Negligent Discharge at Houston Gun show this weekend

[matchstick]

My position is that the TX CHL training should include a segment on gun safety, including handling and administrative tasks (with practicals). I'd also like to see some minimal marksmanship guidance. I agree with tomneal that even the stupid deserve the right of protection. I just think we should make a minimal effort at alleviating some of that stupidity in the CHL course.

My CHL class spent at least a couple hours on gun handling and basic marksmanship.

[stevie_d_64]

My position is that the TX CHL training should include a segment on gun safety, including handling and administrative tasks (with practicals). I'd also like to see some minimal marksmanship guidance. I agree with tomneal that even the stupid deserve the right of protection. I just think we should make a minimal effort at alleviating some of that stupidity in the CHL course.

I don't know...

I believe the general lesson plan is adequate to take care of how utterly important safety is when it comes to handling firearms of any type...

Stressing that we are going to be "safe" while on the range to conduct our qualifier, and that we are going to follow range rules while we shoot, I believe is enough of a warning to be on our toes and watchful, just to reduce the risk of accidents...

I suppose whatever an instructor wishes to devote to safety and general handling practices is up to them...Some do a great job explaining and fielding questions in a relatively short time, and others might go into greater detail and depth of discussion...Thats fine as well...

It has alway been my impression that the CHL class should be just about that, concealed carry, the law, qualification test...With safety obviously an overall factor in that days activities...

Getting additional training or instruction should be stressed as such, additional...And CHL instructors should consider making available information the students can access on their own recognitance (sp?)...

But thats just my opinion...

[G.C.Montgomery]

My position is that the TX CHL training should include a segment on gun safety, including handling and administrative tasks (with practicals). I'd also like to see some minimal marksmanship guidance. I agree with tomneal that even the stupid deserve the right of protection. I just think we should make a minimal effort at alleviating some of that stupidity in the CHL course.

Safe storage and administrative handling procedures are a part of the curriculum. It’s up the instructor to make sure these subjects are covered in his class. The State says the class may run a minimum of ten hours or up to a maximum of fifteen hours. Whether a student gets exposed to that curriculum is up to the instructor but I’ll give you an example of what I think is a common problem with CHL classes taught in retail facilities. Many retail facilities improperly schedule the classes and do not allowing the instructor to spend much time, if any, teaching people the basics of administrative handling. The retailer is only interested in the money and causing minimal inconvenience to the students in hopes the students will be repeat customers to the range and retail space.

For example, a retailer schedules their CHL classes from 8:30AM to 6:30PM. This is a common schedule and on the surface appears to be a ten-hour class. The problem is, students are told by the retailer to expect a one-hour break for lunch. That means the class is in fact only scheduled for nine-hours of instruction rather than the mandated ten hour minimum. The same facility generally expects instructors to fingerprint their students as well handle all notary and other paperwork. The facility will provide fingerprinting, photos and notary but that still occupies time that for the students should be spent in the lecture. And then of course, the instructor walks the students out to the range for proficiency demonstrations. In an average class of twenty or more students, all of these tasks combine to burn as much as three hours. Generally that leaves the instructor with about six hours to get through safe storage/handling procedures, non-violent dispute resolution, the penal code, where concealed carry is allow/prohibited, use of force/deadly force, and student questions. But students also must be allowed time to take the written exam and the exams have to be graded before the instructor can sign the student’s TR-100. So typically, that cuts another half-hour to and hour out of time allotted for instruction. The result is students are actually getting only about five hours of lecture time in a class mandated for ten hours. Do you think something might get skipped?

[flintknapper]

I suppose whatever an instructor wishes to devote to safety and general handling practices is up to them...Some do a great job explaining and fielding questions in a relatively short time, and others might go into greater detail and depth of discussion...Thats fine as well...

The instructor I use does a good job going over the basics. He told me this weekend that he has "seen some pretty scary stuff" before.

My daughter didn't go out and shoot with the first group of students because she was afraid of one mans gun handling (and questions). He was not aware that in order to qualify to carry a S/A you had to show proficiency with a S/A (happens every class), so the instructor loaned him a Taurus PT92 to shoot with and tried his best to get the gentleman to understand how it worked while we were at break.

My daughter saw all of this...and despite the instructors excellent efforts, she didn't think the guy was "getting it" and it spooked her.

On the shooting range....this fellow had the misfortune of dropping a round on the ground while loading the mag. (it happens), but when he bent over to pick it up, the gun fell out of his nail pouch and landed in the gravel. The instructor looks back over his shoulder at me with a big "half smile" on his face, kind of a "see what I go through" look.

The gentleman did manage to qualify... and in the classroom he seemed very knowlegable about the law (and recent changes). I believe a lot of people do not have the desire (or maybe a place) to shoot, but still want to be able to protect themselves. I have to support that....even though I encourage folks to seek out addtional training/practice.

My own daughter had not shot a pistol in three years because of the demands of school and work. We did put some rounds through her new pistol so she could familarize herself with it. But she shot the course with my .45

So........nows theres another on the waiting list.

[govnor]

I'm not implying that anyone should be denied owning gun. I'm saying that some people should just not own a gun. Some people should not be allowed to drive a car. I've met some individuals that no matter how much safety training you provide them, they will never get it. There's an idiot that works for my father who was dishonorably discharged from the army because he shot a snake with an automatic weapon in the middle of the night...in the middle of the military encampment. Imagine the mayhem that ensued after that took place. You can't tell me that that guy has any business with a firearm. I don't care how likely he is to be raped and beaten while walking down the street. :)

I'm also not saying that people should have to go through a gun safety course to buy a gun. The gun control people would love that. Unfortunately, incidents like this add fuel to their fire.

[QB]

I never said quoting the guy was not fair nor that what they did report was wrong. Nor did I say it was over-reported or that it shouldn't be reported. Rather I maintain it was "under reported" in that the WHY and HOW wasn't investigated and/or reported. But what the media chooses to leave out of their report is often worse than what they put in the report. While I presume to know firearms safety, not all readers of the report do. It would not have hurt to elaborate just a bit more in the article about the requirement to tie off guns entering the building and other safety measures that were not adhered to. By leaving out that type of data in the report, it could "appear" to non-gun/non-gunshow savy people that gunshows are just the spawning grounds for NDs and that everyone is walking around with a loaded gun.

In my opinion if someone is anti-gun it doesn't matter what the media reports.....they will still be anti-gun so actually the content of the report is really a mute point. Still, I stand by my opinion (and it's just MY opinion) that the media very often slant their stories against guns by reporting incorrect or misleading data which includes using gun terminolgy that is "sensational" rather than correct.

I've been at the Dallas Market Hall, Big Town Show and Frisco Show when there have been NDs. Although I'm sure there was some media coverage I can honestly say that I never heard and/or saw a mention of it on TV/radio.

[Venus Pax]

I hate to make comments that some people shouldn't own guns, even though there are people that do scare me a bit. Having taught for seven years, I happen to believe that some people shouldn't have children. But would I support governmental regulation of parenthood? No way.
Nothing is ever going to be perfect in this world. There will be accidents. People will die. This will happen with or without laws "for our protection." Wouldn't you rather at least have your freedoms?

[Liberty]

I never said quoting the guy was not fair nor that what they did report was wrong. Nor did I say it was over-reported or that it shouldn't be reported. Rather I maintain it was "under reported" in that the WHY and HOW wasn't investigated and/or reported. But what the media chooses to leave out of their report is often worse than what they put in the report. While I presume to know firearms safety, not all readers of the report do. It would not have hurt to elaborate just a bit more in the article about the requirement to tie off guns entering the building and other safety measures that were not adhered to. By leaving out that type of data in the report, it could "appear" to non-gun/non-gunshow savy people that gunshows are just the spawning grounds for NDs and that everyone is walking around with a loaded gun.

In my opinion if someone is anti-gun it doesn't matter what the media reports.....they will still be anti-gun so actually the content of the report is really a mute point. Still, I stand by my opinion (and it's just MY opinion) that the media very often slant their stories against guns by reporting incorrect or misleading data which includes using gun terminolgy that is "sensational" rather than correct.

I've been at the Dallas Market Hall, Big Town Show and Frisco Show when there have been NDs. Although I'm sure there was some media coverage I can honestly say that I never heard and/or saw a mention of it on TV/radio.

Houston MSM will always select sensationalism over good taste. Thats what their viewership expects.

I guess I figure whenever the media doesn't hyperventilate about an ND then it is a positive thing. I just have lower standards I guess. Comes with living with Houston media. I have no expectations that the MSM would explain gun safety anymore than I would expect them to explain defensive driving when doing their accident reports. More lower expectations. Just my humble opinion

[KBCraig]

And some folks whine about 30.06 and other signs at guns shows ...

Since there are all kinds of "other signs" are GRB, which this guy ignored, what difference would one more sign have made?

[jimlongley]

Having taught for seven years, I happen to believe that some people shouldn't have children.

Having taught adults for a lot of years, I happen to believe that some people shouldn't, just shouldn't.

[HankB]

Safe storage and administrative handling procedures are a part of the curriculum . . .The State says the class may run a minimum of ten hours or up to a maximum of fifteen hours . . . a common problem with CHL classes taught in retail facilities. Many retail facilities improperly schedule the classes and do not allowing the instructor to spend much time, if any, teaching people the basics . . . For example, a retailer schedules their CHL classes from 8:30AM to 6:30PM. This is a common schedule and on the surface appears to be a ten-hour class. The problem is, students are told by the retailer to expect a one-hour break for lunch. That means the class is in fact only scheduled for nine-hours of instruction rather than the mandated ten hour minimum. The same facility generally expects instructors to fingerprint their students as well handle all notary and other paperwork. The facility will provide fingerprinting, photos and notary but that still occupies time that for the students should be spent in the lecture. And then of course, the instructor walks the students out to the range for proficiency demonstrations. In an average class of twenty or more students, all of these tasks combine to burn as much as three hours. Generally that leaves the instructor with about six hours to get through safe storage/handling procedures, non-violent dispute resolution, the penal code, where concealed carry is allow/prohibited, use of force/deadly force, and student questions. But students also must be allowed time to take the written exam and the exams have to be graded before the instructor can sign the student’s TR-100. So typically, that cuts another half-hour to and hour out of time allotted for instruction. The result is students are actually getting only about five hours of lecture time in a class mandated for ten hours.

On a personal basis, I don't see figuring in the administrative "overhead" time as a "problem" at all; five hours of lecture time are more than enough, and in fact the only thing I got out of the class (and renewal) was a review of the law and some candid comments on its application in reference to established case law.

CHL classes ought not be regarded as courses in basic administrative gun handling, marksmanship, fundamental safety (the Four Rules) etc.

As for the shooting at the Houston gun show, I see the result as a good thing - that is, the idiot hurt ONLY HIMSELF, and from the description of his injury will live to tell about it. It's a lesson in reality . . . harsh, perhaps, but a lesson nonetheless.

[HighVelocity]

The guy who shot himself needs to be held legally responsible; his injuries should be paid for out of his own pocket, not insurance or anything else.

I agree with you on this point. But... If acts of stupidity weren't covered by insurance, there wouldn't be much of an insurance industry.

If you "forget" to set the parking brake on your vehicle and it rolls downhill and off the road into a ditch, are you going to whip out your wallet and pay to fix it, or call your insurance agent? After all, it was your mistake that caused the damage.

Let's say it's a $50k car and there's a $35k lien on it and it's totalled.

Something to think about...

[seamusTX]

I agree with you on this point. But... If acts of stupidity weren't covered by insurance, there wouldn't be much of an insurance industry.

Most "accidents" result from some kind of human error. If insurance companies could refuse to pay because it was our fault, we would have to prove our innocence in most cases.

And how much disease could be prevented with better diet, more exercise, etc.?

- Jim

[QB]

I guess I figure whenever the media doesn't hyperventilate about an ND then it is a positive thing. I just have lower standards I guess. Comes with living with Houston media. I have no expectations that the MSM would explain gun safety anymore than I would expect them to explain defensive driving when doing their accident reports. More lower expectations. Just my humble opinion

Agreed....the report was low key and that's good. I have an abnormally strong hatred for the media for many reasons that have nothing to do with their reports on gun accidents so I'll stop ranting about them for now. I'd actually rather rant about "insurance" ....but I won't because I'd probably have a stroke which would be my fault because I chose to rant about insurace

[Scott Murray]

This may be a test case.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea ... 58523.html

The gist of this article is that the shooter may be charged with violating the 30.06 signs posted at the door. I don't believe such signs should be legally valid, since the George R. Brown is a publicly owned facility. The counter argument is that they are because they are being leased by a private party.

I hope this isn't a case of bad facts making bad law. If he hasn't sufferred enough already, and has to be charged with something, I'd rather see him charged with intentionally failing to keep it concealed.

Scott