PDA

View Full Version : Much as I am opposed to the concept of mandatory training...


MLeake
February 13, 2012, 02:37 AM
... episodes like this really make me think twice about my position:

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/12/3425678/pastors-daughter-accidentally.html

I don't like the potential abuses inherent in mandatory training requirements, but seriously - check the stupid chamber... and obey the 4 rules.

youngunz4life
February 13, 2012, 03:34 AM
http://www.kptv.com/story/16911326/hunter-found-slumped-over-fence

I feel for his family, and it was sad to learn of this.

nate45
February 13, 2012, 03:45 AM
Zambrana reportedly took out the magazine of the Reuger 9mm weapon but did not know there was a bullet in the chamber.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/12/3425678/pastors-daughter-accidentally.html#storylink=cpy

Well, there could be the problem.

If he had sprung for a real Ruger instead of a cheap knock off, tragedy might have been averted.

Uh oh, I'm late for an appointment my Rollex reads 9:00 AM. :p

Sorry de devil made me do it.

farmerboy
February 13, 2012, 03:53 AM
I don't always think it is a case of no mandatory training, sometimes you can't fix "stupid". But things like this do and will happen, it's sad for the ones it affects when it does.

wayneinFL
February 13, 2012, 04:34 AM
Like farmerboy said, training doesn't necessarily cure carelessness or stupidity.

The guy's been through mandatory training. According to the news, he has a carry permit, which requires training.

Furthermore, he's a security officer. He's pictured on facebook in two different security uniforms (with what appears to be his Ruger 9mm), and lists his employers as the county school district and a local pharmaceutical company. Armed security by FL law requires a G license, which requires 28 hours of training- above the 40 hours of D license (unarmed) security training. And yearly qualifications.

Most employers here require law enforcement or military experience for armed security. He has a picture of a Virginia Tech campus police badge posted, too. So he may have had law enforcement training as well.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Moises-Zambrana/100002908288043

Overhill
February 13, 2012, 08:11 AM
Authorities say the daughter of a pastor was accidentally shot in the head at a church in St. Petersburg.

How can they even consider this an accident?

Investigators say Moises Zambrana was showing his gun in a small closet to another church member interested in buying a firearm

Huh?


No charges have been filed.

You have gotta be kidding.

12GaugeShuggoth
February 13, 2012, 08:27 AM
Zambrana reportedly took out the magazine of the Reuger 9mm weapon but did not know there was a bullet in the chamber.........
The gun went off and fired through a wall................Deputies said Zambrana has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.....

No charges have been filed.


I love (re. HATE) this kind of idiocy. The gun went off and fired through a wall?......me thinks not, the GUN didn't DO anything. The MORON holding it who doesn't understand basic gun safety and lacks anything resembling common sense FIRED the gun and caused this tragedy. I constantly hear reports of people who "didn't know there was one in the chamber".......really? How freaking hard is it to check? Why on earth would you pull the trigger on a gun that you weren't sure was unloaded?

Throw the book at him, make an example of what happens when you're too stupid to be trusted. There, rant off. :o

C0untZer0
February 13, 2012, 09:57 AM
Whenever there is an "accidental" shooting, it is going to garner attention in the press. But when that shooting happens in a church it's going to get extra attention due to the debate over banning guns by location - ie, in churches, on college campuses, within various distances from playgrounds, day care centers, parks, schools, etc...

I can't believe charges have not been filed. There's so many things wrong with this story.

I'm not opposed to carrying in church but I am opposed to using the church to conduct deals on guns you are going to trade, buy or sell. Zambrano doesn't have a home he can conduct business in? They couldn't have met at a range or something?

The article doesn't say who pulled the trigger. I think it brings up an interesting legal question. If Zambrano failed to clear the weapon and handed it to a novice who knows nothing about firearm safety, and the novice pulled the trigger, to what extent are each of them culpable in the shooting? It could be said that yes, Zambrano left a round in the chamber, but he didn't know that the potential buyer was going to pull the trigger, the prospective buyer not knowing any better probably thought it was safe to pull the trigger...

What a mess.

Zambrano's face book page has a lot of pictures of him in uniform (one in a bullet-resistant vest).

I do think this is a case of "you can't fix stupid", but it might lend credance to the argument for continuing safety education.

Brian Pfleuger
February 13, 2012, 10:03 AM
Tragic, senseless, stupid.

This will be a real test of faith, forgiveness and grace for that congregation.

hangglider
February 13, 2012, 10:18 AM
A tragedy. One mistake and lives are forever changed. I judge not.

kraigwy
February 13, 2012, 10:21 AM
As others said, training wont fix stupid.

An example, not long ago the "range officer", the guy in charge of training the towns cops, was supposedly working on one of the department's service pistols. He pulled the empty mag out of the gun and laid it on the table, then for some unknown reason, took the full mag out of his gun and laid it on the table.

After he finished what he was doing, He put the "Wrong Magazine" in the "fixed" gun, and let the slide go forward, and the gun discharged through the wall into the break room (where my stepdaughter was).

With all his training to become a LEO FI, stupid still kicked in. He was batting 100, violated 4 out of 4 of the safety rules.

(and people ask why I go out of state to do my yearly LEOSA qualification).

Mandatory training wont fix this. But it will open up Pandora's box.

I'm not against training, not by a long shot, I'm against government mandatory training.

Who is going to set the standards? will they change every time someone does something stupid? Will it change when politicians change? What will it cost? Will it prevent low income people from being able to exercise their rights? Will it make shooting sports a rich man's sport?

Kind of like gun control, never ending, when a law fails to prevent crime, instead of getting rid of the law, they all more laws, which still don't work.

Same with mandatory training, you set the standards, someone does something stupid, you raise the standards. This goes on until no one can pass the training.

TailGator
February 13, 2012, 10:34 AM
Who is going to set the standards? will they change every time someone does something stupid? Will it change when politicians change? What will it cost? Will it prevent low income people from being able to exercise their rights? Will it make shooting sports a rich man's sport?

Those are my concerns as well. People have to be receptive to training in order for training to have an impact.

I see no reason that charges appropriate to the degree of negligence should not be filed. I hate to say this, but they may be waiting to see if the young lady survives before they decide on charges (i.e., manslaughter charges may still be in the offing).

MLeake
February 13, 2012, 10:35 PM
The Pandora's Box argument is the reason I have opposed, and still oppose, mandatory training.

But this kind of sheer stupidity is just mind-numbing...

Have there been any updates on the girl?

Double Naught Spy
February 14, 2012, 09:00 AM
These sorts of NDs at locations other than the gun owner's home or at a firing range are exactly why many non-gun business private property owners won't allow concealed carry. Several more happen in gun shops and at gun shows each year

It does not matter that CCW folks have passed rigoous background checks. The issue isn't their honesty or legal history, but a fear of this very type of event.

As kraigwy noted, training won't fix stupid (though it should fix ignorance) and every year stupid gun owners make themselves known by making headlines with NDs. Fortunately, most do not result in injury or death.

Sadly hangglider, it wasn't just one mistake. To have an ND that results in injury or death requires that at least three of the four gun safety rules are violated. On top of that, the gun should never have been out of the holster (or whatever was being used to carry) it while at church. That the gun was brought there for the purpose of selling meant that it should not have been loaded in the first place as the seller knew that the gun would be handled.

Brian Pfleuger
February 14, 2012, 09:37 AM
Sadly hangglider, it wasn't just one mistake. To have an ND that results in injury or death requires that at least three of the four gun safety rules are violated. On top of that, the gun should never have been out of the holster (or whatever was being used to carry) it while at church. That the gun was brought there for the purpose of selling meant that it should not have been loaded in the first place as the seller knew that the gun would be handled.


Yep, in virtually all cases, accidents like this are a result of "cascading failures". It's NEVER one thing. Airplanes don't crash because one thing went wrong. People don't get shot because one mistake was made.

Here, we have two people who did not just one or two things wrong but EVERYTHING wrong. It started with "playing" with the gun in church and went straight through ignoring every rule of gun safety there's ever been.

Sad and terrible thing. One proper safety step would have broken the chain of events. These things aren't caused by one mistake but they can be stopped by one good choice.

FTG-05
February 14, 2012, 02:54 PM
... episodes like this really make me think twice about my position:

Why?

Lack of training didn't cause the negligent discharge (note: it was not an accident!) and additional training to what he already had (he's a security guard!) wouldn't have prevented it.

m&p45acp10+1
February 14, 2012, 03:40 PM
It is tragic that happened. Before you folks go off on throwing around the word stupid, and ranting please rember that we have all made mistakes. I was fortunate enough to survive a ND/AD shooting that quite nearly killed me. A lot of mistakes were made, several that I knew better than to do. The thing is I did live to learn the lesson.

I pray the young lady survives, with a full recovery.

Edward429451
February 14, 2012, 06:16 PM
Every time I hear about something like this, I have to wonder if he was a college boy what had the ND. Has anyone ever done a study on ND's and the type of people that have them?

Colvin
February 14, 2012, 06:31 PM
Has anyone ever done a study on ND's and the type of people that have them?

Comprehensive studies conducted by myself have concluded that 5/5 perpetrators of negligent discharges are idiots. These results are indiscriminate of race, age, and gender.

Patriot86
February 14, 2012, 06:52 PM
To quote Ron White: "You can't fix stupid".
The same guy who "looks down the chamber to see if it was loaded" is the same guy who would back up his car without looking and kill his kid, or sort of like my cousin did throw your gun over a fence and get shot dead.

A moment of carelessness with a car, a firearm, a tractor or a piece of industrial machinery is all it takes to kill yourself, kill people with you or kill people around you.

SOME basic firearms training MIGHT fix some of the problem but typically in cases like this the ND is representative of other careless habits.
Making someone take a 4 hour class won't stop a lifetime of doing it wrong.

Nnobby45
February 14, 2012, 09:20 PM
How can they even consider this an accident?



Because it was.

The fact that the shooter is a midget brained, intellectual prebuescent with no common sense or knowledge about firearms doesn't change the fact that he accidentally shot some one.

An incident be an accident and also involve negligence.

Nnobby45
February 14, 2012, 09:24 PM
... episodes like this really make me think twice about my position:



Why? What training program is a substitue for common sense?

We already have too many people in government posistions of power who feel that an isolated incident should justify legislation that punishes the overwhelming majority for whom the legislation is not necessary.

He had a CCW license, and I've yet to be involved in a course that didn't teach the basic safety principles. I'll bet his did, too.

Just my thoughts on the matter.:cool:

Colvin
February 14, 2012, 09:52 PM
As far as age is concerned, Zambrana is 48.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/family-friends-pray-as-pastors-daughter-shot-at-church-remains-critical/1215430

(Article will enrage you, I don't recommend reading it. Just posting it as evidence for the guy's age.)

Doyle
February 14, 2012, 10:04 PM
The guy's been through mandatory training. According to the news, he has a carry permit, which requires training.



Wayne, I don't know what other security officer training this guy had but the minimum required training for a CCW in FL is a joke. Literally, all it takes is firing a bullet once without hitting the instructor or some other innocent bystander and you get a nice pretty piece of paper saying you are firearm proficient.

Odd
February 14, 2012, 10:40 PM
If mandatory training really is important, including optional firearms safety classes during high school might be worth a try. That way when the student becomes old enough to purchase a firearm he will already of had training.

MarkDozier
February 14, 2012, 11:58 PM
It reinforces my checking and verifying my weapon status when I touch a gun.
You can fix stupid, but with a bit of thought you can prevent it.

wayneinFL
February 15, 2012, 12:14 AM
Wayne, I don't know what other security officer training this guy had but the minimum required training for a CCW in FL is a joke. Literally, all it takes is firing a bullet once without hitting the instructor or some other innocent bystander and you get a nice pretty piece of paper saying you are firearm proficient.

And with that minimum standard and 800,000 people licensed to carry in FL, accidental shootings are still very rare. But if you're still concerned about the training requirement and don't feel safe in Florida, there are plenty of states with stricter requirements.

Of course, our state requires 28 hours of training for a G license, and that didn't prevent this incident. So, if you think training is the cure, you have to find a state that requires more than 3 1/2 days of training for a CCW.

Double Naught Spy
February 15, 2012, 08:37 AM
He had a CCW license, and I've yet to be involved in a course that didn't treat the basic safety principles. I'll bet his did, too.

Sure, he was undoubtedly made aware of safety rules.

And with that minimum standard and 800,000 people licensed to carry in FL, accidental shootings are still very rare. But if you're still concerned about the training requirement and don't feel safe in Florida, there are plenty of states with stricter requirements.

Of course, our state requires 28 hours of training for a G license, and that didn't prevent this incident. So, if you think training is the cure, you have to find a state that requires more than 3 1/2 days of training for a CCW.

It is good that accidental/negligential shootings are rare. They should not happen at all. It was in Florida, as I recall, that it was that an NRA instructor ND'd into a student's foot during a CCW class.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-02-21/news/os-nra-gun-instructor-shoots-student-022020100220_1_gun-safety-nra-church-s-communications-director

I think folks have confused training with instruction. Very few people are trained in safety, though at various points in our lives we are almost all made aware of safety issues. These aren't the same thing.

You can fix stupid, but with a bit of thought you can prevent it.

Fixing stupid is more of a second party activity. People are notoriously bad at auto-fixing their own stupid acts, as noted for the NRA CCW instructor incident above. Ironically, that incident happened in a church as well.

Brian Pfleuger
February 15, 2012, 09:30 AM
It's a strange thing, not so much "stupid", even though I used the word myself.

I've always been one who has constant "worst case what-if" scenarios running in my head any time I deal with dangerous equipment. Guns, chainsaws, wood splitters, bowling alley machines, even when the kids are at a park near a road. I'm always seeing scenarios play out where I didn't pay enough attention to what the 5 year old was doing or I set the saw down and it fell off the stump or I didn't check the chamber and handed the gun to someone.

I used to think everyone had these things going. I thought it was part of being an adult. That it was why kids had to be protected, because they don't run these scenarios yet.

Turns out not to be true. LOTS of adults don't have these scenarios running. I don't know why. It's not a "stupid" issue. I don't know why they don't or how to get them to start.

CaptainObvious
February 15, 2012, 11:10 AM
All this is is an unfortunate accident. My best friend slipped on a rock, hit his head and died. Now do we need to train people on how not to get into slip and fall accidents?

There will be unfortunate accidents where people are injured and killed. However, I think mandatory training is a good thing because of the unforgiving nature of firearms and the complex laws out there involving them. Its best to make sure people know what they are doing and know how not to get into trouble. I am all for people attending the various NRA courses out there and believe the responsible firearms owner will take the time to attend them. However, I dont believe training will prevent unfortunate accidents. Accidents will happen and we just need to get over them when they do happen. No one wants to shoot themselves or others accidentally, but it will happen just like car accidents will happen and slip&fall accidents will happen.

Frank Ettin
February 15, 2012, 11:37 AM
All this is is an unfortunate accident....Sorry, but no. Unfortunate, yes; but not really an accident. This was a consequence of a failure to follow proper, well known gun safety protocols.

...Accidents will happen...This sort of unintentional discharge and injury happens only when the guy with the gun does something wrong. We all need to avoid doing things wrong and to be reminded of the need to do so.

A short time ago I received the following (quoted in part) in an email from another Gunsite alumnus (emphasis added):Negligent discharges that result in injury are the result of 1. IGNORANCE, and/or 2. COMPLACENCY and/or 3. HABIT that is inappropriate to changed conditions.

Proper training with the universal rules can only address #1 and #3.

...The great deficiency of much NRA civilian training ... is that muzzle and trigger discipline are not rigorously enforced except when on the range when the line is hot and sometimes not even then. Change the conditions to carrying a loaded gun at all times and adverse results are predictable.

EXAMPLE #1: Trap and skeet shooters often rest muzzles on their toes and point them at each other. They have almost no accidents on the range because guns are unloaded until just before they shoot. ...CHANGE CONDITIONS to a duck blind with loaded guns and the results are predictable....

One thing that Jeff Cooper said ... made a big impression on me. It is seldom repeated. To address complacency he said that every morning when he picks up his gun he says to himself "somewhere today someone is going to have an accident with a gun - not me, not today".

Brian Pfleuger
February 15, 2012, 11:47 AM
Trying to say it wasn't an accident is trying to split hairs that don't even exist, IMO.

It doesn't matter how many ways we can parse it into various forms of negligence. It was STILL an accident.

If it wasn't intentional, it WAS an accident.

I don't get this apparent concept that accidents and negligence are mutually exclusive.

The only requirement for an accident is that it was unintentional. The "why" or "how" has no bearing.

If its not intentional, it IS an accident.

CaptainObvious
February 15, 2012, 11:54 AM
I agree in part with your post in that this incident was probably as a result of not handling the firearm properly, but I dont agree with the part on the NRA not enforcing muzzle and trigger discipline.

Ever since I was a child, the golden rule for handling firearms was to treat it as if it were loaded even if it was obvious it was not loaded like a revolver with the cylinder out. That golden rule has been repeated ad nauseum to me and many others time and time again. I think there is even a big sign down at my local range which says it and I think I saw one of those signs down at the local shop. Every time I go onto the range, I have to sign some paperwork which probably specifically states something to that effect. I am confident all NRA instructors teach that golden rule to all of their students. Any firearms instructor I know of would enforce muzzle discipline and would not tolerate anyone pointing a firearm in an unsafe direction.

In any event, we dont know all the facts of this incident. Was the person handling the firearm not following the golden rule and foolishly pointing it at the wall pulling the trigger? Did they drop the firearm? Did the trigger snag on something? I dont think anyone wanted this to happen so it was probably an accident.

kraigwy
February 15, 2012, 11:59 AM
Accidents, or unintentional discharges do happen.

I give two examples.

I had a 1911 38 Super that was converted into a 38 WC gun. I couple times it doubled, meaning fired twice when I pulled the trigger.

Resulted in a miss, but didn't damage anything, I was pointed at the target down range.

A second incident occurred when I was shooting metallic Silhouette. I had a "set trigger" on my rifle. You set the trigger then had a "hair" or extremely light trigger. It was extremely cold I couldn't really feel the trigger.

Again I missed. But the rifle was pointed down range,

Both times:

The gun was loaded.

I had my finger on the trigger

BUT:

It was pointed at something I wanted to shoot

I was aware of the back ground.


Since I was following at least two of the four firearms safety rules,this was accidental shootings, not a negligent shootings.

Accidents do happen, but they don't have to be negligent.

Frank Ettin
February 15, 2012, 04:36 PM
...I dont agree with the part on the NRA not enforcing muzzle and trigger discipline.

Ever since I was a child, the golden rule for handling firearms was to treat it as if it were loaded ... I am confident all NRA instructors teach that golden rule to all of their students. ... I can't speak for all NRA instructors, but I and the group I teach with do. Of course, like the person whose email I quoted in my earlier post, I and those people I teach with all had much of our training at Gunsite. The NRA rules do not include your "golden rule."

The NRA rules are:

ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

The Four Rules of Jeff Cooper and Gunsite are:

All guns are always loaded.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

Gunsite is a hot range. The Gunsite rules are particular well adapted to a hot range. The real world is a hot range.

...In any event, we dont know all the facts of this incident. ....We have the information in the newspaper article:...Investigators say Moises Zambrana was showing his gun in a small closet to another church member interested in buying a firearm. Zambrana reportedly took out the magazine of the Ruger 9mm weapon but did not know there was a bullet in the chamber...If Mr. Zambrana was handling his weapon, he had a responsibility to do so in a safe manner.

...Was the person handling the firearm not following the golden rule and foolishly pointing it at the wall pulling the trigger? Did they drop the firearm? Did the trigger snag on something? ....And those are still avoidable gun handling faults which the person handling the firearm was obliged to avoid.

Double Naught Spy
February 15, 2012, 05:09 PM
It doesn't matter how many ways we can parse it into various forms of negligence. It was STILL an accident.
In any event, we dont know all the facts of this incident. Was the person handling the firearm not following the golden rule and foolishly pointing it at the wall pulling the trigger? Did they drop the firearm? Did the trigger snag on something? I dont think anyone wanted this to happen so it was probably an accident.
It was only an accident in the sense that the discharge was not intentional. Otherwise, Zambrana would have been arrested for murder. While the discharge was not intentional, it was absolutely negligential in the sense that it was an event that could have and should have been prevented had proper handling of the gun been followed.

Was he foolishly pointing it at the wall and pulling the trigger? Maybe. We do know that he was foolishly pointing it in an unsafe direction. We do know that he had know way to know what was beyond the backstop of the wall of the closet he was in. We do know that when the gun was discharged that it struck a person as a result of not having a proper backstop and not having a way to know that somebody was downrange from the gun that was being handled.

Sorry CaptainObvious, you seem to be trying to alibi Zambrana out of responsibility by saying it wasn't intentional, but he was responsible. Hannah Kelley suffered a significant head injury as a direct result of his actions.

markj
February 15, 2012, 05:23 PM
The more people have guns, the more people will be hurt from accidents. I never belived this until I went to Register cliff in Wyo. The wagon train folk buried a lot of folkss there, cause of death? Accidental gunshots. Folks would get a gun for the trip due to indians and animal threats. Would be walking along, would take gun and look it over, bang just shot the guy over there. No antibiotics many died from a simple wound. There is a large sign there outlining this. The folks was raised up with guns were a bit safer.

I try to not get too upset, the guy is going thru heck over it I am sure. I do train my son and daughter in the safe handleing of a firearm and I recommend everyone else do the same.

kinggabby
February 15, 2012, 05:33 PM
Even in states that do require mandatory training for CC things like this happen. I agree he broke the 4 rules. Always treat a gun as it is loaded . How hard is it to drop the magazine and open the action to see if anything is in there?

K_Mac
February 15, 2012, 05:45 PM
I'll add my $.02 for what it's worth. First by definition it was an accident, as has already been said a couple of times. It was unintentional, therefore accidental. As has also been said, that does not mean it was not negligent. It was negligent. We do not need to have all the details. There is no acceptable reason to have a loaded, unholstered weapon being passed around in this situation. There is no acceptable reason for the discharge of this weapon. The responsibility for all of this is on the owner of the weapon.

Training, experience, licensing are not the issue. This man violated the fundamental rules of carrying and handling a weapon. Carrying a weapon brings with it huge responsibility. " I didn't mean to," is of little consequence here. Tell that to the Pastor and his congregation. I understand we are all capable of doing something stupid, but when it comes to handling weapons we all have to do things right. Cooper's, "not me, not today" is a mantra we should all embrace IMO.

wayneinFL
February 15, 2012, 06:20 PM
DNS:

I think folks have confused training with instruction. Very few people are trained in safety, though at various points in our lives we are almost all made aware of safety issues. These aren't the same thing.

Who is "trained in safety" by your definition? What do you suggest?

Brian Pfleuger
February 15, 2012, 08:21 PM
It was only an accident in the sense that the discharge was not intentional. Otherwise, Zambrana would have been arrested for murder. While the discharge was not intentional, it was absolutely negligential in the sense that it was an event that could have and should have been prevented had proper handling of the gun been followed.


Certainly it was negligence. My only beef is with the people who seem to think that negligence is incompatible with an accident. We see it in every thread wherein someone mentions an AD, "accidental discharge". There's always 2 or 3 someones screaming about how it's not an AD, it's a ND... as if it somehow can't be BOTH.

As stated above:

Lack of training didn't cause the negligent discharge (note: it was not an accident!)

and

Sorry, but no. Unfortunate, yes; but not really an accident.

Both statements directly assert that because it was negligent and/or a violation of The Rules, it is somehow NOT "an accident".

It's as if we are implying that by saying it's not an accident we somehow consider the incident more serious than someone who uses the word "accident" or the person who thinks it's an accident doesn't really understand how serious it was.

It's just a silly and unnecessary argument. An irrelevant distinction, in these instances. It's a terrible, tragic, ACCIDENT that resulted from negligence. The two are not mutually exclusive. Even worse, claiming that it wasn't an accident is implying that it was intentional, as if the man shot the girl on purpose because, if it wasn't "an accident" then it WAS intentional. If it WASN'T intentional, it WAS an accident.

JimPage
February 15, 2012, 08:54 PM
I stopped teaching the NRA basic pistol course years ago because it was becoming a drag and I was sort of burnt out. But I still teach some folks who need special help (friends, acquaintances who ask or who I observe need the teaching). Just a couple of days ago someone told me he wasn't sure how to load his gun anymore. I will be spending a lot of time with him!

But I always train everyone I teach, whether on the range or classroom to always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction while keeping finger off the trigger, check to make sure it's not loaded while keeping finger off the trigger, always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction keeping the finger off the trigger, etc etc, Over and over and over. Several different ways to convey that, but the same message.

Safe direction includes what is beyond what you can see (walls, ceilings, doors, etc).

EVERY TIME YOU PICK UP THE GUN WHETHER YOU JUST PUT IT DOWN OR NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

I know this is repetitious and monotonous to read from all these posts, but it is the responsibility of each of us.

MTT TL
February 15, 2012, 10:08 PM
All the training in the world won't save you from stupid. That Seal who shot himself in the head showing his "unloaded" gun to a lady friend last month is a sad example. No matter who you think you are, you are still vulnerable.

Double Naught Spy
February 15, 2012, 10:45 PM
Who is "trained in safety" by your definition? What do you suggest?

By my definition? Back up chief. People are claiming that Zambrana had "safety training" as a result of having a CCW and/or from being a security guard. The question that should be being asked is what is the safety "training" that Zambrana had. Unless he is a firearms instuctor, chances are that his safety "training" was extremely limited to being told the basic gun safety rules, maybe having to identify them on a test, and then not being spotted violating them while otherwise qualifying. Chances are that during the course of his security guard and CCW instruction, he received no materials safey and handling instruction. He probably was not familiar with exactly what would and would not constitute an appropriate backstop to stop a projectile fired from his gun. He probably has never seen or learned the contents of a materials safety and handling sheet for his ammunition or chemicals used in maintaining his gun. Chances are, Zambrana through his CCW or security guard training never received instruction and became qualified to be a range safety officer for the gun range where he shots or for the security company for which he had worked.

His "training" was likely the same 5 or 10 minute guns rules safety review we have all had countless times and then some sort of correction, if needed, if he was seen to violate any of the safety rules whilst on the range. That isn't really "training." It is actually just a comprehension of minimal standards, nothing more. My 76 year old mother got all that "training" last year when she renewed her CHL here in Texas. It isn't training. It is just a brief familiarization, nothing more.

There are people in numerous fields who do undergo extensive safety training for materials handling. There are college degrees in occupation safety and some of which allow for specializations such as chemical handling, fire safety, etc. A lot of your disaster preparation and response training includes extensive safety training. Most of us don't get anything like that.

Both statements directly assert that because it was negligent and/or a violation of The Rules, it is somehow NOT "an accident".

If the gun fires because the trigger was depressed by the person handling the gun, then it wasn't an accident, except to say that it was unintentional. If the handler depressed the trigger and the gun fired, then there is nothing about the firing that is accidental. All parts worked as designed. That is exactly what is supposed to happen when you pull the trigger on a gun with a chambered round. That makes it a negligent discharge. It might be a negligent discharge that was accidental in the sense that nobody intended a round to be fired, but because due diligence was not observed, a round did fire. That is a negligent discharge.

That the gun was not oriented in a safe direction with a proper backstop when it discharged would appear to be another act of negligence. I know - it was an accident that the bullet shot through the closet wall. Wait, the closet wall isn't an appropriate backstop. That sounds like more negligent handling. It was an accident that Hannah Kelley was hit in the head. Well, obviously Zambrana doesn't have X-ray vision and so could not have been aiming through the wall to shoot the intended buyer's girlfriend, but Zambrana didn't have a proper backstop and did not know what was beyond his backstop which turned out to be another human. Negligence.

People are quick to say that "accidents happen" as if there is no blame. Amazingly, far few "accidents" happen when people pay attention to the rules.

ScottRiqui
February 15, 2012, 10:53 PM
There's a saying in aviation - "If you never walk through a prop arc, you'll never get hit by a prop." It's been so ingrained into me that I will still walk *around* a prop, even if the plane is in the hangar, up on jacks with the engines removed. Anal? Sure. Silly? Perhaps. But I'll never walk into a spinning prop.

The gun safety rules aren't hard to remember or perform, but just about every AD or accidental shooting leads back to a violation of one or more of them.

Brian Pfleuger
February 15, 2012, 11:02 PM
I guess I'm not sure what definition of "accident" folks are using. Accident is virtually synonymous with unintentional.

It was only an accident in that it was unintentional. It was unintentional therefor it was an accident. What other kind of accident is there?

Accident:
An accident or mishap is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance, often with lack of intention or necessity. It implies a generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.


So, the definition of negligence is essentially included in the definition of accident.

This is a very odd discussion to be having. I really don't understand the animosity toward the word accident. I don't understand the belief that using the word accident lessens the severity of the negligence or shifts blame away from the actor. It does not.

An accident caused by negligence, still an accident.

Frank Ettin
February 15, 2012, 11:09 PM
...This is a very odd discussion to be having. I really don't understand the animosity toward the word accident. I don't understand the belief that using the word accident lessens the severity of the negligence or shifts blame away from the actor. It does not...I think you're correct. It seems that some folks are extending the term "accident" to imply that the event was somehow excusable, i. e., "it was just an accident."

So let's try this --

[1] It was an accident insofar as it was not intended.

[2] But it was not excusable because it was the result of someone's failure to properly observe appropriate safety procedures. And safety with a gun is not negotiable.

[3] It was an avoidable event, and the person handling the gun had both the opportunity to avoid the result and the responsibility to avoid the result.

ScottRiqui
February 15, 2012, 11:16 PM
peetzakilla - the definition of "accident" that you posted is the best I've seen, because (as you stated), it includes the concept of negligence right in the definition. But there are other definitions that don't do that, such as:

"an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap" (dictionary.com)

-or-

"something that happens unexpectedly, without being planned" (MacMillan)


"It's okay - it was just an accident" is acceptable when you're consoling a child who's just spilled a glass of milk, but in the context of firearm safety, I think it's more important to stress the avoidable nature of an incident. Since not everyone thinks of an "accident" as being defined the way you defined it, there's been a move toward using "negligent discharge" rather than AD.

K_Mac
February 15, 2012, 11:26 PM
It's as if we are implying that by saying it's not an accident we somehow consider the incident more serious than someone who uses the word "accident" or the person who thinks it's an accident doesn't really understand how serious it was.

It's just a silly and unnecessary argument. An irrelevant distinction, in these instances. It's a terrible, tragic, ACCIDENT that resulted from negligence. The two are not mutually exclusive. Even worse, claiming that it wasn't an accident is implying that it was intentional, as if the man shot the girl on purpose because, if it wasn't "an accident" then it WAS intentional. If it WASN'T intentional, it WAS an accident.

Peetzakilla this is as good as an argument as I've seen made. Well done.

DNS we keep coming back to the word, "accident." As I said earlier in this thread this was an accident by definition. From Dictionary.com (emphasis is mine):
ac·ci·dent 
noun
1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.
2. Law . such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought.
3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
4. chance; fortune; luck: I was there by accident.
5. a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic: an accident of birth.

That this incident was negligent, stupid, and tragic does not make it any less accidental. That poor decisions were made causing this cannot be denied. The consequences of ignoring fundamental safety rules are predictable; yet they are still accidental when they happen. Even if the negligence is found to be criminal by reason of omission or commission the resulting action is still accidental.

Edit: As usual I'm a day late and a dollar short. I really need to improve my typing/writing skills...

chasep255
February 15, 2012, 11:42 PM
I think that most people who have guns know of gun safety. The problem is that they ignore it.

wayneinFL
February 15, 2012, 11:58 PM
DNS, the reason I ask is that I was trying to ascertain what kind of training, number of hours, etc, quality of training you would suggest if the state required training were not enough. This is from the handbook and doesn't cover any specifics. Do you think the state should be more specific in what is required? I can't imagine talking to students for three days and spending a minimum of four hours on the range and not covering what you're saying they should cover, but maybe they're not. Maybe it needs to be spelled out?

VI. FIREARMS TRAINING
a. An applicant for a Class “G” Statewide Firearm License
must have a minimum of twenty-eight (28) hours of range and
classroom training taught and administered by a Class “K”
Firearms Instructor.
Section 493.6105(6), F.S.
b. Class “G” licensees must obtain four (4) hours of
firearms range recertification training during each year of the 2-
year licensure period. If the four (4) hours annual training is not
completed each year of the 2-year licensure period, the full initial
training program (twenty-eight (28) hours) is required for
renewal. This training must be taught by a Class “K” Firearms
Instructor. Renewal of the Class “G” license will be denied if the
licensee has failed to obtain the required training.
Example: A licensee who is issued his Class “G” license
on June 1, 2006 which expires May 31, 2008 must receive four
(4) hours of firearms recertification training between June 1,
2006 and May 31, 2007 and four (4) hours between June 1, 2007
and May 31, 2008.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/FORMS/SOH_Handbook_00092_0209.pdf

I can't imagine spending 4 hours on the range and not covering what you're suggesting. But I take it you have more of an issue with the quality of the training and not the hours required?

IMO, police and military have a fairly decent training program, and yet these guys still have accidents. Are you suggesting higher quality training than that?

Personally, I'm not satisfied with training unless I take a course once a year and shoot an IPSC match at least once a month. (Need to get back to that, actually, instead of working all the time...) But I don't think everyone needs to do that to be safe. I don't think it needs to be required. And I think there are people who could have five times that much training and still cause an accident.

Rusty35
February 16, 2012, 07:56 AM
peetzakilla
Senior Member


Trying to say it wasn't an accident is trying to split hairs that don't even exist, IMO.

It doesn't matter how many ways we can parse it into various forms of negligence. It was STILL an accident.

If it wasn't intentional, it WAS an accident.

I don't get this apparent concept that accidents and negligence are mutually exclusive.

The only requirement for an accident is that it was unintentional. The "why" or "how" has no bearing.

If its not intentional, it IS an accident.


I am with you on this one.

Why does every one have to jump on the use of the word "accident"?

An "accident" is caused by human negligence.
The word "accident" is used to describe the out come of the negligence.

A person has a negligent discharge and accidentally shoots the Television.

The Television part of the equation is the accident, the discharge part is the negligence .

Nordeste
February 16, 2012, 09:38 AM
If mandatory training really is important, including optional firearms safety classes during high school might be worth a try. That way when the student becomes old enough to purchase a firearm he will already of had training.

I second this. If kids already get information about driving safety and regulations at school, it wouldn't be a bad idea that they get the same about firearms, but you'll have to deal with anti-gun parents, then.


IMHO, some training is needed to handle firearms and it makes sense to make it mandatory.

JimPage
February 16, 2012, 09:50 AM
Semantics can lead to some silly interpretations. One person's definition of a word may vary from another. To run a thread on semantics is silly? Or should I say stupid? Or should I say pointless? Or should I say a waste of time? Or should I say...

ScottRiqui
February 16, 2012, 10:25 AM
I second this. If kids already get information about driving safety and regulations at school, it wouldn't be a bad idea that they get the same about firearms, but you'll have to deal with anti-gun parents, then.


IMHO, some training is needed to handle firearms and it makes sense to make it mandatory.

Students are not required to take Driver's Ed in school, nor do I think firearms safety training should be mandatory. If you're going to go that route, there are a lot of things that kill a lot more kids every year than firearms, so the mandatory training time would be better spent there (if it were to be spent at all, which I don't agree with).

K_Mac
February 16, 2012, 11:18 AM
Semantics can lead to some silly interpretations. One person's definition of a word may vary from another. To run a thread on semantics is silly? Or should I say stupid? Or should I say pointless? Or should I say a waste of time? Or should I say...

Discussing, or even arguing about the meaning of words and what they communicate related to firearms is certainly as valuable as many other discussions here. Words are important and being aware of how they are perceived is valuable. This discussion is a good example of this. I don't see "accident" as a word that minimizes responsibility for negligence. Many others clearly do. Knowing this gives me information to help me communicate more effectively. What's wrong with that?

What I find silly and pointless are posts that presume to let us know how stupid we are for discussing such nonsense. That is a real waste of time.

K_Mac
February 16, 2012, 11:27 AM
ON topic I think a mandatory basic firearms safety course before carrying a weapon is reasonable. I would be opposed to making it a part of any public school curriculum.

kraigwy
February 16, 2012, 11:43 AM
IMHO, some training is needed to handle firearms and it makes sense to make it mandatory.

Who do you want to set the standards for mandatory training? Blomberg?
maybe the mayor of Chicago?

Which others of our Bill of Rights do you want mandatory for? 1st, 4th or 5th.

Where in the constitution does it require mandatory training for any of our rights.

Many use the analogy of driving. We require driver training and test to get a operator's license. If training was the answer, then there would be no traffic accidents.

Frank Ettin
February 16, 2012, 11:51 AM
...Many use the analogy of driving. We require driver training and test to get a operator's license. If training was the answer, then there would be no traffic accidents.So training has no value? Would there be fewer accidents on the road without driver training and licensing?

Rusty35
February 16, 2012, 12:02 PM
fiddletown
Staff

So training has no value? Would there be fewer accidents on the road without driver training and licensing?

Training has lots of value.

I got my DL when training wasn't mandatory, over 40 years of driving.

Only accident I have been in was when a teen who had been through a drivers Ed program ran a stop sign.

Frank Ettin
February 16, 2012, 12:13 PM
...Only accident I have been in was when a teen who had been through a drivers Ed program ran a stop sign. And one anecdote is not data.

Rusty35
February 16, 2012, 12:29 PM
fiddletown
Staff

And one anecdote is not data.

I agree,
there have been lots of teenagers who had drivers training who did not run over me.


Is drivers training needed to teach a new driver not to run a stop sign?

kraigwy
February 16, 2012, 12:30 PM
So training has no value? Would there be fewer accidents on the road without driver training and licensing?

No where in my post, on this topic or any other topic have I said training has no value.

I'm all for training, training is never ending.

But I'm against mandatory training. Firearm safety and firearms training is not the same thing.

Firearm safety is nothing more then following the four basic rules of firearm safety. Following those rules will eliminate any accidents causing injury or property damage. They apply weather you know how to shoot or not.

Firearm training is a different subject all together. In firearms training you take the basic safety rules an incorporate them in the firearm training that allows you to deploy your firearm be it SD, competition, hunting, etc etc.

Basically firearm safety (if employed) keeps you from having the accident. Firearm training teaches you to shoot.

But, my point is, "mandatory" training opens up a Pandora's box based on who sets the standards and their goal. Are they interested in training or are they interested in control?

I'm afraid of the latter.

Double Naught Spy
February 16, 2012, 12:34 PM
This is from the handbook and doesn't cover any specifics. Do you think the state should be more specific in what is required? I can't imagine talking to students for three days and spending a minimum of four hours on the range and not covering what you're saying they should cover, but maybe they're not. Maybe it needs to be spelled out?

LOL, You can't imagine it not being covered, but in the security officer handbook there is absolutely no mention of safety training anywhere. The word 'safety' and in its root form, "safe," only appears once in the book in the cover letter from the commissioner. So there is apparently no state requirement for gun safety/weapons handling stipulated by the state for security officer training and licensing.

More specific? Given that the topic isn't covered by the handbook and isn't a stipulated requirement, then sure, I would think gun safety training requirement should be stipulated. I stil don't see anything to suggest that gun safety isn't really covered beyond going over the four rules briefly and then making sure folks don't screw up at the range.

But Wayne, you are in Florida, right? You have a carry permit? How extensive was your gun safety training in your concealed carry course. What did you cover beyond the four safety rules? Were you made aware of the additional and often extensive damage that is produced by expanding gasses in contact shots? Did you cover ballistic dangers relative to distance, trajectory, and environmental conditions? Did you cover the dangers associated with the moving parts on a firearm during its operation? Did you come away with a clear understanding of what does and does not constitute a safe backstop? How much time did you spend on assessing the risks of over penetration of common materials such as vehicles, drywall, and windows? How much time did you spend on overpenetration of people risks? Did you go over misfires and hangfires and what you should do should a misfire occur and how to remain safe in case it turns out to be a hangfire? How much time did you spend on auditory damage?

There are lots of ways in which firearms can be involved in the harming of people, but you probably didn't get any of that in what little gun safety instruction you received. You likely received nothing more than what was necessary to get you through the class and some cursory warnings about keeping guns locked properly at home. If somebody asked about auditory damage, the instructor probably told that person that the report of the firearm would be very loud, possibly damaging.

Saying that folks who have being through a CCW course or FL security guard licensing are trained in gun safety is about like saying my daughters are trained in fire safety because they learned in first grade to stay below the smoke in a burning building, to touch closed doors before opening them to se if they are hot or not, and to stop, drop, and roll should they happen to catch fire. They were even taking outside to practice stop, drop, and roll. What we are talking about isn't training, but minimalist exposure to limited safety guidelines.

Zambrana probably received about as much gun safety instruction as most people. Depending on how recently he received it, he might have been able to cite the 4 safety rules from memory. Where there are proficiency tests in many states for marksmanship, but are there any for gun safety beyond a multiple choice quiz?

kinggabby
February 16, 2012, 12:41 PM
Reminds me of a video I tried but failed to watch last night. A video titled On Target by Mark Duncan . He starts off talking about the 4 rules of safety but then he demonstrates something completely different. I don't know if the rest of the video was any good. But I could not stomach him passing a hand gun to people with his finger on the trigger or with action closed.

mavracer
February 16, 2012, 12:44 PM
Accidents are most often caused by negligence. If your negligence causes damage to anything you should be held accountable.
If you want to reduce the chance of your negligence causing an accident get training.

I beleve the four rules of safety should tought in public schools.

Frank Ettin
February 16, 2012, 12:49 PM
Is drivers training needed to teach a new driver not to run a stop sign? Someone had to teach all of us that. It's not something we were born knowing.

...No where in my post, on this topic or any other topic have I said training has no value...Your statement was: ...If training was the answer, then there would be no traffic accidents. That statement has no real meaning, which is why I asked the rhetorical questions.

None of us were born knowing how to drive, and none of us were born knowing how to use and handle guns safely. We all had to learn to do both somewhere, somehow from someone. Mostly we've had multiple teachers in multiple places all over time. And since there continue to be automobile collisions and unintentional discharges of firearms, some have learned those lessons better than others.

And mandatory training is a different, and political, issue.

kraigwy
February 16, 2012, 01:03 PM
Your statement was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigwy
...If training was the answer, then there would be no traffic accidents.

That statement has no real meaning, which is why I asked the rhetorical questions.

I agree, the statement was poorly worded. The point I was trying to make was "training" will not prevent accidents. The only thing that will is the individual following the 4 basic principals.

If you question anyone who has an "accidental discharge" you'll probably find out they knew the 4 basic rules, but upon investigation, if every incident they violated at least one.

I've seen people who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside but were perfectly safe with a firearm because they knew and followed the 4 basic rules.

I've seen people with mandantory training (cops and soldiers come to mind) screw up because the failed to follow the "four".

As for training per se, I've been shooting and teaching people to shoot a long time, I've been trained by the best shooters in the world (AMU) yet I still seek training, and will continue to seek training as long as I'm phyical fit enough to pull the trigger.

But, if I loosen up on one of the "four" I'm gonna screw up.

Brian Pfleuger
February 16, 2012, 02:30 PM
Sometimes people with less training can be safer than people with more training. ("Less" and "more" being non deterministic relative terms)

Sometimes, training leads to confidence (arrogant confidence) that should not be, which leads to the attitude that certain rules don't apply "because I'm trained".

The untrained may be safer because they fear the results and are careful.

Frank Ettin
February 16, 2012, 03:07 PM
Sometimes people with less training can be safer than people with more training. ("Less" and "more" being non deterministic relative terms)

Sometimes, training leads to confidence (arrogant confidence) that should not be, which leads to the attitude that certain rules don't apply "because I'm trained".

The untrained may be safer because they fear the results and are careful. I'm not sure that's the best or most accurate conclusion to draw. It's also the case that some people learn more quickly and thoroughly than others. And some people are better at internalizing lessons and integrating what they learn into their usual activities.

Part of the challenge for those of us who teach people is to find ways to more effectively instill both the knowledge and the inclination to apply that knowledge. It can be one thing to know the rules and another to consistently act accordingly.

So when we teach our Basic Handgun classes, we have students do a lot of "hands-on" exercises with one-on-one instructor supervision. In that way students not only learn the various physical skills involved in handling, loading, unloading and firing guns, but are also continually reminded to do so while observing the safety rules. Our hope is that this helps develop the habit of always doing things properly and safely.

Training on a hot range also helps reinforce the concept that safety applies all the time. And that's particularly important for those who go about their normal business while wearing loaded guns in public. But here it seems that Mr. Zambrana allowed himself to forget that safety applies even in a church closet.

Brian Pfleuger
February 16, 2012, 03:27 PM
I wasn't intending it to be a generalized conclusion. It is true "sometimes". I meant it as a counter to the argument that "training" somehow AUTOMATICALLY makes you safer.

Mostly, training is better than not training. But, some people are cocky and think that being trained makes them above the rules or it can make them lax. The infamous "DEA" video or the recent SEAL who shot himself.... Well trained.... Cocky and prone to bad decisions. The training MAY have made them worse. At least untrained they may have maintained a healthy fear. Maybe not, but sometimes.

I wouldn't tell somebody "Nah! Don't get training! You're safer without it!" but it certainly can be the case with some people.

Frank Ettin
February 16, 2012, 03:37 PM
...But, some people are cocky and think that being trained makes them above the rules or it can make them lax.... And some people are cocky and think they know it all without training, or that they've gotten adequately trained watching someone on YouTube. Cocky, foolish, delusional, etc., all come in a variety of flavors.

Single Six
February 16, 2012, 05:30 PM
A solemn reminder indeed; pretty much every rule of gun safety obviously violated here. One moment of carelessness, a lifetime of how-could-I-be-so-bloody-stupid regret.

Cascade1911
February 16, 2012, 06:23 PM
I feel about "accidental" shootings like I do about hunting "accidents". I think anyone carrying a firearm, whether hunting or just carrying, has to be ready to take FULL responsibility for his firearm.

I believe that if an innocent person is injured unintentionally by a bullet discharged by your firearm, whether in your possession or voluntarily handed to another person needs to be prosocuted. OK, it was an accident but there needs to be serious legal repercussions. As I've posted before in relation to hunting accidents I'll say with relation to any negligent discharge that causes an innocents injury: If a gun owner is not confident that he can handle a firearm without unintentionally injuring another, don't handle a gun.

To put it another way, why should it matter if someone meant to shoot an innocent person or did it accidentally? The damage was done and that person needs to be punished. Should the punishment be the same, I don't believe so but "not charged" or a slap on the wrist should not be result either.


What I believe is that the requirement for possessing and carrying a firearm in this country by an adult citizen should be that the citizen must understand the dangers and responsibilities of carrying and the consequences of not using proper caution and prudence.

Rusty35
February 16, 2012, 06:41 PM
Cascade1911
Senior Member

I feel about "accidental" shootings like I do about hunting "accidents". I think anyone carrying a firearm, whether hunting or just carrying, has to be ready to take FULL responsibility for his firearm.

I believe that if an innocent person is injured unintentionally by a bullet discharged by your firearm, whether in your possession or voluntarily handed to another person needs to be persecuted. OK, it was an accident but there needs to be serious legal repercussions. As I've posted before in relation to hunting accidents I'll say with relation to any negligent discharge that causes an innocents injury: If a gun owner is not confident that he can handle a firearm without unintentionally injuring another, don't handle a gun.

To put it another way, why should it matter if someone meant to shoot an innocent person or did it accidentally? The damage was done and that person needs to be punished. Should the punishment be the same, I don't believe so but "not charged" or a slap on the wrist should not be result either.


What I believe is that the requirement for possessing and carrying a firearm in this country by an adult citizen should be that the citizen must understand the dangers and responsibilities of carrying and the consequences of not using proper caution and prudence.

Not at all sure persecution is called for.

Cascade1911
February 16, 2012, 08:20 PM
You're correct, prosecution is what I meant.

Brian Pfleuger
February 17, 2012, 09:47 AM
By all accounts, Zambrana is a good, Christian man, long time member of the church and friend of the victims family.

I am confident that living with what he has done is sufficient prosecution.

Gbro
February 17, 2012, 01:29 PM
I also am not fully in agreement with mandatory training. We do have at this time mandatory firearms training for concealed carry here in MN but there is also a bill for Constitutional carry like Wyoming recently adopted. I presum the mandatory training will then not be a requirment. How then do we encourage people to take training? Would a statute that demands a ten year sentence in the event of a accidental death or great bodily harm if no training certificate be justifiable to encourage elective training, or some such carrot?
I have to refresh my EMT certification every other year and although after 32 years the required 24 hrs plus CPR and continuing education meaning monthly training gets tiring but also there is an awareness of just how much this is needed.
I believe it really comes down to attitude! I have had people come to CCC with a very negative attitude and I always start out with an apology to anyone in the class that has more firearms experience than I and confess upfront that I am not the most knowledgable firearms person around.
I have never had a bad review.

Cascade1911
February 18, 2012, 07:25 AM
I respectfully must say I don't share your confidence Peetzakilla.

I am really tired of the endless incidents of "oops, sorry I maimed or killed someone 'cause I'm stupid, I'm really sorry, it was an accident!". "Sorry" doesn't fix it. I believe adults should decide their own actions, take responsibility for their choices and accept the consequences if they fail in that responsibility. I don't see "living with what he has done" as sufficient consequence to completely ignoring the most basic principles of safety. Do I think paying for him to sit in a jail cell is indicated? No. How about Zambrana looses his right to posses a firearm of any sort (he has proved he is not mature enough) and maybe a nice hefty slice of community service in a ER or something of the sort.

Look around our society. At every turn we are the enablers allowing adults to increasingly dodge the consequences of their poor decisions and then we decry the decay of said society.

To sum up and try to keep this on the original topic, I believe proper training is invaluable but all the mandated training in the world will not correct the irresponsible behavior of an adult who has chosen to act like a child. (... lets sneak into a church closet and play with our guns...Really?)

Brian Pfleuger
February 18, 2012, 10:59 AM
Well, we can disagree but the problem is not with the consequences, it is with the foresight.

Think about it this way....

You realize you're doing something foolish and might end up shooting someone in the head. THAT is not enough to stop you but if you think you might have to do some community service ALSO, that will make you not do it?

Nope. If potentially shooting someone doesn't stop you, nothing else will.

Of course, with any sane human being, the realization that you might shoot someone WILL be enough to stop you.

That's where the problem lies. The consequences are already horrendous. I'd bet this guy would do community service for life if he could take that bullet back.

It's all about the foresight.

Brian Pfleuger
February 19, 2012, 12:51 AM
The young lady has died from her injuries.:(

wayneinFL
February 19, 2012, 01:16 AM
Now he has to live with killing her.

I have an uncle who killed a carload of people shortly after he got back from Vietnam. He was drunk, passing cars over a hill and hit someone head-on. I can't imagine living with that.

We have traffic "accidents" all the time. While it angers me that 40,000 people are killed every year often due to negligence, I doubt that a felony conviction every time there's a traffic fatality is going to solve anything. These people think, "it can't happen to me" right up to the point it happens to them.

And for some reason, society accepts those deaths-by-negligence as a tradeoff for transportation, but when a (very rare) death occurs from a firearms accident, society calls to put the guy in prison. Why is it the two are so different in the eyes of society and fellow gun owners?

And I'm not trying to excuse the guy for a blatantly negligent act, but wondering why there is such a disparity in perception of this negligent act and the hundreds of negligent acts that caused deaths by other methods today? Is it because of the bias society has toward firearms? Are we doing it too?

Frank Ettin
February 19, 2012, 01:42 AM
...And I'm not trying to excuse the guy for a blatantly negligent act, but wondering why there is such a disparity in perception of this negligent act and the hundreds of negligent acts that caused deaths by other methods today? Is it because of the bias society has toward firearms?...Several observations:

[1] While causing injury or death through one's negligence/legal fault doesn't always give rise to criminal liability, it does result in civil liability. Whether involving driving a car, an unsafe product, medical malpractice or an unintentional discharge of a firearm, the negligent actor will be civilly liable to compensate his victim for the damage he caused.

[2] Things like driving a car or practicing medicine are fairly complex tasks. On the other hand, avoiding hurting someone through unintentionally firing your gun involves only following a few simple rules.

MLeake
February 19, 2012, 01:42 AM
IMO, the drunk driver who kills a person should also be in prison.

The level of negligence is the key; driving drunk is inherently criminally negligent.

Simple negligence is different. A person who sets a firearm down, but slips or drops it, is not the same as a person who carelessly pulls a trigger while violating several basic safety rules.

IE, it isn't the death, on its own, it's the net actions that led to the death.

youngunz4life
February 19, 2012, 02:19 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/18/woman-20-dies-after-freak-us-church-shooting/?intcmp=trending

Cascade1911
February 19, 2012, 06:19 AM
OK Petezakilla, you've explained that community service is worthless. Is there no consequence that will make even a reckless person pause and consider the possible cost? If not, do we surrender to the Anti's and admit that the more people we allow to carry the more likely there will be similar outcomes as the OT?

And for some reason, society accepts those deaths-by-negligence as a tradeoff for transportation, but when a (very rare) death occurs from a firearms accident, society calls to put the guy in prison. Why is it the two are so different in the eyes of society and fellow gun owners?

To me, negligence is negligence. If some one chooses to drink and drive, text and drive or speed recklessly and the result is the injury or death of another there should be real consequences.

The last brings something to my mind that may argue against Petesakilla's premiss that consequences will not stop recklessness. Back in the late 70's and early 80's penalties for DWI were increased. I remember the penalties seemed harsh enough back then to give even irresponsible teenagers such as myself and my friends pause before driving under the influence. I have seen numbers thrown around about a decrease of 52% of DWI related fatalities. Though I can not attest to the accuracy of that number it does coincide with my observation that people spend a little more time thinking about how they are going to get home from a party then they did in the seventies. Of course, it could have been the increased education that came with the increased penalties but what I hear people talk about when deciding to leave the car home is the risk of loss of license and money, they "KNOW" they wouldn't hurt anyone.

To close, while I believe that most people have no desire to hurt another I believe that self interest and self preservation are stronger influences still and stand a better chance of giving a person pause before engaging in a reckless act.

But maybe that's just me.

Cascade1911
February 19, 2012, 06:34 AM
Simple negligence is different. A person who sets a firearm down, but slips or drops it, is not the same as a person who carelessly pulls a trigger while violating several basic safety rules.

I totally agree. There are degrees. I person who drives 5 mph over the limit and is going with the flow and gets into a wreck is different than a person driving 20 over and weaving in and out of traffic. In the first case the driver could reasonably assume he was not significantly increasing the chances of injuring another while in the second the driver can not make that assumption. That being said, a little or a lot, an adult must take responsibility for his or her choices.

Brian Pfleuger
February 19, 2012, 08:57 AM
First, accidental shootings by CCers are not a national epidemic. We have to be very, very careful about involving the nanny state to solve all our problems. Once they're involved, they just want to get more involved. They're already too involved. DWI was and is a national epidemic. It unfortunately needed to be addresses by the government.

I don't believe there necessarily is or needs to be a solution. Yes, these events are horrific. Every one understands that, but it's like winning the lottery in reverse. It is so rare as to nearly defy imagination. A whole series of events has to go wrong in just the wrong way at just the wrong time or nothing happens at all, or it's just another negligent discharge that we never knew happened.

I do believe there needs to be a change in the way we teach the 4 rules. I don't know how the high dollar, voluntary, pay to go classes handle gun safety training but I do know that every class I've ever attended gives no substantial explanation being presenting the 4 rules.

What I would think would be common sense, and is in fact "common" in the sense of availability to everyone, is unfortunately not used by everyone. Instructors need to teach not just what the rules are but also the simple fact that there are times and places where one or more of them CAN NOT be followed. There simply are times and places where there is NO safe direction to point a gun. In those times and places, the solution is to keep your hands off the thing. Leave it in it's holster where it belongs.

No one that I have experience with teaches those things.

That's our only solution. We don't need yet more nanny state interference. We don't need enormous, bureaucratic solutions to isolated, extremely rare problems.

Now, I'm off to church, with my gun, which shall remain in it's holster, as it should be, "in public", always, unless life is at stake.

Cascade1911
February 19, 2012, 09:36 AM
I don't think our viewpoints are very far apart. I'm not advocating "Nanny State" intervention, far from it. I am very much a libertarian with existentialist leanings. The reason we have a "Nanny State" is because people are not willing to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions. That is when mommy has to come in and make the decisions instead. I believe a citizen should have the right to chose to defend himself. When a citizens decisions recklessly injure another citizen, THEN a bag of hammers needs to drop.

I think I've made my position as clear as I can.

The only thing else we can do as gun owners and enthusiasts is to preach safety and address unsafe behavior where ever we see it.

Say a prayer for Hannah Kelley Peet.

Pond, James Pond
February 19, 2012, 10:03 AM
I can see the arguements against mandatory training, but I can also see that there is a benefits.

Seeing some of the absurd manoeuvres on the roads here, I sometimes I feel an IQ test minimum would do more for safety than any amount of training, be it for the car, or the firearm....:rolleyes:

Still, if people are against basic training, yet want to improve safety, what about advertising campaigns?

Since the 90s, in the UK, there have been a whole series of graphic, shocking adverts designed to illustrate the immediate and not so immediate consequences of driving while under the effect of alcohol. Since then there have also been adverts to promote the awareness of drivers regarding cyclists and motorcyclists, wearing seatbelt etc...

It's all worked. The incidence of DUI dropped significantly, the culture of the "designated driver" rose and the general attitude toward DUI shifted from acceptable (and macho in some cases) to "uncool" and stupid.

In France, I also remember similar education ads that tried to lighten the subject with humour and metaphor. Drink driving there is still bad. Not as bad as it is here, but still pretty bad.

Something, gritty, real, shocking yet plausible. Something that viewers can relate to. I don't mean ads saying guns are bad: on the contrary. I mean ads that say that guns are only as bad/good as the person operating it...

Some gun owners might start to consider things they'd always thought as "never happen to me" situations, and perhaps some anti-firearm people may realise the difference between the gun itself and the actions of the operator.

If you can't appeal to someone's common sense, then making it an issue of "face" can work wonders!!

It's an option....

treg
February 19, 2012, 10:36 AM
It's an option....

But you can't fix stupid.

Technology has made it possible for people to live among us who 500 years ago would have starved or froze to death.

Train them as you will, they'll still be unable to process logical thought.

Pond, James Pond
February 19, 2012, 10:52 AM
But you can't fix stupid.

So perhaps the minimum IQ idea has legs after all!!

In all seriousness, evidently, based on the change in public attitude to drink driving such campaigns do garner benefits.

You can't make people smarter, but you can encourage them to use the brains they've been given.

I feel that there are many smart people out there that do stupid things because they don't take the time to think about it, or question their own attitudes.

There is a difference between not thinking and not being good at it, even if the results are often indistinguishable!!

TenRing
February 19, 2012, 10:56 AM
This is a tragedy that can be minimized but not eliminated through training. I like the training requirement because at least it points out the responsibility of safe gun handling, even if the training is poorly conducted and even if the trainee does not absorb 100% of the information. Gun training is a lifelong process that only begins with the course.

People who value safety are capable of being safe with a firearm but unfortunately, even a lengthy training course won't add any IQ points to someone who thinks all they have to do is load up and strap on to be safe.

People gladly register for a six week Driver's Education course and pay several hundred dollars for the privilege. But when it comes to gun training, many people look for the cheapest, fastest course that offers a guarantee of successful completion.

The part of the article that I hate the most is when it states "The gun went off and fired through a wall, striking 20-year-old ...". The gun didn't just go off since it has no mind of its own. The gun owner must have pulled the trigger, breaking several safe gun handling rules including the one about keeping the finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

treg
February 19, 2012, 11:09 AM
I feel that there are many smart people out there that do stupid things because they don't take the time to think about it, or question their own attitudes.

Those were the people smart enough to cut wood to heat themselves but didn't think about the upcoming winter and therefore froze to death.

Cascade1911
February 19, 2012, 11:22 AM
Do you think it's a matter of IQ or is it attitude? I've seen people with limited intelligence perform demanding and sometimes dangerous tasks. If anything they take the task at hand very seriously and pay more attention then I would. The people to beware of are the "smart" know it all's. They won't mess up. They are in control.

Double Naught Spy
February 19, 2012, 12:22 PM
And I'm not trying to excuse the guy for a blatantly negligent act, but wondering why there is such a disparity in perception of this negligent act and the hundreds of negligent acts that caused deaths by other methods today? Is it because of the bias society has toward firearms? Are we doing it too?

Yes, we are doing it to. We hold a set of rules in very high esteem and think that everyone in the world should adhere to these rules which would be nice, but not everyone sees the same importance in the rules as we do. We have folks that will fly into violent rage if somebody shoots at another target while we are down range checking our hits, even if the target being shot at is 50 or 60 feet away, but we will take nearly for granted almost getting run down at high speed by a guy running a red light that passes within a foot or two of us in a crosswalk. We shake our heads, have a few unpleasant thoughts about the guy, and continue across the street.

So who was in more danger? Was it the guy in the crosswalk or the guy at the gun range?

Pond, James Pond
February 19, 2012, 12:23 PM
Those were the people smart enough to cut wood to heat themselves but didn't think about the upcoming winter and therefore froze to death.

Yes, but that was Cro-Magnon 30K years ago, and this is now.

We now have the means of deseminating information. Some may take it on board, some may not.

I'm sure some that survived a harsh winter learnt from their lesson and stocked wood for the next one..... Those are the types that might benefit from what I'm mooting.

Pond, James Pond
February 19, 2012, 12:35 PM
Do you think it's a matter of IQ or is it attitude?

I guess both, and sometimes at the same time.

Attitudes are often a product of upbringing, when we tend not to question what we are told/shown....
I feel that the smarter someone is the more likely they are consider their own attitudes now and again.

Whether they change them for the better is a different story, but self-reflection is a good start and sometimes well produced ad campaigns can nudge people in that direction, with good effect.

Its an alternative and, based on the examples mentioned above, that I've witnessed, I wouldn't see it doing any harm, if done properly.

Brian Pfleuger
February 19, 2012, 06:52 PM
It's not a matter of IQ.

Raise your hand if you've never done anything REALLY stupid.

Any hands up? Keep them up. I'm going to point out all the liars. They're the ones with their hands up.

It's a lack of foresight. Maybe some "it can't happen to me" attitude. Maybe naivety.

It's not because people are stupid.

Pond, James Pond
February 19, 2012, 11:35 PM
It's not a matter of IQ.
It's a lack of foresight. Maybe some "it can't happen to me" attitude. Maybe naivety.
It's not because people are stupid.

And yet intelligence facilitates making better judgements on likely/possible consequences than not.

It is over simplistic to suggest that intelligence does not play a part in how you handle a potentially dangerous object/situation.

Yes, we've all done something stupid in our lives, but the difference between smarter people and those not so smart is that the former are more likely to realise it was stupid, in retrospect, and change their behaviour. They are also more likely to see a potential for mishap, before they start.

Those less blessed may never realise it was something stupid in the first place...

After all that is what intelligence is in essence, a complex problem solving program...

wayneinFL
February 19, 2012, 11:48 PM
And yet intelligence facilitates making better judgements on likely/possible consequences than not.

A doctor I used to know in Arizona told me whenever he had people in the ER for firearms accidents, they were usually college educated people there on vacation. The less educated locals were safer. I don't think intelligence has much to do with it. A five year old can be taught that if you point the gun in an unsafe direction and pull the trigger, someone's going to be hurt. They can understand the consequences. They just don't always judge risk real well. Same thing that people do when they're driving.

Any 2nd grader can tell you to stop on red, or that the speed limit is 70, and that it's dangerous to break the law. But a lot of adults with high IQs will still take that chance when they're late for work.

Pond, James Pond
February 19, 2012, 11:59 PM
A doctor I used to know in Arizona told me whenever he had people in the ER for firearms accidents, they were usually college educated people there on vacation. The less educated locals were safer. I don't think intelligence has much to do with it.

Your example compares education, not intelligence.

The two are not the same and indeed some less educated people may easily be much smarter than someone who went to university...

I don't want to get into a debate obout what intelligence is.
If everyone goes back to my initial posts on the subject, it is pretty clear that my comment about minimum IQ was tongue in cheek and we are all focusing on the wrong comment.

I do feel that society would benefit from some people not being allowed to drive a car due to some of the things I've seen drivers do: a total lack of maturity from grown adults, but I can still see that an IQ test is not really workable. Psych evaluations maybe..... some of them could do with it!

My main and only real comment on this thread was the introduction of an ad campaign to hopefully educate some firearms owners on what they should already know and why.

That was it.
If that idea does not appeal, so be it

Glenn E. Meyer
February 20, 2012, 10:48 AM
Why Smart People Do Stupid Things by Ostrom!

As far as country folks vs. city folks with accidents with guns, it's an empirical question. Guys in the country get shot by their dog or crossing a fence with a loaded gun. Who knows with a good sample and some Chi-square.

markj
February 20, 2012, 05:38 PM
Is there no consequence that will make even a reckless person pause and consider the possible cost?
The death penalty doesnt stop folks from murder. What penalty would stop a person from having an accident? How many folks been shot with their own gun cause they thought it was unloaded? How many times have I read here on this forum about just that? Shootingg the wall, ceiling, etc?

It happens when a person becomes lax and doesnt follow thru every time. Consistancy is the key here.

Cascade1911
February 20, 2012, 05:52 PM
The death penalty doesnt stop folks from murder.

Better to say the death penalty doesn't stop ALL folks from murder. I'll wager it stops many.

Brian Pfleuger
February 20, 2012, 10:46 PM
The problem with penalties is that what separates this guy from all of us is that the stars were all lined up wrong when his stupid thing happened while we all got away with whatever stupid thing we did.

We've all done things that could have turned out very, very bad. But, there's a list of things that all have to go wrong for our stupid things to end in tragedy. For most of us, the stars don't line up.

Be honest. We've all done it. Maybe not with a gun. Maybe with a car, or fireworks, motorcycle, power tools, electricity... Whatever.

Our stupid thing didn't kill anyone BY SHEAR LUCK. His did.

He should go to jail because he got really unlucky and we shouldn't because we got lucky?

Fishing_Cabin
February 20, 2012, 10:59 PM
peetzakilla,

Yes, he should be tried, hopefully found guilty and punished. He took a life, period. Whether by accident, negligence, or evil intent, he took a life all the same. The only exception is self defense.

Threads, and in person conversations like this is what pushes me away from many pro-gun stances. Take a life, with the exception of self defense, a trial, and if guilty a punishment should be served.

K_Mac
February 20, 2012, 11:44 PM
Yes, he should be tried, hopefully found guilty and punished. He took a life, period. Whether by accident, negligence, or evil intent, he took a life all the same.

Threads, and in person conversations like this is what pushes me away from many pro-gun stances. Take a life, with the exception of self defense, a trial, and if guilty a punishment should be served.

It is this sort of black/white view of justice that pushes me away from those who see crime and punishment as a simple problem. Simple answers to complex problems are rarely of any value.

Frank Ettin
February 21, 2012, 12:09 AM
...he should be tried, hopefully found guilty and punished. He took a life, period. Whether by accident, negligence, or evil intent, he took a life all the same. The only exception is self defense...That is not what the law is. Criminal liability attaches when homicide is committed intentionally or through willful, wanton and reckless conduct. Criminal liability does not attach when homicide is the result of simple negligence.

farmerboy
February 21, 2012, 02:18 AM
What of a man finds a new lover, shoots his wife and claims he was cleaning it and it accidentally goes off. It's an accident then and should we say to give him a weekend or two with community service them because he said it was an accident ?

MLeake
February 21, 2012, 02:26 AM
I don't think pointing a gun in the direction of a church congregation and pulling the trigger is "simple negligence."

I think it's profoundly stupid, and meets my personal threshold for what should constitute criminally culpable negligence.

Pointing the gun somewhere reasonably safe and pulling the trigger, without verifying chamber status, might be reasonably argued to be simple negligence. That's not what happened in this case.

Frank Ettin
February 21, 2012, 02:42 AM
I don't think pointing a gun in the direction of a church congregation and pulling the trigger is "simple negligence."...And that will be for the DA, and a jury, if the DA brings charges, to decide.

fawcettlee
February 21, 2012, 03:19 AM
But it might be criminally negligent manslaughter which is still a felony punishable with serious jail time. Ejecting a magazine but not checking the chamber before pulling the trigger and causing a death fits the description of criminally negligent for me.

wayneinFL
February 21, 2012, 03:44 AM
What of a man finds a new lover, shoots his wife and claims he was cleaning it and it accidentally goes off. It's an accident then and should we say to give him a weekend or two with community service them because he said it was an accident ?

No, we get down to the bottom of whether it really was an accident or not. Otherwise we'd have to put people in prison for all kinds of accidents just in case it was murder.

silvermane_1
February 21, 2012, 05:55 AM
well here in Washington state there aren't any training requirements for a cpl, just have to be able to lawfully own a firearm is all, not that im against firearms training, and it's always sad to hear about a ND/AD,but Washington is a "low-income firearm owner" friendly state, and the cpl is good for 5 years and cost $55.75.

TailGator
February 21, 2012, 11:06 AM
The degree of empathy and consideration for others does not seem to me to be linked to intelligence, and my observations over 55 years of life indicate that neither is the related willingness to think about the consequences of one's actions to others.

I don't think it is symptomatic of a nanny state to hold people responsible for thoughtless actions that reach the point of negligence. Homicide as a result of negligence is a different crime than premeditated murder, and in my mind it is just to consider both crimes, but with different penalties. In my state, causing a death by drunk driving carries a separate charge from the drunk driving itself. I consider that a recognition in the law of the fact that there is a significant segment of the population that considers the consequences of their actions to themselves much more highly than the consequences of those same actions to others. That seems an appropriate role of law to me.

C0untZer0
February 21, 2012, 11:37 AM
I just read that story of the guy who fired his Ruger in a Walmart bathroom and claims he dropped it and it went off.

People can say that we have a right to bear arms, but in Illinois I've never been able to exercise that right and when it comes down to it the 2nd Amendment only means what the courts and case law says it means.

I have been active in gun rights debate since 1987, and we have been fighting an ideological war, played out in the courts and the polls.

When there is an negligent discharge, I feel it adds credibiltiy to the false claims of the Brady Campaign, LCAV and others. I can't help but feel it's a setback.

I know that the right to keep and bear arms is a right just like the right to free speech, and just because someone abuses their right to free speech doesn't mean they lose it, but as I said, the 2nd Amendment so far, at least in Illinois has only been what the courts have said it is.

If more mandatory training and frequent continuing education would cut down on NDs then I'm for it.

And if someone negligently fires their Ruger in Walmart - they just lost their RTKBA as far as I'm concerned.

There are so many threads here about people that are miffed because this company or that doesn't allow people to carry arms into their facilitites.

After a guy shoots his Ruger in a Walmart bathroom can you blame Walmart for instituting a no-guns policy in their stores?

Mandatory training and continuing education requirments are better than having guns banned everywhere you could possibly go.

Frank Ettin
February 21, 2012, 11:50 AM
But it might be criminally negligent manslaughter which is still a felony punishable with serious jail time....Provide a citation to a legal authority defining the elements of a felony called "negligent manslaughter." It's more commonly referred to as "involuntary manslaughter", and requires some level of fault beyond simple negligence, a level of fault usually referred to as "gross negligence" or "willful, wanton and reckless" or simply "reckless."

There are generally three level of fault recognized in the law: negligence; gross negligence (or willful, wanton and reckless); and intentional. Often personal injury caused by the second two will result in some criminal responsibility.

Criminal responsibility does not arise from personal injury caused by simple negligence unless the underlying negligent act is itself a crime (e. g., drunk driving).

In every State one will find a great deal of law, including both statutes and court decisions, which will define and describe the various ways to determine whether particular conduct in a particular case is "negligent", "grossly negligent" or "intentional."

Cascade1911
February 21, 2012, 05:06 PM
Peetzakilla,

My stupid thing: as a teenager I went out drinking and drove home. Well, I think I drove home, I woke in by bed with my car in the driveway and no one told me later that anyone else drove my car. I realized then that I could have killed someone. The thing is, if I had I would have expected to be tried, convicted and jailed. I was lucky this didn't happen, it could have. I certainly didn't intend to harm anyone. I believe if I or anyone else uses the poor judgment to drink and drive and has the "Bad Luck" to maim or kill someone they need to be punished as a warning to others. If the "Stars Align" when some idiot sneaks into a closet in a public facility to play with his gun while not making sure it is unloaded then he needs to be punished.

Cascade1911
February 21, 2012, 05:18 PM
A curious thing about training here in NY State. What many states such as Ct or FL require for training prior to being issued a carry permit is basically illegal here in NY. The way the law is in NY, any adult of 21 years of age or older can not touch a pistol unless he has a permit. A local pistol club used to offer safety training for people interested in getting a permit but wanting some training before hand but landed in hot water for it.

K_Mac
February 21, 2012, 05:43 PM
For those of you who demand punishment what would you give? What is justice here? What would it take to prevent others from the, " transient lapses of judgment or attention" that fiddletown recently mentioned in another thread. Do you really think fear of punishment will do it? How many people are killed on the highways of our country each year because of a transient lapse of attention? How many hunters are killed because of a transient lapse in judgement? If punishment was such a powerful deterrent why are our prisons so full, and our crime rates so high?

I completely agree accountability for our actions is an important part of our social fabric, but arbitrary punishment for stupid, tragic accidents will not stop them.

Cascade1911
February 21, 2012, 07:04 PM
We punish people for the lapse in judgement of driving under the influence. I believe this is just.

Here we have adults indulging in a legal activity which is known to lead to a condition where a judgement is impaired. We punish these people for making the poor judgment of diving while drunk even if they don't injure anyone.

Should we not punish drunk drivers?

We have a case of an adult choosing to posses a lethal weapon as should be his right. His responsibility should be to take reasonable care to make sure his right to carry does not interfere with another's right to live. If he fails in this, not in a freak accident but in complete disregard of basic safety rules should he be treated differently than a drunk driver? Why?

K_Mac
February 21, 2012, 07:18 PM
Drunk driving is a crime, and any damage done because of it a crime. Being stupid is not a crime. If it were many of us would be serving jail time. He had a stupid lapse of judgement that tragically resulted in a young woman being killed. It was completely preventable. What is your punishment for this "crime"? It is not a sarcastic question. I don't know what justice is here. I just don't see how imprisoning this guy will do anything but ruin more lives.

Cascade1911
February 21, 2012, 07:23 PM
How many hunters are killed because of a transient lapse in judgement?

My point exactly. How many hunters are punished for negligently killing another? It's always a "hunting accident". I thought that poor SOB dressed in orange was a deer. Oh, the guy had a brown coat so I thought he was a deer (does this guy know what a deer looks like?). "I took a "sound shot"". (This is not criminally negligent?).

To get back to the original topic, if a person who knowingly takes a firearm into a populated area, does not make sure it is clear of ammunition and even if he thought he did, points it in a direction where he has no idea what is beyond AND puts his finger on the trigger is not criminally or recklessly negligent then who is?

Why can we not demand better of our fellow gun owners? Why should they be excused of such idiocy?

I'm sorry, I think I've beat the poor nag into a red sludge. Please forgive me. I've always been dismayed by how completely irresponsible hunters could get away with murder and I don't feel people choosing to go armed should be given a free pass because they "made a mistake". If you choose to be armed you must choose NOT to make a mistake.

Frank Ettin
February 21, 2012, 07:33 PM
We're starting to get into the realm of fruitless speculations.

[1] We have very few details. We only have a general idea, based on news media accounts of what happened.

[2] In assessing legal liability and culpability, details frequently matter a great deal.

[3] And Zambrana's legal liability will decided based on Florida law.

[4] I have no doubt that Mr. Zambrana can be held legally responsible in some way. But whether it will only be a matter of civil liability or criminal charges will be brought and sustained remains to be seen.

K_Mac
February 21, 2012, 07:33 PM
Cascade you make a compelling case. You may be right. I have way more questions than answers, and I appreciate your serious reply.

Cascade1911
February 21, 2012, 07:35 PM
Kmac, here's another question. Why is someone drinking making the stupid lack of judgment to drive a lethal vehicle committing a crime, even if he doesn't kill someone while a gun owner, making a whole cascade of poor judgements while possessing a firearm that results in another persons death is just an unfortunate accident? Please, explain the difference?

If we, the advocates of gun ownership and carry can not expect as much let alone better from people we are allowing to walk among us with deadly weapons than a any patron of a bar why should the people who fear gun ownership?

Goodnight and Goodluck

Cascade1911
February 21, 2012, 07:57 PM
Fiddletown, you are correct in all your points.

My posts have not tried to address the legal issue of the original case but more the philosophical idea of personal responsibility when choosing to exercise the right of going armed.

I don't want to turn this into a crusade so I'll leave it alone (unless directly addressed.)

K_Mac
February 21, 2012, 08:00 PM
Driving while drunk is not something that happens in a instant. It is a deliberate act of defiance of the law. Yes there was a series of mistakes made by Zambrano that culminated in the trigger being pulled on a loaded chamber. It was not deliberate violation of the law.

If we, the advocates of gun ownership and carry can not expect as much let alone better from people we are allowing to walk among us with deadly weapons than a any patron of a bar why should the people who fear gun ownership?

An excellent question. My real concern is not in the expecting, but the enforcing.

EDIT: fiddletown I will leave it alone also. I do think it is a topic worthy of discussing and appreciate a place to do it.

Frank Ettin
February 21, 2012, 08:03 PM
...My posts have not tried to address the legal issue of the original case but more the philosophical idea of personal responsibility when choosing to exercise the right of going armed... And I completely agree that anyone who chooses to go armed in public needs to accept personal responsibility for his conduct (actually everyone should, but that's another story).

Fishing_Cabin
February 21, 2012, 08:32 PM
An excellent question. My real concern is not in the expecting, but the enforcing.

We may all find common ground on expecting the best behavior of each of us in public. You do bring up an interesting question about the concern of enforcing... This is a point we all have (myself included) voiced different opinions on.

While this will be up to the jurisdiction having authority in florida to investigate and to go from there as far as any charges, perhaps maybe we should look at this another way. As a law abiding firearms owner, if this had been your or my daughter, would it make a difference, or help to provide any closure, etc, if charges are not filed, or are filed?

While many here speak of how the person who fired the firearm has to live with this on his mind, so does the young lady's family/friends.

Also, as with others, I too will with hold any further comments unless asked specifically

sakeneko
February 21, 2012, 10:48 PM
I just read through the thread. I think back on page 1, Peetzakilla summed it up: one bad choice would not have caused that young woman to be shot, but one *good* choice could have prevented it. This is so sad.

youngunz4life
February 22, 2012, 05:25 AM
http://www.kptv.com/story/16591993/southern-or-man-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-himself-in-head

I'm guessing maybe this guy was completely clueless about firearms or had a momentary, deadly lapse of judgement(hopefully he wasn't under the influence).

MLeake
February 22, 2012, 06:27 AM
The irony of that linked article, younggunz4life, is that the accompanying picture shows a Browning Hi-Power, a gun that (unmodified) has a magazine disconnect safety. Odds are that is not the type of gun the guy in that article was using (shot himself after removing the magazine from whatever gun he had).

The article didn't really describe the environment in which that shooter was performing his demonstration.

In the case under discussion in this thread, though, Zambrana was manipulating a gun in an occupied building.

While fiddletown is correct, in that a court will decide if it was simple negligence or something more culpable, my opinion is that the closest traffic parallel would be a guy showing off a car he was trying to sell by gunning the engine and speeding in a residential neighborhood.

To me, neither would be "simple negligence," if injury or death to a bystander were to occur.

I think the thing that may help Zambrana most is that the victim's family seem to want to treat this as an unfortunate accident. I would not fault the prosecutor for honoring the family's wishes, and taking a more compassionate approach.

But I also wouldn't fault him if he went for negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.

Brian Pfleuger
February 22, 2012, 10:00 AM
I wonder what punishment each of us would deserve if our "stupid thing" had killed someone rather than, by sheer luck, having got away with it?

Because we have each done something negligent that could have killed someone if we'd won the "bad luck lottery".

I wonder if we'd be calling for charges? Saying "Nope, no, I was negligent. Charge me with homicide!"?

Did Zambrana do a really stupid thing? Yep. He sure did.

When I was in my teens and early 20s, I participated in MANY illegal street races. I drove 50-70 mph on downtown city streets. I specifically remember one time going almost 90 in a 45. I once passed an unmarked car on the highway going 120+. Almost killed my best friend in an accident. (Yeah, it was even an accident caused by negligence!)

I could have EASILY killed someone. I got LUCKY and didn't.

Zambrana got UNlucky and did.

He didn't do it on purpose any more than I would have.

He has and will suffer enough. He didn't push a drunk homeless guy into a canal and watch him drown, which is what a guy who applied for a job with me had done. HE got Criminally Negligent Homicide, and deserved it.

Zambrana had a really, really, really, worst possible kind of bad day that will lead to a really bad life for a good long time.

Leave the poor man alone.

Cascade1911
February 22, 2012, 05:46 PM
If you did kill someone do you feel you should not have been punished?

I wonder if we'd be calling for charges? Saying "Nope, no, I was negligent. Charge me with homicide!"?

Do you really think that statement is any kind of argument against punishment for recklessly negligent acts?

Zambrana got UNlucky...

Nope, Hannah Kelley got unlucky, Zambrana was criminally reckless.

Zambrana had a really, really, really, worst possible kind of bad day that will lead to a really bad life for a good long time.

No again. Hanna Kelley had the worst possible kind of bad day and will have no more. Zambrana had many choices and many chances to NOT kill Hannah Kelley. Hanna had no choices. What leads you to say Zambrana have a bad life for a long time. I don't know the guy. He obviously did not have a high regard for his neighbors safety before the incident, why should I believe that has changed now? Because he said he didn't mean it, feels really bad and is really, really sorry?

How is it "bad luck" to take a fire arm into a closet in a public place, fail to unload it, point it in a direction you don't know is safe, put your finger on the trigger and pull the trigger? You call that "bad luck"? Hanna had bad luck. Zambrana had choices, many of them.

I know I said I was going to drop this but when the perpetrator becomes the victim, I could not stay away.

Brian Pfleuger
February 22, 2012, 05:53 PM
The perpetrator is not the victim.

I'm really glad that I got away with my stupid things.

I refuse to be unmerciful to those who did not.

youngunz4life
February 22, 2012, 09:47 PM
I too think it is important for those involved in situations such as this to consider what the above post says

MLeake
February 22, 2012, 11:18 PM
PK, I have family members who've been injured by drunk drivers (facial reconstructive surgery required) and idiot street racers (two herniated disks in the neck, one in the lower back, plus shoulder injuries).

I can assure you that, as merciful as you may wish to be toward people who "have a bad day" when they are doing something that truly stupid, I am equally inclined to not be so merciful.

People being merciful toward these idiots when they did similar things in previous incidents is why the same idiots were able to injure my family.

orthosophy
February 23, 2012, 12:06 AM
can I add on a slightly un-related note that I like qualifying, and I wish more instructors for CCW courses were gung-ho about it?

I'm all for giving the nervous people a second chance, if they couldn't get most of their 10 shots in a pie plate at 10 yards.

I'm not for arming people who can't hit what they are aiming at.

I know it's a little ot, but it is mandatory training I'm all in favor of...make your 80 (Or whatever it is where you live) or shoot until you can.

wayneinFL
February 23, 2012, 07:59 PM
can I add on a slightly un-related note that I like qualifying, and I wish more instructors for CCW courses were gung-ho about it?

I'm all for giving the nervous people a second chance, if they couldn't get most of their 10 shots in a pie plate at 10 yards.

I'm not for arming people who can't hit what they are aiming at.

I know it's a little ot, but it is mandatory training I'm all in favor of...make your 80 (Or whatever it is where you live) or shoot until you can.

Personally, I'm not satisfied with getting ten shots in a pie plate at ten yards, but I'm not going to make someone else do that.

How good do these people have to be? Bear in mind most people are not going to attempt to take out an attacker in a hostage situation across a crowded bank lobby. Most are probably comfortable with training themselves to shoot an attacker at arm's length at an ATM, and would never pull a gun in a situation beyond that.

Hell, some of these people may simply want the permit so that they can carry a knife or a Taser. IMO, they shouldn't even have to shoot.

And in any case, I don't see where this would have prevented the situation in the OP.

orthosophy
February 26, 2012, 03:55 AM
it's unrelated to the op. Not to the topic.

And I don't expect them to be Wild Bill Hickock. I just am not comfortable with people who can not shoot a gun accurately being told they are legally covered to carry it in public.

If you shoot me dead, or even worse, my kid or gf while you are defending yourself, it makes you a killer.

Really, I have no problem with the shooting only being a thing for people who intend to carry, I couldn't care less if they want to have a permit to carry weapons with an endorsement section for firearms if you qualify. Personally, I think most people would be better served by a taser anyway. Probably more willing to use it, too.

Brian Pfleuger
February 26, 2012, 09:09 AM
The ability of someone to hit a circle on a piece of paper under classroom conditions is irrelevant to what they might or might not hit in a SD situation.

How many videos have we all seen of police officers returning fire, emptying their guns, from distances of 8, 10, 15 FEET and hit nothing but air?

No matter how poor we might think their training, it is EONS beyond ANY reasonable training that might be required of a CC citizen.

farmerboy
February 26, 2012, 03:06 PM
I work at a dept with two other officers. One cant hit the broad side of a barn if his barrel was resting on it and the other in a situation where is is needed, well I believe he would get back in his vehicle lock the doors and haul butt. Neither one ever shoots and yes get in a situation and see how your score drops...training, training and more

orthosophy
February 28, 2012, 12:29 AM
Peetz, by that argument, why require LEOs to train? Or soldiers? We can't just pick the best video game players and arm them, can we?

or can we?

Honestly, the chances are low, astronomically low that I will ever be shot by a CCW with crappy aim, but someone has to win the lottery. I would just as soon that we enact a reasonable standard, or the anti gun lobby gets even more ammo and we end up being hypocrites. If your sights are off by three feet, or you're not willing to spend the time to hit a non moving pie-plate at ten paces (here in Iowa, you can use a .22 and a laser sight and people still fail because they don't bother to take the time to see if they are set right) maybe you should do the gun owning community a favor and not carry said gun. A headline that reads "Man Accidentally Kills 12-Year-Old" is going to set the cause of legal gun owners back in a hurry. It won't do the 12 year old any good, either.

Brian Pfleuger
February 28, 2012, 08:21 AM
Don't be absurd.

The point is that police, even the worst trained, are trained far beyond what would be any reasonable standard for CC. Not only are they better trained, they deal with and expect violence on a daily basis. Yet, they still sometimes (with boring regularity) blast away and hit nothing but air.

Therefore, your training for CC would be useless in so far as decreasing the likelihood of stray shots wounding bystanders.

Which, by the way, where exactly is this problem that this training is intended to solve? If we're going to offer "solutions" to "problems" lets not be like politicians and invent the problems from thin air.

So....

First, there is no problem to solve.

Second, no reasonable training would solve the problem if it did exist.

Third, there is no training requirement for using a megaphone, worshipping a god or printing a newspaper. What is the rationale for requiring one for some other tool used for some other right? I would argue that certain violent religious groups and certain free speech is far more dangerous than CCWers have PROVEN to not be.

output
February 28, 2012, 10:47 AM
Can someone explain to me how training would have affected the outcome of this situation any differently?

He forgot to check the chamber. He broke a rule, and there should be some sort of consequence(s) for his actions.

I have seen video of a trained Swat officer shooting himself in the leg during a demonstration in a classroom filled with children. How much training do you think that Officer had prior to shooting himself? I just do not think mandatory training would have affected the outcome. We as shooters, friends, family members, need to ingrain the four rules of firearm safety into the heads of our friends and family members.

When I was a child I can remember my grandfather teaching my cousin (and me) a very valuable lesson. My younger cousin kept carelessly handling an unloaded handgun while we were at a shooting range for an outing. My grandfather had explained his version of the four firearm safety rules to us multiple times that day. My cousin obviously was not paying attention, was being naive, rebellious, or might not have cared. Later as we were getting ready to pack up for the day, no hearing protection on, laughing and joking etc… My grandfather asked my cousin to come over one last time and have a look at a different handgun. As my cousin reached in for the handgun my grandfather deliberately discharged it into the side of the hill. That experience scared the crap out of my cousin and me. To this day we still talk about it. It taught us both a lesson. Always treat a firearm with respect. That was over 20 years ago. I am not sure if I agree with the way my Grandfather taught my cousin the lesson but it worked nonetheless. He taught all six of his sons the same way some 20+ years before us.

orthosophy
February 28, 2012, 09:03 PM
I hate to break it to you, but ingraining anything is called training.

informing you of the law is training.

Forcing you to qualify with your own gun is training, if not de jure, de facto.

It is ridiculous to claim no training is needed. Your examples of LEOS being crappy shots is a straw man argument, AND begging the question. Not only are we NOT discussing police training, all you have proven is how training is imperative and even police need more of it.

If you cant hit the bad guy without killing me, don't shoot. Forcing you to listen to that message is called...training. That training forces you to face the fact that you may not be the lone ranger. It makes you aware that you can miss and hit other people. And that is called training.

MLeake
February 28, 2012, 10:45 PM
orthosophy, the thing is, the type of training you want people to get should be something they self-impose, morally.

It should not be a requirement of government, period, because as soon as we ok the government setting training requirements, the stage is set for government to create onerous requirements - such as Chicago requiring training, but banning shooting ranges.

Meanwhile, it seems from your posts that you are borderline anti. Most people would be better off with Tasers? Really?

Interesting, as most police officers only deploy Tasers against unarmed suspects. A LEO will typically only attempt to use a Taser against a suspect who is armed with a contact weapon if there is at least one other LEO present, with gun drawn, who can deal with things if the Taser doesn't resolve the issue.

Even with multiple LEOs present, a LEO won't attempt a Taser against a suspect armed with a ranged weapon (firearm, crossbow, etc).

Plus, you get one shot with the Taser.

I find it mind-numbing how often people will recommend a Taser or OC spray as a viable alternative to a gun. That you would do so shows me that you need more training....

orthosophy
February 28, 2012, 11:36 PM
I have a strict rule against arguing on the internet. Therefore, this is the last post I make on this topic.

Calling me "borderline anti" because I want people to have safe habits, so the DON'T kill other people on accident and cost me my right to carry is asinine.

Calling me anti because I don't want Captain Shakeyhands of the I-dont-care-enough-to-learn-how-to-shoot-my-own-gun Brigade to pull a gun and point it my way is asinine.

Calling me anti for a personal belief that most people wouldn't be willing to use a gun even if they had one and, a taser is better than an easy abduction or providing a criminal with a gun you won't use (or miss them with, because you thought you could manage with no training) is asinine. As a side note, the tasers and stun guns I've seen are darn near foolproof. You probably could use them with no training. At least if you miss you won't hurt an innocent bystander. Assuming someone who never learned how to properly shoot their gun will get more than one useful shot without endangering the rest of us is stretching it.

Ignoring the point that good practices come from someone training you by passing it off as a chance for that evil government to get to you is making me wonder if there are a ton of experts out there who weren't assisted in their own training by a government. I seem to see quite a few using tactics perfected in various armed forces, bureaus, agencies, and departments.

I would never claim training is essential and then deny the ability to get it. That is also an asinine statement totally irrelevant to the discussion.

The idea that you would agree there are certain things a person should have down before they consider carrying a gun would indicate you are in favor of training, but not letting anyone you don't approve of do it. A statement like that --I agree, but you're wrong, because I don't want anyone telling me what to do and it should be a moral thing-- sounds a tad antisocial to me.

As an aside, I agree that morality shouldn't be legislated. I hope the majority of voters do too. My guess is a significant number will side with the "Moral Majority" and vote for a candidate who doesn't agree with you and I.

Frank Ettin
February 29, 2012, 12:25 AM
Getting repetitive and personal. Time to call it a night.