Don't Get Training

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by Blue Train

I keep thinking of past gun writers. Few ever mentioned training at all. Keith mentioned getting hints from "an old gunfighter, the real thing." But none of them went to any sort of gun handling class, except perhaps for those in the Border Patrol, many of whom seemed to have been gun writers. And I think Chic Gaylord said something about the subject. In any case it seems to be more of current thing.

Orville Wright never got pilot training, either, but that doesn't make it dumb.

Besides, just because somebody's a "gun writer" doesn't make them an expert on everything firearms-related, trust me on this.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

...however, how many of you ever took a driver's training class for "advanced driving" after you were twenty years old?...

Well, I have. I like cars and driving and have taken several "driving schools" put on by a club I belonged to as well as a road racing course held by a well known driving school (Jim Russell Racing) at a well known track.

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

...I keep thinking of past gun writers. Few ever mentioned training at all. Keith mentioned getting hints from "an old gunfighter, the real thing." But none of them went to any sort of gun handling class,...

I don't think there was much of that sort of thing around in those days. I believe that Gunsite, founded in the mid-1970s, was one of the first practical shooting schools open to the private citizen.

[pgdion]

Ok, best post of the Day goes to PAX. Very nice write up.

I like the reasoning of the state requirements but that doesn't explain seat belt laws. Of course I don't agree with seat belt laws (not saying seat belts are bad, just that the law doesn't belong, possibly is unconstitutional, IMO). It just points out that states will and do mettle where they shouldn't. I don't agree with no required training for a carry permit though. At the very least there needs to be some coverage of proper carrying (from a legal point of view) and of when it's appropriate to actually use a weapon. I think some basic use of the gun needs to be covered too with a range test so you know these people have at least fired a gun once.

I see it all the time. I'm at the Gander counter browsing the case (was just there yesterday in fact, to pick up the CZ85 I had seen the day before that had just come in used ... should have picked it up the day before, it was gone - darn ), anyways, browsing the counter and someone always comes in. They're looking for a gun. They've never owned a gun before, they don't know anything about them (they often have a buddy with that's an 'expert' ), and what do they ask for? They want something they can carry concealed. Not something they can learn to shoot with. And they're buying whatever their buddy is telling them too, usually a .380 or the 40s&w. There's no moderation here, it's either the smallest gun they can fit in their pocket or the .40 ('because a 9mm can't knock the wings off a fly'). Without the required class, you know most of these guys would pick up a gun and just start carrying it. Everyone needs at least a little training. After all, the guy who shoots his knee drawing his gun, he might shoot my knee if I'm standing near him. I feel if you can afford the gun, then you can afford at least 1 class.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My point was clear - if you intend to get into a gun fight in a crowded environment - you have the responsibility not to do harm through incompetence.

You need to have a reasonable amount of experience as to make reasonable decisions and take competent actions.

If some guy stops, you on the isolated street and you blast away with your Judge and jerk the trigger all over - good for you.

If you do that in the crowded restaurant - are you a moral actor?

[MrAcheson]

At the very least there needs to be some coverage of proper carrying (from a legal point of view) and of when it's appropriate to actually use a weapon.

I disagree. Paying $200 and sitting in a room for a required number of hours is proof of nothing. If you want to make sure that the future CCWer knows some specific information or has some specific skill, you should administer a test at cost. The vast majority of training requirements are just barriers for entry wearing safety requirement's clothing.

I'm also with Spacecoast. I didn't find the OP to be especially coherent in it's argument. Required training is unnecessary but some training is positively necessary? Are you just making a point that required CCW training is generally crap?

[aarondhgraham]

Your point was not clear Mike,,,
Else I would not have asked for clarification.

However I do see your point now that it has been explained.

Where did you get the idea that I

intend to get into a gun fight in a crowded environment

I'm not the friggin Lone Ranger or Tonto,,,
I carry to protect me and mine,,,
Not other people.

Let them get a gun and protect themselves.

I got into a discussion last week with a gentleman,,,
We were on this exact topic you are referring to.
It was about a man who shot in self defense,,,
He put bullets in a house across the street.

I took the stance that it was a bad thing to do,,,
Putting innocents in harms way for my benefit or safety.

If a guy is in his house/apartment and empties a 30 round magazine at a bad guy,,,
And 28 of those rounds end up in my or my kids bedroom,,,
I am going to take very strong issue with his decision,,,
His life is not inherently more valuable than my kid.

Prudent use of a firearm for defense is a right I will grant anyone,,,
Haphazard use of that firearm is something I can't abide by,,,
Collateral damage is something that must be considered.

I'm not talking about legal consequences of the act,,,
I'm talking about the morality of the act.

If I successfully defend my life but later found out I took someone else's life with a stray bullet, I'm not sure what I would do,,,
Yes my life has extreme value to me and anyone who tries to take it will be met with extreme violence,,,
But I do not believe I (or anyone else) has the right to blindly wreak havoc with impunity,,,
I would place the blame on the bad guy for starting the thing in the first place,,,
But the fact would remain that I traded an innocent's life for mine.

I do not have the wisdom to dissect this argument down to it's core,,,
But I must state that we as humans must be responsible for every bullet that leaves our gun.

We can not abrogate (arrogate?) ourselves from the responsibility of collateral damage.

"Hey man, I'm so very sorry your wife/kid/parent was killed in the gunfight,,,
I was defending my life!"

Would you accept that apology from someone?

Can you imagine standing in front of a parent and delivering that apology over the grave of their child?

To heck with the legality of your actions,,,
Could you live with yourself after that?

There were a lot of people in that semi-heated thread and most were dancing around the issue,,,
I was amazed at how many others simply talked about who was to blame,,,
They all (for the most part) kept stating it was the bad guy's fault.

They had lost the point that innocent people were endangered by bullets from the good guy's gun.

So I do see your point that it would be wonderful if everyone received combat training with their weapons,,,
It would be a wonderful thing to know that every gun toting citizen had discussed these scenarios,,,
But you and I both know that this should not be a state/nation mandated requirement,,,
It is an opportunity for ~backdoor gun control~ at it's most blatant.

On a personal level:
I never used the

critical incident sheepdog line

you accused me of doing,,,
I have never denigrated you or any post you have ever made here,,,
I would appreciate that same courtesy from you.

.

[BlueTrain]

Without re-reading the original post, I think the general idea among most contributors here is that the training should not be required but it is without a doubt necessary, to some degree. I suppose you could argue on and on about to what degree it is necessary and what you should be able to do with your brand new handgun that you plan on carrying, be it a Sig Super-Duper or a nickel-plated break-top .38 S&W, which the seller claims never to have been fired except by a little old lady. It does make you wonder how our grandparents, all of whom supposedly went about armed all the time (with nickel-plated break-top .38 S&W revolvers--or .41 derringers), managed with no training, doesn't it?

Regarding seatbelts and government authority to do good, my late-father-in-law was a very conservative engineer. He actually had seatbelts installed in their Ford Ranch Wagon way back in the 1950s. However, I cannot claim to know what he thought about required seatbelts. He probably would have thought the seatbelts were poorly designed but that's just a guess.

I think it is worth pointing out that society in general, in the form of government, has a right to restrict or control behavior. While it is easy to argue that no one but yourself (and your passengers) have any interest in your surviving a collision, it merely being a restriction on your own freedom and no one elses, it is equally easy to think of things that are a little gray. It might be you have a god given right to have a fire in your fireplace but I guarantee you would not want everyone in town using coal to heat their house. But perhaps you live out of town! We can talk about floridation of water next if you like.

Returning to the original question, there is training and there is training. I think it would be a valuable thing to know a little something about the legal limitations of carrying weapons and using force. No doubt all firearms instructions cover those subjects thoroughly. But I wonder how many have second thoughts on going armed after hearing about what the law says?

[MTT TL]

I'm also with Spacecoast. I didn't find the OP to be especially coherent in it's argument. Required training is unnecessary but some training is positively necessary? Are you just making a point that required CCW training is generally crap?

When I was in school the teacher gave us tests on reading comprehension to summarize main points. As the reading level rose this became more difficult.

- Required training is necessary to prevent you from being a danger to others in the the exercise of your rights.

- The required training is generally insufficient to do that.

- If you intend on doing anything other than protecting yourself at close range you need more training to do that safely.

[pax]

MTT TL ~

You get a gold star!

pax

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Aaron and others - get off the issue of the state mandate. That's not the debate. Again.

Also, my use of 'you' is generic as compared to the individual. I apologize if that is not clear.

I should have said: If one, blah, blah.

MTT summarizes it well.

About saving yourself, most training suggests that is the prime goal. However, in the school carry debates, we cannot avoid the subtext that the carrier will be a sheepdog. That's what's suggested repeatedly, overtly or implied.

And as I said before, the training objection is thrown in my face. Thus, there is a great inconsistency.

We train to save ourselves. But when we argue for school carry - we don't necessarily say that we will flee in terror or hide. We say that we will protect others. Then, if we imply that we must imply competency.

One might argue for school carry just an extension of removing all carry bans (my view). But if we argue for doing it in schools, then in the next breath do we say we won't get involved? We hide or flee?

What argument do you present? Then if you say we get involved, do we say the Constitution supports the right to be gun clown but I won't take the step not to be such?

[Skans]

if you intend to get into a gun fight in a crowded environment

That is something I certainly NEVER intend on doing! But, if someone threatens my life in a crowded environmnet, I do intend on using whatever force is necessary to defend myself. If inocents get injured I expect the aggressor to be blamed, not the victim so long as the victim acted prudently.

[pax]

Skans,

You mean, just like everyone blamed the aggressor and not the defender in this thread?

Guess what. Real life doesn't always match fantasy life. Sometimes even well-trained people make mistakes. People without training, or with poor training, are more likely to make mistakes, many more mistakes and much more serious ones. Society does not give you a free pass to make those mistakes, no matter what the aggressor has done or intends to do.

If you choose to act -- "forced into it" or not -- you will get called to account if you get it wrong.

pax

[mavracer]

The required training here in KS is laughable. with the exception maybe the firearm part definitions all the information from a safety aspect should be common knowledge by the time you reach adulthood. The "Stevie Wonder" shooting portion is even more of a joke.

Ultimatly we have but one basic human right ,you are free to do anything you want. We also have one basic human responsibility, to be accountable for those actions. most legislation today seems targeted to prevent this.

[pax]

Originally Posted by MrArcheson

Required training is unnecessary but some training is positively necessary? Are you just making a point that required CCW training is generally crap?

Well, that is one of my points, but hardly the main one. I'm a strong believer in good training, and that's one of many reasons I oppose state-mandated training. Such required training can't provide the high level of skill that an ethical "sheepdog" truly needs to learn; if it tries to provide that level of expertise, it necessarily excludes many people who most need firearms (the poor and people in crisis) from being able to exercise their right to protect themselves from imminent danger.

Furthermore (and this is more to the point), such required training has proven itself to be statistically pointless. In states without a training requirement (such as my own Washington state), there's no extra blood running in the streets. Arizonans found concealed carry so non-problematic that they moved to eliminate not just the training requirement, but the very permit process itself became optional rather than mandatory. Many states allow you to walk into an office, pay a small fee, and walk out with a carry permit that very day. This is what freedom looks like -- and it doesn't result in shootouts over parking spaces, blood running in the streets, wild west, yadda yadda ad nauseum. People who want to insist on a law forcing others to do something (such as "get training") should have a reason for that law, and "we just feel safer if you do" really isn't a reason. It might be politically expedient, but that doesn't make it rational or reasonable.

So what we've ended up with is a political compromise between the rational and the non-rational people, where many states require "training" but that training bar remains low enough that it doesn't exclude so many people that the courts have to take notice.

In most states, all the mandated training does is tell its participants:

1) DON'T use the firearm for this, this, this, or that -- here's what the state law says,

and

2) DON'T carry your firearm into this list of prohibited places -- here's what the state law says.

That's about it. Sometimes they bootleg a bit more information into the required classes, but the purpose of the class is to get these two basic points across to the participants. That accomplished, the state is satisfied and the permit is issued and home everyone goes. Some of them go home believing they now know all they need to know about protecting themselves with a firearm because they took "The Class."

Understanding that the required training classes do have such limitations, a smart person who wants to be prepared when something terrible happens will do what it takes to learn more. How much more? Well, that depends on whether he's the type of person who would defend only himself, or the type of person who would defend his family, friends, and people around him when their lives are threatened.

Those who would never lift a finger to defend another person under any circumstances, and those who carry the firearm as a good-luck talisman and aren't willing to use it -- well, those folks don't need training of any sort. Required training doesn't help them. Realistically speaking, the only people affected by these people's ignorance is themselves. When they get it wrong, they're the ones who suffer for it. When they break the law in ignorance, they're the ones who go to jail. When they can't get their guns out, or can't bring themselves to pull the trigger, or can't spot a setup in time to avoid it, they're the ones who lose the fight and get killed. Their ignorance doesn't kill other people, so why should anyone else care that they are untrained?

Those who might want to do more than that need to learn more than that.

pax

[pgdion]

I think the general idea among most contributors here is that the training should not be required but it is without a doubt necessary, to some degree.

I agree it's necessary and that's my point. And if it's necessary, it should be required.
Then the question becomes whether the required training meets the goal. If not, do we throw it out? No, it needs to be changed so it does meet the goals. At least in my area I think the required training at least establishes a point where everyone with a permit will at least know something (which is better than knowing nothing). Should training and practice end there? No but now we are to the point where the state has met it's obligations to the people and it's up to individuals to do the rest.

As for the cost of training, I do agree it is too high. It should be more affordable like the DNR safety classes. Typically 15 or $20 gets you certified training in other areas. Of course these classes are run by volunteers who aren't making any money on them. And they are usually volunteers who know their stuff and teach it well, they do it out of a passion for their sport. I attended the snowmobile safety classes with my kids. Guess what? I learned stuff. Things like it's illegal to ride against traffic on the side of the highway at night even if you're in the ditch area, even if there is only a trail on one side of the road. Plan your trip accordingly before you go. Had I not been in the class, I would of had no clue (and ignorance is not an excuse).

btw - see all of the discussion? That's why I think it's a good post.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by pgdion

I agree it's necessary and that's my point. And if it's necessary, it should be required.

So are you going to subsidize it for poor people, or are you going to strip them of their rights?

[Skans]

If you choose to act -- "forced into it" or not -- you will get called to account if you get it wrong.

Not by me, they won't. Not by me. If someone acts in defending their life against an aggressor, I refuse to even engage in the game of nit-picking "mistakes" made by the victim when the victim acted reasonably to protect his own life or the life of others.

That's one thing I see the gun-hating media and liberals doing constantly - blaming good guys for casualties when its clear that the bad guy perpetrator was the one who created an ultra-dangerous situation for personal gain.

If a bad guy gets shot down by 15 armed police officers, the cops get blamed because "100 rounds were fired at ....suspect". If an inocent gets caught in a cross-fire you never hear the media pin it on the bad guy.

So, here we have gun owners, and I hear the same kind of crap I hear from the media and liberal gun-haters. Same kind of analysis - talking about what the good guy "should have done", what he "could have done, how things would have been different if "he had more training / better training".

Yes, I object to this. I already know how a jurry selected by a high-profile defense attorney or a liberal judge or a gun-hating prosecutor is going to look at a man who unintentionally shot someone else while trying to defend his own life. I don't need any legal mumbo-jumbo warning about this. I feel it necessary to voice my objection to engaging in the same kind of nit-picking of good guys that the media and gun-banners do routinely.

Place blame where it belongs - with the guy(s) who initated the unprovoked, life-threatening and violent behavior toward others.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Skans

...Place blame where it belongs - with the guy(s) who initated the unprovoked, life-threatening and violent behavior toward others.

However, you don't get the final say. In the real world, is someone is defending himself or others and makes a mess of things, he is likely to be held accountable.

You may not like it, but it is what usually happens in real life.

[KLRANGL]

I refuse to even engage in the game of nit-picking "mistakes" made by the victim when the victim acted reasonably to protect his own life or the life of others.

And that right there is the key word... what's reasonable to you? what's reasonable to the parents of the 9 year old that got killed in the crossfire?
Just saying... There is a lot of arbitrariness in all this defending your life stuff...

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by Skans

Not by me, they won't. Not by me.

I know where you're coming from, Skans, and I agree. Should I ever screw up, I hope you're on my jury.

But you'll pardon me if I take precautions in case you aren't.

[pgdion]

So are you going to subsidize it for poor people, or are you going to strip them of their rights?

If it were reasonably priced at $15 like the DNR training, then I would expect everyone to pay for it. (although in MN, the poor can get the DNR training for free, they don't turn anyone away). Again, I feel if you can afford the $300 for the gun, plus ammo, plus range time to use it (all a must if you're going to have a gun right?), then I feel you can afford the $15 to carry it. Even at $50 to $100, it's a relatively small price compared to the other costs of having a gun.

Of course in MN it's not $15, it's 100 to 150 for the training because it's set up for profit, and it's another $100 to the sheriff to file some paper work. Ironically, a permit to purchase is free. The police dept doesn't charge a dime to run the checks and do the paperwork. (so if you just want home protection, there ya go).

What they should do away with is the costs of 'renewal' every 3 years. That's kind of silly.

[Skans]

You may not like it, but it is what usually happens in real life.

Fiddletown - I've already acknowledged that I understand this. All I'm saying is that we, as gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates, should not fall into the same slanted trap that the main stream media and high-priced criminal defense and tort lawyers have developed over time.

I feel that the burden is on us to re-weight the discussion away from simply ignoring the bad guy's active roll. We should never ignore the unprovoked harm, damage, chaos, death, destruction, and complete disregard for human life simply for financial gain that the bad guy inflicts on everyone. What good does it do all of us - the people who have taken responsiblity for their own defense - when WE OURSELVES nit-pick those that have been forced into a situation of defending themselves?

[markj]

if you intend to get into a gun fight in a crowded environment

Gee, why would anyone do that? The ccw permit is for your personal protection and family, not a permit to go vigilante, do you go out with the intention of getting into a gun fight?

Why not try to AVOID situations where a gun is needed? Avoid problem areas, why even go there?

When I raced cars, I had to pass a drivers test for the speed I wished to run at. When I was a bouncer/bodyguard I took classes taught me how to be a wall around a client and driving to get away from danger.

My cousins are LEO they have taken training for apprehension etc, it is their job. Not mine.

I see it like this, person carries needs to know and understand the laws concerning carry, and know how to load, reload and hit a target at 7-10 yards.

SWAT team members need advanced training. not civies.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Skans

Fiddletown - I've already acknowledged that I understand this. All I'm saying is that we, as gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates, should not fall into the same slanted trap that the main stream media and high-priced criminal defense and tort lawyers have developed over time.

... What good does it do all of us...when WE OURSELVES nit-pick those that have been forced into a situation of defending themselves?

What good does it do? It helps us learn and prepare.

It's not about blame. It's about what happens in the real world and how it happens. It's about assessing objectively what was done wrong and what was done right. It's about learning from others' experiences.

Police departments, the military and even well organized businesses conduct "after action" debriefings to learn.

[BlueTrain]

All I can say is I'm glad I don't have to explain the constituation to be able to vote.