Guns don't kill people . . .

[quade 3]

Guns don't kill people . . . but it appears they can hit two people with a single bullet.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/18/students-shot-california-high-school/?test=latestnews

I thought guns weren't supposed to be able to go off accidentally when dropped or wasn't that supposed to be the reason so many people are against the testing guns in California?

Can somebody explain this to me?

Oh wait, I know, obviously the kid shot his schoolmates and the gun didn't go off accidentally. That MUST be ok then.

Except, of course, it turns out is was an accidental firing.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/student-had-brought-gun-to-school-before-for-protection-after-fight-friend-says.html

So how DOES that happen?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Well, I wasn't there, and I haven't talked to the witnesses, but like the LAPD, I'm skeptical of the "he just dropped it" story. Of course, gun do tend to go bang when the trigger is pressed. It doesn't have to be a finger.

I have seen a trained professional injured in a negligent discharge (I refuse to call them accidental discharges, since they are generally caused by negligence, not accidents). The professional in question was wearing an I'll fitting shirt that was not tucked in. When he holstered, finger off the trigger, the shirt material bunched in the trigger guard, and as he pressed the pistol into the holster, the shirt pulled the trigger. I'm picturing something similar here. All it takes is something getting caught, and when it hits the floor, BANG.

That being said, it is possible for firearms to malfunction, or discharge when they shouldn't. Examples are slam-firing old semi auto pistols, or the rifle that if a small piece dislodged would fire a chambered round when the safety was moved to "off" without the trigger being pulled. Those are, however, the exception. Generally "accidents" are the result of someone failing to follow basic safety rules.

So tell me quade, since you are making negative statements about people opposed to overzealous testing that costs tens of thousands of dollars, was the gun involved in your article a gun that never passed California's drop test? Or do you think maybe we should address the fact that some goober decided to get a gun (probably illegally), put it in a bag unsecured, and bring it to school?

If there was nothing else in the bag, and this was a gun model that never passed CA's drop tests, and it went off from being dropped, then you have legitimate concerns and I share them. But I have to be honest, those look like pretty big ifs to me.

Now I'm waiting for the professor to pop up and tell is how gun free school zone laws are dismal failures because they "failed to prevent this from happening."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 3]

Quote

So tell me quade, since you are making negative statements about people opposed to overzealous testing that costs tens of thousands of dollars, was the gun involved in your article a gun that never passed California's drop test?

I have a comment up on the LA Times web story asking the make and model of the gun involved. I've looked at a number of stories, but so far none seem to have reported it.

Either way it's a lose-lose to anti-California testing folks. If it's a gun that wasn't on the list of approved guns, it kind of proves the California system works. If the gun is on the list, then it kind of proves the California system doesn't go far enough.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Either way it's a lose-lose to anti-California testing folks. If it's a gun that wasn't on the list of approved guns, it kind of proves the California system works. If the gun is on the list, then it kind of proves the California system doesn't go far enough.

So - "heads, I win, tails you lose," eh?

We expect nothing else from you.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Guns don't kill people . . . but it appears they can hit two people with a single bullet.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/18/students-shot-california-high-school/?test=latestnews

I thought guns weren't supposed to be able to go off accidentally when dropped or wasn't that supposed to be the reason so many people are against the testing guns in California?

Can somebody explain this to me?

Oh wait, I know, obviously the kid shot his schoolmates and the gun didn't go off accidentally. That MUST be ok then.

Except, of course, it turns out is was an accidental firing.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/student-had-brought-gun-to-school-before-for-protection-after-fight-friend-says.html

So how DOES that happen?

um, where is it actually established as accidental? A school spokesman isn't an authoritative answer.

you're (again) quick to leap to conclusions before even gathering the evidence.

I've read too many tales of people 'accidentally' shooting their friends to take them at face value.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Can somebody explain this to me?

Shitty parenting? Don't cry, it's ok to assign a little personal responsibility every once and awhile.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Lindsey 0]

If I decide to kill you, just be grateful that I used a gun...lol...instead of my fingernails or something. Chicks can be HEARTLESS!

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[quade 3]

Quote

um, where is it actually established as accidental? A school spokesman isn't an authoritative answer.

If you read the second article, L.A. Unified Police Chief Steve Zipperman seems to think it's an accident. That's why the second link was included. I know, it was a bit much for me to expect people to read both, but I had hope.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Can somebody explain this to me?

Shitty parenting? Don't cry, it's ok to assign a little personal responsibility every once and awhile.

You are talking about Kalifornia . . . that place was lost a LONG time ago.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Guns don't kill people . . . but it appears they can hit two people with a single bullet.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/18/students-shot-california-high-school/?test=latestnews

I thought guns weren't supposed to be able to go off accidentally when dropped or wasn't that supposed to be the reason so many people are against the testing guns in California?

Can somebody explain this to me?

Oh wait, I know, obviously the kid shot his schoolmates and the gun didn't go off accidentally. That MUST be ok then.

Except, of course, it turns out is was an accidental firing.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/student-had-brought-gun-to-school-before-for-protection-after-fight-friend-says.html

So how DOES that happen?

It seems really Odd that the laws didn't prevent this 15 year old student from carrying a loaded firearm. i think we need more laws so that can't happen.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 3]

I'm glad you've side-stepped the original question, the one asked in what you've quoted. It pretty much proves you don't have an answer to it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I have a comment up on the LA Times web story asking the make and model of the gun involved. I've looked at a number of stories, but so far none seem to have reported it.

I've been the subject of and witness to enough reported events to know that even if I were listed, reporters could very likely have it completely wrong. I am interested to know why kind of gun it was, and will only put faith in reported info when attributed to a named source from LAPD.

Quote

Either way it's a lose-lose to anti-California testing folks. If it's a gun that wasn't on the list of approved guns, it kind of proves the California system works. If the gun is on the list, then it kind of proves the California system doesn't go far enough.

Not really, and I expected better from you. Like I said, it's far more likely that something in the bag mashed thebtrigger than that the gun fired just from being dropped. If the gun did go off, and nothing in the bag caused it and it is not on the list, then it says absolutely nothing about the list. If the gun went off just from being dropped and it is on the list, then I expect it suffers from manufacturer defect or lack of maintenance. I will hold out that there is some slight possibility that the gun invloved is a model that passed the drop test, did notnjave the trigger mashed by something in the bag, and does not suffer frI'm a defect and unprepared damage, but the probability igniter is somewhere in the neighborhood of Elvis staging a come back tour.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I'm glad you've side-stepped the original question, the one asked in what you've quoted. It pretty much proves you don't have an answer to it.

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I'm pretty sure I already answered that.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

um, where is it actually established as accidental? A school spokesman isn't an authoritative answer.

If you read the second article, L.A. Unified Police Chief Steve Zipperman seems to think it's an accident. That's why the second link was included. I know, it was a bit much for me to expect people to read both, but I had hope.

No,the chief says: "It appears to be a possible accidental discharge." Not exactly the conclusive statement you pretend it is. Too much to expect you to read for meaning? Do you really think the police Chief did the investigation?

The part I saw that tried to be more certain was: "According to Robert Alaniz, an LAUSD spokesman, the gun discharged when a 10th grade boy either dropped or bumped the backpack containing the weapon."

[normiss 622]

Negligence by the gun owner, period.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

I'm glad you've side-stepped the original question, the one asked in what you've quoted. It pretty much proves you don't have an answer to it.

It's a mechanical security device invented by darwin.
It keeps the parents of underaged kids from allowing thier offspring from illegally carrying weapons.

It's a wide spread gun manufacturer conspiracy.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billeisele 122]

Quote

I thought guns weren't supposed to be able to go off accidentally when dropped or wasn't that supposed to be the reason so many people are against the testing guns in California?

Can somebody explain this to me?

So how DOES that happen?

Interesting how you almost demand that we answer your question when in other posts you (sometimes) willfully ignore posted facts and debate based on your opinion. To be fair, you usually provide valuable information and add interesting debate.

To answer your question. It is a mechanical device that, under certain conditions, it is possible that it can go off without the person pulling the trigger. There are not enough facts to determine what really happened. The most likely cause is something in the backpack was on the trigger which caused the gun to go off. However, once the facts are revealed we'll know the answer. Of course you already knew this but just wanted someone to write it.

This is not much different than a double malfunction. Without precise investigation we don't know what happened. One could just jump to the conclusion that the gear simply failed but that would be irresponsible.

My question is: What law could be passed that would have absolutely prevented this?

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Now I'm waiting for the professor to pop up and tell is how gun free school zone laws are dismal failures because they "failed to prevent this from happening."

but, maybe if there were TWO laws to make schools gun free, then it would have worked

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nigel99 144]

Quote

I have seen a trained professional injured in a negligent discharge (I refuse to call them accidental discharges, since they are generally caused by negligence, not accidents)

This always makes me smile. By this definition there are never skydiving "accidents" or car "accidents". The fact that the generally accepted meaning of the word is twisted in word play is hilarious (certainly not singling you out I realise it is a widespread argument used in the USA).

If you are 100% certain that "negligent" discharges are not accidents should there be laws prosecuting anyone who has such an event - such that any person who experiences a negligent discharge should obtain a criminal record (preferably with a custodial sentence) and be banned from future gun ownership?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[aresye 0]

Well, if my opinion has any sway over your generalized, opinion, hopefully I can at least introduce you to the way modern handguns work.

I myself carry a Sig P239 9mm handgun. I also always carry with one in the chamber.

A few weeks ago, while trying to push my friend's motorcycle to jump start it, my handgun fell off my hip while I was running, probably due to the position I was pushing the bike.

The impact of the handgun was enough to break the asphalt in the road, and my rear sights were coated in asphalt dust. To say the least, it hit the ground HARD! Guess what? The gun didn't go off.

Sigs don't have mechanical safety levers. They have an internal safety mechanism instead, the blocks the firing pin from striking the bullet in all cases unless the trigger is pulled. My weapons school has done tests, trowing an M11 around, beating it to hell, and the weapon never went off.

The Sig I use also has a 12.12lb trigger pull in double action. I've tested to see how easily the trigger can be pulled if snagged, and guess what? It's not easy. You would literally have to intentionally snag it to the point you pull the trigger.

The point I'm trying to make, is that Sigs are not the only handguns with internal safeties. The majority of handguns nowadays are engineered to prevent an accidental discharge, and because of these new features, a lot of would be, "accidental discharges," are instead recognized as negligent discharges. 2 completely separate things.

Accidental Discharge (a.k.a. Malfunction): A failure of a weapon to fire satisfactorily, or to perform as designed.

Negligent Discharge: An unplanned firing of a weapon due to the carelessness of an individual, or a failure of the 4 weapon safety rules.

1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Keep your finger straight and off-trigger until you intend to fire.
4. Keep the weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

The rules are redundant, meaning someone would have to break all 4 rules to result in a careless accident.

Next time, please do your research before lopping your own opinion on a topic you have no idea about.

Skydiving: You either learn from other's mistakes, or they'll learn from yours.

[aresye 0]

Quote

Quote

I have seen a trained professional injured in a negligent discharge (I refuse to call them accidental discharges, since they are generally caused by negligence, not accidents)

This always makes me smile. By this definition there are never skydiving "accidents" or car "accidents". The fact that the generally accepted meaning of the word is twisted in word play is hilarious (certainly not singling you out I realise it is a widespread argument used in the USA).

If you are 100% certain that "negligent" discharges are not accidents should there be laws prosecuting anyone who has such an event - such that any person who experiences a negligent discharge should obtain a criminal record (preferably with a custodial sentence) and be banned from future gun ownership?

An accident implies it was completely unavoidable. Due to the fact most skydiving deaths/injuries are the result of human error (like most forms of aviation), the correct term is mishap until proven otherwise.

I personally feel anybody who experiences a ND should be suspended from owning/using weapons until they pass a certified safety course.

Skydiving: You either learn from other's mistakes, or they'll learn from yours.

[nigel99 144]

Quote

Quote

This always makes me smile. By this definition there are never skydiving "accidents" or car "accidents". The fact that the generally accepted meaning of the word is twisted in word play is hilarious (certainly not singling you out I realise it is a widespread argument used in the USA).

If you are 100% certain that "negligent" discharges are not accidents should there be laws prosecuting anyone who has such an event - such that any person who experiences a negligent discharge should obtain a criminal record (preferably with a custodial sentence) and be banned from future gun ownership?

An accident implies it was completely unavoidable. Due to the fact most skydiving deaths/injuries are the result of human error (like most forms of aviation), the correct term is mishap until proven otherwise.

I personally feel anybody who experiences a ND should be suspended from owning/using weapons until they pass a certified safety course.

Fair enough you are using mishap for skydiving in the same manner as negligence for a gun. You skipped the car part - I am pretty sure that nearly all car accidents are the direct result of someone's negligence but we still call them car accidents.

A safety course is a good suggestion. My personal experience with gun accidents is that the guys who have had them are extremely careful afterwards!

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[quade 3]

Quote

This always makes me smile. By this definition there are never skydiving "accidents" or car "accidents". The fact that the generally accepted meaning of the word is twisted in word play is hilarious (certainly not singling you out I realise it is a widespread argument used in the USA).

If you are 100% certain that "negligent" discharges are not accidents should there be laws prosecuting anyone who has such an event - such that any person who experiences a negligent discharge should obtain a criminal record (preferably with a custodial sentence) and be banned from future gun ownership?

Well, I think you're part way there. The word "negligent" also carries the connotation that it only happens to people that are careless. In other words, "Sure, it could happen to THAT buffoon, but certainly not somebody as careful as me." Which, of course, history proves over and over is wrong. Even highly trained professionals have accidentally discharged their gun, but using the word "negligent discharge" is the gun user's "industrial haze."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Negligence by the gun owner, period.

So only non-negligent people should have guns? Fair enough.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Craterpond 0]

Depends on the type of pistol , rimfire 22's can fire when dropped.