Much as I am opposed to the concept of mandatory training...

[K_Mac]

Cascade you make a compelling case. You may be right. I have way more questions than answers, and I appreciate your serious reply.

[Cascade1911]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Cascade1911

...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]

Originally Posted by K_Mac

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]

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]

http://www.kptv.com/story/16591993/s...imself-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I too think it is important for those involved in situations such as this to consider what the above post says

[MLeake]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.