Thoughts on Training Requirements for concealed carry

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

The world is full of trained people who do stupid things every day too. Bus, ferry and train drivers sending text messages, police officers shooting themselves with their own gun, airline pilots with hundreds, even thousands, of hours training crashing planes by reacting wrongly....

Trained people mess up. Sometimes by not acting as they've been trained. And sometimes because the training needs to be improved or because they needed more. But trained people overall do difficult things better than people who have no training to do those things.

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?

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

So far as education, well, some of the people with the LEAST common sense that I have ever experienced have had letters after their names....

But I still want my doctor, my lawyer and my accountant to have the education, the letters after their names and the licenses.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

Instinct is not synonymous with common sense. It is, in fact, quite often the opposite.

Really? Then where does common sense come from?

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.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

You confuse people who ARE discussing these things with people who are aware enough to BE discussing these things.

A distinction without a difference. Many of the participants in those discussions have no idea what they are talking about.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

What sort of "basic training"? I've seen people who have taken many hours of training that they WANTED to take, which they PAID to take and which did them no good whatsoever. How much good is 1 or 2 or even 3 "required" courses constituting at most a few hours going to do?

I don't know what you've seen and I'm not responsible for what you've seen. I do know that the people who take the 10 hour Basic Handgun class that I and several colleagues teach leave far better able to manage a handgun than they were when they came in.

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.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by green-grizzly

I don't know about the other incidents you mention, but the shooter in this case did not have a permit....

True enough, but notice that I didn't say he had a permit. I referred to "...lapses of judgment by private citizens with guns..."(emphasis added)

[Ian0351]

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.

[Ian0351]

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.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Ian0351

...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 get a Florida permit by mail. You would need to supply proof of training (that you've already had or that you take before you apply) that satisfies the Florida proficiency requirement. See http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html .

[Brian Pfleuger]

Really? Then where does common sense come from?

Common sense may INCLUDE instinct, it is NOT synonymous with instinct and it may be the OPPOSITE of instinct.

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....

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.

How much training do you think the average person is going to take "on demand"?

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....

[green-grizzly]

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.

[Tom Servo]

The vast majority of encounters are resolved with mere brandishing.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, but what if yours isn't?

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.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

...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....

I wouldn't say that's about a lack of common sense or, necessarily, being unteachable. It sounds like you're talking about a fairly lazy, unmotivated person without any great interest in excelling at his job. Why? Who knows. Maybe he's just not too bright. Or maybe he's gotten away with slacking off so long, he has no interest in bothering to do things right. Maybe he needs some motivation, like knowing he's going to get fired unless he does these sorts of things correctly. Or maybe he's brighter than we think, and he has you trained to accept sub-par performance.

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.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

...How much training do you think the average person is going to take "on demand"?...

I don't know, but that's not really the question. How skillful and knowledgeable should people who want to carry a loaded gun in public be? I'm not sure I have an answer to that either; but it's something more than a few hours of class work and hitting a big target close in with 10 rounds, and less than expected of a member of a SWAT team. And it's also closer to the former than the latter.

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.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

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.

Yes I agree. Those people need to be trained.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

...virtually everybody in America drives a car. What is the required training? NOTHING, in most places...

I also think we need to set much higher standards for the issuance of drivers licenses.

Originally Posted by green-grizzly

...I could point to lots of instances where cops, even FBI agents with loads of training, used deadly force incorrectly....

And all that means is that training isn't perfect. But how would things have worked out without their training. Mistakes by trained people are usually analyzed for the purposes of finding ways to improve training, not to justify discarding training.

[Ian0351]

Maybe he's just not too bright. Or maybe he's gotten away with
slacking off so long, he has no interest in bothering to do things right.

Where I live this guy can spend <$250 and have a Hi-Point, a CWP and 50 rounds of .45ACP... does that sound safe to you?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Ian0351

Where I live this guy can spend <$250 and have a Hi-Point, a CWP and 50 rounds of .45ACP... does that sound safe to you?

It doesn't to me.

[Tophe]

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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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).

[OldMarksman]

Fact is, I'd be wrong [in saying "this could be dangerous, we need to mandate some training"] 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.

Technically true that it isn't a "new" thing, but in practice, it is rather new in most states. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of permit holders who have started carrying in the last few years. I'm one of them.

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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Do you think these folks would like to have had some training?

Apparently not. It's available and they didn't take it.



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?

[OldMarksman]

Shall we start listing fatal car accidents that occurred from lack of training?

We do have mandatory examinations for drivers, and we have licenses. Is that what we need for CCW? Some people think so.

Because something "happens" doesn't make it a problem.

???

The more people you have the more stupid things will happen, education or no.

True, but that's not a valid argument against education.

I wonder how many people a year drown in bathtubs? Maybe we should have mandatory training before taking a bath?

They do not endanger me and their misdeeds do not threaten my rights.

How many kids are hurt or killed every year due to the negligence of their parents? Mandatory parenting classes, anyone?

Shhhh! I'll bet the idea is in th works.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Quote:
Because something "happens" doesn't make it a problem.
???

If you have an island with 50 people and you have 10 murders in a year then you have a problem. If you have 300 million people and you have 10 or 20 or 50 incidents a year then you do NOT have a problem. The more people you have the more incidents you will have, in direct proportion. Unless the probability of an incident increases disproportionately to the population then there is no serious cause for concern.

True, but that's not a valid argument against education.

Sometimes it is. There have been any number of things that have always happened throughout our entire history, not the USA, mankind. Does anyone seriously believe that there weren't unjustified and illegal killings when everybody carried swords? Now we carry guns and stupid people continue to do stupid things.

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.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

...There are 300 million people in this country. 4 or 5 or 100 incidents do not make an epidemic that needs fixing....

Actually, politically it can. We've seen examples of one or two "bad event" generating awful legislation, especially when it involves guns in states in which a significant portion of the population is not "gun savvy."

And in any case, as mentioned earlier, a lack of state training requirements is a barrier to wide spread reciprocity.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

...And---should enough issues ultimately manifest themselves, one likely result is the abridgment of our rights....

In many states we're dealing with a significant portion of the voting public that is fundamentally uncomfortable with guns. Do ambitious politicians, playing to that portion of the electorate, blow incidents out of proportion and feeds the fires of fear to fuel their political ambitions. Of course they do. Just look at New York.

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.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

...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)...

That is the case, on many levels. Among other things, it can help establish you as someone who has taken the time and trouble to know what you are doing. It can also help you establish a reasonable basis for your actions.

[Brian Pfleuger]

And in any case, as mentioned earlier, a lack of state training requirements is a barrier to wide spread reciprocity.

On the flip side, the unreasonable requirements of state with mandatory training is a barrier to reciprocity.

Actually, politically it can.

Unfortunately, you're certainly correct about that. However, what "is" does not equal what "should be".

Originally Posted by peetzakilla
...And---should enough issues ultimately manifest themselves, one likely result is the abridgment of our rights....

That wasn't the Peetzakilla who said that.... too many fancy words.

[bob.a]

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.

[OldMarksman]

There are 300 million people in this country. 4 or 5 or 100 incidents do not make an epidemic that needs fixing....

Fiddletown adressed that, but let me add--we had one high profile political murder in late 1963, one shooting spree in Texas in 1966, and two high profile assassinations in the summer of 1968--not one of which would have been prevented by gun laws. Four or five or one hundred? That's four in the course of four and a half years. The result was the enactment of a far-reaching and onerous Federal law that significantly restricted the importation, sale, transfer, and ownership of firearms and ammunition in this country.

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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

I know it's not political reality. Part of our disconnect here might be that I'm talking about what SHOULD BE not what IS.

i.e.- Should there be training requirements? No.
Will there eventually be enough pressure that there will be requirements? Probably Yes.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

On the flip side, the unreasonable requirements of state with mandatory training is a barrier to reciprocity.

You may wish to see it that way, but states with training requirements aren't going to abandon them.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

...what "is" does not equal what "should be".

What "should be" is immaterial unless it's politically achievable, and you've agreed that it is not. We need to deal with reality, not fantasy.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

That wasn't the Peetzakilla who said that....

Sorry. I edit my post.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

...If you have 300 million people and you have 10 or 20 or 50 incidents a year then you do NOT have a problem. ...Unless the probability of an incident increases disproportionately to the population then there is no serious cause for concern....

Really? Who appointed you to make that decision for the entire population? In some places, the body politic has a very low threshold for disproportionality, especially where guns are concerned.

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.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

...Does anyone seriously believe that there weren't unjustified and illegal killings when everybody carried swords? Now we carry guns and stupid people continue to do stupid things....

Perhaps, but in any case the public tolerance for such stupid things seems to have decreased considerably.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

...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?...

Well good luck finding political support to ease the DWI laws. Good luck.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

On top of all that, we have the cost of such mandated training...

Then let's all pull together and rally the RKBA organizations and instructors to help ease the cost for people who legitimately can't afford it. As it is, I and the people I teach with, receive no compensation. Our class fees are set to just cover our expenses -- range fees, materials, ammunition we supply, etc.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

...Will there eventually be enough pressure that there will be requirements? Probably Yes.

And recognizing that, it's important that we be a part of the process and maneuver ourselves into a position to influence what the requirements and standards will be. If we get ourselves sidetracked into an alternate universe, we'll find standards imposed on us by political hacks fundamentally antagonistic to private citizens carrying guns in public.