It Does No Good To Have A Permit and NOT Carry

[J.G. Terry]

These government requirements are not in place now or probably in the future. It's not a matter of morality but efficacy. How can I defend myself not being able to hit the bull in the butt? Is the possibility of my injuring somebody else there?

Requirements? It's another on of those things without means of enforcement becomes nothing more than good advice. This is all nuts. I have the right to defend myself and make interventions on shootings but there is no criteria for competence anywhere. Standing in front of a mirror doing quick draw in not training.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

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.

That mostly matches my experience with an NRA Basic Pistol course, except the round count. For our class it was probably closer to half of that. While I get the distinction between something an NRA certified instructor chooses to do versus what the official course requires, in the end what matters is what was actually done. No one in the course knew that 75 rounds was a requirement, other than maybe the instructor. We couldn't hold him accountable for lack of knowledge.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't like to say this, but it needs to be said: You really have no idea what you're talking about, and you are apparently unwilling to do even the basic amount of research necessary to verify or refute what you are putting forth as "facts" or "information.

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

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.

First, it was "Sutherland," not "Southerland." The home grown hero did not "go home to retrieve his rifle." He WAS at home. It wasn't his church, and he lived across the street. The shooter did eventually die of a self-inflicted wound, but the neighbor with the rifle put at least two bullets into the shooter and caused him to break off his campaign.

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

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.

There is absolutely no question who took out the shooter at the New Life Church -- it was Jeanne Assam, the female volunteer security team member. And so what if she was a former policewoman? At the time of the incident, she was a private citizen with a carry permit and a personally-owned firearm. That's exactly what you asked for:

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

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

So I gave you an example, and since it didn't fit your agenda now you have (again) tried to move the goalposts by discounting her because she had been a police officer several years prior to the incident. She was a permit carrier -- that's what you asked for an example of. Period. There is nothing at all "fuzzy" about this example.

To be honest, I also don't think there's anything "fuzzy" about the Trolley Square incident, either. The off-duty officer who initially engaged the shooter (thereby stopping the attack) was not in uniform, and he only had his personal firearm. That was a Kimber compact 1911 with one 6-round magazine. Just what we might expect an average "permit carrier" to be armed with (except a typical "permit carrier" would more likely have a Glock with two or three times as much ammunition capacity). The fact that he had a patrol uniform hanging in his closet at home is pretty much irrelevant. He was a guy shopping with his wife, he was armed with a personally-owned firearm, and he stopped the shooting. He didn't kill the shooter, but that's not what you asked. He stopped the shooting.

And the hero of Sutherland Springs also stopped the shooter. Whether he personally fired the shot that killed the shooter doesn't matter -- he engaged the shooter and stopped the shooting.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

These government requirements are not in place now or probably in the future. It not a matter of morality but efficacy. How can I defend myself not being able to hit the bull in the butt? Is the possibility of my injuring somebody else there?

Requirements? It's another on of those things without means of enforcement becomes nothing more than good advice. This is all nuts. I have the right to defend myself and make interventions on shootings but there is no criteria for competence anywhere. Standing in front of a mirror doing quick draw in not training.

Basic marksmanship is not defending yourself from an attacker. You keep bringing up a requirement in terms of a bullseye score, which I imagine has to do with the fact that you yourself do bullseye pistol shooting. I have zero doubt that there are people out there that can put those 5 shots in the 9 ring at 5 yds that you mentioned earlier and yet don't know the difference between cover and concealment, haven't practiced drawing from a holster, don't know firearm retention techniques, etc. That doesn't even get into the idea that bullseye shooting on a square range isn't remotely close to an actual shooting.

It's been my experience that when someone discusses a training requirement they do so based off of their own experience and knowledge, often blissfully unaware of where they themselves are deficient and yet confident that they themselves are fine. Unknown unknowns as it were. I have hundreds of hours of training now. Even I struggle to define minimum standards that have any real practical meaning if my time is limited to a few hours. But people have a right to defend themselves and my opinion doesn't deprive them of that right, nor is my opinion the only one that matters.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[MTT TL]

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."

Skip ahead to the part where it is relevant to requiring training? Because the police were trained. There is no defense against stupid. Kind of like this thread.

First of all, MOST MASS/ACTIVE SHOOTERS DO NOT KILL THEMSELVES WHEN CONFRONTED BY SOMEONE WITH A GUN.

My bad, according to your numbers 40% kill themselves when confronted by someone with a gun. I am thinking it is more than that. I'll pretend I am J.G. and say that I think the numbers are higher without providing any evidence of that.

Whether or not Stephen Willeford had a carry permit is irrelevant for several reasons. blah, blah blah.

Your reasons are invalid. The truth is he had a permit and confronted a shooter with a gun and the shooter ended up dying. End of story. He could have used an M1 Tank with a an M2 machine gun and it wouldn't changed those facts.

Besides which I gave five other examples. JG says they are fuzzy because he is not sure if they had a permit or not. Hint - Pretending you can't read is no excuse. If they did not have permits I would not have posted them. Unless you are not pretending.

We are assuming that current or police person are more proficient that the average permit holder. This may be an unjustified leap.

Ah, so everything you said about needing more training is thrown out the window now. Because there is no CHL requirement in any state that requires more training than the minimum police training.

Thanks for making my point.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

That mostly matches my experience with an NRA Basic Pistol course, except the round count. For our class it was probably closer to half of that.

Either your instructor was using an out-of-date course guide, or it wasn't really the NRA Basic Pistol class (and if he wasn't using the current course guide, technically it wasn't the NRA Basic Pistol class). From the most recent course guide I have, which I believe is current:

Before progressing to live fire, each student is required to demonstrate safe gun handling by dry firing at the range, from both a benchrest position and a standing isosceles position. If the student doesn't flub that, each student then moves on to live fire, which consists of, at a MINIMUM:

• Load and fire one round at a time at a blank target from the benchrest position, for 10 rounds. Distance=15 feet.
• Load and fire 5 rounds at a blank target from the benchrest position. Distance=15 feet. Repeat as many times as necessary until three 4-inch groups have been achieved.
• Load and fire one round at a time at a blank target from the isosceles position for 5 rounds. Distance=15 feet.
• Load and fire 5 rounds at a blank target from the isosceles position. Distance=15 feet. Repeat as many times as necessary until three 4-inch groups have been achieved.
• Level 1 qualification target (Red): 5 shots at each of four red circles, distance 10 feet. (20 rounds total)
• Level 2 qualification target (White): 5 shots at each of four white circles, distance 15 feet. (20 rounds total)
• Level 3 qualification target (Blue): 5 shots at each of four blue circles, distance 20 feet. (20 rounds total)

Adding all that up, the absolute minimum round count is 105 rounds. If the Level 2 and Level 3 targets are omitted, the absolute minimum round count is 65 rounds.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Either your instructor was using an out-of-date course guide, or it wasn't really the NRA Basic Pistol class. Fro the most recent course guide I have, which I believe is current:

Before progressing to live fire, each student is required to demonstrate safe gun handling by dry firing at the range, from both a benchrest position and a standing isosceles position. If the student doesn't flub that, each student then moves on to live fire, which consists of, at a MINIMUM:

• Load and fire one round at a time at a blank target from the benchrest position, for 10 rounds. Distance=15 feet.
• Load and fire 5 rounds at a blank target from the benchrest position. Distance=15 feet. Repeat as many times as necessary until three 4-inch groups have been achieved.
• Load and fire one round at a time at a blank target from the isosceles position for 5 rounds. Distance=15 feet.
• Load and fire 5 rounds at a blank target from the isosceles position. Distance=15 feet. Repeat as many times as necessary until three 4-inch groups have been achieved.
• Level 1 qualification target (Red): 5 shots at each of four red circles, distance 10 feet. (20 rounds total)
• Level 2 qualification target (White): 5 shots at each of four white circles, distance 15 feet. (20 rounds total)
• Level 3 qualification target (Blue): 5 shots at each of four blue circles, distance 20 feet. (20 rounds total)

Adding all that up, the absolute minimum round count is 105 rounds. If the Level 2 and Level 3 targets are omitted, the absolute minimum round count is 65 rounds.

It was marketed as such and I got the certificate and NRA package that says it was. That's my point in the rest of that post you chose not to quote. What's the punishment for not following the course exactly? Who polices this?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

It was marketed as such and I got the certificate and NRA package that says it was. That's my point. What's the punishment for not following the course exactly? Who polices this?

Well, that's the elephant in the room. The NRA is supposed to police this ... but they don't. They tell instructors right in the package that if they don't follow the course guide, they cannot advertise or promote the class as an NRA class. But they have no mechanism for enforcing it. It's an honor system, and in today's world I fear that's an outmoded concept.

In states that require "the" NRA Basic Pistol class (like my state), the state agency responsible for issuing the permits is also responsible for policing it. And in my state they do at least a bit of monitoring -- in the past three years I have heard of at least two instructors who were shut down because they weren't teaching the full course, and their students' permits were revoked.

[J.G. Terry]

AB&Friends go research #122. Report that I saw did say the he returned to the house to retrieve rifle and was fumbling with the magazine. This may be in error. The report continued that Stephen Willeford had few rounds of ammo. You guys need to get both paddles in the water.

When I took my test my score was 100 out of 100 by instructors score. All my rounds went through the 10 ring save two. Time has taken it's toll. Did the nearly the same thing basically with a G21 not long ago. Incidentally, our test was for fifty rounds.

I understand this does not quality me to do armed interventions. I consider my skill level to be average. No Rambo here. I qualified with a 45 Colt caliber Vaquero. Remember I'm doing five rounds in 10 seconds in rapid fire with a Government model. I'm not trained for armed interventions. That calendar is a killer on the shooting skills. Constant practice is absolutely necessary.

[stinkeypete]

It’s my understanding that in my state all that is required for a cc permit is paying the fees, fogging a mirror for a few classroom hours, then hitting the broad side of a barn with whatever you brought, like a .22 target pistol.

As I can hit dinner plates at 50 yards, it seems to me the important thing is knowing when to NOT shoot, not how good I am at shooting.

My contribution is that we accept the NFA and restrictions on things like bazookas, artillery and machine guns.

I don’t care about “common use”... high capacity magazine semi auto rifles have evolved well past the abuses that the NFA was erected to correct. Something should be done. More guns has not lowered the fatalities in schools and other public places.

If one makes arguments that the 2a grants unfettered rights to all military arms, then... Okay. I want my rpg and howitzer. Nothing says “this home is defended” like an rpg. See? Silliness. There must be sensible boundaries.

Saying that it’s a mental illness problem is like saying drunk driving is a mental illness problem. Sure it is, but there is no test to determine who won’t commit a crime... only the result that those who did the crime must therefore be mentally ill.

It’s a complex issue yet reducing regulations has resulted in increased mass murders.

I could be biased as nothing I own has a capacity past 10 rounds and have no need for that, except maybe in a small game tube fed rifle.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Well, that's the elephant in the room. The NRA is supposed to police this ... but they don't. They tell instructors right in the package that if they don't follow the course guide, they cannot advertise or promote the class as an NRA class. But they have no mechanism for enforcing it. It's an honor syste, and in today's world I fear that's an outmoded concept.



In states that require "the" NRA Basic Pistol class (like my state), the state agency responsible for issuing the permits is also responsible for policing it. And in my state they do at least a bit of monitoring -- in the past three years I have heard of at least two instructors who were shut down because they weren't teaching the full course, and their students' permits were revoked.

Good to know, thank you for the information.

My state doesn't require the course, or any course for that matter. So maybe the reality was the instructor knew we weren't going to get checked and figured he was fine (and he was a nice enough guy so I don't want to paint him in a bad light). I just wanted additional instruction for myself and figured that was a good place to start. While I thought the classroom section was pretty good, the live fire was a bit of a letdown. People at least got some experience.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

It’s my understanding that in my state all that is required for a cc permit is paying the fees, fogging a mirror for a few classroom hours, then hitting the broad side of a barn with whatever you brought, like a .22 target pistol.



As I can hit dinner plates at 50 yards, it seems to me the important thing is knowing when to NOT shoot, not how good I am at shooting.



My contribution is that we accept the NFA and restrictions on things like bazookas, artillery and machine guns.



I don’t care about “common use”... high capacity magazine semi auto rifles have evolved well past the abuses that the NFA was erected to correct. Something should be done. More guns has not lowered the fatalities in schools and other public places.



If one makes arguments that the 2a grants unfettered rights to all military arms, then... Okay. I want my rpg and howitzer. Nothing says “this home is defended” like an rpg. See? Silliness. There must be sensible boundaries.



Saying that it’s a mental illness problem is like saying drunk driving is a mental illness problem. Sure it is, but there is no test to determine who won’t commit a crime... only the result that those who did the crime must therefore be mentally ill.



It’s a complex issue yet reducing regulations has resulted in increased mass murders.



I could be biased as nothing I own has a capacity past 10 rounds and have no need for that, except maybe in a small game tube fed rifle.

I appreciate you saying the last part.

It's been my experience that many shooters are primarily concerned about what they do the most with firearms. It's human nature. However, it often leads to a division between shooters. I've seen it with people, I've seen it with shooting clubs, I've seen it with online arguments like here. If a person doesn't use or want a thing they don't care if it's restricted. If they do, then they do care. If someone is willing to make an honest effort to understand why someone might care, I'm of the opinion he or she can do whatever he or she wants.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by stinkypete

If one makes arguments that the 2a grants unfettered rights to all military arms,...

What mainstream political figure or member of the judiciary argues that?

Originally Posted by stinkypete

There must be sensible boundaries.

May we have sensible boundaries for speech and suffrage as well?

Originally Posted by stinkypete

It’s a complex issue yet reducing regulations has resulted in increased mass murders.

What specific regulations have you determined to have been reduced and that increased mass murders?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tunnelrat

It's been my experience that many shooters are primarily concerned about what they do the most with firearms. It's human nature. However, it often leads to a division between shooters. I've seen it with people, I've seen it with shooting clubs, I've seen it with online arguments like here. If a person doesn't use or want a thing they don't care if it's restricted. If they do, then they do care.

Indeed. It is a facet of human nature, but not a good facet. The camoed lad with a bumpfire stock filling the berm with lead is exercising the same right as the bullseye shooter and the trap shooter.

One never hears a free speech advocate argue that he doesn't read Harry Potter books because they are trash, and therefore subject to a state ban. Yet, people who shoot seem too often to be certain that high power rifle is what the right is about, but people with pistols are incipient muggers, or shooting clay pidgeons is good family fun, but IDPA are wannabe POs itching to kill. The follow up is I just shot 24/25 at the club, but even I think we need to do something about [insert hysteria de jour].

If one understands that his right to his 1911, AR or trap gun is a limit on government authority (just as the right to publish a good book is the same as the right to publish a boring one), then the idea of supporting additional authority to take the other fellow's items will seem appropriately absurd.

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

No less than Warren Burger held the Heller was a creature of the NRA.

That would have required a seance. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger retired in 1986 and died in 1995. It wasn't until 2002 that the CATO institute (not the NRA) initiated the search for a 2nd Amendment case plaintiff that resulted in identifying Heller. The NRA supported the case, of course, but Heller was not decided until 2008, 13 years after Warren Berger went to his reward.

So I don't know where you are getting your information, but if the rest of it is as carefully researched as that comment was, it explains a lot and is likely to seem off base to most anyone but a spiritualist.

[J.G. Terry]

This is from an 1991 interview on the NPR website. I include an early a comment. The balance needs to be read. The piece was from a 3/15/2018. The time line was my error as Unclenick noted.


...Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative, said the idea that there was an individual right to bear arms was "a fraud." If he were writing the Bill of Rights now, he said in 1991, "There wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment."

He declared on PBS that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."...


I just want those interested in maintaining firearm ownership that the fraud theme is not new and will be weaponized. You gotta know what's coming. Google "Warren Burger on Heller". I do not want to take anything out of context. Read it for yourself.

[TunnelRat]

Well unfortunately for him he was dead when the case came to the court. The court then decided differently. Why does the opinion of one dead Supreme Court Justice have more say than another dead Supreme Court Justice? If the argument is the other side will use it as an example, okay, fine. Then we can point to the fact that the standing court at the time agreed differently.

To be honest with you, it's starting to seem like you're bringing up these points more because you believe them yourself than you want us to be "ready" (which is an odd claim as a number of errors in your posts have been pointed out and you seem less "ready" than most yourself, despite your claims that we all need to do our "homework"). If that's what you believe personally that's your right, I just feel there's a level of subterfuge here that's unneeded.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[J.G. Terry]

TunnelRat have you considered getting help. Sarcasm is a sign of extreme anger related to frustration. The forensic autopsies on the mass shooters have found this to be a common attribute there. Do you have impulse control issues? If so you are at risk of going off the deep end with dire results. However there are powerful medications for your problems. Them, with a powerful laxative will make your life and the life of others around you livable. Those others who do not have an ignore button would be the beneficiary. Take care and be safe. Please note my signature was in place before I ran afoul of you. Take care and be safe.

[TunnelRat]

When your only response is to break out personal insults, you've lost.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JG Terry

...Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative, said the idea that there was an individual right to bear arms was "a fraud." If he were writing the Bill of Rights now, he said in 1991, "There wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment."

In terms of judicial philosophy Warren Burger's term wasn't conservative, but a continuation of the direction set by Earl Warren. You describe him as a conservative, then accurately quote him in retirement about elimination of the entire 2d Am. That should be a fairly strong clue about his commitment to conserving the meaning of the terms of the COTUS.

[J.G. Terry]

Z: That was from the piece from the NPR. The ellipsis and quotes indicated an insertion from another source. The information was from the NPR and the bit of the interview with Warren Burger. I was owning a error in dates plus some clarification. Everybody was encouraged to view the piece and make up there own minds. My other point is the this line of thinking will surface again in this national debate. I say again those words are from the text of the NPR presentation.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JG Terry

The information was from the NPR and the bit of the interview with Warren Burger. I was owning a error in dates plus some clarification.

And in doing so you introduced a more substantial error, perhaps because you were not familiar with Burger or NPR. I'm not here to tell you how to post, but I will observe a second time that stopping by Google for someone else's prefabricated response isn't working well for you.

Responding to Tunnel Rat with a post about anxiety and laxatives isn't helping you.

[J.G. Terry]

You guy are too thin skinned. I don't see much help lately. I'd suggest you read the suggested articles. You may not agree that's fine. The point was these things exist. The post to tunnel rat was to be helpful. Out of respect for him he now is on my ignore list.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

TunnelRat have you considered getting help. Sarcasm is a sign of extreme anger related to frustration. The forensic autopsies on the mass shooters have found this to be a common attribute there.

Forensic autopsies involve a medical/biological examination of a corpse to determine the cause or causes of death. In the case of a person who dies of multiple gunshot wounds, a forensic autopsy will document the number and location of the wounds, the direction(s) and length(s) of the wound channel(s); describe any bullets recovered from within the body and attempt to identify them as to caliber and type; describe any internal damage to bones and/or organs; and, finally, in the case of multiple wounds attempt to assess which wound was most likely to have been the primary cause of death.

A forensic autopsy does not delve into the state of mind of the deceased, whether or not the deceased was sarcastic, whether or not the deceased had anger issues, or whether or not the deceased had problems with impulse control. Such questions are, of course, investigated in cases of mass shootings, but those questions are not answered by the autopsy.

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't want to see this discussion shut down, so I will advise ALL participants to review TFL rule number 3, and be guided accordingly in your posts. This applies to some participants more than to others; "if the shoe fits, wear it."

3. No spamming, trolling, flaming, invective or other personal attacks, be they acrimonious or veiled in humor. If you take issue with a Member's position, by all means speak your mind. If you have a problem with a Member's religion, national origin, sex, politics, associations, or personal hygiene, then take it to email.