The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old September 10, 2012, 10:14 PM   #51
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
threat levels, concealment....

I'd say use common sense & good judgement.
I live in a metro area with a lot of tourists & a daytime population of approx 1,000,000 people.
When I had my concealed license; 2002-2007, I packed a firearm about 25-30% of the time. Now, I also toted my loaded .38spl revolver or 9x19mm pistol in a street legal, secured gun case in my vehicle. When I drove around, I was armed 75-90% of the time.
While I agree that most violent crime involves criminals(both subject & victim) and has high risk elements(crime, alcohol, illegal drugs, etc) you can't assume you(as a upstanding, citizen with a valid carry license) won't be involved in a lethal force incident. Being armed means being alert to danger too!
A few years ago, a veteran police officer in my city was killed in a off duty robbery incident at a ATM. The armed robbers shot the armed, off duty cop and took off.
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 10:46 PM   #52
Quincunx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2005
Location: West "By God" Virginia
Posts: 380
I think too many people carry as is.

Curious as to why you feel this way. I know that you describe the course you took as being, shall we say, less challenging than it might have been. Based solely on your description, I don't disagree. But why would it necessarily follow that "too many people" carry firearms? I don't see that it does. Or are you making two separate points? And, from a rhetorical standpoint only, how many is "too many?"
__________________
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. --- Cicero
Quincunx is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 11:16 PM   #53
jasmith85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2012
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 363
I guess I wasn't specific enough in my last post. I am perfectly fine with an infinite number of responsible people that can actually use their handgun carrying. I just think that there are a lot of people with carry permits that shouldn't have them. Its something I would like to see require much stricter testing to get as well as required refresher courses. In a perfect world, I think carry permits should be MUCH harder to get and maintain but true carry permits that are valid anywhere.
jasmith85 is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 07:40 AM   #54
45_auto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasmith85
In a perfect world, I think carry permits should be MUCH harder to get and maintain but true carry permits that are valid anywhere.
Why?

Has there been a problem with the current system of "shall issue", minimal training, permit holders accidentally shooting people?

I haven't seen anything in the media about it if there has, and I would think that such an issue would be front page headlines in todays' media.

I haven't heard of any problems from Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, or Wyoming. No permit at all is required for CCW in those states.

Last edited by 45_auto; September 11, 2012 at 07:46 AM.
45_auto is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 07:51 AM   #55
Ed4032
Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2010
Posts: 66
I only wear my seatbelt when I think I may have a car wreck. I use the same rule for carrying my gun.
__________________
Gun control is like stopping drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to drive.
Ed4032 is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 10:51 AM   #56
jasmith85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2012
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 363
Quote:
Why?

Has there been a problem with the current system of "shall issue", minimal training, permit holders accidentally shooting people?

I haven't seen anything in the media about it if there has, and I would think that such an issue would be front page headlines in todays' media.

I haven't heard of any problems from Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, or Wyoming. No permit at all is required for CCW in those states.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I didn't say people with minimal training shoot people. What I'm saying is the ease to get a concealed carry permit is the reason there are so many restrictions on the carry permits. If the background check was much more extensive and the training program was much more difficult there wouldn't be a need to restrict guns in places like schools and government owned property.
jasmith85 is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 11:09 AM   #57
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasmith85
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I didn't say people with minimal training shoot people. What I'm saying is the ease to get a concealed carry permit is the reason there are so many restrictions on the carry permits.
Maybe I just don't get it, either, but I don't think that the underlined part holds water. I haven't done any extensive research on the legal history of various "sensitive places" statutes regulating carry, but my gut says that those statutes predate the (fairly recent) rise in CC statutes. IOW, the restrictions cannot have been put there "because of" the ease of getting a permit. Do you have any information to the contrary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasmith85
If the background check was much more extensive and the training program was much more difficult there wouldn't be a need to restrict guns in places like schools and government owned property.
First: With respect to most CCL holders, there's not any current need to restrict their places of carry. Beefing up the background check and training won't change that.

Second, do you have any information that supports the claim that if "the background check was much more extensive and the training program was much more difficult there wouldn't be a need to restrict guns in" the sensitive places you mentioned?

Third, even if you do, I do not believe that any of the above warrants a more extensive background check system. Such a system is simply further infringing on the 2A right.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old September 12, 2012, 06:30 AM   #58
45_auto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasmith85
If the background check was much more extensive and the training program was much more difficult there wouldn't be a need to restrict guns in places like schools and government owned property.
Ok, I think I understand what you're saying now.

You probably haven't had your CCW very long and have no idea of the battles that people have gone through to get you that "privelege" to exercise your rights. What you describe is the exact situation that existed in the majority of the country until about 25 years ago. There were no "gun free school zones" or restrictions against carry in particular places because it was almost impossible to get a CCW permit.

This little graphic below shows how the US gradually got the right to carry over the past 25 years. It wasn't until the mid to late 90's that the majority of the states came on board. I've been involved in the fight since the 70's, kind of forget sometimes that new people don't know what it used to be like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

I'm not personally willing to give back ANY control over CCW to the government.

Violent crime rates in the US which had been climbing rapidly since the 1960's started dropping through the 1990's as more CCW permits became available. Imagine that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vi...ted_States.svg

The US is currently experiencing the lowest violent crime rates since WW2. Why would you want to go back to the way things were and take CCW away from people?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...oric-lows?lite

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

Last edited by 45_auto; September 12, 2012 at 06:52 AM.
45_auto is offline  
Old September 12, 2012, 08:46 AM   #59
Dwight55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 2,564
Quote:
I guess I wasn't specific enough in my last post. I am perfectly fine with an infinite number of responsible people that can actually use their handgun carrying. I just think that there are a lot of people with carry permits that shouldn't have them. Its something I would like to see require much stricter testing to get as well as required refresher courses. In a perfect world, I think carry permits should be MUCH harder to get and maintain but true carry permits that are valid anywhere.
jasmith85, . . . the problem with your line of reasoning is very simple: we do not live in a perfect world.

Most people are in one respect or another, inferior to the majority of others: some are nearsighted, some are hard of hearing, some are color blind.

Some have learning difficulties, and at the risk of offending you (which I hope I don't do) it has been my experience over 67+ years, that EVERYONE has some sort of learining difficulty. Some have math problems, others it is spelling, to others mechanical engineering is a marvel understood only by the angels, . . . and your learning difficulty may be only slight, . . . but it is there none the less.

In order to enforce the standards you wish, every time there is an accident, a problem, a situation: the training standards would have to be lifted up to include the "new" situation. It would be a never ending escalation of difficulty for obtaining/maintaining CHL's, . . . and would be the liberal/Democrat's greatest dream come true.

Better yet: make NO PLACE a gun free zone, and remove all restrictions from CHL's.

THEN, . . . enforce the laws we have. MAKE personal responsibility once again be the deciding factor. If a dang fool blonde shoots up a bar trying to load her Whizzit pistol, . . . throw her butt in jail. Put murderer's in jail, and leave them there. Kick the illegals the hell out of this country.

Then, . . . you will be on the road to a safe, sane, honest society. Your idea penalizes me because of your inadequacies, . . . and penalizes you for mine. Your idea raises the bar beyond the reach of the majority of people and quite honestly, . . . is just a bad idea.

May God bless,
Dwight
__________________
www.dwightsgunleather.com
If you can breathe, . . . thank God!
If you can read, . . . thank a teacher!
If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!
Dwight55 is offline  
Old September 12, 2012, 08:52 AM   #60
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,830
Thread drift and closed.
__________________
"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." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09372 seconds with 9 queries