View Full Version : Require more training for CCW
So I've recently been engaged in a conversation with a guy that is a liberal pro Bernie supporter. I won't say that he's anti gun but he certainly isn't pro gun. I can honestly say that it has been almost a pleasure to discuss this topic with him as he has been receptive to info and to seeing the other side. The conversations have been civil without name calling ( this may be because he is somewhat family however not close family)
this brings me to my question, what would be so bad about requiring a certain amount of training before getting your concealed? I know I have as I'm sure some of you have to, been around a guy that you say to yourself " this guy shouldn't have a gun let alone be caring one in public. If both sides could settle on a middle ground (and that's a big if) would it really be a bad thing? I don't see how additional trading could hurt any of us but I do see how the required part could throw a wrench into the mix.
Yes a gun is just a tool but it is a tool that can take a life that we carry with us to defend ourselves and those we love. Some of us train and practice to ensure that we are prepared to do just that while others take a class and feel that they will save the world from all that is evil. So hypothetically let's say that you are required to complete a 4 day class that involves written knowledge of laws and gun safety as well as practical shooting situations before getting your CCW. Then let's say every 5 years you have to complete a 10 hr. refresher. Obviously there would be exceptions for recently retired police and military.
just curious to hear some thoughts on this from you guys on the pros and cons of a situation like this.
hurley842002
12-12-2015, 23:49
The key word (and you noted it) is required, period, the end. Everyone SHOULD be getting as much training as possible, but everyone's access to training is different, and that shouldn't hinder one from being able to carry (I know folks that want to carry, but can't afford the current requirements to do so). At the end of the day, we just don't need the government (at any level) deciding what is best for us as it pertains to a God given, constitutionally protected right.
RCCrawler
12-12-2015, 23:54
What other right guaranteed to us by our forefathers do we have to training before we can exercise it?
I agree with you Hurley, and that was one of the key points that I brought up in my discussion.
Honey Badger282.8
12-12-2015, 23:59
I do think there should be training but not anything resembling what we have now. I'd like to see curriculum added to high schools that would teach basic firearm safety and use.
this brings me to my question, what would be so bad about requiring a certain amount of training before getting your concealed?
The Constitution doesn't have this limitation. I think the government giving us permission to carry flies in the face of 'shall not be infringed'. I have the natural right to protect myself and my family. If the government want's to take this away, they need to prove that I'm a criminal.
This is one of the many reasons I like the trend of 'Constitutional Carry' that is again removing the requirement of seeking the government's permission.
The founders knew what they were doing. This was in a time before birth certificates, social security cards, government ID, etc.
We are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
mtnrider
12-13-2015, 00:03
When was the last time a licensed concealed carry person went on a Jihad shooting rampage? I don't think we are the problem here but the current administration would like everyone to think we are.
I see were you are being led but don't be fooled, it's yet more more step of taking our rights away. You are being led down the road of "compromise" (ie: confiscation)
I'm going to rant about the idea of exceptions for a moment just because I read that and it's stuck in my brain.
Why would retired police and military get a pass? While working at a range I had a number of active LEO's and a military give me cause for concern. I had a state police officer remove their concealed (without warning) and place it on the counter with the muzzle pointed right at me. I had a number of marines from Camp Pendleton either fail or not even attempt a basic safety demonstration if we didn't have an M9 in the counter. Not to mention the countless officers who would come in right before they had to re-qualify because they hadn't shot their gun since the last one. I doubt a few years of retirement would help any of those folks.
I don't know why that's the part I'm getting riled up about...
Back to the topic I also realize that people have to set their own priorities but I've known many people (including myself at some points) who couldn't afford 4 or 5 days worth of training. Even if it was free that's missed work for some people. It starts to block people from their ability to carry.
I've had this discussion with many people and yes, I've seen those "types" of hoopleheads who have no business owning a gun, let alone carrying it. So we require mandatory driver's education before being trusted behind the wheel of a car right? So requiring people to pass a basic level of firearm training before responsibly owning one doesn't necessarily sound so crazy. The question rises though; "does it infringe on our 2nd Amendment right?" Technically, yes. Could it curb some of the ignorance some gun owners possess? I think so. But that doesn't trump the 2nd Amendment. These current jackwagons in the White House and other political offices (Hickenlooper, Feinstein, etc.) have been chipping away at our rights and trying to strip them away outright in some cases. Last thing we need is more regulation. I certainly do wish that more people would look into firearm training, especially among those who carry one every day. As the old saying goes though, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".
In such cases I've always posed a question back along the lines of "How much should a woman have to pay, and how much time does she need to invest in training before you would allow her to protect herself from being raped or murdered?" or "Why do you wish for someone's life to be forfeit before they save enough for training?"
O2
I believe the right to self defense is as absolute as the right to free speech. There are very few restrictions on what we can say and there should be very few restrictions our self defense. Most people that are uncomfortable or bad at handling guns will generally end up in the long run not carrying.
This training debate seems to come up frequently. Most liberals do not comprehend that concealed carry is for defense not offense, libs just can't grasp the difference. They can't get past their believe that if you carry you are looking for a fight. You will never know if I'm properly trained or not unless you happen to see me defending my life. And no I don't spend any time worrying if somebody around me that is carrying knows what they're doing, not likely to be an issue. If a situation were to occur I'm more than happy to have like minded help near by.
I haven't read any of the responses, so parson me if I'm merely repeating an earlier point.
Have you ever gone through job training, where they send you out to train you up on something? I've been to more than one two week course that was 8 hours a day. They are always information packed and somewhat extensive, yet each time, I find myself digesting and discarding 80-90% of what was taught in the course. This is significant because it's not like I took a CPR course, then went to my job as an accountant. This is training specific to the job, then continuing to use that same skill set everyday on the job. As always, training and actual are very different, and the real skull comes from doing.
Requiring additional training will only serve as a waste of money for the public, and creating yet another government protected and subsidized retail market. Ask a friend who has gotten a DUI what a shit show circus all the required classes and drug tests they have to go through.
Bad idea all around.
GilpinGuy
12-13-2015, 01:35
I think it's bullshit that it's even required to get a permit to carry concealed. Requiring training makes it even worse.
I think it's bullshit that it's even required to get a permit to carry concealed. Requiring training makes it even worse.
Mother may i
hurley842002
12-13-2015, 02:00
I'd also like to add, in the name of absolute freedom, I'll accept the risk of some moron carrying, just as I'll reject big brother keeping an eye on innocent law abiding citizens in the name of "security".
Chief_of_Scouts
12-13-2015, 02:08
I am opposed to mandatory training as a prerequisite to being able to carry.
I am not opposed to the local law enforcement offering a free class (once a week) to teach the laws and rules of engagement for a concealed (or open) carrier. The classes can focus on the laws as it pertains to legality of carrying in the state, when it is legal and advisable to use your weapon and what to do if you are involved in a defensive gun situation. I think it would be even more beneficial if law enforcement officers attended the same classes.
Tell an American that something is "required" and they'll feel like doing the opposite, just to let you know where they stand on the issue.
Personally speaking, the spouse and I take extra training every year, year and a half. We know where we are lacking when it comes to our education with firearms; we understand this and e do something about it. We do this because we are adults, and we also recognize the concept of personal responsibility. We also understand the consequences of being the owner of a thing that may cause injury to another if certain standards were to slip. If my eyesight is failing, I am not going to ignore the fact and keep driving a car and hope for the best, and education with firearms is along similar lines.
To have someone that does not understand those concepts suggest that training must be done at specific intervals is not only insulting (intentional or not), but they are subtly removing God-given rights by inferring that I am not responsible enough by my own reckoning. Mandatory training would not only require registration of the firearm, but it would also come with government-approved trainers. I also guarantee that government-approved trainers would come with questionnaires about mental health, emotional health, and a test given at a standardized testing facility, written by people that don't have an understanding of firearms but that do have an understanding of convoluted, governmentese-style questions that require you select the BEST answer out of the four provided...
This is a foot-in-the-door technique. It's very effective because it sounds reasonable, promotes discussion, and makes you look like an ass if you respond in a way that may seem rude. It's why this psychological technique is used by people in sales.
Firearms are more than the sum of their parts, and the opposition realizes this on some level. Guns are not just guns; they are a symbol that is proving to be like Teflon- and the left can't seem to get a grasp of them to remove, desecrate, or otherwise denigrate as they have the American flag and the American dream. Symbols drive them crazy because the more they try to destroy, regulate, attack, render unfashionable, or indoctrinate against, the stronger the symbol becomes. Their attempt at separation and segregation has backfired, as evidenced by the number of backgrounds run on Black Friday. I see any modifiers to the 2nd Amendment, well-meaning or merely phrased to sound well-intentioned, as a means to whittle away little pieces of that right. Our Constitution unifies us in these rights. In this real war against gun owners, we are Kilroy. Our strength comes in maintaining our independence of regulations and 'reasonable' rules. We can govern ourselves.
Bailey Guns
12-13-2015, 03:40
Voluntary training: Good. Go for it. Knock yourself out.
Mandated/Required training: No fucking way. Terrible idea. Never.
Bailey Guns
12-13-2015, 04:23
This topic has been cussed and discussed on this forum for years. As a matter of fact there's a "Sticky" thread on it here: https://www.ar-15.co/threads/3286-Colorado-CCW-Training-Warning
There's a lot of heated debate from both sides in that thread. But it pretty much covers everything.
UncleDave
12-13-2015, 09:14
My thought is this. Mandatory training for all, especially antis, at the primary school level. I was in 6th grade when we had mandatory gun safety in my school. By making it a part of the basic education curriculum like civics used to be you remove the mystery that is easily demonized. Having said that required training to be allowed to carry is a slippery slope. Once upon a time it was required for all men and boys over 10 or so to drill regularly in many towns on the frontier (I am speaking of pre revolutionary era in places like Kentucky, Virginia, Ohio, etc), and it was considered an intrical part of a boys coming of age education. If everyone is better educated in society then weapons may come to be view as they are, tools to do a specific job. My .02
We should probably have mandatory training before people are allowed on the internet. Should probably have to get a special permit too if you want to use incognito mode but also put restrictions on open interneting in certain counties.
Double00
12-13-2015, 09:35
Haven't heard anyone bring up this angle yet so I'll give it a shot. I got my initial trading from my dad like most hear I assume (keep your finger off the trigger,guns are always loaded, don't shoot at anything you don't intend to destroy etc.). When I moved to CO. and decided to start carrying I got additional training to fill in some gaps where I was lacking. I took those step of my own accord as I was always taught to be a responsible member of society. Required training? No not ever!
UncleDave
12-13-2015, 10:14
Haven't heard anyone bring up this angle yet so I'll give it a shot. I got my initial trading from my dad like most hear I assume (keep your finger off the trigger,guns are always loaded, don't shoot at anything you don't intend to destroy etc.). When I moved to CO. and decided to start carrying I got additional training to fill in some gaps where I was lacking. I took those step of my own accord as I was always taught to be a responsible member of society. Required training? No not ever!
Agrred. That was the gist of my last post. Dad trained me at 5, my uncles, hen my public school (farm town in n. Cal), later more advanced courses as an adult. It is part of being a good, well rounded adult.
gnihcraes
12-13-2015, 10:20
I have a friend, who has purchased her first handgun ever. Her father has guns, but refuses to teach her anything. (stupid i think)
After working with her a little bit, gun safety etc. Taking her to the range, I demanded that she get some formal training for her CCW, not just a seminar class, but physical shooting/training. I can't stand the thought of her carrying a gun, she's just too green to even consider it. Muzzle control, finger control, the basics just aren't there. I believe she's signed up for a 8 hour CCW/shooting course this month and is taking her father along too.
Second story is my wife; She finally completed her CCW course, 2 hours, three different days for 6 hours total. NRA Basic Pistol class.
We got her a new XDs that she liked. She has learned a few things in class that I thought she already understood, but I guess not. Always good to have others reinforce things.
The class required her to shoot a minimum score, right handed, left handed, center mass, head shot etc. She did have one significant error, while picking up the XDs left handed from the firing line, she happened to put the finger on the trigger and discharged a round into the lane/floor downrange. Scared the crap out of her. She learned from this mistake and they didn't make an issue of it. (non dominate hand is difficult)
The wife does want to take additional training classes though, so hopefully I've got her hooked. Now to apply for CCW. I doubt she'll ever carry, but she'll have the option to if needed. (legally)
I believe training for ccw should include a minimum safety check, gun handling skill from the instructor. Not just paper certificate and go apply for ccw.
Some of the gun handling I see in my classes is frightening. But then, you have to get training and a license to drive, and what I see every minute on the road is MUCH WORSE, so training and a license wasn't the answer, either.
Rooskibar03
12-13-2015, 10:43
I'd say if you're carrying you have a responsibility to get some training beyond what is taught at some of these CCW seminars. Should you be required? I personally don't think so but I will say just spending time at any public range watching Joe Public handle firearms, not sure if I'd want some of them pulling a gun in a crowded room.
Some of the gun handling I see in my classes is frightening. But then, you have to get training and a license to drive, and what I see every minute on the road is MUCH WORSE, so training and a license wasn't the answer, either.
...and driving is a privilege, not a right.
sneakerd
12-13-2015, 10:53
I think that probably 60-70% of people with CCW should not be carrying a gun. Because they're not good enough.
Zundfolge
12-13-2015, 11:15
this brings me to my question, what would be so bad about requiring a certain amount of training before getting your concealed?
We don't require elocution lessons before people are allowed to express their 1st Amendment right ot free speech.
Also, there is this stupid idea (propagated by many on "our side" too) that guns are these massively complex machines that require significant training before one is able to safely and effectively capable of using one ... this is poppycock (if you'll pardon my harsh language).
Col Cooper's 4 rules are all that anyone needs to safely carry and use a gun. Period. You can teach them to a 4 year old in under 10 minutes.
This isn't to say that training isn't useful and won't increase the effectiveness of ones shooting ... but to use cars as an analogy, its like saying that everyone should graduate from Skip Barber Racing School before they're allowed to drive on the streets.
I think that probably 60-70% of people with CCW should not be carrying a gun. Because they're not good enough.
Elitist bovine scat not backed up by any real world data. Even in states with little to no training requirements (like constitutional carry states), CCWers are less likely to shoot the wrong person or do something else stupid than the police are (and they get significantly more gun training than the average CCWer).
I'd argue that your average Vermonter is probably a bigger idiot than most Americans (just based on their voting records) and yet in two centuries of Constitutional Carry I've not read reports that they have a higher than average rate of accidental shootings by citizens.
mightiestmouse
12-13-2015, 11:16
My thoughts on this...
Second amendment shall not be infringed...period, end of story. I always tell people that if you want regulations to guns then get a constitutional amendment. The restrictions we have reminds me in a round about way of the "fees" placed on the registrations of cars that are just "taxes" that couldn't get approved through the legislative process.
The fact we have CCW licenses to begin with was a major step for antis to get restrictions on this right. Add in required training and you've just given another piece of a protected right to them. The car analogy is a pile of crap because driving a car is not protected.
Which brings me to my next point of why mandatory CCW cards and training is a bad. I moved from Colorado to Nebraska back in June. I had my Colorado CCW and Nebraska is a reciprocity state. I had to live in a hotel while transitioning for a month before I bought a new home. Once I got into my new home I went and got a Nebraska drivers license. At this point my Colorado CCW is essentially void (probably was when I left the state) and I started the process of getting my Nebraska CCW. In order to fulfill the requirements I had to take a mandatory class that was state regulated and could not apply for it until I had my drivers license. I called state patrol and they said it was a grey area if I was caught carrying with my Colorado CCW and a Nebraska drivers license (they would not give me a problem but said that local PD most likely would and in Nebraska you are required to notify if stopped). Essentially for me to be a law abiding citizen I've been without my CCW for close to 4 months due to the burdens placed on my given right to arms (still waiting on my CCW to come in after completing everything). Luckily nothing has happened to me during this time but ask yourself this:
Would anyone argue that other rights should be subject to a waiting period before exercising them, or are they guaranteed at all times no matter where you are located within the country?
sneakerd
12-13-2015, 11:24
"Elitist bovine scat"? I don't need empirical data. I see these people every single day at work. Try to help them pick out guns. Help them choose a holster. Watch them shoot on the range- and when the opportunity is there, sometimes try to give them some help and/or coaching. Encourage them to get more training. Elitist bovine scat my ass. Current training requirements to get a CCW are woefully inadequate. Imho if you don't see this you have your head in the sand.
theGinsue
12-13-2015, 11:44
I haven't read the entire thread yet, so this may have been covered already.. Finished reading it all the way through now.
I like the idea of more training beyond the simple initial CCW class, but I'm not for MANDATORY training. As several posters have already indicated, the time and money associated with this would preclude many from being able to exercise their Constitutional right to carry. I know many folks who don't yet have their CCW simply because they can't afford the initial cost.
ETA: I've seen many with little/no training and those with lots of training that I won't he anywhere near when they start handling firearms - they just aren't safe. At the same time, I've known many with little or no training at all who were some of the safest people I know in regards to firearms. Training, including additional range time, does not necessarily translate into added safety.
Personally, I'd be horrified to learn that someone lost their life, or the life of a loved one, because they weren't carrying simply for the fact that they hadn't met the recurring training requirement that you're suggesting.
Compromise, as you've written it in your OP ("settle on a middle ground"), is the hallmark of the anti-gun agenda. When they can't force through their gun ban legislation they reach into their bag of tricks and start spouting of the need for "common sense" gun control/limitations. They use emotions to try to get you to agree that these requirements are just "common sense" ways to make the gun owner and their community at large just a little safer. The problem with their "compromise" is that the anti-gunners never have to give up anything, it's always those who believe in and exercise their 2A rights who have to yield ground. Taking a look back over the last 100 years at all of this compromise you can see that the anti-2A folks haven't lost ANYTHING while we've lost a great deal. Every "compromise" brings with it further infringement on our Constitutional right. This incrementalism is eroding the right which our forefathers wisely provided for in their efforts to protect the citizens of this country. As you're aware, the Second Amendment is the right which protects all of the other rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution. This is part of the reason you never hear about having to compromise on those rights. What if we were required to compromise on our right to due process guaranteed under the 5th Amendment? Suppose you weren't entitled to that right until & unless you'd received your regular required training for that right? Sound preposterous? Sure, but it's exactly the same for exercising your 2nd Amendment right.
So, no, I can not endorse such a requirement as additional, regular, REQUIRED training for maintaining ones CCW.
ETA: Just read TheGrey's comment. Beautifully stated!
StagLefty
12-13-2015, 11:49
The one thing I found worrisome when I used to teach firearm classes was how many people wanting to CCW had never fired a gun let alone owned one.
While I understand the viewpoint against "required training" I also see a need to have some basic range time involved with CCW permitting.
I don't really see the connection with more training and ccw as its fairly rare to have a ccw holder to go crazy and shoot everyone up. As is they make you go through enough hoops they can weed out MOST of the idiots, and you can never weed out all of them. That said, I have to admit that IF, and its a big if, we are going to try to do something to curb the crazies and idiots getting firearms, it pretty much has to come from the gun community because its been made clear the libs don't even know the first thing about a gun itself let alone what legislation, if any, would be effective while not cumbersome for the law abiding.
I am all for second amendment rights and choosing liberty with risk over soft tyranny, but I do feel like at some point the gun community needs to come forward with some form of change that will at least help limit the nuts getting guns and somewhat pacify the libs. If not I fear we are going to get full on tyranny forced down our throats. I know many people who aren't gun owners but really don't have anything against guns. However, the fact that these types of mass shootings continue to happen and worse at an ever increasing rate with no ideas put forward at all makes them start drifting more towards the anti gun crowd. The neutral people, I have found, want the gun community to take leadership and as of yet they haven't. I don't know the answer and most ideas to me have seemed to limit rights too much whether it be an unreasonable burden to acquire a gun, lack of due process, unreasonable search and seizure, or whatever. Still, I do think we need to come up with something and take an active, leadership role or people like obama will be entrusted with that role instead by the many people that really don't have a dog in this fight directly.
How much range time is required to Open Carry in Colorado?
How much more training should be required to put a jacket on over your firearm?
Responsible people take responsibility and seek improvement in the skills they want to improve upon. Irresponsible people do not.
I have never seen a successful attempt by any group to legislate responsibility as a requirement.
OP, may I suggest that you take your liberal pro Bernie supporter shooting. Let me know when and where and if I am available, I will show up with a few handguns and some ammunition. I'm sure we would have a good time.
Be safe.
theGinsue
12-13-2015, 12:21
I don't really see the connection with more training and ccw as its fairly rare to have a ccw holder to go crazy and shoot everyone up. As is they make you go through enough hoops they can weed out MOST of the idiots, and you can never weed out all of them. That said, I have to admit that IF, and its a big if, we are going to try to do something to curb the crazies and idiots getting firearms, it pretty much has to come from the gun community because its been made clear the libs don't even know the first thing about a gun itself let alone what legislation, if any, would be effective while not cumbersome for the law abiding.
I am all for second amendment rights and choosing liberty with risk over soft tyranny, but I do feel like at some point the gun community needs to come forward with some form of change that will at least help limit the nuts getting guns and somewhat pacify the libs. If not I fear we are going to get full on tyranny forced down our throats. I know many people who aren't gun owners but really don't have anything against guns. However, the fact that these types of mass shootings continue to happen and worse at an ever increasing rate with no ideas put forward at all makes them start drifting more towards the anti gun crowd. The neutral people, I have found, want the gun community to take leadership and as of yet they haven't. I don't know the answer and most ideas to me have seemed to limit rights too much whether it be an unreasonable burden to acquire a gun, lack of due process, unreasonable search and seizure, or whatever. Still, I do think we need to come up with something and take an active, leadership role or people like obama will be entrusted with that role instead by the many people that really don't have a dog in this fight directly.
The error in your thinking is that you believe that we can actually pacify the libs without full-on elimination of firearms and our Second Amendment right. You fail to understand the degree of their fanaticism on this matter.
Great-Kazoo
12-13-2015, 12:31
How much range time is required to Open Carry in Colorado?
How much more training should be required to put a jacket on over your firearm?
Responsible people take responsibility and seek improvement in the skills they want to improve upon. Irresponsible people do not.
I have never seen a successful attempt by any group to legislate responsibility as a requirement.
OP, may I suggest that you take your liberal pro Bernie supporter shooting. Let me know when and where and if I am available, I will show up with a few handguns and some ammunition. I'm sure we would have a good time.
Be safe.
Engaging a target @ 50 - 75 yards [LOL]
ChadAmberg
12-13-2015, 12:40
Since most of the folks who argue this are elitist guilty-feeling white folk who feel bad they're rich and someone else is poor, I fall back on this argument:
"Ok, so should Saturday night specials, guns that cost less than 100 bucks, be outlawed?"
"Of course they should, blah blah blah."
"So, you think poor people have less rights than you do? People who struggle for months to save an additional 75 bucks to get a gun to protect themselves in the ghetto, where it's a hell of a lot more dangerous than your gated community? Their lives and their family's lives don't matter to you? Sure you might be able to afford a 600 dollar gun but they don't have that luxury. You elitist bastard."
Same thing with requiring all sorts of training, etc. If the gov't requires the training, there has to be some sort of subsidy for really poor folks to be able to afford to exercise their rights the same way.
sneakerd
12-13-2015, 13:02
Elitist Lives Matter.
mightiestmouse
12-13-2015, 13:14
How much range time is required to Open Carry in Colorado?
How much more training should be required to put a jacket on over your firearm?
Responsible people take responsibility and seek improvement in the skills they want to improve upon. Irresponsible people do not.
I have never seen a successful attempt by any group to legislate responsibility as a requirement.
OP, may I suggest that you take your liberal pro Bernie supporter shooting. Let me know when and where and if I am available, I will show up with a few handguns and some ammunition. I'm sure we would have a good time.
Be safe.
This.
The conversation the OP started this thread with is trying to legislate (force) responsibility into someone. Training or not, the reason why people don't go on crazy shooting sprees comes down to the plain fact we value human life; it is not because shooting someone is illegal. Sure there are people out there that could do a lot better on following the basic safety rules, but how many of us have shared a range with total strangers and everyone leaves without any violence? Beating a dead horse, but how many guns do they estimate are in the US... and how many of them sit as a piece of steel and polymer each day without discharging? We carry and own guns for the off chance we come across the one person that doesn't have that same value and tries to act upon it in our presence. Until some politician can come up with a law that can somehow see into the thoughts of a human [hahhah-no], any new law/requirement will never fix the fact that there are simply bad people out there.
If you think that certain people should be limited in their capacity to conceal a weapon until they have proven themselves, then you are just as bad as the politicians that write rules saying you have to give a valid reason for owning a gun; all the while standing behind your own guns.
sneakerd
12-13-2015, 13:20
When you see people day in and day out who you know have a CCW, carry, and yet have little to no gun handling ability, little to no muzzle awareness and little to no ability to hit a target at a reasonable distance, who you really prefer not to be in the lane next to you.... you'll know why. There's no easy answer.
Zundfolge
12-13-2015, 13:27
"Elitist bovine scat"? I don't need empirical data. I see these people every single day at work. Try to help them pick out guns. Help them choose a holster. Watch them shoot on the range- and when the opportunity is there, sometimes try to give them some help and/or coaching. Encourage them to get more training. Elitist bovine scat my ass. Current training requirements to get a CCW are woefully inadequate. Imho if you don't see this you have your head in the sand.
Fine, you're on the same page as the progressive that thinks the common man is an idiot and needs to be ruled by the iron fist of "our betters", you're welcome to your opinion but 1) that doesn't mean its not elitist bovine scat and 2) your anecdotal evidence is not data.
Where are the massive numbers of "under-trained" CCWers doing stupid things? I've read more news accounts of "highly trained professional' police officers leaving their guns in toilets ... experiencing negligent discharges (often in the toilet) and shooting innocent people then I ever read of citizens who carry concealed (licensed or not).
The 4 rules are simple enough a child can understand them and plenty for people to safely carry concealed firearms (again, I'm not saying that everyone can't benefit from some training and that training will make one a better shooter, but its simply not necessary for lawful, safe concealed carry).
We can argue this all day, but the more useful question would be; what threshold of training do you think is "good enough"?
I am all for second amendment rights and choosing liberty with risk over soft tyranny, but I do feel like at some point the gun community needs to come forward with some form of change that will at least help limit the nuts getting guns and somewhat pacify the libs. If not I fear we are going to get full on tyranny forced down our throats. I know many people who aren't gun owners but really don't have anything against guns. However, the fact that these types of mass shootings continue to happen and worse at an ever increasing rate with no ideas put forward at all makes them start drifting more towards the anti gun crowd. The neutral people, I have found, want the gun community to take leadership and as of yet they haven't.
The primary reason the "gun community" hasn't led the solution, is that there is no unified "gun community". Labeling individuals exercising their God-given right to defend themselves is a leftist tactic and I refuse to propagate their garbage.
The other reason that 2nd Amendment defenders haven't led the solution, is that people wanting to defend themselves aren't experts on fixing crazy people or terrorism.
If you believe the gun is the problem and not the operator, you don't understand what an inanimate object is. Good luck on controlling access to knives to prevent ISIS beheadings!
Zundfolge
12-13-2015, 13:45
Look at it through the lens of cost vs benefit.
I firmly believe that if you were to go through the worst neighborhoods in South Chicago, going door to door handing issuing a Glock 19 with two magazines, a Crossbreed Supertuck and a 50 round box of JHPs to every adult that wanted one and could pass a free NICS check that within a couple months the violent crime rate there would be cut by more than half without any accidental deaths.
People are capable of being safe with guns without graduating from Thunder Ranch or Guncite and the world would be a better place if government bureaucrats didn't demand that everyone get their stamp of approval on every little thing they do.
Demanding top level training for everyone means that you will price concealed carry out of the hands of most of the poor, the people who arguably need it more than us lily white, upper middle class suburbanites who will likely NEVER need to use our excellent training. If that isn't elitism, I don't know what is.
sneakerd
12-13-2015, 13:46
Zundfolge- as usual you make some excellent points that I agree with but you're missing my point. I believe that the level of responsibility that goes with carrying a firearm is very high. There are CCW classes being taught out there every day that do not require the student to demonstrate any mastery of the firearm they choose to carry (or any other firearm). No range time, no opportunity for an instructor to evaluate a student on the trigger. If you pay- you pass (for the most part). I personally think this in particular is demonstrably insane.
Zundfolge- as usual you make some excellent points that I agree with but you're missing my point.
No, he isn't. Neither is anyone else that's against a government controlled requirement.
We get it. You've seen stupid people. We all have. You can't fix stupid, especially when government is loaded with it.
mightiestmouse
12-13-2015, 13:55
When you see people day in and day out who you know have a CCW, carry, and yet have little to no gun handling ability, little to no muzzle awareness and little to no ability to hit a target at a reasonable distance, who you really prefer not to be in the lane next to you.... you'll know why. There's no easy answer.
This is a personal choice (I'm assuming you are involved with some profession at gun ranges). I also know the feeling of being uncomfortable at indoor ranges next to someone who is inexperienced with gun handling, which, is why I avoid them at all costs because my safety and comfort level is my responsibility. This is much the same reason why I avoid skydiving, flying to the middle east, go to "gun free zones", and avoid touching a hot stove... my responsibility is, and always will be, my own.
Regardless, even if you see mishandling of guns at indoor ranges, this idea of a requirement is brought to the forefront of debate with the intent of reducing gun violence. Instilling a new law in order to reduce feeling uncomfortable has no correlation to reducing gun violence. As was brought up before, people concealing (even if they have terrible gun handling abilities) are not going around flashing their weapons, or drawing when unnecessary. It's another feel good reaction and an issue for politicians to say "look we did something".
sneakerd
12-13-2015, 13:56
So you agree that a CCW class as I described in my last post is ok? If so- I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
hurley842002
12-13-2015, 14:10
So you agree that a CCW class as I described in my last post is ok? If so- I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I think most of us agree that zero CCW class is okay...
ETA: Mandated class is what I meant.
mightiestmouse
12-13-2015, 14:17
So you agree that a CCW class as I described in my last post is ok?
Personally I would like to see constitutional carry, because as I described in my previous post, bureaucratic red tape has caused me to go 4 months without my CCW, simply for moving across state lines. CCW classes would be null in that situation, and weapons training would be left up to the individual, much the same way I took a skid course class when I started to drive so that my training would kick in during the event my car losses traction. Again, this is personal responsibility.
For the sake of argument, if weapons qualification was to become law of the land, would you feel more comfortable if you saw someone concealing and their shirt rode up knowing that they must have passed a class to carry the gun? Whats to say they aren't doing it illegally, because no one would ever break the law of not being qualified right?
At the end of the day, I don't care about other people's comfort level when it comes to my own personal protection. This is part of the reason why I feel like our country is becoming very soft, because feelings seem to be dictating policy. The fact that there are people out there that want to make it difficult for me to protect myself (like is happening right now) is a big problem when it comes to a protected right.
milwaukeeshaker
12-13-2015, 14:23
According to 2nd amendment we don't need a CCW in the first place. So to hell with the training idea.
What other right guaranteed to us by our forefathers do we have to training before we can exercise it?
milwaukeeshaker
12-13-2015, 14:25
Great idea!!!
As well as bring back Driver Ed classes.
I do think there should be training but not anything resembling what we have now. I'd like to see curriculum added to high schools that would teach basic firearm safety and use.
I'm on everyone's side here, but I'm about to debate many of the arguments posted up so far. So no one get their feelings hurt, I'm still on your side.
First, people with CCW do commit crimes. While no CCW person may have gone on a jihad style shooting rampage, CCW carries do bad things. The most recent one that comes to mind is the guy who shot up some people in a cycle class at his gym a few years ago. Sorry I don't remember any further info.
I agree with Sneakered in that most people aren't great at handling, or shooting guns. I regularly compete and just as regularly put up dismal performances. Shooting accurately is difficult, and working at a range all day as Sneakered does is going to magnify this point. Watch the general public at a gun range and you'll be horrified. However, there was nothing in Sneakerd's post indicating that he felt those people who shouldn't carry, should actually be prevented from carrying. There is an important distinction there.
I'm soooo tired of hearing the excuse that the permit fee is too expensive and prevents people from carrying. This is complete and utter bullshit. If you own a car (no matter how new, or even if it was given to you), if you own a cell phone that is beyond a .99 cent Walmart phone, if you have cable tv, if you smoke cigarettes, if you ever go to the liquor store, if you drink coffee that you don't make at home, and especially, if you OWN a GUN, then you can absolutely afford to have a CCW permit. If someone owns any of those things and says they can't afford a permit, you're talking to someone who values unlimited texting, and watching The Walking Dead more than their perceived personal safety. People who truly couldn't afford a permit can't even afford a gun or the ammo to put in it; and people who truly feel threatened would carry anyway. Let's stop with this feeble argument because it is so easily seen through that it makes us look bad for not being able to come up with something better.
I do like the twist of asking, "How much should a woman pay to be able to defend herself?" though. Anything that turns that elitist guilt around is a nice response.
...and driving is a privilege, not a right.
This statement bugs the ever loving shit out of me. I can't think of a single thing having to do with our laws that is a privilege. The way the laws are written is that everything is legal, except for things that are specifically illegal to do. Laws don't grant permission, they say only what is not allowed. I don't think there is any room for the concept of privilege. We'll have to start another thread to discuss if the statement is true or not.
I don't really see the connection with more training and ccw as its fairly rare to have a ccw holder to go crazy and shoot everyone up. As is they make you go through enough hoops they can weed out MOST of the idiots, and you can never weed out all of them. That said, I have to admit that IF, and its a big if, we are going to try to do something to curb the crazies and idiots getting firearms, it pretty much has to come from the gun community because its been made clear the libs don't even know the first thing about a gun itself let alone what legislation, if any, would be effective while not cumbersome for the law abiding.
This is simply not true. Jumping through hoops only weeds out lazy people. There is NO SUCH THING as any profession, certificate, birth right, etc, that automatically makes a person better than anyone else, or more trust worthy. We all post on a board that constantly points out the fact that just because a cop is a cop, doesn't mean they are a good person. Then in the very same breath laments about how police should relax around CCW holders because if you have a card, you must be a decent enough person. Complete logical failure.
The error in your thinking is that you believe that we can actually pacify the libs without full-on elimination of firearms and our Second Amendment right. You fail to understand the degree of their fanaticism on this matter.
What Ginsue says is correct, there is no pacifying, I'll touch more on this in a second.
Tell an American that something is "required" and they'll feel like doing the opposite, just to let you know where they stand on the issue.
Personally speaking, the spouse and I take extra training every year, year and a half. We know where we are lacking when it comes to our education with firearms; we understand this and e do something about it. We do this because we are adults, and we also recognize the concept of personal responsibility. We also understand the consequences of being the owner of a thing that may cause injury to another if certain standards were to slip. If my eyesight is failing, I am not going to ignore the fact and keep driving a car and hope for the best, and education with firearms is along similar lines.
To have someone that does not understand those concepts suggest that training must be done at specific intervals is not only insulting (intentional or not), but they are subtly removing God-given rights by inferring that I am not responsible enough by my own reckoning. Mandatory training would not only require registration of the firearm, but it would also come with government-approved trainers. I also guarantee that government-approved trainers would come with questionnaires about mental health, emotional health, and a test given at a standardized testing facility, written by people that don't have an understanding of firearms but that do have an understanding of convoluted, governmentese-style questions that require you select the BEST answer out of the four provided...
This is a foot-in-the-door technique. It's very effective because it sounds reasonable, promotes discussion, and makes you look like an ass if you respond in a way that may seem rude. It's why this psychological technique is used by people in sales.
Firearms are more than the sum of their parts, and the opposition realizes this on some level. Guns are not just guns; they are a symbol that is proving to be like Teflon- and the left can't seem to get a grasp of them to remove, desecrate, or otherwise denigrate as they have the American flag and the American dream. Symbols drive them crazy because the more they try to destroy, regulate, attack, render unfashionable, or indoctrinate against, the stronger the symbol becomes. Their attempt at separation and segregation has backfired, as evidenced by the number of backgrounds run on Black Friday. I see any modifiers to the 2nd Amendment, well-meaning or merely phrased to sound well-intentioned, as a means to whittle away little pieces of that right. Our Constitution unifies us in these rights. In this real war against gun owners, we are Kilroy. Our strength comes in maintaining our independence of regulations and 'reasonable' rules. We can govern ourselves.
The Grey wins at being able to best frame the situation of this argument. In order to effectively debate this suggestion of required training, we have to understand WHY this is suggested in the first place. Why would any person or government suggest required training for carrying a gun in public? The same reason that training is required for anything at all. Limiting liability. When someone gets killed by the actions of another, the question is always, "How did this happen? What situation was created that let this happen. How did you let this happen?"
Let's say a semi-truck crashes and kills someone. The company that owns the truck can say, "We just had this truck in for regular maintenance last week. New tires, new brakes, 30 point inspection, blah blah blah," and they've fulfilled their requirement and dodged liability. The company that hired the driver can say "Our guys had the proper level CDL and 15 years of a clean record driving even bigger trucks, so he knew what he was doing, plus he was only 2 hours into his 8 hours of drive time allowed and just came off of a two day PTO so he should have been fresh," and they've dodged liability. The warehouse that filled the truck can bring up all the completed training certificates showing that the crew that loaded the truck knew how to properly balance the load. The guys at the truck inspection point the drive had just driven through 30 miles back can bring up their records indicating that the truck was within allowable weight range and passed all the requirements when it went through that check point. Then it can all boil down to driver error either on the truck driver, or another vehicle. If there was an issue at any one of those other levels, there will be an attorney pounding on the door ready to sue whomever dropped the ball into the ground.
When people suggest required training, they are attempting to rest their uneasy soul by limiting liability. This is especially strange for the average person who would have no liability at all, and must be projecting their own guilt at living in a society that could have allowed this to happen. My earlier post about forgetting information isn't an attempt to say that training is a waste, it isn't. I was just trying to point out that training is not a guaranty of acting correctly. People take driving tests and behave in a certain manner just to pass the test, then immediate drive like jerks when there isn't an instructor in the passenger seat. They KNOW the rules of the road, and they just don't care. This is the same with corrupt cops, people who sexually harass others at work, insider trading, common criminal, etc. Instances where people don't know any better are probably pretty limited. The main point here is that it is disingenuous to assume that more required training is what will make people safe. I've bolded this statement because it plays into the next point that The Grey and theGinsue have made.
Required training is a slippery slope because we KNOW that people will behave adversely to their training, so more or less training will not effectively change the outcome. So let's say that additional required training is implemented, and someone still makes a bad shoot. The state is going to take the position of we've implemented training that is far beyond what other states have implemented, and are still having issues. This is evidence that the problem lies within the circumstance, and not the training. We (the state) have now concluded that people carrying guns is the problem, and not the training, so the only path at this point is to eliminate the possibility of people carrying guns. If we allow the concept of additional training to take seed, it will grow into something far beyond what we feel is acceptable within our rights, and the government will leverage that to gain more power over the population.
In addition to this main point, we have to look at other examples of state mandated classes of any nature. I'm reluctant to bring up the DUI thing again, but I know enough people who've gone through that to be familiar. You are given an emotional evaluation that is complete and total bullshit. There is a question that asks, "Do you cry at movies?" If you answer Always or Sometimes, then you are told you're suffering from depression and are required to take additional classes to deal with your depression, at your cost, at approved locations. If you answer Never, they tell you to your face that you must be lying and then get slapped with additional community service. Anything you get assigned to is directly connected to the state. If you don't think the person holding the depression classes doesn't personally know the person evaluating the personality test, think again. It's the same thing with the place where you have to take pee tests. Those places don't take debit or credit cards, cash only, AND they don't give change. You can't show up with a 20 to pay for your $10 test. They refuse you until you have the right amount of change, and often times you've had to work all day and only have a few minutes after work to make it in before the place closes.
I want to take a moment to point out that yes, people who've been convicted of a DUI have committed a crime, and it is to be expected that everyone going through the system will be treated like a criminal, so I realize it comes off a bit as a rant. Just know that if we allow additional required training by the state, it will be the exact same environment. Anytime you're interacting government process, you're going to be grounded up into a spiritless pulp by the time you make it through the other side, and at the end, you'll just go back to doing whatever you were going to do in the first place. Perhaps, as The Grey mentioned earlier, you'll act a little worse out of spite for what you've been put through.
Sorry for the long rambling response. Additional training is bullshit because it doesn't accomplish any of what those who suggest it think that it will. You cannot legislate behavior and having the state try to mitigate liability that was never theirs in the first place only puts an undue burden on the citizenry.
If the state or any do-gooders feel like they just aren't doing enough to keep everyone safe, then they can offer a free class every month to anyone who wishes to attend, as many times as they wish to attend.
you can pretty strongly make the argument the NRA is the gun community. by far the largest and most powerful organization of gun owners. while i agree no one is an expert on keeping guns out of crazy peoples' hands, you can't deny we know more than someone like obama and clinton who has never bought a gun, operated a gun, learned the safety features of a gun, etc. when you leave it to them you get feinstein type legislation that completely misses the point on whats dangerous and what isn't.
The primary reason the "gun community" hasn't led the solution, is that there is no unified "gun community". Labeling individuals exercising their God-given right to defend themselves is a leftist tactic and I refuse to propagate their garbage.
The other reason that 2nd Amendment defenders haven't led the solution, is that people wanting to defend themselves aren't experts on fixing crazy people or terrorism.
If you believe the gun is the problem and not the operator, you don't understand what an inanimate object is. Good luck on controlling access to knives to prevent ISIS beheadings!
Aloha_Shooter
12-13-2015, 15:44
I'm in the "encouraged but not required" camp simply because once requirements are set, they will be ramped up slowly in order to exercise control. It's like NY requiring people to show "cause" to get a permit -- it probably started off as a "reasonable" requirement but has slowly become a way for them to prevent people from acquiring guns or being able to carry them. I very much want people to acquire and demonstrate some proficiency before they carry -- show they know the rules of safe handling, show they can hit what they're shooting at without spraying bullets all over the place, etc. -- but legal requirements are the death of a thousand cuts.
muddywings
12-13-2015, 16:00
I skimmed a lot of the responses so if I'm repeating someone else's logic-sorry about that...
But when it comes to these things like mandatory CCW training, BGC laws etc that liberals/anti-gun folks bring up, my first response is 'why do you hate poor people dude.' 'Can I, as a white privileged male afford more CCW training courses, CCW background checks, now regular background checks, ammo taxes etc etc? Well of course I can, I'm privileged!' 'So why you hating on the poor, intercity minorities by adding costs to exercise a right of self defense?'
These types of laws only hurt poor people, generally poor inter-city minorities. The statistics don't show any type of need what so ever. Looking at the Violence Policy Center, very anti-gun organization's own website there have been 763 deaths caused by CCW holders from May 2007. So, some basic math from May 2007-May 1015 (8 years), there has been an average of 95 deaths/year caused by CCW holder. While each death is tragic, in a country of roughly 300 Million (I'm going to round up to 100/year deaths to make the math easy and round down to 300M) that comes out to: 0.00000033.
Sure, if more people CCW, that number might go up but I don't think policy should be made based on statistical anomalies. Nor should you add requirements that add undue financial hardship on poor people.
Does that violence policy center statistic include good shoots by CCW holders? I have a feeling that it does.
you can pretty strongly make the argument the NRA is the gun community. by far the largest and most powerful organization of gun owners. while i agree no one is an expert on keeping guns out of crazy peoples' hands, you can't deny we know more than someone like obama and clinton who has never bought a gun, operated a gun, learned the safety features of a gun, etc. when you leave it to them you get feinstein type legislation that completely misses the point on whats dangerous and what isn't.
Like their response to the Sandy Hook school shooting? https://www.facebook.com/NRANationalSchoolShield
Like the Eddie Eagle education program? https://eddieeagle.nra.org/
The NRA has numerous safety and training programs.
There are 330 million people in this country and about the same number of firearms. Putting the responsibility of mad men on the heads of the NRA and it's 4 million members is misdirected.
It'll never be "enough" for the same politicians you named and their agenda. Leaving the solution in the hands of some government training requirement surrenders your fate to the bureaucrat that defines the requirement. No, thank you.
The road to ruin is paved with good intentions.
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/governmentdemotivator_1024x1024.jpeg?v=1430420134
muddywings
12-13-2015, 16:36
Does that violence policy center statistic include good shoots by CCW holders? I have a feeling that it does.
No, those stats only show non-self defense (aka murders). But still, I'll take my chances.
MASSIVE ERRORS IN THE VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER’S “CONCEALED CARRY KILLERS” (http://crimeresearch.org/2014/04/massive-errors-in-the-violence-policy-centers-concealed-carry-killers/)
The Violence Policy Center (http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm) regularly puts out the claim that concealed handgun permit holders are a danger to themselves and others. Right now they claim that concealed handgun permits have been responsible for 636 deaths from the entire United States over almost seven years from May 2007 to March 2014. John Lott has pointed out errors in the VPC numbers for Florida (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/23/john-lott-gun-control-brady-campaign-violence-policy-center-defense-shooting/), so here let’s take the errors in just one state Michigan (http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ccwtotalkilled042007032014.pdf).
— In the Michigan state reports on concealed handgun permit holders that are cited by the VPC, 185 people died of suicides during the four reports from 2007 through 2012. That is 29 percent of the purported 636 deaths for the entire United States that the Violence Policy Center attributes to permitted concealed handguns.
But there is the problem: If you look at page 2 in the latest report (http://michigan.gov/documents/msp/CPLAnnual_Report2013_463317_7.pdf), you will see that the 28 suicides do not list a cause of death. The report merely notes that permit holders committed suicide. We don’t know if they committed suicide with a gun and if it was a gun, that it was the gun that they carried concealed. Given that the overwhelming majority of these suicides were presumably at home, like most suicides, it isn’t even clear why a concealed handgun permit is relevant.
The suicide rate among permit holders in Michigan in 2012/13 (6.2 per 100,000 = ((28/450,000)*100,000) is about 62% lower than the suicide rate in the general adult population (see screen shot of suicide rate numbers from the CDC for adults in Michigan (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dataRestriction_inj.html)).
The Violence Policy Center has an agenda.
Honey Badger282.8
12-13-2015, 19:12
My biggest complaint about gun violence numbers is when people lump suicides in with murders, not homicides, as something that can be directly attributed to firearms. I don't know why but that grinds my gears more than any other tactic used by the proponents of gun control.
Dlesh123
12-13-2015, 19:46
I do think there should be training but not anything resembling what we have now. I'd like to see curriculum added to high schools that would teach basic firearm safety and use.
Oh, you mean like the things we used to do in grade school, high school and college back in the 50,60,early 70s? Absolutely agree with you, a little training and development of respect for weapons and life would go a long way. Oh, there was one other ingredient, a father who cared and taught some of those same things.
That's another false argument that just attempts to shift blame away from personal responsibility. I grew up with a dad, but not with guns. When I was well into adulthood, I decided I wanted a gun and to learn about guns. I went it and found the information on my own, no childhood gun training from involved father required. I do think teaching gun safety in school would go a long way though.
Dlesh123
12-13-2015, 20:21
That's another false argument that just attempts to shift blame away from personal responsibility. I grew up with a dad, but not with guns. When I was well into adulthood, I decided I wanted a gun and to learn about guns. I went it and found the information on my own, no childhood gun training from involved father required. I do think teaching gun safety in school would go a long way though.
Just said it was an ingredient, particularly for me. Not a requirement. I am glad that you chose to do so on your own. However i would posit that you had someone in your life that started you down a path of self sufficiency and responsibility. That is the important part, not necessarily teaching specifically about guns, but it just doesn't hurt.
Also + 1 for TheGrey's post.
wctriumph
12-13-2015, 20:31
My initial training came from my father and my uncle, later when in the Cub Scouts, then NRA hunter safety class, then high school shooting team. I was shooting a gun before I started riding motorcycles and I have been riding for 50+ years.
Mandatory training will lead to mandatory liability insurance. No thanks.
OtterbatHellcat
12-13-2015, 21:08
Wow....carrying insurance in order to carry your weapon.
I can totally see that happening.....sadly enough.
theGinsue
12-13-2015, 21:16
Plus, liability insurance for instructors. I can see someone suing an insteuctor for teaching someone something, or not teaching someone something. Surprised it hasn't happened yet.
what threshold of training do you think is "good enough"?
If Charles Schumer gets to set it? Weekly classes, 10 hours minimum. $1,000 a class. Permit expires every week, $1,000 renewal.
...and don't forget the required $1,000,000 insurance policy. That's the premium, not the coverage.
And if you want to carry hollow point bullets, there's a $100 tax per round.
And that my friends is the problem with allowing the government to regulate a right.
O2
Limited GM
12-13-2015, 22:49
The key word (and you noted it) is required, period, the end. Everyone SHOULD be getting as much training as possible, but everyone's access to training is different, and that shouldn't hinder one from being able to carry (I know folks that want to carry, but can't afford the current requirements to do so). At the end of the day, we just don't need the government (at any level) deciding what is best for us as it pertains to a God given, constitutionally protected right.
What other right guaranteed to us by our forefathers do we have to training before we can exercise it?
...I'd like to see curriculum added to high schools that would teach basic firearm safety and use.
I saw no reason to keep reading post after these. Sums everything up. Good posting.
Thank you for your responses to this thread and for keeping it civil as topics like this one can get pretty heated. So many of you have the same sentiments and feelings about this situation as I do. A lot of the arguments that I presented to the other party in this discussion where reinforced by your guys comments and I was able to take a few more to him today when we continued this conversation. I want to make it clear that the situation that I presented to you was something that the other guy came up with and I decided to present it to all of you to see if I was out of line with my responses to him or if my fellow gun guys felt as I do.
I fully feel that anything that is required will only hinder us but as a responsible gun owner and as a guy who carries i fully believe that I have to take it upon myself to continue to further my abilities and knowledge. When I carry a gun on my side, I am accepting the fact that I am willing to do whatever is necessary to protect my life from those that wish to do me harm. Some people do not fully understand the full magnitude of the decision to carry a firearms.
I believe that after over an hour of back and fourth with this guy that I may have made some headway into opening his eyes a little wider about seeing things the way we do, but we will see.
The bottom line is to ask WHY something is required, and then whether the requirement achieves the desired goal. If the answer is "no," then there is no justification for the requirement.
Training or not, people are going to do whatever they are going to do. Of course extensive and repeated training will allow people to more often act "correctly" in a given situation, but that level of training is far beyond whatever would be required by the State.
68Charger
12-14-2015, 08:44
I'll try to throw in something new... I skimmed many of the posts, so maybe I just missed it- saw some that eluded to it.
When gov't requires training, exactly WHAT training is chosen, and from what vendor?
Do want the same idiots that brought poorly written laws to require a class from the lobbyist that contributes the most to their campaign fund? (since they know nothing about how to actually select a class based on content)
This is not to degenerate or discount any other points here- many other good points about why mandated training is a violation of rights.
Forget CCW required training...how about we start with mandatory Cotillion classes? That would probably do us more good.
BlasterBob
12-14-2015, 09:55
Just moved from Colorado to Illinois and of course my CO CCW is worthless here. Took a month to get the required FOID card which first requires an Illinois drivers license. Now to get my IL CCW, the requirement is to attend an Illinois State authorized and recognized CCW instructor and spend two days consisting of a full eight hours of classes (with a quick lunch break). A few handguns are passed around in the class for the instructor to check proper handling by each student. Since I am a vet, it was required that I take only a one day class. My cost for the single day was $75. Next to get the CCW application going, finger printing will cost me another $75 and the State requires their fee of $150 for a three year license. So, it's not cheap to secure a CCW here in Illinois and there is NO OPEN CARRY allowed even if you posses a valid Illinois CCW.
Oh, neglected to mention each student must fire 30 rounds at a certain target and at least hit the target 30 times.
BushMasterBoy
12-14-2015, 10:10
How does one carry concealed at a nudist colony? Do I need a special permit?
Aloha_Shooter
12-14-2015, 10:54
Oh, neglected to mention each student must fire 30 rounds at a certain target and at least hit the target 30 times.
At least? I've got a problem with the situation if the student is hitting the target MORE than 30 times for 30 rounds fired ...
68Charger
12-14-2015, 10:56
At least? I've got a problem with the situation if the student is hitting the target MORE than 30 times for 30 rounds fired ...
That's easy- just fold the target before you put it up.
Great-Kazoo
12-14-2015, 12:07
I believe in training for a CCW permit. I do not believe said training should be Mandatory. If it was mandatory. Who sets the guidelines for training, time and number of classes. Live fire or not??
Before CO was state wide CCW. In weld cty (22 yrs ago) one was required to have certificate of training, 3 character references AND a letter from a doctor, stating you were mentally competent . Before you were able to get a permit . IMO it was a CYA on the part of the sheriff just in case... Outside of us having to get a doctor to sign off (not an issue) and the reference letters Not one item required was ever followed up / checked by the dept.
That was a county requirement. IMAGINE the fluster cluck IF the .gov got involved. ESPECIALLY if someone like fudly brown felt the need to stick his nose in.
I received a call from Adams County earlier this year threatening to remove my CHP if I got any more traffic violations because speeding tickets could be seen as aggressive behavior.
I believe we have the right to carry a firearm for self defence; we have a responsibility to do it safely. What problem are we trying to solve with such training? The last I checked, concealed carry individuals count for next to no accidental shootings and crimes. For the most part, in comparison to the rest of the population, concealed carry individuals are the most responsible people I know. Should a person become proficient with their firearm...absolutely. Is this the government's job...no. A ridiculous minimum requirements gov mandated class is a waste of time. If anything, I can see a proficiency skills test.
I like the idea of teaching basic firearm safety and use in public schools, with range time. I'd also like to see programs for youth shooting come back, like Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, FFA, etc.. I've been around guns, hunting and shooting ever since I was l old enough to hold one. When I was a kid, my parents enrolled me in a Police Athletic League (PAL) shooting class, and I learned more about shooting in that class than I could even tell ya. But "mandatory" anything? No.
But I will say that I've seen some pretty scary stuff in my CCW class, hunter safety class, and at public ranges. One of the big reasons I love Ben Lomond Gun Club, where I can nearly always shoot by myself without any careless yahoos near me. The range time at my hunters safety class was eye-opening, pretty scary to think of some of those people roaming around the woods with guns. The majority of them couldn't even hit the paper.
68Charger
12-14-2015, 14:11
"Elitist bovine scat"? I don't need empirical data. I see these people every single day at work. Try to help them pick out guns. Help them choose a holster. Watch them shoot on the range- and when the opportunity is there, sometimes try to give them some help and/or coaching. Encourage them to get more training. Elitist bovine scat my ass. Current training requirements to get a CCW are woefully inadequate. Imho if you don't see this you have your head in the sand.
The way I see this is the classic "you're making me pay for somebody else's inexperience/inability/negligence"... how about we require you to go take a $300 defensive driver's course because I saw one of your neighbors driving recklessly?
I understand the concern, but still have a problem with mandatory training meant for the lowest common denominator. Such mandatory training could be a total waste of time for some, and those funds could be better spent on a more advanced course.
ETA: I did get something out of my original CCW course, because I didn't choose the cheapest/simplest one I could find... I expended 250-300 rounds in that course, and got some very good suggestions from the instructor- I already had lots of experience with rifles & shotgun, but was fairly new to pistols... so it wasn't a safety issue, but I was more accurate and "smooth" after that course. I also do continued training related to volunteering on a security team at my church.
BlasterBob
12-14-2015, 14:54
At least? I've got a problem with the situation if the student is hitting the target MORE than 30 times for 30 rounds fired ...
I guess I didn't make my statement very clear. I meant that out of the required thirty shots to be fired, ALL of those thirty shots had to at least hit the paper target. Also neglected to mention that there was a written 20 question test at the conclusion of this particular CCW class. Before someone asks what that written test covered - it was about the curriculum we had received in this particular class.
You guys do realize that Sneakered never said that people should be REQUIRED to take more training, right?
You guys do realize that Sneakered never said that people should be REQUIRED to take more training, right?
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/153142-Require-more-training-for-CCW?p=1938960&viewfull=1#post1938960
Current training requirements to get a CCW are woefully inadequate. Imho if you don't see this you have your head in the sand.
Seeing as we currently have required training...and he doesn't think it's enough...that leads you to your conclusion?
I get the feeling that sneakerd doesn't trust anyone that he himself doesn't approve.
I think that probably 60-70% of people with CCW should not be carrying a gun. Because they're not good enough.
It's a damn big country, he'll be busy.
At some point, you need to not be prejudiced against every other citizen out there and have some faith that maybe they'll cut you the same slack.
The current level of training that is required IS a joke, as far as training goes. No one in their right mind should go through the required class and then consider themselves "trained" or otherwise in no further need of training or practice. Now, all that said, and despite Sneakered's choice to comment on that fact, it has nothing to do with the discussion of if more training should be required.
a letter from a doctor, stating you were mentally competent
Do you still have that letter? You should frame it. I would like to see it [LOL]
Do you still have that letter? You should frame it. I would like to see it [LOL]
That's the spirit. That's like printing out and frame hateful emails I've gotten from customers.
I also wanted to make another redundant point. Rather than requiring "training," it seems more logical to require a certain level of performance. In this case it would have to be a score on a written exam and a score on some shooting drill. Then if you can pass the test without any additional "training" then good for you. If not, the argument is that you need that training anyway. Just an alternative idea, that I don't actually support.
Great-Kazoo
12-14-2015, 22:00
I also wanted to make another redundant point. Rather than requiring "training," it seems more logical to require a certain level of performance. In this case it would have to be a score on a written exam and a score on some shooting drill. Then if you can pass the test without any additional "training" then good for you. If not, the argument is that you need that training anyway. Just an alternative idea, that I don't actually support.
Define certain level of performance ? Performance based on another shooters 10 years of competition shooting? Performance based on some Sensible Gun Owner ? Performance based on someone who sat in at a 3hr "lecture" during a gun show ?
Imagine if you weren't required to get any training, obtain and pay for a License to do something you SHOULD already be allowed to do, the type of training you could afford to take.
Define certain level of performance ? Performance based on another shooters 10 years of competition shooting? Performance based on some Sensible Gun Owner ? Performance based on someone who sat in at a 3hr "lecture" during a gun show ?
Exactly.
Nevada has a shooting accuracy requirement for their CCW (which is one of the reasons we don't have reciprocity), but it's a total farce, something like 70% hits on a B29 silhouette at 3, 5, and 7 yards, with no time limit. That means 9 complete misses, off the paper, at conversational distances, with no time pressure. I'll go on record as saying training is good, I encourage anyone that is interested in getting their CCW permit to get as much training as they can afford, but requiring training to some bureaucrat's idea of a reasonable level of performance is not an idea I can get behind. In fact, the whole concept of a permit so I can cover my gun with a shirt really grates on my sensibilities.
Nevada has a shooting accuracy requirement for their CCW (which is one of the reasons we don't have reciprocity), but it's a total farce, something like 70% hits on a B29 silhouette at 3, 5, and 7 yards, with no time limit. That means 9 complete misses, off the paper, at conversational distances, with no time pressure. I'll go on record as saying training is good, I encourage anyone that is interested in getting their CCW permit to get as much training as they can afford, but requiring training to some bureaucrat's idea of a reasonable level of performance is not an idea I can get behind. In fact, the whole concept of a permit so I can cover my gun with a shirt really grates on my sensibilities.
+1
It is a jacket tax.
Requals and performance standards for LEOs are primarily CYA for liability. Any shooting by a private citizen will not be covered by your insurance and that private citizen will be held liable, count on it. Unless the police, prosecutor, and Grand Jury find your use of the firearm justified, expect your use of a firearm will cost magnitudes more than the cost of any firearms training, the gun and all the ammunition you have ever purchased.
But how much value do you place on the lives of your loved ones?
IMO, in a rational world where responsibility was valued, any government would respect the choice of citizens to take up this duty voluntarily and make that burden as light as possible rather than restrict and encumber. At a minimum, any government should be neutral and not prejudge the liability of free citizens for acts that may never happen.
But I dream.
Be safe.
General comment on this thread: It appears that many folks are of the opinion that everyone should be required to have as much training as they have, but any more is optional.
See how that doesn't work?
O2
milwaukeeshaker
12-15-2015, 09:58
THIS++++
what if I just bring a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with me instead? then they can not track, not do a 4473, not infringe.
Great-Kazoo
12-15-2015, 10:10
+1
But I dream.
Be safe.
Do us a favor and don't stand on any balcony's in Memphis.
Bailey Guns
12-15-2015, 18:03
General comment on this thread: It appears that many folks are of the opinion that everyone should be required to have as much training as they have, but any more is optional.
See how that doesn't work?
O2
No. Most people are saying voluntary training, as much as you can get (assuming it's from a competent source), is great and even encouraged. Mandatory training or government mandated training curriculum and standards are not. Big difference.
wctriumph
12-15-2015, 19:47
My wife and I attended a CCW class that required shooting to prove you could actually shoot. I am not exactly sure how they scored it (like 6 years ago) but she scored a 360 out of 400 and the instructor said she just out shot 75% of the Larimer county sheriff deputies in their required qualifying scores. My wife is a good shot close in with her little J and does pretty well with a Glock 19 too. Only she can't get a permit to carry or even possess a firearm because she has a prescription for MMJ. If I was registered as her caregiver I couldn't either.
Still, I wouldn't want to be the jack off that tries to take her on, they would be DOA.
Aloha_Shooter
12-15-2015, 20:36
No. Most people are saying voluntary training, as much as you can get (assuming it's from a competent source), is great and even encouraged. Mandatory training or government mandated training curriculum and standards are not. Big difference.
This. I don't know where the heck O2HeN2 is getting the idea that many folks are advocating REQUIRED training.
This. I don't know where the heck O2HeN2 is getting the idea that many folks are advocating REQUIRED training.
Maybe he came up to the surface too fast.
Zundfolge
12-16-2015, 10:01
This. I don't know where the heck O2HeN2 is getting the idea that many folks are advocating REQUIRED training.
I dunno ... maybe its because the title of the thread is "Require more training for CCW".
68Charger
12-16-2015, 10:25
Maybe he came up to the surface too fast.
I see what you did there...
Great-Kazoo
12-16-2015, 10:27
I see what you did there...
Tough Crowd
68Charger
12-16-2015, 10:36
Tough Crowd
While I never used Trimix, I did SCUBA diving in Alaska... when getting my C-card at the age of 16, I tore a hole in a wrist seal on rental dry suit at 35ft in February (~34 degree water)
I dunno ... maybe its because the title of the thread is "Require more training for CCW".
Sure, but O2Hen2 didn't start the thread.
I dunno ... maybe its because the title of the thread is "Require more training for CCW".
Bingo. Though many also have the same position as I have: Training is good, more training is better, mandatory training is completely unacceptable.
...but there are a lot of ambiguous responses too.
O2
...but there are a lot of ambiguous responses too.
O2
What does that mean?
Great-Kazoo
12-16-2015, 10:57
What does that mean?
That's kind of a vague question.
StagLefty
12-16-2015, 12:33
What does that mean?
http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambiguous [Sarcasm2]
What does that mean?
http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/that
1that
pronoun \ˈthat, thət\
Definition of that
Popularity: Top 20% of words
plural those play\ˈthōz\
1a : the person, thing, or idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the situation <thatis my father>b : the time, action, or event specified <after that I went to bed>c : the kind or thing specified as follows <the purest water is that produced by distillation>d : one or a group of the indicated kind <that's a cat — quick and agile>
2a : the one farther away or less immediately under observation or discussion <those are maples and these are elms>b : the former one
3a —used as a function word after and to indicate emphatic repetition of the idea expressed by a previous word or phrase <he was helpful, and that to an unusual degree>b —used as a function word immediately before or after a word group consisting of a verbal auxiliary or a form of the verb be preceded by there or a personal pronoun subject to indicate emphatic repetition of the idea expressed by a previous verb or predicate noun or predicate adjective <is she capable? She is that>
4a : the one : the thing : the kind : something (http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/something), anything (http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anything) <the truth of that which is true> <the senses are that whereby we experience the world> <what's that you say>b plural : some persons <those who think the time has come>
Great-Kazoo
12-16-2015, 20:32
Do you still have that letter? You should frame it. I would like to see it [LOL]
I'll look. The spouse rarely shitcans "legal" docs. Which is odd as she seems to have misplaced our marriage certificate. Another thing one didn't require training for.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.