Not a good day at Garden State in Lakewood.

[High Exposure 5,664]

9/11 and Korea ? For that matter Pearl Harbor and Korea ?

Forget it, he's rollin'.

 

[Shane45 807]

very true but there has been plenty of gun owners who lived and died without ever having a ND. Some get complacent and some dont.

Yes but there is a big difference between the person that handles it once in a blue moon and someone handling them 1000 times a day. Keep in mind that I am NOT excusing accidents. However I am pointing out that as much as we try, they still happen. So be careful of the crucifixion because there is NO guarantee the day will not come that you have the accident. In fact those that say it will never happen to them scare me much more than those that accept it could be them. Frankly those that exibit an honest disposition that it could be them are the ones I find more conscientious and careful. But of course its not just firearms. Look at root cause analysis on some serious disasters and you can find endless cases of incredible financial loss and loss of life from literally one in a billions sequences of small mistakes by individuals that should have never happened...but did. 

[fishnut 2,358]

I know that there is a difference between someone who handles firearms often or not. I also know allot of people who carry guns on a daily basis who have never had a ND. I'm more cautious than most gun owners because I've been shot before (minor hunting accident and not my fault) that drives me to not be complacent because I don't want to get shot again or shoot someone elce by accident. In my opinion someone who is ok with the fact that they might have a ND has basically already admitted to themselves that they are not as safe as they should be with gun safety. Hell even if I were to pick up an ultra sensitive defective loaded gun and it went off in my hand without me touching the trigger I still wouldn't shoot myself because the gun would not have been pointed at me or anyone elce. I do understand what you are saying Shane but you have to admit that not everyone who handles guns allot has a ND.

[PeteF 1,044]

I have to say, gun rentals are a horrible idea. Between people renting to commit suicide and accidental issues, not sure it's a practice that should continue.

 

I know it's no applicable to the current situation and I'll get heat, but IMO - the only people that should be able to rent a gun are FID holders.

Of course because everyone should go through the time consuming and tediuos process of getting a fid to see if they even like to shoot.

Nevermind people from out of state renting. For example if the chief FBI firearms instructor comes to GFH and would like to try out a gun during his visit, of course that individual should not be allowed to rent a gun.

Stupid idea.

[PeteF 1,044]

I have to say, gun rentals are a horrible idea. Between people renting to commit suicide and accidental issues, not sure it's a practice that should continue.

 

I know it's no applicable to the current situation and I'll get heat, but IMO - the only people that should be able to rent a gun are FID holders.

Of course because everyone should go through the time consuming and tediuos process of getting a fid to see if they even like to shoot.

Nevermind people from out of state renting. For example if the chief FBI firearms instructor comes to GFH and would like to try out a gun during his visit, of course that individual should not be allowed to rent a gun.

Stupid idea.

[PeteF 1,044]

I have to say, gun rentals are a horrible idea. Between people renting to commit suicide and accidental issues, not sure it's a practice that should continue.

 

I know it's no applicable to the current situation and I'll get heat, but IMO - the only people that should be able to rent a gun are FID holders.

Of course because everyone should go through the time consuming and tediuos process of getting a fid to see if they even like to shoot.

Nevermind people from out of state renting. For example if the chief FBI firearms instructor comes to GFH and would like to try out a gun during his visit, of course that individual should not be allowed to rent a gun.

Stupid idea.

[silverado427 10,719]

Did you have your post selector on three round burst

[Newtonian 453]

Of course because everyone should go through the time consuming and tediuos process of getting a fid to see if they even like to shoot.

Nevermind people from out of state renting. For example if the chief FBI firearms instructor comes to GFH and would like to try out a gun during his visit, of course that individual should not be allowed to rent a gun.

Stupid idea.

This is a very complex issue that we (including me) tend to over-simplify. Yes using guns is a near-absolute right as I've noted. But there is also a practical side to this. Notwithstanding the tens of millions of rental shooters you guys seem to know intimately, and their inalienable and categorical right to play with guns, ranges are a complicated business. Owners need to be profitable but they also have responsibilities to the public and their customers, just like a ski resort or daycare center.

 

As noted previously there's something about fatal accidental shootings that should transcend, at some level at least, generally accepted rules regarding business, risks, and rights. So much stupid shit had to happen for that ND the other day. Slightly less muzzle control and we'd have had a tragedy. Gun ranges are private businesses and we have rights. Owners should have the right to run their businesses any way they like. But there are no take-backs when you've just killed somebody or yourself.

 

AFAIC you're taking a risk every time you shoot, especially anywhere other people are around. I prefer to minimize my risks. Which is I avoid indoor ranges and refuse to hunt with 300 yahoos from the Acropolis Diner in Passaic ("baking done on the premise") sweeping me on stocking days. 

 

YOU and your favorite range can do whatever you like.

[Shane45 807]

I know that there is a difference between someone who handles firearms often or not. I also know allot of people who carry guns on a daily basis who have never had a ND. I'm more cautious than most gun owners because I've been shot before (minor hunting accident and not my fault) that drives me to not be complacent because I don't want to get shot again or shoot someone elce by accident. In my opinion someone who is ok with the fact that they might have a ND has basically already admitted to themselves that they are not as safe as they should be with gun safety. Hell even if I were to pick up an ultra sensitive defective loaded gun and it went off in my hand without me touching the trigger I still wouldn't shoot myself because the gun would not have been pointed at me or anyone elce. I do understand what you are saying Shane but you have to admit that not everyone who handles guns allot has a ND.

 

Fishnut, you are going off the rails here. I don't see anyone in this entire thread including myself that has taken a position that its ok to have a ND. What I said was that those that think it will never happen to them, in my experience, are the ones to be more concerned about. Furthermore your description is inaccurate. If a firearm discharged because of a defect, it is not a ND. I accept that I am human. I try very very hard to continually evaluate my gun handling. I make it a personal habit to even check a firearm that was just checked in front of me and handed to me. But I also am acutely aware that because I handle firearms a metric ton more than the average person and because I handle them in a very wide range of environments, I run the risk of lapsing or becoming complacent and I do my very best to real myself in if I find myself making mistakes or ignoring my own rules. But as such I realize I am NOT immune to making a mistake. Because I am aware I am not immune, I am always trying to put myself in check if I am living up to being as safe as I can be. NO ONE IS IMMUNE!

[High Exposure 5,664]

If you believe you will never have an ND, because you are always careful, because you always check, you will one day get "The Loud Noise".

 

That doesn't mean you shouldn't always follow the safety rules. It does mean the safety rules shouldn't be routine. They should not be completed on autopilot, or conducted at the unconcious competence level of awareness. The safety checks should be done with 100% attention to detail at the concious competence level of awareness.

 

However, if you accept that no one is immune to a lapse in judgement, and realize that one day your day will come, you tend remain more vigilant and aware of what you are doing. This vigilance makes it more likely you will catch yourself before you have a very bad day.

 

On a side note:

 

One thing I have learned is this - your mind tends to support your desires. Example: If you are looking for an empty chamber you are more likely to see an empty chamber - even when it isn't! Because your brain wants you to be correct.

 

So to combat this, change your mindset. When clearing a weapon, look for the loaded gun. Expect to see a round every time you check a chamber and you increase your chances of catching that ND before it happens.

[ogfarmer 138]

btw it was a 22lr round they posted on their fb

[fishnut 2,358]

Shane I understand and can see your point that a ND can happen to anyone who.is careless. But you make it seem that everyone who handles guns allot will have a ND and that's what I don't agree with. Yes my example was flawed but my point was that even if a gun goes off unintentionally in my hand at least the bullet won't hit me or anyone elce.

[Shane45 807]

I don't make it seem anything. That is your odd interpretation. I don't even see how you logically draw that conclusion. But from a mathematical standpoint the more you handle, the greater your chances of a mistake. The guy that drives 60,000 miles a year has a greater chance of having a car accident than the guy driving 6000 miles a year.

[Sota 1,191]

I don't make it seem anything. That is your odd interpretation. I don't even see how you logically draw that conclusion. But from a mathematical standpoint the more you handle, the greater your chances of a mistake. The guy that drives 60,000 miles a year has a greater chance of having a car accident than the guy driving 6000 miles a year.

Except most accidents happen < 5 miles from home, so if the number of departures and arrivals is the same for the 60k and 6k person, their statistical probabilities of an accident would also be the same.

[10X 3,296]

Except most accidents happen < 5 miles from home, so if the number of departures and arrivals is the same for the 60k and 6k person, their statistical probabilities of an accident would also be the same.

Not exactly the same. That would require the probability of an accident to be 0, once the driver is more than five miles from home.

 

But the probability of an accident doesn't scale linearly with miles driven, which may have been your point.

[Shane45 807]

I don't think the insurance companies agree with this. My insurance went down a fair amount when my distance to work decreased considerably. Also, the 52% more likely would seem to me to assume = mileage. But if you guys want to sidetrack on mileage instead of getting the point, be my guest. Maybe this one is better. The more times you play Russian roulette, the more chances you have of loosing. Better?

[PK90 3,570]

The chances and odds remain the same.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location

[Shane45 807]

Only from the perspective of each individual try.

[PK90 3,570]

Nope. Loading 10 rounds in a 60 round revolver, 1 in a 6 rounder, or doing it 600 times, all the same.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location

[Zeke 5,504]

Haste makes waste

[Shane45 807]

Paul your stuck on the single occurrence number and not the reoccurring chance. Ill tell you what. I will play once. And you can play 100 times. We will use a chiefs special. Who is more likely to incur a loss? You seem to be implying our odds are equal. I disagree. If you play more, your chances for a loss are greater.

[High Exposure 5,664]

Every single time you pick up a gun you, you take the risk of an accident occurring. We practice the 4 rules to mitigate, not eliminate, the risks.

 

It makes sense that more often you touch a gun, the more often you take that risk. The more times you take the risk, the more opportunities you have to miss something or make an error.

 

Someone who plays Russian roulette once, has to beat the one in six odds a single time.

 

Someone who plays Russian roulette 10 times, has to beat the same one in six odds 10 times.

 

If I was forced to play, I'd rather play once then 10 times.

[voyager9 3,434]

Someone who plays Russian roulette once, has to beat the one in six odds a single time.

 

Someone who plays Russian roulette 10 times, has to beat the same one in six odds 10 times.

 

That's The difference between statistics and stupidity.

 

On the subject at hand: While someone who works with firearms has a higher chance for a mistake, they also should also have a higher opportunity to apply the 4 rules. That familiarity will help mitigate the chances for a mistake. It's when familiarity turns to complacency that the odds of a mistake skyrocket

[High Exposure 5,664]

I had a very good friend tell me once "Every time you handle a gun and it doesn't kill you, your respect for what that gun can do is eroded. The struggle is an internal one to stay vigilant of a tool that has always been safe in the past but has the potential to kill you or someone else in the future. The mind is the enemy during the present."

 

Same guy also told me "Every time you hand someone a gun, their IQ drops 50 points." which in my experience is a universal truth.

 

Damn I miss Pat....

[Newtonian 453]

Except most accidents happen < 5 miles from home, so if the number of departures and arrivals is the same for the 60k and 6k person, their statistical probabilities of an accident would also be the same.

That B.S. stat has been flying around for 50 years. Most accidents occur in high-traffic areas. Most serious accidents, the ones you worry about, occur outside of towns. The 6K mile driver probably drives only to errands so yeah he files more insurance claims than the guy who enters an on-ramp 1/4 mile from his house. But someone who drives 6k for errands and 54k on the highway must have more accidents than the guy who drives only locally. Has to be.

[Newtonian 453]

Except most accidents happen < 5 miles from home, so if the number of departures and arrivals is the same for the 60k and 6k person, their statistical probabilities of an accident would also be the same.

That B.S. stat has been flying around for 50 years. Most accidents occur in high-traffic areas. Most serious accidents, the ones you worry about, occur outside of towns. The 6K mile driver probably drives only to errands so yeah he files more insurance claims than the guy who enters an on-ramp 1/4 mile from his house but only drives 6k a year. But someone who drives 6k for errands and 54k on the highway must have more accidents than the guy who drives only locally. Has to be.

[Zeke 5,504]

"Has to be"

Yep nothing to back this up.

It jus " has to be"

[Zeke 5,504]

The marriage of math and nature is problematic. Even with the infusion of base E.

[Sota 1,191]

so would the shot dude be able to tell us if it's worse to get shot by a .22 or something else? I'm curious.

[45Frank 32]

How do you ever touch a gun without the first thing you do is check the condition of it? I do this every single time - no exceptions. Sometimes I expect it to be loaded and I check that it is. More often I expect it to be unloaded and that can be checked visually if the action is open before you touch it.

I agree there is NO EXCUSE for this.

This is the fault of the RANGE no one else. I have been shooting for 40 plus yrs. and have NEVER ever put a gun down without unloading/checking. First thing when you pick it up is check.

This guy should never be allowed to work in a range, sorry he should have never touched the trigger.