It Does No Good To Have A Permit and NOT Carry

[MTT TL]

Terry, don't forget the first rule of hole digging.

But back to this:

It is dangerous to have the Mall Ninjas and Wanna Be's running around armed with no training. It is a disaster going to happen.

That has been happening for as long as we have had malls and ninjas and people wanting to be what they are not, so pretty much forever. So what disasters have happened? Sure accidents happen but EVERYONE has accidents from the best trained Navy SEALS to the NRA certified instructor with 30 years of experince. In fact I have seen it happen to both of those with tragic consequences. Training is no immunity to tragic outcomes brought on by a moment of carelessness.

Today we have a better trained gun toting populace than in any time during our nation's history. With the expansion of CHL's, and many states requiring training we have never had it so good.

[J.G. Terry]

You justification for poor training and the inevitability of having firearms accidents is greatly appreciated. We have had several fatalities involving poor handling of firearms. Guns were left were toddlers could find them. Things just happen. Anybody can have an accident. This is not much excuse for little or no training. It's inevitable something is going to happen so do nothing. What's that about digging?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

You justification for poor training and the inevitability of having firearms accidents is greatly appreciated. We have had several fatalities involving poor handling of firearms. Guns were left were toddlers could find them. Things just happen. Anybody can have an accident. This is not much excuse for little or no training.

Accidents happen to people who have had training, too. One example is the DEA agent who (literally) shot himself in the foot. There have been instances of police trainers who shot trainees while conducting classes. Accidents happen -- that's why they are called "accidents."

But that discussion ignores the point I raised a few posts above: The Second Amendment does not impose any training requirement as a prerequisite to exercising the right to keep and bear arms. I asked if you are advocating that the Second Amendment be revised, and I don't think you have answered that.

[J.G. Terry]

This business about training is over the top. Because the 2A doesn't specify training means that I don't to do squat. You could get Red Flagged for that one.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

This business about training is over the top. Because the 2A doesn't specify training means that I don't to do squat. You could get Red Flagged for that one.

Am I understanding you correctly? Your position is that a law-abiding citizen who does what the law requires to legally obtain a handgun and a carry permit can be "red flagged" for doing nothing illegal or scary, just because he doesn't pursue whatever you feel is the minimum amount of training to be allowed to exercise his Constitutional right?

To get a carry permit in my state requires taking the NRA Basic Pistol course. Is that sufficient training, in your opinion? If not, what other training do you think is needed for a person to be allowed to carry a handgun in public?

[MTT TL]

What's that about digging?

When digging a hole, once you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

This is not much excuse for little or no training.

It's not an excuse, it isn't immunity either.

So people have been carrying forever in public.

What disasters have you come across?

[JohnKSa]

Analogies cloud the issue: There are reminders that the Hiller decision reversed the previous policy on firearm ownership. Court decisions can be reversed, right? Hiller was 5 to 4 right?

Heller reversed a lower court ruling, thereby upholding the clear interpretation of the Second Amendment. It didn't reverse a previous policy, it was just the first SCOTUS ruling to explicitly affirm that individual firearm ownership was a constitutional right.

Analogies: Using these things cloud discussions. The supposed number of deaths caused by doctors have what to do with concealed carry?

The point is that doctors are highly trained and yet they kill over a quarter of a million people a year by accident.

On the other hand, we agree that permit holders are generally not well trained and tremendously outnumber doctors but they kill almost no one.

You're claiming that untrained permit holders are a recipe for disaster but it seems clear that even without their training, and even in spite of the fact that there are millions of permit holders, the disasters just aren't happening.

I do recall sometime ago some information on permit holders that did commit murder etc. Lots of conflicting data on the net. Here comes that submarine with screen doors sailing by. Some of that data looks cooked. Check it out for your self.

I linked to the data on permit holder murders, and even though the website is clearly anti-gun, the numbers are still ridiculously low. That was part of the point of my last post.

We were taught on several levels of education that the 2A was a state right. The right to defend states against tyranny was the purpose of the 2A. My history books speaks of the Redcoats going Lexington and Concord to disarm the Committees of Safety. It would appear that the Committees of Safety were seen as a organized militia. The 2A was there to assure protection from a tyrannical central power be it domestic or foreign. This belief is widespread and is to become again an issue. The rest of the story is that the entire 2A issue as it stands today is four decades old NRA propaganda. I did not make this up! Do some home work.

I'm not going to claim that you made it up because I don't think you did. But someone made it up, and they definitely need to do their homework.

That view of the Second is absolutely inconsistent with the writings of the Founding Fathers who penned the Second.

You justification for poor training and the inevitability of having firearms accidents is greatly appreciated.

NOBODY is justifying poor training or the inevitability of accidents. It's definitely not an ideal situation.

But that's a far cry from saying that it's a "disaster going to happen." Unless, that is, we're going to redefine "disaster" to mean that it might cause roughly as many fatalities as result from drowning in 5 gallon buckets.

We have had several fatalities involving poor handling of firearms. Guns were left were toddlers could find them. Things just happen. Anybody can have an accident. This is not much excuse for little or no training. It's inevitable something is going to happen so do nothing.

I'm a big advocate of training. I'm not big on the government mandating training because that type of thing, while it sounds reasonable, is far too easy to abuse with the result of making satisfying the requirements difficult/expensive enough to amount to a ban for many people.

I do strongly believe that permit holders should take the responsibility to train and to, if necessary, get professional training so that they can achieve an effective skill level and can safely deal with firearms.

That said, yes, anyone can have an accident. And yes, it is probably inevitable that such things will happen--even with training, but more often without training. People make mistakes and in some cases those mistakes can have severe consequences.

But, again, making it sound like we need to be worried about untrained permit holders killing people accidentally in mass shootings is an entirely different story. The reality is that untrained permit holders mostly don't carry and/or don't intervene in mass shootings. And when they do, we don't see their intervention causing "disasters". It's just not something we need to worry about.

This business about training is over the top. Because the 2A doesn't specify training means that I don't to do squat. You could get Red Flagged for that one.

If it's over the top it's because you're putting words in people's mouths.

No one is saying that people shouldn't get training. In fact, everyone seems in agreement that training is beneficial and that permit holders should take responsibility for getting adequate training.

People are definitely concerned about GOVERNMENT MANDATED training because of the can of worms that opens up.

Some permit holders probably do take the approach of doing only the absolute minimum required, and that is not ideal. But it isn't causing the "disasters" you are concerned about--or at least it hasn't caused any that you have been able to provide as corroboration for your claim.

I can't tell exactly what you mean by the comment about being red flagged, but I can tell you all of the possible things you could mean by it are definitely wrong.

[J.G. Terry]

Is that an earth moving machine over yonder?

No less than Warren Burger held the Heller was a creature of the NRA. This school of thought is surfacing again. I say that as a warning. When this anti-gun stuff kicks in the home team, us, better have both paddles in the water.

Government mandates permits, right? Is there training related to those permits. In this state there is some training. In the neighboring state there is not. Functionally, firearm laws are a state right.

Also, who does carry and does not carry is speculation. Remember it is an individual decision and an individual right not to carry. When I got my permit it was of interest. We were doing informal cowboy matches in the country. The desire was to have some credentials to keep some constable from taking two handguns a rifle and shotgun. When do I have a gun handy? In the house and when I'm traveling. Otherwise no. I don't go to crack town and stay away from where the gangbangers rule. I don't go to the nearest Walmart after dark.

Much of what you shared here is wild eyed speculation. It is a fact that untrained individuals with firearms are a danger. This " accidents will happen" in the face of evidence of fatal accidents with children is brilliant The anti's answer is to outlaw guns. This "gun safety" has given the anti's a powerful propaganda coup. Too much preaching to the choir talk become more radical.

Disaster prediction? So serious events related to poor firearm training is impossible. You are willing to accept this? What was the average level of marksmanship in you permit class? This person, if average, would have to have decent marksman skills and be able to make that decision in 1.5 seconds. Ha. I hear a diesel engine.

This contention that a permit holder stop a mass shooting has happened? How many of these shooters had taken their own life or have been killed by the police. So I am an active shooter. I proceed to start shooting. Would the person who had the gun be first? What is the reality of the situation on mass shootings. Are we seeing more firepower in the shooting plus body armor? Are not these shooters preparing for armed resistance? So average level of training guy is going to jump up and stop the carnage. Right. Only in the movies.

Did your permit class give you the skill to deal with an active shooter? Our instruction made it plan that it didn't. He, incidentally, is the commander of the SWAT team is a neighboring community.

Personally, I think this mandatory carry idea to stop mass shooters is a fantasy. How many of these permit holders who do not carry recognize their lack of training? Nobody knows.

You look dashing on your backhoe. I'm gonna take my shovel and go home. You may need to stop revving your engine it's 6:00 AM here. Take care and be safe. Do not run over the neighbors flowers!

[TunnelRat]

You realize John himself has been arguing for a large part of this thread that concealed carry holders do not, on the whole, stop mass shootings, right? Are you even reading this thread? There's a difference between pointing out that concealed carriers do not pose a threat to the general public statistically speaking and saying they are the solution to mass shootings. Either you didn't read, or you've deliberately created a strawman.

You keep saying the facts people are bringing up are suspect. I've yet to see you actually bring up any hard facts that you've backed up with other sources. You seem to be in the, "I know what I'm saying is right and it's your responsibility to look up what I'm saying", camp of argument, which is the most disingenuous I can think of. Then when someone actually presents a fact, such as the existence of Heller and its implications, you initially dismiss it off hand with more comments lacking any support.

You keep using the phrase "preaching to the choir". As best as I can tell you're the one preaching, but the sermon is falling flat. No one here is advocating going to "crack town". The "wild eyed speculation" is John and others pointing out statistics. If you're trying to do a Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" rendition this crowd isn't biting.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[MTT TL]

Ah, so you have come across No Disasters.

That is what I figured.

Your fear of allowing people freedoms based upon what bad things you think might happen is a well understood concept. It is the basis for most people control laws.

[J.G. Terry]

I stand what I say still. Disaster? Give me an example of a permit person stopping a mass shooting. All this is a fantasy. This level of training in a majority of permit holders is dismal. We are in the midst of a massive backlash on firearm issues. Building "Straw men" is spurious and can be turned back on us. Try running some of your best thinking to the non-committed. See what happens-look at the current numbers.

As you can tell I am uneasy at your ability defend my investment in firearms. You are too weak to really combat this wave of anti-gun sentiment. I am too weak. We are having hell to pay for the excesses of the recent past. The data on permit holders committing felonies is cooked data by pro-gun advocates.

I call BS on the history of the the 2A as shared here on your part. Working smart is not where we are at collectively. What you have done, and will be told so, is siding with the shooters.You will hear this again.

I deeply resent your doing wheelies in my yard with your backhoe. Go dig your hole else elsewhere. Meanwhile, I'm loading some ammo for Thursday and getting ready for our informal Bullseye match tomorrow. Take care and be safe.

[TunnelRat]

It's patently obvious you're not actually reading what people here are saying. As for the non-committed, as best as I can tell that's you.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

No less than Warren Burger held the Heller was a creature of the NRA. This school of thought is surfacing again. I say that as a warning. When this anti-gun stuff kicks in the home team, us, better have both paddles in the water.

Warren Burger, the retired justice? Whose opinion is worth exactly as much as yours or mine or that of any member of this site? THAT Warren Burger?

You are aware, are you not, that the NRA tried hard to prevent the Heller case from proceeding? Saying that Heller was a creature of the NRA is simply ludicrous.

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

Government mandates permits, right? Is there training related to those permits. In this state there is some training. In the neighboring state there is not.

And do the statistics show that the streets in those neighboring states are significantly more dangerous due to all those untrained permittees than the streets in your state? How many people have been killed by permittees having accidental or negligent discharges in those neighboring states?

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

It is a fact that untrained individuals with firearms are a danger.

If it's a fact, then you should have no difficulty citing statistics to support your contention.

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

Personally, I think this mandatory carry idea to stop mass shooters is a fantasy.

What mandatory carry idea to stop mass shooters? I don't think anyone on this site has ever suggested that anyone should be forced to carry for the purpose of being armed so they can take on a mass shooter. If I missed it, please provide a link to where someone suggested that.

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

Give me an example of a permit person stopping a mass shooting.

Trolley Square Mall, Salt Lake City. Technically, the guy who first stopped the shooter was an off-duty police officer,(from another jurisdiction) who was shopping at the mall with his wife. He didn't kill the shooter himself, but he did interrupt him and kept him pinned down until the cavalry arrived. Effectively, he was just a citizen with a gun at the time of the incident.

How about the New Life Church in Colorado? The shooter was confronted and killed by a woman member of the church's volunteer security team.

[MTT TL]

I stand what I say still.

IDK what that means but ok.

Give me an example of a permit person stopping a mass shooting. All this is a fantasy.

No problem. Lots of people have trouble determining fantasy from reality. How many examples did you want? I can think of many off the top of my head. Here are half dozen to get you started.


Shooneys. Anniston, AL
Golden Food Market, Richmond, VA
Winnemucca bar, NV
New Life Church, Colorado
AT&T Store, College Park, GA
First Baptist Church, Sutherland, TX

[zukiphile]

This hasn't gotten better since last night. I've no interest in making the rubble bounce higher.

Originally Posted by JG Terry

What you have done, and will be told so, is siding with the shooters.

JG, I believe there may be a communication problem playing out. You are in some general manner communicating an opposition to the right described in the 2d Am., though that may not be your intent.

I asked you whether you had read Heller after you'd invoked it, and then you didn't want to discuss it. You've gotten responses that give scale to relative risks of concealed carry and seeing a doctor, then evaded or misunderstood the points. You assure a reader that your purpose is to engage, but then protest that you've said "your piece".

I'm guessing that you are an essentially candid person in your expression of disdain for "Mall Ninjas", but then when pressed went on a sort of ad hoc search for support. If you state your position directly and with candor, people may disagree with you, but at least the disagreement will be for what you really think. If you deploy flimsy arguments against people who know a topic fairly well, it is too easy for them to attribute something less than good will to that pattern.

Where you accuse others in the conversation of "siding with the shooters", you can expect to set that sort of misunderstanding in cement.

[USNRet93]

To get a carry permit in my state requires taking the NRA Basic Pistol course. Is that sufficient training, in your opinion? If not, what other training do you think is needed for a person to be allowed to carry a handgun in public?

I'm not in this hunt but I've said it before..if the training for a CCWP is required, then it ought to be standardized, and sufficient to be effective. Even tho my 'teacher' was a certified NRA instructor, MY CCWP training was a $90 joke, BUT it filled the square..and along with $152, a background check and finger printing..I EDC..
I guess my biggest beef is 'getting what I paid for'...not a rehash of the 2016 election, an advert for CCW insurance or a commercial for joining the NRA..

[J.G. Terry]

No quick opinion on that level of training with out some investigation. I just don't know. My class was $50.00 and plus what ever the background check cost. Finger prints and the usual background check. So far as I know the class met state requirements. I am comfortable that one or more of the participants were shooting their handgun for the first time.


On the Southerland shooting did not the person who neutralized the shooter go home to retrieve his rifle after the deaths? An autopsy, it is reported, found the shooter died of a self-inflicted wound. Twenty-seven people died there including an unborn child. I'd say that was not a good intervention. That number was twenty-seven right? On the New Life Church it was uncertain who killed the shooter and may have been self-inflicted or killed by the police or woman security person. This accounts appear to be disputed However, the lady that may have taken him out was a former police officer. Didn't check on anymore-that was enough. Where were the permit carriers in all this? These examples are fuzzy by your own admission.

Prove an untrained individual with a firearm may be a danger. You gotta be kidding!

I'm sorry I don't need any support. I am of my own mind and have some real problems with the line of thinking exhibited here. As far as siding with the shooter not individually or collectively here. In the backlash this connection will have to be dealt with. I have seen this connection out side more than once on the outside. Just be ready for it. For those of you who did take offense I'd like to apologize. It was not my intention.

The doctors is an analogy. As I tried to point out when this device is used it draws energy for the main topic. Other places I have seen topics closed when this thing starts

NRA tried to stop Heller. Seen this many times. How would the NRA stop Heller? They sure got mileage off Heller after the fact. You are going to have to deal with the Heller situation when this comes up.

I really wish you guys would get your backhoe off my yard.

[Lohman446]

Prove an untrained individual with a firearm may be a danger.

Prove a trained individual is NOT a danger. The moment you go down this road you open up a debate. Are individual citizens not allowed to own dangerous items?

We are throwing around the concept of "trained" and "untrained" like they are somehow dichotomous. What many will call "trained" is about two hours of range time where the only concern is safe range practices. Is this "trained" as we are discussing it?

[MTT TL]

On the Southerland shooting did not the person who neutralized the shooter go home to retrieve his rifle after the deaths? An autopsy, it is reported, found the shooter died of a self-inflicted wound. Twenty-seven people died there including an unborn child. I'd say that was not a good intervention.

Ah, the classic goal post move.

Let's see you asked for "a permit person stopping a mass shooting". The Sutherland Springs shooting is an example. You did not ask for a good example. You did not ask for an example where the permit holder actually killed the shooter (most mass shooters kill themselves when confronted by someone with a gun).

That number was twenty-seven right?

It would have been much higher, he was on his way to another church.

However, the lady that may have taken him out was a former police officer. Didn't check on anymore-that was enough. Where were the permit carriers in all this? Using these examples a fuzzy by your own admission.

I fail to see what being a "FORMER police officer" has to do with anything. Would it change if she were a "former school teacher" or "former fast food worker"?

You asked for a permit holder, you got one. Just because you don't like the examples does not make them less true. There is nothing fuzzy at all about my examples.

You got what you asked for and you still fail to see the invalidity of your argument.

You have my pity.

[MTT TL]

I should add that for the record, in my state to get a CHL permit you walk in to the office, show valid ID and pay $10/yr (free for me as a retired mil).

They run an IBC and give you your permit.

The end.

Disasters attributed to Mall Ninjas run amuck in 2018 = 0

Looking good for 2019.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

I should add that for the record, in my state to get a CHL permit you walk in to the office, show valid ID and pay $10/yr (free for me as a retired mil).

They run an IBC and give you your permit.

The end.

Disasters attributed to Mall Ninjas run amuck in 2018 = 0

Looking good for 2019.

Well, kinda depends on your definition..some of the below were people playing with guns..one was 2 police officers who were doing russian roulette..I'd say that was akin to a 'mall ninja'.

"In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths."

It is dangerous to have the Mall Ninjas and Wanna Be's running around armed with no training. It is a disaster going to happen.

[Double Naught Spy]

Ah, the classic goal post move.

Let's see you asked for "a permit person stopping a mass shooting". The Sutherland Springs shooting is an example. You did not ask for a good example. You did not ask for an example where the permit holder actually killed the shooter (most mass shooters kill themselves when confronted by someone with a gun).

So much wrong here.

First of all, MOST MASS/ACTIVE SHOOTERS DO NOT KILL THEMSELVES WHEN CONFRONTED BY SOMEONE WITH A GUN. Repeating this nonsense needs to stop right now. Some come very much prepared for a fight, mentally and/or via preparations and gear. Some may eventually commit suicide after engaging in battle and apparently opting to go with death over capture.

In this study, it was noted that less than half (10 of 27) active shooters kill themselves. Even then, not all kill themselves immediately. The Sutherland Springs shooter didn't. In nearly as many cases (9 of 27) active shooters engaged responding officers with gunfire. So no, MOST active shooters do not commit suicide and when they do, it isn't necessarily when they encountered armed resistance. Believing otherwise is the sort of nonsense that will get people killed.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...41019.pdf/view

Going back to Sutherland Springs, Stephen Willeford could have been killed by the shooter. The shooter engaged him. The shooter didn't commit suicide when he encountered armed resistance. He fought back before and while attempting to escape.

Whether or not Stephen Willeford had a carry permit is irrelevant for several reasons. First, he responded from his home where he is not required to have a permit. Second, the responded with a RIFLE (that he got from his gun safe and was handloading a magazine as he left the house) and there are no permits associated with rifles and rifle carry in Texas. I don't know if it was ever revealed that Willeford did or did not have a LTC (Texas license to carry). It was revealed that he was an NRA firearms instructor. Third, he didn't need a permit to respond with a rifle or a pistol. No permit is required for self defense (which includes defense of others).

Even if he did have a LTC, it is about as relevant here as him having a DL. His personal vehicle didn't come into play either.

As far as we know, the church shooting was over when Willeford encountered the shooter. The shooter was not shooting and was apparently attempting to leave. Willeford never saw the shooter with a rifle (used in the shooting) and the shooter did not engage Willeford with a rifle. Willeford engaged the shooter outside of the church as the shooter was running back and getting into his SUV, left parked outside, door open, engine running.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=248LN1TiB40

[J.G. Terry]

I did a partial survey of the reported interventions and a the point there was no reference to the person doing the intervention having a permit. Meaning I just do not know.

We are assuming that current or police person are more proficient that the average permit holder. This may be an unjustified leap. I recall on instance where the intervention was done by a person who was found hiding and shot robber with handgun. No permit noted. You see what I mean by fuzzy,

Review the Southland shooting. It takes some effort to twist these things to suit or needs. Start using this technique when the going gets tough of the outside you are going to get blown out of the water. That is not fuzzy. Go through that list and come back. The goalpost comment flunks the smell test. This is why I am not comfortable with my firearm owning being defended with that thinking. That should not be fuzzy. I take that line of thought back for further research. I thought the Southerland shooter died at the church without sharing plans. Your goalpost looks at this point like a corkscrew.

Standards for training is a decent question. The consensus here is that what happens in the permit class is not training. It's basic safety and a shooting portion that the legally blind could pass. That's the way it is here. I just don't know about a good universal requirements. I have seen persons unnamed who have been around the Mall Ninjas dumping magazines. That person would be shooting their targets with a revolver through the clouds of dust and dirt.

Addendum: I was writing this post when #122 was posted.

[Lohman446]

I believe that firearm owners should be trained. I also believe that the level of training should not be dictated because that rapidly reaches paternalism with some and becomes morally suspect. Codification of that rapidly limits those who may exercise the right and, as I believe the right to the means of effective self defense is a natural right, is immoral.

I mean we toss around the idea of trained. Let the government get involved in that and it becomes far too easily: "100 hours of ongoing trainer per year with instructors certified by X, Y, and Z" It becomes grossly expensive and time consuming to where very few people, outside of professionals, are even going to consider it.

I really don't care if CCW holders are effective or not at stopping mass shootings because it is not a requirement to my argument that disallowing the means of effective self defense is immoral and, under current court rulings, unconstitutional.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Even tho my 'teacher' was a certified NRA instructor, MY CCWP training was a $90 joke, BUT it filled the square..and along with $152, a background check and finger printing..I EDC..
I guess my biggest beef is 'getting what I paid for'...not a rehash of the 2016 election, an advert for CCW insurance or a commercial for joining the NRA..

There's a difference between something presented by an NRA-certified instructor, as compared to the actual NRA Basic Pistol class. The NRA Basic Pistol class is an 8-hour class, covering safety rules (the NRA version, not the Cooper version), types of firearms and actions, loading, unloading, aiming/sighting, trigger control, breathing ... and a live fire component that requires a minimum of about 75 rounds to complete satisfactorily. It's not a "marksmanship" class, it's "Shooting 101." But it is recognized by a number of states as providing sufficient introduction to handgun safety that the states will give you a carry permit if you complete the class with a passing score.