The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 19, 2016, 02:05 PM   #51
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
Carried one [SP101] in an ankle holster a s backup for a couple of years......... My left leg is considerably stronger than my right leg now.......... Switched to a Smith 360 years ago.
I used to tell my buddies I had 5 shots of .357 AND A CLUB
Lohman446 is offline  
Old September 19, 2016, 02:38 PM   #52
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,786
Quote:
The hero who stopped the terrorist was not a novice
I did not intend to imply that he was. I meant to say that carrying a pistol without a round chambered should be a temporary condition for a novice, while training and gaining confidence, on the path to becoming more ready to meet a threat.

My apology for the lack of clarity in my previous post. By all accounts I have seen the hero of the Minnesota mall was both capable and courageous. I was trying to agree with your stance, but apparently didn't do it well.
TailGator is offline  
Old September 19, 2016, 03:38 PM   #53
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
I wasn't talking to you, TailG. If it sounded that way, I'm sorry.

Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 19, 2016, 04:35 PM   #54
benEzra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2001
Location: Down East in NC
Posts: 220
Quote:
There are a number of situations where it is not - and one of those situations (where the act of brandishing a firearm stops the threat and no shots are fired) I believe to be the most common use of a firearm in self defense.
Unless one is willing to bluff with an unloaded gun and throw away the ability to actually use it defensively, someone carrying a gun in condition 3 is going to seek to chamber a round *before* pointing it at the attacker, which is going to delay that presentation, make the defender seem more vulnerable for the second it takes to chamber a round, and occupy an otherwise free hand that might be bracing a car door or guarding against blows. In some subset of those cases, those differences may turn an "attacker weighs the situation and breaks off the attack" outcome into an "attacker overcomes the defender" outcome. Perhaps that percentage is small, but one cannot assume that all successful cases of defense without a shot fired would have turned out the same way with additional delay and zero free hands.
benEzra is offline  
Old September 19, 2016, 04:43 PM   #55
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,288
that the majority of time no shots are fired does not negate the fact that one may not have had the time to chamber a round.

there are no reasons to carry condition 3, its not safer. How many credible firearm instructors even offer condition 3 training?
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old September 19, 2016, 05:25 PM   #56
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
Maybe this is off topic, but my state has been shall issue state for years. Anyone who doesn't already have a CC permit has chosen not to get one either because of cost, or the inconvenience of qualifying. Not a great situation if people aren't even willing to spend a day listening to advice by smart people, and firing a couple dozen rounds at a target. In january, we go to a permitless status. Anyone can carry if the person is not already legally disqualified. We are also going to have a stand your ground law implemented along with free concealed carry, and we already have free open carry.

I know that people disagree with my position. I just don't like permitless carry because some boobs who otherwise wouldn't be packing a gun will how have a gun they never even fired in their pocket. They won't know how to carry, understand the laws, and they will certainly NEVER HAVE LISTENED TO SUCH INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE AS THIS HAS BEEN. There will be people are going to be out there without training, and permission to "stand their ground".

Now, a lot of law abiding citizens who have never carried out in public are going to start carrying at least occasionally, without having any training. These will be people who had the opportunity to get a permit and chose not to, but now that the decision is easier they may choose to. There will be ladies who go out and get a pink pistol for their bags and a "box of bullets". They will ask a coworker or boyfriend what to do , and they might even be told "put a blank in for the first shot." A lady I met once had her boyfriend load her gun and she hadn't opened it since then.

People who have training and experience can't even reach a consensus on something this complex. Take it as a fact that there are also people out there who are passing on just plain stupid information.

We can't all be right in our assessments. What works for one person won't work for another, and yes, people will die because they choose one way or another, and that's just the way the primer pops.

The most important step, IMO, is getting the information. Learning the laws, understanding how they work, how to operate the chosen weapon. Learning some of the most grotesquely huge mistakes that they can make, such as carrying an empty gun because that gun will scare off the bad guys.

The next step is learning to use it, and getting in at least a few practice rounds a year, after a training session. Then, the third stage is to get additional training and become "good" at handling your weapon, "competent" as some would say.

Without the permit process, there will be many people who will take really bad advice and do dumb things like we talk about in all of these threads.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old September 19, 2016, 09:49 PM   #57
Dusty Rivers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Posts: 235
if you cant carry a round in the chamber

If you are so incompetent that you can't safely carry a round in the chamber, God help us if you have to try to chamber a round under stress safely without shooting yourself or me.

If you don't trust yourself, or your weapon please stop carrying a gun, switch to mace. At least that way you will be spraying yourself.
__________________
Dusty: I'm kind of a big deal!
Rob Pincus follower PDN
NRA Lifetime Member, our only voice!
Dusty Rivers is offline  
Old September 19, 2016, 11:40 PM   #58
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,288
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVPi...ature=youtu.be

real life examples of not having one in the chamber...
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 06:20 AM   #59
45_auto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 1,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by briandg
Without the permit process, there will be many people who will take really bad advice and do dumb things like we talk about in all of these threads.
If you think that your "permit process" prevents people from taking really bad advice and doing dumb things, I feel sorry for you.

My guess would be that the majority of people doing the dumb things discussed on here HAVE been through the "permit process" and have a permit.

In Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia the Second Amendment is your carry permit.

I would be very surprised if there is any significant statistical difference in people taking bad advice and/or doing dumb things in those states that require permits to carry and the ones above which don't.

Last edited by 45_auto; September 20, 2016 at 06:27 AM.
45_auto is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 08:27 AM   #60
Old Bill Dibble
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2016
Posts: 802
There is zero training required in Alabama for a carry permit. Essentially a carry permit is a way for the County Sheriff to generate revenue. Since the state is shall issue if you are not a known drunk, crazy, drug addict or felon you are going to get a permit.

How often do people do dumb things with their gun? Everyday throughout the state. Very few of those have permits. Mostly people who do dumb things are the same people who dumb things that keep them from getting a permit. OTOH, No amount training will fix stupid.
Old Bill Dibble is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 10:41 AM   #61
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
45, there you go, reading without getting it.

Without even a shred of training, people will make more mistakes than if they had been trained. You know what? Stupid people will do stupid things no matter how you train them. Smart people with training will be better after training.

It seems like you're saying that being educated in fundamentals and being stupid and untrained are effectively the same thing.

I disagree. Training someone is going to make it less likely that they are going to dry fire with a loaded gun.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 10:49 AM   #62
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
I don't care about trying to fix the stupid people, unless you are talking about neutering then.

The people who are first time buyers, or those who have never been trained will benefit from basic education. It ma save a life.

It sounds like you guys oppose mandatory training just because it here are some people who won't graduate. Do you feel the same way about high school? Almost every one of those idiots also went to high school, was it a mistake to send them to school?
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 12:03 PM   #63
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Briandg I've been thinking about Constitutional Carry quite a bit lately. Missouri's legislature just overturned their governor's veto, and Constitutional Carry goes into effect January 1. While I live on the Illinois side of the river, it is a hot topic here.

I have talked to a couple of 2A supporters who feel like you about this. Others think that any restrictions on the right to carry should be removed, and the requirement to pass a test before engaging in something guaranteed by the Constitution is tyranny. It is a complex issue. I don't think passing a basic firearms safety course for anyone carrying a gun is unreasonable. Some states already have this requirement for hunters. The problem is some would make the requirements of that testing prohibitively restrictive and expensive.

Many predicted regular gunfights in the streets between citizens with concealed carry permits. Just the opposite has happened. There is so much pressure being brought to bear by the anti-gun lobby to take away our guns that the impending threat of that happening has many of us reluctant to give at all. That inflexibility may make us vulnerable in some ways, but what choice do we have?
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 12:08 PM   #64
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
Do you feel the same way about high school? Almost every one of those idiots also went to high school, was it a mistake to send them to school?
I'm going to tell you I am not certain where I stand.

However the argument seems to balance on a premise of this nature: we do not disallow someone the freedom of speech or criminalize it because he or she failed English class in school.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 01:02 PM   #65
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
Quote:
A few years back, I got tired of a young "gunshop gunster" who told us all about his fast draw "defense" exploits (in spite of MD's highly restrictive gun carry laws). Finally, I asked for some details. He loudly informed us benighted gun "experts" that he would prove to us all how fast he was as soon as he was old enough to buy a gun. I am waiting, waiting....
I wish to thank you for helping me pass my coffee through me nose while reading this ^^^^
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer,
ICORE Range Officer,
,MAG 40 Graduate
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 01:12 PM   #66
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
I don't find anything simple about it at either, lohman I don't believe that it is tyranny that people be reasonably expected to meet certain legal criteria and minimal training before they are allowed to carry a gun in these united states. For example, people who have engaged in criminal activity or otherwise been exposed to the courts as being unsuited for gun ownership. I don't see a whole lot of people here disagreeing with that.

I simply think that some mandatory training and a license are an important part of allowing a person to carry a weapon out in public. For the first part, there's no point in arguing about what the bad guys are going to do, I'm talking about what a law abiding american would do. It's completely obvious that even minimal training that exposes the ten commandments, even if nothing else, tells people "don't shoot at other people, point the gun down range, finger off of the trigger, etc"

There are people out there who have never even heard this. they don't understand it. Never learned how to behave with one. A woman I met told me that her boyfriend had loaded her gun for her and she had never opened it since. knowing her as I did, it's not entirely unlikely that she later had a restraining order out on that same boyfriend, and carried that very same gun because she was afraid of him.

Will having a training session help make people safer, even if it's only one in a hundred that learn to keep their fingers off of the trigger? sure it will, and even if it saves only a few people annually from serious accidents, it's worth it.

There's no need to drag the constitution into this. The freedom to bear arms comes second. The part that comes first is "regulated." That doesn't mean leaving all control in the hands of the individual, it means that the government has the right and power to do whatever it has to to maintain the safety of the country, while not abridging the rights of the citizens to carry a gun.

The craziest argument that I ever heard was that the constitution itself was "unconstitutional." There are "natural rights" and constitutional rights, and in the constitution it refers to the bill of rights as only limitations and not as absolutes.

Some people believe that the will of "god" is important, and that their "god" would never make them get a permit or obey man's laws in any way, so the constitution is just a bunch of noise.

The old saying "people kill people" fits. so let's stop the people who have guns from being psychotic, drunks, sadists, serial killers... The first step is telling them that they can't have one.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 01:15 PM   #67
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
I wish to thank you for helping me pass my coffee through me nose while reading this
A routine happening at other places where I post. I've been told to write books or work for letterman.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 01:23 PM   #68
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,288
anyone who votes for mandatory training class has never honestly forgot their CHL at home the one day officer Murphy pulled them over for some random traffic stop. CHLs themselves are an infringement on the right and now we have gun owners wanting more gun control... brilliant. The idea that mandatory training will reduce stupidity is not founded on anything, just look at drivers on the road who actually had to pass a comprehensive exam.

have we not clearly seen what anti gun politicians do with "common sense" gun laws.... we should be talking about repealing all gun free zones if we want to reduce stupidity.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 01:37 PM   #69
Isk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 206
/sarcasm/

Greetings from your friendly State of Denial Government!

As you may be aware, we previously implemented a CCW permit process requiring bare minimal training and education to get your CCW. I am the newly elected governor who believes inherently that only the police and military should carry firearms. This belief is based on my “feelings” which are of utmost importance!

The new process for carrying a firearm will require training on par with the military. It will require 6 months of boot camp to ensure you are physically fit enough to carry that heavy gun and properly trained in its use, maintenance and storage. We will also run extensive background checks to ensure that you have the highest level of responsibility and character. No expense is too much for the added safety we are providing!

We will also require at least one year of law school for each CCW permit holder, to ensure that you truly understand the laws related to self-defense, tort liability and criminal law. True, this is an especially burdensome requirement because of the time and cost, but we think that will keep certain deplorable people from even applying for CCW permits, thus making our streets safer!

Now, I know that we previously promised not to expand the requirements for CCW permits. However, due to some highly unlikely, but highly visible recent events, we need to clamp down on who is allowed to exercise their constitutional rights! If it saves just one life…think of the children!

/sarcasm/

My issue is how to determine where to draw the lines. You might like the amount of training required now…but wait and see what happens to it down the road. 8 hours becomes 80 hours, 50 rounds becomes 500 rounds.

I have just never seen any proof that you can train the stupid out of some people. People who are already smart will take in upon themselves to seek appropriate training.
__________________
The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh
Isk is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 01:50 PM   #70
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Quote:
There's no need to drag the constitution into this. The freedom to bear arms comes second. The part that comes first is "regulated."
I don't think you can help "drag the constitution" into this. As far as the meaning of "regulated" goes, Constitutional scholars, judges, politicians, lawyers, and nearly everyone else has argued about what that means. Most would agree that the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is of primary importance.

Koda94 the government does not have the right to tell me I must allow you to carry a gun in my home or place of business. That is another topic though.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 01:57 PM   #71
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Koda94 the government does not have the right to tell me I must allow you to carry a gun in my home or place of business. That is another topic though.
i agree, we already have trespassing laws that cover that, so we dont need any "gun free"zone laws.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 03:52 PM   #72
drobs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2015
Location: South Central MO / Africa
Posts: 1,111
Chamber empty around the house / ranch.
Loaded chamber, out and about, in town.

I don't have any fantasies that 16 Boko Haram bomb vest wearing ninjas are going to pop out of my woods while I'm riding my lawnmower.
__________________
NRA Life Member
drobs is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 04:40 PM   #73
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Quote:
Chamber empty around the house / ranch.
Loaded chamber, out and about, in town.

I don't have any fantasies that 16 Boko Haram bomb vest wearing ninjas are going to pop out of my woods while I'm riding my lawnmower.
Fear of bomb vest wearing terrorists notwithstanding, why would you carry condition 3 around the house or ranch, and then chamber a round when you head to town?
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 09:29 PM   #74
benEzra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2001
Location: Down East in NC
Posts: 220
Briandg, I have had a carry license continuously for most of the last 21 years, but I have gone without the ability to legally carry concealed twice (once for almost a year), because I have a special-needs kid with a lot of medical bills and could not at the time afford the very steep permit fee. That means I also couldn't keep a gun secured in the glove compartment or the console in my car; it had to be either laying out in plain sight, or inaccessible in the trunk.

Before that experience, I was neutral on permitless carry, but now I'm in favor of allowing that option, because I understand that a lot of responsible people would like to carry but can't afford the licensure fees and/or renewal fees. The biggest barrier to getting a carry license isn't being able to pass a rudimentary safety exam or demonstrate basic competence; it's the means-testing inherent in a system that charges hundreds of dollars and often many hours of missed work in order to exercise a basic constitutional right.

In states that have long had permitless concealed carry (e.g. Vermont), as well as the states that have adopted Vermont-style carry since, carriers have been no less responsible than in states that require permits.

If you want to see the end result of the "regulations are more important than rights" mindset, look at the disasters that are California, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts.

FWIW, if you read the Second Amendment, it is the militia, not the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that is described as "well regulated"...which in the 18th century, had the common meaning of "well trained" or "properly functioning", rather than "subjected to bureaucratic rules". The right of the *people* (not the militia) "shall not be infringed", and is recognized as belonging to the whole of the people (the same "people" as in the other Bill of Rights), not merely the subset that is active in a trained/organized militia.

Last edited by benEzra; September 20, 2016 at 09:37 PM.
benEzra is offline  
Old September 20, 2016, 10:01 PM   #75
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ing-protection

A commentary on how training is a good thing for today's world. If you consider more than the single mugger shoo-shoo waving of the gun, I'd suggest it.

Granted it is time and can be expensive but it is an ideal.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 09:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.13461 seconds with 8 queries