Accidentally shot himself twice in 15 years.

OC for ME · Jan 21, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
No, it's not. because someone who will point the gun somewhere it doesn't belong and squeeze on the trigger cannot be trusted to properly use the safety anyway. you can look at my new signature line for a classic example of someone who a manual safety won't help.....

plenty of people have AD'd 1911s. trigger control is the key, not all kinds of switches and buttons.

When manually operated mechanical safeties are used, 1911 thumb safety, the firearm absent a malfunction, will not fire.

I addressed the benefit of the thumb safety and what I do to mitigate the lack of a thumb safety on a weapon that has a Glock style trigger "safety."

You popping off on that which I did not address in my post is juvenile.

I addressed the nitwittery of some folks a little earlier.

The "safety between the ears" has been found to be one of the most unreliable safeties ever "installed" into a gun. Fortunately, and knock on wood, the one I have has yet to fail me.

Look it up.....young pup.

WalkingWolf · Jan 21, 2014

OC for ME said:
When manually operated mechanical safeties are used, 1911 thumb safety, the firearm absent a malfunction, will not fire.

I addressed the benefit of the thumb safety and what I do to mitigate the lack of a thumb safety on a weapon that has a Glock style trigger "safety."

You popping off on that which I did not address in my post is juvenile.

I addressed the nitwittery of some folks a little earlier.

Look it up.....young pup.

But~But he has been NRA trained...:lol:

:lol:

Yup those NRA trainers really have it together. :uhoh:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...n-safety-nra-church-s-communications-director

As I stated before people who call NDs ADs have had a few.

JoeSparky · Jan 21, 2014

First, my definition of "ignorant"--- not exposed to the subject matter, then of "stupid"-- exposed to the subject matter but a failure to learn of it or from it.

first time he shot himself he was IGNORANT--- Second time makes him STUPID

How was that without even commenting on weather it was ACCIDENTAL VS NEGLIGENT?

I do strive to learn from the experiences of others so as to not have to experience every single thing personally. Sometimes I fail and must learn from my OWN experience.

eye95 · Jan 21, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
AD is the terminology I was taught in NRA safety class. It is the terminology I will use. it is perfectly descriptive. I will not go out of my way to appease people, I am not qualified to make you feel good about yourself.

I am qualified to remember to pull my wallet when paying for my starbucks instead of my gun however....... fashion notwithstanding.

Most of the people I know that use either term have had zero unintentional discharges, however one chooses to classify them.

JustaShooter · Jan 21, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
ADs NEVER happen, NDs do.

What a wonderful example of an absolute statement that isn't true. I tend to use the term unintentional discharges to cover the entire range, but regardless of what you call them, not all accidental discharges are negligent - although rare, accidental discharges can, and do, happen. Negligent discharges are the result of a shooter malfunction, whereas accidental discharges (to me anyway) are the result of an equipment malfunction. Equipment malfunctions that cause a weapon to fire do happen - witness the recent XDs recall where chambering a round could cause the weapon to fire. I don't see how you could call that a negligent discharge.

EMNofSeattle · Jan 21, 2014

JustaShooter said:
What a wonderful example of an absolute statement that isn't true. I tend to use the term unintentional discharges to cover the entire range, but regardless of what you call them, not all accidental discharges are negligent - although rare, accidental discharges can, and do, happen. Negligent discharges are the result of a shooter malfunction, whereas accidental discharges (to me anyway) are the result of an equipment malfunction. Equipment malfunctions that cause a weapon to fire do happen - witness the recent XDs recall where chambering a round could cause the weapon to fire. I don't see how you could call that a negligent discharge.

Whatever you call such an incident is not an issue. I have a problem with people being super technical to the point where they'll slander someone else or be mr correction to anyone who doesn't use their specific term.

no one has argued that a triggered round unintentially is good.....

WalkingWolf · Jan 21, 2014

JustaShooter said:
What a wonderful example of an absolute statement that isn't true. I tend to use the term unintentional discharges to cover the entire range, but regardless of what you call them, not all accidental discharges are negligent - although rare, accidental discharges can, and do, happen. Negligent discharges are the result of a shooter malfunction, whereas accidental discharges (to me anyway) are the result of an equipment malfunction. Equipment malfunctions that cause a weapon to fire do happen - witness the recent XDs recall where chambering a round could cause the weapon to fire. I don't see how you could call that a negligent discharge.

If anyone is injured, including the shooter, or their is property damage, or the round does not land in a safe place it is negligent. Anyone chambering a round on any gun without it pointing in a safe place is a idiot.

wimwag · Jan 21, 2014

JustaShooter said:
What a wonderful example of an absolute statement that isn't true. I tend to use the term unintentional discharges to cover the entire range, but regardless of what you call them, not all accidental discharges are negligent - although rare, accidental discharges can, and do, happen. Negligent discharges are the result of a shooter malfunction, whereas accidental discharges (to me anyway) are the result of an equipment malfunction. Equipment malfunctions that cause a weapon to fire do happen - witness the recent XDs recall where chambering a round could cause the weapon to fire. I don't see how you could call that a negligent discharge.

Negligence on the part of Springfield maybe. To shoot a gun, which is its primary function, you must chamber a round. There was obviously not enough testing if something that severe got through the cracks.

Freedom1Man · Jan 22, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
ADs NEVER happen, NDs do. So this occasional accident is just peachy with you until a innocent person is shot "accidentally"? People who think occasional NDs are acceptable should not own guns. I certainly would NEVER hire one who thinks in this fashion. I would be sued for hiring a accident waiting to happen.

ADs happen thanks to the Remington 700 series rifles. They have been known to go off for no good reason.

NDs happen thanks to the public fool system and society.

Freedom1Man · Jan 22, 2014

I carry Glocks, and have never had them "go bang" without me WANTING them to "go bang".

Primus · Jan 22, 2014

Freedom1Man said:
ADs happen thanks to the Remington 700 series rifles. They have been known to go off for no good reason.

NDs happen thanks to the public fool system and society.

Good call on the 700. Scary stuff. Seen videos of them on the range and just touching the bolt and it goes off.

Was watching a documentary on fox business about them and I guess the ones they supply to army were doing it as much as 2-3 out of 10 on the range. That's insane. The special was in the big cover up of course so that the company could stay afloat.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

WalkingWolf · Jan 22, 2014

Freedom1Man said:
ADs happen thanks to the Remington 700 series rifles. They have been known to go off for no good reason.

NDs happen thanks to the public fool system and society.

If the discharge damages property, causes injury, happens in a non acceptable environment it is NEGLIGENT!

If you bothered to read the information from the Remington docs you would have realized that the unintended firing of the 700 ONLY happened when taking the safety off. Which a person with a ounce of grey matter would ONLY do while pointed in a safe direction at a appropriate time.

So I stand with my original statement that people argue they are not negligent by having a gun discharge and injure someone or damage property or have done it in public. NO matter what they called they are morons.

Call it what you want, but a moron is a moron!

WalkingWolf · Jan 22, 2014

BTW how many "accidental" discharges have some of you have?

Primus · Jan 22, 2014

On further looking.... it was actually CNBC that did the report. I believe it was called under fire?

In it they have a video OF THE RIFLE SHOOTING WHEN THEY TOUCHED THE BOLT.

I'd say that's an accident. Seeing as how it was intentionally and wasnt due to any negligence on the shooter..... you know ......an accident....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

WalkingWolf · Jan 22, 2014

Primus said:
On further looking.... it was actually CNBC that did the report. I believe it was called under fire?

In it they have a video OF THE RIFLE SHOOTING WHEN THEY TOUCHED THE BOLT.

I'd say that's an accident. Seeing as how it was intentionally and wasnt due to any negligence on the shooter..... you know ......an accident....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

That is not an accident, it was a intentional firing where no property damage occurred and nobody was injured. Not only that the guns that did have a problem had either poor NEGLIGENT maintenance, or NEGLIGENT fiddling with the trigger system.

People who have negligent discharges and cannot admit they screwed up are absolute idiots.

[video=youtube;2SqRH3tHhdM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SqRH3tHhdM[/video]

Hopefully this video clears it up. Anybody can create a "accidental" discharge of a Remington 700. And that the any negligent discharge IS INDEED a negligent discharge.

OC for ME · Jan 22, 2014

Primus said:
On further looking.... it was actually CNBC that did the report. I believe it was called under fire?

In it they have a video OF THE RIFLE SHOOTING WHEN THEY TOUCHED THE BOLT.

I'd say that's an accident. Seeing as how it was intentionally and wasn't due to any negligence on the shooter..... you know ......an accident....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

It looks like the bolt because that is where the safety is located on the rem 700.

If you watch the video report closely, the operator does something with the trigger then places the safety in the "fire" position where the rifle then fires. This gives the appearance that the rifle fires when the safety is placed to the "fire" position. Using the Rem 700 is poor example. Using the 700 "issue" advances the anti-gun crowd's agenda that guns are inherently unsafe and not fit to be possessed by the citizenry.

Editor’s Note: In light of the recent controversial CNBC program that deemed Remington Model 700 rifles unsafe, we asked Rifles Editor and Gun Nut blogger David E. Petzal to view the broadcast and offer his thoughts in this extended post. Petzal, a 54-year shooter, NRA Certified Rifle Instructor, former Army Drill Sergeant, and one the country’s foremost gun authorities, had this to say:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs...al-different-look-remington-model-700-trigger

I've had two 700s, moved on to Savage. Both 700s worked flawlessly and never did I, have a, witness, nor hear of a "Remington Moment" until CNBC raised a stink about it. the end of the article raises a very interesting point.

CNBC has NBC in it and NBC is proven to make crap up to advance their agenda.

WalkingWolf · Jan 22, 2014

OC for ME said:
CNBC has NBC in it and NBC is proven to make crap up to advance their agenda.

Quoted for truth!

Freedom1Man · Jan 22, 2014

OC for ME said:
It looks like the bolt because that is where the safety is located on the rem 700.

View attachment 11146

If you watch the video report closely, the operator does something with the trigger then places the safety in the "fire" position where the rifle then fires. This gives the appearance that the rifle fires when the safety is placed to the "fire" position. Using the Rem 700 is poor example. Using the 700 "issue" advances the anti-gun crowd's agenda that guns are inherently unsafe and not fit to be possessed by the citizenry.

I've had two 700s, moved on to Savage. Both 700s worked flawlessly and never did I, have a, witness, nor hear of a "Remington Moment" until CNBC raised a stink about it. the end of the article raises a very interesting point.

CNBC has NBC in it and NBC is proven to make crap up to advance their agenda.

After seeing the safety used on a 721 that I had to re-bed, I was not surprised by the reports I heard later.

The whole safety came apart in my hands when I took it out of the stock.

WalkingWolf · Jan 22, 2014

I had the whole engine of ford come apart while changing spark plugs...

[sarcasm]

Primus · Jan 22, 2014

Listen... I get it guys. Remington fans will NEVER admit that the 700s shoot without pulling the trigger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-95Df5gKs0

look at the 41 sec. mark. There is a man laying behind the rifle. The other guy says go ahead. The man behind reaches up with his right hand and touches the the bolt handle with his right thumb. Nothing else. Nothing touches any other part of the rifle. Not the safety, not the trigger. The bolt handle.

I understand that Remington interviewed some guys and they basically said " we don't believe it until we see the gun and the trigger". I can understand that, I mean it's coming from Remington so of course they are going to fight the accusations and find anyone that will.

Either way.. the video is pretty damning. And it wasn't just that PD, there were also the military records, actual paper records documenting the issues.

So.. if you have a rifle that when you unlock to bolt, it fires on you.... is that negligence? C'mon.... maybe at the factory level... but not the shooter..

Accidentally shot himself twice in 15 years.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Centurion

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member