Is this the same one there’s already a post for?
Yes and no,
We’ve been discussing it here
Stupid has consequences.
This guy obviously didn’t mean any harm. He was just trying out his new firearm.
However, he didn’t understand the basic principle of knowing what was beyond his target. I understand and agree that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right , but shouldn’t the knowledge of the 4 basic rules at least be required to own a firearm. I guess what I’m trying to say is it’s not very intelligent to aquire a gun and just go out and start shooting it.
A life was lost and a life was ruined because he didn’t follow 4 simple rules. 4 simple rules.
Maybe a list of the 4 rules should be included in the purchase of a firearm. “Read this before operating your new firearm “.
I don’t know, but I do feel sorry for him, his family ,and the family of the deceased.
Prayers for all affected by this tragedy 
.
The instruction manuals of the new firearms I have acquired do have a list of “rules”, which have all included some semblance of the “4 rules”, which for many years now has been taught by the NRA as the “3 rules”.
No matter how much training/learning/practice and/or reading one does, it will not prevent carelessness, forgetfulness, distraction, nor any other types of errors, mistakes, etc., from occurring. I am sure we have all done at least one stupid thing that we regret having done through one or more of the afore-mentioned reasons. This does not forgive nor take from the horrific act that occurred. He will pay for his actions, the least of which will be the reckless action that cost an innocent life that will haunt his mind for the rest of his life.
There is no excuse for him shooting in his backyard without a backstop. With that said, there’s a lot of detail we don’t know …
If the properties are indeed 0.3 miles apart, the drop on a 9mm at that range is ~10 feet. We don’t know what angle he was shooting at. We don’t know if the can was on the ground and ricocheted. Depending on ballistics, us not knowing the topology of the two properties, and forensic analysis of the bullet, I don’t think “we” can conclusively know he was the shooter.
Good point
This is true. However, the story made it seem as though only one person in the area had been shooting at the time of the incident. According to the story, the shrapnel/piece of bullet went into her chest at a downward angle. One would reasonably conclude that that was due to either firing into the air, or more likely at the ground, and it ricocheted into the air.
Regardless, he was careless, and if it proven that he is responsible, his life is ruined. I enjoy target shooting, but firearms are not toys. That is a terrible way to learn the difference.
I would think that topography (topology?) will be important in the investigation. That and comparable ballistics, if any.
I know that here at my place, when facing west, the ground level drops ~6” over about 200 yds. That sounds like a lot, but it isn’t really obvious without looking for it. That would definitely figure into the trajectory of a projectile fired in that direction.
How would he have known without required training?
Before I got training, I knew nothing. Not the laws here. Not what is safe/not. Not how to clear a jamb without shooting someone. Not to hold a firearm without my finger on the trigger (something I still see ALL of the time at the range from military folks and others). There aren’t four basics. It is more than that.
I see the largest difference is between those learning as adults and the others having learned from a very young age. There is sloppy handling in both groups, though, but as a kid, you get the experience, supervision and knowledge of the parent that one can’t get as an adult in a class. Gun safety isn’t a class, it is a mindset that needs to be ingrained into you, to where it is just part of you.
As far as laws, training that I took for my CHP did not provide, but a rudimentary understanding of pertinent laws, and certainly was not enough training to have safety ingrained into one’s habits. The NRA classes are better, but so much is covered, there is no way for one to absorb it all in the amount of time given. It is basically just getting the piece of paper. One better know before taking those classes, but like learning to drive, one needs to continue learning and practicing.
I learned the laws by reading them on-line, quite easy to do. One also must know the county ordinances, too, again, easily found on-line. And laws are ever changing, so a class isn’t going to teach what was not on the books at the time the class was created and taught. Then one also needs to know the laws in any other state one wants to carry in, too.
I’m pleased to see you guys are so on point with this. Not that Phelps was holding a baby and talking with family members when she was hit. Oh yeah, she died. (sighs). Sandra Phelps was her name.
I agree. I suggest that individuals should be tested before you can buy a gun or vote, and most definitely procreate. If you have an IQ less than 120, you shouldn’t be allowed to do any of these things.
I, personally, will never agree to and I will vote against any , ”required level of training” before you can own a firearm. It always comes down to a few simple facts and/or questions for me.
-
Who will be the gatekeeper for the mandatory required training?
-
Who will gatekeep the mandatory training of the trainers?
-
Who will gatekeep the cost of the mandatory training?
If the answer is the State or Federal Government on any of those. Ponder how any of that could be weaponized against law abiding citizens.
Not a shot at you @Brad.
I would expect any prospective gun owner to do exactly what I did. I didn’t require a law to seek out training. I knew what an awesome responsibility it was to become a CC.
From General_Consensus:
I suggest that individuals should be tested before you can buy a gun or vote, and most definitely procreate. If you have an IQ less than 120, you shouldn’t be allowed to do any of these things.
I am quite skeptical about using an IQ rating to determine competency. I have worked with folks holding 120-160 IQ ratings and I have to say that I wouldn’t trust many of them to make good decisions for themselves, let alone anyone else. A few were dedicated alcoholics a good number of them had multiple failed marriages, and some couldn’t hold a job despite their intelligence, education, and training. IQ is a feeble predictor of competency or wisdom. And don’t get me started on advanced degrees; the road to hell is paved with Ph.Ds.
I would consider raising the minimum voting age. Some have suggested it be set at the same minimum age for becoming President, and for some of the same reasons. Exceptions could be considered, say for honorably discharged veterans.
I think that we agree. I’m not sure that I want our country to require training before ownership, but maybe different consequences if you had no training or a history of poor safety. Not sure. Would have to noodle on it more, and with others.
I wasn’t sure if it was just because I live in CA, but all my firearms came with a manual that also included safety rules. Of course, not everybody reads that, but…
But my understanding is they’d probably have to add another rule for this guy. I read that he was shooting at a can and something else on the ground, so it was a ricochet that caused the fatality. Even if he had a backstop, shooting at the ground like that could have still resulted in the bullet bouncing over it. Reminds me a little of another story where a guy was shooting a .50BMG (I think) and the ricochet came flying right back at his head.
Common sense ain’t so common.
Research consistently shows that individuals tend to become more conservative, or lean more towards the Republican party, as they age, particularly from their mid-40s onward. Also after serving in the military.
You, my friend, could potentially constitute the one here that will make the grade. The rest, I am afraid, are ( @Zavier_D you are just teeing that one up) subpar. 