Dec. 31 editorial: Firearm safety 101...

Dec. 31 editorial: Firearm safety 101 -- It's always loaded

There are 31 comments on the The Newberg Graphic story from Dec 31, 2011, titled Dec. 31 editorial: Firearm safety 101 -- It's always loaded. In it, The Newberg Graphic reports that:

   Today's front page story, headlined "Teen arrested after shooting friend Tuesday," provides a cautionary tale about firearms and their proper use.   According to police, a 20-year-old Newberg woman was shot in the abdomen when she handed a rifle to her friend and he pulled the trigger, believing the weapon was unloaded.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Newberg Graphic.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jan 09

Brooklyn, NY

#1 Dec 31, 2011
It never ceases to amaze me how many idiots "play" with guns. The first rule, time and again, is ALWAYS TREAT ANY FIREARM AS IF IT IS LOADED! You do not point the muzzle at anything you do not want to shoot. You do not play with the trigger. You do not leave ammunition lying around while cleaning/repairing a firearm.

Such simple rules yet we often see Darwin at work.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2 Dec 31, 2011
Zzznorch wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how many idiots "play" with guns. The first rule, time and again, is ALWAYS TREAT ANY FIREARM AS IF IT IS LOADED! You do not point the muzzle at anything you do not want to shoot. You do not play with the trigger. You do not leave ammunition lying around while cleaning/repairing a firearm.
Such simple rules yet we often see Darwin at work.
I know what you mean about people being stupid. I had gun safety drilled into my head from before I started school. Any deviation from safe practice was corrected with a good swift kick in the ass. We always had a rifle and shotgun in plain sight with ammo for both sitting on the shelf above them. There was also a loaded shotgun in my parents room that you KNEW you didn't touch. Gun safety is everyones business and there will always be idiots.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#3 Dec 31, 2011
That issue of 'safety' should =NEVER= be used to make law, not ever.
.
Why? For this reason:
覧覧覧覧覧

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from man because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, will respect the less important arbitrary ones....and which, if strictly obeyed would put a end to personal liberty?....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than a armed man."
.
~ Thomas Jefferson (quoting Cesare Bonesana, Marchese Beccaria, 1738-1794)
覧覧覧覧覧
.
And this as well:
覧覧覧覧覧
"Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim."
.
~ Thomas B. Macaulay
覧覧覧覧覧
覧覧覧覧覧

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#4 Jan 2, 2012
Highlander wrote:
That issue of 'safety' should =NEVER= be used to make law, not ever.
.
Why? For this reason:
覧覧覧覧覧
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from man because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, will respect the less important arbitrary ones....and which, if strictly obeyed would put a end to personal liberty?....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than a armed man."
.
~ Thomas Jefferson (quoting Cesare Bonesana, Marchese Beccaria, 1738-1794)
覧覧覧覧覧
.
And this as well:
覧覧覧覧覧
"Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim."
.
~ Thomas B. Macaulay
覧覧覧覧覧
覧覧覧覧覧
Good Morning High, happy new year!

I had a thought, tell me what you think.

I would like to see a "operators license" for gun carry out of the home. Ideally, this would have been taken care of in High School, but that is another quest.

The license only allows for the bearing of arms off of your property. It has no bearing whatsoever on obtaining or keeping arms.

If you get caught operating a gun (pulling it out of your holster) without an "operators license", then cops can take your gun. If you do not get a license in a certain amount of time (30 to 60 days) then the cops get to keep your gun.

As soon as you show up with your "license", they give it back.

I thought of this when I realized you do not need a license to own a car, or operate one on private property. You only need it to operate in "public".

If the operators license has no bearing on obtaining arms, nor no bearing on private property, and only pertains to "operating" a gun in public, how could the Gov use this as a slippery slope?

Zig

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5 Jan 2, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Morning High, happy new year!
I had a thought, tell me what you think.
I would like to see a "operators license" for gun carry out of the home. Ideally, this would have been taken care of in High School, but that is another quest.
The license only allows for the bearing of arms off of your property. It has no bearing whatsoever on obtaining or keeping arms.
If you get caught operating a gun (pulling it out of your holster) without an "operators license", then cops can take your gun. If you do not get a license in a certain amount of time (30 to 60 days) then the cops get to keep your gun.
As soon as you show up with your "license", they give it back.
I thought of this when I realized you do not need a license to own a car, or operate one on private property. You only need it to operate in "public".
If the operators license has no bearing on obtaining arms, nor no bearing on private property, and only pertains to "operating" a gun in public, how could the Gov use this as a slippery slope?
Zig
I am going to butt in on this one (Happy New Year, Zig).

Not only "NO", but "HELL NO!" How about a license to speak your own thoughts while in public, or to take pictures while you are on vacation, or to be able to just walk down the sidewalk?

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#6 Jan 2, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Morning High, happy new year!
I had a thought, tell me what you think.
I would like to see a "operators license" for gun carry out of the home. Ideally, this would have been taken care of in High School, but that is another quest.
The license only allows for the bearing of arms off of your property. It has no bearing whatsoever on obtaining or keeping arms.
If you get caught operating a gun (pulling it out of your holster) without an "operators license", then cops can take your gun. If you do not get a license in a certain amount of time (30 to 60 days) then the cops get to keep your gun.
As soon as you show up with your "license", they give it back.
I thought of this when I realized you do not need a license to own a car, or operate one on private property. You only need it to operate in "public".
If the operators license has no bearing on obtaining arms, nor no bearing on private property, and only pertains to "operating" a gun in public, how could the Gov use this as a slippery slope?
Zig
Seriously, Zig, I can't tell whether you're serious or just yanking my chain!
.
Your suggestion above is offensive 擁n the extreme to any idea of self-defence.
.
A license to take your self-protection with you from your abode?
.
What about homeless people?
.
All of this BS about licensure didn't exist in the Founder's day. Since no such thing existed back then, then neither should it now.
.
And, I will think you know better as well.
.
Finally, the ~only~ valid reason for MV operator's licenses is to ascertain one has been tested and found fit to operate whatever vehicle on the publicly-owned and maintained thoroughfares. Remember: The state 傭y way of assuming responsibility for their construction and maintenance encumbers itself with liability.
.
However, no耀uch葉hing may be true regarding that matter of whatever inherent human right. The state is =NOT= here to shephard us. And, far too many people have it in mind that the state is somehow possessing of the extended parental powers for adults.
.
I find the whole thought of the state pretentiously acting as parents to be most heinously deleterious to any idea of liberty.
.
Finally, if you were joking and merely pulling my chain, then forgive my rant above.
.
BUT, if you weren't joking, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
Julia

Huntsville, AL

#7 Jan 2, 2012
It's just weird that he pulled the trigger while he was aiming at her. She should have noticed this strange trait long before a gun was involved - this absence of logic or even instinct really....and where was her instinct for self-preservation? Sounds like nature is kicking someone's ass for ignoring its' laws.

If someone tries to make this a "gun issue" then they are merely being simple and believe that the existence of a gun inherently means a bloody wound. It doesn't matter what kind of projectile weapon or how powerful - first of all it should not be pointed at anyone (my nephew does not grasp that this rule applies to his Nerf guns as well), also, if it is not aimed at someone and if there is no intention to shoot them then they are not in any danger. It's an absolute that stands alone whether it's a crossbow, a pistol, or some smart-ass kid named Freddy sitting next to you in class who has a pile of rubber bands in front of him with a shit-eating grin on his big fat freckled face.........ok, someone personal stuff came out in that one.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#8 Jan 2, 2012
Julia wrote:
It's just weird that he pulled the trigger while he was aiming at her. She should have noticed this strange trait long before a gun was involved - this absence of logic or even instinct really....and where was her instinct for self-preservation? Sounds like nature is kicking someone's ass for ignoring its' laws.
If someone tries to make this a "gun issue" then they are merely being simple and believe that the existence of a gun inherently means a bloody wound. It doesn't matter what kind of projectile weapon or how powerful - first of all it should not be pointed at anyone (my nephew does not grasp that this rule applies to his Nerf guns as well), also, if it is not aimed at someone and if there is no intention to shoot them then they are not in any danger. It's an absolute that stands alone whether it's a crossbow, a pistol, or some smart-ass kid named Freddy sitting next to you in class who has a pile of rubber bands in front of him with a shit-eating grin on his big fat freckled face.........ok, someone personal stuff came out in that one.
Well, Julia, women are 傭y nature emotional creatures.
.
Men, on the other hand, are largely calculating.
.
Think of it just this way: Women are trees, and men are the wind.
.
The wind moves the leaves, the branches, and sometimes even the trees.
.
The wind is here today, and gone tomorrow.
.
The trees are here to stay.
.
A good tree knows the wind.
.
A good tree takes DEEP root.
.
A good tree is often moved, BUT, a good tree doesn't allow itself to be 'blown away.'
.
Neither is wind inherently evil, nor are trees inherently good. Betwixt the two there arrives a dance of fate.
.
Ergo, if you must 'dance with the wind,' you must of necessity have deep roots, lots of faith, and a sense of humour.
Julia

Huntsville, AL

#9 Jan 2, 2012
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Julia, women are 傭y nature emotional creatures.
.
Men, on the other hand, are largely calculating.
.
Think of it just this way: Women are trees, and men are the wind.
.
The wind moves the leaves, the branches, and sometimes even the trees.
.
The wind is here today, and gone tomorrow.
.
The trees are here to stay.
.
A good tree knows the wind.
.
A good tree takes DEEP root.
.
A good tree is often moved, BUT, a good tree doesn't allow itself to be 'blown away.'
.
Neither is wind inherently evil, nor are trees inherently good. Betwixt the two there arrives a dance of fate.
.
Ergo, if you must 'dance with the wind,' you must of necessity have deep roots, lots of faith, and a sense of humour.
:):):):):)

When you say "sense of humour" are you implying something about the girl who was shot in the gut or me getting flicked in the face with a rubber band?

Just kidding.

I am here and have guns on my mind since I am about to sign up for a tactical self-defense course and now contemplating the subject of "men and women" as well I must say that it is truly incredible to live in a country where so many men encourage and train women to reach their full potential towards self-defense and who even celebrate it when a women does so successfully. Regardless of how my instructor feels about it I consider this course a damn near spiritual experience when I also consider how special that relationship is. Of all the interactions between men and women throughout time and throughout the world today is this one not comparitively - exclusively American? Is this not another example of how special this country is? The good men of this country are those who don't take its' rarity for granted so imagine how a woman with open eyes must feel about it when one of those men embraces her in the way I have described, or who at least does not turn her away. Is there any other way to look at it when this man becomes my teacher that he is conveying that this weapon seeks to make us equals? That he desires that? No one can tell me otherwise and or that I am overthinking it. Not in this world and not in my experience.

Anyway, I loved your comment.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#10 Jan 2, 2012
Julia wrote:
<quoted text>
:):):):):)
When you say "sense of humour" are you implying something about the girl who was shot in the gut or me getting flicked in the face with a rubber band?
Just kidding.
I am here and have guns on my mind since I am about to sign up for a tactical self-defense course and now contemplating the subject of "men and women" as well I must say that it is truly incredible to live in a country where so many men encourage and train women to reach their full potential towards self-defense and who even celebrate it when a women does so successfully. Regardless of how my instructor feels about it I consider this course a damn near spiritual experience when I also consider how special that relationship is. Of all the interactions between men and women throughout time and throughout the world today is this one not comparitively - exclusively American? Is this not another example of how special this country is? The good men of this country are those who don't take its' rarity for granted so imagine how a woman with open eyes must feel about it when one of those men embraces her in the way I have described, or who at least does not turn her away. Is there any other way to look at it when this man becomes my teacher that he is conveying that this weapon seeks to make us equals? That he desires that? No one can tell me otherwise and or that I am overthinking it. Not in this world and not in my experience.
Anyway, I loved your comment.
Good women and men see themselves as equals.
.
Neither seeks not to deprive the other, yet both seek to nourish in their own way.
.
That, more than anything else, serves as the anchor for everything else which follows.
.
Julia

Huntsville, AL

#11 Jan 3, 2012
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Good women and men see themselves as equals.
.
Neither seeks not to deprive the other, yet both seek to nourish in their own way.
.
That, more than anything else, serves as the anchor for everything else which follows.
.
Absolutely.

Men are not forced by nature to consider women in an equal manner....so when it occurs it is because of the intelligence of men - they say that the convenience that nature has provided them is not enough and they will USE their minds. They CHOOSE without having been coerced. The power of that.

I obviously get all kind of gushy when I think about it. On my travels I met this "guy" who said that "men are superior to women" and then he said it was because he could beat me down right there if he wanted to. He was indeed referring to a superiority but only from the perspective of a brute. He was referring to merely what nature provided him physically as the "end all" and even maybe it was the fear of society's consequences instead of actually not "wanting to" that kept him from doing so.

So again I gush about the men who CHOOSE to teach me how to overcome this physical disparity provided by nature. I also refer to this example to distinguish between this guy and the men who created and perpetuate this nation as the first ABSOLUTE attempt to establish Civilization.

Damn I am wordy tonight.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#12 Jan 3, 2012
Julia wrote:
[--snip for brevity--]Damn I am wordy tonight.
Well, you know? From my own perspective 羊egarding females t'is better to 'wordy' than 'deadly.'
.
Aye!
.
:o)
.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#13 Jan 3, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Morning High, happy new year!
I had a thought, tell me what you think.
I would like to see a "operators license" for gun carry out of the home. Ideally, this would have been taken care of in High School, but that is another quest.
The license only allows for the bearing of arms off of your property. It has no bearing whatsoever on obtaining or keeping arms.
If you get caught operating a gun (pulling it out of your holster) without an "operators license", then cops can take your gun. If you do not get a license in a certain amount of time (30 to 60 days) then the cops get to keep your gun.
As soon as you show up with your "license", they give it back.
I thought of this when I realized you do not need a license to own a car, or operate one on private property. You only need it to operate in "public".
If the operators license has no bearing on obtaining arms, nor no bearing on private property, and only pertains to "operating" a gun in public, how could the Gov use this as a slippery slope?
Zig
I disagree. I disbelieve what I see here, you supporting a license for firearms. Though I absolutely advocate people take gun safety courses and practice frequently it shouldn稚 be mandated by law.

I will agree if you unholster your weapon in public without reason you should face consequences. A small fine, nothing more.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#14 Jan 3, 2012
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. I disbelieve what I see here, you supporting a license for firearms. Though I absolutely advocate people take gun safety courses and practice frequently it shouldn稚 be mandated by law.
I will agree if you unholster your weapon in public without reason you should face consequences. A small fine, nothing more.
Well, you know? If one is carrying a slung rifle 熔r shotgun, what about that?
.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#15 Jan 3, 2012
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, Zig, I can't tell whether you're serious or just yanking my chain!
.
Your suggestion above is offensive 擁n the extreme to any idea of self-defence.
.
A license to take your self-protection with you from your abode?
.
What about homeless people?
.
All of this BS about licensure didn't exist in the Founder's day. Since no such thing existed back then, then neither should it now.
.
And, I will think you know better as well.
.
Finally, the ~only~ valid reason for MV operator's licenses is to ascertain one has been tested and found fit to operate whatever vehicle on the publicly-owned and maintained thoroughfares. Remember: The state 傭y way of assuming responsibility for their construction and maintenance encumbers itself with liability.
.
However, no耀uch葉hing may be true regarding that matter of whatever inherent human right. The state is =NOT= here to shephard us. And, far too many people have it in mind that the state is somehow possessing of the extended parental powers for adults.
.
I find the whole thought of the state pretentiously acting as parents to be most heinously deleterious to any idea of liberty.
.
Finally, if you were joking and merely pulling my chain, then forgive my rant above.
.
BUT, if you weren't joking, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
Not enough coffee and buying into the notion of idiots with guns and "what to do".

Thanks for the help, our fellow posters have already jumped me for this "discretion".

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#16 Jan 3, 2012
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. I disbelieve what I see here, you supporting a license for firearms. Though I absolutely advocate people take gun safety courses and practice frequently it shouldn稚 be mandated by law.
I will agree if you unholster your weapon in public without reason you should face consequences. A small fine, nothing more.
Jump back, slap myself.

Good to see none of you guys are sleeping in this year.

I withdrawel my caffeine free hallucination.
Packin

Nettleton, MS

#17 Jan 3, 2012
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. I disbelieve what I see here, you supporting a license for firearms. Though I absolutely advocate people take gun safety courses and practice frequently it shouldn稚 be mandated by law.
I will agree if you unholster your weapon in public without reason you should face consequences. A small fine, nothing more.
How many people unholster their gun in public without a reason? Does not having your gun in a holster in anyway cause harm to the public? How about making a law against actually firing or using the gun in public to rob or kill? Oh wait those laws already exist. Kind of makes those other anti-gun laws moot.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#18 Jan 3, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Jump back, slap myself.
Good to see none of you guys are sleeping in this year.
I withdrawel my caffeine free hallucination.
Personal indiscretions serve to remind us that no man is perfect.
.
Well okay, maybe I am ...
.
;o)
.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#19 Jan 4, 2012
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you know? If one is carrying a slung rifle 熔r shotgun, what about that?
.
I would expect a reply such as this from Richard_. Who is going to carry a rifle or shotgun as their defense weapon in public?

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#20 Jan 4, 2012
Packin wrote:
<quoted text> How many people unholster their gun in public without a reason? Does not having your gun in a holster in anyway cause harm to the public? How about making a law against actually firing or using the gun in public to rob or kill? Oh wait those laws already exist. Kind of makes those other anti-gun laws moot.
Having worked in a gun store I致e seen firsthand what happens with idiots carrying guns. Most gun stores prohibit loaded weapons in the store with good reason. That痴 not to say if I knew someone was carrying concealed or open I nor anyone else there would object despite the rule. Now, if they took it out to show someone they were asked to store their weapon in their vehicle or leave.

It痴 when people begin handling the loaded weapon it becomes a potential problem. More than once a customer discharged an 砥nloaded weapon in the store. One afternoon a guy came in with a shotgun. When it was requested we clear the shotgun he stated it wasn稚 loaded and pulled the trigger blowing a hole through the roof. He of course was asked to leave and never return. At least that bozo pulled the trigger in a safe direction. Two of the idiots were cops, I would expect a bit better from them.

Out in public I will not unholster my weapon for any reason unless I intend to use it. It痴 loaded and a round is in the chamber. If someone asks me what I知 carrying I will tell them but I will not show it off. Even though I知 very proficient with a variety of firearms safety is always the first concern. I致e never had an unintentional discharge and would like to keep that intact.

No, people shouldn稚 be permitted to unholster loaded firearms in public without valid reason. Once again, I suggested a small fine, nothing more. It痴 a safety issue.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Newberg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Two dead in submerged vehicle in Newberg (Jul '12) Dec '17 Louise Svadeba 2
Need Help with Christmas Presents? Dec '17 Meme 1
Dog Abuse Near Coffee Stand and Arco in Dundee (Jun '17) Jun '17 animallivesmatter 1
Grey/silver dodge neon (May '17) May '17 Shorty 1
Surgery Center at Tanasbourne (May '17) May '17 news 1
News Man leads police on high-speed chase in stolen ... (Mar '17) Mar '17 Evilgelicalling 5
People of Newberg (Sep '08) Aug '16 Newberg or police 2

Newberg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Newberg Mortgages