|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 29, 2009, 07:10 PM | #26 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The next time you fly, would you rather have a trained and qualified pilot or someone with no training but with self proclaimed common sense flying the plane? Quote:
Quote:
If, as you've asserted, it can't be trained, it must be something one is born with. But if it's something one is born with, it must be innate or instinctual. If common sense is not innate or instinctual, it must be something that is learned. If it can be learned, it can be trained, or improved by training. Quote:
Quote:
I do agree that a class of only a few hours is insufficient for someone without a solid foundation already. The point is not that training isn't important. The point is that what now tends to pass for training is grossly insufficient and that in many classes the students aren't held accountable with enough rigor for having mastered the material. |
|||||
July 29, 2009, 07:21 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
July 29, 2009, 07:23 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 11, 2009
Location: Washington
Posts: 414
|
To get a permit where I live, I paid the county sheriff $55, passed a background check, and got my CWP in the mail 5 weeks later. Unfortunately, the laxness of this process means that there are very few states who honor my permit with reciprocity, and none which border my state.
I am not opposed to a classroom and written exam, and would attend a practical proficiency exam if it would enable me to carry me in other jurisdictions. I am glad that the COTUS recently did not vote into law a blanket reciprocity law for CCW, as this would be disenfranchising to states such as Texas, which allows residents to obtain a CCW but has common sense requirements to obtaining one. Gun laws are a states' rights issue and the federal gov't has no business telling states who can and cannot carry within their borders. I feel that military service and qualification with a pistol should waiver an individual from state licensing requirements, but this may cause a conflict with my federal/state argument. I am contemplating getting a permit in Florida next time I visit my parents (if legal and possible on a 10 day vacation) as their permits have much better reciprocity than Washington's.
__________________
You can have your churches, I'll keep my guns. Just keep your hands off my paycheck and your eyes out of my backyard. Join the Libertarian Party! http://www.lp.org Semper Fidelis |
July 29, 2009, 07:36 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 11, 2009
Location: Washington
Posts: 414
|
I forgot to mention:
That I believe that open-carry should never require a permit.
A co-worker and I, discussing the recent reciprocity legislation, got into an argument about what exactly "bear" means in 2A. My position is that it means the right to use arms in your defense against violence. He maintains that it means to use a gun for any purpose, at any time, without reservation. This may or may not be relevant to this discussion, and I am certainly not trying to instigate a semantic argument on the topic (I've already had that conversation this week) but I feel that carrying concealed, 24/7, and carrying a gun openly on your hip when you believe that you may need one are very different. I do not carry concealed very often, I got the permit so I could keep a loaded gun in my car when I travel overnight or to 'sketchy' areas. Most of my carrying is done in the great outdoors, and is rather brazen.
__________________
You can have your churches, I'll keep my guns. Just keep your hands off my paycheck and your eyes out of my backyard. Join the Libertarian Party! http://www.lp.org Semper Fidelis |
July 29, 2009, 07:41 PM | #30 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
July 29, 2009, 07:42 PM | #31 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Here's an example of no common sense and being unteachable: I own a pizza shop. It takes about 15 minutes, start of preparation to customers hands, to make chicken wings. If an employee has been taught that it takes 12 minutes to COOK the wings, and they have been taught that they have to sauce the wings and put them in a container, then should it really be necessary to specify that 5 or 6 minutes before those wings are expected does NOT leave enough time to get them done? No, it should not. "Common sense" would tell you that you need more time than that, yet, there are those who can't quite seem to get it. Teach them again.... sit down with them and ask why the wings are late, again.... ask them if they understand that it takes 15 minutes to get wings ready... "Yes, I understand.".... tomorrow, 8 minutes from due, no wings cooking.... Quote:
When I took the hunters safety course, a government required class for hunters, there were 3 people out of a class of 25 or so that scored 100 on the test. 2 people FAILED the test. This is not Linear Algebra. These are questions about which direction is safe to point a gun, AFTER it has been taught mere hours before and AFTER we have gone over the EXACT same test word for word, minutes before. People FAILED! The class was pointless. Anyone who failed that test learned nothing that day. Anyone who passed could have EASILY passed the same test WITHOUT the class. When I took the required class to get a CCW permit in my county, they taught us almost the identical information from the hunters safety course with about 15 minutes added on regarding how we should not really feel the need to carry all the time and the ADA telling us that our area is so safe that we don't need a gun but they support our right to have one, but we don't need to carry it. All this, followed by 20 minutes or so of legal speak, and 10 (yes, 10) rounds fired from a Glock. So, if a "few hours is grossly insufficient" and "what now passes for training is grossly insufficient" (two points on which we agree, BTW) how exactly do you contend that the average man could be reasonably expected to acquire enough training that it will actually matter? I do agree that a very basic course should be required for firearms ownership unless a person can demonstrate competence without the course. People buying guns that have never even touched a gun are dangerous people. Beyond that, I do not believe that there is any reasonable amount of training that could be required. Another thing: How many people in America actually carry a gun? It's small percentage of people, tiny tiny percentage. THOSE people we have to get trained?..... but..... yet, virtually everybody in America drives a car. What is the required training? NOTHING, in most places. The "test" to get a license is 15 minutes long and hasn't changed (in NY state) since 1937. Are cars dangerous? Well, yeah, but guess what? We let people wreck cars, destroy property, demonstrate that they are dangerous and sometimes even KILL other people with a car and then we let them drive again, STILL WITH NO TRAINING! But we're worried about guns....
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; July 30, 2009 at 10:55 AM. Reason: clarity of context and meaning |
||
July 29, 2009, 07:44 PM | #32 |
Member
Join Date: January 4, 2008
Posts: 36
|
fiddletown:
I know that, but I don't think you are arguing that non-permit holders should be required to have training. Right? Your anecdote does not really address the issue we are discussing. I was just pointing that out. I could point to lots of instances where cops, even FBI agents with loads of training, used deadly force incorrectly. Does that prove that training does not do any good? The anecdotes do not really prove anything, other than that people sometimes screw up. Even those with training. Even with Utah's minimal training requirement, which involves no live fire, the permit holder knew that this situation was not one to be resolved with deadly force. Either that, or he was a slow draw.
__________________
The only thing of value which we have at present is our arms and our courage. So long as we keep our arms we fancy that we can make good use of our courage; but if we surrender our arms we shall lose our lives as well. -Theopompus Last edited by green-grizzly; July 29, 2009 at 07:51 PM. Reason: Added second paragraph |
July 29, 2009, 09:01 PM | #33 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
I've been hearing that a lot more lately, along with the argument that shooting well doesn't matter because "most crimes occur within 10/6/2 feet, anyway." I've talked to people who got the permit, bought the gun and are now carrying it. They've never received training. Their entire experience shooting consists of one or two trips to the range. In one case, the person is carrying a gun and has never shot. Maybe I'm getting old, but this isn't the way I grew up. Carrying a firearm is a humbling responsibility. It requires a number of hard decisions. It requires knowing whether or not you're willing to end another human life, how you'll actually react (if at all) when being attacked, and whether you can accept the consequences when you see a broken human being at your feet. You'll have to know when it's appropriate to run, and when you should stand and fight. You'll have to know how to draw the weapon, prioritize threats, ascertain backgrounds, and seek cover. You'll have to do all of this in mere seconds. There are no second chances in this. Part of me is utterly opposed to the idea that training should be required to exert the right to self-defense. But that part of me grew up shooting, around people who understood all of the above. Now we've got folks like I mentioned above, who don't have that. What happens if they misjudge a situation and escalate it to tragedy? It's rare so far, but we have a whole new group of people entering the arena who have had no experience with firearms prior to last week/month/year, and they're living under the dangerous assumption that the simple presence of a gun represents a magic talisman against danger. At the very least, I'd like to see a brief, inexpensive qualification, if nothing else, to make sure the person can safely handle the weapon. Is this an infringement? In theory it is, but as Glenn pointed out, the Courts have not established the 2A as being absolute. There is virtually no jurisprudence establishing a "right to carry." In practice, concealed carry is a privilege, and can thus be regulated. I'm not saying it's right. That's just the way it currently is. The last thing I want is Mr. I Won't Ever Have To Shoot Past Ten Feet getting into a situation where he has to make a somewhat precise shot at twenty feet and hits the wrong person.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 29, 2009, 09:06 PM | #34 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
So called common sense can get people into a whole lot of trouble, especially when dealing with technical matters. I've seen many people take perfectly logical, common sense approaches to legal or tax problems and get themselves into expensive muddles. I've also seen skilled business people successfully apply what they have called "common sense" approaches to complex matters. But when their background is explored, one finds that they have long experience in the field and that what they characterize as mere "common sense" is really judgment forged by that experience. And of course there are people who just can't learn some things. If you're unteachable, maybe you don't get to become a doctor or a lawyer or an airline pilot. And if you're really super unteachable, maybe you don't get to work in a pizzeria. Quote:
If a standard is set, it will be up to those who want to carry a loaded gun in public to take the class and meet the standard. If it poses a financial burden on some people, let's rally local RKBA organizations to raise money to help; and let's rally qualified instructors to donate time. (Neither I, nor the people I teach with, receive any compensation. Class fees just cover expenses, range fees, ammunition we supply, etc.) I also think that any standard should not be set by the usual crowd of political hacks or persons antagonistic to private citizens carrying guns in public. Standards should be set by shooting instructors, trainers and shooting organizations. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
July 29, 2009, 09:10 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 11, 2009
Location: Washington
Posts: 414
|
Quote:
__________________
You can have your churches, I'll keep my guns. Just keep your hands off my paycheck and your eyes out of my backyard. Join the Libertarian Party! http://www.lp.org Semper Fidelis |
|
July 29, 2009, 09:19 PM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
July 29, 2009, 09:38 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 9, 2008
Location: Kalamazoo MI
Posts: 177
|
MI requires you take a course. I didnt like paying the 150 bucks for the class, but I think it was beneficial. I liked hearing about the laws and what not and having the forum to ask questions and know youre getting the right answer.
Its definatly good for someone who hasnt ever had gun experience, but decides to go buy and and want to carry it. |
July 30, 2009, 09:14 AM | #38 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
I do not believe in legislating away peoples freedom when the problem being legislated is more imaginary than real.
It's that simple. There is not and has not been a problem from untrained concealed weapon holders. There is no reason, except fear and paranoia, to believe that there is suddenly going to be a problem. Like I said before, if carrying concealed weapons was a new thing, with no history to base a judgement on, I'd say, "Yeah, this could be dangerous, we need to mandate some training." Fact is, I'd be wrong because it's not a new thing and there isn't a problem and my assumption that there might be a problem would be incorrect.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
July 30, 2009, 09:38 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
An added point - the legal literature (Fiddle can chime in) has attorneys suggesting that training is a useful adjunct in your defense. It enables you to justify an action in an situation that looks ambiguous to a jury - if the point is made that training makes you deliberate (not a commando).
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 30, 2009, 09:49 AM | #40 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
And there's a great deal of anecdotal evidence, much of it demonstrated in posts on this and similar fora, that a large number of people (who may or may not actually have guns, and who have undoubtedly not received training) have claimed to believe that they can lawfully shoot to protect property, shoot someone who attempts to flee, shoot someone who refuses their "command" to "get on the ground," etc. There are people who have claimed to believe the best thing to do in the event of an incident of self defense is to ensure that a person is dead and cannot testify. There are people who who have claimed to believe that it's advisable to shoot through opaque barriers at what they think to be perps they believe to be threatening them. There are people who have claimed to believe it's OK to point a gun at people for a variety of reasons other than immediate defense against imminent danger, and even to shoot people who seem threatening to them in some way. "Might" there be a problem? Well, there's no central database, and you cannot "Google" for the facts. And---should enough issues ultimately manifest themselves, one likely result is the abridgment of our rights. We do know about the couple in Texas who fired at and hit innocent people driving on a nearby levee. We know about the guy in Oregon who killed the man his wife found on the couch. We know about the man who went out and shot the youth who was breaking into cars in New York State and who has been charged with manslaughter. We know about the guys who recently tried to stop someone from making off with someone else's bag and got into a mess. We know about the guy in Texas who has just been charged with murder for shooting a person running from his house. We know about the guy who armed himself and went outside to "investigate" a noise and ended up losing an arm and his livelihood. And I know about someone who just went out with a rifle.... How many others have there been? Do you think these folks would like to have had some training? Do I favor mandatory "training"? I favor results, and if that means mandatory education, so be it. |
|
July 30, 2009, 10:05 AM | #41 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Shall we start listing fatal car accidents that occurred from lack of training? Because something "happens" doesn't make it a problem. There are 300 million people in this country. 4 or 5 or 100 incidents do not make an epidemic that needs fixing. The more people you have the more stupid things will happen, education or no. I wonder how many people a year drown in bathtubs? Maybe we should have mandatory training before taking a bath? How many kids are hurt or killed every year due to the negligence of their parents? Mandatory parenting classes, anyone?
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 30, 2009, 10:19 AM | #42 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
July 30, 2009, 10:50 AM | #43 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Quote:
The question is, does it happen in numbers that are unacceptably disproportionate to the population? The answer is no. Another point, DWI used to be a TRUE epidemic. We instituted all kinds of advertising, terrible legal and monetary consequences, severe jail time and guess what, it went down. Did it go away? No, not even close. Every single person that drives drunk is fully aware of the legal and other consequences of their actions. Does it stop them? Why was the money and time spent on DWI worth it? It was worth it because it was near epidemic proportions. Shootings by otherwise law abiding citizens are most certainly NOT anywhere even remotely approaching "epidemic" levels. The problem is almost entirely isolated to that same sort of small population of people who continue to drive drunk despite the education and consequences. On top of all that, we have the cost of such mandated training. If it would have cost me another $500 to be able to get my handgun permit then I would have almost certainly not done it. If I had needed that kind of money to buy guns of any kind then I probably wouldn't have them at all. That would be a serious breach of my rights. Making the price of a right outside the means of the people is no different than denying the right.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
||
July 30, 2009, 10:51 AM | #44 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And in any case, as mentioned earlier, a lack of state training requirements is a barrier to wide spread reciprocity. Quote:
We need to remember that there are a bunch of people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There are also a lot of people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. Some think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. These people vote. Enough of the fence sitters may be willing to go along with laws letting people carry loaded guns concealed in public as long as the state issues a license and sets some qualifications, but they wouldn't vote for any legislator who supported a law to let folks carry without qualifying. We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they also vote. Quote:
Last edited by Frank Ettin; July 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM. |
|||
July 30, 2009, 10:59 AM | #45 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|||
July 30, 2009, 11:12 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 298
|
Certainly demonstrating competence and possessing knowledge of the legalities of using deadly force is not too much to ask of someone who wishes to carry a deadly weapon in public.
We require motorists to demonstrate the ability to control an automobile before they're licensed to drive solo. As I recall, they also have to know the rules of the road. Ex-military or ex-LEO should be considered competent based on their experience. and training. There are a lot of folks I've seen who give me pause when I consider letting them out in public at all, to say nothing of their being in command of a 2000 pound vehicle or a pistol. For my own well-being and that of my loved ones, I'd like to know that they have at least heard a few basic firearm safety rules, and that they know what the long pedal does. |
July 30, 2009, 11:20 AM | #47 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Every now and then someone starts publicizing stats on CCW-related crimes, sometimes even adding in the failure of permit holders to pay child support timely. I agree with you--they do not make a compelling argument for additional restriction by any stretch--but that's just not the political reality. |
|
July 30, 2009, 11:25 AM | #48 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
i.e.- Should there be training requirements? No. Will there eventually be enough pressure that there will be requirements? Probably Yes.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 30, 2009, 11:43 AM | #49 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For practical purposes, whether something is a cause for concern or whether the frequency of negative events is disproportional to the population will be a political decision made by that population. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
July 30, 2009, 11:50 AM | #50 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|