# Pastor shot during gun safety class



## Bill Mattocks

This is not how to conduct a gun safety class...

Pastor shot during gun safety class

_"Tom Smith, a family pastor who also helps with church security, was shot by his instructor during a gun safety class.

Modesto police said the two were acting out a scenario when a loaded gun the instructor was holding accidentally went off. The pastor was shot in the abdomen."_


----------



## GiYu - Todd

Wow... just, wow. 

I'm all for realistic training, but this sounds a bit excessive.


----------



## elder999

Bill Mattocks said:


> This is not how to conduct a gun safety class...
> 
> Pastor shot during gun safety class
> 
> _"Tom Smith, a family pastor who also helps with church security, was shot by his instructor during a gun safety class.
> 
> Modesto police said the two were acting out a scenario when a loaded gun the instructor was holding accidentally went off. The pastor was shot in the abdomen."_



1) Check and verify the credentials of your instructor

2) Words that don''t belong together: "acting out a scenario." *and* "_loaded gin_" I mean....*really?*
(I gotta say, though, that even with professionals, this happens-we lost a pro-force member at the lab in a trainng exercise due to just this sort of thing...)


----------



## GiYu - Todd

elder999 said:


> Words that don''t belong together: "acting out a scenario." *and* "_loaded gin_"


Had a buddy who was an operator who had just transferred to a new unit.  Morning of day two at new base, they tell him to go check out a gun and ammo, and be at the "kill house" for practice.  Right before they went in, they inform him the unit's commander likes to sit in one of the rooms as a "hostage" with bad-guy targets nearby... "so be careful".  My friend said he was terrified of screwing up.  Apparently the commander had some tremendous faith in his people (and a hefty set of heuvos)... but perhaps not much sense. 
BTW... neither I, nor my friend, recommend this type of training, unless you are in a profession where breaching a hostile facility and killing bad guys is part of your job description (and even then, it's a really stupid idea).


----------



## Tez3

GiYu - Todd said:


> Had a buddy who was an operator who had just transferred to a new unit.  Morning of day two at new base, they tell him to go check out a gun and ammo, and be at the "kill house" for practice.  Right before they went in, they inform him the unit's commander likes to sit in one of the rooms as a "hostage" with bad-guy targets nearby... "so be careful".  My friend said he was terrified of screwing up.  Apparently the commander had some tremendous faith in his people (and a hefty set of heuvos)... but perhaps not much sense.
> BTW... neither I, nor my friend, recommend this type of training, unless you are in a profession where breaching a hostile facility and killing bad guys is part of your job description (and even then, it's a really stupid idea).



That certainly puts the usual new guy things like sending to the stores for a 'long wait' or 'tartan' paint to shame! Though one of the best I've seen was a guy being sent on to the airfield to turn off the wind sock, silly but harmless to health and body.


----------



## Buka

elder999 said:


> 1) Check and verify the credentials of your instructor
> 
> 2) Words that don''t belong together: "acting out a scenario." *and* "_loaded gin_" I mean....*really?*
> (I gotta say, though, that even with professionals, this happens-we lost a pro-force member at the lab in a trainng exercise due to just this sort of thing...)



What Elder said.


----------



## Tames D

**** happens


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Stories like this are one reason I dislike the "every law-abiding citizen should carry a gun" attitude of certain firearm enthusiasts. There are some people who just should not be around any sort of lethal technology.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tony Dismukes said:


> Stories like this are one reason I dislike the "every law-abiding citizen should carry a gun" attitude of certain firearm enthusiasts. There are some people who just should not be around any sort of lethal technology.



I don't recall hearing anyone seriously suggest any such thing. Every law-abiding citizen should have THE RIGHT TO carry a gun is what I've heard and seen.

I'll bet you've done something stupid at least once in your driving career. Something that could have seriously injured someone, if you'd not been lucky. I know I have.
Should we lose our drivers licenses forever because of that?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't recall hearing anyone seriously suggest any such thing. Every law-abiding citizen should have THE RIGHT TO carry a gun is what I've heard and seen.


That would be the argument of the normal gun rights advocate. Not really interested in arguing for or against it at the moment - in my opinion it's a more complicated issue than true believers on either side of the fence like to admit and I don't have the time or energy or easy answers.

I'm saying that I've seen a minority of pro-gun types say not just that everybody should have the legal right to a gun, but that they should carry a gun, without any consideration of a host of factors which might determine whether it's a good idea for the individual. If I had been taking screenshots of my Facebook feed this last week or so, I'd have some examples at hand for you.

I won't even get into the posts I've seen suggesting that one's manliness or one's existence as a "free citizen" as opposed to a "subject" are dependent on owning a gun.

From what I've seen here, it seems that the pro-gun folks on MartialTalk are big advocates of proper training, firearm safety, and responsible gun ownership. That's good. That's how I think everybody with a firearm should be. Unfortunately, that's not how everybody with a firearm is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

In the Marines, there was no such thing as an accidental discharge, only a negligent discharge. I'd call this negligent.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't recall hearing anyone seriously suggest any such thing. Every law-abiding citizen should have THE RIGHT TO carry a gun is what I've heard and seen.
> 
> I'll bet you've done something stupid at least once in your driving career. Something that could have seriously injured someone, if you'd not been lucky. I know I have.
> Should we lose our drivers licenses forever because of that?


Whoa.    That's some broken logic,


Dirty Dog said:


> I don't recall hearing anyone seriously suggest any such thing. Every law-abiding citizen should have THE RIGHT TO carry a gun is what I've heard and seen.
> 
> I'll bet you've done something stupid at least once in your driving career. Something that could have seriously injured someone, if you'd not been lucky. I know I have.
> Should we lose our drivers licenses forever because of that?


there is some questionable logic going on here, but I really like the correlation to how our society manages automobiles.  I'll post more completely if I get on with a keyboard.  But simply put, we manage the risks of automobiles in many, many ways.   From mandated liability insurance, to safety features throughout the vehicles, to continuous maintanence and improvements to our roads, we are extremely creative and diligent.  We are literally confounded at every turn in every attempt to mitigate the inherent risks involved with guns.   I would wholeheartedly endorse applying our national approach to automobiles to the subject of guns.


----------



## jks9199

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the Marines, there was no such thing as an accidental discharge, only a negligent discharge. I'd call this negligent.


Extremely negligent.

A similar tragedy involving a law enforcement class here in Virginia led to strict policies on live weapons in training areas.  The situation where a live gun and a red gun are mixed up should never happen; they should never be on the same table.  In fact, they generally shouldn't be in the same room.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Steve said:


> Whoa.    That's some broken logic,
> 
> there is some questionable logic going on here, but I really like the correlation to how our society manages automobiles.  I'll post more completely if I get on with a keyboard.  But simply put, we manage the risks of automobiles in many, many ways.   From mandated liability insurance, to safety features throughout the vehicles, to continuous maintanence and improvements to our roads, we are extremely creative and diligent.  We are literally confounded at every turn in every attempt to mitigate the inherent risks involved with guns.   I would wholeheartedly endorse applying our national approach to automobiles to the subject of guns.



Imagine if we applied our national approach to automobiles to speech. Or religion.

And then we have this...

FOX 40 WICZ TV - Man with Twelve Driver's License Suspensions Arrested [12/14/2015] - News, Sports, Weather, Contests and More - Binghamton, NY

12 suspensions and we can't keep him out of a car. Maybe not such a good model for how well restrictions work.


----------



## drop bear

Bill Mattocks said:


> Imagine if we applied our national approach to automobiles to speech. Or religion.
> 
> And then we have this...
> 
> FOX 40 WICZ TV - Man with Twelve Driver's License Suspensions Arrested [12/14/2015] - News, Sports, Weather, Contests and More - Binghamton, NY
> 
> 12 suspensions and we can't keep him out of a car. Maybe not such a good model for how well restrictions work.



I assume the argument  that laws only stop most of the people is selective. And when it comes to theft and murder we still want to put the effort in to have these laws around.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Whoa.    That's some broken logic,
> 
> there is some questionable logic going on here, but I really like the correlation to how our society manages automobiles.  I'll post more completely if I get on with a keyboard.  But simply put, we manage the risks of automobiles in many, many ways.   From mandated liability insurance, to safety features throughout the vehicles, to continuous maintanence and improvements to our roads, we are extremely creative and diligent.  We are literally confounded at every turn in every attempt to mitigate the inherent risks involved with guns.   I would wholeheartedly endorse applying our national approach to automobiles to the subject of guns.



We already do, at least in the areas I am familiar with.
You can buy a gun/car and keep it in your house/garage if you wish. No license required.
If you'd like to take that gun/car off your property, then you need a license. That license requires a certain basic amount of training. And it must be renewed periodically.
Both have mandated safety features, none of which do a damn bit of good if the operator is an idiot.
We have laws that penalize the unsafe or irresponsible use of both.
When you start applying the same standards to the right of free speech or religion, then we can talk more.


----------



## elder999

Dirty Dog said:


> We already do, at least in the areas I am familiar with.
> You can buy a gun/car and keep it in your house/garage if you wish. No license required.
> If you'd like to take that gun/car off your property, then you need a license. That license requires a certain basic amount of training. And it must be renewed periodically.
> Both have mandated safety features, none of which do a damn bit of good if the operator is an idiot.
> We have laws that penalize the unsafe or irresponsible use of both.
> When you start applying the same standards to the right of free speech or religion, then we can talk more.


Gun laws in New Mexico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Mexico is an open-carry state-no "training" required.
Kinda scary.


----------



## Dirty Dog

elder999 said:


> New Mexico is an open-carry state-no "training" required.
> Kinda scary.



So is Arizona - but both places still have laws in place to regulate what you do with those guns. A holstered gun is no more a danger to anybody that the car parked by the curb.
Just like cars - you can penalize misuse of the item. But it's kind of silly to claim you want to treat guns like cars, since car crashes (which kill FAR more people than shootings) don't result in a hue and cry to make it more difficult to buy a car.
Hell, treating guns like cars would require a relaxation of the existing restrictions.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

tsa gun - Google Search

I find it interesting that the TSA, charged with keeping terrorists off planes, finds lots of guns on people who are trying to get on a plane.  Some, according to the news stories in the above link, don't get detected at all.

But lost in the ether is a more basic point; how many of those people, undetected, were going to draw their weapons and use them on the plane had they not been stopped?

I'm not suggesting that passengers should take loaded guns on planes.  I'm still anti-idiot.

However, I am suggesting that since none of the arrested citizens with guns were apparently terrorists or boarding the plane with ill intent, not much was actually being done to enhance our safety.  Before the TSA, before the onboard scanning when you could just waltz onto the plane, apparently people did it; only when highjackings became popular did we put a stop to it.  So how come all those evil guns didn't cause their owners to shoot the planes up all the time?  Curious, I think. Very curious.  Perhaps most people who carry guns are actually responsible, law-abiding citizens.  How very odd.


----------



## elder999

Dirty Dog said:


> So is Arizona - but both places still have laws in place to regulate what you do with those guns. A holstered gun is no more a danger to anybody that the car parked by the curb.
> Just like cars - you can penalize misuse of the item. But it's kind of silly to claim you want to treat guns like cars, since car crashes (which kill FAR more people than shootings) don't result in a hue and cry to make it more difficult to buy a car.
> Hell, treating guns like cars would require a relaxation of the existing restrictions.



There is no training or requalifying required for open-carry.


----------



## Dirty Dog

elder999 said:


> There is no training or requalifying required for open-carry.



Nor is there a restriction on the capacity of your gas tank.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Whoa.    That's some broken logic,
> 
> there is some questionable logic going on here, but I really like the correlation to how our society manages automobiles.  I'll post more completely if I get on with a keyboard.  But simply put, we manage the risks of automobiles in many, many ways.   From mandated liability insurance, to safety features throughout the vehicles, to continuous maintanence and improvements to our roads, we are extremely creative and diligent.  We are literally confounded at every turn in every attempt to mitigate the inherent risks involved with guns.   I would wholeheartedly endorse applying our national approach to automobiles to the subject of guns.


Good in theory but you have no Constitutional right to drive a car so the Govt can put as many restrictions as it wants on it.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Good in theory but you have no Constitutional right to drive a car so the Govt can put as many restrictions as it wants on it.


There is no right we have under the constitution that is completely unrestricted or unregulated.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> There is no right we have under the constitution that is completely unrestricted or unregulated.


doesn't make it right.  "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> doesn't make it right.  "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear


Well regulated seems clear, as well.  I'm of the opinion that all reasonable people understand that some regulation is needed.   I'm also of the opinion that there is much to learn from the way we have managed automobiles.  The SCOTUS is there to determine whether it is unconstitutional, but I believe there is plenty of room too prove our current situation.


----------



## Steve

I apologize.  Reflecting on this thread, I believe I and several others have strayed too far into the political side of it.  I'll step out before the thread gets locked.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I apologize.  Reflecting on this thread, I believe I and several others have strayed too far into the political side of it.  I'll step out before the thread gets locked.


you got something on your nose


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> Well regulated seems clear, as well.  I'm of the opinion that all reasonable people understand that some regulation is needed.   I'm also of the opinion that there is much to learn from the way we have managed automobiles.  The SCOTUS is there to determine whether it is unconstitutional, but I believe there is plenty of room too prove our current situation.



Just one thing:


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> you got something on your nose


Lol.  Truly, I think whatever points I have to make are well made over the years.  Whether you disagree or not, I'm pretty sure you understand where I'm at. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Lol.  Truly, I think whatever points I have to make are well made over the years.  Whether you disagree or not, I'm pretty sure you understand where I'm at.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


it was a joke


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> it was a joke


I know.  It was so funny, I LOL'd.


----------



## Paul_D

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't recall hearing anyone seriously suggest any such thing. Every law-abiding citizen should have THE RIGHT TO carry a gun is what I've heard and seen.


Perhaps it is not said everyone should carry a gun, but certainly each time there is a mass shooting and people call for gun control, pro gun lobbiests do counter with the argument that if more people carried guns there would be fewer mass shootings.


----------



## jks9199

Folks,
Martial Talk is really not the place to discuss gun control laws.  Some room for limited practical discussion (that's legal, that's illegal),  Let's keep the discussion to what happened in this incident, and move away from the politics.  We have a sister forum at US Message Board for political discussion.


----------



## elder999

jks9199 said:


> Folks,
> We have a sister forum at US Message Board for political discussion.



More like that filthy sister who strolls 8th Avenue......


----------



## seasoned

Thread locked pending staff review.


----------

