PDA

View Full Version : What level of training is prudent for concealed carry?


Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 10:14 AM
As many of you have pointed out, the level of proficiency one has to demonstrate with
a handgun to get a concealed carry permit is very low. That is not
necessarily a bad thing. But, what level of proficiency and training is
prudent for concealed carry?

I would argue that if a person is only proficient with a firearm to barely pass
concealed carry practical test, that person needs to achieve a higher
proficiency before concealed carry makes sense.

As handgun experts have said, when you're carrying, a fight automatically
involves one where a firearm is present because you brought it. So, a
fight that would only have resulted in physical and emotional bruises
otherwise may turn deadly simply because a firearm is present.

Someone with little to no training may have a false sense of security from
a concealed handgun, but that handgun may very well be used to take
the bearer's life.

At the very least, I think that someone who wants to carry needs to take
a comprehensive class on safe and effective pistol handling, and on top of
that the person should either practice on his own regularly or take
refresher courses.

What are your thoughts?

Lest you doubt my intentions, I have no intention or authority to take away
anybody's firearm. And I certainly do not have the intention or authority
to dictate who may carry and who may not.

I'm simply saying that a handgun carried by someone with less than ideal
proficiency with the same handgun may create more dangers for the
bearer. Mace or taser might be a better option for some.

Cheers,

jae

rogertc1
August 13, 2008, 10:28 AM
At least 3 years active duty military service.

pax
August 13, 2008, 10:32 AM
As much as you can reasonably afford, plus regular practice. Once you have attained a decent level of skill, a good goal is to attend one two-day class per year to maintain your skill and keep your edge sharp.

It's amazing to me how vehemently some people will defend their own ignorance. :eek: Why would anyone want to carry a gun but not get training in how to effectively use it?

pax

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 10:51 AM
It's amazing to me how vehemently some people will defend their own ignorance. Why would anyone want to carry a gun but not get training in how to effectively use it?


I'm glad you agree. I was trepidatious about starting this thread.

Imagine a diminutive woman carrying a concealed handgun, and imagine
a perp accosting her. With a trembling hand the woman pulls out her gun,
the perp adroitly takes the gun away from her. Now, whatever the situation
was before, it has become a life and death situation for the woman.

Sense of insecurity may cause sleepless nights. False sense of confidence
can get you killed.

Keltyke
August 13, 2008, 11:03 AM
Basic handgun safety and handling. The basic CCW course, then LOTS of practice. I hit the range once a week and fire at LEAST 50 with my carry piece. A tactical course is good, too.

I'll add knowing the law of where and when you can carry and when you can shoot is of ultimate importance.

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 11:13 AM
At least 3 years active duty military service.


Seriously?:barf:

Let me check my flag..... yep, American, not Israeli:eek:

Stagger Lee
August 13, 2008, 11:35 AM
Not that I'd oppose mandating military service for CCW holders (and everyone else post-high-school), but the military doesn't teach about the laws of self-defense or much anything else useful for civilian carry among other civilians.

I would recommend a high level of training, at least Ayoob's LFI-1 or it's equivalent.

www.ayoob.com

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 11:44 AM
Imagine a diminutive woman carrying a concealed handgun, and imagine
a perp accosting her. With a trembling hand the woman pulls out her gun,
the perp adroitly takes the gun away from her. Now, whatever the situation
was before, it has become a life and death situation for the woman.

Sense of insecurity may cause sleepless nights. False sense of confidence
can get you killed.

Jae,

I'd say that a considerable amount of introspection goes hand-in-hand with the training. The woman in your example MUST make sure she is willing to pull that trigger before carrying a gun. I'm not sure ANYTHING is more important than that decision. No amount of training will help if you can't/won't pull the trigger when it has to be done. After that, I think it's a personal decision, you need to be trained to a level that makes the gun you carry more dangerous to the BG than it is to you. Since we all believe in right to carry, that is a personal confidence that I will not dictate to others. (I know that wasn't your intent anyway)

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 11:47 AM
I also would like to point out that such a suggestion was not even a consideration until very recently in American history. There was a time when the question would have been "What do mean you don't own a gun?!" (not that everyone carried but almost everyone had a gun in the house). The founders CLEARLY never intended any level of training our they would have either written it into the Constitution OR required it by later law and neither has been the case.

Frank Ettin
August 13, 2008, 11:51 AM
Jeff Cooper used to say, "It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully."

And I've seen plenty of atrocious gun handling and abysmal marksmanship at the various ranges I frequent. I've seen a lot of folks who apparently have had their guns for a while and who couldn't put two successive shots within 15 inches of each other at 7 yards. Aside from the hazard such people might pose to others, if they needed to use their guns in self defense, they might not be able to do themselves much good.

There probably isn't such a thing as too much training or too much practice -- as long as it's good training and good practice. And I think a good foundation would be the three NRA courses -- Basic Handgun, Personal Protection Outside the Home and Personal Protection Inside the Home. If properly taught, the three together will cover: basic safety and shooting skills; basic self defense shooting skills, including combat accuracy, flash sigh picture, basic point shooting, presenting a gun from a holster, speed reloads, basic movement and use of cover; equipment selection and use; legal issues; mind set and attitude; situational awareness; and dealing with the aftermath of a self defense shooting.

I'm not saying that sort of thing should be a requirement. But if I'm going to be carrying a loaded gun around and think that I may possibly need to use it to defend myself or a member of my family, that's the sort of stuff I'd want to know about.

chris in va
August 13, 2008, 11:58 AM
At least 3 years active duty military service.

:D

That has to be sarcasm, because I was in the Air Force for 4 years and we touched a gun twice.

Lady Godiva
August 13, 2008, 12:00 PM
"Imagine a diminutive woman carrying a concealed handgun, and imagine
a perp accosting her. With a trembling hand the woman pulls out her gun,
the perp adroitly takes the gun away from her. Now, whatever the situation
was before, it has become a life and death situation for the woman."

This could just as well happen to ANY person who hasn't had enough training - male or female.

Don't mean to be a shrew, but it bothers me when I see stereotypical profiling that specifically implies a FEMALE would be more likely to have something like this happen.

I think the MENTAL aspect of carrying is just as important as being proficient with your weapon. I took a little time after getting my CWP to make sure I was mentally ready to carry a weapon - it is a HUGE responsibility, and I wanted to be sure I had my head around it and would be able to pull the trigger if I had to, knowing what the consequences could be.

"Basic handgun safety and handling. The basic CCW course, then LOTS of practice. I hit the range once a week and fire at LEAST 50 with my carry piece. A tactical course is good, too.

I'll add knowing the law of where and when you can carry and when you can shoot is of ultimate importance."

I think this is a pretty good summary for the basic skills one should have. I wish it were possible to practice things like drawing from my concealed holster at the range, but it's not, so it's something I will have to do at home. I would really be interested in some kind of tactical class to give me SOME kind of experience in that area.

I know nothing can ever REALLY prepare you for the real thing, should it ever happen, but the more training and preparation I can do, both mentally and physically, the better off I'll be. I am constantly trying to learn and improve my skills and mindset.

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 12:09 PM
Since we all believe in right to carry, that is a personal confidence that I will not dictate to others. (I know that wasn't your intent anyway)


I would be opposed to any law that mandates a certain level of proficiency
to carry concealed because liberal lawyers will twist such laws to make it
difficult for anybody to carry concealed (like DC lawyers saying that my
1911 and CZ-75B are "machine guns" :rolleyes:). You know first hand
Peetza, you live in New York.

Having said that, there are certain things that an individual should do for
himself for his own good. And, I can also suggest to another person that
they maybe want to get some more training in correct handling of a handgun.
That other person can do with my suggestion what they wish.

Training and practice breeds confidence, and there's nothing like muscle
memory when @@@@ hits the fan.

Cheers,

Jae

45_Shooter
August 13, 2008, 12:22 PM
I think training which stresses the person mentally should be mandatory with a CPL. Some shooters I have seen are fairly proficient at the range, then when shooting an action sequence where they have to draw, move or change positions, doubletap, seek cover, reload, etc. get very confused and act and shoot very poorly. Things like trying to catch empties out of a wheelgun or retain an empty mag are common, as are botched draws from concealment, failure to use cover effectively, improper shooting technique etc.

Having good range skill with your handgun out to about 15 yards or so is a must IMO; from there the act of drawing, reloading properly, acquiring and firing rapidly, and seeking and using cover should also come naturally. Your focus should be on where and what the threat is doing and if it warrants lethal force, not what you should do if it does.

Basically, if you wonder if your skill is good enough; it probably isn't, and you probably need some training.

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 12:39 PM
Having good range skill with your handgun out to about 15 yards or so is a must IMO; from there the act of drawing, reloading properly, acquiring and firing rapidly, and seeking and using cover should also come naturally. Your focus should be on where and what the threat is doing and if it warrants lethal force, not what you should do if it does.


Again, lawyers have a way of gumming up the works. Lawyers will twist
any requirement for Concealed Carry to make it more difficult for everybody
to carry concealed.

Also, if somebody has no idea what any or all of the techniques you
mentioned are or does not know what you exactly mean by "cover", they
need to do themselves a favor and find a way to learn the necessary skills.

Cheers,

Jae

Erik
August 13, 2008, 12:46 PM
" As much as you can reasonably afford, plus regular practice. Once you have attained a decent level of skill, a good goal is to attend one two-day class per year to maintain your skill and keep your edge sharp."

What Pax said, but applied to firearms related and hand to hand related knowledge, skills, and abilities. Because the fight is not always of our choosing or the way we'd choose it.

vox rationis
August 13, 2008, 12:47 PM
At least 3 years active duty military service.

What's that got to do with concealed carry and being able to shoot a handgun well...rhetorical question, answer: nothing, and not much, respectively :D

Crow61
August 13, 2008, 12:56 PM
I have lived in two states in my life. Both had the same requirements. Be 21 or over and have a clean record and no mental illness. There should not be any requirements beyond that because it would make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

It is a good idea, but should be a personal choice.

There are lots of folks who can't afford to take these classes and get training.

Should that keep them from exercising their right to defend themselves? Some cannot afford to shoot that often either. Does that take away their right to own and carry?

I very seldom get to shoot anymore. I haven't fired my main carry gun in a couple of years. But, I do know how to use it and having it on me will give me the opportunity to defend myself and family.

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 01:04 PM
Should that keep them from exercising their right to defend themselves? Some cannot afford to shoot that often either. Does that take away their right to own and carry?

I very seldom get to shoot anymore. I haven't fired my main carry gun in a couple of years. But, I do know how to use it and having it on me will give me the opportunity to defend myself and family.


You can dry fire for free, and practicing drawing from a holster cost you nothing.

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 01:08 PM
I don't think the intention of the question was "When should we strip people of their right to carry?" but more "What level of training should a person obtain before they should feel that they are wielding the power to kill as safely as possible?"


...Having said that, there are certain things that an individual should do for
himself for his own good. And, I can also suggest to another person that
they maybe want to get some more training in correct handling of a handgun.
That other person can do with my suggestion what they wish.

I had no doubt that was your intent. :o:)

Crow61
August 13, 2008, 01:15 PM
but more "What level of training should a person obtain before they should feel that they are wielding the power to kill as safely as possible?"

If I ever have to kill someone I want to kill them as DEAD as possible.

But, that is something that I hope that I never have to do.

A person should be able to determine for themselves when they are ready to carry. Nobody else has that right to decide when I am "good enough" to carry.

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 01:19 PM
If I ever have to kill someone I want to kill them as DEAD as possible.

I agree. and....

A person should be able to determine for themselves when they are ready to carry. Nobody else has that right to decide when I am "good enough" to carry.


I agree.

45_Shooter
August 13, 2008, 01:21 PM
Again, lawyers have a way of gumming up the works. Lawyers will twist any requirement for Concealed Carry to make it more difficult for everybody to carry concealed.

I don't see alot of problems with having a true practical shooting test to get your license (like a driver's license) which emphasizes the skills I mentioned above, since they should be considered necessary for the effective use of a handgun in a self defense situation. Some people in my CPL class (a while ago) had trouble hitting the paper at ranges under 5 yards. Those people are dangerous to themselves and those around them and they are probably unfamiliar with their weapon and it's safeties as well. Why not make sure they're reasonably competent before letting them carry?

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 01:27 PM
I don't see alot of problems with having a true practical shooting test to get your license (like a driver's license) which emphasizes the skills I mentioned above, since they should be considered necessary for the effective use of a handgun in a self defense situation.

That would be true if it could be drawn up, controlled and administered by other than government agencies.
I say this for 2 reasons:
1) It will be created by lawyers and NOT be what you intend because of the general bias against guns within MOST (most, not all) government and to please the special interest gun control freaks.
2) The test required to get a drivers license (at least in NY) has not been modified since 1937 and, somehow, the powers that be still consider it relevant to the intent of ensuring safe drivers. What, after all, does a 10 minute test REALLY tell you about a person ability to handle driving under real conditions?

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 01:42 PM
I don't see alot of problems with having a true practical shooting test to get your license (like a driver's license) which emphasizes the skills I mentioned above, since they should be considered necessary for the effective use of a handgun in a self defense situation. Some people in my CPL class (a while ago) had trouble hitting the paper at ranges under 5 yards. Those people are dangerous to themselves and those around them and they are probably unfamiliar with their weapon and it's safeties as well. Why not make sure they're reasonably competent before letting them carry?


Another arena where tests are improper is voting. Southern states enacted
literacy test requirement for voting. Then, the enforcers twisted this
requirement to exclude African Americans from voting. If the African
American passes a literary test in English, he would be then given one
in French. If he passes that, he would have to take another in Latin ...
until they could find one that he wouldn't pass.

I favor no laws which mandate anything for gun ownership or concealed
carry. But I do favor strong, voluntary and friendly encouragement
and suggestion by fellow gun owners.

45_Shooter
August 13, 2008, 01:45 PM
That would be true if it could be drawn up, controlled and administered by other than government agencies.
I say this for 2 reasons:
1) It will be created by lawyers and NOT be what you intend because of the general bias against guns within MOST (most, not all) government and to please the special interest gun control freaks.
2) The test required to get a drivers license (at least in NY) has not been modified since 1937 and, somehow, the powers that be still consider it relevant to the intent of ensuring safe drivers. What, after all, does a 10 minute test REALLY tell you about a person ability to handle driving under real conditions?

In MI we have to pass a road test to initially get our license. It's not terribly involved, but kids do fail it on a regular basis so it isn't a joke either; thats the kind of test I was referring to.

Why doesn't the NRA step in and start this then? Their course (Gun Safety Within the Home or something like that) was the basis for my CPL course, and I'm assuming for most states, so why can't we just edit the course to include a live fire test?

Stiofan
August 13, 2008, 01:46 PM
I didn't have to take any test to get my ccw as I was grandfathered in due to my age (I took and passed a hunting license test years ago, which would also have qualified me had I been younger than the non-test age limit).

I've heard about something like 20,000 gun laws on the books already. The majority of these are not enforced well enough. I don't like putting additional laws on the books to further restrict the Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" for citizens.

Gun crimes by ccw holders in my state is almost non-existant, even with the lack of forced classes, schooling, testing and such. Adding another law therefore isn't going to accomplish anything here.

Perhaps in more urban areas there is some benefit, but for native born Idahians especially, most have grown up using guns as a tool and hunting is ingrained in most.

Let's enforce some of the exisiting laws first, and see if there is a benefit to society by doing that.

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 01:50 PM
Why not make sure they're reasonably competent before letting them carry?

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Depends on your definition of infringement and then reasonable infringement.


You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre in spite of the right of free speech; so, can you require training for firearms in spite of the second amendment?

Good question.


The difference, IMO, is that the 1st amendment has long been considered to be conditional (so to speak) but the 2nd amendment was treated as essentially absolute for MANY years.

45_Shooter
August 13, 2008, 02:01 PM
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Depends on your definition of infringement and then reasonable infringement.

Carrying a concealed weapon such as we are talking has historically been interpreted as not being what the amendment is referring to or protecting; otherwise no license would be necessary in any state. I don't necessarily agree with that but my point is that it doesn't have a bearing on the argument.

Creature
August 13, 2008, 02:02 PM
As much as you can reasonably afford, plus regular practice.

Okay...that is not really answering the question.

Keep in mind that this is a two part problem: what should "affordable training" should consist of? What is a "reasonable level of proficiency"? And how much would you expect to pay for a qualified instructor to instruct a novice to that level of proficiency?

Once that novice is proficient enough, how much would should that novice expect to spend in order to get that "regular" practice...assuming the worst possible circumstances (must drive approximately 5-10 miles round trip, must pay range fees, must buy practice ammunition)?

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 02:05 PM
A person should be able to determine for themselves when they are ready to carry. Nobody else has that right to decide when I am "good enough" to carry.


I said "prudent" not "should be required". People can do whatever they wish.
It's a free country. But we can discuss what exactly is safe driving, without
infringing anyone's privilege to drive. Similarly, my freedom of speech
ensures me the right to state what I think is safe gun ownership.

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 02:12 PM
Once that novice is proficient enough, how much would should that novice expect to spend in order to get that "regular" practice...assuming the worst possible circumstances (must drive approximately 5-10 miles round trip, must pay range fees, must buy practice ammunition)?


When someone is determined enough to get something done, they'll find a
way or ask enough people or read enough books ...

Dry firing is free. If ammo is too expensive, a person can start reloading.
If gas is too expensive, they can build a firing range in the basement.

Expense should not stop anybody from learning how to properly handle a
firearm.

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 02:16 PM
Carrying a concealed weapon such as we are talking has historically been interpreted as not being what the amendment is referring to or protecting; otherwise no license would be necessary in any state. I don't necessarily agree with that but my point is that it doesn't have a bearing on the argument.


That may be true but once upon a time NO ONE carried concealed, they most always open carried because it was assumed by way of tradition that we are allowed to do so. One of the significant reason for carrying concealed today is that we law abiding citizens have essentially been driven "under cover" by fear mongers. (I know, there are "tactical" reason also)
Current licensing is a violation of the amendment already and I don't think that because the states have been allowed to do so unchallenged justifies the action in the first place. I know you said you disagree with it already, so I'm not arguing with you.
If someone punches you in the nose and you don't do anything about it does that give them the right to do it? NO!
If the state violates a fundamental right and we do nothing, does it give them the right to continue? NO! but it does give them permission.

Creature
August 13, 2008, 02:22 PM
When someone is determined enough to get something done, they'll find a
way or ask enough people or read enough books ...

Asking around or reading books is not the same as actual trigger time. Never was and never will be.

Now...please put a price tag on "reasonable".

ElectricHellfire
August 13, 2008, 02:23 PM
I dont know, but I DO know a lot of people who dont need drivers licences!

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 02:27 PM
I dont know, but I DO know a lot of people who dont need drivers licences!


Right to arm and defend oneself is a right. Driving is a privilege. Half the
sphincters and morons on the streets should be taking the bus, in my opinion.


Now...please put a price tag on "reasonable".


I can't. But I can say that someone who carries a firearm should be well
enough trained such that when life and death situation occurs they will
have enough muscle memory and confidence in their abilities to actually
allow the firearm to help them and not hurt.

The above paragraph does not mention money.

Cheers,

Jae

vox rationis
August 13, 2008, 02:31 PM
I don't think that the driver's license analogy is a good one, because like you said I too believe that owning a gun for self defense ought to be considered a right, whereas driving on public roads is considered a privilege.

My problem would be if the State required State administered safety tests. Then you have a collection of government pukes deciding if you are "safe" enough to be able to defend yourself.

Of course, they might decide that guns are inherently unsafe, and an affront to public safety, in which case, the bureaucracy will decide to "save" you by absolutely refusing to allow you to handle a firearm. Or even something a lot more pedestrian, but still terribly insidious, such as the clerk just doesn't believe in guns ownership and drags his feet, or somehow subverts the process every chance he gets.

The right to keep and bear arms is too important a civil right to put into the hands of bureaucrats in that way.

Having said that States that allow CCW/CHL are obviously requiring a competency test before issuing the permit. If this is to be done, then it ought to be allowable, as it is currently, to have private/third party entities administer the class and test so as to keep the influence of government away from the process as much as possible.

Should you then say, well let's make the test harder to pass, well then two problems would arise: 1) you might possibly infringe upon a person's right of self defense, that can shoot safely, but perhaps not at the level of a grade A pistolero, which wouldn't be right, and 2) Anti Self Defense types would charge that it isn't right that regular people should be forced by the State to learn "combat" training designed to kill people.

So, as it is, the status quo is probably the best compromise, that is, yes have a basic course and a basic competency exam for CCW/CHL carry only, administered by third parties, to make sure that you can handle the weapon safely, but to also allow the citizen to get more advanced training on his/her own.

After all learning how to use a gun safely isn't rocket science. And forcing people to have to learn advanced shooting techniques just to allow them to have access to guns or CC, would be akin to forcing an average driver to learn advanced stunt/race car driving before you give them a license.

I'm all for getting as much shooting (and driving, for that matter) training as possible. But this should be an individual's choice, not a matter of governmental coercion.

Anyway, just some initial thoughts that I had.

45_Shooter
August 13, 2008, 02:36 PM
That may be true but once upon a time NO ONE carried concealed, they most always open carried because it was assumed by way of tradition that we are allowed to do so. One of the significant reason for carrying concealed today is that we law abiding citizens have essentially been driven "under cover" by fear mongers. (I know, there are "tactical" reason also)
Current licensing is a violation of the amendment already and I don't think that because the states have been allowed to do so unchallenged justifies the action in the first place. I know you said you disagree with it already, so I'm not arguing with you.
If someone punches you in the nose and you don't do anything about it does that give them the right to do it? NO!
If the state violates a fundamental right and we do nothing, does it give them the right to continue? NO! but it does give them permission.

I really wholeheartedly agree with you. I just see the law interpreting (in violation of the 2nd amend. as you say and I agree) CCW as a priviledge instead of a right and don't want to give them any reason to revoke that 'priviledge'. Untrained people and those unmotivated to be so in my view are the largest threat to this being revoked, and I just really don't want to see this happen.

There was a shooting at a bar north of my home about a year ago. Two younger guys got into an argument; one (aggressor who had a CPL) followed the other into the bathroom, continued to argue, and a fistfight turned into one (cpl holder) shooting the other (he was unarmed, and luckily suffered only a flesh wound).

Now, carrying in a bar is illegal in MI. Aggravating a situation by following someone into the bathroom to continue an argument and then pulling a pistol when loosing a fistfight is also poor judgement. I believe that more involved licensing might have prevented this from putting a black eye on ccw holders, as those predisposed to such impulsive behavior might be weeded out when they find out they lack the patience and maturity to handle the process to attain such responsibility.

I would like to see the NRA step up to do this myself, as like others I do have a limited trust of our government.

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 02:40 PM
I'm all for getting as much shooting (and driving, for that matter) training as possible. But this should be an individual's choice, not a matter of governmental coercion.

Anyway, just some initial thoughts that I had.


I agree that the government should not get involved.

BUT, a healthy dose of peer pressure should work wonders. There's nothing
wrong with peer pressure.

It's like telling a drunk friend that he should take the taxi home. You're not
Uncle Sam and you're not even his Momma, but you should try very hard to
get him not to get behind the steering wheel when he is drunk.

Getting someone who can't hit the broad side of a barn to get the needed
training is a similar matter.

vox rationis
August 13, 2008, 02:55 PM
I believe that more involved licensing might have prevented this from putting a black eye on ccw holders, as those predisposed to such impulsive behavior might be weeded out when they find out they lack the patience and maturity to handle the process to attain such responsibility.

Well then you'd have to include psychological testing, because short of that there is no way you'd weed out people with impulsiveness problems just with "more involved licensing".

Licensing designed to ensure operational competency can never ensure that one isn't a pure, unadulterated, idiot. In a free society, in order for the free to remain that way, occasionally, as indecorous as that might be, we have to deal with the mistakes of a few morons, and resist the knee jerk reaction to immediately come out with new regulation. Regulation that is often based on emotional and do-good-er reactions, that rarely withstand the scrutiny of sober deliberation and that unfortunately unleash all sorts of unintended consequences that end up biting us in the rear.

So more involved licensing, especially if done by the government, would only achieve one thing, and that is more infringement on our rights. And when the inevitable idiot does an idiotic thing, then because you've uncannily made the right to defend oneself a privilege indirectly tied to the behavior of idiots, then eventually that privilege will dematerialize into thin air as well.

BUT, a healthy dose of peer pressure should work wonders. There's nothing
wrong with peer pressure.

I totally agree, societal pressure to behave properly, is a good thing, because you can't legislate stupid out of existence; by trying to do so you only end up hurting the non-stupid ;)

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 02:55 PM
Untrained people and those unmotivated to be so in my view are the largest threat to this being revoked, and I just really don't want to see this happen.

That's an interesting theory. Honestly, I'm not sure if I agree with that or not. I'll have to think about it. I do agree that dumb untrained people with guns are a big PR problem but are they the largest problem? I don't know, maybe.

rogertc1
August 13, 2008, 03:08 PM
By golly when I was a LT. in the US Army we were taught firearms SAFETY and MARKSMANSHIP as I am sure our boys in Iraq are nowdays. We also had lots and lots of practice and drills. Lots of practice and drills. Lots of practice and drills. My father who is now 90 done the same thing but in the Navy CB's. He carried a M1 Carbine.
So much so what we did became natural.
Obama and other Democrats have mentioned making the Military mandatory.

Stagger Lee
August 13, 2008, 03:11 PM
OK, fine.

In order to be allowed to carry a gun around me, my family and other citizens, I think that you should:

a. Have no criminal record, to include DUI and any violent misdemeanor
b. Have served in the Armed Forces or other held another public service job for at least a year.
c. Pass a comprehensive training course such as Ayoob's 40-hour class
d. be required to become a member of the National Rifle Association and remain a member in good standing.
e. show proof that you've voted in a recent election
f. demonstrate proficiency with a simple pass/fail range test before being re-licensed when your permit expires.

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 03:20 PM
a. Have no criminal record, to include DUI and any violent misdemeanor
b. Have served in the Armed Forces or other held another public service job for at least a year.
c. Pass a comprehensive training course such as Ayoob's 40-hour class
d. be required to become a member of the National Rifle Association and remain a member in good standing.
e. show proof that you've voted in a recent election
f. demonstrate proficiency with a simple pass/fail range test before being re-licensed when your permit expires.


By any chance, is your real name Gray Davis?

johnbt
August 13, 2008, 03:51 PM
Having a gun is better than not having one when you need it. And no, I'm not talking about folks who need to learn the basics and don't know which end the bullet comes out of or what the sights are for.

Let's say it takes 2 years of assorted training and/or practice to achieve the level of proficiency advocated by many of the posters in this thread. Should the gun owner go 2 years without carrying until the magical level of acceptable proficiency is reached?

IOW, even an untrained (again, not referring to a pure novice) person has a little bit a of chance in a jam if they have a gun. If they don't have one, well, they can't even get off a lucky shot.

John

johnbt
August 13, 2008, 03:53 PM
"b. Have served in the Armed Forces "

Oh no, you want to give guns to drivers and recruiters too? ;)

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 04:22 PM
Let's say it takes 2 years of assorted training and/or practice to achieve the level of proficiency advocated by many of the posters in this thread. Should the gun owner go 2 years without carrying until the magical level of acceptable proficiency is reached?


No. It takes two days of training and a lifetime of practice.

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 04:27 PM
OK, fine.

In order to be allowed to carry a gun around me, my family and other citizens, I think that you should:

a. Have no criminal record, to include DUI and any violent misdemeanor
b. Have served in the Armed Forces or other held another public service job for at least a year.
c. Pass a comprehensive training course such as Ayoob's 40-hour class
d. be required to become a member of the National Rifle Association and remain a member in good standing.
e. show proof that you've voted in a recent election
f. demonstrate proficiency with a simple pass/fail range test before being re-licensed when your permit expires.


Let me paraphrase that:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=34984&d=1218662785

Stagger Lee
August 13, 2008, 04:33 PM
b. Have served in the Armed Forces "

Oh no, you want to give guns to drivers and recruiters too?


I don't care what they do so long as they serve. It's not about the training because the military doesn't adequately train people to carry guns in everyday noncombat situations. It's about the service and actually earning citizenship by giving something back to this country. My personal take is that American citizenship is valuable and should be bought, not just born into. It can't be bought with money but it can be bought by giving something back. It's a two-way street.

Robert Heinlein also espoused the view that only people who had served in the military could become Citizens and enjoy all of the rights and privileges that go with it. I'd be willing to expand that to allow people to go into police, fire, medical etc. positions...just something that lets them give something back to this great nation.

But getting back on track, I don't want untrained, uninformed people who may be unfamiliar with how a handgun works or what the laws are carrying one around my family. Some of you "purists" may not think so highly of your families, but that's your choice. Believe it or not, people are not going to be dying en masse just because it takes them a little longer to get a CCW and that "right" is subject to the same reasonable regulation that every other right in this country is, just as our founders had envisioned.


And BTW, people who respond not with rational arguments but with bumper-sticker slogans and stupid discredited cut-pastes only reinforce my belief that I'm probably right.

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 04:34 PM
I don't trust any government to do the right thing, and I think they extort
way too much in taxes.

I have "paid" in taxes about 1/2 million dollars over the years :eek:

That's a big mansion with a pool and its own shooting range. :rolleyes:

How can I be expected to trust a group of people who spend money like drunken sailors? :confused:

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 04:38 PM
I don't care what they do so long as they serve. It's not about the training because the military doesn't adequately train people to carry guns in everyday noncombat situations. It's about the service and actually earning citizenship by giving something back to this country. My personal take is that American citizenship is valuable and should be bought, not just born into. It can't be bought with money but it can be bought by giving something back. It's a two-way street.

Robert Heinlein also espoused the view that only people who had served in the military could become Citizens and enjoy all of the rights and privileges that go with it. I'd be willing to expand that to allow people to go into police, fire, medical etc. positions...just something that lets them give something back to this great nation.

But getting back on track, I don't want untrained, uninformed people who may be unfamiliar with how a handgun works or what the laws are carrying one around my family. Some of you "purists" may not think so highly of your families, but that's your choice. Believe it or not, people are not going to be dying en masse just because it takes them a little longer to get a CCW and that "right" is subject to the same reasonable regulation that every other right in this country is, just as our founders had envisioned.


***? You do know this is a forum full of "Right to Keep And Bear Arms"
conservatives, right? Did you get lost on your way to an abortion rally?

Stagger Lee
August 13, 2008, 04:40 PM
I don't trust any government to do the right thing, and I think they extort
way too much in taxes.

I have "paid" in taxes about 1/2 million dollars over the years

That's a big mansion with a pool and its own shooting range.

How can I be expected to trust a group of people who spend money like drunken sailors?
Well you need to remember that the elected officials represent not just you but many other people, some of whom want more socialist programs. So it's on you and me and others who care to work to elect only those who share our views and to work to guide the ones in office already. If your congressman and senators don't know your name and your opinions on the issues, then you haven't done your job as a citizen and contacted them enough. Instead of blaming the elected officials for the way they do their jobs, look in the mirror and blame that guy for not working hard enough to put the right people in office, even if it means running yourself.

rscalzo
August 13, 2008, 04:41 PM
While time at the range is all well and good, nothing is better than force on force training. Unfortunately, very few facilities offer it. It the opportunity presents itself, training on a FATS system is outstanding.

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 04:53 PM
My personal take is that American citizenship is valuable and should be bought, not just born into.

That is NOT the take of the founding fathers or the intention (CLEARLY) of the constitution.

It is certainly your right to have that opinion but it is not IMO in the spirit of the "grand experiment".

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 05:02 PM
That is NOT the take of the founding fathers or the intention (CLEARLY) of the constitution.

It is certainly your right to have that opinion but it is not IMO in the spirit of the "grand experiment".


Well said.

The government governs at the pleasure of the people. The people don't
owe anybody anything.

BillCA
August 13, 2008, 07:08 PM
Your level of training should be such that you can draw, fire and hit your target reactively without thinking about the steps needed. This frees your mind to deal with the threat situation - evaluating the threat, evaluating retreat options and non-violent resolutions, etc.

Once your training is such that you can at least get your firearm quickly into service, you can move on to more advanced training. Such training would include using speedloaders, cover, movement, contact-distance techniques, etc. All that "fun stuff".

I'll add the normal disclaimer here that one should carry a less-than-lethal form of defense (e.g. pepper spray) when practical. Even if for no other reason than to give you a chance to avoid shooting the gene-tampered turkey who's asking to be shot.

The bigger question is can too much training hurt you in court? I think it can. Pax's idea of re-taking the same training course every year (or two) doesn't get you into the trouble. It's the guys who take the ultra-advanced courses or courses in hand-to-hand/knife fighting too. I can see that training being flaunted before a jury to paint someone as willing to skip less-lethal means just so they could shoot someone.

Stagger Lee
August 13, 2008, 07:18 PM
The people don't owe anybody anything.

Because nobody ever sacrificed anything to earn and preserve the freedoms you enjoy or the services that you take for granted, right?

We're not even a nation, are we? We're just a bunch of people who happen to live on the same continent, and everything we have we had coming from day one and no one ever had to do anything for us, so we shouldn't have to bother doing anything for our neighbors and the next generation, right?

Lucky for us all that our Founding Fathers and a lot of veterans over the past two centuries didn't share your point of view. :rolleyes:

Scattergun Bob
August 13, 2008, 07:27 PM
Got into this thread, LATE, again.

Reading through this I am very impressed with all the wisdom. PAX, ERIC, and you have driven the nail home in my opinion.

The first paragraph of your last post is "right there for me", simply and clearly AND in one paragraph.

One of my standard banters to folks who ask about skills for survival is:

"Once the combat envelope wraps its' cold clammy arms around you, there is more than enough to think about besides how your weapon works, what condition of readiness IT IS IN, or where it shoots to."

Good job folks.

Good Luck & Be Safe

BillCA
August 13, 2008, 07:29 PM
OK, fine.

In order to be allowed to carry a gun around me, my family and other citizens, I think that you should:

a. Have no criminal record, to include DUI and any violent misdemeanor
b. Have served in the Armed Forces or other held another public service job for at least a year.
c. Pass a comprehensive training course such as Ayoob's 40-hour class
d. be required to become a member of the National Rifle Association and remain a member in good standing.
e. show proof that you've voted in a recent election
f. demonstrate proficiency with a simple pass/fail range test before being re-licensed when your permit expires.
Some of your points are laughable.

Bad DUI convictions occur every day. Like a conviction for being drunk and sleeping inside the car parked on private property.

Misdemeanor violence? C'mon... lots of small guys have such records because someone picked a fight with them and cops charged everyone just to let the court settle it.

Public service should be a voluntary choice, not a mandate. I prefer volunteer military service over conscription too.

Become an NRA member? A government requirement to join a private organization? Should the gov't require doctors to join the AMA? Or madate which union everyone should belong to?

All of your rules, while I'm sure they're well intended, are far overboard. One can be taught the basic principles in two days (16 hours). It is then up to the "student" to practice to become proficient. Failing that, they should be seeking remedial help on their own.

It is not up to the government to hold someone's hand and make them proficient or skilled. If the student takes the course, never practices, fails to heed the instruction and gets himself killed then he's the one to blame. Likewise if he can't keep all six on his target at 7 yards, he faces the burden of legal and civil liabilities.

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 07:49 PM
Because nobody ever sacrificed anything to earn and preserve the freedoms you enjoy or the services that you take for granted, right?

We're not even a nation, are we? We're just a bunch of people who happen to live on the same continent, and everything we have we had coming from day one and no one ever had to do anything for us, so we shouldn't have to bother doing anything for our neighbors and the next generation, right?

Lucky for us all that our Founding Fathers and a lot of veterans over the past two centuries didn't share your point of view.


I'm getting a little weary of talking to you.

Let me just say that the most precious gifts in life are not bought but freely
given.

I contribute to society. Over my working life, I've paid 1/2 million dollars
in taxes. And I willingly and freely volunteer my time to causes and
charities which I deem are worthy.

Being forced to volunteer is an oxymoron. Totalitarian governments thrive
on such self contradictions.

Yes, freedom was given to me freely. And if my country is invaded, I would
willingly give my life to protect it.

Freedom freely given. Life freely sacrificed. Nothing coerced. That's the
essence of liberty, which you don't seem to grasp.

I think I'm done talking to you.

Cheers,

Jae

vox rationis
August 13, 2008, 07:52 PM
Your level of training should be such that you can draw, fire and hit your target reactively without thinking about the steps needed. This frees your mind to deal with the threat situation - evaluating the threat, evaluating retreat options and non-violent resolutions, etc.

Once your training is such that you can at least get your firearm quickly into service, you can move on to more advanced training. Such training would include using speedloaders, cover, movement, contact-distance techniques, etc. All that "fun stuff".

I'll add the normal disclaimer here that one should carry a less-than-lethal form of defense (e.g. pepper spray) when practical. Even if for no other reason than to give you a chance to avoid shooting the gene-tampered turkey who's asking to be shot.

The bigger question is can too much training hurt you in court? I think it can. Pax's idea of re-taking the same training course every year (or two) doesn't get you into the trouble. It's the guys who take the ultra-advanced courses or courses in hand-to-hand/knife fighting too. I can see that training being flaunted before a jury to paint someone as willing to skip less-lethal means just so they could shoot someone.


very good points

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 08:00 PM
Freedom freely given. Life freely sacrificed. Nothing coerced. That's the essence of liberty, which you don't seem to grasp.

Amen.


I honor each and every person who serves and/or and dies for my FREEDOM. Compulsory service is one of many things they fight and die to prevent.
I'm not man enough to be a soldier but I thank God every day (literally) for those who are.


PS- What in the friggin' world does this have to do with prudent training levels? :rolleyes::confused:

vox rationis
August 13, 2008, 08:05 PM
Lucky for us all that our Founding Fathers and a lot of veterans over the past two centuries didn't share your point of view.

But your own initial list of criteria is extremely un-Constitutional..

And on a more practical note, based on your elitist criteria a young law abiding adult female that simply takes a 12 hour CCW course and passes her competency test would not be able to carry a gun to protect herself just because she wasn't trained to become a combination of Delta Force operative plus Lawyer.

I think you came up with a well intentioned list but I don't think that you really thought your position through well enough.

And mandatory NRA membership, or even voting for that matter, doesn't really go well with the concept of "Liberty".

Saab1911
August 13, 2008, 08:08 PM
Your level of training should be such that you can draw, fire and hit your target reactively without thinking about the steps needed. This frees your mind to deal with the threat situation - evaluating the threat, evaluating retreat options and non-violent resolutions, etc.


Very good points indeed. Let me draw an analogy.

Every culture thinks tourists are clueless. The French think American
tourists are stupid. Americans think French tourists are stupid, etc etc

Well, when you're in a strange place you have to consciously process
unfamiliar surroundings, unfamiliar currency, strange language, etc. But in
your native surroundings, you don't have to think about speaking, using
money, driving, or any other routine task. That frees up your brain to think
about other things. But a tourist you run into in your own native
environment is processing a lot of extra information consciously. So, tourists
appear dumb because they only have half a brain to work with. The rest of
their brain is being used to make sense of unfamiliar data.

You cannot be a tourist to gunfight land. You have to be a native. You
need all of your brain available to you for "Do I run away. Do I pepper
spray this bastard. Where is the nearest cover. If not cover, where is
the nearest concealment. Is the perp armed. If so, with what? Does his
weapon have greater range than mine? I should back away from this
perp so that the increased distance gives me a little more time. The perp
is still coming. I need to tell him that I'm armed and if he comes any closer,
I'll bust a cap in his buttocks. O.K. I yelled, but he's still coming. I'm now
behind cover. I should kneel so that I have a more stable platform. The
perp is danger close. BANG BANG"

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2008, 08:13 PM
Every culture thinks tourists are clueless. The French think American
tourists are stupid. Americans think French tourists are stupid, etc etc

Well, when you're in a strange place...BANG BANG"


1) THAT is one of the better analogies I seen.
2) I still say 1 too many creative writing classes.:D

Dust Monkey
August 13, 2008, 08:44 PM
1. Pick a gun/platform that suits you. Memorize the 4 rules

2. Train until you are comfortable that you can draw and fire, putting your shots in a 4 inch circle at 7 yards.

3. Shoot as much as you can, as often as you can with your carry platform.
(I try to at least shoot 250 rounds a month through my carry gun.)

pax
August 13, 2008, 10:52 PM
Good grief, this thread has turned into a mish-mash.

Should I send it over to L&P, so everyone can argue the Legal & Political question about whether training should be required by law? I could ... but rereading the initial post, that's not what the thread topic was supposed to be here.

Should I keep it in T&T, so everyone can discuss the Tactics and Training a prudent concealed carry permit holder will get for himself or herself? Love to do that, but an awful lot of people have gotten wildly away from that topic.

Should I try to split the two threads, tossing L&P posts to L&P, while retaining the T&T posts for right here? Ugh! Too darn much work, too hard to follow, too rude for the conversation.

Guess I'll just close it.

Anyone want to reopen the topic you're discussing, please do so in the appropriate forum and with a clear statement of which topic it is.

pax