John Kerry's lack of gun safety in photo

[Dan]

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v340/GarnetGirl/Kerrygun.jpg

I don't even need to say a word here except if I was holding a gun like that, I'd get my butt kicked.

[karcent]

Having his finger on the trigger of a gun he has just fired doesn't bother me.

What bothers me is that this was just a pre-election stunt and a weak attempt at making people believe he is in favor of gun use and ownership.

The club he was shooting at should be strongly chastized for allowing it.

[Craig]

I agree with Karcent, a weak stunt indeed, but he can also claim that he supports only "sporting" guns. Let's see him attend and participate in an IDPA match.

[Scoop]

Having his finger on the trigger of a gun he has just fired doesn't bother me.

Last time I read the NRA's Gun Safety Rules, #2 was:
Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. When holding a gun, rest your finger on the trigger guard or along the side of the gun. Until you are actually ready to fire, do not touch the trigger.

It does NOT say:
Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot OR if you just finished shooting and are now looking in another direction, addressing the camera and NOT paying attention to what might have changed down range.

[karcent]

There are plenty of times when I'm shooting handguns that my finger doesn't leave the trigger between shots and I might even look in another direction to be aware of my surroundings and I even blink occasionally.

I have also left my finger on the trigger while doubling with a shotgun or shooting a rifle rapid fire.

Maybe I'm an unsafe shooter?

[SteveS]

Maybe I'm an unsafe shooter?

You certainly don't sound unsafe, but I would prefer if Kerry were going to chat with reporters (or yell), he take his finger off the trigger, or at least pay attention to where his gun is pointed.

[Jim Simmons]

A snapshot is just that; a single moment frozen in time. We don't know what he's doing in that instant; he could be sneezing, swearing, or mouthing off.

The shotgun remains firmly pointed in a safe direction.

There's an inference that this is after he took his shot. We don't know how long after -- one second, five, or ten seconds.

He's clearly in control of that gun. We can't say for certain there's anything unsafe going on.

I'm more concerned about the lack of eye protection.

[karcent]

Good point about the eye protection, Jim.
I missed that!

[Fred Mager]

It appears to be a photo opp! No one else has eye or ear protection although all have theri shotguns pointed downrange. They appear to be waiting for their turn to move to the firing line in which case the shooters ahead of them have guns pointed at their backs! Forget the criticism it's just a photo opp!

[taurus92]

It appears to be a photo opp! No one else has eye or ear protection although all have theri shotguns pointed downrange. They appear to be waiting for their turn to move to the firing line in which case the shooters ahead of them have guns pointed at their backs! Forget the criticism it's just a photo opp!

No they are on the line. The little "speakers" at the lower right corner are the voice activated trap machine. You can see one of the speakers right next to the blow up of the finger on the trigger

[Scoop]

There are plenty of times when I'm shooting handguns that my finger doesn't leave the trigger between shots and I might even look in another direction to be aware of my surroundings and I even blink occasionally.

I have also left my finger on the trigger while doubling with a shotgun or shooting a rifle rapid fire.

Maybe I'm an unsafe shooter?
He's CLEARLY addressing a camera crew. He's NOT "blinking" or taking a quick look around ...

[Scoop]

A snapshot is just that; a single moment frozen in time. We don't know what he's doing in that instant; he could be sneezing, swearing, or mouthing off.
One doesn't need to be a genius to know what he's doing in this picture. He's NOT sneezing. He's clearly addressing the camera for the photo opportunity.

The shotgun remains firmly pointed in a safe direction.
If you know this, tell me:
(1) who/what is located three feet in front of the muzzle?
(2) who/what is located TEN feet in front of the muzzle?
(3) who/what is located [insert distance here] in front of the muzzle?

I don't know, you don't know. ASSuming that the shotgun is firmly pointed in a 'safe direction' without seeing more than a foot or so in front of the shooter is ... well ... you get the picture.

There's an inference that this is after he took his shot. We don't know how long after -- one second, five, or ten seconds.
Inference, presumption, ASSumption -- they're all the same.

HOW many shots did he take BEFORE this picture was taken? You can't tell. There's NO way to tell from this photo. But what I CAN clearly see from this photo is that:
(a) his finger is CLEARLY on the trigger
(b) his eyes are CLEARLY not focused in the same direction that the shotgun is pointing
(c) his attention is CLEARLY not on the shotgun, it's direction of fire, it's target or what is beyond it's target.

He's clearly in control of that gun. We can't say for certain there's anything unsafe going on.
Either (a) he's clearly "in control" or (b) he's clearly "NOT in control"; I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people familiar with the appropriate gun safety procedures would, based on this photo, state that he's NOT following proper gun safety practices (versus him being "in control", which implies propery gun safety is being followed).

I'm more concerned about the lack of eye protection.
Frankly, I'm more concerned about innocent bystanders (regardless of who the shooter is) than I am about the eye safety of a clearly UNSAFE shooter.

[bluethunder]

.[/quote]
Frankly, I'm more concerned about innocent bystanders (regardless of who the shooter is) than I am about the eye safety of a clearly UNSAFE shooter.[/quote]


Yep, it's always fun till somebody puts an eye out. (sorry, I couldn't help myself)
But seriously, it does appear he is more concerned with the photo-op, getting a good picture of him 'with a gun', than with the down range area.

[bluethunder]

Sorry, double post. :oops: Mod, please help me.

[Jim Simmons]

Scoop, I think you fell into your own trap.

Inference, presumption, ASSumption -- they're all the same.

Actually, they are not. In casual conversation they are often used interchangibly because the differences are subtle. But each is a different term, encompassing different meanings.

A presumption is a previously established status that, absent an intervening act, remains in force. There is a presumption in the law that a person that rear-ends another motor vehicle is responsible for the collision. That presumption, however, is rebuttable by evidence of an intervening cause.

An assumption in this context is a taking up or acceptance of a given fact or facts based on past practice, performance, or expectation. Merriam-Webster defines it as "to take as granted or true," but I think this is an inadequate definition. Because my brother is always late to family events at my house, I assume he'll be late for my son's birthday party today.

An inference is an act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former. It is the process of deriving a conclusion from facts or premises. I see smoke coming from the window of my house, and I infer that it's on fire.

So which applies here?

One doesn't need to be a genius to know what he's doing in this picture. He's NOT sneezing. He's clearly addressing the camera for the photo opportunity.

That's an assumption. It follows from the proposition that Kerry (or politicians in general) address cameras for photo ops whenever they can; thus, that must be what Kerry is doing now.

If you know this, tell me:
(1) who/what is located three feet in front of the muzzle?
(2) who/what is located TEN feet in front of the muzzle?
(3) who/what is located [insert distance here] in front of the muzzle?

I don't know, you don't know. ASSuming that the shotgun is firmly pointed in a 'safe direction' without seeing more than a foot or so in front of the shooter is ... well ... you get the picture.

My comment is an inference. Major proposition: Three shotguns in this picture are being held in the same direction, and everyone else in the photo is looking in that direction Minor proposition: Several people on a shotgun range are quite likely to be pointing their shotguns and looking in a safe direction at the same time. Conclusion: Kerry's shotgun is quite likely to be pointed in a safe direction.

That's a syllogism. A poor one to be sure, because the minor proposition is stated in probabilities and not as a certainty, but that's what makes it an inference, and not a deductive conclusion.

Quote:
He's clearly in control of that gun. We can't say for certain there's anything unsafe going on.

Either (a) he's clearly "in control" or (b) he's clearly "NOT in control"; I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people familiar with the appropriate gun safety procedures would, based on this photo, state that he's NOT following proper gun safety practices (versus him being "in control", which implies propery gun safety is being followed).

Your syllogism goes like this: Major proposition: Kerry is not following proper gun safety practices. Minor proposition: People who do not follow proper gun safety practices are not in control of their firearm. Conclusion: Therefore, Kerry is not in control of his firearm.

Okay: If we accepts both propositions, and the conclusion follows, that's more than an inference, that's a deductive conclusion. Pretty solid.

But the minor conclusion requires scrutiny. As Kerry turns his head, his shotgun remains pointed in a safe (inferredly safe) direction. Yes, his finger is on the trigger, but if we accept as fact the initial report that he has discharged this gun before the picture was snapped, then the gun is safe, however fuzzy his trigger finger discipline. So the syllogism fails, and we're stuck back with assumption. Not necessarily faulty, but by no means conclusive.

HOW many shots did he take BEFORE this picture was taken? You can't tell. There's NO way to tell from this photo. But what I CAN clearly see from this photo is that:
(a) his finger is CLEARLY on the trigger
(b) his eyes are CLEARLY not focused in the same direction that the shotgun is pointing
(c) his attention is CLEARLY not on the shotgun, it's direction of fire, it's target or what is beyond it's target.

Alright; now you're in the realm of objective, verifiable fact. Your (c) is a bit of a conclusion given the nature of snapshots, but for argument's sake, let's grant that it's also a conclusive fact.

The text that came with the photo tells us he's already fired the shotgun. Therefore, if he's no longer shooting the thing, how is an unsafe condition that he is not focusing on the target and downrange? How can you get from one snapshot to the assumption or inference that his attention isn't on the shotgun?

His trigger finger discipline is lacking. If the text is wrong and there's another round in the double-barrel, then, yes, you have the risk of an ND. If so, it's going downrange. Bad news, but no one gets hurt.

[Autumnlovr]

Hey Scoop....never argue with a lawyer, unless you be one!
:wink: Good discussion guys!

[PhotoTom]

One of the (pro gun) photographers thought it'd be funny to put a little Krazy Glue on the trigger.....and Johnny just found out....

8)

[Jim Simmons]

Very good, Tom! :lol:

But is that a presumption, an assumption, or an inference? :wink: