keith44spl
Member
Last edited:
Fatal Shooting During CCW Class
- Thread starter federali
- Start date
- Status
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
So you didn't turn in your carry permit for "incompetent" unsafe gun handling that you would deny others for doing the same. Why not?
Why is your "incompetent" unsafe gun handling different than anyone else?
Last edited:
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
If it could only save one life... oh wait..
Not sure that I understand, or even want to understand, all of this piling on kbm6893 because he admitted his ND. Many of us have one in our background, often, like kbm, involving no injury because the other rules were followed.
Like kbm, and probably many or most of us, I am concerned about training, and I am concerned about folks who handle guns improperly. There IS such a thing as improperly; I can be a judge of it, and most of you can be a judge of it. The problem that I see is that, in fact, there are MANY citizens, I am sorry to say, who will use any means available to deny others their right (until forfeited) to bear arms. They will use training, literacy, political flavor, race or ANYTHING to deny or at least hinder the exercise of that right. We are almost all quite properly very sensitive to giving a tool to such people.
As a result, IMO, required training can be seen both positively and negatively. IMO, there is a solution - mandatory training in safe gun handling for EVERYONE in 6th, 9th and 12th grades. Only failures and disquals need be recorded. This way, there would be no additional need for "tragic boating accidents," for those who envision such things, there would be an increase in the number of people competent to at least handle if not shoot firearms, and perhaps a solidification of our traditional American ways of looking at gun safety.
Obviously, there can be a lot of discussion on details, and perhaps the basis of the concept itself, the intent of which is to mandate safety training while eliminating most of the potential for governmental abuse of the program.
I haven't heard of a lot of objection to hunter safety programs. It would be nice if we could get shooter safety programs improved to that level.
Like kbm, and probably many or most of us, I am concerned about training, and I am concerned about folks who handle guns improperly. There IS such a thing as improperly; I can be a judge of it, and most of you can be a judge of it. The problem that I see is that, in fact, there are MANY citizens, I am sorry to say, who will use any means available to deny others their right (until forfeited) to bear arms. They will use training, literacy, political flavor, race or ANYTHING to deny or at least hinder the exercise of that right. We are almost all quite properly very sensitive to giving a tool to such people.
As a result, IMO, required training can be seen both positively and negatively. IMO, there is a solution - mandatory training in safe gun handling for EVERYONE in 6th, 9th and 12th grades. Only failures and disquals need be recorded. This way, there would be no additional need for "tragic boating accidents," for those who envision such things, there would be an increase in the number of people competent to at least handle if not shoot firearms, and perhaps a solidification of our traditional American ways of looking at gun safety.
Obviously, there can be a lot of discussion on details, and perhaps the basis of the concept itself, the intent of which is to mandate safety training while eliminating most of the potential for governmental abuse of the program.
I haven't heard of a lot of objection to hunter safety programs. It would be nice if we could get shooter safety programs improved to that level.
Happen to be a proponent of training.
As one who had to undergo training (extensive training!) before embarking on my LEO career and as one who still must undergo training each year to maintain my LEOSA certification, I am not unwilling to accept said training. And happy to pay for it!.
Plus, I learn something every single time...if only from the personal experiences of others.
As I have noted here many times before, knowing WHEN to shoot is every bit as important as knowing HOW to shoot!
I suspect some folks don't want to accept training for fear of failure. For a fact, more than one candidate for LEOSA certification via the Maryland Police and Corrections Training Commission has FAILED. NO REFUND!
Be safe.
As one who had to undergo training (extensive training!) before embarking on my LEO career and as one who still must undergo training each year to maintain my LEOSA certification, I am not unwilling to accept said training. And happy to pay for it!.
Plus, I learn something every single time...if only from the personal experiences of others.
As I have noted here many times before, knowing WHEN to shoot is every bit as important as knowing HOW to shoot!
I suspect some folks don't want to accept training for fear of failure. For a fact, more than one candidate for LEOSA certification via the Maryland Police and Corrections Training Commission has FAILED. NO REFUND!
Be safe.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Has nothing to to with ND.
It's about arrogance, double standard and elitism. Universal traits among gun control advocates.
Last edited:
Yeah, I guess I understand that. I am even pretty sure I understand why you see it in his posts, but I don't. I just don't read him that way.
This was an extremely tragic accident. My prayers are with the victim and the surviving victim. I'm sure that the guy who fired the fatal round is of the living dead. No amount of professional help can overcome an accidental shooting that caused the death of another.
When I teach anyone to shoot who has no familiarity with the gun with which I'll use to teach him or her, I'll triple check to assure it's unloaded. Before I hand her/him the gun, I'll ask the he/she visually inspect it. Once it has been confirmed many times that the gun is unloaded, I'll correctly hand it to him/her. I'll instruct him/her of the functionality of the gun. I'll teach him/her how the gun's functions. When I'm confident that he/she knows how the gun functions, we're ready for a range session. I'll begin by demonstrating the gun's operation by shooting a cylinder or magazine. Then I'll assure he/she knows the range rules and that the gun must ALWAYS be pointed down range. Then I'll correctly hand the gun to him/her, have him/her load it under my immediately supervision, work the slide to chamber a round, and stand right next to him/her until I'm completely confident that he/she knows safety and range rules. When I'm completely confident that he/she knows what he/she's doing with 100% safety, I'll stand behind while he/she shoots.
About a year ago I took my girlfriend shooting. She thought she knew what she was doing. BTW, it was a .22LR semiautomatic. I stood to her immediate left. The shot startled her. She turned toward me while holding the gun. I immediately grabbed the gun in order to keep it pointed down range and not to the left at other shooters. I took the gun from her and told her that she wasn't ready.
When cops are issued guns in a classroom setting, they are always repeatedly checked to assure they are unloaded, and cops are forbidden to be in possession of live rounds. Once they're familiar with a new model gun, it's to the range where they're given ammo. Under attentive supervision of the range master, they are told to load, chamber, holster, and snap down while other cops stand behind to assure complete safety. Once they've demonstrated handgun safety to POST and agency standards, they're on their own and can shoot anytime they want.
I personally know of a cop who harmlessly accidentally discharged his duty weapon on a firing line. None of it mattered. What did matter was that it was an accidental discharge. He was given a written warning that went inside of his personal file. An accidental discharge is an accidental discharge regardless of where it might occur and that it endangers no one.
When I teach anyone to shoot who has no familiarity with the gun with which I'll use to teach him or her, I'll triple check to assure it's unloaded. Before I hand her/him the gun, I'll ask the he/she visually inspect it. Once it has been confirmed many times that the gun is unloaded, I'll correctly hand it to him/her. I'll instruct him/her of the functionality of the gun. I'll teach him/her how the gun's functions. When I'm confident that he/she knows how the gun functions, we're ready for a range session. I'll begin by demonstrating the gun's operation by shooting a cylinder or magazine. Then I'll assure he/she knows the range rules and that the gun must ALWAYS be pointed down range. Then I'll correctly hand the gun to him/her, have him/her load it under my immediately supervision, work the slide to chamber a round, and stand right next to him/her until I'm completely confident that he/she knows safety and range rules. When I'm completely confident that he/she knows what he/she's doing with 100% safety, I'll stand behind while he/she shoots.
About a year ago I took my girlfriend shooting. She thought she knew what she was doing. BTW, it was a .22LR semiautomatic. I stood to her immediate left. The shot startled her. She turned toward me while holding the gun. I immediately grabbed the gun in order to keep it pointed down range and not to the left at other shooters. I took the gun from her and told her that she wasn't ready.
When cops are issued guns in a classroom setting, they are always repeatedly checked to assure they are unloaded, and cops are forbidden to be in possession of live rounds. Once they're familiar with a new model gun, it's to the range where they're given ammo. Under attentive supervision of the range master, they are told to load, chamber, holster, and snap down while other cops stand behind to assure complete safety. Once they've demonstrated handgun safety to POST and agency standards, they're on their own and can shoot anytime they want.
I personally know of a cop who harmlessly accidentally discharged his duty weapon on a firing line. None of it mattered. What did matter was that it was an accidental discharge. He was given a written warning that went inside of his personal file. An accidental discharge is an accidental discharge regardless of where it might occur and that it endangers no one.
Last edited:
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
I'm not much for public schools (government) training or tax payer funding for gun training, though the NRA's Eddie Eagle is for the little ones in school.
I think gun manufactures can do better. Instead of a paper manual that few read and some can't understand, a Net video on the specific gun and general safe handling would be more useful. That's where people go for learning. There's endless questions on Forums about guns, the answers are quite often in the paper manual. A first time buyer could be watching the video on their iPhone while driving down the highway
. Stuff like this is cheap, simple and excludes government meddling. Manufacturers have largely left safety up to the public to provide. They could do more. The NRA provides online safety courses designed as a revenue center, understandably so, but maybe gun manufactures could play a bigger role in that area. Hickok45 makes a lot of gun videos... it don't cost millions to do. Maybe advertise a free online safety course with every gun purchase? Good cheap advertising and publicity. I am sure there are zillion free market ideas better than the above, but the direction should be away from government meddling with a Constitutional right.
Last edited:
Rastoff
US Veteran
Are you saying that you agree with government mandated training? If so, I pose the same question to you, who sets the standards?
Yes, I read both articles a few times. Are you telling me that because a mistake happened, the instructors are incompetent?
How do you know? Neither article mentioned checking or not checking for ammo. Let's stick to the facts as we know them.
I don't think anyone here has a problem with quality training. What we're concerned with is mandatory training. You've stated in a round about way, that in order to own a gun, a person should demonstrate competence. But, you've failed to answer the simple question, what is competence? Who sets the standard? Please tell us, what should that standard be. What, in your opinion, would demonstrate a level of competence that you would think qualifies a person to own a gun?
The answer to this question is important to me. You see I am one of those instructors. I've seen some really interesting gun handling. Even so, I've always been able to correct or control it so, no NDs in my class yet. I work very hard to keep it that way. But, I'm curious as to what the standard should be to determine competence. Who knows, I may be missing something or may change the way I do business.
You're correct, CA laws are not relevant and are atrocious. What is relevant, and is the crux of what we are discussing here, is how those laws came into being. This is why I mentioned them. All CA gun laws were created in the guise of making us safer. The problem is, once you open the door, those who oppose you will push that door open wider and wider until you have no rights left at all.
Which leads to the next question you haven't answered; at what age would it be OK to buy a gun and walk out with it in 10 minutes?
For the record, how does requiring anything prior to buying a gun NOT infringe on my rights to own a gun?
Not in the quoted post, but in an earlier post, yes. Not as a prerequisite to purchase, although I may have sloppily created that impression, but simply government mandated safety training for EVERYONE, period. WE should set the standards, by being firstest with the mostest. The NRA might seem to be best organization to do this, because it is the largest and, I think, the oldest, although their minimalist efforts with the Eddie Eagle program are not encouraging.
This is certainly a legit concern. I agree that gun rights should not be tied directly to a government educational program at all, because of exactly this risk. However, doing nothing about training also has its risks. I am speaking now of those who have had no safety training. I am certainly not referring to you or others on this forum who are very much doing something about training, and I laud you for that.
Well, you have to have money to buy a gun. It would be nice if you were not falling-down drunk at the time that you show up at the store. Anyway, you can still own one even if you can't buy one.
You may not even have a right to own a gun (I don't know whether a minor can even be said to own anything - best check with a lawyer in your state). Assuming the above is not an insurmountable hurdle, does a six-year-old have a right to own a gun? A sixteen-year-old? If you're actually looking for answers, I would think that a minor would be subject to the decisions of his parents, and that a person who has reached the age of majority and is not in prison would have the protections of the Constitution. However, we all know that there are a fair number of people who belong in prison and aren't, despite felony convictions. This leads to some strange laws which attempt to control felons by passing laws, despite the fact those felons have already demonstrated that they don't follow laws.
Hope this helps clarify my position (it probably doesn't) and brings up some points worth considering (one can always hope).
kbm6893
Member
Thanks. I'm not a gun control advocate. Just a safety advocate. Maybe it has to do with actually SEEING the destroyed faces of the family members when they hear their loved ones were taken by some idiot with a gun. Ever have to pick a 250 pound man off the floor because he has collapsed into dead weight over the body of his son, because the other son was showing off the gun to his friends? I have.
kbm6893
Member
21 years old is an appropriate age. As for walking out in 10 minutes, I did it last week when I bought my AR15. Us gun control advocates love those evil black rifles! I would have ZERO problem with the clerks giving me a quick run through of the weapon before I walked out. Even though I have been shooting AR's for 20 years. But some here would have a problem with even THAT.
I once saw a guy buying a pistol grip pump shotgun and a few hundred rounds of 00 Buck. Said he liked it because "you don't even have to aim. The spread will get them". As he was about to leave, he asked "where the clip went". The clerk told him there is no magazine and he should read the manual. Somehow, I doubt he did.
keith44spl
Member
Anyone that thinks being able to walk in to a business and
complete a lawful business transaction in ten minutes is out of line.....
In my current state of residence, one can purchase an item i.e. firearm,
long gun or handgun from a individual
within the lawful statutes of said state at the age of 18 years old.
Now that right thar, ought to be cause for the elitist and naysayers
full loss of control of their bowels in the twinkling of an eye fur sur.
.
complete a lawful business transaction in ten minutes is out of line.....
In my current state of residence, one can purchase an item i.e. firearm,
long gun or handgun from a individual
within the lawful statutes of said state at the age of 18 years old.
Now that right thar, ought to be cause for the elitist and naysayers
full loss of control of their bowels in the twinkling of an eye fur sur.
.
Last edited:
kbm6893
Member
Anyone that thinks being able to walk in to a business and
complete a lawful business transaction in ten minutes is out of line.....
In my current state of residence, one can purchase an item i.e. firearm,
long gun or handgun from a individual
within the lawful statutes of said state at the age of 18 years old.
Now that right thar, ought to be cause for the elitist and naysayers
full loss of control of their bowels in the twinkling of an eye fur sur.
.
Actually, don't care a bit. I don't know anybody in your state nor do I ever intend to visit, so if some idiot with no business owning a gun lets a round go and kills somebody, it won't be anybody I know, so have at it. As for 18 year old's buying handguns, good luck with that. Ever work in a high school? I'd trust about .5% of high school seniors with a handgun without direct supervision. And as I pointed out, i WORK in a high school now, and I teach basic gun safety, and those know it all's all do something stupid with the blank guns.
And please don't tell me you were 18 when you entered the military. An 18 year old at Parris Island isn't the same as some kid who's hung over from playing beer pong the night before.
keith44spl
Member
So, it all boils down to, that some would restrict another's
right to self protection, based on some arbitrary form of
training or no training at all required to possess a tool with
which to defend one's self or family.
Who among us shall be the one to wield that power over the masses, I ask you?
Who here feels that responsibility, that calling, to lord over all the armed public at large?
.
right to self protection, based on some arbitrary form of
training or no training at all required to possess a tool with
which to defend one's self or family.
Who among us shall be the one to wield that power over the masses, I ask you?
Who here feels that responsibility, that calling, to lord over all the armed public at large?
.
Last edited:
kbm6893
Member
Jeez. All I'm advocating for is a basic firearms instruction course, run by competent instructors, with real standards to pass. Couldn't hurt to hear a lecture from the DA telling people the legalities of carrying a firearm and using it. Cause I guarentee you the average guy who buys a gun doesn't know the legalities of when and where he can carry.
But do whatever you want. All they really need to know is that the bullet comes out of the hole in the front and gets fired when they pull the bang switch! Just as our forefathers wanted!
TexasRaider
Member
Well said. But sorting it out at this point is useless, as I think there's an unbreachable gulf between the faction supporting some degree of mandatory training before firearms ownership/carry should be allowed to occur and the faction that believes their rights are being squashed outrageously if the smallest obstacle exists mitigating their ability to buy and own any type of firearm (from fully automatic military hardware down to .22 Nylon 66's for plinking) and being able to carry such firearms any time or any place - kindergartens, airports, polling stations, corner bar.... it's a travesty of justice if they're told 'No.'
This is a Israel/Palestinian type chasm and no one is going to convince anyone on an opposing side they're wrong. But it sure would be nice if the disagreements could take a more civil tone and we could leave the name calling, personal attacks and judging of motives and hearts to the leftist trash that routinely traffic in and rely on such tactics to win their debates.
Anyway, back to the regularly scheduled cyber-rock throwing...
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
So how may unintentional gun deaths do you think more mandatory gun training would prevent?
There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US with hundreds of millions of gun owners and tens of millions with carry permits and 9 states with Constitutional carry requiring no permit. There are countless millions of rounds fired each year.
From 2005 through 2010 there were reported to be less than a total of 3,800 unintentional gun deaths for the collective 6 year period. Now I don't know how many of those approximately 600 unintentional shooting deaths per year came out of a barrel being handled by someone who had already submitted to government mandatory training, police and others, but surely a significant number. And you already told us you don't care if someone accidentally kills themselves. And you have already told us that there are plenty of unintentional discharges that can't be eliminated by goventerment training and mentioned expert shooters. So we're drilling down that number of unintentional gun deaths you're talking about pretty low, let alone pretending that many of those would necessarily be prevented by government mandatory training.
Hopeless obsession wth mandatory gun training to wishfully reduce a such a low number of unintentional gun deaths in relation to total guns and owners, seems more to do with misguided thinking than preventing loss of life. You'd probably be a lot more successful in saving innocent life with mandatory government training of parents on how to bathe children under 5 years of age.
Last edited:
kbm6893
Member
Low number? You sound like some general sending nameless and faceless soldiers into battle. He looks at them as percentages, not as people. How many accidental shootings are there in a year? 5000? 10,000? We're not only talking deaths here. so let's say it was just ONE. And that one death was your child. Would you feel the same? And since plenty of people have already admitted the mandatory training some states require is bare bones minimum with a near zero chance of failing, the numbers of those "trained" doesn't really matter, does it?
I'm done with this. A man is dead. And all people here can talk about is being inconvenienced. Like being mad you are stuck in traffic because of a traffic fatality up the highway. Disgraceful. Only thing we have in common is an affection for S&W firearms.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
