True or false: "Always keep handguns pointed in a safe direction."

What is it about Eileen Filler-Corn? Oh right, I already answered my own question.

Well, more brilliance from Fairfax County:

Online class to remain an option to get Va. gun permit

A while back, Andrew Goddard took an online firearms training course.

"I learned nothing from it," Goddard told a House of Delegates subcommittee Thursday.

...

Goddard, a gun-control activist whose son Colin was shot in the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, testified in support of a bill (HB1246) that would have removed the option of taking an online class to demonstrate the necessary competence to obtain a concealed handgun permit.

The sponsor of the bill, Del. Eileen Filler-Corn, D-Fairfax County, told the panel the online classes are not an adequate test of handgun competency. For example, she said, a typical question from the online test: "True or false: Always keep handguns pointed in a safe direction."

The Virginia State Police supported Filler-Corn's legislation. But Philip Van Cleave, a gun-rights activist, said there's no evidence that people who have taken online courses are handling guns unsafely.

"Where are the problems?" he asked. "I haven't heard of any."

The Republican-controlled subcommittee agreed and tabled the bill, halting its advance.

Click to expand...

True or false: The Virginia State Police are our friends.

Not in my lifetime.

Lets assume that the anti was correct = you learn nothing from this type of gun safety course.

AND that there have been no problems from people who take the "useless" course.

THEN all courses should be abandoned and declared not needed.

Either way, the anti loses this argument.

I'm afraid I can't speak for …,

the Goddard's learning disabilities, but I suppose Ms. Filler-Corn's dilemma is "Well then, what do you do when there aren't any safes around?"

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29 vs. 11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

"True or false: Always keep handguns pointed in a safe direction."

I hate rules or guidelines that use absolutes like "never" or "always." It's exceedingly difficult to craft any rule that uses "always" that really means "always," including this one.

How do you clean your gun? How do you inspect the barrel, if it is not suited for a mirror from the chamber side? And even if it is, how "safe" can it be to point your gun at a light source? How do you even carry your gun in a holster, when it is pointed at your leg or foot much of the time?

When "always" doesn't really mean "always," it then becomes up to the individual to decide when "always" does and doesn't mean "always," and that leads to inconsistency, and accidents.

TFred

TFred said:

"True or false: Always keep handguns pointed in a safe direction."

I hate rules or guidelines that use absolutes like "never" or "always." It's exceedingly difficult to craft any rule that uses "always" that really means "always," including this one.

How do you clean your gun? How do you inspect the barrel, if it is not suited for a mirror from the chamber side? And even if it is, how "safe" can it be to point your gun at a light source? How do you even carry your gun in a holster, when it is pointed at your leg or foot much of the time?

When "always" doesn't really mean "always," it then becomes up to the individual to decide when "always" does and doesn't mean "always," and that leads to inconsistency, and accidents.

TFred

Click to expand...

It's exceedingly difficult to craft any rule that uses "always" that really means "always," including this one.

Click to expand...

I've got one.
But I'll use 'never' instead: Never shoot anything that you did not intend to shoot.

Seems like that one would encompass all three of the firearm safety rules, with one simple statement that is 'always' appropriate. :lol:

Plus if someone is too stupid to figure out how to accomplish that, perhaps they should not handle firearms at all, or get some training.

notalawyer said:

I've got one.
But I'll use 'never' instead: Never shoot anything that you did not intend to shoot.

Seems like that one would encompass all three of the firearm safety rules, with one simple statement that is 'always' appropriate. :lol:

Plus if someone is too stupid to figure out how to accomplish that, perhaps they should not handle firearms at all, or get some training.

Click to expand...

Nope, that's circular reasoning. It describes the desired result, not how to achieve it. Not a useful safety rule.



TFred

Dear Ms. Filler-Corn…,

when in doubt, choose "C".

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29 vs. 11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

A BG makes a pretty good backstop and thus a safe direction.

Depending on the out come wanted those types of questions can have double meanings.

Always is a lot and what is a safe direction.

As far as Andrew Goddard learning any thing I find that a untrue statement from a man that as a personal agenda against guns.

As far as the state police being your friend, they support the bill that should say it all.

gunnerjacky said:

It is true. One should never point that gun at somebody. This action comes in a category of offense unless it is on an account of self defense. There are so many laws and regulations which must be known to all the gun holders so that they may not get into trouble. A good - deleted spam- course will always teach you these things in its most basic lessons.

Click to expand...

No there circumstances that pointing a gun at some one is acceptable and recommended and there are times shooting some one acceptable and recommended.

When it comes to self-defense some hard and fast rules can get bent or broken.

gunnerjacky said:

It is true. One should never point that gun at somebody. This action comes in a category of offense unless it is on an account of self defense. There are so many laws and regulations which must be known to all the gun holders so that they may not get into trouble. A good firearms safety training course will always teach you these things in its most basic lessons.

Click to expand...

Firstly, try reading the question, it asked "true or false, always keep firearms pointed in a safe direction", nothing in there refering to pointing, or not, at people. Something one of my old school teachers would always tell us before we went into an exam room, "answer the question being asked, not the one you think they're asking", when we failed to listen to him he'd mark our papers with 4 letters "RTFQ", 3 of which meant "Read The Question".

Secondly, if you're going to start claiming it's a "category of offense", then please cite to the relevent listing in the Code of Virginia instead of just making a blanket statement of your opinion

The answer is true. It's the "safe direction" that is ambiguous. Safe for whom? Myself and other non-aggressors? In that case, it is safest to have it pointed at someone who is trying to harm me.

Intentionally vague questions can be interpreted in all kinds of silly ways, and rarely are things so black and white.

scouser said:

Firstly, try reading the question, it asked "true or false, always keep firearms pointed in a safe direction", nothing in there refering to pointing, or not, at people. Something one of my old school teachers would always tell us before we went into an exam room, "answer the question being asked, not the one you think they're asking", when we failed to listen to him he'd mark our papers with 4 letters "RTFQ", 3 of which meant "Read The Question".

Secondly, if you're going to start claiming it's a "category of offense", then please cite to the relevent listing in the Code of Virginia instead of just making a blanket statement of your opinion

Click to expand...

Not to bother about gunnerjacky - he is a known spammer who slipped in from a restricted country. Got him.

Grapeshot said:

Not to bother about gunnerjacky - he is a known spammer who slipped in from a restricted country. Got him.

Click to expand...

I was trying to be polite, my initial thought was to once again post the cartoon of the goats crossing a bridge

davidmcbeth said:

Lets assume that the anti was correct = you learn nothing from this type of gun safety course.

AND that there have been no problems from people who take the "useless" course.

THEN all courses should be abandoned and declared not needed.

Either way, the anti loses this argument.

Click to expand...

Actually the reason mandatory courses should be abandoned is because the states that don't require them have no more gun related accidents or "bad" self defense shootings than the states that do require them.

They don't have an impact because they only attendees that learn anything from them are the same ones that would take such a course voluntarily if they weren't required to take one by the state. The other attendees either have nothing to learn because they already know what is being taught, or because they don't care to learn (which is fortunately pretty rare).

I attended a course to get my Utah license. I didn't learn anything I hadn't long since before learned in the Boy Scouts, military, or by doing research on state laws on the internet and from forums like this (followed by research to verify laws ). I could tell pretty easily that of the 20 people in the class 19 of us had almost nothing to learn. The 1 other person was eager to learn, but was clearly intimidated into not asking as many questions as he would like for fear of looking stupid compared to the rest of us. If this course had been voluntary he would have attended with other people that were new to firearms and learned far more than he did. So the mandatory courses can actually be counter-productive relative to voluntary ones.


Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

TFred said:

Nope, that's circular reasoning. It describes the desired result, not how to achieve it. Not a useful safety rule.



TFred

Click to expand...

These other so-called 'rules' require folks to violate them depending on the circumstances. Kinda stupid if you ask me. Especially given the fact that were are designed for, and directed at, brain-dead folks without a lick of common sense.

Not very good 'rules'.

Mine is simple and straight forward and does not required intentional violation. But does require more than two or three functioning brain cells. :lol: