|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 10, 2007, 04:01 PM | #51 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
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? Like Driver Ed and how to put on a condom? Doesnt Gun training ADVANCE gun ownership? WildarentweallinfavorofeddieeagleAlaska ™ |
|
November 10, 2007, 04:17 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
|
Quote:
|
|
November 10, 2007, 04:55 PM | #53 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
To all of you...why? Put aside ANY objections on constituional grounds! WildbackontrackAlaska ™ |
|
November 10, 2007, 05:08 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
|
Quote:
|
|
November 10, 2007, 05:15 PM | #55 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
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... That acceptable in a modern society? WildifsowhyAlaska ™ |
|
November 10, 2007, 05:46 PM | #56 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
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. |
||||
November 10, 2007, 06:09 PM | #57 | |
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:
WildahmshawkedAlaska ™ |
|
November 10, 2007, 06:23 PM | #58 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
|
Quote:
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:
|
||
November 10, 2007, 06:47 PM | #59 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
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. WildandyourresponseisAlaska ™ |
|
November 10, 2007, 06:52 PM | #60 |
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 |
November 10, 2007, 06:54 PM | #61 |
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? |
November 10, 2007, 07:00 PM | #62 |
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? |
November 10, 2007, 07:00 PM | #63 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
November 10, 2007, 07:04 PM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
|
Quote:
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. |
|
November 10, 2007, 07:32 PM | #65 |
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 |
November 10, 2007, 07:41 PM | #66 |
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!" |
November 10, 2007, 10:32 PM | #67 |
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. |
November 10, 2007, 11:38 PM | #68 |
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. |
November 10, 2007, 11:47 PM | #69 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
|
Quote:
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. |
|
November 11, 2007, 09:09 AM | #70 |
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. |
November 11, 2007, 09:24 AM | #71 |
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. |
November 11, 2007, 09:29 AM | #72 |
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 |
November 11, 2007, 10:18 AM | #73 |
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 |
November 11, 2007, 10:20 AM | #74 |
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 |
November 11, 2007, 10:28 AM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
|
Quote:
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? |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|