big deal out of the fact that a gun was involved just gives implicit credence to the whole idea that guns are inherently dangerous.

I agree to a point, but part of it is that we know that the anti-gun people WILL use that logic against us and I think that's why we as a group (gun owners) tend to get defensive about it. It's not that we've been brainwashed, it's that we know they have. Just read the comments on any news story like this. You hear a lot of "Yep, there's another 'responsible' gun owner." (along with eye roll emojis) We know better, but people that are predisposed to hate guns don't.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

When people do stupid things that result in death using pretty much anything else, we do not have this reaction...

...because few other things are at the center of a culture war. That's not brainwashing, that's just accepting reality.

 

[LP1]

Thank you, you beat me to it. Rep inbound...
No wonder there's so much conflict in the gun world, we are our own worst enemy. It never fails that someone wants to find fault with a manufacturer in lieu of blaming the responsible party. I expect it from the Antis but it's very discouraging to hear that tripe on this forum.
Gaston Glock (in this particular case) was going on the assumption that any operator of a firearm would have basic knowledge of the weapon. If you aren't intelligent enough to clear a firearm before pulling the trigger then MAYBE you shouldn't have a firearm. Any of us can make a mistake so as a default the next logical thing to do is to make certain it's not pointed in an unsafe direction when you pull the trigger. Like Hatin since 87 said, I expect a boom when I pull the trigger and I would be very disappointed if this doesn't happen. If I'm not mistaken that's the basic concept of a firearm. To head down the rabbit hole of "you have to pull the trigger to disassemble" is just attempting to deflect responsibility in a direction other than where it belongs. It's a tragic and horrible mistake and I'll pray for the family but very simply, the blame lies 100% with the person that pulled the trigger. To suggest anything else insults the intelligence of responsible gun owners and gives the Antis "ammunition".
To use this tragedy as a forum for Glock hate or any negativity towards firearms seems very childish to me.

[FONT=&amp]NRA Life Member / [/FONT]Basic Pistol instructor[FONT=&amp] / RSO[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]"Under pressure, you don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training. That's why we train so hard" [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Unnamed Navy Seal[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]“Ego is the reason many men do not shoot competition. They don't want to suck in public” [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Aron Bright[/FONT]

Not suggesting that Glock should be held responsible for the requirement of pulling the trigger for disassembly. I own Glocks, and it's pretty simple to keep it from going boom. But it's still a poor design, and it has led to a lot of NDs.

 

[engi-ninja]

I agree to a point, but part of it is that we know that the anti-gun people WILL use that logic against us and I think that's why we as a group (gun owners) tend to get defensive about it. It's not that we've been brainwashed, it's that we know they have. Just read the comments on any news story like this. You hear a lot of "Yep, there's another 'responsible' gun owner." (along with eye roll emojis) We know better, but people that are predisposed to hate guns don't.

Yes, I understand that, but I think the reaction still undermines our position from a logical standpoint. When someone says "See, that guy shot his kid while cleaning his gun, that's why people shouldn't have guns," we tend to respond "yeah, but most people who have guns are safe and responsible....etc." The flaw here is that by mounting any counter argument at all, we're admitting that their initial premise is valid, which it's not; the fact that a gun was involved logically has nothing to do with the fact that it's the parent's stupidity that caused the child's death. It's impossible to argue effectively against an argument based on an invalid premise because you've already allowed the discussion to be removed from the realm of logic by the admission of the invalid premise; therefore, you cannot win. The proper response is to attack the invalid premise, which in this case is the idea that if guns didn't exist, stupid people wouldn't hurt their children, which is demonstrably false.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

. The proper response is to attack the invalid premise, which in this case is the idea that if guns didn't exist, stupid people wouldn't hurt their children, which is demonstrably false.

That's a strawman, period. Nobody on either side of the debate suggests nobody will hurt children if guns suddenly disappeared. It's more like the argument for mandatory back up cameras, which was successful btw, that *fewer* children will be hurt.

Leaving the arguments unanswered simply means we vacate the field and the other side wins. Again, this is a culture war. "Hearts and minds" sort of stuff matters if you want your kids and grandkids to have legal access to firearms.

 

[engi-ninja]

It's not a straw man. The fact that they freak out over every single gun incident, but say little or nothing about every other such incident implies that they believe that guns are by far the most important issue. If the safety of children is the priority, then the most important issue should be the one that, if eliminated, would result in drastically reducing the total number of incidents. Since guns account for a very small number of child injuries/deaths, in order for this to be the top issue, eliminating it must result in a statistically large decrease in incidences, which necessitates that pretty much every other possible way in which a child can be hurt through parental stupidity is ignored. Therefore, they must believe that eliminating guns will basically end child injuries; otherwise, they would make the same stink about every single incident regardless of the inanimate object involved.

Now, to be clear, I'm assuming that they're logical and that they actually care about protecting children and not just taking guns, which I'm fully aware is not correct. But I think the only way to make this obvious it to point out these logical inconsistencies instead of just accepting their flawed premises and trying to argue against them. It's like trying to argue in favor of objective morality without first addressing relativism; it's a logical impossibility. In the same way, if we admit the premise that guns are the cause of these deaths, instead of the stupidity of the parent, it's logically impossible to argue that guns should be NOT be taken away to make children safer. However, if guns are not the cause, then regulating them or removing them will have no effect on making children safer.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Since guns account for a very small number of child injuries/deaths, in order for this to be the top issue, eliminating it must result in a statistically large decrease in incidences, which necessitates that pretty much every other possible way in which a child can be hurt through parental stupidity is ignored.

I will again refer you to the legislation that now mandates newly manufactured vehicles to have a back up camera. Research Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act and how many children were killed by vehicles backing over them. (hint: not very many)

It's not about which changes save the most lives, its about cost benefit ratio. Very few people are killed by being backed over, but cameras are pretty inexpensive for the OEM to include. Banning all cars would save a lot more lives, but at a much greater cost. It's incorrect to assume that many of the folks aren't legitimately concerned with child safety because they didn't ban all cars.

No, a concerted effort was made, along with stories of individual children killed by being backed over and the emotional impact that made...and now all cars will have backup cameras. The parallels are pretty obvious. Pretending guns aren't dangerous or that every other problem has to be solved before you can look at guns is unrealistic and a sure way to lose the folks in the middle ground of the debate.

 

[Drail]

I will never understand how someone can back up a vehicle without looking behind them. Or clean a gun without even bothering to unload it first. In the future this era will be known as The Stupid Age.

 

[GREEN607]

I will never understand how someone can back up a vehicle without looking behind them. Or clean a gun without even bothering to unload it first. In the future this era will be known as The Stupid Age.

Right. Except I think this age has already earned the title, "Selfie Age".....

 

[SSGSAD]

A magazine disconnect would save more lives/injuries than any other bit of existing technology on a handgun. But few people want them, and the reasoning against them isn't wrong.

JMHO, Mag disconnect, is no different, than "shooting dry" .....

 

[Squatz24]

I don't understand how this happens. I check my gun so many times to make sure its clear before pulling the trigger. visual and physical inspection.

 

[ATM]

I don't understand how this happens. I check my gun so many times to make sure its clear before pulling the trigger. visual and physical inspection.

That's all well and good, but pales in importance to keeping it pointed in a safe direction above all else.

These tragedies simply do not occur when guns are discharged (negligently or intentionally) in a safe direction.

 

[JJFII]

as I said in the other thread, I hate "treat all guns as if they are loaded". When you pretend things are real when they are not, your mind knows that.

1- It allows your mental state to then move it, "I know its not loaded so why should I check it" instead of checking it.
2- It reaffirms to unsafe people that guns are things for pretend.

Most Negligent Discharges are purposeful pulls of the trigger on an unloaded gun. The first statement is always, "I thought it was unloaded" and asking that person why gets you the response, "I DONT KNOW."

The reason why they thought it was unloaded is plain and simple... treat (pretend) all guns are loaded = Don't worry this is all make-believe and I can point this non-dangerous object at you and pull the trigger.

The foolish people in the world do not follow pretend rules. If those foolish people were taught to "always keep your guns loaded" I can bet you $1,000,000 they would not be pulling the trigger on a loaded gun.

 

[JJFII]

That's all well and good, but pales in importance to keeping it pointed in a safe direction above all else.

These tragedies simply do not occur when guns are discharged (negligently or intentionally) in a safe direction.

This saved me.
My ND happened in a state of extreme stress and pain. I locked my slide back, ejected the magazine, then loaded a fresh magazine (mind is on auto-pilot) dropped the slide....then pointed the gun in a safe direction (45degree angle at the floor) and pulled the trigger... The resulting...BOOM...focused my attention away from my pain and I properly unloaded my firearm.

 

[BOWTIE72]

6 year old killed while father is cleaning his gun. This is why people think we're all a bunch of reckless idiots.

https://www.wishtv.com/news/indiana...ental-shooting-in-southern-indiana/1302203924

There was a similar incident very locally to my town. Some idiot liked to point a real handgun at his 2 year old son and pretend to shoot him. One time the gun was actually loaded and he shot the 2 year old in the chest, killing the poor child. Stupidity like this is why gun owners get a bad name, and honestly the justice system has failed because the guy only got a 3 year manslaughter conviction based on accidental discharge of the handgun.

 

[Drail]

I have never understood how it is even possible to clean a loaded gun (it's not). But I do understand that a certain very popular gun requires you to pull the trigger to disassemble. And when that gun was first introduced we started seeing more and more of these "accidents" (they're not). What a great design idea that was for the all these careless idiots who (1) have no idea if their gun is loaded and almost always assume it is not, and (2) have absolutely no idea where the muzzle is pointing..... It's just like all of the idiots who drive while constantly staring at their cell phone and if you try to tell them that doing so is a Very Bad Idea you get that "deer in the headlights" look.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That's all well and good, but pales in importance to keeping it pointed in a safe direction above all else.

These tragedies simply do not occur when guns are discharged (negligently or intentionally) in a safe direction.

Except for all the killings done with the gun in a safe direction from bullets zipping through walls as in this thread, or "it is a safe direction, cause it ain't loaded".

He pointed the gun at her because "it ain't loaded". Take their rationalization away from them and the tragedy cannot transpire.

Let's stop looking for excuses to be smarter than the Four Rules and simply follow them.

 

[churchmouse]

There was a similar incident very locally to my town. Some idiot liked to point a real handgun at his 2 year old son and pretend to shoot him. One time the gun was actually loaded and he shot the 2 year old in the chest, killing the poor child. Stupidity like this is why gun owners get a bad name, and honestly the justice system has failed because the guy only got a 3 year manslaughter conviction based on accidental discharge of the handgun.

That was in no way an accident.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That was in no way an accident.

Very true. No such thing as accidental Reckless Homicide.