Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Jun 21, 2015.
even in safety class some people should not even have a gun.
So? I rear-ended some old lady when I was in driver's training class.
Was she good looking? Did you exchange numbers?
the last time this happened it was the instructor that did it.
Fark? I thought that site died years ago?
I was 16 and she was old. Thinking back now, she was probably only 40 or so and somewhat milfy.
"Those who can't do, teach."
And Taylor Swift is not pregnant.
She also thinks we need more feminism.
Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people. Sometimes themselves. Like idiots. Idiots with guns. Goody!
Leaving aside such distracting irrelevancies to this thread as feminism, and trainee drivers accidentally rear-ending a woman whose age probably exceeded thirty five years, (the modern definition of 'old' when describing a woman according to Hollywood), my question is what on earth did they think they were doing using live ammunition in a gun safety class?
Because an integral part to a gun safety class is, you know, learning how to shoot it. And you're graded on your accuracy - yes, you can fail if you're not a good enough shot.
Accidents happen. I remember in grade school we had a cop visit the class to talk about D.A.R.E. (anti-drug) campaign. One of the students asked him to show his gun off to the class.
The cop said that another officer actually shot a hole in a wall when showing kids his gun a few years before that in a weird accident. No one got hurt thankfully, but you will find stupidity everywhere.
Well, as a wimpish European, I feel bound to ask why blanks were not used? You can practice on targets with those, and improve your accuracy.
And, moreover, I would also express surprise as to why safety drills had not been sufficiently practiced (in a gun safety class) so that they would have become second nature before experimenting with live ammunition?
Blanks will not help you be more accurate because all they produce is muzzle flash. As long as you follow the common sense rules of firearms (treat every gun as loaded, know your target and what's behind it, etc) you're fine. If you really want to train without live ammo, there are laser targets out there that work with semi autos. You just have to rack the slide each time but you basically shoot a laser at a target and it records your accuracy.
Blanks used for target practice? At what distance 12 inches? The only way I can see a blank improving accuracy is if you imagine your accuracy is improving.
I stand corrected on the matter of blanks. However, you are talking to someone who had not so much as even held a gun until last year.
Well, again, as a European, my perspectives are probably somewhat different. Some of us come from countries where not only do the public not hold the right to bear arms, but where the police are not even armed.
While these threads have been extraordinarily enlightening on the issue of guns, my sense is that these are weapons, not toys. People are not born with an innate sense of how best to handle them.
And arguments which shrug this stuff off with by saying something on the lines of 'accidents happen' miss the point. Accidents happen with a great many things, but these great many things are not usually weapons. When accidents happen with loaded weapons in the hands of careless or inept practitioners, I would suggest that the consequences of those accidents can be far worse. This is why the wielders of weapons need to be held to a far higher standard of care, or practice and of safety, than, say, cyclists, for whom accidents are a lamentably frequent experience, too.
And that is why I am still mystified why safety drills are not prioritised to a greater extent in such a setting.
Some dumbass shot himself in the leg. He isn't even hurt bad.
This is not news, hence the sarcastic references to irrelevant tabloid articles and other trivia.
That is the problem... We have uninformed politicians trying to get weapons laws pasted that know very little about firearms. Look at the the 94 AWB. The reason some of the weapons made the ban list was because of the way they looked or cosmetic features that had little to nothing to do with how deadly it was.
How many accidents happen during training? It does happen but it is very uncommon. I will expand the question to firing ranges. If guns are as dangerous as people say a rifle range should be nothing more then a killing field.
Remember this little gem?
That range was shut down.
Before I am allowed to take a vehicle onto the road, I must pass a test (written and practical) and - in order to reach the required degree of proficiency - it is generally advised that one take several classes in addition to a fair degree of practice under supervision.
There is no shrugged dismissal of concern with the comment 'accidents happen', or a suggestion that if cars were as dangerous as I thought, the roads would regularly play host to carnage.
This is because - while a car is not defined as a weapon - in careless, or stupid, or untrained hands, it can kill.
And this is what I am saying about guns. I have read enough here to know that they seem to be tied - at the most visceral level - with male and American sense of identity and self. Fine. Issues of identity aside, these are still weapons, and irrespective of whether a range becomes a 'killing field' or not, the duty of care needs to be so high that it is almost impossible to bring a set of circumstances about where a range might actually become a killing field.
Even if some 'dumbass shot himself in the leg' (and whether or not he 'was hurt bad') he was wielding a weapon in a careless way, a way which could have hurt others which would have been absolutely inexcusable.
In the three states I've lived in a driving (learner's) permit is issued after a mere written test. There is no driving practical.
I don't see what's complicated here. An accident happened during a gun training class. It happens just like injuries and accidents happen in all sorts of training classes.
It's rare enough that it makes the news when it does happen.
Yes, that practical test includes actually driving the car, just like a gun safety class includes actually firing the gun.
I imagine he didn't pass the course.
What was the careless way SkepticalScribe refers too? I've only found he was holstering.
Then, why wasn't his safety catch on?
But you can only drive under supervision - you cannot drive by yourself - until you have a licence; firing the gun without taking adequate precautions or without being under appropriate supervision seems…….criminally careless.
I was going to make a stupid joke about the safety last night. It doesn't look like I ever posted it. I guess it's too late now.
In spite of the photo, which suggests the class took place at a gun range, the article states that it was a class in gun safety. It may not have included any element of actual target practice.