Apples and Oranges. How many tours and how many years leading snuffy?Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoMinuteMan
ETA: I agree on your final sentence.
Printable View
Apples and Oranges. How many tours and how many years leading snuffy?Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoMinuteMan
ETA: I agree on your final sentence.
I believe in constitutional carry, so my perspective is that I should not require and qualifier to be able to carry a firearm. There are 10 states with no training requirement to carry a concealed weapon. I've seen no evidence indicating a statistical increase in accidental firearm fatalities in those states as compared to more more restrictive states.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
I can't personally speak for any recruit level training other than RTC Great Lakes, but I can tell you that if you come out of that course unsafe to carry a firearm, a civilian CCW course won't make you any safer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)
You're missing the point a bit here. It's not about safe gun handling, so much as it is about a completely different mindset of a civilian and a soldier. Civilians aren't updated with an SOP every day and orders to follow. They have to make a decision in how/when to defend themselves, and once they make their decisions, they will be the only ones held responsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoMinuteMan
Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoMinuteMan
Glakes class of 74 here ;) When they still has strip clubs and pawn shops outside the gate. Yeah Freedom.
I respectfully disagree, I'm not missing it, I'm disagreeing with It. The concern of how and when to defend yourself extends beyond carrying a concealed weapon. If you are concerned that they lack judgement in how and when to defend themselves then you won't learn that in a handgun safety class which is the only training prerequisite in the state of Colorado to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)
I went back to read your first post to get my bearings. Sounds like we're all in agreement here, as the underlying point is that since there shouldn't be a requirement to carry in the first place, it doesn't matter if one was in the armed forces or not. I was trying to make the point that carrying in the Army is not the same as carrying as a civilian, but it doesn't even matter within the context of this conversation. Carry on.
Roger that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)
CMM,
Soldiers are not trained with the same mindset as CCW training should impart. Almost everything is different. A huge amount of military training (which, in this context is Army insofar as the majority of people who would be affected) is not geared toward things like concealing one's firearm, situation deescalation, etc. I'm all for the constitutionality of carrying pretty much everywhere, even open carry. But with rights come responsibility and this society has imparted zilch of that to those 18-20 year olds it would affect. The Army has not prepared them to carry and react responsibly in a civilian context. Perhaps MP's might be different, I dunno. But for the majority of folks who are stationed on Carson: Stack up on a door? Sure. They do that training all the time. ID and engage a target in rapid time? Yes, they can do that too. But you know what their training centers on? Taking the fight to the perceived bad guy quickly and with much violence. The tools and training they've been given are proactive, simply.
I spent 6 years in the Army, and 3 of those in an NCO position as a CPL and then a SGT. 18-20 year old soldiers, as I said before, can be impeccable under leadership and in the military context. Most had never handled a firearm prior to the military, or if they did it was not in the context of carrying. Their training is all they know. That doesn't present a problem for the ideal of constitutional carry, but it does present a problem for its practice. I'm not saying they should be banned from it, but that it would be irresponsible to expect great things simply because they are in the military. That's what the bill in question is really about: the trope that some 19 year old from [insert bumpkin town here] should be able to do whatever cus "he might die overseas for our rights, Ethel!" Sorry, but the Rah Rah Rah, PV2 Jimmy Bob! stuff just doesn't shake out well in practice.
If you re-read my original post on this, you will see that I outlined several reasons this bill is a non-starter for most of the 18-20 year old people residing at Fort Carson (and likely Peterson, Schriever, and any Enlisted on the Academy). You will also see I asked why just military.
I'm all for every day carry everywhere (hospitals, schools, church, the post office, the police station in dearborn michigan (Ha!), etc. But I just believe we should not let strawmen get the best of those young men. Even if the strawman is pointing his straw finger and wearing a patriotic top hat on some recruiting poster.
If you can open carry without a permit or training in this state, why shouldn't the same apply to concealed carry?
Just a "coat tax" is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric P