Two points.

Completely unreasonable to discharge a firearm in to a crowd like that, although I'm fairly sure that guy is drilled enough that he could accurately shoot someone at that range if he really wanted to. The guy has been charged, correct? Entirely appropriate.

Second, you notice the missiles incoming, the dickhead trying to turn a spray can in to a flamethrower? Do you honestly think these were isolated events? Do you not think that people prepared for this? Or does every person carry aerosols and lighters just for shits and giggles?

The pretext of antifa is that assaulting people is fine because it's proactive self defense, right? If it's okay to physically attack people for thinking and saying offensive things, then why the fuck is anyone complaining about someone drawing a weapon to defend others against an actual attack??? /grin

That's the problem when you justify unreasonable actions on one side, whether you like it or not you justify unreasonable actions for everyone.

And just to ice the cake, if you're dumb enough to show up with sticks/stones/cans of spray against the the white right who are well known to be armed to the motherfucking teeth, you might want to avoid poking the bear.

ps. Upvoted your vid because it should be seen (the more documentation about the whole shebang the better) and because I'm not a petty cunt... X D

Unintelligible...try again.

No, no matter what the crime, unless you are being directly threatened with attack, you may not play cop. If you block a road and accost strangers, pretending to be a cop when you aren't, they can probably legally kill you to escape the armed kidnapping, and you can go to prison for decades. Call the cops and take photos of them, don't pretend to be a cop.

The color that probably matters most in this instance is blue, because the cops ignored the guards multiple crimes and went after the victim....as I said. Lighten up, a bare mention of race is not a declaration of racism.

Yes, you have that part right, the cop impersonator is the criminal here. The ATV riders weren't even going fast, and certainly were no danger to him or his family, and even if they were, he's 100% out of line to block, attack, then kidnap them. He's not a cop, so can't arrest people....just like you. Before you try saying citizens arrests are a thing, improper citizens arrest with a gun is kidnapping, not that he performed a citizens arrest in the first place, he impersonated a police officer.

If he had not blocked the road, not touched them, and not pulled a gun on them, but instead waived them down and asked them to slow down, that's proper, and a good start before calling REAL cops. What he did is at LEAST 3 major felonies including impersonating an officer, kidnapping, and using a firearm in the commission of another felony....a good prosecutor could probably charge him with more....if he weren't in 'law enforcement' I'm pretty sure they would.

I seem to recall a sifted video of a cop pulling over a concealed carry dude, who told him that he had a firearm and a concealed carry permit, but otherwise refused to answer questions.

The officer in that video had experience that these 2 guys apparently lack, and was very skilled at figuring out what he needed to without escalating things and/or overreacting.

Some of that could be wrong, I'm fuzzy on it. If I could remember it more clearly, I'd search and see if I could find it to tag as related. As I remember it, it seemed like the perfect contrast to this one -- the right way to do things compared to this one being the wrong way.

All the indoor ranges I've been to (admittedly not many) are designed so even shots waaaay off target like this one won't ricochet. Usually there are at least a few holes in the ricochet-proofing. Loaded firearms should always be pointed downrange, so even though this guy f-ed up badly, at least he had that part right and the actual hazard here was minimal.

I gotta give him credit for the body armor, people keep saying they just want to be prepared and so they carry a firearm. But I always want to ask, so if you are that serious about being prepared, where is your body armor?

She's wrong, the school in Wyoming verified that they have a fence and bear mace, no firearms, and they've never needed one.

#potentialgrizzly is apparently a thing now

Lol. Lebowski.

I'm studying mechanical engineering (hons) with masters in biomedical engineering. It's a head fuck. I don't think anyone offers firearm design as a major itself.

The trigger finger is the primary safety (debatable), and there is usually a secondary safety and sometimes a tertiary safety. It's true that not having it is different than removing it but sometimes they are redundant. For example the palm safety (a tertiary safety on most guns) is often pinned to turn it off permanently because it didn't add any real benefit.

The particular gun in question looks like a CZ-75. A little hunting in the Youtube comments and other people agree. This particular model originally had a firing pin block which was eventually removed on later models (that have the same internals) because it wasn't needed (probably because they also have a thumb safety). This allowed for the short reset disconnector to be put in place (which is a factory part). So CZ ships two lines of the same gun - one with the firing pin block and one without. You're not suddenly unsafe if you remove it from the model that has it. With the quality of the video the way it is though, it could end up being another gun entirely.

Yes, x-ray diffraction is not the only method. It was an example only. The point being that your average gun owner and gunsmiths don't use these sorts of techniques as regular preventative maintenance. And they don't need to, guns are cheap and replacement parts are cheap. If something breaks you replace it. Some parts are replaced on a maintenance schedule (springs spring to mind). Most people never fire enough rounds through their firearms to need to replace anything.

Factory condition firearms malfunctioning is not rare. Factory condition firearms self firing is quite rare. But several model firearms have been affected over the years (meaning millions of firearms). But usually the problem is with a small batch of firearms from within those millions but they always do a blanket recall.

I agree, unintentional firing of a gun is almost always user error.

I still don't believe their is enough information from the video and accompanying text to make a judgment call on this guy.

That's just, like, your opinion, man. ;-) I wouldn't rely on that position to help in court.

If you're really studying firearm design, you surely know different safety devices are on different firearms. Not having a certain device is different from inexpertly removing one.

Xray inspection isn't the only method, there's dpi (dye penetrant inspection) , magnetic particle, ultrasonic, eddy current testing, etc. I would be surprised to find a competent gunsmith that had never done at least one of those...I've done it for car parts in my garage, cheaply and easily.

How many videos would I find of well maintained factory condition firearms malfunctioning and discharging? I would expect that to be quite rare.

Thanks to safety features and decent quality control, unintentionally discharging is almost always user error, not malfunction, with rare exceptions like you mentioned. In this case it seems to be malfunction, both of the aftermarket part unprofessionally installed and the safety feature he removed that may have stopped the discharge even with the original failure. Imo, that's negligence, whether it in fact caused the discharge or not, because it made it far more likely to unintentionally discharge.

That's not true either. Following their directions doesn't mean you won't be negligent. Not following their direction doesn't mean you are negligent. You're conflating things. Each situation needs to be judged on it's own merits.

Removing safety features is not negligence unless you make the firearm unsafe. None of my firearms have a firing pin block from the factory. They're all safe firearms. My triggers have been lightened - they're still safe firearms. I've seen triggers lightened so much that they are unsafe. As before, each instance is judged on it's own merits.

I'll soon finish my mechanical engineering degree (and don't you know it, I'm looking for a job in firearm designing), so I do know a little about this stuff. Whilst with the proper equipment you can detect crack propagation or premature wear, this is not done on consumer products like firearms. That's why I wrote "this sort of item". Unless you're going to spend more money than the firearm is worth trying to detect cracks, you won't know it has cracked until you visually identify it.

Sure proper cleaning and gun inspection is part of having a safe, well functioning firearm. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's an aeroplane or space shuttle in inspections. Go ask your local gunsmith - the best one you can find - how many times he's done x-ray diffraction on a firearm for preventative maintenance. Chances are he's going to say zero.

Spend 5 seconds on google and I know you will find multiple videos of factory condition firearms discharging unintentionally. You'll also find recall information affecting millions of firearms - firearms at risk of unintentional discharge.

I should have qualified "much". More or less than 2500 rounds a year?

The purpose of the device (a gun) is to propel a projectile at great velocity. The purpose of the projectile is to sometimes kill or injure but mainly just put holes in paper. Just sayin'.

These days firearms are mainly used for shooting steel, cardboard and paper targets. I own competition guns made solely for shooting cardboard and steel. The market determines what they are built and bought for, not you.

Now, you've changed the topic to "responsibility". I hadn't seen anyone here argue he lacked responsibility for the operation of the device. On top of that, if the device is faulty and it malfunctions you are not necessarily liable for what happens. There is case law on this in the USA.

There are accidental shootings. I've literally got a degree in treating people who have been victims of accidental or purposeful shootings. There is lots of case law covering accidental shootings (and the law says that there are accidental shootings). Accidental doesn't mean there won't be repercussions.

It was negligent for him to modify his gun as he did it, clearly, since it caused an unintended discharge. Because he followed proper firearm safety at the range, no one was hurt.
Accidents usually happen because of negligence.

Wrong and wrong.

There is such a thing as an accidental discharge. It is labelled as such on purpose.

You could term the same thing negligence in some situations (if an accidental discharge happened in a manner that could reasonably be foreseen and people were in danger from it). After seeing hundreds of thousands of rounds go down range I have never seen this happen with my own eyes. I have seen ADs.

This was equipment malfunction. It was probably hammer follow. The fact that he installed aftermarket parts himself is of no consequence without proof that he did it incorrectly. The part could have been faulty. Something else in the firearm may have failed causing the AD. I've had hammer follow on my firearm after receiving it back from a very competent gunsmith.

Many police think they shouldn't be held to the same standards as the rest of us. It's just like the flap over the Cheesecake Factory recently not seating armed Dept. of Correction officers.

It isn't a corporate policy, but the local store had a rule of no firearms. Rather than lock their guns in the trunk of their service vehicle, they pitched a fit and led to a corporate apology. They weren't even police, but correctional officers.

Very good points.

I agree that good firearm regulations should make it harder for suicidal people to get a weapon. Also, I agree that the unanticipated drop in firearm suicides is definite good outcome in Australia.

...But I'm still hesitant to use suicide rates as any sort of primary motivation for new gun control in the US. Statistically tracked, sure. But to me there is a very big difference between using a gun for violent crime against others, and a suicidal person using a gun to off themselves. A difference that needs to be clearly delineated in any statistics shown to promote (or disparage) any sort of gun control legislation.

To me, that seems like a very rational stance on concealed carry.

A clear, logical list of rules that must be followed, which are (it sounds) fairly and universally applied (at least in Texas).

I'm enough of a "gun nut" (even though I don't actually own any guns or currently reside in the US) that I wouldn't want to see ALL of those rules applied to ownership of rifles and shotguns that are used for hunting or pest control / other utility on a farm.

Taking a class, test, and range test are good requirements. Not having felony convictions is another goodrequirement. But beyond that, for hunting/farm owners, it seems like many more requirements could just be misapplied to deny ownership to whoever the state deems "undesirable".

I tend to think that the NRA stance that any control or limits whatsoever are unconstitutional is very counterproductive for legitimate owners of hunting / farm firearms, as well as CCW people like yourself.