Don't miss the unloading for transportation ND story in the Michigan forum

[Nutczak]

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Nutczak wrote:

And I will counter with this statement, If the firearm does not need to be handled at all, I would be willing to bet the chances of having it discharge in any wayare absolutely ZERO!

Essentially you are stating the fact that if you are never going to remove your firearm from the gun safe, then your ability to Open Carryis absolutely ZERO...

No, that f you are not required to continually load and unload everytime you need to get in and out of a vehicle. Was it really that difficult for you to understand, or are you justsuffering from an acutecase of cranial rectalitis?

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Nutczak wrote:

And I will counter with this statement, If the firearm does not need to be handled at all, I would be willing to bet the chances of having it discharge in any wayare absolutely ZERO!

Essentially you are stating the fact that if you are never going to remove your firearm from the gun safe, then your ability to Open Carryis absolutely ZERO...

No, that f you are not required to continually load and unload everytime you need to get in and out of a vehicle. Was it really that difficult for you to understand, or are you justsuffering from an acutecase of cranial rectalitis?

Bad week to stop sniffing glue?:lol:

When you mention zero (which you did), that normally means that the gun never leaves the safe. If you never chamber a roundeach time that you get in and out of a vehicle,your odds are also zero that you will have a ND while doing so. If there are no opportunities to have a ND, there will be no ND.

Each time you choose to chamber a round when you carry and then clear the chamber when you get back into the car, there is a chance that you will have a ND. You can not state that the number of times you personally do this that the odds of you having a ND will increase. Having more opportunities for something to go wrong does not mean that the odds of it going wrong are increased. Although this is notequivalent to flipping a coin or even spinning a roulette wheel, the concept that the odds are the same whether you do it once or 1000x holds true. Each holstering and clearing to put it back in its case is an independent event with the same odds as the last and the next. A statistic that out of XX events of firearms handling there was a discharge X times has nothing to do with the "odds" of such a discharge occurring.

The odds you will have a ND are based more on the odds that you will choose to ignore a basic safety rule than anything else. I am involved in our safety program at work. I can tell you that people are expected to do things safely every single time. Their job depends upon it. It would be unacceptable to make the statement that if someone does a specific task more times than someone else that the odds are higher that they will get hurt. To accept any statistic as fact regarding if something is done xx times that they will get hurt x times is not an option.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

You can not state that the number of times you personally do this that the odds of you having a ND will increase.

Again?? incomprehensible.

Handling a gun is not a 'safety' issue but a risk management issue because a gun is perceived as inherently unsafe while enjoying normal and substantial safety - comparable to nuclear power (speaking of work place 'safety'). A negligent discharge ND is merely an event with some probability of occurrence in an event/fault tree with other fault probabilities.

Just as the probability of an event is dependent on the opportunities, so too is the impact of the event dependent on appropriate precautions.

Consider the simplistic event tree, LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER, TARGET. Loaded and Trigger determine the likelihood of the event while Muzzle and Target determine the impact of the event.

The Wikipedia has reasonable articles on "safety" and "risk", unfortunately the latter turns soon to calculus.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Handling a gun is not a 'safety' issue but a risk management issue because a gun is perceived as inherently unsafe while enjoying normal and substantial safety - comparable to nuclear power (speaking of work place 'safety').

Again? unintelligible..

Perception has nothing to do with safety. Since the misshandling of a firearm can easily cause an injury, it is most definitely a safety issue. It is the handling which is the safety issue, not the firearm. Just like all mechanical devices, a firearm is not inherently unsafe. It is no less safe than a 10,000 # press at rest,an automobile at rest or an airplane at rest. All are safe when left alone. Once there is human intervention andthis humandoes something with these devices, there is the opportunity for an unsafe act which can cause injury to someone.

There is nothing inherently unsafe about discharging a firearm into a designated proper backstop.An unintentional discharge is inherently unsafe as the outcome isless controlled. No event can occur without the opportunity for it to occur. The odds of each individual opportunity resulting in an injuryare no different than the last or next if nothing else changes. Additional opportunities do not change the odds of the outcome. Loaded and trigger normally infer that a dischargeeventwill happen. Muzzle and target definitely change the outcome of that event but do not effect the probablity that an event will occur.


I agree that you can use risk assessment tools to make the people more safe.

1. Identify the hazards
2. Decide who might be harmed and how
3. Evaluate the risks and decide on precaution


.The hazard iswhatmay cause harm, which is the firearm if misshandled,

· The risk is the chance, high or low, that somebody could be harmed by a ND with an indication of how serious the harm could be.


· Can I get rid of the hazard altogether?
· If not, how can I control the risks so that harm is unlikely?

By choosing to not chamber a round, you control the risk so that harm is unlikely.

In order to lower the risk of those prone to be unsafe having a ND,it would behelpful to reduce exposure to the hazard by not needing to handle the firearm every timethey get in and out of the vehicle, but the current laws prevent this.

 

[Nutczak]

imported post

I-K, your arguments do hold some water, but then lets throw this headline into the mix, a gun thatfired completlyby itself, resulting full-auto style fire that wounded three people.

9mm malfunctions at Lakeland gun range, shoots three people
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/9mm-malfunctions-at-lakeland-gun-range-shoots-three-people/1041591

TAMPA — Michael Thourot had just pulled his hand away from the warm metal when it started spewing bullets.

Moments before, Sherri Thourot had watched her husband fire and reload the Jennings 9mm. Then he set it down for her to shoot next at the range.

That's when the handgun started firing on its own, she said, spinning around in circles, landing the Thourots and an Irish tourist in the hospital.

"Nothing like that has ever happened," said Sherri Thourot on Sunday evening from her room at Lakeland Regional Medical Center.

"We've been around guns all our lives."

It was about 10:30 a.m. Saturday when Sherri Thourot, 46, watched her husband, 47, set the gun down. The couple had decided to try out their new gun at the Saddle Creek Shooting Range in Lakeland.

They like the Polk County-owned range. It's strict and safe, the way the Thourots say they like to use their guns.

But as soon as Michael Thourot took his hand off the gun, it started firing like it was possessed, his wife said.

"I saw that he'd been hit, but I couldn't tell how bad," Sherri Thourot said. "Then I realized I had been hit. My hand was bent forward and I couldn't move my arm."

A bullet tore through the back of her right arm and exited from her biceps. Her husband had been shot in the left hand. Another man, a 29-year-old tourist visiting a friend, was hit in the shoulder and throat as he stood behind a shooting stall next to the Thourots.

All three were taken to the Lakeland hospital, where Michael Thourot and the tourist, Gary Flynn, underwent surgery.

Flynn was listed in stable condition at the hospital, while Michael Thourot was released Sunday. His wife said doctors put pins in his hand to help heal shattered bone.

She expected to leave the hospital today.

The Polk County Sheriff's Office said the gun may have been altered, leading to the malfunction. Detectives expect to know more when they take the gun apart and inspect it as they continue to investigate.

Sherri Thourot said her son, 29-year-old Jeremy, brought the 9mm back to the United States after one of his tours in Iraq with the Navy. He gave it to them this summer.

The couple cleaned the gun and made sure it was in good condition before taking it to the range, she said. They never expected to leave in an ambulance.

Before he left the hospital, her husband stopped in to see her.

"He's very shaken up over it," she said. "He's traumatized that anything like this happened to his wife."

But the freak accident won't keep her away from guns.

"I can't allow something like this to cause me to be afraid of something I've done all my life."

The gun fired by itself, multiple times, while doing what inanimate objects do best, Just sitting there (according to the reports)

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

I-K, your arguments do hold some water, but then lets throw this headline into the mix, a gun thatfired completlyby itself, resulting full-auto style fire that wounded three people.
The gun fired by itself, multiple times, while doing what inanimate objects do best, Just sitting there (according to the reports)

I can state with absolute certainty that it was a series of events of human action which were conducted in an unsafe manor which led to the ND of that cheap piece of crap. :lol: