NevadaKelly

TBD

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@KissMyStern @LairdBelraven @BritGuns I will say when I heard she was untrained I sort of understand it. My blame is not on her so much as it is on whomever took the photo.

If she's untrained, someone failed to tell her. Not necessarily her fault.

Appreciate the hospitality though, nice to have here.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@GnashYeen Put a collar on and hold your own leash.

Become ungovernable.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@WesternMedhg @Robertagsr99 @CYoungpark12 "Goldman"

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@KissMyStern @LairdBelraven @BritGuns I worded my point awfully, in the context of where I live, I do know what's behind my walls, but I wouldn't practice somewhere unfamiliar or where I cannot be certain what's around me (i.e outdoors in a field, a range, etc.)

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@furudowerika Daily occurrence by the way :(

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@KissMyStern @LairdBelraven @BritGuns Good thing I know what's behind my walls.

And even if I knew the gun was safe, I would still be in the wrong to point it at someone or something I did not intend to destroy.

Cooper's 4 rules always apply. Knowing your target and what is behind it applies when indoors.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

Astounding how this needs to be explained to so many people.

Poor trigger discipline is poor trigger discipline for god's sake.

[Sensurround @ShamashAran]

Okay. I'm going to explain something here, because apparently we've reached the point in human civilization where BASIC FIREARMS SAFETY is now a controversial political position.

There is a concept in engineering called "defense in depth." It's a fairly simple idea. You have multiple, independent layers of protection against something going catastrophically wrong, because human beings are remarkably creative when it comes to finding new and exciting ways to screw things up.

For example, commercial buildings have automatic fire sprinklers. They ALSO have fire extinguishers.

"But the building has SPRINKLERS!" you might exclaim. "Why do we need FIRE EXTINGUISHERS? What are you, some kind of ANTI-SPRINKLER BIGOT?" No. We have both because fires are bad, and we'd prefer the building not turn into a large, expensive barbecue.

This brings us to firearms. Most of us "gun bros" (and chicks/sisters/catgirls/whatever) are familiar with something called Cooper's Four Rules of Firearms Safety, named after Jeff Cooper, who was something of an authority on the subject.

They are:

1. Treat every firearm as though it is loaded. ALWAYS.
2. Never allow the muzzle to point at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger OFF THE TRIGGER until your sights are on the target and you are ready to fire.
4. Be absolutely certain of your target and what lies beyond it.

Notice something interesting about these rules?

They work TOGETHER.

They're an example of DEFENSE IN DEPTH.

Suppose you accidentally point your firearm at something you don't particularly want to shoot, such as your television, your dog, or your Uncle Bob, who has already had a difficult week.

Well, if you're following Rule Three, your finger isn't on the trigger.

And if you're following Rule One, you're behaving as though the gun is loaded, EVEN IF YOU PERSONALLY UNLOADED IT FIVE MINUTES AGO.

Here's something that firearms instructors understand, and apparently a surprising number of people on the internet do not:

HUMAN BEINGS ARE IDIOTS. Not ALL the time, mind you. Frequently enough that entire engineering disciplines exist to protect us from ourselves.

Sometimes we forget to unload a firearm. Sometimes we THINK we unloaded a firearm. Sometimes we're absolutely POSITIVE the safety is engaged, when in fact it isn't. Sometimes we install a mechanical device designed to prevent a firearm from discharging, and then behave as though this magically repeals the fundamental principles of firearms safety.

It does not. A mechanical safety device is ANOTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION. It is not a permission slip to disregard all the others.

This is why responsible gun owners follow these rules even when the firearm is unloaded, even when the safety is engaged, and even when we're absolutely certain the thing couldn't possibly fire.

The whole POINT of defense in depth is that when one layer fails, the others are still there to prevent somebody from having a REALLY BAD FRIDAY IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM.

I suspect part of the problem here is a fundamental difference between British and American firearms culture.

In Britain, firearms are sufficiently restricted that, for most people, getting your hands on one involves obtaining the appropriate government permissions, satisfying various legal requirements, and presumably presenting a signed note from the Archbishop of Canterbury confirming that you are a responsible adult.
Meanwhile, over here in the United States, we crazy Americans can, (subject to the applicable laws,) just BUY THE DAMN THINGS.

We own them. We shoot them. We clean them. We take them to the range. Some of us own enough firearms to equip a moderately sized Central American republic.

Contrary to what many of you seem to believe, this does not mean we're all wandering around our living rooms casually pointing loaded shotguns at Uncle Bubba while shouting "YEEHAW!" Quite the opposite, actually. Because we regularly handle firearms, responsible American gun owners develop habits specifically intended to prevent Uncle Bubba from having to explain to an emergency-room physician why he's suddenly acquired an additional hole leaking important biological fluids.

We follow multiple, overlapping safety rules precisely because we understand that mechanical devices can fail, people can make mistakes, and bullets are notoriously reluctant to return to the barrel once they've been fired.

And this brings us to the photograph.

The reason people are criticizing the officer in the hijab is not, contrary to your fascinating theory, that she is a WOMAN. Or that she is a MUSLIM. Or that she is wearing a HIJAB.

It's that she's handling a firearm in a manner that violates basic firearms safety principles.
Here's the really astonishing part:

WE EXPECT TRAINED PROFESSIONALS TO KNOW BETTER.

I know. Shocking. We expect electricians not to lick exposed wires. We expect surgeons to wash their hands. We expect airline pilots to remember that LANDING is generally considered an important part of flying. We expect police officers to demonstrate safe firearms handling.

These expectations do not magically disappear because the professional in question happens to belong to a demographic group you believe requires special protection from criticism. In fact, I'd argue that holding her to a LOWER standard because she's a Muslim woman would be considerably more insulting than holding her to the exact same standard as every other armed professional.

Her religion is irrelevant. Her sex is irrelevant. Her clothing is irrelevant.

HER FIREARMS HANDLING IS THE ISSUE.

And if your first instinct upon seeing someone criticize unsafe firearms handling is to accuse them of religious bigotry rather than examine the actual safety concern, I would respectfully suggest that you have confused firearms safety with a sociology seminar.

This would be merely annoying if we were discussing something harmless, like the proper way to load a dishwasher. Unfortunately, we're discussing a device specifically designed to propel a piece of metal at extremely high velocity. Those devices, unlike internet political arguments, have a nasty habit of producing consequences that cannot be fixed by deleting your post.

Which you should consider doing, anyway.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@KissMyStern @LairdBelraven @BritGuns If I have ensured the weapon is safe, sure.

Reload drills or simple practice can be done in a safe manner indoors, but you must remember to always check the state of your firearm.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@hayasaka_aryan They rape us en masse. They rape our wives. Our daughters. Our mothers and even grandmothers for fucks sake.

Then our own government looks us right in the eye and tells us not to believe our lying eyes.

Then they rape us too.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@KissMyStern @LairdBelraven @BritGuns We don't point at people and we ensure the weapon is pointed in a safe direction.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@Gaidheal_Alaska @BritGuns I spent way too long telling retards on the internet it doesn't matter that this specific rifle is safe, bad habits form and must be shunned at all possible chances.

It was moronic that nobody told her, for a literal photoshoot, finger off the trigger.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@MrLewisYay @britishman112 @ICER_GTA_VI @Target3690 I think that's where the divide lies, and I am glad to see we're on the same page on the end goal it'd seem even if our means are different.

There is hope, be it with Reform or restore. The bright side is that with each day the dissident energy builds, I think it'll firm up.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@britishman112 @MrLewisYay @ICER_GTA_VI @Target3690 I think Fyrd's point, and indeed the point of many others, is to pick the safer choice even if it isn't perfect.

My vote is going to Restore because I don't think Reform offer what a lot of us want and they have been infiltrated on many levels (Zia Yusuf genuinely revolts me).

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@MrLewisYay @britishman112 @ICER_GTA_VI @Target3690 I have to agree with FyrdLad in that your approach is what destroys the nativist movement.

Me and my family are also affected by the political shift. I am not going to be needlessly hostile and throw my ancestors and family under the bus because I am angry.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@MrLewisYay @britishman112 @ICER_GTA_VI @Target3690 I just think the tide is turning a little, but I do understand your argument. For me it is just that reform compromises on too much, and they have far too many tories in their midst for my liking.

But you may well be right.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@ICER_GTA_VI @britishman112 @MrLewisYay @Target3690 My point is that it's close enough to not cause friction, beyond some historical sectarian violence (Blue v Green, Rangers v Celts, Protestant v Catholic).

I didn't intend to come off as arrogant.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@MrLewisYay @britishman112 @ICER_GTA_VI @Target3690 I tend to prefer less... Aggressive discussion than the other chap.

Optics is a real problem, but the solution isn't to just change position and flip flop, it's a matter of wording.

Like Nick Griffin changing the way his message is conveyed without changing the core itself.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@ICER_GTA_VI @britishman112 @MrLewisYay @Target3690 I'd probably just say "mixed British" then. If you want more specificity, "celtic-anglecynn" mixed is fine if I don't have any further knowledge.

The ethnic and cultural difference between the two is small enough for this mixture to be perfectly fine, in my eyes at least.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@ICER_GTA_VI @britishman112 @MrLewisYay @Target3690 Depends what your parents are, and their parents. A concrete definition is possible but needs work.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@MrLewisYay @ICER_GTA_VI @britishman112 @Target3690 Even then I would like a stricter one, but it is serviceable for now.

[NevadaKelly @Nevvy2003]

@MrLewisYay @ICER_GTA_VI @britishman112 @Target3690 I don't think it's hard.

"Englishness is defined by ancestry. It would be fair to set a requirement of two generations on both sides"

(i.e parents both need to be English. Their parents must also both be English on both sides)

It's a shorthand, but it works.