Teachable Moments: NRA Safety Instructor Shoots Pupil

NRA gun safety instructor Michael Phillips, 32, experienced something of a teachable moment in class when he accidentally shot one of his students this week in Orlando.

Robert Frauman Jr., 50, was shot in the foot during an NRA class for certification for a concealed weapon. The course was being taught at the Summit Church and the bullet first passed through a table. The Church has indicated that it will not be holding firearms classes in the future.

Notably, the NRA has a rule against bringing ammunition into such classes. Orlando has a history of all-too-real gun safety courses. In 2004, a DEA agent was showing kids how to confirm that a gun was unloaded when he shot himself in the thigh.

Source: Orlando Sentinel

28 thoughts on “Teachable Moments: NRA Safety Instructor Shoots Pupil

  1. I loves my gun…

    Reminds me of Moore’s Bowling for Columbine. Nice point he makes in the interview with McVeigh’s father: the right loves to give everyone the right to any kind of gun in any place, but when it’s WMD or even nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, all of the sudden they believe in ample restrictions…

    As McVeigh so nicely said it, there’s a lot of whacko’s out there, not even realizing he’s quite high up the list.

  2. Jericho:

    how is a pistol or rifle equivalent to a nuclear reactor or an hydrogen bomb?

    Personally I think we need to build more nuclear reactors and cut the red tape so we can get them built in 5 years vs. 15 or 20. We also ought to have a big huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and a big force of ships, planes and rockets that can deliver those weapons. In other words be so deadly that no country will mess with us. Some old dead guy said it best “to have peace prepare for war”. It probably sounds better in the Latin. I think Sun Tzu probably said something to that effect as well. And my grandfather told me a bully responds well to a baseball bat.

    World War II had many causes but one was the Japanese thought they could beat us. And so did Osama Bin Laden based on the fiasco in Somalia.

    “The source of this adage remains unknown;[1] however, it is universally believed to be based on a quotation from Roman military writer Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus: Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.[2] The saying is one of many from or based on his work, Epitoma rei militaris, thought to be written around the year 390 AD. It is embedded in a passage that stresses the importance of skillful preparation of military actions, as opposed to mere reliance on coincidence or superiority of numbers:

    “Therefore, he who wishes peace, should prepare war; he who desires victory, should carefully train his soldiers; he who wants favorable results, should fight relying on skill, not on chance.”[3]”

  3. Students,

    This is a film very much like you saw in Drivers Edge Classes as a student. Since, you have the right to carry and that is guaranteed to you through the 2nd Amendment and applicable to the state through the 14 Amendment Sec 5. This is what you are supposed to not do in gun safety classes. Please remember to always carry protection and to lock the safety when no in use.

  4. Byron

    I think we had all those weapons so no one would mess with us in September 2001. A few characters with box cutters lured us into a trillion plus dollar war.

    http://costofwar.com/

    We need more smarts, not more weapons. Just like these two yo-yo’s.

  5. That’s right Buckeye,

    They should have been taken away from Dick and George. That was a bad comedy routine all the way around. I am still feeling the punch line.

  6. Buckeye:

    By Bin Ladens own admission he thought we were a paper tiger based on our actions in Somalia. This gave him the impetus to then attack our embassies and to finally attack the World Trade Center.

    Islamic terrorism has been ignored for 40 years plus. The only 2 presidents willing to confront it were Reagan and Bush. Carter made an attempt.

    Bush did not do it properly because of his compassionate conservatism and his ties to Saudi Arabia.

  7. Bryon,

    No we had presence but the oil embargos of the 70’s still stung. Remember Nixon saying that there would not be one dollar gasoline in his administration? Well George took care of that and we had 5 dollar gasoline.

  8. AY:

    a gallon of gas was about 35 cents in 1965, it is cheaper or about the same price in terms 1965 dollars. What with inflation. If I remember correctly the government makes more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do. So they have more incentive than Exxon to make sure Exxon is producing gas for their tax revenue.

    I don’t hear anyone or at least not many talking about blood for tax dollars. I doubt the US would have gone to war in Iraq for 3-5 cents of tax revenue per gallon of gas. Now that Iraq has a huge oil reserve the government will be there for years for that tax money.

    How do you like your roads and bridges paid for with the blood of innocents?

    The whole sordid mess is a grotesque example of an out of control government and executive. Maybe Bush and Cheney should be tried, I don’t say that lightly either.

  9. Byron

    Actually bin Laden came to the conclusion that super powers were beatable when the Russians were unsuccessful in Afghanistan – and bankrupted themselves in the process.

    He did say, in 1998, that the UN operation to bring food and order to Somalia in 1993 led his soldiers, who had left Afghanistan for Somalia, to decide the American soldiers were paper tigers. Not the US government, but it’s soldiers.

    By 2004 he said he planed to bankrupt the US, just as they had bankrupted Russia, through terrorist attacks world wide. He understood the effective way to defeat a super power 20 years ago, and would be delighted to endorse your suggestion that we spend more money on weapons – especially when those weapons are rendered innefective with an creative use of box cutters.

    We don’t need more weapons, we need more smarts.

  10. Byron
    1, August 13, 2010 at 10:50 am
    Buckeye:

    By Bin Ladens own admission he thought we were a paper tiger based on our actions in Somalia. This gave him the impetus to then attack our embassies and to finally attack the World Trade Center.

    Islamic terrorism has been ignored for 40 years plus. The only 2 presidents willing to confront it were Reagan and Bush. Carter made an attempt.

    Bush did not do it properly because of his compassionate conservatism and his ties to Saudi Arabia.

    ===============================================================
    I would agree with most everything you wrote but take exception to the “compassionate conservative” description as I believe his eight years in office proved both were merely rhetoric.

    What follows is mere conjecture on my part which I would like to tag onto your conjecture:

    What if Bin Laden knew Bush II better than Bush knew himself. That would be thanks to Bin Laden’s ties to people within the Saudi Royal family who had watched closely as Georgie grew up and then morphed into a “born again” and moved into politics.

    When the Towers collapsed, a thing I don’t believe anyone foresaw (just look at the arguments still raging over how that could have happened), the whole ballgame changed.

    George kept the Saudis out of it but that was touch and go for awhile … imagine the only planes flying in American airspace were Air Force I, military jets, and the Saudi Citizens’ Evac Planes … and then it was on to Iraq.

    Bush was a tool, Bin Laden was a tool, and the Saudi’s were the tool masters until the Towers collapsed … then it was major scramble time … but in the end the tool masters got what they wanted … Iraq’s Saddam is gone, Syria has been suitably frightened and only Iran is left. Another Bush will handle that when the time is right. For now … let’s all make some money!

    It’s a good story, don’t you think … a surefire best seller!

  11. Buckeye:

    I agree with you that smarts are required and it is reason that makes the application of force effective. Smarts alone will not dissuade a tyrant, most are beyond reason and understand only force.

    You may be able to use smarts with a rational man but religious idealogs will never surrender to mere reason. History has shown us that dictators do not surrender to rational discourse. Nor to economic parlor tricks unless the entire world is on board.

  12. Blouise:

    I think there may be a good deal of truth in that. Certainly we were attacked by citizens of Saudi Arabia and not Iraq. Both the Saudis and Iran had everything to gain by the elimination of Sadam Hussein. They would be free to spread radical Islam throughout the middle east.

    And the Neo-Cons thought they were helping Israel. Looks like if your scenario is correct the US was manipulated by Riyadh and Tehran. I wonder if Bush knew he was being manipulated or was he complicit in the manipulation because he wanted Sadam dead because of the attempt on his fathers life?

    My wife thinks Bush II is venal enough to do that.

  13. Byron,

    If we develop that particular sub plot …

    Our boy thinks he’s the grand manipulator … most drunks learn that art early and are blind (due to the death of so many brain cells) to the manipulation of others. That added to the poor inherited intelligence level (check out the grades at university) … yes, it’s possible for others to use the desire to take revenge on Saddam as a motivator. Look how deftly Hitler handled the Duke of Windsor.

    Let us not forget to add the vice president to this mix ….. for many, in not considering Bush I’s vice presidency when looking at Reagan’s actions, missed a great deal ….

  14. N.R.A. certification classes for concealed weapon permits in a church? Why am I not surprised? Isn’t this what Jesus was all about? Thou shalt not conceal without a permit. Blessed are the pistol packers. Honor thy Father and thy Magnum.

  15. Byron

    I was thinking less about reason than about cleverness.
    I can’t find it anywhere, but Ross Perot once made a comment about trying to deal with Arabs being the most convoluted negotiations a Westerner can undertake. And he should know.

  16. Blouise

    Start writing! I don’t know if bin Laden is a useful tool. He seems to want to rid S.A. of all non-muslims and I’m not sure that’s what the rulers want, or can afford.

    I can’t find it, but I read somewhere that the Saudis were furious with bin Laden about the WTC fiasco, just as the Germans were furious with Japan for their precipitate action at Pearl Harbor.

    b.L. seems more like a loose cannon than an effective tool. An al Qaeda operative tried to blow up one of the royal family just last September. I don’t know if the jet fighters S.A. just bought from us is for use against Iran or al Queda – maybe both.

  17. Blouise—“…imagine the only planes flying in American airspace were Air Force I, military jets, and the Saudi Citizens’ Evac Planes…” If memory serves me, among those evacuated shortly after 9/11 were members of the Bin Laden family. To my knowledge, none were detained or questioned, even though none were exempt from questioning- they were not officials of a foreign government. Also, from memory and without documentation,I recall George H.W.Bush serving on the Board of Directors of the Carlyle Group along with members of the Bin Laden family, John Majors (former British P.M.), other high-ranking former European officials, and former U.S. Defense Dept. officials including an ex-Secretary of Defense. At that time, I think the Carlyle Group was, among other things, a one-stop shopping center where third-world dictators could buy weapons-up to and including tanks, artillery, and aircraft.

  18. I was going to comment on how this unfortunate event points out that the NRA needs to quit being a tinfoil-hat, right-wing political organization and go back to it’s core of teaching safety classes… (“concealed-carry” and “in a church” are other issues)

    But…

    —————————————————-

    Buckeye 1, August 13, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Blouise

    Start writing! I don’t know if bin Laden is a useful tool. He seems to want to rid S.A. of all non-muslims and I’m not sure that’s what the rulers want, or can afford.

    I can’t find it, but I read somewhere that the Saudis were furious with bin Laden about the WTC fiasco, just as the Germans were furious with Japan for their precipitate action at Pearl Harbor.

    b.L. seems more like a loose cannon than an effective tool. An al Qaeda operative tried to blow up one of the royal family just last September. I don’t know if the jet fighters S.A. just bought from us is for use against Iran or al Queda – maybe both.

    ——————————————-

    Are people really not familiar with Osama bin Laden’s core goal? Really? The overly simplified summary of ObL’s main goal is to overthrow the current Saudi government and make it MORE conservatively religious. He, essentially, wants to turn Saudi Arabia into what Afghanistan was under the rule of the Taliban. Everything else is a means to that end.

    From the viewpoint of many conservative Sunnis, the raison d’etre for the nation-state of Saudi Arabia is to protect the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. You might think of Saudi Arabia as roughly equivalent to Vatican City. When the government of Saudi Arabia allowed foreign/infidel troops into the country in 1990 during the first Iraq invasion, that was the turning point for him. Prior to that, he was a sort-of philanthropist, and became generally militant while driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan. In 1990, when the Saudi government rebuffed the offers of mujahadeen like bin Laden to protect the kingdom, and instead, turned to the US/Western militaries to deal with Iraq, that turned bin Laden against the Saudi government. In order to try to drive the “infidels” off of Saudi territory, he began attacks on western targets, like the 1993 WTC bombing, but these were simply means to the ends of “reforming” Saudi Arabia.

    Within Saudi Arabia, he became a political enemy of the ruling family, believing them to have fundamentally failed in their responsibility to protect the holy cities. This caused him to be exiled to Sudan in 1992. He continued his conflict with the Saudi royal family from Sudan. In 1996, under pressure from S.A., the government of Egypt and the US, he had to leave Sudan, and went to Afghanistan, where he focused his efforts on attacking the west.

    But in the end, wherever in Pakistan he’s hiding, his dream is to have a triumphant return to a purified, ever-more puritanical Saudi Arabia, free from foreign infidels.

    I guess it’s hard for us Americans to realize that we aren’t the most important people in his world…

  19. I have to run out to dinner but the ideas everyone has contributed are appreciated.

    I believe, that at its core, if we ever do find out the truth, Buckeye’s statement will be closer to the reality of it all than anyone now imagines:

    “I can’t find it anywhere, but Ross Perot once made a comment about trying to deal with Arabs being the most convoluted negotiations a Westerner can undertake.”

  20. … in the end on that clear September morning we, the citizens of this country were hanging out there and no one, not the Administration, not the clandestine services, not the military, no one, had our backs …. why? (rhetorical)

  21. The NRA is always saying that guns don’t kill people, but killers do… and that everyone should get gun safety classes to know how to handle a firearm… like these experts, I assume.

  22. tomdarch

    I agree in general with your theory (since who can be sure of what goes on the head of a religious fanatic).

    If he wants the royal family out, though, poking the wasp nest of the USA seems to be counter productive. I would think his efforts would be concentrated on the royals who are the real barrier to his goal of a pure and inviolate Mecca.

    It seems a few operatives slipping in with the multitudes that arrive for the annual pilgramige could do the job, if eliminating the royals were his only goal.

    It seems to me that he is more interested in demonizing and eliminating the crusaders than in perfecting the holy land. Much as the religous fanatics here are more interested in demonizing and eliminating (politically, not literally – usually) any who do not share their vision of a perfect America.

Comments are closed.