14 Things Everyone Should Understand About Guns

[SSN Vet]

Interesting read over on The Federalist ....

14 Things Everyone Should Understand About Guns

Guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands. But so are articles about guns written by people who don’t understand anything about them.

Here's the list of points.... article expands on each point and is worth the read.

1) Don’t Lecture Anyone On Gun Safety Until You Understand The Basic Rules
2) Guns Are Inanimate Objects
3) Modern Guns Do Not Accidentally “Go Off”
4) “Semi-Automatic” And “Automatic” Are Not Synonyms
5) “Clip” And “Magazine” Are Not Synonyms
6) Gun Safeties Can And Will Fail
7) So-Called “Smart Gun” Technology Is Not Reliable
8) Handing Someone A Badge Doesn’t Make Him A Good Shooter
9) The “AR” In “AR-15″ Doesn’t Stand For “Assault Rifle”
10) High Capacity Magazine Bans Are Completely Counterproductive
11) “Shoot To Wound” Is Absurd And Dangerous
12) Hollow Point Bullets Are Actually Safer Than Standard Full Metal Jacket Ammunition
13) Most Gun Owners Understand Gun Laws A Lot Better Than Gun Controllers Do
14) “Universal Background Checks” Are Already The Law In Many States

 

[Shovelhead]

Of course, none of those rules apply if your name is followed by the words "reporter from ....".

 

[boatdoc173]

#15 the BEST safety is a finger not on a trigger--period

 

[yugorpk]

Looks like a list of opinions more than a list of facts

 

[mac_hunter870]

It didn't see where the OP stated anything was fact and neither did the article the OP referenced - yugorpk

 

[C5rider]

1) Don’t Lecture Anyone On Gun Safety Until You PERSONALLY ADHERE TO The Basic Rules

There, fixed it for ya!
(Understanding them is only HALF of the job!)

 

[Old Dog]

That's actually a pretty good list; pity that most in the media will ever understand those points.

 

[CountGlockula]

#16 High capacity magazines are standard capacity magazines.

#17 Gun control is holding it with both hands.

 

[1911 guy]

yugorpk, name one of those items in the O.P. that is not true.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

12) Hollow Point Bullets Are Actually Safer Than Standard Full Metal Jacket Ammunition

? What's this?
Is it because they don't penetrate as well? And may not find their way into a bystander?

 

[AStone]

^ I'm also wondering about this.

 

[DaisyCutter]

I take issue with the original post that people are handed badges. I spend 40 hours a week, for 7 months to earn a badge that I could lose in a heartbeat with a single impulsive decision.

Basic training in the military is what, 6-13 weeks, depending on the branch?

If someone wants to debate handed badges, then we can discuss concealed carry permits first.


Granted, a bona fide shooter on average may be a better marksman than an average cop. However, some cops are shooters. The first time I shot at a public competition, I beat most of the regulars, the same guys that got all me tally erect thinking they'd teach me a thing or two.

"I guess they really do teach you how to shoot at the academy" was a text I got from the non-LEO friend that invited me to the competition. Negative, I was a shooter before I started this career. Some cops aren't shooters.

Nobody got handed a badge.

Frankly, I got more range time at the academy than the average army recruit. Plus, I have to carry a handgun and take a rifle on patrol daily, and clear houses routinely. And while I may not be a bullseye shooter, the muzzle discipline I see at public ranges terrifies me.

Some of the poorest shooting cops I know are prior military.

 

[AStone]

If someone wants to debate handed badges,
then we can discuss concealed carry permits first.

Now, that's what I call 'a nail' right there.

 

[Librarian]

? What's this?
Is it because they don't penetrate as well? And may not find their way into a bystander?

That's what he says in the article.

What these people don’t understand is that hollow points are actually far safer than standard full metal jacket (FMJ), or ball, ammunition. Why? Because they’re less likely to overpenetrate.

 

[MedWheeler]

Regarding the hollow-point matter, they can also be "safer" for the person being shot, as they are more likely to stop him from "being further bad" with fewer rounds, without having to zip so many FMJ rounds through him he can't possibly survive..

 

[mnrivrat]

Handing Someone A Badge Doesn’t Make Him A Good Shooter

Granted, a bona fide shooter on average may be a better marksman than an average cop. However, some cops are shooters.

I don't understand what part of this you take issue with ? Seems to me you actualy agree .

My best friend and I shot in a few compitive matches back at the time (70's) and although I could always come in the top five and usualy in number two spot, he always beat me. Neither of us were LO's . I never considered myself as a top shooter, but I have confidence I can get the job done.

Fast forward to the last few years found me helping a friend in his gun shop and range.

As well as civilian use and training we were in use for the Local LE personel (sheriff and city Police), as well as some Federal prison gaurds.

They are all much the same. A personal who is a firearm enthusiast and shoots regular generaly are pretty good shooters. Those that are not all that into firearms (LE included) generaly are not very good. Makes sense, and the badge doesn't make the difference.

 

[TomJ]

I take issue with the original post that people are handed badges. I spend 40 hours a week, for 7 months to earn a badge that I could lose in a heartbeat with a single impulsive decision.

Basic training in the military is what, 6-13 weeks, depending on the branch?

If someone wants to debate handed badges, then we can discuss concealed carry permits first.


Granted, a bona fide shooter on average may be a better marksman than an average cop. However, some cops are shooters. The first time I shot at a public competition, I beat most of the regulars, the same guys that got all me tally erect thinking they'd teach me a thing or two.

"I guess they really do teach you how to shoot at the academy" was a text I got from the non-LEO friend that invited me to the competition. Negative, I was a shooter before I started this career. Some cops aren't shooters.

Nobody got handed a badge.

Frankly, I got more range time at the academy than the average army recruit. Plus, I have to carry a handgun and take a rifle on patrol daily, and clear houses routinely. And while I may not be a bullseye shooter, the muzzle discipline I see at public ranges terrifies me.

Some of the poorest shooting cops I know are prior military.

The following is from the article. It doesn't sound like the author meant to disrespect police officers.

"Does this mean that all cops are terrible shots? Absolutely not. Cops who want to be good shooters, rather than cops who wear a gun only because they have to, are generally terrific shooters. The police officers that I’ve competed with in defensive pistol shooting competitions are incredible. Many enjoyed shooting to begin with and became cops because the job gave them the ability to practice and develop their skills as shooters more than any other line of work. But they didn’t become highly proficient shooters just because they chose to wear a uniform and a badge. It’s because they put in the time necessary to develop and maintain their shooting skills."

 

[jmr40]

3) Modern Guns Do Not Accidentally “Go Off”

The writer is an idiot who doesn't understand basic English.

From the link:

This is why the term “accidental shooting” is a misnomer.

A better term is “negligent shooting.” Negligence is the proper characterization because it accurately reflects the fact that an individual neglected to follow each of the basic gun safety rules.

An accident is an unplanned event. A gun is either fired deliberately or is an accident. Sometimes those accidents are caused by negligent behavior, sometimes not. I find the trend of trying to call every AD a ND disturbing. From a legal standpoint almost no AD's are prosecuted as negligence, but that does not absolve the person holding the gun when it discharged from responsibility. Which is as it should be. We, as gun owners are redefining the English language in a way that will come back to bite us in the butt when we do this.

The term negligence infers someone knowingly did something so dangerous that it should be considered criminal. The anti-gunners have tried in the past to prove that gun ownership in and of its self is a negligent act. By calling every AD a ND we are playing right into their hands.

There are many ways for a gun to discharge and it not be negligence on the part of the shooter. Including some defective guns. The Remington 700 debacle is well known.

 

[1911 guy]

Daisycutter, I agree with the main thrust of your post. Some people are shooters, some are not. Career choice usually has little to no bearing on it.

However, the comparison between police officers and ccw is a false argument. One is a career choice while the other is a constitutional right.

Expectation is also far different. The public expects police to be competent with firearms in case of need, that's not always the case. In contrast, the perception of ccw is the opposite. People expect the worst and seem surprised when it doesn't happen.

There are competent shooters and incompetent boobs in both groups. We both know it.

 

[Sam1911]

Some of those points are really important and, yes, "everyone should know." (Most of the list, really.)

Some of those points are nit-picky gun nut stuff that it really doesn't help us to insist "everyone" knows. (Clip vs. mag? Come on, that's just annoying pendantry, even among gun guys.)

Some of those probably needed more thought, or a better perspective.
a) Universal Background Checks are NOT already law in MOST states. And him claiming that they are is completely harpooning our efforts to kill the concept. That one annoyed me greatly.
b) The whole semi- vs. full-auto issue. Yes, it is true and an important distinction, but I think we do ourselves some long-term harm in the fact that we're holding up our semis as "safe" and "normal" guns that a citizen should be allowed to own, not like those full-autos which we're tacitly agreeing are super-duper-dangerous and "should" be heavily regulated. If we want to kill off Hughes and the NFA, we have to stop talking like that, eventually.

3) Modern Guns Do Not Accidentally “Go Off”

The writer is an idiot who doesn't understand basic English.

From the link:

This is why the term “accidental shooting” is a misnomer.

A better term is “negligent shooting.” Negligence is the proper characterization because it accurately reflects the fact that an individual neglected to follow each of the basic gun safety rules.

An accident is an unplanned event. A gun is either fired deliberately or is an accident.

The irony here is delicious. A gun is either fired deliberately or IS AN ACCIDENT? What is, the gun?

I know you just got your brain going faster than your fingers there, but calling the writer an idiot who doesn't understand basic English, and then following up that statement with a sentence containing a "basic" functional subject-verb error is pretty funny.

Having said that, this is not a case of him being an idiot. It is a case of the gun community having two different fish to fry, so to speak. On the one hand, to your point, there's a matter of public perception that maybe we're overstating the negligence of someone who "accidentally" shoots when he or she shouldn't have. Maybe that puts a legal presumption of guilt on the shooter when you think it shouldn't automatically be there.

However, the larger picture is that mechanical failures are almost the ONLY possible cause of a gun firing (and certainly of a gunshot damaging someone or something) which cannot directly be attributed to poor decisions and/or practices that the person holding that gun SHOULD have known would cause an "accidental" shot and whatever resulting damage or injury.

And mechanical failures which actually make the gun fire are EXTREMELY RARE. EXTREMELY.

The gun community is policing itself much better these days and refusing to accept the long-bandied-about dodge of "the gun just went off." Every time some police officer puts a round through the dash of his patrol car, or through his buddy's locker door during shift change, or a Chief shoots his desk (heard all of those) -- or some CCW-ing goober shoots the toilet at the local Denny's while taking his ease, or some lady shoots herself while "adjusting" her bra holster, or some dude puts one through his leg while re-holstering, or some fella shoots the ceiling while "cleaning" his gun, and on and on and on. Every time, "the gun just went off."

BULLLLL....oney. We all know better and we owe it to ourselves and our community, and to society to hold our own feet to the fire on this and call it out clearly. That gun didn't "just go off." That gun went off because your fingers were on it when/where/how they shouldn't be. Or, to a far less likely degree, because of some problem with your habits and practices which created an unsafe situation.

Oh, sure, it's an accident. But only in that you didn't ever think your silly playing around, or your sloppy bad habits would catch up to you.

 

[the Real Alpo]

How about #13?

MOST gun owners don't have a clue. They come to free states, and want to know where to register their guns. They inherit a gun and wish to know how to take it out of the dead guy's name and register it in theirs. They freak when they see magazines that hold over ten rounds. They freak when they see folding stocks or flash suppressors. OMG!! AREN'T THOSE ILLEGAL???!!!!?!?!?!? They think hollow-point (Dum Dum) bullets are illegal -against the Geneva Convention.

Then look at #1. He does not understand basic gun safety rules. Don't point a gun at something unless you want to destroy it? A gun projects a chunk of metal at speed. This chunk of metal will put a hole in many things. Not everything, mind you. It will bounce off some. But many. A gun is not an engine of destruction. If I, stupidly, shoot a hole in the trunk of my car, I have not destroyed it. If I, again stupidly, shoot a hole in the wall of my house, I have not destroyed it. If I, ON PURPOSE, shoot a hole in a deer, I have not destroyed it. Good thing, too, as I plan on eating it.

"Don't point a gun at something that it would upset you to have a hole appear in". You know - TV, fridge, mirror, dog, son. That's the one I use. But "destroy"? Get real.

Someone up the thread said he saw nothing in the article saying "these are facts".

That's what saying something means. Unless you say, "This is my opinion", you are saying something is a fact. Whether you are saying the world is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, or Glock is a wonderfun gun, you are stating it as a fact.

#4. Funny. I have several guns that are "automatic pistols". If you were issued a BAR in 1918, it was FULL AUTO, but if you go down to the sporting good store today and buy a BAR, it is SEMI AUTO. Ever since the self-loading gun was invented, it has been called an "automatic" I've got 22 automatics and 25 automatics and 32 automatics and 380 automatics and 9mm automatics and 40 Smith automatics and 45 automatics, and with the exception of three submachine guns, ain't none of 'em FULL AUTO. But they are all automatics. In HIS opinion, and in the opinions of more and more people over the last ten years or so, AUTOMATIC only means FULL auto. It's his opinion. In my opinion, he's wrong.

#5. That one can drive you up the wall. Again, since the invention of detachable box magazines, they have been referred to as clips. Many firearms manufacturers, whom one would think would know the nomenclature of their products, refer to them as clips. But for the last twenty or thirty years, people that think they know more than others have decided they are not clips. And that anyone that calls them a clip is a total moron who should not be allowed access to anything more dangerous than a NERF dart.

 

[jmorris]

“Clip” And “Magazine” Are Not Synonyms

Tell that to Remington who package a magazine and then label it a "magazine clip". I am not anal though if asked what kind of car I drive I just say Ford, don't need to point out its a truck not a car...

As for not lecturing on gun safety my kid could have told you to keep your finger off the trigger before she knew anything else.

 

[TimSr]

? What's this?
Is it because they don't penetrate as well? And may not find their way into a bystander?

Yes. While NO ammo is safe to shoot at a bad guy with bystanders behind him, hollow points are less likely to pass through walls, vehicles, and structures where the "bystanders" are that you may not know about. They are also less likely to richochet and become stray bullets.

I've seen movies depictions of "hollow points" turning mouse guns into magnums. Its ridiculous.



#4 is kind of funny in that semi-autos were called "autos" before autos were.

 

[Sam1911]

But they are all automatics. In HIS opinion, and in the opinions of more and more people over the last ten years or so, AUTOMATIC only means FULL auto. It's his opinion. In my opinion, he's wrong.

Yes, yes. Of course. However, in the game of educating the public, or more specifically public relations played out in sound bites, it has proved hard enough to get non-shooters to understand that there's a difference between "semi-automatic" and "full-automatic" rifles.

And that distinction, at least for now, is far more important for the average person to understand than the lexical specifics about how the term "automatic" can really mean either semi- or full-auto.

And really, if any of us gunny types are ever told, "I heard automatic weapons fire," or that someone is a "Squad Automatic Weapon" gunner, we know instantly precisely what is meant. We don't need to ask whether the person meant they heard SEMI-automatic weapons fire. We'd sound like bozos even asking the question.

So it is fine to be precise amongst ourselves, but we have to understand practical communication to the masses.

 

[taliv]

seems like the take-away here is that most people aren't qualified to write articles titled "things everyone should know"

very poorly executed, to say the least