Require more training for CCW

[sneakerd]

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]

"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"?

[Gman]

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]

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]

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.

[Gman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.