"Granny Get Your Gun" news article

[FatSlob]

A few days old, so I didn't put it into todays GITN thread. Just found it today.

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2004/06/21/features/seniors/5aae59fb7e941bd486256eb6007b2597.txt

[MrBenchley]

1. Yeah.....

"Lain said his law enforcement agency has found fewer seniors who want to acquire guns and more who want to get rid of them.
"We get quite a few widows who call and have a gun in the house because their late spouse had a gun, and they want to get rid of it," Lain said.
Ann Shore, 73, of Portage, director of Bonner Senior Center there, said she knows few seniors who have armed themselves.
"There's a lot of fear that also comes with having a gun around," said Shore, who has been with Bonner 23 years.
"Seniors here have created lots of ways to feel safer without involving a gun." "

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2004/06/21/features/seniors/5aae59fb7e941bd486256eb6007b2597.txt

[iverglas]

2. silly old people

What better "way to feel safer" could there be than toting a gun, with things like this happening? --

Last week, for example, an East Chicago man became the city's third homicide victim in six days when he was gunned down while riding his bicycle.

If that fool had been carrying a gun, he'd be alive today ...

Top reasons for gun accidents among seniors

1. People who removed the magazine or clip from a handgun and, thinking it was unloaded, point the gun at someone and pull the trigger.

2. People who experienced an accidental discharge due to the gun functioning as designed, and were injured because the gun was not pointed in a safe direction while loaded.

3. People who experienced an accidental discharge due to a flaw in the firing mechanism, without pulling the trigger, and who were injured because the gun was not pointed in a safe direction while loaded.

4. People whose firearm discharged when it was dropped.

Wha...? People shot because of "a flaw in the firing mechanism"? a gun going off when it's dropped?

At least I know that when I pick up the phone to call 911, it isn't going to shoot me.

[MrBenchley]

3. What the world needs

is people who may have impaired vision, range of movement or lapses in awareness pranging off shots whenever they feel "insecure." (NOT!)

[alwynsw]

4. Source, please.

Top reasons for gun accidents among seniors

1. People who removed the magazine or clip from a handgun and, thinking it was unloaded, point the gun at someone and pull the trigger.

2. People who experienced an accidental discharge due to the gun functioning as designed, and were injured because the gun was not pointed in a safe direction while loaded.

3. People who experienced an accidental discharge due to a flaw in the firing mechanism, without pulling the trigger, and who were injured because the gun was not pointed in a safe direction while loaded.

4. People whose firearm discharged when it was dropped.

[iverglas]

5. uh ....

Try reading the article that was the subject of the thread. I did.

That article seems to have given the source as www.triggerfinger.org. (I assumed that this was the source for the list I quoted, and not for the entire article.) I actually looked for it at that site, but didn't find it. Here's a source I did find for it: http://www.gunowners.org/op0404.htm
Unimpeachable, eh?

Here's what the latter source had to say after offering the list:

The first two categories are clearly cases of negligent or simply unsafe gun handling. The third set of cases involve a mixture of fault; clearly, an accidental discharge that occurs without pulling the trigger is a problem. But following the rules of gun safety they lay out in this portion of their article is sufficient to prevent injury, so the gun owner must also bear some responsibility. Notably, most of the cases they present that fit this category are cases where appropriate corrections or recalls have already been made, and additionally cases where the fault occurs after damage to the mechanism rather than as an inherent flaw.

The last category is the only clear case with real fault in the manufacturing process. And yet, dropping a loaded gun is certainly a careless action. I have little sympathy for those who are injured as a result -- the obvious solution is "Don't drop a loaded gun". This should be simple common sense. Yet by the same token, a dropped gun should not fire, as a common-sense safety measure by manufacturers.

It's interesting that this last category is occupied entirely by "cheap" guns, rather than well-made firearms from reputable manufacturers. Why? Because reputable manufacturers make guns that do not fire when dropped already. The consumer has a choice.

Gosh, how come the consumer doesn't have the choice of buying a car with or without headlights?

"Don't drop a loaded gun." Damn, why don't people just think of that? Imagine; if I'd thought to myself "don't fall off that sidewalk", I'd have spared myself a broken foot. Twice.


Anyhow, if you have a problem with what was in the article, you might want to address your queries to the person who posted the article.


(typo fixed)

[alwynsw]

6. Mea culpa.

The page didn't load completely when my ISP booted me. Since the contact info for P. Potempa was there, I erroneously assumed that there was no additional info below it.

Save me from this backwards, no other viable choice, ISP.

on edit: Items 1 through 4 are all examples of unsafe handling - period. The only one of the 4 that might be excusable is #4.

[TX-RAT]

7. Try number 3 again

Remington had a huge recall on model 700 rifles, due to a flaw in the safety system. Some rifles would discharge when taken off safety. Have first hand experience with one chambered in 30-06, it went off when the safety was moved to fire position. Luckily no one was hurt. Sent the rifle back to Remington and they repaired it free of charge.
Another went off when a friend, after returning to his truck started to unload it. Unfortunately the muzzle was pointing inside his truck, at the transmission. The round went through the Trans, torque converter and then preceded to take out his right front tire.

[RoeBear]

8. Any chance that happened in Montana...

...twenty years ago?

[TX-RAT]

9. Texas early to mid 80's

Why Montana?

[Romulus]

10. Montel Williams had a guy who was shot by his 700

It was on one of those "life or death adventure" episodes.

The guy shot himself in the leg with his 30-06 during a hunting trip and had to walk a mile back to his truck and drive himself to the hospital.

I think that guy was from Montana :shrug:

I remember the show discussing a safety flaw or something with the Rem700. I also saw something on a gun lawsuit website about a family that was suing Remington over their kid's death due to this problem.

[TX-RAT]

11. Amazed he was able to walk out.

Most all the gun magazines had warnings in them back then.

[alwynsw]

12. BUT - if they're always pointed in a safe direction (as they should be)

[gatlingforme]

13. people with guns should respect what they have in their hands

and stop being such morons i.e. the guy who shot himself with the 30 06 I do not have much sympathy for these people.

[iverglas]

15. who cares?

I do not have much sympathy for these people.

I couldn't care less.

I don't have much sympathy for people who drive dangerously and crash their cars, either. I still insist that cars be equipped with seatbelts so that if they do it they ... and whoever happens to be in the car with them ... kinda like whoever might be standing nearby when some stoopid person points a firearm in the wrong direction ... DON'T DIE.

[TX-RAT]

14. I agree

But they should also function as designed.

[iverglas]

16. yes ...

BUT - if they're always pointed in a safe direction (as they should be)

... then ... ?

And if they aren't, and they release a bullet that would not have been released if the design had not been bad, then some innocent person dies, and your hypothetical matters ... how?


I am not quite sure how pointing a firearm in the right direction is likely to avert injuries that occur when firearms are accidentally dropped and release bullets ...

[gatlingforme]

17. That fact is that people who have guns should understand that

these accidents might occur when they are handling the gun. I have guns and I know what can happen --- the excuse that the gun malfunctioned--- should have been taken into consideration when the gun was bought. Everyone takes their chances when they use a gun. Who cares????? I DO.

[iverglas]

18. the real fact is

That fact is that people who have guns should understand that

that you're saying nothing meaningful or useful.

Unless you are proposing that this "understanding" be magically implanted into every firearm owner's head at the time of firearm purchase ... and s/he be rendered incapable of handling a firearm unsafely (or dropping it ...) ... there are going to be people who either don't understand or or don't give a shit about it.

AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE INJURED OR DIE as a consequence.

So unless I hear you proposing or agreeing to entirely reasonable measures to reduce the risk of that happening -- like, say, firearms that are prone to release bullets when dropped, or that present any other unusual hazard as described in this thread, being banned from the market -- I'll just deduce that what you DON'T give a shit about is those folks.

Everyone takes their chances when they use a gun.

And a lot of people take SOMEONE ELSE'S chances when they use their firearms. Strange how you don't seem to want to acknowledge and address that fact.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

20. Hope it doesn't include spelling....(snicker)

[iverglas]

22. that was shore a weird one, snuffy

Did you get it?

Accusing someone whose spelling ("potage" and the odd "subsistance" aside -- and hey, I know what they mean) is impeccable of being unable to pass an "intellegence" test ... hey, I've got it! Self-parody! This one's gotta be from canuckistan.


Edited because what I wrote made no sense. hahaha.

[MrBenchley]

23. Wonder what the "I dare you" tag refers to?

Remember, though, it's only the gun control advocates who are ever abusive or impolite...and other horseshit.

[gatlingforme]

25. Ditto to you see reply to your friend.

[gatlingforme]

24. My spelling stinks, and I usually do not use spell ck - so I guess

you got me on that. anyway, my message was deleted. but you obviously understood it. I usually do not insult people on this forum but your post shows you do not understand what I am talking about and that is fine. Also, please bring in any more reinforcements to mock me too. that would be great. I stand by what I said. My dog I post on here his name is Gatling and I loved him very much. He died last month. The "I dare you" is a tribute to his tenacity. Mock me on that too Mr. Benchley I hope you feel better every time you do.

[TX-RAT]

21. the excuse that the gun malfunctioned-

What about design flaws.
Re. Remington 700s ( Discharging when taken off safety )
Ruger Bear cats (notorious for discharging when dropped)
Ruger P85s ( some went of when using decocker)

[gatlingforme]

26. That is a right!!!! and those guns should be removed once

the design is proven flawed. I would like to see all the possibilities of any flaw design stamped right with the S/N. That is a little utopian though. HOw can it be proven unless used though. catch 22 there. I guess I am saying that to buy a gun all these things should be taken into consideration and the gun should be repected ;) You have a very good point.

[TX-RAT]

27. Next question.

How long from the time the manufacture knew they had a problem until they finally went public with a recall?

[gatlingforme]

28. I guess that would be up to state law, now you are getting into

tort law. I guess the minute they knew of the defect? but like I said utopian. then you have to prove they knew they were being neglectful. (knew of defect in design.) That's like proving someones thoughts. UGH. I like your thinking!!!

[iverglas]

29. "HOw can it be proven unless used"?

Well, most other products we see in our shops and stores have to meet various standards. The standards are developed specifically for the kind of product in question, when they're used the way the people can be expected to use them -- cars can't fall apart when you drive them, toasters can't electrocute you when you toast bread, bike helmets can't split open when you hit the pavement, mascara can't cause your eyeball to rot. You know.

Manufacturers are supposed to test their products before they sell them. And governments are supposed to make sure that the standards they have to meet are high enough, and then enforce those standards.

You'd just think that making sure that firearms, of all things, met the appropriate standards would be kinda important, wouldn't you? I would. I mean, if I drop my mascara, it probably isn't going to kill me. Or anybody else.

[gatlingforme]

30. We have baby safety car seats, strollers, cradles that strangle,

all these products were recalled due to defective design. I think some children were killed in the process of this revelation. Guns are (made) to kill. So I would assume that when people buy a gun they might assume it could actually kill someone. (Using) a gun is for deterent, or protection - not to kill. I would think that if a gun is found to be defective in design it should be recalled and the design corrected then sell it as "New and Improved". :D (of course that last sentence was a joke.)