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

[Frank Ettin]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

You're correct, prosecution is what I meant.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

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]

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]

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]

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.