Don't Get Training

[BlueTrain]

You were probably thinking of Baron Von Steuben, who really introduced the idea of military discipline to the Continental Army. But don't worry. I make many mistakes myself, including in spelling, which others here have kindly brought to my attention.

I take special interest in the thinking of George Mason, who was a local boy, and who was also one of my wife's direct ancestors. George Mason's daughter or granddaughter married Samuel Cooper, later general and adjutant general of the Confederate Army (although he was from New York). He was my wife's grandmother's grandfather. However, Paris Hilton is also a direct descendent of George Mason, so I guess it really isn't all that special a thing.

I've been married to this same woman for over 30 years and I still don't have all the relations down pat.

Anyway, central to George Mason's thinking on this subject was that the militia was to be subject to the government and entirely so. I don't know exactly what caused him to be worried about private armies, as he put it, but lately there seems to be some good cause. All this business about well regulated meaning to be a good shot is so much fantasy and nonsense. As this topic has discussed, your right to own a firearm is not dependent on your being a good shot--or a big shot.

[markj]

Quote:
Originally Posted by markj
...Know the permit laws (classroom) be able to load aim and shoot 7 to 10 yards...

It's an open question whether that alone is even sufficient.

I belive it is all a person needs to do to be able to get a permit to carry concealed. Like driving, you pass a test (written) then go out and do simple driving tasks like turn, park etc. These simple things are needed to drive a car. But if that person wants to race on a sanctioned track he has to take a test (written) and demonstrate he can handle the speed he wants to race at.

So to put this in perspective, the items I outlines should be enough, if a person wants to go further, he can but to say it is needed by all, well that isnt right at all.

To put another blockade in the way of people getting the permit to carry isnt being helpful to them as there are enough hoops to jump thru now.

I have said before I was at a store awhile ago, lady in front of me was looking for her wallet in her purse, she pulls out a hog leg, puts it back then rummages thru till she finds her cash. She was old, like 65 old, do you think she should have to take these courses to have that gun?

This isnt lets go out and get some bad guys, this is I have this thing here in case someone trys to take what is mine or do me harm. Period. nothing else, I feel some have this confused.

Be careful.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by markj

I belive it is all a person needs to do to be able to get a permit to carry concealed.

The question isn't whether that's all one needs to do to get a carry permit. The question is whether it's all one needs to be able to do to be reasonably comfortable that he (or she) will be able to effectively use a gun for self defense.

You may think so. If you do (1) I disagree; and (2) many people with guns apparently can't even meet that minimal qualification.

[AZAK]

BlueTrain states:

I have to take issue with the phrase "handing over political power to the government." That suggests "the people" (us) are giving up something to something of a foreign entity. It should not be seen in that light. Government is created by the citizens and such power as it has might be called political power, though it has other powers the citizens never had individually.

There can be no "political power" for the government without the citizens relinquishing some of theirs. This is part of the price that citizens pay to have this form of representation. At least in a Republic as opposed to a Democracy; our country was founded as a Republic not a Democracy.

And continues:

Yet the citizens retain certain powers like voting, though some choose not exercise those powers. If the government has no political (or other) powers, there is no effective government

And as to voting, yes we can vote for a representative who may or may not act according to the "one man one vote" mentality of some of his/her constituency. An example of how our country is not a Democracy is the Electoral College. Or the fact that we as individual citizens do not get to vote on many, many issues; think about Congress, we only have our representatives who get to vote directly. And there are different ways that a government may dissolve from without or within.

Glenn E. Meyer states:

MLeake nailed Kathy's and my view. Thanks.

If you don't want to take this step in #2, you are not stepping up to the moral batter's box and not helping the RKBA. You have the same moral obligation to be informed when you vote. But there is not legal requirement not to be an ignoramus.

The sophistry of some is not impressive.

pax states:

If you are the sort of person who would act to save the lives of your family members, you owe it to them and to yourself to get as much training as you can afford.

I personally do not see it this way. The fact that literally thousands upon thousands of Americans have purchased firearms in the last several years, helps support the RKBA; even if they never take the gun out of the case, never load it, or even buy rounds for it, or run a round through it. They can bury their guns, throw away the map, and they have still supported the RKBA.

The minute that someone states that there "should" be a "moral obligation" to obtain training, they have opened Pandora's box. They have created an "Us" and "Them" mentality. "Us" being morally superior, "Them" being those who have just not got it right. That person is attempting to set a standard, pronounced or not, that will be seen as such, a standard. And believing that the governing bodies will not notice if a "professional standard" has been suggested and possibly even established in some areas, helping to open the door for state/federal regulation, is a bit optimistic in my opinion.

And if we look at the negative of pax's statement, we see that if I do not spend as much as I can afford on firearm training, I am not the type of person who would act to save the lives of my family members; or another way of looking at it is that I am not moral enough.

Some arguments are lost the second an inch is given; inalienable is not compromisable. In my opinion, this is such an argument.

Glenn E. Meyer you call, "sophistry". I call what I am reading in this thread as differing points of view.

Please note: again, there has not yet been anyone on this thread who has argued that training is negative. And again, I myself value training, and additional training. However, I do not believe that myself or anyone else "must" feel "morally obligated" to pursue training.

[mavracer]

Some arguments are lost the second an inch is given; inalienable is not compromisable.

You have the inalienable right to break the law.Do you then beleve viloent felons should retain their right to keep and bear arms?

However, I do not believe that myself or anyone else "must" feel "morally obligated" to pursue training.

You have a moral obligation to be responsible.

[alloy]

Sad to say but AZAK has me convinced as far as moral obligations are concerned. But just in case he's wrong, you all have a moral obligation to stop eating meat, zeroscape the lawn, and sign up for ongoing advanced auto driving courses.
How bout my practice regimen, how many trips per week to the practice range and how many Rhodesians are required to meet obligations? Dry fire time? Is that based on your experiences or whose?
The thread is OK it doesn't bother me at all, but the push to the nth degree is something else. Makes sense to get some training.

[spacecoast]

I believe you have a moral obligation to understand your limits and do your best not to endanger the lives of innocents while preserving your own life and those of your dependents. If you want to obtain training to expand those limits so that you will be ready and able to handle more complex situations then that is all good.

[mavracer]

How bout my practice regimen, how many trips per week to the practice range and how many Rhodesians are required to meet obligations? Dry fire time? Is that based on your experiences or whose?

I beleve that is the exact point Kathy is trying to make.your practice and training should be decided by your moral compass.If your reasonably comfortable with your training and practice levels then OK.

however if you think your skill set is lacking and would likely put the public at large in peril and you refuse to train/practice because you don't care or your oppositional defiant disorder won't allow you to because so and so said it was a good idea then I beleve your moral compass is in dire need of adjustment.

Nobody here is trying to set a bar for your level of training or proficiency.
I'd suggest you do it yourself.

[smince]

even if they never take the gun out of the case, never load it, or even buy rounds for it, or run a round through it. They can bury their guns, throw away the map, and they have still supported the RKBA.

"Keeping" perhaps, but not "Bearing"

[Frank Ettin]

So, AZAK, if I understand you, it is not "politically correct" for some of us to suggest that it would be a conscientious and responsible thing for a gun owner to seek out training, because it may appear elitist and may have undesirable political consequences.

Originally Posted by AZAK

...They have created an "Us" and "Them" mentality. "Us" being morally superior, "Them" being those who have just not got it right. That person is attempting to set a standard, pronounced or not, that will be seen as such, a standard. And believing that the governing bodies will not notice if a "professional standard" has been suggested and possibly even established in some areas, helping to open the door for state/federal regulation,...

At the same time, you acknowledge that training is a desirable thing.

Originally Posted by AZAK

...there has not yet been anyone on this thread who has argued that training is negative. And again, I myself value training, and additional training....

In any case, I do believe that it is a good and responsible thing for a gun owner to seek out training and strive to be safe and competent with his gun. I also think that a responsible person makes an effort to be a competent and safe driver and also strives to be good at his job. It seems to me that real life has a way of "setting standards" for us all. I guess I'm just not politically correct.

[AZAK]

So, AZAK, if I understand you, it is not "politically correct" for some of us to suggest that it would be a conscientious and responsible thing for a gun owner to seek out training, because it may appear elitist and may have undesirable political consequences.

Suggesting that training, or even showing using examples or sound logic, is a good idea is a far cry from from making it a "moral obligation".

Once we introduce the idea that morality has anything to do with it, what about the FACT that if we did not own guns there would be zero danger of an innocent bystander being harmed by "incompetent gunowners"; after all this is more moral, the moral high ground as it were.

Sure you can argue this premise; however, don't introduce "moral obligation" and you don't open Pandora's box, or attempt to compromise an inalienable right.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

An inalienable right has nothing to do with a voluntary moral obligation.

We will differ on whether a guntoting incompetent or an incompetent voter is moral. They may have the right to do such but they are not acting morally.

Just as a doctor has the obligation to keep up when he or she attempts a procedure or give you a new Rx, if you put people at risk - you should know what's up. If you don't want to consider that consequences to others as part of your moral constellation of behaviors, then that's not defensible with Pandora's box, RKBA posturing. The voluntary nature of our discussion negates the black heliocopter rhetoric.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by AZAK

Suggesting that training, or even showing using examples or sound logic, is a good idea is a far cry from from making it a "moral obligation".

Really? We show training is a good thing because with training one can better avoid misusing his gun and better avoid injury to innocents. Given that, how does the responsible gun owner deny that getting training is the right thing to do?

[AZAK]

I will leave you fine gentlemen and ladies to continue this discussion to your hearts content. I have said what I have to say on this subject.
And leave you with this parting thought:

"If you suppose that good intentions justify intruding
on the lives and properties of your fellow citizens:
Do you appreciate being the target of somebody else's good intentions,
or haven't you had that particular dubious pleasure yet?"
Cat Farmer

[JohnKSa]

An interesting thought, perhaps, but it's not relevant to pax's assertions.

Suggesting that responsible gun owners have a moral obligation to learn to use their guns competently does not intrude on people's "lives and properties". It might make them think a little bit and could even make them feel guilty and irresponsible if they choose not to do the right thing, but that's the extent of it.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by pax: If you are the sort of person who would act to save the lives of your family members, you owe it to them and to yourself to get as much training as you can afford.

I really cannot see how anyone can disagree. First, there's the matter of having the skills to save them in the event. Then there's the matter of being free and solvent to continue to support them afterward. Both are more likely to be successful with sufficient training, and most of us cannot really afford too much.

Posted by AZAK: I do not believe that myself or anyone else "must" feel "morally obligated" to pursue training.

Well, I feel that anyone who chooses to drive a car is morally obligated to take reasonable precautions to reduce the likelihood of harming me or mine. That requires both skills in its safe operation and knowledge of the rules and customs of the road. Both require training. Same for goes for firearms.

Once we introduce the idea that morality has anything to do with it, what about the FACT that if we did not own guns there would be zero danger of an innocent bystander being harmed by "incompetent gunowners"; after all this is more moral, the moral high ground as it were.

Which, of course, overlooks the increased risk to one's family if one is unable to protect them....

[markj]

The question isn't whether that's all one needs to do to get a carry permit. The question is whether it's all one needs to be able to do to be reasonably comfortable that he (or she) will be able to effectively use a gun for self defense.

OK, how many times have you had to pull a weapon in SD? For most folks the answer will be never.

Once again we are talking about carring a gun concealed for personal protection. Not going after criminals, not breeching a doorway, not to protect every person in the immediate area.

I know I am not a rambo. nor do I intend to ever be.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by markj

OK, how many times have you had to pull a weapon in SD? For most folks the answer will be never...

Then why even carry a gun? But if you are going to carry a lethal weapon in public, or keep one at home for self defense, at least bother to learn to use it safely and skillfully, and to know the applicable laws regarding its use, whether you are required by law or not.

Originally Posted by markj

...Once again we are talking about carring a gun concealed for personal protection. Not going after criminals, not breeching a doorway, not to protect every person in the immediate area....

Yes, we are talking about carrying a gun for personal protection -- not chasing crooks or being a member of a dynamic entry team. But if the time ever comes that you will have to defend yourself or a loved one from a potentially lethal attack, how good are you going to need to be to be able to do so successfully?

The reality is that since you don't know what will happen, or how, you have no idea how good you're going to have to be. The better prepared you are, the more likely you'll be successful.

Originally Posted by markj

...I know I am not a rambo. nor do I intend to ever be...

Neither am I, and the classes I've taken, and my regular practice, certainly haven't come close to making me one. But I sure am more competent with my weapon than I was when I started to get my education in these matters. And I sure have a better idea of what I know, and don't know, and what I can do, and not do, than I had when I started to get my education in these matters.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by MarkJ: Know the laws, know when to use, know how to hit the target

Good.

Better: Know the laws, know when to use, and be able to draw and hit the targets quickly enough under stress and to do so without unduly endangering innocent persons. That takes training and it takes practice.

Best: Know the laws, know when to use, be able to draw and hit the target quickly enough under stress and to do so without unduly endangering innocent persons, and be able to recognize and address potential danger without drawing a gun.

Posted by fiddletown: The better prepared you are, the more likely you'll be successful.

True for all things, and particularly important when what is at stake includes the lives and safety of oneself and others.

...I sure am more competent with my weapon than I was when I started to get my education in these matters. And I sure have a better idea of what I know, and don't know, and what I can do, and not do, than I had when I started to get my education in these matters.

Goes for me, too, though I am far less educated and have had far less training than fiddletown.

[markj]

The reality is that since you don't know what will happen, or how, you have no idea how good you're going to have to be. The better prepared you are, the more likely you'll be successful.

My Grandma shot a guy was breaking into her house, she killed him without any training, she was familiar with her shotgun and knew how to load it, aim it and fire it. She lived to be 87.

Understand this, I have trained long ago and practise often.

I am against making it mandatory for a person to take advanced training to achieve a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

That stipulation will keep folks from getting a permit, so as I understand it, all of you think folks should have to take classes to get the permit.

Advanced classes like you suggest cost a bit more than the 100.00 most are paying in Nebraska for their training.

Get training after the permit is an option now, it is not madatory. I say leave it that way.

Why put more road blocks in place? or are you just anti gun and trolling here?

[smince]

so as I understand it, all of you think folks should have to take classes to get the permit.

Sorry. In 7 pages I've only seen one or two hold this position

[pax]

... and fiddletown and I weren't among those few.

pax

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by markj

My Grandma shot a guy was breaking into her house, she killed him without any training, she was familiar with her shotgun and knew how to load it, aim it and fire it. ...

That only shows that the exact problem she had at the time could be solved by her with the skills she had at the time. If the exact problem had been different somehow, perhaps things would not have turned out so well.

And her experience doesn't change the simple fact that:

Originally Posted by fiddletown

The reality is that since you don't know what will happen, or how, you have no idea how good you're going to have to be. The better prepared you are, the more likely you'll be successful.

[BlueTrain]

It occurs to me that most people in the armed forces aren't trained well enough with small arms to qualify according to some people's standards. But then, on the other hand, most training, initially at least, is merely familiarization anyway, not advanced training. However, I have also seen it stated that the advanced training is only the basic training but the trainees are paying more attention. Then on top of that formations sometimes establish battle schools if there is a need, because when the need for men is high, they tend to rush the troops through.

That is all gun handling and doesn't even begin to address legal aspects, which the armed forces call "rules of engagement."

[MLeake]

markj and AZAK, you seem to think that "recommending training" = "requiring training" (markj) or else leads to a slippery slope that will ultimately require training (AZAK).

I don't agree with either viewpoint. Instead, I look at it kind of like I look at flying.

A private pilot does not need to get instrument certified. Most private pilots will only fly on days with very good weather, during daylight. Very few will fly at night, even in the best of weather. They are not required to pay the extra money, nor take the extra time, to learn to fly in instrument conditions.

Nor do I think they should be required to do so.

However, as a professional pilot pushing 6000 flight hours, I would very strongly recommend that all pilots who can afford the time, effort, and money should learn to fly solely on the instruments, for those days when the weather doesn't develop as forecast.

Seeing clouds move into the area all around you, or losing reference to the horizon due to sudden formation of haze, or finding oneself running a bit late and then returning to a coastal airport on a starry, moonless night (when it's really hard to tell stars in the sky from the reflections of lights in the water) - those are all situations that will pucker the butt of any pilot who can't swiftly transition to a full instrument scan.

Are those situations particularly likely, for a pilot who doesn't fly far from home, and who only flies on clear, sunny days? No, but they have still been known to happen.

One glaring example of this would be JFK, Junior. He did have some instrument training, but not much, and not enough for the hazy conditions he ran into over the Long Island Sound.

(Which brings up the argument that confidence out of proportion with actual training and ability can, and does, kill.)

So, I don't think IFR certification should be required for private or recreational pilots, but I do think such training would be extremely valuable to those people.

And I don't think training should be required for the exercise of a Constitutional right, but I think training would extremely valuable to most CCW types.