Firearm Safety

Please, think of the puppies before you shoot

Robb Allen — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:58:46 GMT

Tank tops and shooting do not mix. Ever.

Guess what happens when stubborn girl wearing tank top/sports bra combo focuses on upper body form and locks her left arm while shooting?
    A. Her hits are better.
    B. Tank top/sports bra combo makes perfect basket for hot brass.
    C. There is laughter on video.*
    D. All of the above.

Drop by to see the video.

Insert long string of unintelligible swear words here

Robb Allen — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:34:16 GMT

I can't tell you how pissed this article makes me

If your child came across a gun, what do you think they would do with it? Tell an adult? Pick it up? Pull the trigger?
We wanted to try something. With a Northside ISD police officer’s help, we put a group of children in a room with a real, unloaded gun to see what they would do when they thought no one was watching.
We want to emphasize: News 4 and a police officer took every precaution to make sure these children were never in danger.

No, let me emphasize something for you, you pathetic excuse for a pile of shit - YOU DON'T FUCKING PUT A GUN WHERE KIDS CAN PLAY WITH IT!!!!! This station put children's lives at risk to 'prove a point'. The point is that due to the media's incessant whining about how dangerous guns are and the Brady Campaign's push to prevent children from receiving the type of education that can save their lives, parents that fear an inanimate object fail to teach their children what to do in this situation.

Had my daughter been there, I know what she would have done. And if you love your children, even if you hate guns, you will do the same thing - teach them that if they ever find a gun to leave the room, find an adult, and most importantly do not touch it!

The Eddie Eagle program teaches this and these children had been through the class a week before. However the Eddie Eagle is only part of the solution. Without parents to reinforce the ideas, it's not effective. Parents need to understand what is taught in that class and carry it over to the home as well.

Of course, the article only talks about the children who didn't act appropriately. I'd bet that a class that had NOT been through the Eddie Eagle program would have had a much higher percent of children handling the gun. I'm not stupid enough to try it like these sphincter-ferrets so I'll never know.

Hat tip Uncle, even though he got me all pissed off...

This is not helping my migraine

Robb Allen — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:13:00 GMT

Liberty points to this un-f***ing-believable story

An off-duty Los Angeles police officer who was paralyzed after his young son accidentally shot him in 2006 filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the manufacturer of the gun involved in the accident.
Enrique Chavez of Anaheim was shot in the back by his 3-year-old son after the boy grabbed his father's Glock 21 — a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol — from the back seat of his pickup truck.
The lawsuit, filed in Superior Court, alleges that Glock Inc.'s gun was dangerous because its safety device was "non-existent or ineffective" at preventing an accidental shot.

Since when did a small nib of metal become a suitable replacement for proper parenting? Is it Wüsthof's fault that you left a ceramic paring knife around where your child could cut themselves with it? Should Calphalon be sued when your toddler grabs the handle that you left hanging over the edge of the stove and pours scalding water on someone?

This part makes me both chuckle and get all frothy in anger

The lawsuit alleges the defendants knew the safety device was defective and that 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in accidental discharges.

5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger is not accidental. This is like suing General Electric because flipping on the light switch actually causes the light to go on. The trigger, when pulled, makes big gun go boom. That is the entire purpose of a gun.

This Parent of the Year candidate is also suing the holster manufacturer, and the stores where the items were purchased. I assume he's trying to claim that his weapon slid out of his holster and ended up in the back seat and that, the holster being defective, not only gained weight when it was emptied, but changed shape in such a manner that it was impossible to tell that his 2 pound handgun had left on its own accord. And the employee at register #3 should have known this before he sold it to him.

This is America now. Sue others for your lack of responsibility. It's Glock's fault that Mr. Mom couldn't adequately maintain his firearm. Life should be swaddled in bubble wrap and nothing should have even the slightest hint of danger and any company that produces a product that might pop a bubble or two should be sued out of existence until ponies run free, eating rainbows and pooping butterflies.

Updating my position on safeties

Robb Allen — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:37:07 GMT

You know, the more I think about it, I can understand some of the pushback against my position on external safeties and the more I think about it, the more I can see their point.

If your firearm has an external safety on it, you should practice, practice, practice with it, integrating the motion of disabling the safety with the natural motion of prepping the weapon for firing. At no time should you disengage the safety and consider that a done deal.

Here's the thing. I won't buy a particular weapon based on an external safety. I like the Glock mind set of going boom each time the trigger is pulled, no questions asked. However, not all my guns are Glocks. In fact, only one of them is, so that means there is an external safety on each of the others.

While I might not care for the safety, it is folly to pretend the damned thing won't be engaged at the worst possible moment. It takes no effort to flip a switch (unless you're talking about the Ruger Mark III 22/45 which is specifically designed to require a Rubix cube like dance to get to fire in the first place) and that motion should become as ingrained as pulling the trigger.

I never really meant to come across as an anti-safety guy. I'm not. I just want as little as possible to go wrong or get in the way when I draw my gun. But like everything else with firearms, training is key. When the waste product hits the gas accelerator, you will always fall back to your training. If you have a safety, train to disengage it for every draw. Period.

Florida considering adding gun safety classes to school curriculum

Robb Allen — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:23:01 GMT

This sounds promising

ORLANDO, Fla., July 7 (UPI) -- Florida is considering offering classes in gun safety to high school students to spice up their choices for physical education.
The gun safety classes are among a number of changes the State Board of Education is planning under a new law boosting the amount of time students spend engaging in physical education, WKMG-TV, Orlando, reported Monday.

First off, their reasoning behind it is rather dumb. They're trying to de-fatten the kiddies by getting them more interested in physical education. I don't know about you, but the last time I practiced gun safety I didn't break a sweat nor did I elevate my heart rate to any noticeable degree.

However, I see this as a positive thing regardless of the reasoning. We teach our kids the dangers of drugs and alcohol in hopes they will not misuse them. We teach them to not accept rides from strangers. We teach them not to drink the Liquid Drano. We do this not to encourage them to get high in random cars while guzzling drain cleaner, but to remind them of the dangers involved. Granted, the little shits rarely listen, but that's no reason to give up.

A class on safety is critical to avoid accidents and mishaps. I support this whole heartedly.

One coin, two sides

Robb Allen — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:43:20 GMT

Xavier responds to my piece on safeties

My argument is that we fight as we train. If a person goes to the range and loads and shoots their pistol without ever disengaing the safety........Because they never engaged the safety, the liklihood is fair to high they will forget to disengage the safety in a crunch.
However, if a person loads their pistol, chambers a round, engages the safety, and then holsters the weapon prior to drawing and shooting.......Every time they fire the weapon, then disengaging the safety becomes as natural as placing a finger on the trigger to fire the gun. If holster draws are not allowed at your range, load the pistol, chamber a round, engage the safety and table the weapon. Step away. Clear your head. Then step forward, pick up the weapon, bring it on target, disengage the safety and fire the pistol.

His point is as valid as mine since they both rely on the same thing - training. When the shit hits the fan, your body will go into "automaton mode". However you trained will be how you operate. If you prefer safeties, then train, train, train until removing the safety is done unconsciously. Otherwise, you risk a non-fire because you failed to disengage the damned thing.

On the Glock, I have nothing to worry about. There is no safety that I have to do anything about. However, on the rifle I may start practicing disengaging the safety since the very nature of it being there means that when the poop hits the air flow device, it will be engaged, so it behooves me to practice disengaging it.

One safety too many

Robb Allen — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:53:51 GMT

I'm a Glock guy. I like the fact that I pull the trigger, Glock goes boom. I've become so accustomed to being safe by not putting my finger in the trigger guard that I only engage the safeties on firearms that are not for self defense. In a stressful situation, the last thing I need to do is add yet another step to the equation.

Murdoc has a video that highlights why I'm like this

The gun didn't go off because the safety was on

That's the kind of thing that scares me. When you go into fully-automatic mode, the instant something goes wrong, you have to snap out of it and "think".

The shotgun's safety is the fact I have to rack a shell. The rifle's safety is sending the bolt home. Since those are my two main home defense weapon (screw a handgun!) I leave the safety in the "Fire" position. The last thing I want is some mechanical doodad preventing the hammer from going down when I need it most.

This, of course, is only my opinion. Feel free to chime in with your views.

Here, shoot me again

Robb Allen — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:22:09 GMT

Here's some Grade-A Stupidity.

You could have easily used a mannequin or something else to illustrate that point. To use a live person is the epitome of dumb. As firearms enthusiasts we should always strive to promote a good image. Shit like this doesn't help.

The sad thing about this video is that it does illustrate, quite stupidly in my opinion, a few myths of guns that have been propagated by Hollywood and the entertainment industry. First, being shot with most any firearm isn't going to lift you up and throw you 100 feet. For those not in the known, a .308 is one hell of a cartridge. And a rifle is exponentially more powerful than a handgun so the movie scene where Dirty Harry shoots a guy at 30 feet and the guy goes flying through drywall is a complete fallacy.

I'd also like to point out that, at POINT BLANK RANGE with the rifle, neither one of those shots hit center mass. Notice how Idiot #2 doesn't aim but rather (to steal a Brady Campaign to Spew Misinformation) 'sprayed from the hip'. Even only a foot or so away, he comes dangerously close to missing. In the movies, the hero alway manages to put the bullet exactly where he wants while diving behind cover. Sorry, but if you don't aim, you don't generally hit anything, especially what you'd like to. Idjit #2 illustrates this point quite nicely.

Hat Tip Say Uncle, who you shouldn't vote for.

Teach your children well

Robb Allen — Tue, 13 May 2008 00:51:47 GMT

Fighting for Liberty takes his son to the range. Important lessons are learned!

Holstering your weapon

Robb Allen — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:23:30 GMT

This is a tragic story

PORTLAND, Maine - A nine-year veteran of the Portland Police Department died of injuries after his handgun discharged in what police described yesterday as a tragic accident.
Sergeant Robert Johnsey was apparently preparing his duty weapon for his next shift when it accidentally discharged late Monday at his home in Westbrook, wounding him in the leg, investigators concluded. Johnsey died a short time later at Maine Medical Center in Portland.
Portland's police chief, Timothy Burton, made the announcement, calling Johnsey's death a sad and tragic moment for his department.
Westbrook's police chief, William Baker, whose department led the investigation, said evidence at the scene clearly indicated that Johnsey's Smith & Wesson semiautomatic handgun went off accidentally.
"Our preliminary assessment led me to conclude that Sergeant Johnsey was doing something that all of us in law enforcement do 240 times a year - that is, getting our duty belts ready for the next day of work," Baker said.

Now, I can't comment on the accidental vs. negligent part. I know my father has 500 doohickeys hanging off his utility belt and it amazes me he could get to anything with any sort of accuracy as it is, so it is quite possible something got caught somewhere it shouldn't have, depressing the trigger and firing the pistol. I also cannot fault a rule violation as holstering your weapon points the muzzle towards your leg (and occasionally your wedding tackle), something you simply don't want to destroy.

For me, I remove my holster and pistol as a single unit. This keeps the chances of anything getting in the trigger guard to a minimum as it is covered by the holster itself. I also do not decock or unload my pistol each and every time I take it off (yes, it is kept well away from being accessible by children. I do love my girls). Oddly, there are many reasons I don't do this. Bullet setback from repeated chambering and the fact the pistol is useless in that state are two reasons, but the biggest one in my mind is the increased chance of this scenario happening.

This also highlights something that I tend to see differently than other gunnies and that I personally do not like safeties on pistols. One, they get in the way of shooting when needed, two - I think accidents like this happen because people tend to rely on them in place of the 4 rules. If you think the safety will prevent the gun from going off you might handle it differently. This, of course, is just my opinion.

Every time you adjust your firearm, there's a risk. It's terrible for this officer that this happened, especially when you consider the type of danger he had to put himself into each and every day part of which involved holstering and unholstering his weapon all the time. My prayers go out to his family.