My buddy was shot Friday night

[MSGT-R]

I never did, being a retired Marine, but if someone hasn't ever had exposure to guns, it's a good thing to have around. Besides, I had a lot of fun taking the CCW class!

[BlackEagle]

Originally Posted by Juker

I'll have to respectfully disagree.

There is more than enough legislation, child safety warnings, OSHA regulations, etc. etc. to go around. As a society we're choking on it. A lot of gun owners take it upon themselves to get professional training. Some learn in the military. But by and large, I think it's handed down, or learned along the way. The percentage of accidental shootings versus the number of firearms is minute.

The government is obsessed with telling people what they can and can't do for their own good, because "they" know best. I'm for liberty and freedom. I'm truly sorry your friend got shot, and delighted he'll recover - but I don't want anyone telling me I have to go through more B.S. to buy a gun, or a chainsaw, or a car, or a steak knife. I'll bet more people are injured with yard tools each year than guns.

+1

[Ed~]

Originally Posted by MSGT-R

I never did, being a retired Marine, but if someone hasn't ever had exposure to guns, it's a good thing to have around. Besides, I had a lot of fun taking the CCW class!

For those of us who grew up plinkin' or went into the military or became LEO, it is sometimes hard to imagine how ignorant most people are of the basic safety rules regarding firearms.

Case in point, I once invited friends, husband/wife, to go shooting at the local desert range. They were complete city folks, enjoying the cowboy image after having visited Tombstone with all the mock gunfights the day before.

A friend of mine with a size-able collection came along to add to their fun. After he safety-checked a stainless "Dirty Harry" S&W he handed it to the wife and started explaining about guns. I could tell she was only half listening while enjoying the heft of the revolver. Suddenly she grimaced and turned around to her husband and pointed the gun at him all playful-like saying, "Stick'em up! Pow, pow!"

Her 6'2" husband's eyes popped fixed on the huge barrel and he instinctively backed up with hands raised. Everyone else at the range froze in astonishment. She finally asked innocently, "What?" to which my friend slowly reached for the gun and cooly said, "We don't want to do that..." and continued teaching.

She actually cried later when she realized how she really scared her husband and all of us by fooling around with a real gun.

That is the level of ignorance people have with guns. It is not their fault if their only exposure they have with guns come from movies before they handle a real weapon. Guns simply aren't a part of their world.

Now do you want that kind of ignorance buying guns simply because they can afford to? That's what leads to meaningless accidents and ruins lives.

As the old saying goes, Common Sense ain't always so common. -It's got to be taught.

And like MSGT-R said, the learning can be made fun.

[al45lc]

Originally Posted by Ed~

Now do you want that kind of ignorance buying guns simply because they can afford to? That's what leads to meaningless accidents and ruins lives.

As the old saying goes, Common Sense ain't always so common. -It's got to be taught.
.

Teaching 'common sense'?
Think about that, if 'common sense' must be 'taught', it AIN'T common, now is it?
Sorry, but I believe it's this kind of thinking that leads to the good 'ol Govt. getting involved, and even the slowest among us knows where that will lead.
I know this sounds cruel, but there IS some truth to the theory of Darwinism.
I am NOT responsible for the stupidity of others, nor is society at large.
At one time in this land there was a doctrine known as The prudent man principle (now slightly bastardized by the legal definition for managing funds) that recognized that a man was responsible to and for himself, giving credit to a prudent persons intelligence.
I find the kinds of laws and rules that dictate my conformity to others lack of intelligence insulting to mine.
And I'm perfectly willing to be held liable for any actions I may take or cause, that's the price a prudent person recognizes for their liberty.

[Ed~]

Originally Posted by al45lc

At one time in this land there was a doctrine known as The prudent man principle (now slightly bastardized by the legal definition for managing funds) that recognized that a man was responsible to and for himself, giving credit to a prudent persons intelligence.
I find the kinds of laws and rules that dictate my conformity to others lack of intelligence insulting to mine.
And I'm perfectly willing to be held liable for any actions I may take or cause, that's the price a prudent person recognizes for their liberty.

Prudent man principle. Yes, I don't disagree with what you described.

Still, I suspect there should be a balance between socially agreed contracts for bigger issues versus just the innate self-preservation ability that we assume most people are born with (and that is a big assumption given the wild popularity of the "Jackass" franchise). "Giving credit to prudent person's intelligence," implies that intelligence levels are generally the same in society.

But we are not funding education the same as Defense Dept., Wall St. Banks, etc... How does that affect prudence/intelligence in society? -I suspect it does.

I agree completely with the idea that you can't simply legislate away stupid. But you can allocate more for education in general. That usually takes legislation though it can also mean budgeting more for current existing programs.

Either way, do things get better by simply ignoring it? Yes, I guess when the Darwin factor finally hits zero. But I gather that's a whole lot of unnecessary suffering in between for good folks who otherwise could have learned better.

[The_Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Ed~

...I don't disagree...Still

...

I agree completely...But...

If you agree there is no "but" or "still..."

Originally Posted by Ed~

Either way, do things get better by simply ignoring it?

Straw Man. It isn't being "ignored." This is another side of your "reject certain topics outright" ploy. You have no interest in gun safety, you are here to convince us to further erode our rights with your bait and switch tactics. So I better qualify my first sentence of this paragraph, "It[gun safety] isn't being ignored, by us; it is you that 'ignores' it in lieu of legislation..." otherwise you would be promoting it instead of legislation.

[The_Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Ed~

After he safety-checked a stainless "Dirty Harry" S&W he handed it to the wife and started explaining about guns. I could tell she was only half listening while enjoying the heft of the revolver. Suddenly she grimaced and turned around to her husband and pointed the gun at him all playful-like saying, "Stick'em up! Pow, pow!"

...

Now do you want that kind of ignorance buying guns simply because they can afford to?

Your "teacher" friend was mostly at fault. He gives a gun to a person he knows to know absolutely nothing about guns, at a public range, without one bit of instruction.

I've taught many people firearm handling and safety, it never began with handing them a firearm.

[MSGT-R]

Originally Posted by Ed~

For those of us who grew up plinkin' or went into the military or became LEO, it is sometimes hard to imagine how ignorant most people are of the basic safety rules regarding firearms.

Case in point, I once invited friends, husband/wife, to go shooting at the local desert range. They were complete city folks, enjoying the cowboy image after having visited Tombstone with all the mock gunfights the day before.

A friend of mine with a size-able collection came along to add to their fun. After he safety-checked a stainless "Dirty Harry" S&W he handed it to the wife and started explaining about guns. I could tell she was only half listening while enjoying the heft of the revolver. Suddenly she grimaced and turned around to her husband and pointed the gun at him all playful-like saying, "Stick'em up! Pow, pow!"

Her 6'2" husband's eyes popped fixed on the huge barrel and he instinctively backed up with hands raised. Everyone else at the range froze in astonishment. She finally asked innocently, "What?" to which my friend slowly reached for the gun and cooly said, "We don't want to do that..." and continued teaching.

She actually cried later when she realized how she really scared her husband and all of us by fooling around with a real gun.

That is the level of ignorance people have with guns. It is not their fault if their only exposure they have with guns come from movies before they handle a real weapon. Guns simply aren't a part of their world.

Now do you want that kind of ignorance buying guns simply because they can afford to? That's what leads to meaningless accidents and ruins lives.

As the old saying goes, Common Sense ain't always so common. -It's got to be taught.

And like MSGT-R said, the learning can be made fun.

Thanks, that example is absolutely sterling!
A momentary dis-connect of the common sense could have been devistating had that gun been loaded. This is what happens with children who get access to unattended guns (and they have never been taught about them). Fantasy kicks in before reality takes hold.

I was at at gun show this weekend; the Shootist was absolutely packed with people. Most that were handling guns had muzzle awareness, a few did not. I reached over to the man beside me and redirected the muzzle away from the chest of the employee behind the counter. I gently and politely told him that what he was doing was not a good habit to get into. Then the implication hit him...

[al45lc]

I'd like to get this straight, I'm not against gun safety programs, I'm against legislation requiring them for purchase.
It's bad enough we must jump through these hoops for a CCW, but for a purchase would be as Un-Constitutional as a test for our right to speak out on politics.
What is most interesting is that even when one has completed a course and is issued a permit to carry, the BEARER alone is STILL responsible for whatever may happen in the course of carrying that arm.
This is as it should be.
My reasons are simple, it is a RIGHT to keep and bear, and ANY roadblock or even detour of that right is absolutely intolerable and unacceptable.
Shall we have a test for our freedom of speech and expression?
They are NOT seperable, as was explained in the Federalist papers, and commented upon by our Founding Fathers.
The O.P. stated that he didn't think that requiring a course to purchase would infringe upon our rights, when in fact that's just what such legislation would be.
It would be nice to travel the road of 'let's make sure everyone is safe' with all taking a safety course, but when Govt. legislation gets involved it becomes the well paved road to hell.

[BlackEagle]

Originally Posted by al45lc

Shall we have a test for our freedom of speech and expression?
They are NOT seperable, as was explained in the Federalist papers, and commented upon by our Founding Fathers.

A lot more damage has been done with words, written and spoken, than with guns. "The pen is mightier than the sword."
Tyrants exercise power over self-expression, usually after disarming the populace.

[Ed~]

Originally Posted by The_Rifleman

Your "teacher" friend was mostly at fault. He gives a gun to a person he knows to know absolutely nothing about guns, at a public range, without one bit of instruction.
I've taught many people firearm handling and safety, it never began with handing them a firearm.

I agree that the teachers usually are responsible for the students' mis-steps. Know that in this case the gun was handed to her as a tool for teaching, before we unpacked the ammo or even started setting up targets.

My buddy that day was not some kid with a gun collection but a 60+ year enthusiast/reloader, an Air Force Veteran and retired airline pilot, an NRA Lifer. I've taught the basic Motorcycle Safety Course to three different women who are still actively riding. My point is if this could happen with us around, it could theoretically happen with anyone.

As far as not disagreeing outright while still making the effort to clarify my views, that is what reasonable people do in a rational discussion. By definition, no debate can remain Black & White. Any discussion implies parsing out shades of gray, or you might as well chuck the brain out the window for ideologies.

Strict Ideologies historically are what lead to Concentration Camps. And there's no guarantee which side of the barbed wire fence you'll be standing if you choose to play that game.

And, I might add, our Founding Fathers were masters of debate. Our entire governing system of Checks and Balances was designed to protect the populace from the Tyranny of Ideologues.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Ed~

Cars, motorcycles, smartphones, and guns. To me they are all fun to play with and not one is holier than another. -So shoot me...

Seat belts and driver's licenses, helmets on motorcycles, using your smartphone while driving, etc. are all laws related to using a particular item on publicly-owned land.

You can let your 12 year old drive your new Corvette all over your front yard without his seat belt if you want. And you definitely can purchase an airplane without a pilot's license.

There is an inherent difference between curbing the use of particular items and curbing the ownership of items.

And I think there is an inherent difference between a device of self-protection and a device of convenience. No one has a fundamental right to convenience.

Originally Posted by Ed~

Prudent man principle. Yes, I don't disagree with what you described.

Still, I suspect there should be a balance between socially agreed contracts for bigger issues versus just the innate self-preservation ability that we assume most people are born with (and that is a big assumption given the wild popularity of the "Jackass" franchise).

We are quite certainly paying attention to socially agreed contracts. The primary socially agreed contract in the United States is the Constitution. And it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is the standard we've all agreed to. Let's not go pretending that we all agreed to something different.

Originally Posted by The_Rifleman

You have no interest in gun safety, you are here to convince us to further erode our rights with your bait and switch tactics.

I think this was rather unfair. I do believe that Ed has a real interest in gun safety, and I don't believe that he has any interest in taking firearms out of the hands of people who are competent to use them in a safe manner (as I know from your videos that you, Rifleman, are).

I really think that Ed is trying to figure out how to promote gun safety in an effective way. As you do, I wholeheartedly disagree with the method he's kicking around. But let's not go and question his motives here. I truly believe that safety is his first concern.

Originally Posted by BlackEagle

A lot more damage has been done with words, written and spoken, than with guns. "The pen is mightier than the sword."
Tyrants exercise power over self-expression, usually after disarming the populace.

Democide. Murder by government during the 20th century alone accounted for over 119 million deaths.

I'm far more afraid of a government with too much authority than I am of an idiot who is "too free" for the safety of others.

[The_Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Ed~

I agree that the teachers usually are responsible for the students' mis-steps. Know that in this case the gun was handed to her as a tool for teaching, before we unpacked the ammo or even started setting up targets.

None of that changes your friends, worthless instruction. Your "teacher" set-them up to fail. She was handed a firearm not even knowing the four basic rules; let alone the range rules.

Originally Posted by Ed~

My buddy that day was not some kid with a gun collection but a 60+ year enthusiast/reloader, an Air Force Veteran and retired airline pilot, an NRA Lifer. I've taught the basic Motorcycle Safety Course to three different women who are still actively riding. My point is if this could happen with us around, it could theoretically happen with anyone.

Nothing in that paragraph is an excuse for inadequate instruction... and you have lent some blame on yourself.
Setting that aside...

1. 60+ year enthusiast/reloader
2. Air Force Veteran
3. retired airline pilot
4. NRA Lifer
5. taught the basic Motorcycle Safety Course

That does not qualify you two to fail miserably as firearms safety instructors.
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert...

Originally Posted by Ed~

As far as not disagreeing outright while still making the effort to clarify my views, that is what reasonable people do in a rational discussion. By definition, no debate can remain Black & White. Any discussion implies parsing out shades of gray, or you might as well chuck the brain out the window for ideologies.

"I agree completely" is an absolute; "parsing out shades of gray" is impossible with "completely."

Originally Posted by Ed~

Strict Ideologies historically are what lead to Concentration Camps. And there's no guarantee which side of the barbed wire fence you'll be standing if you choose to play that game.

I point out YOUR totalitarian tendencies, and now YOU are subject to a "Concentration Camps!" This is "parsing out shades of gray" in the reverse. This is the "surreal" I was talking about.

Originally Posted by Ed~

And, I might add, our Founding Fathers were masters of debate. Our entire governing system of Checks and Balances was designed to protect the populace from the Tyranny of Ideologues.

Don't look now, but there is a "master[] of debate" biting your other foot!

1. reasonable people
2. rational discussion
3. no debate
4. brain out the window
5. Concentration Camps
6. barbed wire fence
7. the Tyranny of Ideologues

I love that you are the victim to my tyranny! That's rich!

[The_Rifleman]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

I think this was rather unfair. I do believe that Ed has a real interest in gun safety, and I don't believe that he has any interest in taking firearms out of the hands of people who are competent to use them in a safe manner (as I know from your videos that you, Rifleman, are).

I really think that Ed is trying to figure out how to promote gun safety in an effective way. As you do, I wholeheartedly disagree with the method he's kicking around. But let's not go and question his motives here. I truly believe that safety is his first concern.

He wouldn't be talking out both side's of his mouth if he was.

He wouldn't keep claiming victimhood at every turn.

His continued insults confirm my assertions of his motives.

[armedandsafe]

This is getting a bit personal and serious, folks.

Take a breath, havacup and relax. I don't enjoy locking threads.

Pops

[al45lc]

I'm relaxed. I too believe the O.P.s true intentions are founded in a desire to stop tragic accidental deaths, but unfortunately his idea clashes with Constitutional rights.
You all remember the Eddie Eagle program? Look how the left denigrated that, even though it's sole intention was to protect children, the oft bastion of the very left that fought that program.

[Ed~]

I'm just reading about the 20/20 segment that criticized the effectiveness of teaching very young children what to do when they see a gun.

The TV show criticized the one-off nature of the program merely stressed the importance of following up with coloring books and other ways of keeping the lesson in the minds of small kids.

I think the Eddie Eagle program is too valuable to disappear based on one (or even a few) criticism. I read lots of recent news about it at the NRAhq website. They were all good responses!

I believe this program is a great resource. Materials can be ordered and paid for with grant money apparently. The process takes some time but it'd be well worth it to promote gun safety and awareness...

Take it to your local schools. In fact, start by asking your local law enforcement agencies to see if they have an officer already teaching this program!

Don't be discouraged by ignorance. Just continue to promote knowledge.

"Castle Rock children learn to keep hands off guns." -Castle Rock News
http://www.ourcoloradonews.com/castl...72a43dc2e.html

[dix2111]

I'll have to respectfully disagree.

I have to respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement.

I dont think it is posible to have a common sense approach to gun laws because certain people will use those common sense laws against us.

requiring a class on gun safety would be a fine idea until a political party makes the test so expensive and so hard that most people would get turned down.

There's nothing wrong IMHO of common sense gun laws like instant background checks and , ,well thats the only one I can think of.

There is more than enough legislation, child safety warnings, OSHA regulations, etc.

Certain legislation,child safety warnings and most definitly OSHA has arguable saved more lives than the right to bear arms has.
Legislation is a good thing if used correctly but we have to live in an environment where we fear any gun control law as just another step to take away our right to bear arms.

So I think a manatory gun safety class would be a good idea but we could never implement it in a way that would be satisfactory to anyone.

P.S
My kids have a mandatory gun safety class mandated and taught by me over and over again on a regular basis. Thats the first step.

[Eddie N]

Originally Posted by H-D

Rule 1 every gun is loaded always, rule 2 don't point guns at people

A little common sense goes a long way.

[GatorDude]

I'm sorry about your friend. Getting shot would suck to an unimaginable degree. Thinking about the constitutional issue, the second amendment says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

-- As I ponder this one, I wonder --

Since the militia are the people, perhaps, EVERY draft eligible male (or everyone) to take a gun safety course as part of selective service eligibility or public schooling. This would maintain the populace as a "well regulated militia" without infringing on the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

In the meantime, people would do well to keep the four fundamental rules of gun safety in mind.