Talk:Gun safety

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 5 March 2008. The result of the discussion was snowball keep and cleanup.

Contents

[edit] Controversy as the page initially took shape

Obviously your incredible prejudice in favor of private citizens owning firearms for self protection has made you completely unable to present a balanced point of view.

The issue of firearms safety is not a political issue. It doesn't matter who is handling the firearm, be it a private citizen, a police officer, or a soldier. The fundamentals of safety apply equally to everyone.

Somewhere in the world, right this minute, there is a police firearms instructor teaching a group of new recruits the fundamentals of firearms safety. That instructor will teach these four rules.

Your claims that training makes no difference in safety are absurd

I have never claimed that training makes no difference. Training is extremely helpful, and I agree that the page should reflect that. I will not accept the biased and unfounded view, though, that the proper use of firearms is so complex or demanding that only highly trained professionals can do so correctly. I could teach you to enjoyable and safely target shoot with an hour of instruction.

You have deleted my reference to the fact that the initial set of rules in this article is representative of only those people who favor providing everyone with guns.

I deleted this because it is manifestly untrue. If you find any firearms expert, whether they are for or against private ownership of weapons is irrelevant, they will tell you that these are extremely widely accepted fundamental rules of gun safety, and that these rules are not in the least bit political or controversial.

Let's be specific:

1. My first change was to the introduction to qualify WHO was advocating this particular set of four rules:

[...]

How is this change inaccurate?

These rules are not opposed by even the most ardent anti-gunner. Do you imagine that the political lobbyists at Handgun Control, Inc., go around advocating that people who own guns ought to handle them in an unsafe manner?

Again, it must be emphasized that safe handling of weapons is not a political issue. It is a matter of simple common sense, and there is a strong consensus of the experts that the rules here are all extremely well-founded and important.

Why pretend it is a political issue, when it is not?

2. My second change is to make mention of the fact that children need to know the potential risks as opposed to just what to do:

Once again: How is this change inaccurate?

As I said, I have no particular objection to this change. I merely deleted everything that you wrote by restoring the previous version because it was easier than going through line by line to fix all the errors.

3. Finally I added a discussion of why training is an important element of gun safety. I made five points here, but obviously you deleted all of them:

A. This may be the most important element of gun safety since adequate training will cover all of the aforementioned cautions.

Training is important, and the page should be changed to reflect this. However, the information on training must not be false.

B. The risks of a fatality increases with each firearm introduced into a tense situation.

This is just false, and is additionally misleading.

C. Worse yet an insufficiently skilled wielder sometimes has a weapon taken away by an adversary.

This is just false. It could be converted to a truth if written as follows: "Even extremely unskilled wielders of firearms almost never never have weapons taken away by their adversary." I doubt if this suits your political agenda, but it does have the minimal benefit of at least being true.

D. This risk, however, can be lessened by extensive training along the lines of a police academy and state military training.

The aforementioned risk is hardly a risk at all. We might want to add some of the criminological statistics showing that women who use firearms in self-defense against criminal attack are significantly less likely to suffer serious injury than those who do not resist at all, or those who resist without a gun. This demonstrates that weapons are extremely useful even without training... while training can make one even more safe, of course.

E. This training also helps recognize the specific challenges of particular weapon models in a given situation. For example Vietnam era M16 rifles frequently jammed due to a combination of overheating and dirt in contrast to the less accurate, but less sensitive, AK47 rifles.

This is a rather odd specific point to make, but I have no objection to illustrating how training can help, with specific examples that are actually relevant to the kinds of situations that people will actually encounter.

I would love to here why you think that none of points A-E are true. Even more I would love to see research to back up your position on these denials from any source that could reasonably be trusted to be objective. (for example: Government or University public safety studies not sponsered by the NRA or like organizations ideally including both US and non-US research.)

I will be happy to provide you with specific references. Why don't we take this to email, so that we can discuss it without bothering the other wikipedians? You'll have to put in some effort, because real research demands close attention. If you aren't interested in putting in the time, I will understand. But please don't presume to write on this page until you have the facts.

Considering that all of the reading I have done on the subject is reflected in what I wrote and I find YOUR statements to be manifestly untrue pertaining about the lack of risk to oneself and bystanders in the use of firearms at home or when hunting. I never even said that these situations always have a bad outcome. I rather used the word "some". Your very disagreement is extremely politically by in its very nature by denying what a very large percentage of the population consider safety concerns about firearms. To quote you: "You'll have to put in some effort, because real research demands close attention. If you aren't interested in putting in the time, I will understand. But please don't presume to write on this page until you have the facts." ... because I don't believe that you do.

--Jonathan--

Even if I had no reason to believe one of you or the other, it is still best to remove specific assertions of fact if either of you thinks them wrong until the one positing them backs them up. You're the one positing specific facts here, so it's up to you to demonstrate that they're true. That you've done "lots of reading" is meaningless if you've read only propaganda. I know Jimbo, and I'm inclined to believe him simply because of his reputation for knowledge and honesty. At least he has offered to cite sources; you haven't even done that, and you don't have a reputation, so I have no reason to believe the "facts" you've offered here. --LDC

You have seen my work; I wrote the bulk of the current Unix and Vim articles, and I have contributed to the Abortion article among others. Feel free to check out my research on anything I have written, and I believe that you will have a hard time proving me outright wrong on any of it.

In this case I will do more than assert the obvious; here are some sources: Many safety risk statistics: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/firefacts.asp References to specific safety studies: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc On safety risks to women: http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/guest3.htm Note how the US compares: http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/data/phonebook/queries/guninjuries94.php

Your writings on other topics are useful to judge writing skill, memory, and to some extent, lack of bias. I have no major quibble with those. But the question here is whether or not the specific facts you claim--that proper firearm training greatly reduces one's risk of accident, and that unskilled users are likely to have their guns used against them--are true. These are questions of fact resolvable by reference to actual studies. I looked at all four of the pages above, and not one of them contains any fact of even remote relevance to those questions. It is difficult to even find the word "training" on most of them. The fact that you would list them here when they contain no relevant information further reduces your credibility here. --LDC

Well, let me defend Jonathan here. He says he has done reading, and so I believe him. I'm sure that he believes me, too. So now we need to take a look at each other's facts, and work together to rewrite the article by citing specific sources. It seems that he's accepting some of my objections to his article, and the primary remaining issues have to do with "risk to oneself and bystanders in the use of firearms at home or when hunting". That's a legitimate concern, although I don't think that the fact will leave us where he wants to be.

I hope that we'll take this to email so we can compare notes and start working towards a consensus. The main thing is that a page on gun safety should not be political. Based on that, we shouldn't have too much trouble coming to a consensus.

(Of course, if he wants to cite the Brady Campaign, I can surely cite the NRA. But I won't, because both are highly politicized sources of information.)

--Jimbo Wales (jwales@bomis.com, please email me, Jonathan)


[edit] Complete rewrite

I have comepletely rewritten the page. I have tried to be faithful to the original page in that as much fact as possible has been preserved.

Spelling and grammar is undoubtedly wrong in some places. Also note that this is my first major Wikipedia edit so I am most probably off on formatting and style. Halp on that is apprechiated.

Possible additions to the page may include a picture shing an example of bad adherence to gun safety (people posing with guns commonly keep the finger on the trigger and/or pointed at others). Also a picture of a situation illustrating the dilemma caused by rule 4 (Be sure of your target) could be usefull.

Cheers --J-Star 17:04, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

[edit] The additions of 2005-07-13

24.126.74.236 has added alot but I'm not certain everything should be there. But before I start hacking and slashing I'd like to bring this up to discussion.

Safety always on. Is this really a generic part of gun safety training? I can think up lots of situations where a handler would disengage the safety to be prepared to fire, even if firing is not imminent. I vote to remove that section.

Inspecting chambers when receiving a firearm. Again, is this really a generic part of gun safety traning? I've never heard of it before. Perhaps this is a branch specific procedure? I vote to remove that section too.

Horseplay. I'll reword that and move it up to Treat firearms as if they are loaded.

Reworded but kept it in that section. --J-Star 07:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Passing firearms. Should be kept.

Weapon conditions. Never heard of. This seems like something USMC specific. I think this clashes pretty badly with the rest of the article and messes it up. I vote to remove this part, or to put it in a separate article, or to make a section that deals with branch specific gun handling and put this part in that section.--J-Star 07:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

My two cents.. Chamber inspection is a great idea if you know how to do it. It's not generally one of the "main" safety rules, as the specifics of how to inspect the chamber varies for different firearms. The "conditions" are real, but I don't see that they really belong on this page. "Safety always on" is probably questionable as well, as the specifics vary on different guns. Many folks who shoot trap, for example, practice proper gun safety but never use their safeties, as they don't load the gun until they're ready to shoot, making the safety irrelevant. Friday 18:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Response by (24.126.74.236):

First of all, the additions to this page that I added I did so on the understanding that this article was to be a basic "primer" on general gun safety. Rules specific, for example, to trap shooting, ought not be included in an article on general gun safety, or should be included as a qualified dependent clause or paragraph.

Regarding the issue of keeping the safety on, in my edit I feel that I qualified the issue properly by indicating that different firearms had different designs regarding safety, or had no manually actuated safety at all. If one wanted to cover the specific case of trap-shooting or some other activity in which keeping the safety off would be advised, then this could be added in a dependent clause or paragraph, without affecting the spirit of the "safety on" rule.

Regarding chamber inspection, I was taught that part of safety rule #1 (treat every firearm as if it were loaded) is to always visually confirm the state of the chamber when taking possession of or handing off a weapon. The specifics of how to do so may vary by weapon, but, again in the context of a general gun safety article, the fact remains that every weapon has a means of inspection to determine whether or not the weapon is locked and loaded.

Regarding "Weapons Conditions", fair enough, this probably is a branch-specific policy. Jeff Cooper, who was very influential in gun safety, was the one who popularized this procedure, but he was a Marine Colonel at one point. This could be moved to a specific article on branch-specific policies, and perhaps linked to this page.

My two cents.. I approached this article with a sense of responsibility towards the reader, considering that the uninitiated may be receiving some of their first exposure to principles of gun safety here. Under the circumstances, I felt it best to err on the side of caution, and exposit a relatively broad and demanding set of general principles of safety. If this conflicts with the way anyone else might teach a shooter or run their range, then they of couse would be free to teach any appropriate modifications of these rules in their area of responsibility accordingly. Until a shooter is shooitng under those specific conditions, however, I think that we ought to expect them to operate under rules that demand the most responsibility of them.

[edit] The additions of 2005-09-16

Two additions today... I'm not sure they should stay. But let's discuss it first.

The addition on sports shooting in the UK, isn't that a bit specific? Arguably my example about swedish gun legislation is also a bit specific. But still... I think the new addition about sports shooting is too detailed. What should we do about it? Keep? Remove? Move to some other section? Move to some other place altogether? I'm inclined to think it should be removed or extensively reworded to make the content generic.

About environmental effects at gun ranges I think that is clearly outside the realm of gun safety. Sure, it is a health and safety issue that is related to guns... but it is not "gun safety" we're talking about anymore. I vote to remove that completely.

Same for health hazards when cleaning the gun. Once again... it's a safety issue and it involves guns... but we're not talking "gun safety". I'm voting to remove that completely. --J-Star 22:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll second the removal of both. Jwissick 09:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth rule

Every time I've heard the rules of gun safety, rule 5 has been on there: Maintain control of your firearm.

I've heard of many instances of police leaving their guns in a public bathroom, or on the roof of their car, etc. This also applies to leaving a gun where an untrained child can reach it. I would add this rule because it is even mentioned in the section about Gun safety while gun is not in use. That section could probably be merged into the section explaining each of the rules.

[edit] Americans for Gun Safety Foundation, opinions requested.

I have taken a look at the wiki page and their website. I see a clear (claimed) profile to educate for Gun Safety. My opinion is that unless anyone can refute that and show that "AGS is ONLY politics. THey have NADA to do with gun safety" or "AGS has nothing to do with safety. They want bans", then the link should stay.

Opinions?--J-Star 08:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the web address you viewed? The one linked on their wiki page is down. JG 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... so it seems. But this one works: AGS Foundation. Here we find many things that are written in the Gun Safety article. [1]
--J-Star 11:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Since no opinions have been enetered and the site speaks of many things we have in the article, I'm reinserting the link. --J-Star 11:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed the link to Ahad Israfil

I removed the link to Ahad Israfil since his story does not really relate to or add value to the article. He is a victim of an accidental shooting. The question is: So what? What does it add to this article? There are thousands of accidental gunshot victims out there and we don't need to list them all. If we are to link to anyone here, they should have a very tangiable connection to Gun Safety... and I don't se ethat Ahad has this in any rare or exceptional way.

If anyone objects, bring it up for discussion here. --J-Star 07:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The fifth rule

The fifth rule about "The safety is a mechanical device..." I think is not necessary for the page. It is already comprehensively covered by the existing four rules. Also it breaks the pattern of the article since there wasn't a section written for that rule. And if one would add such a section, the text therein would be a repeat of what has been said before. And finally I have not seen that rule be metioned in gun safety training. I don't think it is a generic rule and instead only part of some training syllabi.

My opinion is to not add the fifth rule and instead work its message into the previous sections. I have drafted such an addition into the first rule. Do not add the fifth rule again with discussion jere first.--J-Star 09:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It was commonly incorporated into the classes I have seen/taken; could be a regional thing. Or, not. Hard to say. Will look for examples of where it has been taught independently from the other rules. Yaf 12:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NRA-type 3-rule idea versus 4-rule idea (aka Cooper)

I'm surprised no one has argued for the following rule: "engage safety, remove mag, check chamber/unload, keep unloaded until ready to use". This rule is one of the "big 3" in NRA rules.[2] I don't think anyone would argue that handlers choosing to keep loaded firearms are trading safety for readiness. Toms2866 14:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this "rule", as it undermines the preceding rules, implying that somehow a firearm is "safe" if it has the safety engaged, or no magazine inserted, or ... perhaps "sabotages the preceding rules" would be a better phrase. The intent (at least as I see it) of the four rules is to emphasize that the individual is responsible for always being attentive to proper handling; this "rule" says that such attention can be discarded. htom 15:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This boils down to differences in philosophy of life. You can never get everyone to prefer any one carry-mode mindset or safety protocol because people are different and situations are different. Toms2866 gets to the very heart of the matter when he says "I don't think anyone would argue that handlers choosing to keep loaded firearms are trading [some varying degree of] safety for [increased] readiness." That is a basic, irreducible truth. (Invent some way to negate that truth, and become a billionaire.) The question is, is the trade-off worth it or not? The answer to that involves value judgments, personality, and situational variables. I think all this Wikipedia article can do is present BOTH the NRA-style 3 rules and the 4 rules, and state why some people prefer each. </$0.02> — Lumbercutter 03:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not people following the Cooper (4) rules actually have their firearms loaded is irrelevant. They have a different mindset: firearms must always be treated as if they are loaded. The NRA mindset is that "this firearm can be made safe". htom 20:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I just realized that I may have been assuming too much context here. Backing up: Toms2866, there is a fundamental difference in mindset between the NRA-style 3-rule idea, and the 4-rule (aka Cooper) idea (which this article currently covers). And that difference centers on the "unloaded" notion, which is a very loaded notion (metahumor, sorry). The reason you didn't see that 3rd NRA rule in the article is because the whole NRA-style idea is not currently covered in this article. If it were, it would be set in contradistinction to the 4-rule mindset. For more background on this whole can of worms, click through some of the external links including the one "Controversy over exact choice of rules for gun safety (specifically whether or not "the gun is always loaded" is an intelligent rule)." What we need to do in this article is point out that both systems exist. htom is absolutely correct in what he says above. What I said earlier was really assuming a different context. It was about the idea that the NRA rules can't always apply to everybody, because sometimes people need their guns to be loaded all the time (for example, police). This goes into another much-discussed can of worms as to what is meant by "unloaded until ready to use". Police are always "ready to use". So their magazines are always full. Yes, that inherently creates risk, but it is a risk that is acceptable in the context, as opposed to the alternative. — Lumbercutter 20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
(metahumor: snort!) Thanks for pointing out that reference. I've had this discussion many many times over the years, and that really boils it down the two viewpoints, and how they differ. It goes further than that, though, because there are many more tools than firearms. "The mind is the weapon", as my DIs used to say. htom 13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negligent discharge vs Accidental discharge

Someone thought we shoud change "Accidental discharge" to "Negligent discharge". I am not so ceratin. Merriam-Webster gives the following definitions:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/negligent

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/accidental

Negligent: 1 a : marked by or given to neglect especially habitually or culpably b : failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances 2 : marked by a carelessly easy manner

Accidental: 1 : arising from extrinsic causes : INCIDENTAL, NONESSENTIAL 2 a : occurring unexpectedly or by chance b : happening without intent or through carelessness and often with unfortunate results

From this I am more inclined to say that "negligent behaviour can lead to an accidental discharge". Saying that a discharge is negligent is to imply that it was intentional, but very carelessly performed. Clearly the three movie clips portrayed unintentional discharges... i.e. according to point 2a and 2b in MW's defintion of "accidental".

What say the rest of you?

--J-Star 07:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the phrasing "negligent behaviour can lead to an accidental discharge" is a more precise way to say what's meant, although I don't agree that "negligent" means that the discharge was intentional. I guess that the linguistic question you've uncovered is "Can the perfective result of an imperfective process (negligent behavior) be described with an adjective ("negligent") that seems linguistically to apply only to imperfective processes?" I think the answer is that human communication generally paints in broader strokes than that. When someone uses the adjective in that way, you "know what they mean" regardless of the semantic fine points. Speaking practically, when the discharge occurs, it is both accidental and negligent. I think that the recent editor was trying to explicitly emphasize the negligence because the word "accident" can often wrongly connote blamelessness.
BTW, All the videos show unambiguous negligence EXCEPT the DEA agent video, which leaves you with not enough information. I have re-watched the DEA agent video but can't make out through the low-res graininess exactly why the gun discharged. It doesn't look like his finger was inside the trigger guard before the discharge. He takes the gun off-camera before that, which leaves us without much info (we don't know what his "chamber-conscious" level was while he was off-camera). I don't think anyone can say what went wrong just from the video alone. I wonder what the investigation determined. — Lumbercutter 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well in light of the rest of the article I think that "toying" constitutes "negligent behaviour" by itself. :)
About the DEA agent, there is some info here: http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/gunsafety.asp --J-Star 12:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the section "Environments requiring standardized protocols for weapons-check at the door"

Request for opinion: I think this section ("Environments requiring standardized protocols for weapons-check at the door") has no place in the article. The subject covered I have never heard of. Is this some american thing? The connection seems vague at best.

Further more the style of the section is less then encyclopedic with a substantial amount of "should" in it. If I don't hear a convincing argument against this section's removal I'm going to axe it in a few days. --J-Star 21:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than being vague, the connection is obvious, as checking weapons at the door is central to safety in the first group of environments listed.
For the second group of environments listed, yes, most people never think about it, but the recommendation made by the physicians and police officer who wrote the AJR article is, in sum, "we should develop protocols to deal with the issue of weapons coming in the door". The reason most people have never heard of the subject covered is because they don't have to bother to think about it if they're not in the lines of work responsible (law enforcement, corrections, emergency medicine, or sometimes other medical areas, such as the MR technician in the article).
As for the amount of "should", it's just inherent in the topic. In life, what should be done is often different from what is currently done. I'm not sure that this topic should be ignored (discussion avoided) just because there's an element of "should" in it. In fact, the 4 main rules of gun safety, one of the core areas of this article, are all about "should" and "shouldn't". I don't think that Wikipedia should avoid discussing them because, oh no, they have a pro-safety POV.
However, I reworked the list into two separate lists to address the fact that weapons-check is a less obvious need in the second group.
— Lumbercutter 08:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I must say I am still not very convinced. You do have some valid points but I still don't think this quite fits the article. Especially with sentences like these: "Society should probably provide them with adequate weapons-check where needed, but it's an expense that everyone would prefer to avoid—hence, a topic that many would prefer to ignore. Further discussion of this issue is a matter of gun politics more than gun safety."
This is very unencyclopedic. Unsourced, expressing an opinion (there's that "should" issue) and referencing to something not as fact but a "discussion". If you can rework this into something decidedly more encyclopedic it could stay. If not, I still think it should go. I'm leaving it in for now to let you rework it. --J-Star 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can see where you're coming from. I removed the paragraph that delved away from "just the facts, ma'am" into a heavier degree of "should". The part that I kept definitely should remain, as it is extremely basic and neutral (and cites a reference that amply demonstrates why the topic matters). — Lumbercutter 01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

As of today, 2007-04-02, I have to say that I am impressed with the work that has been done on this article. It's informative, concise, and hasn't been used as a soapbox for anyone's pet politics. I wish all Wikipedia articles were this good. Well done, editors. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-04-03 01:32Z

Agreed. This is a very imformative article that I hope will have people that read this take notice of gun safety issues. 124.171.189.13 23:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)BelziBhaal

[edit] Use in Political Context

There are a number of politicians (McCarthy, Schumer, etc.) and organizations (HCI) that use the term "gun safety" to describe their agenda and on their respective Wiki pages, the term "gun safety" direct here. I have created a section on the main page dealing with this.--Davidwiz 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Although their names were cited, the opinion being pushed was not cited, and a {{Fact}} tagline was there. Have removed uncited commentary until (?) a cite can be found. Yaf 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Impairment" section

Here's how the section stands as I write this comment:

Since handling a firearm is a complex task, with possible fatal outcomes if done wrong, gun safety dictates that a firearm should never be handled while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, even legal prescription or over-the-counter drugs. Since such substances may affect a person's judgement already after consuming relatively small amounts, zero tolerance is advocated by gun safety teachers.

The spirit of this section is on-target, although the letter could use some help, in the respect that I don't think anyone is disqualified from hunting, shooting at the local target range, or working as a police officer just because they take aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, Lipitor, Cardizem, or some other very common prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Correct? — Lumbercutter 17:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is true. But there are also over-the-counter drugs that does make you unsuitable to use firearms. A clarification would be in order. --J-Star 08:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental shooting videos

The video with the kid is clearly fake, the sound is completely wrong for that kind of handgun. The guys in the desert might have staged their video too. I can't prove it wither way and I can understand giving a video the benefit of the doubt, but why leave one in just to make a point? This article is supposed to be about safety, and I don't see how a fake video helps the goal of safety or building a useful encyclopedia. If you think the videos are real then leave them in, but why show a fake video of an accident? --68.102.156.139 00:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fake or not, they prove a point. They demonstrate reckless behavior and a possible outcome of it. See it as a sort of instruction video.
The desert vid I think is fake because the whole "script" is set up to lead to the "accident". His buddies are going "You shouldn't do that" several times and he laughs it off... and - off course - pops his own foot. It's a morality tale. Besides... if you shoot yourself in the foot, the top of your shoes won't be bloodied that quick. You'll have a clean hole in your shoe on the top and bleeding out through the hole in the bottom.--J-Star 08:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Would we include a Hollywood car chase in an article on automobile safety? I'm just worried that including a staged video trivializes the risks.--68.102.156.139 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point, and I agree. Staged videos do not belong. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 15:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Find a suitable replacement then... and convince me that instruction videos - which most commonly are fake - contributes to lessening the subject in question. --J-Star 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between a dramatization for an instructional video and a hoax. Also, who says there has to be a lot of videos? Why post bad content just because there's no good content available?--68.102.156.139 02:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What makes this content bad? Why would it be better if it would look exactly the same but the events behind it were certified to be real? --J-Star 10:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's include the "I shot Marvin in the face" scene from Pulp Fiction.--68.102.156.139 02:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Cant, it's copyrighted. :D --J-Star 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of 2007-09-01 & 09-02: "amateur" sentence; laser rule; skyward-or-groundward-pointing SOP

Hi J-Star,

  • I agree that the "amateur" sentence was poorly written O.R. and is just as well omitted. That was left over from some anon long ago, and I just moved it down.
  • However, the laser rule is a very real technique for fostering muzzle awareness, and as soon as my books are unpacked from my recent move, I will supply the references for it and re-insert it.
  • Lastly, I cannot see why you removed the following sentence, which I recently added to bring a reality check to the relative-risk assessment for the pre-existing discussion of the skyward-or-groundward-pointing SOP: "However, the muzzle must point somewhere, and these risks are smaller than the risks created by pointing it anywhere else; therefore, the skyward or groundward directions are chosen." What about that relative-risk quantification do you think is not correct? When I get a chance to supply the references for it, I will re-insert it. However, refs aside, it is also common sense. You don't carry a rifle horizontally because you're afraid of possibly shooting an airplane with the skyward-pointing SOP. That's ridiculous, refs or no refs! :)

— Lumbercutter 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Gun safety" vs. "Firearm safety"

Any support for or opposition to moving this article to "Firearm safety"? Accurizer (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that everyone understands that we're not talking, here, about the safe handling of naval ordnance, but changing it to "firearm safety" might make the title too abstract. You could put a redirect from "firearm safety" to here, I suppose. More than that is going to get into squabbling, I fear. htom (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with otterSmith: redirect Firearm Safety to this page. I oppose a move to FirearmSafety.
I tried a Google Battle between "Gun Safety" and "Firearm Safety". Gun Safety get approximately 10x more hits. --J-Star (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age versus black powder

Black powder is not hygroscopic or corrosive by itself. Only the combustion products of black powder are corrosive and hygroscopic. Black powder is a physical mixture of sulfur, carbon, and either potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate. The nitrates are not unstable with age. The other two ingredients are chemical elements. Hence, black powder cannot deteriorate with age. Smokeless powder, on the other hand, is a chemical compound with many nitrogen bonds that do start to break down with age, producing a brownish residue and an acidic smell (it actually becomes acidic) to the smokeless powder. Smokeless powder can deteriorate with age. Black powder cannot. Of course, if black powder is exposed to water while it is stored, this can cause problems. One has to keep his (black) powder dry :-) -- Yaf (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent reverts by user Llamabr

You need to do some homework. The material you keep restoring is simply not correct. If I'm wrong, then back it up with references. HiramShadraski (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I think it's obvious by now we aren't going to delete the article. Many asked for a cleanup though. So... where do we start? Specify the problem and what exactly needs to be removed.

Also, keep in mind that Gun Safty rules are a How (Not) To-guide. How does one describe a How To guide without the description becoming a How To guide too? --J-Star (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed a few other issues with this, particularly the distinct lack of references, which make it difficult to distinguish original research from something that has already been published. I've tagged the page with the {{cleanup-afd}} template, as well as the more specific issues mentioned in the discussion and those I noticed myself. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A super quick look at this article shows that the beginning is a lengthy howto guide format that is either unverified or Original Reserach. I propose deleting all of the howto type stuff and readding it only if it can be attributed to a reputable source, such as "According to the NRA, the major aspects of gun safety are..." I'm sure there's plenty of excellent sources on this topic. History of gun safety, importance of gun safety, major political actions related to gun safety, lobbyist groups posititions on gun safety etc. But it be much easier to add content that is attributed than to seek out attributions for most of this stuff. I may be WP:BOLD and do this anyway and see if complaints arise, haven't decided yet. -Verdatum (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Be Bold! :-) Yaf (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
So I removed the explanation of the stated gun safety rules that react of GUIDE issues. I also went through and released any imparative sentences I could find (describing what the user should or must do). What remains should be actual factual claims that can be proven or disproven. If this was done right, the guide tag might be able to come off. -Verdatum (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There is one thing to be bold... another to cut out the essence and backbone of the article without checking references. I'm restoring these and advice you to check the links at the bottom. Especiallt the links to Jeff Cooper I think you completely missed to read. --J-Star (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so now the explanation to the rules is back. These shoudl have references added to them instead of just blind slashing. If anyone has an itchy trigger finger and desperately need to cut something out, then the sections below, - "Protective gear and health issues", "Failures", "Hazardous conditions/proper storage", "Impairment", "Correct ammunition", "Construction, modification and general condition of firearms" are of much lower priority to keep compared to explaining the rules.

I would advice that those involved in editing this article should be somewhat knowledgable in the subject and not just wave a Wikipedia policy blindly about. The slashing here is taking on not bold but on the subject down right ignorant proportions. --J-Star (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. I don't have time to work on this article currently, but I saw the recent activity and I just wanted to say that much of the legitimate info in this article that lacks citations can be inline-cited to Massad Ayoob's books, especially "The Truth About Self-Protection" and "In the Gravest Extreme", if anyone has time to crawl over them and match his passages to the points here. I would do this myself if I had a magic clock-stopping device and an empty to-do list IRL. Happy editing, — ¾-10 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
J-Star, Please assume good faith. When I found the article, there were no references of this type. There are still no references of this type. There are "External Links" which are a different thing. Editors do not know that an external link is used as a source for content unless this is explicitly declared. This can be done by way of inline references, or by creating an explicit list of overall works cited. Failure to do so makes the content read like unverifiable original research and in some instances can border on plagarism.
Please do not consider this an extreme case of being bold. It is standard technique for change in Wikipedia. One person makes a controvertial change, if another person disagrees, they revert and justify the reversion, which is what has been done. It's a Good Thing.
I admit, my editing practices generally serve to enforce WP:POLICY. I fail to see why this is a bad thing, or why this is a special case that needs an expert. I regularly see that argument made to articles I've worked on, and it consistently reflects failure to enforce major WP policies. I am not one to wave policy "blindly about". My edits to the article were with the intention of improving the article.
Further, please do not assume I am completely ignorant of this topic; as it turns out, in this case, I rather well educated in the relm of firearms and related topics.
On to my specific edits. Even given the attributed references, I still do not believe the content belongs. I don't understand the need for the explanation of the principles of Gun Safety in this article. The explanations they give are merely one possible implimentation of gun safety and I don't belive it nessisary to go into this level of detail for something so abstract. The major points are well worded and generally self-explanitory. The explanations of the terms read like advise for gun safety instructors, which ammounts to guide material. To quote the policy, "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain 'how-to's. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes...The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks."
Think of it like this: if, in explaining the content of the article, the words "how to" come up, it is probably guide material. So, if content is in place in case a reader wishes to know how to impliment, enforce, justify, or instruct proper gun safety, they should probably be going to some resource other than the encyclopedia article on the subject.
I am willing to admit there are some worthwhile verifiable facts within the sections I removed, and perhaps some of it should remain, but I don't think it should be organized in the form of an annotated list. It can be condenced into a single section giving further detail on the origin of the need for such a rule. (facts worded on the order of, "Most gun accidents occur because of ...").
I'd appreciate any responses that justify the retention of the content in question (all or in part). -Verdatum (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Verdatum. One reason I think that persons doing the cleanup here should be knowledgable on the subject it is because one should know some kind of priority on what to slash and what to "just" clean up. The sections you slashed are in fact some of the most important aspects of Gun Safety while the other sections, that you cleaned without removing, are much less important to the subject since they don't usually relate to Gun Safety that tightly. I myself have long concidrered removing them or shortening them since the article is bloating.
I didn't write the original article but I did do the major rewrite that settled it on its current structure. I have been very careful - in my own opinion - to word the sections about the four rules as to be descriptive of the rules and refraining from "How-to" wording. I reviewed theose sections again today and I find them to still be descriptive rather than instructive.
Also bear in mind - again - this Gun Safety is a how to guide... which makes it tricky to describe without the article also becoming a how to guide. A wee bit tolerance should perhaps be exercised here.
Anywaw... to get down to business. Here are my opionion about the existing sections.
--J-Star (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, if you'd like a howto guide on gun safety, it should be located somewhere else (for example Wikihow). WP:NOT is not just a guideline, it is a policy; something that should only be ignored if you can give an exceptionally decent justification. I don't see any justification at all here. Further, Wikipedia is not about what's important it's about what's verifiable. This information, as written is not verifiable, because as written, it is a reccomendation, not a fact. Perhaps you could find me some Good Articles or better yet, Featured Articles that exercise this "wee bit of tolerance" to convince me. -Verdatum (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You are both correct in different ways. But the 4 rules should not disappear.
Consider this analogy: Say you had an article called "Blarney cake", and you said therein, "people from Belfast feel that ingredients should be added to the flour in the order (1) eggs, (2) sugar, (3) milk; but people from Dublin feel it should be (1) sugar, (2) milk, (3) eggs, and that there must be nutmeg as well". Now, that info is inherently how-to-ish. However, it is also very basic and essential to the topic of blarney cake. If you deleted it, the article would be incomplete.
That is essentially the same situation as we have here. IMO this article should be structured with the lead saying essentially "there are several schools of thought on firearm safety, including the Cooper system, the NRA system, and [whatever]." Then each of those systems has its own heading, and its rules are listed, each a subheading. (By the way, blarney cake is (AFAIK) fictional—I just made it up as a simple analogy.) </2¢> — ¾-10 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that the article can be cleaned up, keeping both Cooper's Rules and the NRA rules (and elaborations and explanations of the differences), without being a "how-to" article. Cooper's rules are almost the irreducible minimum for firearms safety; eliminate them, and I'll propose deletion. htom (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I do not think the rules themselves should dissappear. I think the enumerated explanations of the rules should either be removed or seriously reduced. I believe the rules are self-explainitory, and the details on the rules add nothing to the article beyond bloat. Also, proposing deletion is not the solution in these cases. Deletion was only just proposed and renomination so soon is generally viewed unfavorably. No one seems to doubt that an article on gun safety should exist, the argument is what form the article should take. These matters are appropriately resolved right here. -Verdatum (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the analogy, your blarney cake content is fine, as it is a verifiable fact that one group believes it should be one way, one group believes it should be another way. If it contained tips and details like, "Be sure the butter is at room temperature first." that should be reworded or removed. if it contains details like, "If cooks argue there should be no nutmeg, inform them that nutmeg tastes really really good." that should obviously be removed. -Verdatum (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
To repeat what I have said several times before: the four rules are essential to the article. The rest of the article is not. Why are we debating the section on the rules where there is alot of dead weight in the article that could be removed much sooner?! We deal with the low priority pieces first, see what is left and then debate the sections about the Cooper rules, ok? --J-Star (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
While Cooper's rules are self-explanatory to those who've lived with them for a while, those coming to firearms from other (non-Cooperish) cultures can soon learn to recite them, but act in ways that show that their verbal recitation has not produced internalized correct understandings. (Indeed, the form of the rules in the article are much "softer" than the ones I learned. (Every gun is always loaded, Never let the muzzle cover anything you don't want destroyed, Never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire, Always be sure of your target, and what is above, below, beside, beyond, and through that target.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 17:52, 10 March 2008
OtterSmith, I am likewise more accustomed to this "harder" form of the rules. (Naturally, I don't have a source I can point to so I don't intend to add it or change the wording to reflect it.) If there is an issue of people being able to recite these rules but failing to follow them, then we should find a reference that reports this problem, and mention it explicitly; not just add expansion/direction/unreferenced clarification/instruction/etc. in hopes that it will help the state of gun safety in the world. -Verdatum (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
J-star, the criteria for content inclusion in an article is not the percieved value of the content (which is extremely subjective), it is the verifiability of the content. The closest thing to a discussion of "Dead weight" is How to handle trivia, and I don't believe that applies to the content of this article. I do object that most of the content is unattributed, and can potentially go for that reason, but if the claims are attached to reliable sources, I'd have no problems with them. When people talk about "cleanup" on wikipedia, it generally doesn't mean, "this article is needlessly long", it means, "large portions of this article do not follow policies for no good reason." -Verdatum (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vital piece

What's the "vital piece" in Swedish law, the firing pin? --Blechnic (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It differs from gun to gun. There is no formal definition of what is a "vital piece" but in essence: if the vital piece is missing, the gun won't fire, and you cannot replace the vital piece without getting an identical one... makeshift substitutes won't do. With bolt-action rifles for instance the bolt is usually concidered the vital pice. --J-Star (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Then please include this information in the article, what the vital piece is for a firearm and that it differs for different pieces and a source for this information. Particularly with "vital piece" in quotation marks. Also, this article should clarify intitially that it's "firearm safety" not "gun safety," as other readers may think it's just about handguns, not rifles, also. --Blechnic (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"Firearm safety" redirects here. The "vital piece" thing varies from country to country, both in which pieces are vital and what they are called. htom (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Blechnic I'm confused on your second point. From the lead sentence: "Gun safety is a collection of rules and recommendations that can be applied when handling firearms" how does this not "clarify initially that it's 'firearm safety'"? The article is called Gun Safety because of WP:COMMONNAME, I believe it makes it sufficiently clear that the topic applies to firearms in general. -Verdatum (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)