pretty sure that if it was directly caused by the action of firing the weapon, intentional or not, it really doesn’t matter.
The degree of damage is what it is, regardless of what did the damage, and the misfiring of the gun is the direct cause.
Can we say “criminal charges” and “World’s largest civil lawsuit” kids?
In the NRA’s mind, anyone who shoots someone automatically ceases to be a “responsible gun owner”, because responsible gun owners would never shoot anyone. And because responsible gun owners would never shoot anyone, we can never take guns away from those people, nor can we prevent any potential responsible gun owners from obtaining them. And there’s no way to know ahead of time who’s going to be irresponsible, so we can’t do anything to stop anyone from getting a gun on the off chance they end up being a perfectly responsible gun owner.
Literally never. There is no discussion to be had. There are absolutely zero circumstances in which we, as a(n ostensibly) developed nation, should ever ever ever have to give guns to teachers. Ever. Period. Full stop.
Correct. There is only incompetence, negligence, reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder.
The NRA’s attitude toward mandatory safeties and gun locks is basically the same as it is toward every other effort to minimize gun deaths. “It’s not a panacea”, so why bother, and also don’t bother because we will actively oppose any attempt to bother.
If the automobile industry were as phobic toward developing safer cars as the gun industry is toward developing safer guns, we’d still be watching horror shows in high school of people impaled by their steering columns. Cars, tobacco, sugar, and now guns: whenever someone is devoted to trying to hide relevant data, it’s because they know the data won’t make them look good.
Teacher trained in use of guns accidentally fires weapon, injures a student
Teacher poorly trained in use of guns accidentally fires weapon, injures a student
fixed it for you
How often does it happen? Not a big fan of public ranges, I have left the line more than once due to concerns over other’s ability to play safe.
Technically, President Reagan wasn’t shot by John Hinckley…
He was just hit by debris.
I stand corrected then. Incidentally, you‘ve just lowered my opinion of “The Walking Dead” even further. People there never seem to shoot each other by accident, they’re just thankful that there are so many guns lying around to be used for defence against zombies. Is the NRA paying for that show?
The term “reductio ad absurdum” is many centuries older than the people you’ve heard misunderstanding/abusing it. They don’t get to change the meaning.
What do you expect me to say? Everything can be misunderstood, even by smart people. And if the argument is not entirely linear but includes “complicated” logic, this is more likely to happen. But I won’t be removing a basic mode of logical reasoning from my vocabulary any time soon.
I never carry a round in the chamber (the +1 you often see when manufacturer is rating fully loaded capacity) of a semi-automatic pistol but I bet most users of popular “no safety” pistols like Glock do. Glock’s “Safe Action” design came out of LEO’s quest to replace the venerable Service Revolver. A revolver is basically semi-auto in that each time you pull the trigger a round is fired. Some people carry revolvers on an empty chamber to prevent accidental strike of the round by the firing pin.
https://us.glock.com/technology/safe-action
Cops walk around all day with one in the chamber; I was appalled to learn this when I chaperoned Cub Scouts to a police station and observed the Tour Office make safe his sidearm (Glock 17) so the kids could pass it around. He said they all carry like that - which goes a long way towards explaining why police shoot people seemingly at the drop of a hat. In our gun-heavy culture they are ready to go, no time for that head-clearing 1/2 second pause to re-asses one’s use of deadly force while chambering a round… is that wallet he’s holding or…?.. KILL! KILL!
My understanding is that the Secret Service works that way. This is why when that guy threw a shoe at President Bush, his security people already knew that Bush wasn’t going to get shot. They had searched for guns and probably arranged for local security to not carry them. The shoes were a threat, but one you can dodge.
I remember another event in the same time period where a 4 or 5 year old boy shot himself with an Uzi (or Tech 9?) that had been handed to him at a shooting range.
Hmmm. Clearly sounds like there was a serious safety issue. Calls for more guns if you ask me.
Its far more frequent than we want to believe. More guns means more “accidents” means more people get hurt or killed.
Around here, they already are. The state has spent many millions air-conditioning the schools so they could bolt all the windows shut, and every public school has an armed “resource officer”. In the majority-minority feeder schools it’s more overt than in the highly privileged magnet and charter schools, of course.
This is a bit of a derail but semi-related:
There’s also a lot of money being made at juvenile detention centers in some states. They are quite literally treating students like prisoners, especially if they’re minorities.
Is that really the least realistic aspect of the show for you? I’m sure they thank the NRA for never running out of ammunition. Apparently there’s far more bullets than food to be scrounged in the apocalypse. Does seem realistic to me.
Do you have any reason to believe the training this teacher received was any worse than the training provided to any other reserve police officer?
Blaming this incident on “poor training” ignores the reality that even a properly trained gun owner can make terrible and deadly mistakes. If all (or even a significant portion of) the 3.2 million elementary and secondary teachers in America were similarly armed and trained we could expect this kind of incident to happen with horrifying regularity, and many of those incidents would result in serious injury or death.
I’m also of the same mind on this. Typically the people that should know better are the first ones to cut corners or break the rules because they tell themselves they are responsible and know better than some random idiot. Also accidents will naturally happen even if every precaution is taken, even a single instance of a gun going off accidentally at a school is one too many. Adding more guns to the equation is the wrong way to solve the problem of school shootings.
Teacher well trained in use of guns, who happens to be a total idiot, accidentally fires weapon, injures a student
Fixed it for you.
These fix nothing. This does:
Teacher negligently fires weapon in clear case of child endangerment
There are no accidents with guns. If a gun is fired, it is doing what it is designed to do. If someone is surprised by this result, they should not touch guns. Ever.
You’re absolutely right. I think that’s part of why I feel some discomfort framing these things as “accidents.” It was the first part of that sentence that I was “correcting,” but you’re right, the rest needs correcting, too.
