BlueRidgeTrapper
Regular Member
If I managed to do something this stoooopid I sure wouldn't run to my computer and tell the world :shocker:
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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!
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.
He should count his lucky stars he gets to have a learning experience.Learning opportunity, goingdef.
THIS THIS THIS THIS!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.
+1One 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.
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 . . . . . . .
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!
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.