This is a good example of how to apply Cooper's Four Rules. Unfortunately a woman is now permanently injured due to negligence.

A rural Benton County woman filed a $2.5 million lawsuit on Thursday against her neighbor for taking target practice near a road and striking her in the buttocks and back with two stray bullets.

Gale Fogelstrom's lawsuit claims that Jeffrey Jay Fields realized he shot her but didn't rush to help her. The suit states the 60-year-old was walking to her mailbox along Reese Creek Road to retrieve a newspaper when she was shot at about 3:30 p.m. on April 6, 2014.

link:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... ncart_2box

I am very glad the LGC has focus on this issue.

CDFingers

I used to mix up my rants against reckless, irresponsible gun owners with gun control.

Now I know the difference. For 23+ years, after leaving the Army, I was indifferent to guns. I saw their utility for self-defense, but I also read story, after story, after story of people allowing their kids to get hold of their guns, goofing around and shooting their friend, or like this case. I got emotional about it and believe, and still do, that some law abiding people are too freaking reckless to be allowed access to guns. They don't give the weapon, and it is a weapon, the respect it deserves.

There has to be a better middle ground. It's not enough to drill the four rules. There are rednecks who don't give a damn about the four rules and they can be just as dangerous as the armed thug robbing the convenience store.

I had to qualify every year with the M16 in the army. Police have to qualify every year with a firearm. Why can't we have a required yearly qualification to own a firearm? It's not infringing. You're allowed to own, but you must demonstrate proficiency and understanding of the weapon, safety, law, crisis analysis, etc, because IT IS A WEAPON.

I have seen, on other forums, photos of ranges created on the poster's own land. On many of them the alleged "berm" or "backstop" gave me the willies. This may be the case here.

RobertS wrote:I used to mix up my rants against reckless, irresponsible gun owners with gun control.

Now I know the difference. For 23+ years, after leaving the Army, I was indifferent to guns. I saw their utility for self-defense, but I also read story, after story, after story of people allowing their kids to get hold of their guns, goofing around and shooting their friend, or like this case. I got emotional about it and believe, and still do, that some law abiding people are too freaking reckless to be allowed access to guns. They don't give the weapon, and it is a weapon, the respect it deserves.

There has to be a better middle ground. It's not enough to drill the four rules. There are rednecks who don't give a damn about the four rules and they can be just as dangerous as the armed thug robbing the convenience store.

I had to qualify every year with the M16 in the army. Police have to qualify every year with a firearm. Why can't we have a required yearly qualification to own a firearm? It's not infringing. You're allowed to own, but you must demonstrate proficiency and understanding of the weapon, safety, law, crisis analysis, etc, because IT IS A WEAPON.

Air line and military pilots have to stay qualified to fly it is part of the job. I had to do CEs and take CPR/ACLS courses and pass them to keep working as a nurse. Those are job requirements.

Do you think we should have non-professional automobile drivers take a quailifying test each year to be able to keep driving their car?

I don't believe the second amendment says anything about needing to quailify to own a firearm.

TrueTexan wrote: Do you think we should have non-professional automobile drivers take a quailifying test each year to be able to keep driving their car?

I don't believe the second amendment says anything about needing to quailify to own a firearm.

I believe I stated the reason: it's a weapon and it's a weapon that can affect people a mile away.

This can never be stressed enough. I know what's behind my backstop and if I can't see it with my naked eye, it's not possible to shoot it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This took place only several miles down the road from my town. A lot of folks go real strong on the constitutional rights part of gun ownership and way too lean on the responsibility of gun ownership. Personally, I think the clown got off easy with just probation on the criminal side of it. Doing stupid with a gun should have serious consequences. Seems like this qualifies. I don't have any tolerance for assholes who don't feel they need to take shooting safety seriously.

I hope she takes him to the cleaners.