View Single Post
Old February 20, 2013, 05:47 PM   #32
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
If you prefer to deliberately misunderstand what is being said I suppose you could come up with this.
Not misreading, just going with what's being said. Read on...

Quote:
When dry firing it is not hard to deliberately pause and check things over. You *know* you're going to be violating the rule about "keep the finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire." When you deliberately break a rule but pause and say "I know I am doing X, but here is why, and I have checked Y and Z, so things are safe" then things can be done safely.
And why is it so hard to do this when taking down your gun. YOU ARE PULLING THE TRIGGER. This is not a difficult thing to do. There is no difference between pulling the trigger to take down your gun, and pulling the trigger to dry fire. Saying there is because with dry firing you're intending to practice, or you know you're going to pull the trigger is disingenuous. You know if you're going to pull the trigger when you're taking the gun down. You are still pulling the trigger when you are not intending to fire. You are still breaking rule #3, either way. Both actions are "inherently more dangerous" than not pulling the trigger.

Quote:
You are ignoring what we are really saying- an unnecessary trigger pull is inherently more dangerous than never pulling the trigger.
I never disagreed with this. But my point (that you apparently misread) was that anyone with an ounce of common sense, and respect for the power of the object they have in their hand will make sure the gun is unloaded before pulling the trigger, when the intention is not to fire a round. If you fire off a round for any reason that wasn't intended, it is not because of the design of the gun, it's because you were negligent. Period.

Quote:
Certainly, that danger can be managed. An aware person can indeed ensure that things are handled safely and no unintended round is fired. Of course that is the case. But it remains that it depends on everything working well... especially the safety between the ears. Unfortunately even that safety is not foolproof.
I bolded the important part. No mechanical safety is foolproof. Is it bad design to require a trigger pull to take down? We could argue that, I suppose. At the time that was the norm, likely there wasn't another way people knew how to do it. Would I be against, say, Glock doing that to any new guns they make? Not at all, as long as it doesn't affect the operation of the gun. But they haven't. Many manufacturers haven't. And it doesn't bother me at all, because I don't rush when I'm taking down my gun. I make sure it's safe before I pull that trigger.

Here's a question for you, is it a good idea to chamber check any firearm before you take it down? Regardless of whether you have to pull the trigger or not? If you answer anything other than yes, I'd really like to see an explanation (and I highly doubt you would say anything other than yes, you seem like a level headed person).

Quote:
Or you can just ridicule us for being silly people more interested in safety than in being competent with the gun because if we warn people about a possible danger of a given design then we're obviously not out there dry firing or anything else to build experience.
It's because the thought that some mechanical device can make a gun safer gives us awesome regulations like California requiring the idiot unloading safety (aka magazine disconnect safety). Safe handling is what makes a gun safe. Mechanical devices DO NOT.

I'm not ridiculing you. I'm not against designs that don't require a trigger pull to take down a gun. I'm simply an advocate of safe firearm handling over trusting mechanical safeties. I'd rather stand next to someone with, say a Glock with great firearm handling than an idiot who isn't safe with a gun with 100 safety devices.

Quote:
Let's be serious and honest. Many people have touched off an unintended round because they failed to clear the firearm properly. A design requiring this step for takedown is one that is going to be more prone to this than one that does not. Does this mean the design is junk? Hardly. It means the owner of one of these types of guns absolutely must pay attention because there's that much less margin for error.
I agree with you here. My primary point was that you don't blame the gun when someone fires off a negligent round. That's all.
Gaerek is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04342 seconds with 7 queries