Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

>/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) / 11:52 am  Jan 20, 1993 /

>Err, um, no, I think you're confused.  The Cooper fans are indeed
>carrying unsafe weapons (all weapons are unsafe to carry, btw, but
>then life is full of risk) and are relying on safe gun handling to

Eh, I agree to a point about 'Cooper fans' , but would you clarify
about 'All weapons being unsafe to carry?'  It seems that it is 
often safer to carry one than not.  Heck, why do you think police carry?
About 1 out of 29 citizens in WA state have carry permits.  We have our 
share of violence, (less than most places, IMHO) but even in the 
'hot' spots, (Seattle and Tacoma on this side of the mountains) it still
isn't people leagally carrying that cause the problem.  Quite the opposite
in fact.  They often prevent crimes.

After having thought about it, I've decided that the potential benifits 
far outweight the slight risks.  The same argument applies to seatbelts,
after all, there ARE people who have been killed only because they WERE
wearing seatbelts.  There isn't anything in life that is completely safe.

>prevent accidents (e.g., no fingers inside the trigger guard until on
>target).  Few 1911-A1 fans squeeze the trigger while the gun is
>holstered, because they *rely* on the safety.

Sorry, wrong.  And I don't know of ANY firearm I'd feel comfortable 
squeezing the trigger on while it is holstered....

>I'm not trying to defend any carrying of loaded weapons as being a
>completely safe practice.  Quite the contrary.  The key is to teach
>enough about safety to minimize the risk.  Mechanical safeties are an
>important part of that and should not just be ignored because the NRA
>says so.  Does that mean that a gun with the safety on is any safer
>than one with the safety off?  Heck no, as we all know.  Is it less
>likely to fire if the trigger is pulled than one with the safety off?
>I had hoped the readership and contributors to t.p.g would have a bit
>more on the ball as far as figuring that one out (at least on our side
>of the debate), but I ask you all to please note that the mere
>existance of *one* gun with a safety that works *one* time to prevent
>the gun from being fired *one* time is an existence proof of the
>statement.  In simpler, brain-dead-can-understand terms, the gun with
>the safety off will fire every time.  So what do we hope is learned
>from this?  To use safeties and that the NRA should teach people to
>use them.  Please note, folks, that "use" ^= "rely on".

I think I begin to see the adgenda.  Up until now I thought that 
this was a safety argument.  Now I see that the point is to keep 
the gun from firing, even when the trigger is pulled.   

>statement.  In simpler, brain-dead-can-understand terms, the gun with
>the safety off will fire every time.  So what do we hope is learned
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		IT SHOULD!!!!!!!!!  

If it doesn't, I'm going to get it fixe or replace it, or get better 
ammunition.!

So, the only guns that are safe are the ones that DON'T SHOOT?
I think you've got a great career with HCI.   (Hey Sara, lets just give
em dummys that won't fire, or we'll just let them have guns that are 
too complicated to shoot. They will never remember the 20 number 
combination to the safety!)

The purpose of a firearm is to fire when the trigger is pulled.  Any 
firearm that does not do so is either broken or improperly handled.  

Rick B.