2017 Gun bills in the Colorado Legislature

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

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.

I can understand your position however, I disagree with it. There is. I thing magical that happens between 18-21 to all of the sudden changes you to become anymore capable of responsibly carrying a firearm at the age of 21. A handgun safety course may not teach any of the things that you have mentioned above that military training lacks. Recruit training teaches you more responsibility in a few months than most colleges will teach you in 4 years. Nobody said I expected "great things." I expect that they can carry a firearm safely with negligent discharge, are capable of using reasonable judgment when choosing to use it, make a responsible shot that doesn't endanger others as well as I would any other random person off the street. That's really all you can expect of any random person who took a 6 hour handgun safety class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[Zundfolge]

Civilians aren't trained enough ... soldiers aren't trained enough ... Civilian training is different from soldier training ...

Bullshit. All of it is bullshit.

ANYONE can safely carry a firearm by following 4 rules that I imagine the average 5 year old child of any one of our members here can probably quote from memory.

Carrying a gun is not rocket science, you don't need to be a highly trained operator to do it and do it safely. If you have an IQ over 75 you can safely put a gun in a holster and leave it the hell alone unless and until you need it.

Stop over complicating this.

1. Treat all guns as though they are loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to kill or destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you're ready to fire.
4. Know your target and what's behind it.

Seriously, THAT IS ALL that is needed to safely carry a gun. Period.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a privilege and you don't demand expert level training to exercise a right.

[CS1983]

Your post clarifies what you expect, but that's immaterial to what this bill's intention and backing thought is. As I said originally, in the context that such young soldiers are impeccable, the reason is exactly the things they would lack while out and about in the civilian context.

I understand very well what OSUT or Basic/AIT teaches and the changes they impart. I also understand what they fail to impart from 6 years in various capacities -- being a dumb 19 year old private to being a pissed off SGT who had to write up a guy because he did the dumb.

I've asked a CPT friend, who is a company commander, to weigh in when he gets a chance. Hopefully he will.

[hurley842002]

Civilians aren't trained enough ... soldiers aren't trained enough ... Civilian training is different from soldier training ...

Bullshit. All of it is bullshit.

ANYONE can safely carry a firearm by following 4 rules that I imagine the average 5 year old child of any one of our members here can probably quote from memory.

Carrying a gun is not rocket science, you don't need to be a highly trained operator to do it and do it safely. If you have an IQ over 75 you can safely put a gun in a holster and leave it the hell alone unless and until you need it.

Stop over complicating this.

1. Treat all guns as though they are loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to kill or destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you're ready to fire.
4. Know your target and what's behind it.

Seriously, THAT IS ALL that is needed to safely carry a gun. Period.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a privilege and you don't demand expert level training to exercise a right.

Amen brother, and this goes for everyone, military or not, no need to create a privileged class for a RIGHT.

[CS1983]

Civilians aren't trained enough ... soldiers aren't trained enough ... Civilian training is different from soldier training ...

Bullshit. All of it is bullshit.

ANYONE can safely carry a firearm by following 4 rules that I imagine the average 5 year old child of any one of our members here can probably quote from memory.

Carrying a gun is not rocket science, you don't need to be a highly trained operator to do it and do it safely. If you have an IQ over 75 you can safely put a gun in a holster and leave it the hell alone unless and until you need it.

Stop over complicating this.

1. Treat all guns as though they are loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to kill or destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you're ready to fire.
4. Know your target and what's behind it.

Seriously, THAT IS ALL that is needed to safely carry a gun. Period.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a privilege and you don't demand expert level training to exercise a right.

Let's look at this in the context of medical training. It's less emotional for the bubbas.

Army Medics are, generally, studs at keeping a dude alive. Corpsmen too. They also are trained in the context of using those skills in an environment where they cannot be sued for keeping a person alive. They do things after 6 months of training that a paramedic would never dare. Ever. He'd be sued into oblivion for some of the things they do without thinking. Similarly, those whose only training is not only safe weapons handling, but their employment in a military context, would be experiencing a disservice if their training for a CCW process did not address differences in mindset and action.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand and accept.

[roberth]

Amen brother, and this goes for everyone, military or not, no need to create a privileged class for a RIGHT.

Furthermore, there should be NO provision for the government to coerce us to take a class and pay fees to exercise our RIGHTS. CCW and NFA are unconstitutional.

[Zundfolge]

Let's look at this in the context of medical training. It's less emotional for the bubbas.

Carrying a gun for personal self defense is not even remotely analogous to medical training.

So you're saying that before one of us proles should be allowed the privilege of carry we need to get the equivalent training as a SWAT officer?

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Let's look at this in the context of medical training. It's less emotional for the bubbas.

Army Medics are, generally, studs at keeping a dude alive. Corpsmen too. They also are trained in the context of using those skills in an environment where they cannot be sued for keeping a person alive. They do things after 6 months of training that a paramedic would never dare. Ever. He'd be sued into oblivion for some of the things they do without thinking. Similarly, those whose only training is not only safe weapons handling, but their employment in a military context, would be experiencing a disservice if their training for a CCW process did not address differences in mindset and action.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand and accept.

I mean this with all due respect, but it doesn't matter how many times you try and explains this, I simply don't agree there should be a qualifier to exercise my 2nd amendment rights. Life is dangerous and if I have poor judgement and a lack of self control I can either purposefully or negligently harm people in a lot of different ways. We put 16 year olds in charge of cars which are deadly if misused. Handling a gun safely and responsibly is no more complicated than driving a car. Your view of gun rights and safe handling is far more complicated than I believe it needs to be. You can explain it over and over and you will never change my mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

I don't know why this is so hard to understand and accept.

You're confusing level of understanding with level of agreement. I think we all understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[Zundfolge]

You're confusing level of understanding with level of agreement. I think we all understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with you.

+1