My gun question in GQ got moved to IMHO. It was a good question about the mechanics of guns. I don’t really care now. But @puzzlegal that was wrong.
It was a factual question. You didn’t understand that.
Here is a link to the thread
My comment was:
If you’d started with, “i don’t understand this thing, please explain”, it might very well belong in factual questions. But you started with, “I’m sure it’s some kind of safety, but that’s ridiculous”. That’s very much in opinion territory.
Among several topics, you wanted to know what a trigger safety was. That’s certainly a factual question. When you were given a factual answer by multiple knowledgeable posters, you didn’t like those answers and kept pushing back. IMO because the factual answers you got did not comport with your personal, rather doctrinaire, definition of the word “safety”.
That’s when it all turned into a non-FQ shambles.
Ok, whatever. I’m certainly not going to open up that mess again here.
@puzzlegal . Would you shut that thread down please. And, I really never did get a satisfactory answer.
We don’t close threads just because the OP isn’t happy with how the thread progressed.
And FWIW, speaking as one of the FQ mods, I agree with the move to IMHO. You asked a factual question, and received factual answers. However, you rejected those answers based on your opinion that the stated factual answers were not satisfactory, and argument and opinion over whether the safety measures were actually safety measures is what pushed the thread well into IMHO territory.
If you wish to keep topics in FQ, then stick to the facts, and don’t reject factual answers based merely on your opinion of them.
Based on your responses in that thread, it’s pretty clear that you never will receive a satisfactory answer, because you rejected the actual factual answers that you were given.
Fwiw, i read most of the thread before moving it, and i felt that to the extent the OP was interested in a factual answer, it had been fully answered. And yes, at that point it was clear that
Although mods are allowed to move a thread if either the starting or ending forum is one of theirs, i don’t usually move threads out of FQ without checking with an FQ mod. This case looked clearer than most.
Not. At. All. I wanted answers. The answers made no sense.
This is not a safety feature but just a complication that will make a gun more unreliable.
I’ve already asked you to close this thread, will you please?
No. Sorry, I’m not really allowed to.
The factual answer is that the double trigger doesn’t help with accidental discharge. But might interfer with a person trying to shoot the weapon.
Close the thread. There is nobody there but me that understands weapons.
That sounds to me as a good incentive to keep the thread open, actually.
Fine. Many people are confusing double action with the pointless double stacked trigger.
{Deleted}
First of all, it’s not called a “double trigger,” it’s called a trigger safety. Secondly, it could conceivably help with with accidental discharge if the gun were dropped; see my latest post in the thread. (I still don’t like trigger safeties, regardless.)
There are folks in that thread who know a lot more about guns that you and me. Heck, @pkbites has an FFL and sells them, and I think he does some gunsmithing.
TBH, I am rather taken aback by your attitude in that thread and this thread. You’re usually much more reasonable than this.
What has agravated me is that the ‘trigger’ safety, really isn’t one. A trigger safety will not prevent the gun from firing if you pull the trigger.
Nor will the 1911’s grip safety. They both prevent some types accidental discharges.
yeah it will I own one. Has nothing to do with dropping it. Has everthing to do with “Is your hand on this cannon and are you ready to fire”
If I’m not mistaken, @pkbites is a licensed firearms dealer. That seems to be as authoritative a factual answer as you’re going to get on the subject.
I don’t see anything wrong with giving opinions on how effective a gun’s features are. It seems like a really interesting thread to me. But it’s clearly an opinion thread, albeit one with people giving informed opinions.
It was a GQ thread. Then @puzzlegal moved in to IMHO.
I only wanted facts.
Perhaps. But it’s morphed into an opinion thread, so it’s now a moot issue. There’s no reason to get worked up over it at this point.
I’m not a mod, so I can only give my thoughts as a board participant who has seen this sort of thing happen before on this board.
If you create a thread in GQ with an OP loaded with opinion, it’s unlikely to create a thread worthy of GQ. Your OP didn’t even have a legitimate question in it.
That is not a question. That’s a statement. You actually answer your own question, in a sense, and then make a judgement about it. That’s not a real question. The way the thread proceeded from there validated that observation. When people presented factual answers, with citations and explanations, you rejected them because it conflicted with your opinion.
You can’t give your opinion, and argue with others who disagree with your opinion, and expect people to accept that you’re seeking a factual answer to a question. I don’t have any reason to doubt that you thought you were asking a factual question, but let me assure you that isn’t at all what happened.
What you did was ask people to justify the idea that the trigger pull was a valid kind of safety. You were soliciting opinions and giving your own. Again, I think it’s a great thread, it’s just not an FQ thread.
You also declared:
You received answers from professionals who handle weapons. If you already possess more knowledge than they do, how do you expect to receive an answer by asking a question on the subject?