Can we all–gun lovers and gun haters alike–agree that anyone who shoots a person and claims they didn’t know the gun was loaded should just be euthanized on the spot?
Not out of hatred or anger, but realizing that this person is literally too stupid not to kill people by accident, and is therefore a threat to all other human beings on the planet. So put them down like Ol Yeller.
Guns, if left alone, are perfectly safe and that seems to me to be the perfect amount of knowledge to impart on school-age children. Like 18-wheelers and chainsaws, some items should not be handled by those whose decision-making capabilities are still being developed.
I’ve watched kids of high-school age go through basic, and even while firmly under the thumb of NCOs ready to dole out punishment at any sign of unsafe behavior, they’d still find ways to fuck up. I rather doubt that anyone instructing kids in a school setting could approach one tenth of that level of discipline, nor spend one tenth of the time.
Naw, I even subscribe to the notion that guns Constitutionally can and should be restricted far more than they are. And just for good measure I promote the idea of changing the Constitution to make it clearer, it isn’t the Tablets of Stone for the love of god, it’s a cobbled together set of ideas that just happened to be better than the alternative governments found in the 1760’s. A poor benchmark for a modern society to be sure.
It is the Pit and all, I just get tired of the demonifying, pontificating and confirmation bias stew I see on the Dope and in the world every god damned day.
As a shooter for over 20 years, I wholeheartedly and completely agree.
This is why I have long maintained that I support strong gun control until we perfect moron control.
My thoughts exactly.
Area man’s response confirms his own strongly held belief. News at…fuck it - you own a mirror.
I’ve never owned or fired a real gun - pellet guns yes - but I grew up with a pretty rough crowd and, in relation to interpersonal interactions, I had it drummed into me that you never bring/pull a weapon unless you are committed to its use and consequences thereof. This goes for guns, knives, bats etc.
I learned this from friends that regularly used knives, bats etc. when I was 13. The reasoning wasn’t just safety per se but rather if you pull it and don’t use it they’ll take it and they WILL use it.
Why do (some) adolescent street thugs have more inherent understanding of the realities of weaponry than (some) “responsible” adults?
'Course not. To do so would be anecdotal. If you aren’t sure if your own gun was left loaded or not you should look down the barrel and pull the trigger. Thus is data gathered.
One high calibre armour-piercing round at a time.
As neither a lover or hater I’m fine with that.
Zeke
A watch?
Insurance companies give discounts to those who take driver’s ed - so assuming they have data to back this policy up, we do.
I learned gun safety in the Boy Scouts, before I would have in high school.
Just IMO, but I think this was a murder thinly (and badly) disguised as an “accident.”
I think many of these so-called “accidental” shootings are deliberate, premeditated murders.
I’m also highly suspicious of the “it just went off” claims, too.
If such a method would work, I would support it. But I don’t think it would be sufficient, any more than abstinence-based education is sufficient for Sex Ed.
Coupla weeks ago I went skeet shooting for the first time. The range guy told me, no joke, to aim at his raised finger, ostensibly so he knew that I knew how to use the shotgun’s iron sights.
Me: Are you sure?
Him: Yeah, it’s not loaded.
Me: No, really, are you sure?
Him: Yeah, go ahead.
Me: [suspecting this is some kind of trick - if I point the gun at him, even after he tells me to, he’s going to suddenly yell “NEVER point a gun at someone!” and order me off the range] Really?
Him: Yeah, go ahead.
Me: Okay… [making extra-extra sure to keep my fingers away from the trigger and never pointing the gun at his center of mass, I zero on his finger]
Him: [checking my aim] Okay.
Me: You know, this is making me really uncomfortable.
For the rest of my time there, I was careful to keep the shotgun pointed downrange whenever possible, as the military trained me to do. The range guy probably thought I was being overcautious.
Dialogue paraphrased from memory - events accurate as described.
Just out of curiosity, why didn’t you break/rack out the gun yourself? I mean, still fucking stupid of him and all, even if you had checked for yourself, but…
Well, breaking the gun wasn’t possible (it was a semi-auto breech loader… I admit I’m not familiar with shotgun types and terminologies) and even if it was, it would defeat the claimed intended purpose of checking correct use of the iron sights, though of course in the larger sense I know that using the iron sights to aim at any part of a person I don’t intend to shoot is not correct. I made a point of checking the chamber for a shell, though I knew that I hadn’t loaded one.
It was (to me, anyway) a weird unsettling moment but once passed I had a good time skeet-pulverizing - at least the ones I hit, which was not most of them.
Good etiquette Bryan, is for the donor to demostrate to you that the weapon is unloaded, then hand the gun to you (still obeying the four rules), and you then demonstrate for yourself that it’s unloaded. It takes only a little longer, and it pays for itself the second you find a cartridge in the gun you thought was unloaded when handed to you.
Still, pointing guns at body parts is a solid WTF. My advice is to flat refuse any request like that in the future, and if he insists, find a new coach. Cause if his safety skills are that fucked up, the rest of his advice probably is too. Ain’t no Fudd like ‘trapshooting Fudd.’
You want to teach kids about guns at GASP SCHOOL? Are you crazy? We have enough trouble teaching science, and you want to bring a real gun into a school and let kids handle it? Parents will go stark raving nuts.
Of course, it’s a great idea. Which is why it will never happen.
I was a juror in the box when a Sheriffs Deputy was testifying about the use of a weapon in a crime. It was a semi-auto carbine. As he handled it just about everyone in the room got covered. I couldn’t believe it. He later laid it on a table and it was pointed right at the jury box.
I came real close to saying something, and I should have. I guess I could have had a note passed to the judge.
Later, when in deliberation the carbine was brought in and laid on the table the jurors sat around. Pointing directly at another jurors chest. I had had enough, picked up the weapon and made sure it wasn’t pointed at anyone. I told the bailiff how wrong that was.
I think that’s one of the reasons I was chosen as Forman (did not want the job).
In looking at the weapon, they had broken off a pencil and jammed it in the breech so the bolt could not close. Don’t care though. You just DON’T point a weapon at something you don’t want to shoot.
I find it amusing that you consider bringing science and weapons into schools comparable ideas.
I don’t. Facts are facts.
No, I consider forbidding the teaching of certain things because of fear, ideology, or both, comparable ideas.
Teaching children about the proper thing to do when they come across a firearm and firmly embedding the four rules of firearm safety into their heads will teach most of them care and respect for firearms for a lifetime. Ignoring the problem and letting them figure it out for themselves when they’re older and have no respect for firearm safety will continue to lead to negligent shootings.
I find it amusing that you couldn’t reason that out for yourself.
When i was in jr. high/middle school, one of the counselors started a rifle club. Not only did no one complain but he was allowed to bring his rifles(no ammo) on campus for safety instruction and non-firing sighting practice.
This was in the SF Bay Area (Palo Alto) 1973-4.
Really – so he just thought he’d dry-fire at her and make her soil her pants as a way to scare her away? Jeez, some people…
Right – remember the suggestion upthread that gun safety AND sex safety BOTH be graduation requirements (along with first aid/CPR). And may I add, that in all cases the course contents be factual, evidence-based – that would be very sensible. AND ferociously opposed on ideological grounds from both sides of the spectrum. Because for a huge chunk of the parents there is no such thing as responsible, safe sex other than in consecrated marriage, and for another huge chunk (though there surely is at least some overlap) there is no such thing as responsible, safe bearing of firearms other than by police/military.
It just so happens that the most common reports we get about ideological opposition to facts-based curricula are about Sex-Ed and about Life/Earth Sciences, because of implications beyond the merely factual. Laypeople may dismiss SocSci and Humanities as being about nothing but opinions; they may accept 1+1=2 and F=m(a) as absolute facts you can do nothing about; but hoo boy, don’t you dare tell my kids science proves me wrong about sex, or proves the Bible wrong about anything!