World War I Centennial Silver Dollar Fails To Demonstrate Basic Gun Safety

That makes more sense if it is two different pictures though that isn't conveyed well. If it's just one they did a terrible job where the shoulder should be. Sadly I have to agree the more I see this one the less I like the obverse especially the proof version.

I would not hesitate myself.

I'm not impressed with the design myself, but a GI negotiating obstacles in No Man's Land during an attack on entrenched German positions is hardly the time or place to consider 'gun safety' as a paramount concern, nor is that an obligation of the coinage.

That's not what's depicted unless he's shooting at a low flying aircraft. If he was taking a shot at an enemy soldier, then I'd certainly agree with you. Soldiers certainly must practice firearms safety in combat situations. Not doing so endangers those who are not intended to be targets. Please read the example I wrote about above. And, yes, it is obligation of those who handle and/or depict handling firearms to demonstrate basic firearm safety.

Coin news article has pricing for all versions.

After seeing all the designs, I don't think I'll be getting any of them. Wish they had simply done a single coin honoring all who served in a respectful and classy way. Too many medals and a coin with each at $100 per pair or $50 or so dollars for an (my opinion only) unattractive coin. Too rich for me.

Nope. That's not at all what I said. The fact that you're attempting to warp what wrote is proof that you're justification of unsafe gun handling is not defensible. All of the military equipment you mention have safeties and those operating them certainly do go around with the fingers on the launch buttons.



What you've written is complete ignorance. The amount of time that it takes to move a finger being held next to a trigger while not touching it and bend it to touch the trigger is far less than is necessary to aim a firearm at a newly discovered target. Therefore, keeping a finger off the trigger while carrying a gun costs nothing as it's not in the critical time path. Keeping a finger on a trigger while carrying can cost lives. Well trained soldiers simply don't attempt to save time by keeping their fingers on their triggers.



So you're telling me that the military trained you to keep you're finger on the trigger with the gun off safe in order to respond faster? If so, that's in direct contradiction to what retired soldiers have told me. In fact the former military I know are the most disciplined about firearms safety of all the people that I know. They don't tolerate anyone being lax about it. BTW, if you can't get your finger on to a trigger within a third of a second, then you need to be retained. Again, finding and aiming at that target within 1.6 seconds is going to be far more of an issue than bending a finger half an inch. Heck, the Israeli military and police universally carry their handguns without a cartridge in the chamber for an extra margin of safety yet they are generally considered to be some of the fastest shooting soldiers in the world. The bottom line is that carrying a gun with a finger on the trigger gains one absolutely nothing but the possibility of an accidental discharge.