The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 10, 2007, 04:01 PM   #51
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
Quote:
Really, there is mandatory training to get a driver's license for a teen and I see plenty of putz's behind the wheel.
Sure and there are trained putzes with guns too...there are always going to be putzes...

But on the other hand, if we are all the "militia" as is frequently harped on...then shouldnt we ALL get training, say on the High School Level?

Like Driver Ed and how to put on a condom? Doesnt Gun training ADVANCE gun ownership?

WildarentweallinfavorofeddieeagleAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 04:17 PM   #52
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
Quote:
But on the other hand, if we are all the "militia" as is frequently harped on...then shouldnt we ALL get training, say on the High School Level?
I'll never be for mandatory training as a requirement for CCW, but firearms safety training for everyone in public school is something I could support. That is of course, if the safety training was more than, "Guns are evil... do your parents own any? Let us know, so we can protect you from them..."
ATW525 is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 04:55 PM   #53
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
Quote:
l never be for mandatory training as a requirement for CCW,
leaving any LEGAL objections out....why?

To all of you...why? Put aside ANY objections on constituional grounds!


WildbackontrackAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 05:08 PM   #54
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
Quote:
leaving any LEGAL objections out....why?
There's no mandatory training here and it's a non-issue. Why regulate what doesn't need to be regulated? What's the point?
ATW525 is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 05:15 PM   #55
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
Quote:
Why regulate what doesn't need to be regulated? What's the point?
So you are perfectly happy with untrained folks willy nilly CCWing.?

You know, up here, someone who has never shot a gun can CCW...any ninja can come in, buy a gun, get a lesson on how to load it, and walk out and carry it concealed for self defense...

That acceptable in a modern society?

WildifsowhyAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 05:46 PM   #56
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Sure and there are trained putzes with guns too...there are always going to be putzes...

But on the other hand, if we are all the "militia" as is frequently harped on...then shouldnt we ALL get training, say on the High School Level?

Like Driver Ed and how to put on a condom? Doesnt Gun training ADVANCE gun ownership?

WA, you seem to be missing the point that I'm not against training, I'm against the government mandating and regulating training.
Outside of the military/LEO can you give one example of a quality training program the federal government operates? Even the military and federal LEO leaves a lot to be desired. Many times it's antiquated.




Quote:
So you are perfectly happy with untrained folks willy nilly CCWing.?
Yes

Quote:
You know, up here, someone who has never shot a gun can CCW...any ninja can come in, buy a gun, get a lesson on how to load it, and walk out and carry it concealed for self defense...
The problem is?
Just like gun control, if the government regulates it there will always be those folks who will continue to do as they wish. There are laws regulating CCW now, but there are still arrests everyday for illegally carrying a concealed weapon.

Quote:
That acceptable in a modern society?
Absolutely
Since we are comparing it to driving.
Let's compare costs. A driver's license here costs $22 for the initial and $12 for renewal driver's education is provided in school and after having two kids go through the program I can say without a doubt it's the most worthless part of their education they received. They both received an A in the class and neither had a clue about how to actually drive.
A CCW permit is $117 for the initial and $67 for renewal, most of the CCW training courses in this area cost between $75-$100 and there is no firing requirement.
Do you think it's going to cost less and be a better program if the federal govt gets involved and starts mandating a training syllabus? Their history with managing programs isn't exactly stellar IMO.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 06:09 PM   #57
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
See what you are confusing is the issue of '"what" trainig...vis a vis just training.

What if the government says...you must get training, here are your options (see statute cited above)

Quote:
The problem is?
You dont see any?

WildahmshawkedAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 06:23 PM   #58
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
See what you are confusing is the issue of '"what" trainig...vis a vis just training.

What if the government says...you must get training, here are your options (see statute cited above)
I still oppose it. The cited requirements are very similar nearly identical to those in FL.
You can't legislate morality and common sense, but you can prosecute negligence and criminal behavior. I view getting training for myself as a moral obligation to safe ownership and use.

Quote:
You dont see any?
I see a host of potential civil and criminal liability issues. The justice system should handle those issues, the legislative system should not be in the business of acting as the nanny for those without the moral fortitude and common sense to understand that they should get training before engaging in any inherently dangerous and potentially deadly endeavor.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 06:47 PM   #59
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
Quote:
the legislative system should not be in the business of acting as the nanny for those without the moral fortitude and common sense to understand that they should get training before engaging in any inherently dangerous and potentially deadly endeavor.
What about protection for the innocent folks who are confronted daily with those folks armed with a dangerous weapon who " lack the moral fortitude and common sense" we all agree are the hallmarks of the responsible gun owner.

There be the horns of the dilemma you have hoisted your flagpole on (nice mixed metaphors, huh)....you admit that UNTRAINED folks lack moral fortitude and "common sense", but have no problems with letting those folks willy nilly carry a deadly weapon, when they are primae facie unqualified to.

WildandyourresponseisAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 06:52 PM   #60
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
If we had a uniform CCW course with standards that there would be no problem with reciprocity for most of the states.

We require our law enforcment officer to do the same. Whats the problem with a citizen doing the same?

The course in Texas teaches you the laws and you have to complete a hands on qualification test.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 06:54 PM   #61
Avenger11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 15, 2007
Posts: 311
Wa,
It's not acceptable to me nor, I suspect, the majority of rational thinkers on this forum. I'm totally in favor of mandatory training for CCW. The CC course in Texas focuses primarily on the laws governing CC. In other words, it prepares you to pass the written test. There is very little on firearm safety, and zip on situational awareness etc. Unfortunately, the whole CCW process has become a perfunctory, profit centered exercise for most licensed instructors.
I would take this discussion a step further and suggest that in addition to mandatory training, that firearm ownership itself require a level of intelligence testing.
For example, went to the local gun shop today. There was a guy, with his wife and two year old son. The guy just completed a legal purchase of a Kel- Tec 380. Before, he finished paying, he handed it to his wife who swept the room with it, while dry firing several times! Then the mother handed it to the 3 YEAR OLD SON. Then like his "Mother", he swept the room, dry firing the whole time. To the shop owners credit, he immediately retreived the gun, and refused to complete the transaction.
How do we keep guns out of the hands of idiots, without mandatory training and minimum IQ requirements?
Avenger11 is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 07:00 PM   #62
goalie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: Minnetonka, MN
Posts: 120
You asked "Why?" so here are my reasons why:

1. If you need a permission slip, it's a privilege, not a right. I know you don't want to deal with the constitution, but, in reality, all said document does is to RECOGNIZE rights that already exist. Do you believe we have a right to own a firearm, or, in your mind, is it a privilege?

2. Because I think freedom is a good thing. I also fully understand that freedom and safety are often at odds with each other. That said, any asshat that is going to get a gun and carry it with no training, then go do something dangerous, stupid, or both, is likely going to do it anyhow whether or not your proposed mandatory training is implemented.

3. History has shown me that governments have an alarming tendency to prohibit weapons from private, civilian ownership. I can point to several modern nations that used to be ripe with the shooting sports and freedom, and now that freedom is gone. I would ask you WHY I should believe the US would be any different than the UK or Australia one we start the journey down the slippery slope??? What reason is there for me to believe power given to the government to regulate my ability to own a firearm through mandatory training would not be abused?
goalie is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 07:00 PM   #63
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
What about protection for the innocent folks who are confronted daily with those folks armed with a dangerous weapon who " lack the moral fortitude and common sense" we all agree are the hallmarks of the responsible gun owner.
I have yet to see an example of what right to protection they have. I know it's difficult to understand how I could be against mandated training, but for training in general. But, I don't believe I can explain it any more clear than I already have.


Quote:
There be the horns of the dilemma you have hoisted your flagpole on (nice mixed metaphors, huh)....you admit that UNTRAINED folks lack moral fortitude and "common sense", but have no problems with letting those folks willy nilly carry a deadly weapon, when they are primae facie unqualified to.
Much like there are untrained drivers on the road, who can't read the signs, talk on their cell phones, read the newspaper, do their make up, and dance all while going blissfully 20mph over the speed limit. If the govt can't manage that program and they can see it. I see no need for them to mange a program for something that they can't see.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 07:04 PM   #64
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Wa,
It's not acceptable to me nor, I suspect, the majority of rational thinkers on this forum. I'm totally in favor of mandatory training for CCW. The CC course in Texas focuses primarily on the laws governing CC. In other words, it prepares you to pass the written test. There is very little on firearm safety, and zip on situational awareness etc. Unfortunately, the whole CCW process has become a perfunctory, profit centered exercise for most licensed instructors.
I would take this discussion a step further and suggest that in addition to mandatory training, that firearm ownership itself require a level of intelligence testing.
For example, went to the local gun shop today. There was a guy, with his wife and two year old son. The guy just completed a legal purchase of a Kel- Tec 380. Before, he finished paying, he handed it to his wife who swept the room with it, while dry firing several times! Then the mother handed it to the 3 YEAR OLD SON. Then like his "Mother", he swept the room, dry firing the whole time. To the shop owners credit, he immediately retreived the gun, and refused to complete the transaction.
How do we keep guns out of the hands of idiots, without mandatory training and minimum IQ requirements?
Since we are talking about rational thinking now. Step back and re-read your post. There are already laws in place to cover the scene you witnessed.
Also, since we're veering back into the legal side of it. The 2A doesn't say you need an IQ test. And the constitution doesn't guarantee a safety bubble around you.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 07:32 PM   #65
2cooltoolz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 17, 2007
Location: Lake Conroe, Texas
Posts: 1,059
I think most (all you can hope for in any real scenario!) people who bother to get a CCW license are not idiots and are trying to do the right thing. The idiots/beegee's don't bother. How much Gun Control will you accept? I generally agree with you WilditsoundslikeguncontroltomeAlaska, but not on this.
That being said, I went through the Texas CHL class, which requires a 50 round proficiency test, but I don't consider that adequate for myself and fully intend to get more training. 54 years old and have owned/shot/hunted since I was 12, but never in a "tactical" situation. I do need training.
__________________
What me worry
2cooltoolz is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 07:41 PM   #66
Silentarmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2007
Location: Bountiful, Utah
Posts: 355
The rest of us are the IQ test. Eventually, that moron who is exercising his "God Given right" to bear arms will slip up and either get hemmed up by the Big Government or mowed down in a hail of bullets because he felt threatened somehow and pointed that willy nilly pistol of his at the wrong individual. I am "the wrong individual" People in this country expect handouts and support in disaster and who knows what eles from the Government yet they Have an acid trip when a guidline is set forth to help protect them. I am not blind to the incrementalist bull**** being legislated on a daily basis but Barring any truly restrictive or unreasonable demands, I agree with a Standard of training. Someone said "Either we are equal or we are not" (yeah I know who said it)
__________________
"No one will Ever buy that PLASTIC gun!"
Steve Gallenson, Early 1980's
"Those Who live by the sword get Shot by those of us who don't"
"What we learn from History is that we do not learn from History!"
Silentarmy is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 10:32 PM   #67
Sigma 40 Blaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2007
Location: East Texas
Posts: 997
I would support it, as I support mandatory hunter training in Texas.

You can get up to a one year exemption for the hunting safety course, you must only take it once in your adult life if you are younger than 35 or some magic number.

Please keep in mind I am talking about mandatory training for CCW, not for firearms purchasing in general. Just like CCW training the only rule would be the state sets minimum standards and NRA Instructors must teach the course.

Nothing wrong with that.
Sigma 40 Blaster is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 11:38 PM   #68
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
I think some of y'all are confusing the concepts of training and testing, assuming that training comes with some sort of skill testing.

There was a Supreme Court decision several years ago on environmental impacts. A group was suing because a ski resort was going to be put in and it would have a negative environmental impact on the immediate area. The court ruled that the law said that the determination for approval to build was based on making informed decisions and not that the decisions had "correct" or "proper."

I personally think people should be exposed to some safety and proficiency training. They may opt not to follow the training after receiving it, but at least they would be provided with some of the critical insights needed.

I am fairly shocked by the number of folks who show up for concealed carry classes (here in Texas that I have attended) and who not only don't know the 4 rules of gun handling, don't even have the concepts as part of their common sense regimes. The actual firing qualifications are so easy that many first time shooters manage to pass on their first try. Heck, if you shoot well enough at 3 and 7 yards, you can pass without even hitting the last set of shots at 15 yards. The result is that we have a goodly number of people that can shoot well enough to pass the test, but who do not really have much insight at all about handling, carrying, shooting, or applying in a defensive shooting situation, but they are legal.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 10, 2007, 11:47 PM   #69
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
The result is that we have a goodly number of people that can shoot well enough to pass the test, but who do not really have much insight at all about handling, carrying, shooting, or applying in a defensive shooting situation, but they are legal.
Which IMO makes requiring that training nothing more than a feel good measure. By your own account the required training not very effective or informative. It's simply a feel good measure that was put in place to get the bill passed.

Unless people are serious about their training, it doesn't matter what training you make mandatory the majority will go into it with the attitude that it's a means to an end and could care less about the information being passed.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old November 11, 2007, 09:09 AM   #70
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
Does testing make training effective and informative? That seems to be what you have implied since I simply removed testing from training regimes.

By my account, the training may not be effective or informative if the shooter decides not to learn.

I understand your point of view. It would not matter what training was mandated, you would argue against it. So even if it was top notch free training and not "feel good" training, you would still be opposed to it because it was mandated. Based on your posts above, little of the training anyone is getting in law enforcement and the military is good enough anyway.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 11, 2007, 09:24 AM   #71
12-34hom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 1999
Location: Iowa - northeastern
Posts: 1,810
Not only mandatory training - must re-qualify each year that permit is carried.

Because of money, time restraints, personnel to hold such classes, it is unrealistic to believe this is possible.

But in my view, this type of training would be beneficial for those who ccw.

12-34hom.
__________________
This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend, it is my life. I must master itas i master my life.Without me my rifle is useless, without my rifle i am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I Will. Before God i swear this creed. My rifle and myself are defenders of my country. We are masters of our enemy. We are saviours of my life. So be it until there is no enemy, but peace. Amen.
12-34hom is offline  
Old November 11, 2007, 09:29 AM   #72
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
As a florida resident I know the training required does little. As for an IQ test... Bring it on! Lets add a gun teardown test... once again I can do that! accuracy? Got it! Now why not add a live fire situational test, target comes rushing up flips around, momma and baby don't shoot!!!, next target is the BG, flips around with a scowling pistol wielding thug... BANG! But wait a few seconds and he will run... don't shoot him in the back!!!
I feel we already have too many regulations that are either ineffective or un-inforced!
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old November 11, 2007, 10:18 AM   #73
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2005
Location: Richmond VA - home of a street full of second-place trophies.
Posts: 151
Something I've noticed about just about every comment made on this topic is -- that folks are not making any distinction between "training" in the CCW laws of their jurisdiction and "training" in the tactical/practical sense.,

In order to get a driver's license you need to demonstrate a mimimum level of understanding of the motor vehicle laws, and a minimum proficiency in the handling of an automobile. As that relates to CCW, it sounds like being able to paraphrase the biggie issues like "when is use of lethal force justified?" and "name three places where X-state law prohibits CCW".

Everything else is an issue of personal responsibility. If you want to carry without ever practicing different scenarios, OK. If you think that you are short on training if you do not shoot IPSIC/IDPA matches twice a week, OK.

If the time ever comes that your behavior when CCW-ing results in a criminal charge being placed against you, you will need to show that in fact you were compliant with the law. (I know, innocent until proven guilty and all that, but we know how the system really works.) How much training you did or did not have is not going to be an issue. Was it a "good shoot" or not is not going to be an issue. All that will matter is did you or did you not violate the law.

Because that is going to be the question to be answered, I say I support CCW applicants being required to know the basic laws.

I have problems with needing to pass any type of skill/ability test, if only because annecdotal reports suggest that "most" folks who CCW will never draw, let alone fire, their firearm. If that situation were to change, and folks with CCWs used their firearms on a daily basis as do most folks with a driver's license use an automobile, then I might support a practical demonstration requirement. But right now it's more like folks with a CCW have a car in the garage but never drive it. (Hope you understand the analogy.)

stay safe.

skidmark
skidmark is offline  
Old November 11, 2007, 10:20 AM   #74
rezmedic54
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 288
CCW Training

I tried to stay out of this one but oh well. I teach the class here and I know for a fact that at least 85 to 90 percent of the people that take the class will never shoot their weapon again after they quailfy. Thats ten rounds folks! If you where to ask them they will tell you that they are now quailified to carry their gun and defend their lives or that of their loved ones. Thats horse pucky and you all know it.
If the SHTF happens to one of these folks I hope me and mine are as far away from it as possible. Cause it ani't gona be pretty. Most here have said they don't want any training made manditory well if this happens and it's your rear end that happens to be in the crowd and they just happen to hit and kill you or someone you love your next thing I'll sue their the hell out of them but will that bring back you or your? But what do I know I see and hear it all the time.
__________________
Kurt Pietrzak
Maricopa Shooting Service
S.W.A.T. South West Airsoft Tactical
CCW Instrutor
NRA Certified Instructor
Gunsmith
Maricopa ,Az.

http:www.maricopashooting.com
rezmedic54 is offline  
Old November 11, 2007, 10:28 AM   #75
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
Quote:
So you are perfectly happy with untrained folks willy nilly CCWing.?

You know, up here, someone who has never shot a gun can CCW...any ninja can come in, buy a gun, get a lesson on how to load it, and walk out and carry it concealed for self defense...

That acceptable in a modern society?
New Hampshire is one of the oldest "Shall Issue" states and has never required training to CCW. This means untrained people who have never shot a gun are freely allowed to CCW for the low price of $10 for 4 years, and this has been the case for decades.

Untrained folks willy nilly CCWing has been a non-issue during that time. I'm sorry to inform you that reality simply hasn't shown there to be any truth behind whatever paranoid delusions you have about untrained gun carriers accidently mowing down innocent people with thier wreckless gun handling.

So, again, what's the point of making training mandatory other than to regulate for regulation's sake?
ATW525 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.06859 seconds with 8 queries