My buddy was shot Friday night

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Crawdaddy, Mar 5, 2012.

  1. Ed~

    Ed~ New Member

    Jan 24, 2012
    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.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2012
  2. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Sep 25, 2007
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  3. The_Rifleman

    The_Rifleman Well-Known Member

    Feb 10, 2010
    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.

    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...​

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

    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.

    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!
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2012
  4. The_Rifleman

    The_Rifleman Well-Known Member

    Feb 10, 2010
    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.
  5. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    This is getting a bit personal and serious, folks.

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

  6. al45lc

    al45lc Active Member

    Mar 8, 2010
    colorful colorado
    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.
  7. Ed~

    Ed~ New Member

    Jan 24, 2012
    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
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
  8. dix2111

    dix2111 New Member

    Mar 13, 2012
    South Carolina
    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.

    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.

    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.
  9. Eddie N

    Eddie N New Member

    Apr 23, 2009
    A little common sense goes a long way.
  10. GatorDude

    GatorDude New Member

    Jul 25, 2009
    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.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Per My Buddy Ted ....... Apr 7, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 60 year old Marine Vet shot by thugs..he took them all out Aug 2, 2017
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Home intruder shot by every member of the home! May 11, 2017
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs bill to allow firing of warning shots Jun 21, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Colorado SHOTGUN ban? Mar 2, 2013