What is a gun?

[esrice]

Where do you draw the line where you have to treat an inert object as a firearms and where you don't?

Great question. I would guess that folks draw that line at varying points along the spectrum (real gun on one end, 'finger gun' on the other ).

Here are some examples that explain my own personal line:

Real guns - treated like real guns - because they are real guns
Sims/Airsoft guns - treated like real guns - because they fire projectiles and are used as direct replacements for real guns in training
Blue guns - treated like real guns - because they are used as direct replacements for real guns in training
Coat hanger being used by Awerbuck - treated like a real gun - because it's being used as a direct replacement for a real gun in training

Nerf guns - treated like toys - because they are a vast departure from real guns in shape, size, function, and use
Rubber band guns - treated like toys - because they are a vast departure from real guns in shape, size, function, and use
Coat hanger being used by my 6-year-old - treated like a toy - because we are probably running around the house having a fake war and crawling around the living room having fun

And of course there are some exceptions that I've noted in previous posts. If an instructor wants to use an inert replica or piece of scrap wood to demonstrate something that would otherwise violate a safety rule I'm ok with that. I'd be less thrilled if students were using them to replicate the mistakes themselves.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I'm about to pull my hair out over this related thread: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general_firearms_discussion/272364-photoshoot_with_firearms.html

I was at work today just fuming over it and I thought "I wonder if this is how Kirk Freeman feels over that what is a gun thread?".

 

[amhenry]

I am sympathetic to Kirk's motivation, but I just can't get behind his position (unless I haven't understood him fully, which is certainly possible).

The whole point of training with an inert replica (Blue Gun, ASP Red Gun, SIRT) is to provide a safe opportunity to practice lifesaving skills. FOF simulates a situation where the 4 Rules are not being broken, because you have every intention of destroying the person who is trying to kill you...

Kirk has pointed out many times that guns are machines, and machines do fail. I'm completely with him on that. However, the examples that he's given in this thread ARE NOT an issue of mechanical failure, but simple, culpable negligence.

If I point a Blue Gun or a SIRT at a training partner, this does not make me more likely to point a real gun at that same person. Intentional, redundant safety habits are an integral part of responsible training, and I would not do FOF with any live rounds, or any real guns in the training environment...

Nobody has ever been shot with a non-gun. Non-guns can't fire projectiles. Irresponsible people are the issue, not inert training pistols.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The dangers of "it ain't no real gun" attitude will get you new friends, cell mates, a judge, your very own prosecutor and a probation officer:

Baltimore police instructor sentenced in trainee shooting case

 

[Coach]

The dangers of "it ain't no real gun" attitude will get you new friends, cell mates, a judge, your very own prosecutor and a probation officer:

Baltimore police instructor sentenced in trainee shooting case

What ammo was used in the blue gun? Oh wait, it wasn't a blue gun.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

William S. Kern, instructor on trial in training exercise shooting, guilty of reckless endangerment - Baltimore Sun

What ammo was used in the blue gun? Oh wait, it wasn't a blue gun.

It was a blue gun to the person that had been trained to point blue guns at people.

At trial the defendant testified that HE thought it was a blue gun as he had been so accustomed to pointing non-guns at people, to wit:

"The instructor said he thought he was holding a "simunitions" training pistol that fires paintball-like cartridges and intended to use it to remind trainees how dangerous it can be in real-life situations to congregate near doors, windows and hallways."

 

[rhino]

William S. Kern, instructor on trial in training exercise shooting, guilty of reckless endangerment - Baltimore Sun



It was a blue gun to the person that had been trained to point blue guns at people.

At trial the defendant testified that HE thought it was a blue gun as he had been so accustomed to pointing non-guns at people, to wit:

"The instructor said he thought he was holding a "simunitions" training pistol that fires paintball-like cartridges and intended to use it to remind trainees how dangerous it can be in real-life situations to congregate near doors, windows and hallways."

You contradict yourself, sir. In our vernacular, "blue gun" refers to inert training replicas, whether Rings blue, Blackhawk orange, ASP red, or a chunk of carefully crafted walnut. A simunitions training pistol is a real gun in most cases configured with a special barrel and fires a projectile that can harm someone. His testimony as you report refers specifically to a functional firearm, configured to use marking cartridges for training, and is not in any way similar other than basic shape to an inert "blue gun."

INERT REPLICAS CANNOT FIRE PROJECTILES. They have no moving parts. Confusing a marking gun and a live firearm has nothing to do with completely inert replicas.

 

[Jackson]

Either way, a guy got shot in the head. Maybe this thread should be more about proper safety procedures when using sims/UTM/Airsoft type replicas and the importance of a sterile training environment before pointing gun-like hardware at people's heads.

Ive witnessed an AI pull a blue gun from his holster while attempting to demonstrate a live-fire drill. Under the circiumstances it got a laugh and we moved on. The inverse could have been a disaster. That doesn't mean I think Blueguns shouldnt be used for demos that require pointing a gun at people, or in training that way. Some level of appropriate safety checks should be in place before doing it.

 

[GunsNstuff]

What about pop tarts shaped like guns? Finger off the strawberry at all times? Never point it at anything you don't intend to feed?

 

[Coach]

Anything that fires a projectile is a different beast. But a blue gun does not do so, and it does not shoot people. Kirk seems to not want to acknowledge that point, and constantly brings up these training disasters and presents them as evidence of the danger of blue guns. The evidence that his stories provide is sloppy gun-handling and safety. But it is not because of the use of blue guns, but because of unsafe practices and the ignoring of the four rules with guns that shoot projectiles. It seems that the effort is to paint blue guns as the problem rather than acknowledge that this a software problem.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

A simunitions training pistol is a real gun in most cases configured with a special barrel and fires a projectile that can harm someone. His testimony as you report refers specifically to a functional firearm, configured to use marking cartridges for training, and is not in any way similar other than basic shape to an inert "blue gun."

The OP's article defines blue gun broadly.

Anything that fires a projectile is a different beast.

Not according to Todd Green, and I quote, "[t]he idea is that gun safety is a matter of habit, and training “guns” need to be treated the same as regular ones. However, I’ve got to say I disagree."

I disagree with his disagreement and I have real world bodies as my Exhibits.

 

[Coach]

Blaming blue guns for accidents and a lack of gun safety is the same logic as blaming guns for murder and crime.

If someone is not smart enough to know what is in their hand and how to handle it then they should not have a gun in the first place.

 

[rhino]

The OP's article defines blue gun broadly.

Then the article is wrong. There is a huge difference between an inert piece of plastic, rubber, or wook and any functioning mechanism that can fire projectiles. When people who understand the difference say "blue gun," they mean (or should mean) inert replica, not in reference to the unfortunate choice of blue color on some of the training guns that fire marking projectiles.

Nomenclature notwithstanding, the comparison is still invalid. The person in the quote you posted from your story mistook one functional mechanism that fired more dangerous projectiles for a another functional mechanism that fired less dangerous projectiles. Both are guns and should be handled as guns. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

The disagreement is with your stubborn assertion that completely inert replicas have to be handled as guns. I disagree. They are no more dangerous than a wooden stick or a bar of soap. You might be able to hurt someone by poking them with it, throwing it at them, or they might choke on it, but they're never going to fire a projectile, whether it's a bullet, a marking capsule, or a plastic pellet.

To assert otherwise, where do you draw the line? How closely must something visually resemble a gun to be considered a gun and require handling as a gun? It's going to be a subjective, perhaps arbitrary distinction regardless of who makes it, unless you choose to handle every conceivable object as a gun since under the right circumstances, it might just be mistaken for a gun or a gun might just be mistaken for that object.

And I've said this before, but if you can't treat inert plastic differently than guns, what use do they serve? If you can't do anything with them that you could not do with a real gun, they serve no purpose.

I also don't understand why you can't or won't acknowledge a difference between an inert replica and a training gun that fires projectiles. I am in agreement with you on the latter (as are many other people), but a chunk of plastic that literally can't do anything be a chunk of plastic is just that.








Not according to Todd Green, and I quote, "[t]he idea is that gun safety is a matter of habit, and training “guns” need to be treated the same as regular ones. However, I’ve got to say I disagree."

I disagree with his disagreement and I have real world bodies as my Exhibits.[/QUOTE]