Is a properly holstered handgun considered "safe"?

[MohawkSlim]

I once worked a checkpoint in the middle of the desert and had my machine gun trained on a bus full of people. I was just sitting in the turret, hands off the gun, and watching the controller sweep through checking IDs. The people on the bus were really nervous for some reason. One even asked if we could "point" the machine gun in another direction.

I guess he didn't know it wasn't pointing at him since nobody was touching it.

 

[eldirector]

Well, if someone would make a holster for that machine gun.....

 

[chipbennett]

I once worked a checkpoint in the middle of the desert and had my machine gun trained on a bus full of people. I was just sitting in the turret, hands off the gun, and watching the controller sweep through checking IDs. The people on the bus were really nervous for some reason. One even asked if we could "point" the machine gun in another direction.

I guess he didn't know it wasn't pointing at him since nobody was touching it.

...because a crew-served weapon used by the military outside the wire is exactly like a handgun carried in normal, everyday civilian affairs.

Is there some legitimate point you're trying to make, or are you just trying to be argumentative?

 

[17 squirrel]

Mohawk ... Wait for it... It's coming..... 4..3...2..1.....

Chip will say,.. That's a Strawman Argument !!!!!!

 

[MohawkSlim]

...because a crew-served weapon used by the military outside the wire is exactly like a handgun carried in normal, everyday civilian affairs.

Is there some legitimate point you're trying to make, or are you just trying to be argumentative?

I'm trying to understand how pointing a gun in one way, shape, or form is somehow different than pointing it in another way. And, if they are really different, then why is there so much butt hurt over pointing them at people?

Either there are differences or there are not. Either there are exceptions to the rules or there are not.

 

[MohawkSlim]

Mohawk ... Wait for it... It's coming..... 4..3...2..1.....

Chip will say,.. That's a Strawman Argument !!!!!!

"Your argument is not really an argument. Why are you arguing?"

I'm also waiting for logical fallacy, logic fail, binary blah blah blah and, my personal favorite - dissonance!

 

[cbhausen]

I answered yes... But I still keep pointed in a safe direction when holstered, including when taking the holstered pistol on and off. I go so far as to keep the pistol on the opposite side of my body when putting the holster on with my wife or dogs in the room. Hell, I even keep it pointed in a safe direction when holstered lying on a table or dresser. And yes, one in the pipe. Always.

 

[17 squirrel]

I answered yes... But I still keep pointed in a safe direction when holstered, including when taking the holstered pistol on and off. I go so far as to keep the pistol on the opposite side of my body when putting the holster on with my wife or dogs in the room. Hello, I even keep it pointed in a safe direction when holstered lying on a table or dresser. And yes, one in the pipe. Always.

But.. But what about those unprotected citizens driving under the bridge when thou is waving Old Glory and taunting local law enforcement..

 

[chipbennett]

I'm trying to understand how pointing a gun in one way, shape, or form is somehow different than pointing it in another way. And, if they are really different, then why is there so much butt hurt over pointing them at people?

Either there are differences or there are not. Either there are exceptions to the rules or there are not.

I'll wait for you to explain how your previous example is germane.

The list is now: bricks, automobiles, bratwurst, and crew-served military weapons. Are you ever going to talk about firearms: you know, those objects to which the Four Rules of Safe Firearm Handling actually apply?

 

[MohawkSlim]

Are crew-served weapons not firearms?

Are bratwurst not delicious? They're germane!

 

[eldirector]

Are crew-served weapons not firearms?

Certainly not handguns.

 

[MohawkSlim]

Certainly not handguns.

Awwwww! I get it now. The rules only apply to handguns. Thanks!

 

[eldirector]

Awwwww! I get it now. The rules only apply to handguns. Thanks!

No, this thread does.

You might be looking for this:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...iscussion/400602-do-4-rules-always-apply.html

 

[17 squirrel]

Are crew-served weapons not firearms?

Are bratwurst not delicious? They're germane!

Was he not one of the Jackson 5 ?

 

[eldirector]

Was he not one of the Jackson 5 ?

Basketball Player?

 

[chipbennett]

Are crew-served weapons not firearms?

No, actually; they are not. A firearm, by definition, is portable, and operated by one person. (There may be exceptions, such as a belt-fed rifle, or crew-served sniper rifle, etc., that might still be considered to be firearms.)

I'm sure you'll keep going out of your way to find non-sequitur examples of how the Four Rules don't always apply to firearms; but as ElDirector has pointed out, this isn't the thread for it.

 

[BugI02]

I guess what bothers me the most is whats the end game of arguing that one can't ALWAYS completely obey the four rules. We grant you certain contrived examples where perfect compliance is unpossible. Does this mean you want to leverage this into dispensation to point a weapon in any way or at any person that you wish because it was cleared by an operator? Not going to happen. If the shoe was on the other foot, would you want me to sweep you with a weapon that I - and only I - had just cleared. Here I expect you to add information about your vast real world experience with firearms as if that makes a difference. It doesn't, it just moves the need for information from the weapon's state of potential lethality to the 'operator's' competance to confirm same. And if the 'operator' is arguing doggedly against adherence to simple, common sense safety measures then I already know more than enough to decide about his competence. You and your buddies or like minded people can do what you like among yourselves, there are always stupid prizes up for grabs. It will never be ok with me for you, or anybody else, to carelessly sweep me. I can contrive certain circumstances wherein, say, 'what goes up must come down' doesn't necessarily apply - such as if I'm freely accelerating in a uniform gravitational field. That doesn't mean I want to jump off the fifth floor of the parking garage. You have correctly ascertained that a number of us disagree with your position. Time to make the jump where you realize we never will.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Looks like people don't believe ready up drills happen.

They do and people get shot dead in them because that raffle gon ain't "low-dead".

We ain't wearing no salad suit and got no badge. Not similarly situated and not the same level of immunity.

If you shoot someone dead snapping in on another, you just don't zip up Private Snuffy in a bag and carry on. There will be red lights and people in brown or blue asking questions.

Kirk, I sincerely wish I'd been a creeper and snapped a pic of you at the Sushi Club meet with your holstered 1911 "pointed at" your own leg.

It does not. If the 1911 or the other guns I carry suffer a mechanical failure and discharge without fingers on triggers, hey, have I told you guys about the 870 at Shootrite, it will ruin pants, but not draw blood.

I may live a protected life but I am continually dismayed at the rationalizations of less than optimal gunhandling in the gun culture. To me this is important as any group that does not regulate itself will be regulated from the outside. I talk to people, many through chicken wire reinforced glass, who tell me that there is no way this could have happened as the gun was not low-dead. When I ask them about the First Rule in that all guns are always loaded, I get the same little kids argument that I get in the gun culture at gun shows or gun shops. "Nuh uh, no, it taint."

The more we rationalize pointing guns at people, the more opportunity there will be to attack our liberties from outside the gun culture.

 

[BugI02]

Amen, Kirk. In my industry we usually don't get to talk to the ones involved, just read the after accident report. The take-away lesson for me is that highly skilled people, flying very capable aircraft lose SA with startling regularity and fly a perfectly functional aircraft into the ground. It's so common it has a name - Controlled Flight Into Terrain. We hear the same song coming from them time and again citing their high level of experience negating the need for common sense precautions. That's why this debate sounds so familiar to me. There is an old saw in my industry, to the effect that 'There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots'. Seems you could just change 'pilot' to 'operator'

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Seems you could just change 'pilot' to 'operator'

The people that answer the phone? Well, at least telephone operators know not to point guns at me in the gun shop.

"Mr. Freeman, Clint Smith on Line 3. He says 'don't point the gun at people that don't need to be shot, numbnuts'."