Wednesday, 14 March 2018

Teacher accidentally fires gun and injures three students in safety lesson

quote [ A teacher trained in weapons use has been suspended after accidentally firing his gun in a classroom in California, injuring three students.

Dennis Alexander was teaching a gun safety lesson for his administration of justice class at Seaside high school, near Monterey in northern California ]

See? Arming teachers is a FANTABULOUS idea!

Wtf kind of class is "administration of justice" for high schoolers? I seem to remember a similar class being part of the curriculum for police academy recruits at a local city college.
[SFW] [dystopian violence] [+5 WTF]
[by rylex@7:52pmGMT]

Comments

dolemite said @ 8:22pm GMT on 14th Mar [Score:2 Underrated]
Actually, this is probably about as mild a gun incident as you could hope for if the USA armed their teachers en masse.
backSLIDER said @ 5:00am GMT on 15th Mar
Still counts as a mass shooting.
bbqkink said @ 6:17am GMT on 15th Mar
na have to have 3 or more injured or killed.http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/mass-shooting
backSLIDER said @ 6:29am GMT on 15th Mar
Oops, I thought this was the cop in seaside, ca.
HoZay said @ 1:31pm GMT on 15th Mar
It is hard to keep them straight.
Anonynonymous said @ 8:30pm GMT on 14th Mar [Score:2]
I do think kids should be taught about firearm safety, even if the student had no intention of ever owning a gun. That's just the reality of living in the United States. But it needs to be done at a gun range with safety officers keeping a close watch. Not by some teacher who probably had barely any experiences with firearms himself.
Taxman said @ 8:46pm GMT on 14th Mar
That's why a live firearm should not be used for instruction or display to a classroom full of students.

You'd almost wish that law enforcement came up with a safe method of showing an example involving a firearm without endangering everyone around them oh wait...

gendo666 said @ 10:03pm GMT on 14th Mar
Teaching basic firearms safety yes.
by chucklefucks in a non-clear environment - no.
Just another case of someone getting shot by a "good guy with a gun"

Taxman said @ 8:35pm GMT on 14th Mar [Score:1 Interesting]
SnappyNipples said @ 8:38pm GMT on 14th Mar [Score:1 Informative]
Its called Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Administration here in Texas. Its a vocational class to direct students into law enforcement. Two campuses locally are actually magnet schools that are also feeders to college for this job. None of these classes deal with weapons, physical take down and arrests. Its a class of criminal law, civil law, policing procedures, federal law, forensics, and law history. A lot of kids think its a fluff class until they find out how much writing is involved in law enforcement. Its basically ROTC for cops with summer programs and after school programs that preps the student for college and starts them off in vocation of law enforcement.
This isn't a case of an authorized armed teacher with a gun at school this is a case of a stupid reserve cop thinking he's authorized to bring a weapon to school. If it comes out he really was not authorized to teach with live fire arms he then has broke the federal no guns on campus act. Either way this guy is stewed. He's already going to get boned by the parents for hurting their kid from unlawfully discharging a weapon at school I'm wondering if the Feds will roll in on this.
bbqkink said @ 9:16pm GMT on 14th Mar [Score:1 Original]
The keep ignoring the first rule of guns.... The more guns the more dead people.
Spleentwentythree said @ 9:47pm GMT on 14th Mar [Score:1 Insightful]
I vaguely remember the first rule of guns was always act as if they were loaded. i think you may have come in late for your class on gun safety.
bbqkink said @ 10:00pm GMT on 14th Mar [Score:2 Informative]
No...it is in fact that having a gun increases your and anyone around you of being shot and or killed. You are talking about the first rule of handling a gun...big difference.


Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43 percent of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.


Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

Fact-check: In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1 percent of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at these claims found that more than half involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Spleentwentythree said @ 10:38pm GMT on 14th Mar
Yep... it is also a fact... that having a knife... increases the chance of you... and anyone around you... of being cut... and or stabbed...and...it is in fact... that having a big ass rock ...increases the chance of you... and anyone around you... of having a big ass rock fall on your toes.

You don't really need a rule or declaration of it being a fact that doing dangerous stuff with things that can hurt you of someone else often will, or even just having them around can lead to injuries, it's just common sense. If you want to list facts or rules about guns specifically then we are talking about... gun safety.

Headlessfriar said @ 10:46pm GMT on 14th Mar [Score:5 Underrated]
Forget gun control. We need to revoke your ellipsis privileges.
arrowhen said @ 12:25am GMT on 15th Mar [Score:3 Funny]
He keeps his ellipses in 40 round clipses.
rylex said @ 3:06am GMT on 15th Mar [Score:1 Funny]
30 helens agree with this comment being +10 funny
HoZay said @ 2:25am GMT on 15th Mar
This comment made the whole incident worthwhile.
Spleentwentythree said @ 10:53pm GMT on 14th Mar [Score:1 Underrated]
More then one per conversation does seem excessive.
bbqkink said[2] @ 6:39am GMT on 15th Mar
Pretty sure this is aimed at me and my poor writing style...

If you all think what I peck out now is bad you should have tried to read my post before somebody here at SE, back in the day, showed me the free spell check app. I was working off a machine that didn't have it...it was scary.
mechavolt said @ 10:52pm GMT on 14th Mar [Score:1 Insightful]
It's like the facts just flow right past you. It's not just an issue of having a gun increasing the likelihood of death or injury. It's that guns swing the balance in the complete opposite direction: having one makes you far less safe than if you didn't have one to begin with. A more appropriate analogy would be if owning a knife suddenly made cooking in your kitchen a highly fatal activity.
Spleentwentythree said @ 11:03pm GMT on 14th Mar
Are you refuting that being trained to treat a gun like a lethal device as all times means you are less likely to shoot if off while playing with like a toy and will store it away from children like anything else dangerous to them?

mechavolt said @ 12:39am GMT on 15th Mar [Score:1 Informative]
I'm saying that owning a gun is still more dangerous than its benefits, regardless of if you're trained or not. Even people who train and treat guns seriously are still far more likely to be injured or killed than someone who doesn't own a gun at all.
Spleentwentythree said @ 4:53am GMT on 15th Mar
From every person who i know who owns a gun, the main benefit seems to be that they wanted to own a gun, and now own a gun. If you consider someone's personal desires to matter, then danger has no consideration to them versus the benefits.

I acknowledge your point that you can't get hurt by your own gun if you don't have one, I just believe that it is both self evident to the point of not being needed to be said, and also true of anything else that you could own that you could get hurt with.
milkman666 said @ 5:20pm GMT on 15th Mar
Its gotta be weird then how its usually sold as something that makes you safer.
Spleentwentythree said @ 8:00pm GMT on 15th Mar
Do you really think guns are the only thing sold with a advertised justification for things people just want.

The fishing boat for "family vacations", the new computer for the kid's to do homework on, or the 19 year old sweetish au pair being moved in is because she is their to make thing easier for the mom.
milkman666 said @ 1:08am GMT on 16th Mar
Honestly it feels more like

What Cigarette Do You Smoke Doctor?


With the attendant scrambling to keep independent studies from giving the game away.
Taxman said @ 9:30pm GMT on 15th Mar
This reasoning would be sound if the desire of the person could ONLY hurt the person with the desire. However we live in a society, which means desires must be balanced with safety, reasonableness, and other people’s rights.

People can want a grenade, bazooka, or a tank. Nope. The potential for you to harm others outweighs your ‘desire’ to posses the item. Even if you pinky promise you’ll be careful. As the article shows, even a trained individual had the ability to accidentally kill someone simply because they wanted to instruct.

You can argue that if he had a knife the same thing could’ve happened. If you’re intellectually honest you’ll agree that percentages of the same level of accident happening are vastly, grossly, exponentially less.
Spleentwentythree said @ 11:25pm GMT on 15th Mar
Fortunately we have a document that gives a baseline of potentially dangerous things that you get to own as "you get to own a gun"

As i started with something to the effect of "the first rule of guns is to always treat it as a loaded weapon" it should be clear that I have acknowledge that guns are a lethal level of dangerous right from the start.

Knives are just a example of other things you can and often do injure yourself with that are commonly in a home, if you insist on a example of something that you can get injured with that is as lethal as a gun, how about pressurized flammable gas being pumped into your home. Not as many accidents, since people don't fuck around with their gas lines all that much, but it can be more lethal then a gun, and is even more of danger if set off to yourself, visitors and the people next door as a gun going off.
Taxman said[2] @ 12:03am GMT on 16th Mar
I'm aware of the constitution and I'm also aware of its writers’ original intentions. If you'd like single shot weapons, have at it. If you'd like to join a militia and be well regulated, surprise, that's in there too. Anything else and you're extrapolating what you WANT the document to say and not what it ACTUALLY says. You don't 'deserve' weapons of war. You don't 'deserve' armor-piercing rounds. We as a society get to decide what the amendment means and change it, if need be.

Again, YOU knowing the rules, YOU personally not being a problem, YOU being trained... does not entitle you to a grenade. We should act in the living interest of the most amount of people living in a society, not the minority's FEELINGS on the situation. To be clear, the majority of America is NOT armed.

Knives, cars, gas-lines, -pick a thing- serves an alternative purpose to death. Water can kill you, but it's a facetious argument to imply people want to ban it because of its fatality rate.

Guns, on the other hand, are specific tools meant to end the life of living things. A mistake with a kitchen knife can cause an unintended consequence of cutting a person. A mistake with a gun causes an intended result of a possible fatal wound.

For things that are dangerous: bulldozers, cars, gas lines, planes, drugs, explosives we naturally expect and REQUIRE nationwide a heightened level of training, licensing, and/or regulation and we watch the owners/users of these items very closely. I do not think it ridiculous, nefarious, or authoritarian to request the same level of regulation and monitoring that we do for EVERYTHING ELSE.
Spleentwentythree said @ 2:00am GMT on 16th Mar
It's always seems absurd to me that people think the founding father's could not imagine that guns just might become more deadly with time.

Seriously, Benjamin Franklin, you know the guy who was famous for inventing stuff, is sitting right over there while they read the bit about the right to bear arms, and somehow you believe that the whole room is really picturing that single shot black powder rifles and pistols is going to be the standard, forever?
Taxman said @ 12:09pm GMT on 16th Mar
I'm sure they imagined technology advancing, but not that every single citizen should be carrying the equivalency of a standing army of the time.

If we purchased our freedom from England instead of having to fight, do you think the founders would have been all uppity about arming the citizenry? The amendment was made FOR the times with the AVAILABLE technology of the times. We are no longer expecting King George to walk an army through our streets. We no longer need the citizenry to be 'in addition to' military resistance. Again, if you want to be an originalist, we have created a well-regulated militia for you to join. You will have an un-infringed firearm and everything. When Queen Elizabeth tries to retake America, you will be there, and we will appreciate your service.

Furthermore, it's an amendment. It is NOT meant to last forever, but rather to change as we need it to change. Baseline weapons have effectively become so powerful that an untrained amateur can easily kill several dozens of people before being stopped. The founders did not foresee this exact scenario. However they DID imagine scenarios being outside of their limited foresight and gave us the ability to change our mind about ANY of the amendments (prohibition?).

It always seems absurd to me that people think the founding father's were so smart and yet that they would somehow be so stupid if they were alive today. Unchanging 200 years later REGARDLESS of the new information? 96 American deaths A DAY due to rampant firearm distribution, and you think they'd be like "yeah that seems acceptable".
Mythtyn said @ 9:38pm GMT on 16th Mar
arrowhen said @ 11:28pm GMT on 14th Mar
Less likely is still more likely than the 0% chance of shooting yourself with a gun you don't have.
Menchi said @ 11:39pm GMT on 14th Mar [Score:1 Funsightful]
So we should A) Not carry around big-ass rocks all the time, or B) Make sure everyone has big-ass rocks everywhere, just in case they somehow find themselves in a situation where they need to defend themselves from someone else with a big-ass rock?
dolemite said[1] @ 2:32pm GMT on 15th Mar [Score:1 Informative]
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a big-ass rock is a good guy with a big-ass rock.

Or someone with a helmet.
bbqkink said[1] @ 11:08pm GMT on 14th Mar
A lot oversimplified, but yea. The point is guns a protection is most cases is a losing situation...walking on rocky ground does slightly increase your chance of being killed with a rock while caring a gun GREATLY increases you chance of being shot.

Having a gun for protection is a personal choice and depending what your degree of jeopardy is almost always a bad choice...pepper spry is MORE effective against against a street assault when the object is robbery and a not deadly at all.

Now if you are looking to kill it is hard to beat a gun...defensively there are a lot less lethal options.
backSLIDER said @ 6:53am GMT on 15th Mar
The 4 rules of gun safety are based off an old poem.
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Readings/fathersadvice.html

They are laid out in every gun safety class, posted at every gun range and are memorized by most gun owners. They aren't something gun owners joke about because that would be making light of shit like this negligent discharge. I'm going to come back and post my version of the rules.
backSLIDER said @ 7:03am GMT on 15th Mar
1 Every gun is loaded.
(Obviously you need to know a gun is empty to clean it but even if you think it is clear you should check it. I clean any gun the same day I use it. So I put it in a locked case and take it back out again when I get home. I know that it is empty but I check it as soon as I pick it up)
2 Never point a gun at something you don't want a hole in
(Point it down or up or whatever is smartest. Pointing any gun at a person is a huge nono)
3 keep your finger of the trigger
(until you are pointing at your target and you are ready to shoot)
4 know your target and what's beyond it.
(If you miss or when it passes through a target what is it going to do?)
Bruceski said @ 9:58pm GMT on 14th Mar
I thought the first rule of guns was the guy with the gun makes the rules.
cb361 said @ 10:02pm GMT on 14th Mar
Nah. The first rule of guns is that it makes you feel like your penis isn't so small any more.
rylex said @ 3:10am GMT on 15th Mar
That effect only occurs when firing guns.
bbqkink said @ 10:07pm GMT on 14th Mar
That's gold.
Hugh E. said @ 10:26pm GMT on 14th Mar
Whoever has the gun gets the gold.
Bruceski said @ 10:45pm GMT on 14th Mar
There are two kinds of people in this world; those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.
donnie said @ 9:23pm GMT on 14th Mar
bbqkink said @ 7:11am GMT on 15th Mar
We know guns are used in murders and robberies and also in suicides. Question: HOW MANY PEOPLE DIE DAILY FROM GUNS IN THE U.S.?
Taxman said @ 9:36pm GMT on 15th Mar
Too many.
bbqkink said[1] @ 11:34pm GMT on 15th Mar
96

And the problem isn't assault weapons is is hand guns and I haven't see anybody with a answer to that problem other than take them all....and that is out of the question as a political reality.
Taxman said[2] @ 12:05am GMT on 16th Mar

Smart Guns

The Right is going to lose its shit, but it's where we're headed.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
Karma
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
HoZay
Paracetamol
lilmookieesquire
Ankylosaur