Require more training for CCW

[milwaukeeshaker]

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]

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.

[Irving]

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.

[tmckay2]

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]

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]

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.

[Irving]

Does that violence policy center statistic include good shoots by CCW holders? I have a feeling that it does.

[Gman]

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.

[muddywings]

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.

[Gman]

MASSIVE ERRORS IN THE VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER’S “CONCEALED CARRY KILLERS”

The Violence Policy Center 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, so here let’s take the errors in just one state Michigan.

— 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, 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).

The Violence Policy Center has an agenda.