Carry and ammo fails

[K_Mac]

Mantra you always seem to come back to government regulation as the answer. Gun regulations in the US (or anywhere else in my view) has done nothing to make life safer for regular folks. We are resistant to additional laws regarding guns because we've been under siege at every turn for years. I am not going to advocate for any additional gun laws at this point. There are more than enough laws already on the books that make stupid behavior with a gun illegal. The focus needs to be on enforcement.

[44 AMP]

The advice seems to be carry with a round in the chamber, would that include someone that had never handled a firearm and had no training. ?

No, it does not apply to someone who has never handled a firearm and has no training. That line of argument is a red herring.

There are a great many things in life that require some level of training (experience) before they can be done safely. One does not give fire to a kitten.

[manta49]

No, it does not apply to someone who has never handled a firearm and has no training. That line of argument is a red herring

Would you then support mandatory training for people with no firearms experience, before they got a CCW. ?

[JohnKSa]

Most people like the idea of having everyone who carries a gun be trained.

Most people hate the idea of having the government levy mandatory requirements. Not because it would be a bad idea for everyone to be trained, but because that gives the government a way to make it more difficult/expensive to legally carry a gun--even to potentially making the requirements essentially prohibitive.

[Koda94]

I could consider supporting mandatory training to carry a gun if there wasnt a movement to remove our second amendment rights from our own government or any other infringements on our right. Until then, I support constitutional carry.

[44 AMP]

Would you then support mandatory training for people with no firearms experience, before they got a CCW. ?

No, and yes.

No, in the sense being used here, "mandatory training" meaning some level of state required and state approved "training".

Yes, in the sense that some level of instruction is needed before one can operate a firearm.

No one is born knowing how to use a firearm. A level of instruction (training) is needed, otherwise operating the firearm becomes a matter of random chance, which is what happens when you give a gun to a chimpanzee.

The owner's manual contains instructions on how to operate the firearm. This instruction (IF FOLLOWED) is the "mandatory" training required.

My opposition to "mandatory training" to satisfy the state is a matter of moral and political opposition, NOT any kind of endorsement of people who have no firearms experience carrying a concealed weapon.

Moral, because our right to be armed SHOULD be treated the same as the rest of our fundamental human rights, but is not.

Political, because the government (specifically agenda driven people in govt) have PROOVEN time and time again that they will NOT leave ANY set of requirements alone. Over time, the "approved" minimum standards will be increased, over and over, creating difficulties and even hardships in meeting the revised requirements. This is made easier by the nature of bureaucracy, but it is done by deliberate design.

And, there are sneaky backdoor ways to do this, without necessarily changing the actual training requirements, though that too is also often done.

[manta49]

I think its hard to argue against some level of training, but i understand the concerns.

[JohnKSa]

I wouldn't argue against training. But the idea of the government making training a prerequisite for gun ownership is worrisome.

What would make a lot of sense is to provide gun-safety/gun-handling classes in high-school. Not as a requirement for gun ownership but just as something that everyone is taught because it's something everyone should know.

It wouldn't have to be a whole semester class--you could probably do a very good job with just a week each school year.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by manta

As for carry i have changed my view to an extent i would carry in CON1 depending on the area i was in and the circumstances.

You carry your weapon in different conditions at different times? Do they perhaps print the future locations and times of crimes in advance in the UK, like a train schedule? You really need to get some good training.

If you're carrying a weapon in various states of readiness and need it quickly, having to go through an extra step in your decision cycle (do I need to rack the slide or not this time?) pretty much guarantees that you're either going to waste time you don't have racking the slide when you don't need to rack it, or you're not going to rack the slide when you need to.

[manta49]

You carry your weapon in different conditions at different times? Do they perhaps print the future locations and times of crimes in advance in the UK, like a train schedule? You really need to get some good training.

The only threat i would be concerned here is the terrorist threat, if i am in the house i would have plenty of time put a round in the chamber, out and about it would depend on what area i was in and what i was doing. Its up to the individual i know all the arguments for and against if i get it wrong its my funeral. But i refuse to feel that threatened that i caint sit and relax in my own house without carrying a firearm.

[JohnKSa]

But i refuse to feel that threatened that i caint sit and relax in my own house without carrying a firearm.

Interesting how points of view differ. I don't find that having a firearm on my person prevents me from relaxing--or even from taking a nap. And I don't carry because I feel threatened at home any more than I carry outside the house because I feel threatened outside the house.

The main reason I carry is because one day I realized that I had spent a lot of time and money acquiring and becoming proficient with firearms and I decided that it would be ridiculous to have firearms, have the ability to use them effectively, have the need for one, and then not have one available at the time.

You can think of it like a person, who finds collecting spare tires entertaining and interesting, one day realizing that it would make a lot of sense to put one in his car in case he has a flat.

[manta49]

The main reason I carry is because one day I realized that I had spent a lot of time and money acquiring and becoming proficient with firearms and I decided that it would be ridiculous to have firearms, have the ability to use one effectively, have the need for one, and then not have one available at the time.

Fair point you would feel sick if you needed it and didn't have it, as you say view differ.

[Borz]

I think it should just be taught in high schools. No political BS beyond "don't go making SBRs," no indoctrination either way. Just plain old gun safety and operation.

Probably would counter a lot of the disinformation, too.

[44 AMP]

I think it should just be taught in high schools. No political BS beyond "don't go making SBRs," no indoctrination either way. Just plain old gun safety and operation.

Sorry, no, I don't see that happening again in US schools, without another "fundamental change" in America.

The "progressives" (by what ever name they call themselves) have spent the last century working against it, and have been very successful in the last half a century or so, and absolutely dominant in the past few decades.

There was a time when schools allowed Hunter Safety classes to use school rooms and property. There was a time when high schools had their own (smallbore) rifle teams!

There was a time when there were many open air shooting galleries in NYC!! (this is where the "gallery" pump .22 short rifles became so prominent. And, no, they weren't chained down, and yes, they did use real, live ammo!!

And even if you could get them to do it, today, there is no way you will get around at least some people adding in their political dogma.

The only thing schools seem to want to teach about guns, today, is that they are BAD, evil things that everyone would be better off without.
(except, of course for the police, and Mummy & Daddums personal private paid security guards....

I am of two minds about teaching gun safety in schools, today, assuming you actually could. First is the pro side, reducing dangerous & fatal accidents.

The Con side of that coin however also applies, and I am a bit leery of teaching the amoral thugs & punks turned out by some of our schools, how to properly handle a firearm and how to shoot well. They already do enough damage in their generally ignorant state.