Shoot a gun? With like bullets?!?!?

Status
Not open for further replies.
precision_shooter said:
...You can't label an inanimate object dangerous when it will just sit there until a person interacts with it creating a dangerous situation...
Click to expand...
I absolutely can, and I absolutely do.

And how dangerous that inanimate object is can be measure by the combination of (1) how much knowledge, skill, and attention is needed to be able to handle and manage the object without an undue risk of causing unintended damage; (2) the nature and extent of harm or damage that can be caused by the object if mishandled or misused; and (3) how much harm or damage can be caused in relation to how minor or major the handling error is (from a small error being capable of causing only a little harm to a small error being capable of causing significant harm).

In those terms a gun is certainly more dangerous than a baseball bat or hammer.
 
But not as dangerous as a car, or an ultralight or even a hang glider. Even riding lawn mowers, bottles of whiskey and similar items would also be more inherently dangerous than guns, including medical surgery
 
Missed the point Fiddle it's not dangerous UNTILL somebody picks it up. Until then is an inanimate object albeit an object of fear if you'er a progressive...I am reminded of the time in London where a .22 LR round was found in a doorway. The police shut down the block, put up barrior tape and stopped traffic until the bomb squad got there. A police supervisor breathlessly babbled on TV that it was SO dangerous just sitting there.

I am also reminded of the old story of the worn Russian infrn sgt who was cleaning his PSH in a bunker outside Berlin. A reporter asked him if he was handling the gun safely. His response: "Is gun, is not safe". Bout says it all. That they are channelers of energy makes them what they are and god help everyone if they are ever allowed to be taken away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sulaco2 said:
Missed the point Fiddle it's not dangerous UNTILL somebody picks it up...
Click to expand...
I understand the point completely. And it's still entirely proper to consider a gun to be a dangerous device. It is one. And considering it a dangerous device reinforces the need to handle it properly. The same thing goes for things like knives, cars and chainsaws.
 
I don't think I'd be afeared to shoot a gun, but I don't think I'd do it. I've had a few I didn't like, but generally I sell them and buy something else. Mainly, I keep my shooting to targets, critters, and clay pigeons.
 
Pure nitroglycerine would be an example of a dangerous inanimate object - it doesn't need a finger to make it explode.
 
Isn't this argument on whether a firearm or Bobcat or whatever being dangerous a matter of semantics? Very few objects, if any (I'll leave chemicals, organisms and acts of nature out of this) are dangerous if not manipulated in some way. What we are talking about is an object being "potentially" dangerous if mishandled (and some items that are dangerous even when handled correctly). To people who do not know how to operate a lathe or a Bobcat or a firearm these items are dangerous. Of course, with most firearms, if used as intended they are still dangerous if only to their target.

Is it really incorrect to call an object "dangerous". Do we really need to go about saying "potentially dangerous if mishandled" every time. I'm all for clear and precise speech (I try anyway) but might this be getting a bit carried away?

Having said this, I don't think firearms should be feared anymore than a lathe should be feared. They should be respected and understood. But I think fear is the proper response by the brain when it recognizes the "potential" danger and it does not contain the requisite understanding. Then fear is healthy in my opinion.
 
I will commonly go to the range on the weekends to shoot and ask friends if they would like to go with. I kid you not, 90% of the time, their response is like that of the title. "Guns? Like the ones that shoot bullets?"
Click to expand...

I have observed that reaction and LOVE it. Gives me a chance to go "yup, real guns, I've got em that go from "pop" to "kah freekin BOOM" and anywhere in between and if you come on down to the range I'll show you how to safely handle 'em and you'll have a great time"!

BTW, I've seen guys introducing people to shooting, more often then not women, who think it's cool to get the newbie shooting a nice light .38 wadcutter or the like and then slip in a hot as heck magnum round. I've seen more than on person go from learning to love shooting (you could see joy beaming) to absolute loathing in the space of one pull of the trigger. Way to go!
 
I have frequently encountered irrational fear in the context of flying light planes, motorcycling and of course shooting.

The combination of all three ? You gots to be nuts - or have a death wish* :)

Often it's too late to educate. Best just to ignore.

* heavy sarc.
 
I have frequently encountered irrational fear in the context of flying light planes, motorcycling and of course shooting.

The combination of all three ? You gots to be nuts - or have a death wish*
Click to expand...

Well, if you are shooting guns while driving a motorcycle inside a light plane, then yes, I'd have to agree :p
 
Have an accident with a hammer, or a table saw, and you could get hurt. Have an accident with a gun and you or someone a mile away could get killed. Leave a hammer or a screwdriver on the table and the kids could pick it up and damage the furniture or break something with it, leave a loaded gun on the table and the furniture isn't the only object at risk.

It's not a binary argument. There are degrees of danger that max out at the worst that someone could do with an object by accident. From a bladeless, unplugged table saw to one with the guards off cutting a 3/4" square block barehanded, the level of danger escalates.

An unloaded gun IS just a hunk of metal, no more dangerous than a hammer. Both could mash your thumb if you try to drive a brad with it. But that's pretty much it for hammer accidents.

On the other hand the gun's danger potential isn't maxed out at this stage, it continues to go up by steps. A handgun in Condition Four is less dangerous than one in Condition Three, etc. Leave a semi-auto handgun in Condition Four on the coffee table and the kids could pick it up and drop it through the glass tabletop (besides being a very poor way to teach kids about guns) but that's about all the potential danger it represents. Leave it on the table in Condition Three, and a kid would have to be pretty strong and determined to rack it if it's a semi-auto, but its potential danger has increased because if he's able to rack it and does it's now in Condition One or worse, in Condition Zero and the danger potential has gone off the charts.

A pile of salt and a pile of FFFG are just two piles of powder. But drop a lit cigarette in them and see the danger potential of each. It's not a "yes-no" circumstance.
 
Guns are dangerous. So is water. That's why they put locked fences around swimming pools and lifeguards at the beach.

Water is necessary for life. Used and consumed properly it sustains life and enhances the experience of life. Used and consumed improperly it can cause injury and death.


Is a gun any different? Guns are dangerous too. Take care.
 
know the reaction ---

My sister was stunned that we own firearms and shoot them. She's an east-coast type person (urban, politically correct ---- Kumbaya --- etc).

I'd expect that she'd avoid coming to visit, knowing there's (gasp) firearms in the house (and more than one!).

My dad was a former DI in the army ---- so I know the values didn't come from him (he gave me 2 of my firearms - and we've been looking for a nice M1 or 1903A3 for him to re-live his glory days).

I try to explain it --- for each of my three sons --- there's a rim fire rifle, a center fire rifle, and a shotgun. (my pattern has been disrupted --- my daughter wants in on the action --- and she shoots better than any of us).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top