The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 30, 2009, 11:55 AM   #51
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
What "should be" is immaterial unless it's politically achievable, and you've agreed that it is not. We need to deal with reality, not fantasy.
In this thread "Thoughts on mandatory training" it is not reality or fantasy. It is "thoughts". My thoughts are that mandatory training is unnecessary and overly burdensome.

The reality is that the "majority" believes no such thing about training. I'd be willing to wager that it never crosses the minds of most until it is spoon fed to them by someone with an agenda. Usually, that "someone" is a relative of someone involved in one of the few incidents and is now convince that we have an epidemic. (i.e.- Sarah Brady)

Additionally, just because the political tide is against us does not mean that we should turn and go with the tide.

Quote:
And recognizing that, it's important that we be a part of the process and maneuver ourselves into a position to influence what the requirements and standards will be. If we get ourselves sidetracked into an alternate universe, we'll find standards imposed on us by political hacks fundamentally antagonistic to private citizens carrying guns in public.
First point, I agree. Second point, seems like giving up the fight to me. Just because we may see it as politically inevitable doesn't mean that we do not continue to fight it. For one thing, it may not be as inevitable as we think and secondly, even if it is we should fight unnecessary restrictions, regardless.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; July 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 12:09 PM   #52
rzach
Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2008
Location: Jacksonville fl
Posts: 57
State-required training is just a way to keep some free people from being arm
my 4 year old knows that if you pull the trigger on any gun it will shot. training is about who's being trained.not the actual training .when i go to the range to shoot people assume that because i have dark black skin that i must not know how to use my guns.from Vietnam to Iraq i have carried and used ever type of gun. restriction and cost is all training is
rzach is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 12:13 PM   #53
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Duplicate
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 12:22 PM   #54
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
My thoughts are that mandatory training is unnecessary and overly burdensome....
And my thought is that if it's too much trouble for you to bother learning how to manage your gun safely and skillfully, getting educated on the laws of self defense and the use of lethal force, and demonstrating that you have these skills and know these things, then you shouldn't be carrying a loaded gun in public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rzach
my 4 year old knows that if you pull the trigger on any gun it will shot. training is about who's being trained.not the actual training ....restriction and cost is all training is
If you really believe that, it demonstrates why training, especially significant training in the laws applicable to the use of lethal force in a civilian context, should be required.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 12:59 PM   #55
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown
my thought is that if it's too much trouble for you to bother learning how to manage your gun safely and skillfully, getting educated on the laws of self defense and the use of lethal force, and demonstrating that you have these skills and know these things, then you shouldn't be carrying a loaded gun in public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown
Really? Who appointed you to make that decision for the entire population?
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 01:13 PM   #56
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,766
I never said I was making the decision for the entire population. I expressly identified it as my thought.

So if we put the question to a general vote, which do you think the voters of the United States would choose?

[1] Allowing the carrying of loaded guns in public with only a background check but without any required training or qualifications; or

[2] Allowing the carrying of loaded guns in public with a background check and only after qualifying by demonstrating competence with a gun and an acceptable knowledge of applicable law relating to the use of lethal force.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 01:36 PM   #57
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
The opinion of the population is not indicative of right and wrong. It most certainly is not indicative of my opinion and it most certainly will not sway my opinion one way or the other. Unlike the vast majority of the population, I try to base my opinions on facts and logic, a concept which, by it's very nature, lends those opinions to being resistant to change.

One could word a poll question to get any answer one desires, just like the pollsters do every day and just like you have suggested above.

How about this:

1)The right to defend oneself is a fundamental right and should be available to every person.

2)The ability of a person to defend themselves should be controlled and dictated in it's availability, means and cost by the government.

Which do you think people would choose?
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 01:40 PM   #58
rzach
Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2008
Location: Jacksonville fl
Posts: 57
you do not need a gun to use lethal force
rzach is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 01:45 PM   #59
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,986
Quote:
Should there be training requirements? No.

Will there eventually be enough pressure that there will be requirements? Probably Yes.
The real problem, I think, is that the pressure will be to limit CCW authorizations, infringe on shall-issue requirements, back off on state pre-emption, and add ridiculous storage requirments. The antis don't want training requirements; they want "gun control."

If we have sufficient legal compliance, safe and responsible behavior, and a paucity of citations of incidents to support the antis' arguments, we may preserve our rights.

I agree that education is no guarantee, but I think is likely a worthwhile investment.

Our state law calls for an eight hour training course. Mostly classroom, about four hours on the law. no written exam, three targets at 21 yards with rimfire handguns, and a requirement to get 15 out of 20 on the page of a torso target. Wouldn't have passed over the governor's veto without it.

I have friends who think the course should be more stringent.

We still have editorials and letters to editors roundly criticizing our CCW law, and to my knowledge no one has given anyone reason to believe it's not a good ldea since it was enacted. But again, there's no central database....
OldMarksman is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 01:49 PM   #60
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
How about this:...
That's not really the question presented in this thread, but go ahead and commission an established polling company to conduct a properly designed poll asking that question and let's see how it turns out.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 02:06 PM   #61
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
That's not really the question presented in this thread,...
That is the foundation of the question presented in this thread!

Do we have the right to defend ourselves without government interference?

Unless it becomes a significant public safety hazard the answer is YES.

It is not and has not been a significant hazard, despite the fears and fear mongering of any number of groups and individuals. As such, there is no reason for *further* restrictions.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 02:20 PM   #62
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
That is the foundation of the question presented in this thread!..
No it is not. A very specific question relating to carrying a concealed gun has been raised in this thread, and you have framed your questions in a fundamentally deceptive and misleading manner to obfuscate the fact that the issue under discussion is carrying concealed firearms in public. In another words you are framing your question is a manner that omits what many potential responders would consider vital and material information about the background of the question in order to effectively "sucker punch" anyone answering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
...there is no reason for *further* restrictions.
It seems that you think so. I and others do not.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 02:45 PM   #63
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,686
Historically, training and similar requirements have been used to deny the use of firearms at all - particularly if any of the requirements require subjective judgments such as "moral fitness" or similar determinations. If gunowners aren't already personally familiar with these problems, a quick look at history will show them.

Also historically, the number of accidental firearms deaths in the United States has ranged from a high of 826 in 1999 (at it's time, this was also a historical low for accidental firearms deaths in the U.S. since we started recording data) to 642 in 2006 (the most recent year for which data is available).

From 2001-2007, non-fatal accidental firearm injuries have ranged from a high of 18,941 in 2003 to 14,678 in 2006 (same source).

For comparison - accidental motor vehicle deaths were 43,664 in 2006 alone. Accidental poisoning deaths were 27,531 in 2006. Deaths from accidental falls accounted for 20,823 in 2006.

Now I certainly agree that training is a good thing and that more people should seek training, even if their state already requires it. However, I think the argument that government mandated training provides more benefits to society than the risk it presents to Second Amendment rights is dubious at best. There just that aren't many deaths/injuries to be prevented by training in the first place; but the history of abusing those laws to deny gun owners their rights is very real and still ongoing in several states.

If the issue is really about "saving lives/preventing injuries" we would have more luck requiring mandatory training to use Raid or a stepladder than we would from requiring training from CCW holders (who are only a tiny subset of the firearms community to begin with).
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 02:59 PM   #64
TenmaNeko
Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 62
Everyone here is in favor of some kind of restrictions on who can carry a concealed weapon.

There just seems to be disagreement on where that line is drawn.
TenmaNeko is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 03:04 PM   #65
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,731
An informational lecture on the local laws and common sense implications - with a brief test - seems a fine compromise to me.

Shooting tests - most are so simple as to be not a predictor of tactical excellence.

I wonder what state by state failure rates are on this? Knowledge test failures vs. shooting failures.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 03:22 PM   #66
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown
No it is not.
Are you saying that "training requirements for concealed carry" is fundamentally different from "government restrictions on method and means of self defense"?

Requirements would come from the government.
Restriction would be placed.
Self defense with a firearm would not be available outside those restrictions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown
It seems that you think so. I and others do not.
and that goes both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
Accidental poisoning deaths were 27,531 in 2006
Fascinating numbers!

So, Fiddletown, even if those "poisons" are in 4 times as many households as are firearms it would still suggest that that common household chemicals are nearly 11 times more dangerous in the hands of the "untrained" than are firearms....
Surely we need people to be trained before they can buy Clorox?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
Now I certainly agree that training is a good thing and that more people should seek training, even if their state already requires it. However, I think the argument that government mandated training provides more benefits to society than the risk it presents to Second Amendment rights is dubious at best. There just that aren't many deaths/injuries to be prevented by training in the first place; but the history of abusing those laws to deny gun owners their rights is very real and still ongoing in several states.
Bingo.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 04:26 PM   #67
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,986
Quote:
Historically, training and similar requirements have been used to deny the use of firearms at all
Not familiar with that--help me.

Quote:
- particularly if any of the requirements require subjective judgments such as "moral fitness" or similar determinations.
Can't see how "moral fitness" has anything to do with training.

Quote:
If gunowners aren't already personally familiar with these problems, a quick look at history will show them.
"History" is long, broad and deep. Point out the specifics.

I favor "shall issue" laws, and I've opposed gun registration since I first read about it in the 1944 Gun Digest in 1954.

However, I really do not like the idea of having a person who is under the mistaken impression that he can and should fire at a departing vehicle in a Walmart lot because someone has shouted "stop thief" carrying a gun and thinking that his right to do so makes him some kind of a "sheepdog"--and they are out there. That's too dangerous to me, to my wife, to other innocents, and to the continued existence of the right to carry concealed.

An objective way of providing education can be devised and implemented. We have something in Missouri.

And for anyone who believes that it would constitute an infringement of rights, just wait until one or two well publicized tragedies caused by ignorant people start the ball rolling to eliminate the right to carry concealed or to even have a loaded gun unlocked in the house.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 04:26 PM   #68
Yankee Traveler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 17, 2008
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 232
I have no opposition to training. Training is knowledge, knowledge is power.
Plain and simple.
Required training...? I grew up in the good state of Vermont that has the carry laws the rest of the country wishes for. I never once witnessed an incident, accident, close call or near miss. Yes, we carried 30-30's and 308's to school when we were 12 during deer season, and 12 or 20's during bird season. None of the kids I knew carried a pistol until later but never with a problem.
Now I live in Tennessee (another fine state, of course) that requires training. I have lived in many other states (6) up and down the east coast and some also required training. I was amazed at the injuries and accidents that I heard about. Maybe it was just the particular areas that I was working/living in (cities), and there not the same culture as I grew up in (very rural) that leads to an unawareness on gun control (controlling your gun vs. having your gun controlled...) but in that regard, I am not opposed to some formal training being required before being allowed to carry.
Lets face it, If a day of training in TN lets me carry in 30+ states, WHY NOT??? That Vermont carry permit I got lets me carry only in Vermont...(and Alaska?) If 4 days at Frontsite or Rattlesnake Ridge or wherever would allow me carry nation wide...SIGN ME UP!!!
Yankee Traveler is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 04:31 PM   #69
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,986
Quote:
There just that aren't many deaths/injuries to be prevented by training in the first place
But it doesn't take many to result in having guns outlawed.

Just this week, people were using a whopping total of 44 murder "charges" by permit holders (many involving two people) over a couple of years to justify opposing national CCW legislation. Make any sense? No. Does that matter? NO!
OldMarksman is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 06:19 PM   #70
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
Are you saying that "training requirements for concealed carry" is fundamentally different from "government restrictions on method and means of self defense"?...
What I said is there for all to see and read, including you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
...Surely we need people to be trained before they can buy Clorox?
If you wish to encourage further restrictions on the possession and use of household chemicals, that is your right. The political situation with guns is what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
....However, I think the argument that government mandated training provides more benefits to society than the risk it presents to Second Amendment rights is dubious at best. ....
That's really neither here nor there. The reality is that we have training requirements in a number of states, and the lack of comparable training requirements in some other states prevents CCWs from those other states from being honored in certain states with training requirements. The states with training requirements aren't going to abandon them, nor is it likely that the political and demographic circumstances in those states would support recognition of CCWs from states without training requirements. It fully appears that in many cases a training requirement is the political trade off for a "shall issue" CCW arrangement and/or reciprocal recognition of CCWs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
...we would have more luck requiring mandatory training to use Raid or a stepladder...
Fine, join with peetzakilla and encourage regulation of household activities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMarksman
...just wait until one or two well publicized tragedies caused by ignorant people start the ball rolling to eliminate the right to carry concealed...
The requirement in California that effective 1 January 2007 a semi-automatic pistol needs both a magazine disconnect and a loaded chamber indicator to be added to the list of handguns approved for sale came about as a result of a single, well publicized incident.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 06:29 PM   #71
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMarksman
Not familiar with that--help me
Here is an old Brady Campaign hit piece on CCW. Note that they refer to "Lax training requirements" and then the footnote cites Utah having 16 hours of training and no range requirement.

Both of those are objective requirements; but it starts getting real easy to list enough objective requirements to deny somebody a permit. How about just lengthening training to 24 hours? Now we've eliminated everybody who can't afford to take a day off work for the class (or pay the instructor extra for his time).

How about asking people to pass the Air Marshal qualification course before they carry a firearm in public? It is an objective requirement - you either meet it or you don't; but it sure leaves a lot of people who won't be able to avail themselves of a firearm for self-defense.

Quote:
Make any sense? No. Does that matter? NO!
Yes, it does matter. If we are just going to surrender the idea that legislation should make sense or have some relation to its stated purpose; then we might as well give them all of the guns now; because that is what they ultimately want and once we accept the notion that it is more important how people feel than whether those feelings make any practical sense, we are all hosed.

Mandatory CCW training requirements are only one step above totally useless. Statistically, you cannot prove that they do anything to reduce accidental firearms deaths - the only question is whether that is because there just aren't enough accidental firearms deaths involving CCW holders to make a statistically valid sample or whether it is because the programs themselves flat do not help.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 06:53 PM   #72
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
Thoughts on training requirements?
Sure...offer firearm safety in high school.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 08:14 PM   #73
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
...it starts getting real easy to list enough objective requirements to deny somebody a permit. How about just lengthening training to 24 hours? Now we've eliminated everybody who can't afford to take a day off work for the class (or pay the instructor extra for his time)....
If achieving something is important enough to someone, he'll find a way to do what is necessary. Many of us had to put up with significant inconveniences to accomplish things we wanted to accomplish. And we in the shooting community should also be willing to assist folks who may have difficulties. As I mentioned before, I and my colleagues receive no compensation for our teaching. Instructors could be encouraged to offer classes in the evenings and in short blocks over a period of time to better accommodate people with tight schedules. And RKBA organizations could held subsidize classes for people of limited means.

But I have a lot of trouble with this "I won't get my permit if it's too inconvenient" argument. Carrying a gun in public is a significant responsibility. One should take it seriously enough to be willing to put up with some bother and inconvenience to qualify. And if they aren't willing to put up with the trouble, are they really taking the responsibility seriously enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
...If we are just going to surrender the idea that legislation should make sense or have some relation to its stated purpose; then we might as well give them all of the guns now; because that is what they ultimately want and once we accept the notion that it is more important how people feel than whether those feelings make any practical sense, we are all hosed.

Mandatory CCW training requirements are only one step above totally useless....
Nonetheless, they are a fact of life and may well become more common. So if you really object, do something about it. Go to your legislatures.Go to the courts. See how far you get. There's your recourse. But you won't change anything here.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 09:30 PM   #74
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,385
Quote:
Sure...offer firearm safety in high school.
You would not believe the firestorm of anger I received when I once suggested that very thing.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 30, 2009, 10:08 PM   #75
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
You would not believe the firestorm of anger I received when I once suggested that very thing.
I can imagine, especially depending on specific location, where I am it used to be routine to get a short week or two in high school of basic firearm safety. If the priviledge(or right) is there to be utilized by any significant numbers, then basics should start early.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Reply

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 04:28 PM.


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 0.14606 seconds with 7 queries