"Presumably, someone in the DEA trained this guy on firearms usage. They did not do a very good job, did they?"
If he was trained by an NRA certified course, which is highly likely, then he was well trained.
"Someone in the DEA selected this guy to teach firearm safety to children. Did they do their due diligence?"
No. But that's the DEA for you. They're pretty much brain dead over there. Take my word for it.
"Someone in the school system simply assumed that the DEA agent could be trusted with guns in the classroom. First class job?"
The school screwed up. They should have hired an NRA safety trainer.
"You and the other open carry proponents justified open carry on grounds of need (which I still think is preposterous-unless you are buying drugs in SE, you can't identify one place in your life where you really need to be armed)"
If you've ever had a gun pointed at your face, you might feel differently.
"I'm sure that sometimes the training is adequate. But this incident highlights that other times it is not. While the video is actually kind of funny in a black sense, it could have been a real tragedy."
Mari, the 5th leading cause of death of older teenagers in the US is from firearms. The 2nd leading cause is traffic accidents.
Now, are teens well trained to drive automobiles? If they're not, should we force them to get better training? Would that eliminate traffic accidents? Why not just ban automobiles?
"And now let me counter your rules of firearm safety with the first rule of product design. You have to design against foreseeable misuse. Virtually no manufacturer does this aside from installing an easily forgettable safety."
Nonsense. Many firearm manufacturers make guns with multiple safeties. A Glock has 3 safeties. A Springfield XD has two manual safeties. All Taurus pistols (that I'm aware of) include lock down safeties that require a key for the user to unlock. Bersa's concealed carry 380 includes a similar type lock. I also refuse to purchase such handguns because if I have to fumble in the dark for a key to unlock the gun, put a mag in, rack the slide, and disengage the safety, then I would be about 45 seconds late in being able to defend and save my life.
Had this DEA agent not been completely retarded, he should have 1) made sure he had an empty clip in his gun, 2) rack his slide several times to discharge the round, 3) make a visual and physcial check for a round in the chamber, and 4) locked down his gun if it included such a lock. I would NOT have brought a Glock for such a safety course because Glocks do not have a manual decocker. If that was the only gun I had access to for such a demonstration, then I would have field stripped it before I ever got into the class room.
"There will always be brain dead idiots like your fellow government worker. And the fed gov thought this guy was a "teacher." Multiply him by thousands and put him on the street with open carry nationally, and you are going to see gun accidents skyrocket."
In most cases, unless you're a cop, then you shouldn't carry openly. It's legal for me to do so, but I would never do it, because the reaction of people around me might cause a dangerous situation.
But lastly, I should say that it's pretty retarded for people who don't understand firearms to suggest ways to make guns more safe, especially by federal regulation. I don't mean to disparage people with certain inabilities, but it's akin to the blind critiquing a Van Gogh.
-- Modified on 2/3/2011 7:31:35 AM
Since I know nothing about guns I was not aware of that.
But you have really undermined your own argument by raising the automobile analogy. Look, when we are talking about matters of public policy, you have to employ a cost/risk/ benefit analysis.
The automobile does indeed kill many more people each year than do firearms but here is the difference - the automobile has astounding social utility. Our society could not function without the automobile; our economy would be destroyed without the automobile. so we made that devil's bargain long ago.
But the social utility of public carry laws is miniscule by comparison. You imply you have had a gun aimed in your direction; well, if this is a regular risk in your life, then perhaps you can make the case that you do have sufficient need for a gun. GaGambler says he carries around lots of cash. Okay maybe he can make the same case.
But for the millions of other Americans who might choose to carry, they simply have no need to be armed. Yet the risk they pose to themselves and others is substantial. So the risk greatly outweighs the benefit to Americans as a group.
And I certainly continue to disagree with your point that I need to understand firearms to critique their use. I've never seen a whale, know virtually nothing about them, yet regularly contribute to Greenpeace. It is the risks and benefits of whale hunting to the species that I need to understand to have an informed opinion.
Same with guns. Even if I can buy guns with multiple safeties, we have users like the DEA agent who demonstrates a Glock to kids without even making sure its unloaded. I need protection from guys like him, not guys like you.
Mari, there are some general rules about firearms, but the simple fact is that to use one safely, all one needs to do is to think about what the hell they are doing.
For instance, most revolvers don't have a safety. If it's an old revolver, like my little 32, then the firing pin will be on the hammer itself. If I pulled back the hammer, or if the hammer accidently was pulled back a bit, it could land on a live round and go off. The solution is to load the cylinder one round short, so that the firing pin is always resting on an empty chamber, unless it's intended to be fired.
Similar common sense applies to my semi-auto. I keep the slide racked back with a full magazine. That way the gun is safe, no rounds are in the chamber, but if I need to use it all I have to do is hit the slide stop and pull the trigger. No safeties needed. It's just common sense.
I have seen FAR too many people handle firearms in an unsafe manner. It happens all the time. People get used to what they are doing and they become careless. I am never careless with a firearm. And I will not hesitate to give people a whole lot of shit when I see carelessness. Trust me, I'm not the only one who does this.
Firearms do serve a very important social utility. They provide self defense. And the reality is that something can harm or kill you when you least expect it. It could be a wild animal from a bear to a rattle snake, to a gang of thugs to a simple mugger. And with a mugger, you never know if they're going to just take your cash, or try to end your life.
I carry everywhere it is legal for me to do so, and I do it for protection. Not just for myself, but for other people around me too. And if I'm ever without one, I pray that someone else will carry to protect me.
And you're correct Mari. You do need protection from guys like this DEA agent. That's why you should buy a gun, learn how to use it, and carry it on your person at all times.
The simple reality is that a lunatic can cause a lot of damage very quickly, and cops can't always be there to protect you. So you can either choose to protect yourself, or risk being shot.
for the first time on here, I'm in total agreement with you on gun safety, and the need for right-to-carry laws. Your disertation makes 100% accurate sense. When did you lay off the 'stuff', lol?
I only wish NJ did not have such draconian gun laws. I'd sure like to have been armed in some instances recently.
Speaking of the stuff, NO ONE should ever handle a firearm when they're not sober, regardless of what stuff they're using. That's something else I follow to the letter every single time.
There's not too many advantages to living in the state of VA Jersey, but we at least have some decent CCW laws. Of course, that has to go out the window every time I cross into DC, where I'd be more likely to need it.
Oh yeah, and speaking of revolver safeties....there are some that have them. I have a Ruger Blackhawk, .357 magnum. Originally, it had only one safety feature. Hammer back to the first click, and you could not pull the trigger, but who carries a revolver like that? With the hammer forward, if it was dropped or hit on the hammer, the gun could possibly discharge with a cartridge in the chamber. Hence, as you said, many would leave that chamber empty.
Ruger had a recall to modify their revolvers, to include an additional safety feature. Now, with the hammer forward, you can beat on it all day, and the gun will not discharge with a round in that chamber.
Like you whenever I carried one, I always chambered only five rounds. A forty four mag will blow your leg clean off, as will either the 41 or 357 magnums.
I also used to be a rather decent at the "quick draw", but since a quick draw with a single action revolver requires cocking the pistol with your thumb while you are in the act of drawing, which means if your thumb were to slip in the act the gun would go off before it cleared the holster. I always did my practicing with a twenty two, Just in case. lol
I now carry a Glock, and have no worries in that regard. Besides that much firepower in an urban area is unwise. A nine mm might go through a couple of walls of drywall, but a round from a heavier weapon like a 357 or 44 mag might end up in the next county before it's spent. lol
...that you carried a Glock, GaG? I knew there was a reason why I hated them, lol. I've always been more of a Beretta and 1911 fan.
I think it held 12 in the clip, but it was stolen a few years ago and I like the durability and reliability of the Glock, shit you can leave it in a swamp for six months and the damn things still will fire without jamming. Not to mention, I like the extra firepower of having 17 round clips. As the saying goes "you never know"
Rep McCarthy, (Dem), NY, (her husband and son were killed by that wacko on the LIRR), has a bill she wants attached to the FAA Reauthorization Bill, (funds all FAA operations for the year), that would make illegal, any magazine larger than 10 rounds. Apparently the House cannot attach this type of bill to their legislation, but the Senate can. She has recruited Sen Frank Lautenberg, (Dem), NJ, to attach it to the Senate version. He's about as anti-gun as you can get, kind of like NYC Mayor Bloomberg's mirror image. Funny how they espouse that no one should possess firearms, but yet, they require their body guards to be armed. Wonder why that is, lol?
I am not going to debate "open carry" with you today, but I will address your claim that no one here can identify when they might need a firearm.
I am a degenerate gambler and rarely have less than a few grand on me, I was once pulled over in Fla and had a pistol lying on the passenger seat in full view, which was in accordance with Fla law at the time. The officer asked me the very same question. "Why did I need to be armed?" I simply told him I had ten thousand dollars in my pocket after going to the track, and gave him the route I had to take to get home, which took me through a couple of rough neighborhoods. The cop completely understood, gave me a warning for driving over the speed limit and wished me a safe evening.
My point is, even law enforcement knows that there are times they can't protect us, and that law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves. You might want to "turn the other cheek", but being armed has saved my life and my property on more than one ocassion. I've also owned at least one handgun ever since the age of eleven and have never had a mishap.
As to the DEA agent, anyone who doesn't know how to clear a weapon should not be allowed to even own one, much less instruct children on their use. There is probably a lot of blame to go around as to letting this moron slip through the cracks.
