There should at least be a IQ test!

If I managed to do something this stoooopid I sure wouldn't run to my computer and tell the world :shocker:

should be an IQ test to post

ba-zing !

Phoenix David said:

You can hate me but IMO only an idiot would accept a weapon from someone without making sure it was unloaded first and only an idiot would hand uncleared weapon to someone else.

Sounds like you both failed basic gun handling.

Click to expand...

Nice looking dog ya got there.

Goingdef said:

No smart ass I didn't pull the trigger after being handed the gun I asked if it where loaded after noticing the hammer being back and then handed it back carefully as I don't know much about that gun and it being in sa I didn't want it going off in my hand! And to all else yea I might be partially to blame because I didn't feel comfortable scolding a man twice my age with supposedly twice the exp. in his home on his firearm handling habits.

Click to expand...

From your description, sir, it was a Negligent discharge attributable to both of the persons handling the firearm in its condition OUTSIDE OF A HOLSTER!

JoeSparky said:

From your description, sir, it was a Negligent discharge attributable to both of the persons handling the firearm in its condition OUTSIDE OF A HOLSTER!

Click to expand...

I agree I should have asked if it where loaded before accepting it from him but once in my hand realizing it's loaded and and in sa I had no idea what to do with it hence why I handed it back not knowing what to do to put it in a safe condition, only after being back in the owners hands did it fire during the conversation of a firearm in sa is dangerous for carry(my opinion) and just before it went off he was saying how it has a safety even in sa, even if I had not accepted and handed the gun back it probably would have still happened as he was standing in the same spot when he handed it to me and took it back, even if I had said no thanks it would have still been out in his hands as he pulled it out before asking me if I wanted to see it, but you are all correct in that I am just as much to blame I really should have asked if it where loaded making him have to point the gun in a safe direction and clear it avoiding the whole situation! wow that just dawned on me thanks everyone (not being sarcastic) if I seemed pissed earlier it's because I am not making up anything and I don't troll for responses or to ruffle feathers, I was sharing what I exp. nothing more nothing less.

No problem from me, esp since I and some others if not many others on this forum have had their OWN ND's happen.... just glad MINE was on a firing range and the projectile struck the ground about 6 feet in front of me and DOWNRANGE!

Well that was a first for me and a real eye opener as well and with everyone's third party perspective view here I do see how I also played a part in this and could have prevented it completely.

The most important thing to take from this, IMO, is to learn from and avoid to prevent a repeat. Lucky no one was injured or killed. I'd hate to have something worse happen next time.

Goingdef said:

I agree I should have asked if it where loaded before accepting it from him but once in my hand realizing it's loaded and and in sa I had no idea what to do with it hence why I handed it back not knowing what to do to put it in a safe condition, only after being back in the owners hands did it fire during the conversation of a firearm in sa is dangerous for carry(my opinion) and just before it went off he was saying how it has a safety even in sa, even if I had not accepted and handed the gun back it probably would have still happened as he was standing in the same spot when he handed it to me and took it back, even if I had said no thanks it would have still been out in his hands as he pulled it out before asking me if I wanted to see it, but you are all correct in that I am just as much to blame

I really should have asked if it where loaded
making him have to point the gun in a safe direction

and clear it avoiding the whole situation! wow that just dawned on me thanks everyone (not being sarcastic) if I seemed pissed earlier it's because I am not making up anything and I don't troll for responses or to ruffle feathers, I was sharing what I exp. nothing more nothing less.

Click to expand...

1) rule one: "assume all guns are always loaded", period. no need to have asked him.
2) rule two: "always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction". the muzzle should never sweep anything you're not ready to destroy.

glad you came out of it alive and uninjured. glad the nd didn't go through a wall and kill or injure anyone else.

Goingdef said:

Ya know I have always felt it's everyone's right to own a weapon but after yesterday I'm really thinking there should be some kind of test to make sure you are capable before the weapon is put into your hands, I was over a friends house yesterday a highly decorated vietnam vet with a very large collection of weapons well he was showing me his Beretta .32 titanium while standing in front of me while I was seated in a recliner well out of nowhere the gun discharges while he's examining it sending a speer gold dot 12" to the right of my upper torso from 3' in front of me, all I remember was a muzzle flash followed with a loss of hearing that was then replaced by a high pitched tone! Needless to say the scariest thing I can recall in my 32yrs of life, so to all please be careful no matter how comfy you feel with your weapon!

Click to expand...

Oh, no there shouldn't. Please go right back to your previous view about everyone's right to own a weapon. The fundamental problem is not the efficacy of testing. The problem is handing government the power to say who does and who doesn't have the right to defend themselves. As soon as someone calls for tests, permits, demonstrating a need, whatever, that someone almost always involves government.

And, if there is any lesson from the last 2000 years, it is that government cannot be trusted to regulate rights. It always finds a way to reduce or infringe them. Always. The reason is simple. Rights are not necessary to government accomplishing whatever it has set out to do. Rights are always a roadblock, stumbling block, or drag on whatever a government person wants to do. Thus, government will always look for ways over, through, and around rights. If it cannot just ignore them, it will seek a way to reduce them. Always. Vast amounts of history tell us government cannot be trusted with rights.

Goingdef said:

SNIP Ya know I have always felt it's everyone's right to own a weapon but after yesterday I'm really thinking there should be some kind of test to make sure you are capable before the weapon is put into your hands, I was over a friends house yesterday a highly decorated vietnam vet with a very large collection of weapons well he was showing me his Beretta .32 titanium while standing in front of me while I was seated in a recliner well out of nowhere the gun discharges while he's examining it sending a speer gold dot 12" to the right of my upper torso from 3' in front of me, all I remember was a muzzle flash followed with a loss of hearing that was then replaced by a high pitched tone! Needless to say the scariest thing I can recall in my 32yrs of life, so to all please be careful no matter how comfy you feel with your weapon!

Click to expand...

One thing I've noticed is that people who were trained in safety before the 4 Rules became ubiquitous are a bit sloppy about safety, by comparison. We have to remember that Cooper's 4 Rules didn't really get started until the (late 60's?) and took a good while to spread through the culture.

I had NRA safety training as an early teen in the mid-seventies. No mention of the 4 Rules. Ditto as a late teen receiving military training in the early eighties. In fact, I didn't come across them until about 2006 when I got active in gun rights and stumbled across them on the IDPA website.

I've seen more than one old-timer with his finger in the trigger guard.

Training is what solves it. Or, a gentle reminder when you see it happen. "Hey, Sam. Did you know that it has become the mark of a good gunner to always check the chamber before handling a weapon/leave the trigger finger outside the trigger guard? Yeah, nobody takes a gunner seriously anymore unless he practices the Four Rules." Etc.

Of course, the Vietnam vet in OP will probably be hyper careful for the next 10 years, minimum.

well sorry to have offended anyone here can a mod please lock/delete this thread and delete my account, I think I'm done here at opencarry.org but I will continue to direct people here to read up on there rights, just try to take it easy on them some of you aren't the nicest people in the world to try to talk too!

Citizen said:

Oh, no there shouldn't. Please go right back to your previous view about everyone's right to own a weapon. The fundamental problem is not the efficacy of testing. The problem is handing government the power to say who does and who doesn't have the right to defend themselves. As soon as someone calls for tests, permits, demonstrating a need, whatever, that someone almost always involves government.

And, if there is any lesson from the last 2000 years, it is that government cannot be trusted to regulate rights. It always finds a way to reduce or infringe them. Always. The reason is simple. Rights are not necessary to government accomplishing whatever it has set out to do. Rights are always a roadblock, stumbling block, or drag on whatever a government person wants to do. Thus, government will always look for ways over, through, and around rights. If it cannot just ignore them, it will seek a way to reduce them. Always. Vast amounts of history tell us government cannot be trusted with rights.

Click to expand...

I don't believe the story but regardless, there are two issues.

Issue #1 is should there be any criteria for someone owning a gun. Aside from personal finances, Hell no!

Issue #2 is should someone take learning to handle the gun safely and efficiently seriously, Hell Yes, but that's an entirely different subject than issue #1.

Learning opportunity, goingdef. (Since I personally think most who flounce off in a huff actually come back to read responses.)

You didn't WATCH him clear it. Therefore, when you accepted it from him, your mind should have been screaming "LOADED". (And even if you had watched him, your mind should have spoken "check first".) If you don't know how to clear it and it isn't presented to you with the action open, don't take it.

If you stay, you could learn something. If you go away, you may continue to believe a bunch of meanies was ganging up on you, but you won't learn anything.

There should at least be a (sic) IQ test . . . . ???

What other rights should be limited by an IQ "test?" Right to free speech? Right to vote? Right to assemble? Right to worship? Right to bear children and be a parent?

They always seem to go after just one thing, don't they . . . . . . .

Tess said:

Learning opportunity, goingdef.

Click to expand...

He should count his lucky stars he gets to have a learning experience.

When you hand someone a weapon you're supposed to do it with the action open so there's no question.

Of course, all of my friends know better than to point a weapon AT someone. My 3 y.o. son knows better.

MAC702 said:

Now, think about the absolutely USELESS BULLCRAP they include in the curriculum in public schools. There is absolutely NO reason why basic firearms safety (and electrical and some other safety stuff) should not be required in school.

Click to expand...

THIS THIS THIS THIS!

Citizen said:

One thing I've noticed is that people who were trained in safety before the 4 Rules became ubiquitous are a bit sloppy about safety, by comparison. We have to remember that Cooper's 4 Rules didn't really get started until the (late 60's?) and took a good while to spread through the culture.

I had NRA safety training as an early teen in the mid-seventies. No mention of the 4 Rules. Ditto as a late teen receiving military training in the early eighties. In fact, I didn't come across them until about 2006 when I got active in gun rights and stumbled across them on the IDPA website.

I've seen more than one old-timer with his finger in the trigger guard.

Training is what solves it. Or, a gentle reminder when you see it happen. "Hey, Sam. Did you know that it has become the mark of a good gunner to always check the chamber before handling a weapon/leave the trigger finger outside the trigger guard? Yeah, nobody takes a gunner seriously anymore unless he practices the Four Rules." Etc.

Of course, the Vietnam vet in OP will probably be hyper careful for the next 10 years, minimum.

Click to expand...

+1




#1. I can never imagine anyone handing a loaded (read chambered) firearm to anyone else.
#2 Every time a firearm is accepted you check.
recent conversation with my 10YO,
(me)"Here you go son, show me how to disassemble the Sig and win a pop sickle",
(son) "Is it loaded?",
(me) "Of course not"
(son pulls slide and looks into chamber)
(Dad smiles)

Old Virginia Joe said:

There should at least be a (sic) IQ test . . . . ???

What other rights should be limited by an IQ "test?" Right to free speech? Right to vote? Right to assemble? Right to worship? Right to bear children and be a parent?

They always seem to go after just one thing, don't they . . . . . . .

Click to expand...

Well, I could get behind the IQ test for the "right to bear children."

We're living out the days foretold in Idiocracy ...

Goingdef said:

well sorry to have offended anyone here can a mod please lock/delete this thread and delete my account, I think I'm done here at opencarry.org but I will continue to direct people here to read up on there rights, just try to take it easy on them some of you aren't the nicest people in the world to try to talk too!

Click to expand...

Honestly, I think some guys here were pretty rough on you. But take that as an attack on your statement of wanting some kind of test before being able to exercise a Constitutional right, not on you yourself. I think you mentioned that you definitely learned something in the analysis. You got lucky in your ignorance, and we should be blaming the government for the conditions that make this kind of ignorance so widespread. Please stick around. This thread will be forgotten and you will definitely enjoy everything else there is to learn here.

thebigsd said:

You need to learn the difference between accidental and negligent. A gun having a catastrophic malfunction that resulted in injury would be accidental. The situation you presented is negligent. It "happened" because someone did not follow the basic tules of firearms safety.

Click to expand...

How about accidental discharge due to negligence?

It WAS an accident and it was also because the owner neglected his responsibility to safe the firearm before show & tell time.