Proves my point

[Buford57]

Training does no good if it is disregarded. I hope they have Lawson on suicide watch. Unlike first person shooter games, life doesn't have a reset button.

 

[oink]

A very sad situation. I mourn with the families and the Dept. In general I think the Sheriff does an exceptional job for his County.

The point of the OP escapes me. This is just an example of stupidity, mainly youthful stupidity, although they should have been past that point at 23 YOA or thereabouts. I think it does nothing to support the OP's "point". Training and youthful stupidity are not mutually exclusive, unfortunately.

I think it does, to a degree, support one of my pet peeves. I don't think anyone should be hired as an LEO until they spend a few years in civilian life trying to make a go of it, holding a job and paying bills, and hopefully living somewhere other than in Mom's basement. The exception would be someone that just spent 4 years in the military. Some basic maturity needs to be developed before assuming such responsibility, to include understanding how difficult life can be for the average blue collar Joe. Let the guys that are wannabes do the Police Explorer thing and then join the Army or pound nails for a few years. Personally I think the age for smoking, guns, booze and voting should all be 21YOA. The exceptions would be for those that are or have honorably served in the Armed Forces.[/rant] I don't expect many to agree with that rant, but oh well.

 

[steelslaver]

Point was training and vetting are no guarantee a person is safe with a gun.

I saw nowhere in the links above that gave the CURRENT age of the guy who pulled the trigger. Just that the VICTIM STARTED as a cadet at 18 and was a deputy at 19. Further research I found that the deputy who fired the gun is currently 22. Over a year above your 21 year old limit. Also proving being that old did not help one bit either.


Age is a bit like training etc. I know some responsible 16 year olds who are safe with guns and some 60 year olds I wouldn't trust with a gun.

The 21 year old drinking age proves a point to. I was a bouncer when the drinking age here was 18. Some 18 year olds did fine while some 60 year olds have been getting drunk and screwing up for 40 years.

 

[Rustyt1953]

I know some responsible 16 year olds who are safe with guns and some 60 year olds I wouldn't trust with a gun..

Hear! Hear!

 

[biku324]

Here's a permit holder that killed two neighbors over a laundry room dispute. Florida man kills 81-year-old neighbors after laundry room dispute, deputies say

A permit with reasonable training requirement can't stop unjustified shootings, but certainly can ensure ignorance of the law or firearms operation isn't the cause.

 

[TAROMAN]

Same happened years ago at Davis Monthan AFB in Tucson.
Two SP gate guards playing quick draw, on duty no less, one fatally wounded his partner.
Probably with the issued Model 15.

 

[GerSan69]

Point was training and vetting are no guarantee a person is safe with a gun.

I saw nowhere in the links above that gave the CURRENT age of the guy who pulled the trigger. Just that the VICTIM STARTED as a cadet at 18 and was a deputy at 19. Further research I found that the deputy who fired the gun is currently 22. Over a year above your 21 year old limit. Also proving being that old did not help one bit either.

I see what you're saying. All that training and he STILL forgot the most basic safety rules. And if a cop makes that mistake, how can we expect anyone not in a job where handling firearms is at least a part of it to respond to training?
Well, I guess the answer is that we should have some means of making sure we at least told a new permit holder how to do it. Sure, we can train and train and train, but at some point, sooner or later the "humans aren't perfect" factor kicks in and a "What was he thinking?" moment happens. Whether it's complacency, immaturity, getting carried away with trying to be funny, or brain flatulence, the end result is anything from "WHY did you do that?" all the way up to a terrible tragedy like what happened to those deputies in Florida.
(Had it happen to two friends back in Denver a few years ago. Two deputies getting their guns out of the jail gun locker to go back out, one has an AD and kills the other. They were friends off the job, too. They weren't screwing around - it was all on video - but now one is gone and the other carries that burden.)
Look, I'm for training before a carry license is issued. Why? Because many of those folks really need it for one. Many of them will take it to heart that a huge responsibility is part and parcel of the right to carry. You cannot just "expect" that folks even know how to use a gun without a course. Will some still act carelessly or stupidly? Of Course. But we'll just have to deal with that if the time comes.
I know, a lot of this flies in the face of 2A absolutists who don't want any restrictions. Sorry. I know I want to be assured that the folks around me, if they're carrying, at least know what to do with it.
Anyway, that was all over the place, but it's a complex topic with a lot of side issues that need to be considered.

 

[heeter3]

The basic premise and one of the wisest statements of all time.Every gun is always loaded.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

You cannot fix stupid.

 

[steelslaver]

Here's a permit holder that killed two neighbors over a laundry room dispute. Florida man kills 81-year-old neighbors after laundry room dispute, deputies say

A permit with reasonable training requirement can't stop unjustified shootings, but certainly can ensure ignorance of the law or firearms operation isn't the cause.

A bit true, but knowing that murder is illegal has not stopped murder. In fact I bet 100% of murders knew murder was not legal. Plus, informing a person and testing them shortly there after does not mean they are not ignorant. I would bet good money that 50% of 21 year old HS grad when asked the sum of degrees in a triangle could not give the right answer. Yet every one of them was informed of that fact and tested on it at some point. Remember that 1/2 of the people you meet are below average intelligence.

Why do you think you have caught and arrested so many stupid people for doing stupid crimes? In fact I bet most of those you have arrested knew what they were doing wasn't legal.

BTW I have passed the basic NRA handgun course, I took it simply because I figured it might be handy some day. I have lots of guns, reload, hunt target shoot etc. I have had said permit for a long time. I have handled and fired Glocks on the range and been shown some basics about them. BUT, I certainly do not PERSONALLY feel I have enough knowledge to carry one. Yet there is nothing to stop me, but my own good sense, from walking into a gun store, buying one, loading it up and throwing the instructions in the trash. In fact, I bet it happens all the time and even 1/2 of those who do read the instructions do not actually understand them.

Here is another thing you post proves. Having a permit does NOTHING to prevent people from losing their temper over stupid stuff and it does nothing to weed out those with poor emotional control. But, those are the exact people who cause most of the havoc.

The fact that testing and licensing don't do all that much good is proven by the fact that although they are required to operate motor vehicles 46,000 people a year are killed by them.

 

[WR Moore]

"Training" has been mentioned several times in this thread. But there's a catch, or two, here. There are folks who go through initial training, sustainment training and possibly supplemental training without absorbing the material. What matters is what sticks in the brain and is actually put to use.

In a lot of cases, the 4 (originally 3) safety rules get cursory mention at the start of training. I paid attention during a slew of instructor schools and noticed (and remembered) a lot of "Oh by the way" points made during the rest of the course. There were also practices that were driven by safety issues, but the reasons for them were not always explained. I guess you were expected to understand why they were being done.

There are good reasons why the first step of competent training with firearms simulators begins with extremely thorough searches leaving participants with only car keys, hanky, wallet & watch.

 

[biku324]

A bit true, but knowing that murder is illegal has not stopped murder. In fact I bet 100% of murders knew murder was not legal. Plus, informing a person and testing them shortly there after does not mean they are not ignorant. I would bet good money that 50% of 21 year old HS grad when asked the sum of degrees in a triangle could not give the right answer. Yet every one of them was informed of that fact and tested on it at some point. Remember that 1/2 of the people you meet are below average intelligence.

Why do you think you have caught and arrested so many stupid people for doing stupid crimes? In fact I bet most of those you have arrested knew what they were doing wasn't legal.

BTW I have passed the basic NRA handgun course, I took it simply because I figured it might be handy some day. I have lots of guns, reload, hunt target shoot etc. I have had said permit for a long time. I have handled and fired Glocks on the range and been shown some basics about them. BUT, I certainly do not PERSONALLY feel I have enough knowledge to carry one. Yet there is nothing to stop me, but my own good sense, from walking into a gun store, buying one, loading it up and throwing the instructions in the trash. In fact, I bet it happens all the time and even 1/2 of those who do read the instructions do not actually understand them.

Here is another thing you post proves. Having a permit does NOTHING to prevent people from losing their temper over stupid stuff and it does nothing to weed out those with poor emotional control. But, those are the exact people who cause most of the havoc.

The fact that testing and licensing don't do all that much good is proven by the fact that although they are required to operate motor vehicles 46,000 people a year are killed by them.

No permit nor training eliminates a problem. They can reduce problems, and driving is a perfect example.

You don't get a license without tests; you don't want to lose your license. Why do brake lights come on and stops actually become a complete cessation of motion when most folks see a cop car? Why do folks sweat vision tests at renewal?

You put a behavior at the top of consciousness when there is something to lose from your activities. The intoxicated, whackos, the enraged and very young often don't care, but what of the hundreds of millions of licensed drivers who really don't want to endanger their licenses?

Condition Yellow when driving or during CCW. Harm is reduced, and the more who are licensed (or sanctioned for not being licensed), the less harm results overall.

 

[ladder13]

Here's a wack job who somehow slipped through the cracks.

'Catfish' cop Austin Lee Edwards used own gun to kill himself


"Virginia State Police said this week that Edward's hiring was the result of "human error" after it was revealed that he had been detained in 2016 for a psychiatric evaluation over threats to kill his father and himself."

 

[johngalt]

With 25 Constitutional Carry states, statistics comparing them with permit required states could prove interesting.

 

[biku324]

Here's a wack job who somehow slipped through the cracks.

'Catfish' cop Austin Lee Edwards used own gun to kill himself


"Virginia State Police said this week that Edward's hiring was the result of "human error" after it was revealed that he had been detained in 2016 for a psychiatric evaluation over threats to kill his father and himself."

I ran training and recruiting for a medium-sized agenhy (700 commissioned) in the early 90s. At that time, the shrinks who ran applicants through a substantial battery of tests (MMPI2, Inwald Personality Inventory, WRAT, a lie scale, 45 minute diagnostic interview) believed they MIGHT be able to screen out 75% of those who were unfit for police service. The combo of extensive, in-person background investigation (which informed polygraph examination), and close observation during high-stress, long-duration entry-level training screened out more of the unfit. Not all.

Case in point: Convicted killer known as the 'Ninja Bandit' is back in New Mexico Griffin made it through 2 major agency processes.

 

[joespapa]

I ran training and recruiting for a medium-sized agenhy (700 commissioned) in the early 90s. At that time, the shrinks who ran applicants through a substantial battery of tests (MMPI2, Inwald Personality Inventory, WRAT, a lie scale, 45 minute diagnostic interview) believed they MIGHT be able to screen out 75% of those who were unfit for police service. The combo of extensive, in-person background investigation (which informed polygraph examination), and close observation during high-stress, long-duration entry-level training screened out more of the unfit. Not all.

Case in point: Convicted killer known as the 'Ninja Bandit' is back in New Mexico Griffin made it through 2 major agency processes.

In my estimation it is impossible to screen out ALL the unfit. That is , unless there were a "foolproof " method of discovering a candidates true motivation for wanting to do that type of work.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Onomea]

There's a Japanese proverb: Even monkeys fall out of trees. (Re cops and gun safety.)

I, too, suspect alcohol or drugs. It is such a fundamental, basic rule of gun ownership, to not point a gun at a person, much less pull the trigger.

And twice? After racking the slide the second time?

Nevertheless, while it will not stop all negligent discharges or, of course, murders, I too, favor a training requirement to own firearms.

We often, on this forum, lament how times have changed, how people have become less responsible, less polite, less competent, and more apt to cause problems to others than was the case in our youths.

If we believe so, perhaps time to change the laws pertaining to gun ownership.

 

[steelslaver]

Who comes up with the qualifications and makes the decision on who is qualified? You or the Giffords? Plus, I guarantee you that no matter where it starts as time goes on it WILL get more and more difficult. When in the history of government safety regulations has that happened.

If you actually believe in the constitution you can not believe that you need a permit. How can you believe you should need a permit to own a gun and believe that you have a right to free speech, the right to keep your liberty and property without due process, the freedom to meet with your friends or attend the church of your choice without a permit???

 

[biku324]

Legislatures make the basic laws. Just like driving, practicing medicine, or building ponds out of watershed that leaves your property.

You cannot understand the Constitution if you don't understand that every right has limits. Specifically like the First Amendment.

 

[steelslaver]

I got that legislatures can make laws and the rights are not limitless, But practicing basic right does not require a permit.

But many times our legislatures have passed laws and the courts have enforce them. UNTIL higher courts have found they do not stand the test of the constitution. Lots of laws "accepted" laws have met that fate.

Witness that at this point every state that requires a permit is now require to be "shall issue" when at one time many required a reason/ Yes, many of them are trying to circumvent that by piling on restrictions, but those will slowly be dealt with as they reach the higher courts.

I would like to see a a legislator pass a law that requires me to get a permit to speak. Yes, they can require one for a gathering, but not to practice my basic right to speak or believe and profess my belief in the deity or deities of my choice. I can not incite riots or have human sacrifices true. But I can believe and profess my beliefs without a permit. I am even allowed to profess a believe in human sacrifices without a permit. Interestingly the second has the phrase shall not be infringed, while the 1st does not.