Woman accidentally shoots self during handgun class

[SFDoc]

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

Due to the climate of political correctness now prevailing in
America:

Kentuckians, Tennesseans and West Virginians will no longer be
referred to as "HILLBILLIES." You must now refer to us as
APPALACHIAN-AMERICANS....:what:...:lol:...:celebrate...:monkey( I just had to throw in Primer)

:lol: PC sucks, I'm a hillbilly

Hank, I remember something about a "Government Trained Professional" with a "Government issued pistol" after having had "Government Mandated Training" that shot himself in a class room full of KIDS.
If that's proof of how the Government trains their professionals, I'll stick with my backwoods, hillbilly ways.

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Sitrep wrote:

"advanced handgun class"

I think she needs to go back to the beginners class.

Accidents happen, but negligence happens a lot more often.

Negligent discharge. Guns are really, really dangerous. That's why the ROs and trainers andeverybody else is always nagging about it.

Perhaps the answer is to require potential gunowners pass a nationally recognized basic firearm safety and familiarization class prior to owning a gun?

How about we follow the 2A to the letter and not have mandatory training.

In fact, I'm against mandatory training in schools, but only because I think that public schools are:

1. Waste of money
2. Waste of time
3. Government indoctrination of children

How the government thinks everybody has a right to education (indoctrination), when it's not in the constitution, while at the same time infringes the right to bear arms, when it is in the constitution leaps a large chasm of logic.

 

[HankT]

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

HankT wrote:

Sitrep wrote:

"advanced handgun class"

I think she needs to go back to the beginners class.

Accidents happen, but negligence happens a lot more often.

Negligent discharge. Guns are really, really dangerous. That's why the ROs and trainers andeverybody else is always nagging about it.

Perhaps the answer is to require potential gunowners pass a nationally recognized basic firearm safety and familiarization class prior to owning a gun?

How about we follow the 2A to the letter and not have mandatory training.

As Hawkflyer has pointed out before, training would not violate the 2A.

With mandatory or encouraged training, with qualifying on your chosen pistol(s) for carry, we'd all be better off.

Own as many guns as you want. Twenty, thirty, however many you want. But know how to shoot and use them. Nothing wrong with that.

We need more shooting, not less.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

openryan wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

ijusam wrote:

Once you let them mandate training and qualification and you can kiss 2A goodbye!

Right on.

All gun control must die.

Even if that means accepting an increase in some risk. I'll take risk + freedom over safety + control any damn day.

Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

But you would be pleased if all laws pertaining to firearms, registration of them, and background checks be repealed?

Even violent felons who have commited homicide in cold blood should be allowed a firearm? Taser -- I could see that being allowed as everyone should have a means to protect themselves. But I think if all of these statutes were to be repealed there would be some serious problems.

Don't get me wrong, I am not happy where we are with control right now, a lot fo the laws pertaining to it are out of date, unreasonable and some just a big waste of money and time, but some of them are not bad ideas.

So Tomahawk, you honestly believe there should be no regulation of firearms whatsoever under any conditions at all?

Wow. Just when you think you're on a pro-RKBA forum...

Let's see, where to begin, here. Oh, wait, I've got it!


[align=center]


“
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
”[/align]
No authorization is granted to any government to require you to jump through hoops for your rights.

Cold blooded murderers? Please. When you commit a crime, rights can be disabled via due process. We are talking about people who haven't done anything wrong, or have served the prescribed sentence and had their firearms rights restored through due process (can happen if Congress ever funds it).

"But you would be pleased if all laws pertaining to firearms, registration of them, and background checks be repealed?"

Darn right!

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

HankT wrote:

As Hawkflyer has pointed out before, training would not violate the 2A.

Where in the constitution does the government have authorization to require training before you can exercise your rights? Prioy restraints on bearing arms are the very definition of infringement.

And why am I arguing with people on OCDO that gun control is a bad idea?

Are you guys so afraid of your neighbors' freedom that you want to place restrictions on it? Freedom comes with risk.

 

[openryan]

imported post

I'm sorry, what is RKBA? Not trying to be a smart ass, I just honestly don't know what the acronym is for.

I didn't say your stance was wrong, I just have a different view.

As far as the forum, I thought it was for open carry... not for gun regulation/deregulation.

Certainly things in this country have changed since those words were first written, thus I feel that certain measures pertaining to many aspects of our county need to grow with the county.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

"But you would be pleased if all laws pertaining to firearms, registration of them, and background checks be repealed?"

G*DDAMN RIGHT!

You might want to be careful, Tomahawk. BobCav doesn't like that kind of stuff. Lastweek someone did it and Bob said:

Oh, and taking the Lord's name in vain is even more not cool.

:?



* Edit: Mask expletive, per Tomahawk's request.

 

[Sitrep]

imported post

RKBA - Right to Keep and Bare Arms

I don't think that there should be any training requirements for purchase or ownership or use of a gun. That is just going to cause the government to need tracking info on guns and gun owners. That info, once acquired, would no doubt be used for purposes that it wasn't originally intended.

My thought is that everyone who is pushed through the public school system should have at least some remedial education in firearm safety. Probably as some part of a health class, just a general safety primer on all of the potentially dangerous items they might run across in their life.

"Don't hold the business end of a plugged in circular saw, or any other dangerous tool.", that kind of thing.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

RKBA = "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"

openryan wrote:

Certainly things in this country have changed since those words were first written, thus I feel that certain measures pertaining to many aspects of our county need to grow with the county.

Human nature hasn't changed. You were born with the same right to self-defense people were born with 200 years ago.

If you think circumstances have changed to the point where the constitution no longer makes good sense, you need to start the process of ammending it. It's difficult to set this in motion, and for good reason.

EDIT: I agree with Sitrep about elementary school training for all citizens, to a point.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

openryan, do you understand that this is the exact argument the antis are using to try to take our 2A rights from us? That things "have changed", so the 2nd Amendment no longer applies in modern society? This is the logic of these people, and you are applying that logic here. "Oh, regulation isn't that bad because the founding fathers didn't really know what 2007 was going to be like, so it shouldn't apply now!" Not trying to be confrontational, but this is the anti-2A movement's main argument when trying to disarm us.

openryan wrote:

Certainly things in this country have changed since those words were first written, thus I feel that certain measures pertaining to many aspects of our county need to grow with the county.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

"But you would be pleased if all laws pertaining to firearms, registration of them, and background checks be repealed?"

Sure, why not.

You might want to be careful, Tomahawk. BobCav doesn't like that kind of stuff. Lastweek someone did it and Bob said:

Oh, and taking the Lord's name in vain is even more not cool.

:?

Point taken. Original edited. Please modify your post to reflect.

 

[Pa. Patriot]

imported post

openryan wrote:

Certainly things in this country have changed since those words were first written, thus I feel that certain measures pertaining to many aspects of our county need to grow with the county.

No. Human rights are still human rights.

 

[openryan]

imported post

I was speaking in particular to ammendment, the constitution is a living document.

Nothing I said regarding licensure or registration of firearms, has any direct bearing on the 'RKBA' to where it would be that much more difficult for anyone to obtain or purchase a firearm than it is now. What it would do, would help insure that people in general are more educated about firearms before they do make a purchase.

I certainly would not want someone who thinks 'firearms are cool' to just be able to obtain one with the sole intent to show off or to try to impress people, as I have seen some that convey these types of attitudes. It is irresponsible.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, and I am not trying to take that away, but if you have an accident with a firearm, or any potentially deadly weapon, you cannot simply say you are sorry, all I would like to see is that people are educated about the use of firearms and their operation on a very, very basic level to at least act as a catalyst for the owner to think about the responsibility that comes with firearm ownership.

As someone posted a couple days ago of those kids holding guns and taking pictures to 'remember the day' when they first shot, not only was it poor judgement on their part, but also the person who gave them access to the firearms themselves.

General education at a school level would be O.K., and probably isn't all that bad of an idea, but you are canvasing a very broad audience, where as if you made it specific to people who wanted to own or purchase a firearm, you would know your target better and be able to educate them on the subject more efficiently.

I don't think an exam prior to licensing for a firearm is bad, I am not saying you even need to get 100%, but just enough to show that you have a basic understanding and respect for the responsibility that you are about to take on.

But, I am not going to argue the opinion any more, I respect your viewpoint, and if you are going strictly on what the constitution was based on 200 some years ago, your view is more correct than mine, but as we adapt, adaptations to these words may prove needed.

 

[Pa. Patriot]

imported post

openryan wrote:

....But, I am not going to argue the opinion any more, I respect your viewpoint, and if you are going strictly on what the constitution was based on 200 some years ago, your view is more correct than mine, but as we adapt, adaptations to these words may prove needed.

Your missing the point.
Your rights, my rights, are NO different than they were 200 years ago.

Your foisting the public school version of the BOR on us and it doesn't stick because rights don't evolve or change over time.

 

[tattedupboy]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Sitrep wrote:

"advanced handgun class"

I think she needs to go back to the beginners class.

Accidents happen, but negligence happens a lot more often.

Negligent discharge. Guns are really, really dangerous. That's why the ROs and trainers andeverybody else is always nagging about it.

Perhaps the answer is to require potential gunowners pass a nationally recognized basic firearm safety and familiarization class prior to owning a gun?

And while we're at it, why don't we also require training before anyone is allowed to exercise their free speech rights, as well as your right to post on this forum:what::uhoh:

 

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

tattedupboy wrote:

HankT wrote:

Sitrep wrote:

"advanced handgun class"

I think she needs to go back to the beginners class.

Accidents happen, but negligence happens a lot more often.

Negligent discharge. Guns are really, really dangerous. That's why the ROs and trainers andeverybody else is always nagging about it.

Perhaps the answer is to require potential gunowners pass a nationally recognized basic firearm safety and familiarization class prior to owning a gun?

And while we're at it, why don't we also require training before anyone is allowed to exercise their free speech rights, as well as your right to post on this forum:what::uhoh:

ROTFLMAO...

Do You have License/Permit to Speak:shock: ??? NO :what:??? THEN SHUT UP.:lol:

 

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

 

[HankT]

imported post

tattedupboy wrote:

HankT wrote:

Sitrep wrote:

"advanced handgun class"

I think she needs to go back to the beginners class.

Accidents happen, but negligence happens a lot more often.

Negligent discharge. Guns are really, really dangerous. That's why the ROs and trainers andeverybody else is always nagging about it.

Perhaps the answer is to require potential gunowners pass a nationally recognized basic firearm safety and familiarization class prior to owning a gun?

And while we're at it, why don't we also require training before anyone is allowed to exercise their free speech rights, as well as your right to post on this forum:what::uhoh:

You are mistaken. There is no "right to post on this forum."

For example, on the evening of June 21, BobCav deleted about 60-70 of my posts, including a few entire threads. He never responded to my PM about it:

_____Original Message_____
From: HankT
Date: 2007-06-22 07:10:19
Subject: Question About Missing Posts

Hiya, Bob. Hope things are well with you and yours.

I'm curious about some posts of mine that were there last night but are now gone this morning. An example is the Open carry poll at TheHighRoad.org thread at:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/3068-2.html

I know I posted in there an analysis of the THR vote and a few updates of that vote and a musing about a law regarding Level 2 holsters.

Hardly controversial stuff.

Do you have any idea if they were removed for some reason?

Thanks, Bob.

No rerply from Bob. No reason. No warning. No accountability.

There is no "right" to post here. That's just the way it is. See Rule 5. :?

 

[daniel.call]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
”
No authorization is granted to any government to require you to jump through hoops for your rights.

I think firearm training isa great idea. I think the government should ensure we get regular firearm training. That is the way our founding fathers handled firearms. Every male was required to own a gun and report for at least annual "firearm training." As a bonus they also had a pretty complete roster of who were gun owners. Everyone enrolled in the militia was recorded. I think if something is going to be done it should be done right. I am 100% in favor of regular firearm training by the government as long as it is tied to military service. My hunter's education firearm training was a joke. It doesn't take 12 hours to tell me not to point guns at people. I am all for gun registration as long as every individual is required to own a gun.

The second amendment ties the God given right to self defense to the responsibility to help and protect your neighbors. You can pay people to do your job but you can't pay them to take the responsibility.

 

[nrawling]

imported post

Religion continues to be a serious threat to public safety and a cause of disorder here and abroad. Should government run "God Safety Classes" be required before people are allowed to practice a religion? Perhaps we should restrict religious practices to those over 18/21?


Should people get training before they handle/own/carry a firearm? Probably.
Is it constitutional to require them to do so? Not in my mind.