How Many Gun Owners Here Have Taken a Gun Class

[Aredhel]

Originally Posted by beb0p

I find it amusing that people thinks I don't know the basic gun safety rule, when I was the one who is telling you guys about rules that you are not aware of.

Why on God's green Earth do you think the people who've been replying to you hadn't head that "rule" looong before you mentioned it in your first thread in this post?

You weren't telling most of the posters in this thread anything we hadn't heard many many times before - and also correctly dismissed long ago as irrelevant to DEFENSIVE gun ownership.

Hint: They guy who first responded to your post with "Says who? The Brady Bunch?" wasn't asking for a cite, he was rolling his eyes at you. I also rolled my eyes a bit at your first post, but I didn't say anything at first because I agree that there are some folks out there who didn't grow up around firearms and know nothing about them except for what they've seen on TV who go out and buy a gun because they are scared of crime, don't bother to get any formal training, never take the gun to the range to practice, and just stick the thing in a dresser drawer and assume they are now protected because THEY HAVE A GUN!!!. You're right, those folks don't know the safe storage recommendations you cited; there's also a hell of a lot more they don't know that's frankly far more important as far as safety goes. They desperately DO need a class, but most of them (since they don't know what they don't know, and don't care to learn) won't bother with one. Good luck trying to find a way to educate them!

Someone dropped a gun and it went off (I know, they're not supposed to discharge like that right? Think again).

All modern firearms are manufactured to be drop-safe. You are correct that there are guns which are not; they are decades old, and generally owned by collectors who are quite aware of the danger they can present when they are loaded. (My father owns quite a few; the very first handgun I ever fired was a single-action revolver made in the early 1930s which was decidedly NOT drop safe when the hammer was cocked.) Most non-collectors who want a handgun for protection or for recreation are going to buy a newer gun which will in fact be drop safe.

I don't advise dropping guns just for the hell of it, but it's far less of a safety problem than the majority of non-gun owners naively assume it to be.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by War Beagle

These are people not following Rule #3 and putting their fingers on the trigger. That is much different than the gun going off on its own.

Also, your rule isn't universal because there is a difference between the use of firearms for hunting and the use of firearms for protection. If someone has a firearm for hunting, it makes complete sense to keep the gun and the ammo separate. You know exactly when you will need to use both. Defense carrying is a completely different animal. You have no idea when you will need the firearm if it is for defense.

Is it technically safer to keep a gun separate from its ammo? Yes, if your concern is a child or gun novice getting their hands on the gun. However, if the concern is protecting yourself and/or family from danger, then storing the gun and ammo separately is more dangerous.

There have been lawsuits about guns discharging when the finger is not on the trigger. Is it a common scenario? No. But has it been known to happen? Yes.

Lastly, sometimes people squeezed the trigger accidentally. It's unreasonable to expect that a person NEVER makes any mistake. Hence, the rule is there.
.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

I don't think you understand the meaning of "personal attack." If I called you a name that would be a personal attack. To challenge your credibility based on the sources you've listed as well as the background you shared about yourself is not a personal attack but an observation. It is content-based critique of what you've put into this thread.

What you did is called "ad hominem" - attempt to argue not on merits but by attacking the presenter.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Why would you need to challenge my credibility when I am merely citing public knowledge? The reason you do that is because you think discrediting me also discredits the knowledge, when one has nothing to do with the other. What you've committed is classic Ad Hominem.

Notice that, unlike other posters on this thread, you still haven't touched on the safety rules themselves. You are merely engaging in pointless verbal jarring.
.

[Gungnir]

Mod Note:

Thread is closed, it went off topic long ago into the weeds