As the resident Arizonan of the board I figured I may as well break the news. Sen. Lori Klien pointed her rasberry pink handgun that has no safety directly at a jounalist, even using the laser sight to prove that it was aimed directly at his chest. She is also the same woman who attempted to bring a gun into the senate shortly after the Giffords shooting in Tucson. In defending herself after the fact, she said that he was in no danger because her finger was not on the trigger.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can South Dakota please do something stupid and embarrasing please? What about Wyoming, they havent been in the news for what... decades?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off Se. Klien is a bonehead and her actions are indefensible. But, it annoys me when the media describes her gun as *gasp* having no safety. It is fairly common for modern automatics not to have a safety. The firing pin is not aligned with the primer until the trigger is squeezed, making an accidental discharge due to mishandling unlikely. Her gun not having a safety is salacious, but meaningless bit of trivia.
posted
It's also meaningless in the sense that even if it had a safety, she shouldn't be pointing it at anything she's not okay with putting a bullet through. That's . . . kind of rule number one of gun handling, at least as I've been taught it. Loaded or unloaded, safety on or safety off, finger on or off the trigger.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed, ambyr. The safety part is immaterial. You don't point a gun at people unless you intend to kill them, safety or not.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently the senator has made a statement in response to this story in which she claims the reporter walked in front of where she was pointing the gun which she claims to have checked to make sure the chamber was empty.
quote:Klein did not respond to calls for comment Monday and Tuesday, but she issued a statement in which she said Ruelas placed himself in front of the gun while she was demonstrating its sight.
Still, one would think she should lower the gun if someone is walking into its line of fire.
It does make me nervous that she feels there is some justification in pointing out that the chamber was empty. One safety check doesn't obviate other safety rules. If you allow yourself to let certain rules slip because you already checked something else, eventually you'll make a mistake.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Agreed, ambyr. The safety part is immaterial. You don't point a gun at people unless you intend to kill them, safety or not.
I completely agree with this.
Posts: 91 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Agreed, ambyr. The safety part is immaterial. You don't point a gun at people unless you intend to kill them, safety or not.
Pointing a loaded firearm at someone in a threatening manner is a serious felony. Its either assault with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon or aggravated assault depending on the jurisdiction. In most places, pointing an unloaded firearm at someone in a threatening manner is also consider a felony assault.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I think you probably already realize this, but just in case (and for anyone else who might not know): from the details available about this incident, it doesn't appear that there was any "threatening manner" involved.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it me, or is pink just a silly color for something that you would hope you'd want to use more as a threat than to actually have to use to kill someone?
Obviously, the purpose of a gun is to kill or injure, but it can also be used to change the balance of power and diffuse a situation before someone gets hurt. But since she keeps it lying around in her purse, it's not going to be immediately obvious when she takes it out, if it's a gun, a water pistol or, at a distance, a hairbrush.
Since her gun-safety training is clearly non-existent, I just hope she never puts down her bag somewhere a little barbie-obsessed girl can accidentally get hold of it.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if it seemed completely non-threatening in context, I'd hope that there exists some sort of criminal negligence/stupidity law for firearm usage that would apply.
(or that the existing laws for assault cover this, like Rabbit mentions)
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* she was showing off her gun upon request. Pointing it is somewhat risky, but not (in this context) what I would call "threatening" in the sense of intending to convey a threat. Stupid, yes. Assault, I don't think so.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I teach gun safety rule one is "Don't put your finger inside the trigger guard until you are ready to fire." Nearly all modern firearms will not go off unless the trigger is depressed. The rest of the safety rules ARE important, but this one is number one for a reason (the reason older firearms can go off without depressing the trigger is the firing pin is sitting directly on the primer of the round, so if the hammer is lowered, and the gun is dropped on the hammer, it will go off).
It was wrong of her to not instantly lower her gun as soon as the reporter entered her line of site. But "pointing a gun at someone" generally means you intentionally level your weapon on them.
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: You don't point a gun at people unless you intend to kill them, safety or not.
This statement is nonsense. Cops point their guns at people all the time, and then say, "Show me your hands!" and then "Put your hands on top of your head!" And then they arrest them. No shots fired, no killing intent.
You should never point a gun at someone if you are not willing to kill them (as you are now threatening deadly force, and if you aren't willing to go through with it then you only put yourself in danger of the other person trying to kill you). But intend to do so...hardly.
All that said, the intent of shooting someone isn't to kill most of the time. It is to get them to stop being a threat to yourself and others. If after you shot someone, they were lying on the floor groaning and had dropped their weapon, you wouldn't walk over and shoot them in the head twice "just to make sure they were dead". Because their death isn't the goal.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: *shrug* she was showing off her gun upon request. Pointing it is somewhat risky, but not (in this context) what I would call "threatening" in the sense of intending to convey a threat. Stupid, yes. Assault, I don't think so.
posted
The fact that she thinks her gun is "so cute" and draws analogies between liking guns and liking chocolate ice cream suggests a lack of understanding of the basic issues.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I don't like chocolate ice cream," she told the Arizona Republic. "Am I going to force you not to have any?"
I'd like to know when the last time was that someone was hurt or seriously injured by someone else's chocolate ice cream? When was the last time that a child died because they got hold of the ice cream in their parents freezer? When was the last time someone stole chocolate ice cream and used it to commit a crime? When was the last time someone traded chocolate ice cream to a drug cartel for heroin? When American made chocolate ice cream becomes a leading cause of death in Central America and the Caribbean, then I'll believe this woman has a leg to stand on. Until then, she doesn't seem responsible enough to be allowed to carry a loaded automatic pistol in her purse.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have made me really want to seriously injure myself with chocolate ice cream now, Rabbit. I hope you're happy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have injured myself with ice cream on more than one occasion, but never seriously.
I'm trying to decide how I might commit a felony with stolen chocolate ice. I wonder if its a felony to throw ice-cream at a police officer.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
People like this hurt the pro-gun position so much. Chocolate icecream? Really? Like having guns around is simply a matter of taste? And then brandishing it in public? *slow sad head shake* If I were on the fence about guns, this would push me into the "take them all away" camp.
Having guns is important, and safe handling is equally important. At the backbone of this country is the idea that our citizens will defend themselves and this country.
Not to down play the importance of chocolate icecream, as it is one of the major 4 food groups, but seriously, why does our side have so many fruit bats?
ETA: That last was rhetorical, please do not attempt to answer it.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well apparently Klein and I disagree on yet another topic, I happen to take my ice cream quite seriously. Legumes have no place in my desserts and I will not stand idly by while knotted little bits of tooth crackers ruin good frozen sugar milk.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cacao is not a legume, its not even in the same order. Its about as closely related to legumes as people are to clams. Vanilla beans are the seed of an Orchid, also not even in the order as legumes.
Peanuts are legumes and they can be quite tasty in ice cream. I had red bean ice cream when I was in Japan. It wasn't bad but I wouldn't put in my top 50 ice cream flavors.
[ July 14, 2011, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ohhhhh...is that what AH was saying...I was looking over what the Sen. said looking for a reference to peanuts (or black beans) in her icecream.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I teach gun safety rule one is "Don't put your finger inside the trigger guard until you are ready to fire.
Then I don't really want you teaching gun safety. As I've been taught many times, the NUMBER ONE rule of gun safety is to always be aware of which way the gun is pointing, and to not point it at a person unless you intend to shoot them. More specifically, point it in a direction where there isn't a person, like straight up, or straight down.
As to the issue of safety or no safety, it's a bad idea to assume that a gun is modern, and therefore designed safe. I'd be willing to bet that most guns manufactured in the 20th century still exist in some form. My father had a 22 magnum revolver in which the "safety" was having the hammer in the half-cocked position, in which pulling the trigger could not cause the hammer to fall on the primer. At one point he put it in "safety" and handed me the gun. My hand hit the hammer, not the trigger, and the gun went off. Because we were following rule #1, I only received a powder burn from where my hand grasped the cylinder, and the bullet went into a nearby sand pile.
quote:You should never point a gun at someone if you are not willing to kill them (as you are now threatening deadly force, and if you aren't willing to go through with it then you only put yourself in danger of the other person trying to kill you). But intend to do so...hardly.
First of all, I change the word "kill" to "shoot." It works even with water pistols. If you aim a gun at a person, you should intend to shoot them, conditionally. That is, in your police example, the police intend to shoot, unless the person lowers their gun/raises their hands, stops threatening, etc. At which point the cop should refer to rule #1 and avert the muzzle.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then I don't really want you teaching gun safety.
Allow me to borrow from the Matrix and say, I'm thankful it isn't up to you.
I made it clear that all the rules are important. But you should realize that the vast majority of accidental shootings are because people pull the trigger when they do not mean to and not because their turn of the century gun got bumped. I don't have the number in front of me, or even know if that kind of stat is even collected, but I'd bet you my custom AR-15 that it's higher then 90%, and that actual hammer malfunctions are less then 10%.
Knowing what you are covering is very important, but not as important as keeping your finger out of the trigger guard until you are ready to fire...by an order of magnitude.
Getting nitpicky to the point of insisting on "intend conditionally" vs "willing" which is not only more correct, but easier to comprehend...I struggle for a kind word. If I aim a gun at someone, my intent is not to shoot them, it is to have them follow my orders explicitly and stop whatever it that caused me to draw down on them. I am willing to shoot them if they do not follow my instructions or in anyway present a threat, but my intent is simply compliance, i.e. "Don't move, show me your hands, lay down on your stomach, don't move, we are waiting for the police."
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with glenn that sweep safety is more important than trigger safety (not less important, certainly not moreso than 'an order of magnitude'), so I'd preference that in terms of having a 'rule one.'
I have to agree with stone that 'don't point your gun at something you don't intend to shoot' is impractical in favor of 'don't point your gun at something you are not prepared to shoot' but the former advice is typically more viable information for gun trainees as opposed to, say, policemen.
I agree with just about everyone on the planet that Senator Arizona Yeehaw Iloveguns (R-AZ) is an idiot.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:More specifically, point it in a direction where there isn't a person, like straight up, or straight down.
Preferably DOWN!! NOT UP!!! For gosh sakes. What goes up, comes down. There may not be any people above you, but the bullet's not going up for ever.
In certain parts of the west, its common for drunken gun nuts to shoot their guns at the sky on holidays like the fourth of July. There are frequently people injured from falling bullets.
For that matter, if we are going to have a #1 gun safety rule, it ought to be never handle a gun if you've been drinking or are terminally stupid (which seems to be the case for the AZ senator).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe we are still arguing gun safety when the more important issue of most delicious ice cream flavors has yet to be resolved.
Why don't we start with ice cream flavors that should be banned. I think bubble gum and licorice should top the list.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a CSI episode where a person was killed streets away by a bullet fired into the air (although not directly up).
Also, interesting QI fact: if you drop a bullet and you fire a bullet parallel to the ground they will both hit the ground at the same moment.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Also, interesting QI fact: if you drop a bullet and you fire a bullet parallel to the ground they will both hit the ground at the same moment.
This would be true in a vacuum, but since we don't live in vacuum, it won't be.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Not to down play the importance of chocolate icecream, as it is one of the major 4 food groups, but seriously, why does our side have so many fruit bats?
The other three being bacon, cheese, and fried.
Posts: 212 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Ohhhhh...is that what AH was saying...I was looking over what the Sen. said looking for a reference to peanuts (or black beans) in her icecream.
Nope, I literally meant what I said. I dont care what Klein said, I simply found an excuse to push my anti-cashew agenda.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Not to down play the importance of chocolate icecream, as it is one of the major 4 food groups, but seriously, why does our side have so many fruit bats?
The other three being bacon, cheese, and fried.
I know there is fried ice cream and I know there is bacon ice cream. Put them together for all your nutritional needs!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fun fact: Cashews are not nuts or legumes...they are seeds.[/quotes]
Nuts and legumes are also seeds.
[quote]The reason you probably haven't heard much about the cashew apple or seen them in the produce section of your grocery store is that the fruit spoils so quickly. It can only be eaten fresh from the tree because it starts to ferment after only 24 hours and is too perishable to export to the United States.
They don't mention that Cashew fruits would be unlikely to capture much of a market even if they didn't ferment because they're rather bad. They are very astringent. I keep thinking I just had a bad one and should give it another try, but no, it turns out their all like that. Yuck.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope, I literally meant what I said. I dont care what Klein said, I simply found an excuse to push my anti-cashew agenda.
Like Cacao and vanilla, cashews also aren't legumes. They also aren't even in the same order as legumes. Once again, no more closely related than people and clams.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooooh yummmmm Cashew fruit. I ate those all the time in Brazil, they are really tasty.
The actual cashew nut right off the fruit can kill you though. It constricts, and there are always a few children in Brazil every year that suffocate because they eat the stem/seed. That is why you never really see truly "raw" cashews.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
An argument for why keeping your finger out of the trigger guard until you decide to fire should be the #1 rule: (note the change in wording, not "ready to fire", but "decide to fire")
At times, you will point a gun at people and things which you do not wish to destroy: Two examples, room clearing and holstering your sidearm. In room clearing you attempting to acquire threatening targets with a "ready" stance (firearm pointed, ready to fire) it is entirely probably that you will cover non combatants and continue to cover them until such time as you decide they are harmless or they are secured. In the second example, you do not get to really decide where the muzzle of your sidearm is pointed, it must be pointed at the bottom of your holster, which likely has much of your leg and foot directly beneath the muzzle.
Now, in both of these scenarios, placing your finger on the trigger, inside the trigger guard can cause unintended death/injuries. In the latter example, a good holster will cover the trigger guard completely restricting access while holsterd, so, if your finger is inside the guard and you try and holster your sidearm, the holster will cause you to depress the trigger and you end up shooting yourself in the leg.
In the former example, it is possible to be startled by any number of things and to "jump" causing your finger to twitch, and if it is on the trigger, badness follows.
Controlling what is covered by the muzzle of your firearm is VERY important. But as some posters pointed out, even aiming your firearm into the sky can cause unintentional death/injury.
I looked for statistics of accidental shootings which delineated between mechanical malfunction and accidental trigger depressions, and couldn't find any. I contacted the NRA and they said they didn't think that those statistics were kept. I am writing the NRA to suggest that trigger finger discipline be bumped up in order, as currently #1 is "1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction." I'm also writing them to change the wording from "2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot." to "ALWAYS keep your finger outside of the trigger guard until you decide to shoot."
You may now return to discussing crazy senators, chocolate ice cream and cashews.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you should realize that the vast majority of accidental shootings are because people pull the trigger when they do not mean to and not because their turn of the century gun got bumped.
I think you need to draw a Venn diagram showing how many accidental shootings happened when someone accidentally pulled the trigger while the gun was not pointing at anyone.
quote:I am writing the NRA to suggest that trigger finger discipline be bumped up in order, as currently #1 is "1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction." I'm also writing them to change the wording from "2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot." to "ALWAYS keep your finger outside of the trigger guard until you decide to shoot."
Wait, you checked with the NRA, found that you were wrong, and posted it here? And also that you have the chutzpah to tell them that THEY should change their rules? Wow.
quote:Preferably DOWN!! NOT UP!!! For gosh sakes. What goes up, comes down. There may not be any people above you, but the bullet's not going up for ever.
Rabbit: the rule is to not point your gun at a person, or where a person is likely to be. It's not really possible to create a rule that covers all bases, you have to use judgment. But up or down is generally preferred to some kind of sideways. Bear in mind, that pointing a gun down at a cement, tile or rock ground can result in a ricochet, which, at close range can be much worse than a falling bullet. Also, if you're on the second floor of a house, it's generally safer to fire through an unoccupied attic than into the occupied first floor.
And of course, the real goal is to not have the gun fire in any direction, unless you have an intended target.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
