As I have not been able to find a simple poll (recent or not) of members regarding your choice on keeping a round chambered or not.(please forgive me if I've missed anything from the last 365 days!)Please vote at the top of this post!
There are plenty of discussions, but I am just looking for a simple count.
After answering, please feel free to expound upon your choice by giving details such as your pistol's usual condition (0 ~ 4), its trigger type (DA/SA, etc.) & so on.
Suntzu, my comments are based not on emotion, but on real-life experience. Not sure what qualifies your expertise, but I submit it is you who is emotional.
To use your logic, the military and every LE agency should omit firearms training and annual qualification, as you assert firearms training makes no impact on firearm effectiveness or safety. Just give 'em a gun and turn 'em loose.
My assertions are common sense. Training in any life activity broadens knowledge on the topic studied and improves performance, safety and action. If you refuse to accept this fact held by the majority of the thinking world, I will not attempt to sway you further. I've said my piece.
I advocate training all the time. You refuse to answer the question. How many of these gun accidents came from the hands of a person that was LE/military former or current. How many have been through firearms training, NRA, CCP class, or hunters safety class. How many of these have happened in the home where one does need a permit. How many of these are crime related where obviously the BG's training is not relevent.
I never said to not have training. I said it should not be a requirement for a right but I heavily stress training. Nowhere did I say that training has no impact. My point is that most of these accidents happen to folks that are already "trained" and had an accident.
I challenged you to come up with a metric that would show that most of these happened in situation with untrained people and how more training would prevent accidents. I said MORE training.
The fact is most accidents happen because it was not a lack of training. It was a lack of discipline in using that training.
Before I went SF I was an Aviation Safety NCO and saw many accidents that were caused by "trained" pilots and crew. The deaths and accidents came from not following the training.
Same a vehicles.
We can disagree on whether there should be mandatory training. But I expect for an educated man like yourself to use facts to back up a statement.
I postulated that most folks that have accidents are already trained. Do you think that is incorrect and that most accidents happen from folks that are not trained.
Training does not substitute for common sense Doc.
Ive worked in a emergency medical services for 10 years and Ive seen many highly trained and experienced people screw up. Mostly because they we not paying attention to something. Ive taken a knock to the head working a car accident. My trainining tells me to use full PPE my lack of common sense allowed me to take my helmet off to gain better access to the patient. So whats your point?
Your preaching to the choir by saying gun owners should be responsible. But training only gets one so far.
Will training stop a parent from leaving a loaded gun in a childs reach? NO! Someone would have to be down right stupid to need formal instruction not to leave a loaded gun around a child.
"Education decreases accidents. Voluntary training has decreased firearms accidents. NRA firearm safety programs are conducted by more than 62,000 NRA Certified Instructors nationwide. Youngsters learn firearm safety in NRA programs offered through civic groups such as the Boy Scouts, Jaycees, and American Legion, and schools.4 NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe program teaches children pre-K through 3rd grade that if they see a gun without supervision, they should "STOP! Don't Touch. Leave The Area. Tell An Adult." Since 1988, Eddie has been used by 26,000 schools, civic groups, and law enforcement agencies to reach more than 22 million children."
The above is an exerpt from the NRA-ILA in 2009--the bold print is the NRA's. If you don't believe my assertion that training decreases accidents, perhaps you will believe the NRA. There is literature replete with the same idea. As to me "preaching to the choir", it is you guys taking issue with the above concept. The point is not who is trained and who isn't and how many accidents occur. The point is that training is effective, the more the better. It is how humans learn. To say training does not work is flies in the face of the literature. Training is a basic tenant of all who regularly use and carry firearms as a part of their profession. I might pose the converse to you and ask what substantial studies or reputable proof do you have that demonstrates training is ineffective in this regard?
Lastly, it is not the intention of any of my posts to be offensive, but if they are received in that manner-- my apologies. This is serious stuff.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nobody is disputing training is not a good idea and reduces accidents (at least not me) You are preaching to the choir. But, if you notice the wording that the NRA uses:
Voluntary training has decreased firearms accidents.
Not going to some accredited training seminar does not mean a person is untrained. Some families still teach or train their kids. Some of the things that I have heard from so called gun safety instructors is pure crap in my opinion.
Not going to some accredited training seminar does not mean a person is untrained. Some families still teach or train their kids. Some of the things that I have heard from so called gun safety instructors is pure crap in my opinion.
I suppose it would also be appropriate to mention going in to a gun store and being swept by many a muzzle from people who work there. One would think they are well trained and know better. Thats not a simple human error as far as Im concerned.
Just a general statement for no one in particular: Most states require some training to get your CCP. The training is not realistic nor is it in depth. It is a money maker for some and a CYA for the politicians. They can say they are Pro-2A by allowing CCP's and also appease to the middle by saying that they voted for mandatory training and backgound checks.
Here is the problem I see with mandatory training besides the 2A issue.
1. Not really effective IMO unless you train train train. If that means dusting gun every week or so and loading it and unloading it (at a range or other safe place) so be it. Getting your "training" and then not picking up a gun for a year is a waste of time.
2. What about the lady who needs a gun NOW because of an estranged hubby or boyfriend? What if she can't hit the broad side of a barn? What if they can't afford it or the next available training is 2 weeks away?
3. The old camel nose under the tent flap theory...once laws start getting passed with the promise that training will reduce accidents what happens if for whatever reason they go up? The Brady Bunch will say that the training is not enough and now it has to be intensified and recurring.
Yeah, it sucks when there is an accident. But most of the time like putting a gun to your head will not be stopped by trainning. The person knows that if there is a bullet in the gun they will die. They just assume there is nothing there.
I just read all my post. Many stress that I advocate training. I also noted that many times trained folks have had accidents. Where did I say as an overall thought that training is ineffective in the realm of gun safety?
I have gone out of my way to stress training. Voluntary trainiing.
Please explain to me how I am opposed to training and think it is a waste of time. Not a snipett here or there that can be taken out of context.
BTW Doc:"Now that I have seen the light" Sir, that is a veiled insult, and not a good one.
I am still curious to where you have worked over the years to have seen 4000 accidental and unintentional shootings.
And how many of these were caused by untrained folks.
You sir, were stating earlier that training was ineffective in the realm of gun safety and this was your point of contention as it relates to mandatory training for CC licensees. If you now agree that training is worthwile, you see the light.
As to the NRA's use of the word "voluntary", if it is indeeed a fact that training is effective in increasing safety, then who in their right mind would dispute CC licensees receiving some form of training from a certified firearms professional? I'm not speaking of registration or those who keep guns in their home. I speak to those who carry a weapon out amongst society. This is indeed a ridiculous argument and one that defies common sense.
The opposition come from those of us who believe that it is a right you are born with. Mandatory testing would mean that it is either a privilege or a right issued by the government. Personally I believe that the more training the better so long as it is voluntary.
The opposition come from those of us who believe that it is a right you are born with. Mandatory testing would mean that it is either a privilege or a right issued by the government. Personally I believe that the more training the better so long as it is voluntary.
Oh, but in most states a permit IS required to carry concealed. Therefore it is a regulated activity. Not "everyone" can carry concealed, or even own a firearm, for that matter (ie. felons).
You sir, were stating earlier that training was ineffective in the realm of gun safety and this was your point of contention as it relates to mandatory training for CC licensees. If you now agree that training is worthwile, you see the light.
As to the NRA's use of the word "voluntary", if it is indeeed a fact that training is effective in increasing safety, then who in their right mind would dispute CC licensees receiving some form of training from a certified firearms professional? I'm not speaking of registration or those who keep guns in their home. I speak to those who carry a weapon out amongst society. This is indeed a ridiculous argument and one that defies common sense.
The problem with requiring a training or licensing course is that someone has to regulate it. Someone has to keep the records. Yours and my medical training are done so at national and state levels (by the government). So who is going to do so for firearms? Well, currently the government does. Our right to bear arms was created to protect ourselves, yes even from the government. The very people who write the laws about our rights.
So we give that power to someone else, then what? Now someone who is not regulated by anything is maintaining your training records. At least poloticians are kept in check "by the voters." But they still should have no power to tell us what is good for us.
EDIT: Im not sure I am clear in what I said. In other words requiring training requires that someone else keeps you in check. That may not be a bad thing per say but if your not breaking any laws, no one has the right to tell you what to do.
The problem with requiring a training or licensing course is that someone has to regulate it. Someone has to keep the records. Yours and my medical training are done so at national and state levels (by the government). So who is going to do so for firearms? Well, currently the government does. Our right to bear arms was created to protect ourselves, yes even from the government. The very people who write the laws about our rights.
So we give that power to someone else, then what? Now someone who is not regulated by anything is maintaining your training records. At least poloticians are kept in check "by the voters." But they still should have no power to tell us what is good for us.
In virtually all jurisdictions you must have a CC permit. The government knows who those permitt holders are, where they live, etc. etc. I believe all who carry should be required to at least complete a basic, approved course--such as the NRA's--prior to being issued a CC permit. Part of this training stresses the importance of regularly training and practicing. At that point, it is essentially the responsibility of the person.
I don't advocate government interferance in a qualified citizen's right to carry, but the educational requirement is no more an infringement than requiring an applicant to be fingerprinted, investigated and regularly paying for a permit. The point here is simply safety-trained concealed carry. No one can control how an indivudual utilizes, or does not utilize, what they are taught other than punishment when they break the rules.
I dont know how much more the dead horse can be beat. No one here is saying training is useless. But for it to be required someone HAS to keep records and enforce the training. Otherwise anyone can fake a doccument saying they had it.
As far as your statement:
DocT65 said:
No one can control how an indivudual utilizes, or does not utilize, what they are taught other than punishment when they break the rules.
Let us take a step back here. I think we (myself included) are getting away from what the good DocT65 had posted.
...That said, I also believe that NO ONE should carry a loaded weapon without formal training (LE or military) or a NRA-sanctioned gun safety course. Unfortunately, too many states (mine included) issue pistol permits to screened individuals without evidence of appropriate weapons training.
How many accidents happen while someone is carrying? I think that is the point of training as a requirement to carry in public..for public safety. Now, lets look at all of the accidents that happen to CC'ers. In states where training is required 100 percent of the accidents happened by a "trained" person.
So that leaves us with the states without training. How many accidents occur in those state with folks while carrying?
See where I am going with this.
The majority of gun accidents happen at home, at the range, while hunting, while showing off a new gun. I woould imagine that less than 1 percent of all gun accidents happen while someone is lawfully carrying a concealed weapon.
Did I make myself clear?
As far as the Doc's 4000 number. Sure, I believe he saw 4000 accidents. But, how many occured while someone was carrying in public?
So, is the point the good doctor is making is that everyone needs training before they are allowed to purchase a gun for their home? Anybody can answer but I am interested in hearing from the good doctor.
Let us take a step back here. I think we (myself included) are getting away from what the good DocT65 had posted.
How many accidents happen while someone is carrying? I think that is the point of training as a requirement to carry in public..for public safety. Now, lets look at all of the accidents that happen to CC'ers. In states where training is required 100 percent of the accidents happened by a "trained" person.
So that leaves us with the states without training. How many accidents occur in those state with folks while carrying?
See where I am going with this.
The majority of gun accidents happen at home, at the range, while hunting, while showing off a new gun. I woould imagine that less than 1 percent of all gun accidents happen while someone is lawfully carrying a concealed weapon.
Did I make myself clear?
As far as the Doc's 4000 number. Sure, I believe he saw 4000 accidents. But, how many occured while someone was carrying in public?
So, is the point the good doctor is making is that everyone needs training before they are allowed to purchase a gun for their home? Anybody can answer but I am interested in hearing from the good doctor.
So, referring to the bold, no, I do not advocate mandatory training for someone keeping a gun at home--but it would be the ideal for a responsible person to do who has little or no firearms training only in an effort to help avoid the unthinkable within their own home. When someone carries "out and about", that's a different scenario, as literally hundreds or even thousands are potentially exposed to that weapon and the action (correct or incorrect) of the person in control of that weapon.
Nutshell: The data you seek is slim to none relative to who is trained/not trianed and accidents. The point is this---training increases safety. You have said so several posts ago. If this is indeed a fact, then why is this such an issue? Anytime the topic of training or anything that can be remotely construed as "interferring" or "controlling" someone's firearms rights, so many go nuts. At the end of the day, we are on the same side for the most part. We both are proponents of CC, we both agree that training makes handling, carrying or storing a weapon safer. I simply believe that states should require a mandatory, bona-fide training course encompassing safe handling, storage and carry, as well as enumerating the responsibilities and statutes pertaining to those who choose to CC, at the same time stressing the importance of ongoing training and practice. Many states already have such laws in place.....are folks on this blog beating their legislators with mail demanding repeal? I do not endorse gun registration or interfering with any competent and law abiding citizen's 2A rights. I think more is read into my position than I stated.
There is only one real gun safety rule... Your gun is always loaded. Treat it that way. Stupidity on the part of some gun owners are what causes accidents. In most posts I have read here when someone had an accident they start with " I did a really stupid thing today..."
One in the chamber cocked and locked.
Perhaps we should all sign up for classes with the NY police department.....after all, during the recent Empire State Building shooting, after firing 14 bullets, they only hit 9 bystanders.
Maybe THEY should have more required training.
I am trained by my husband. I practice nearly EVERY DAY at a range we have set up on our property....a great advantage to having a large plot of land in the country!
I don't need the military to train me. PUUHHHLEESE.....my husband has taught many a gun safety course, as well as teaching ACCURACY. Though he doesn't do it anymore, he used to teach the military. So taking any course would be (for me) a step down.
I live in one of those states that do not require anything much except evidence that you are a law-abiding citizen. If I accidentally shoot the wrong person, I will answer for my mistake. But I assure you, it will not be for lack of practice with my weapon. IMO, if you are going to get a CCW, you have already made the decision to hold yourself to a higher standard. It is your responsibility to practice, practice, practice. What good is a training class, if after that class, you put your CCW and your weapon in your pocket and never put it to practice? That class isn't going to make you any safer and reliable with a gun....it only lays the groundwork. It is your responsibility to hone your skills.
Why not at all? I think one is silly to not carry one chambered but I never could see why folks would say "or not at all". The gun is not totally useless and can still be used in certain situations. If guns were carried in Aurora there would be time for many to chamber a round..or do you think that person should just leave it at home?
For me its a confidence issue (self admitted) I am new to carrying concealed and although I pride myself as being well trained and safe I think I need more time to trust my weapon, it's safety features before I carry on chambered. I completely understand all of the reason to have one chambered, and hope that if I ever need it I will have that extra time needed to round one.
Of my opinion I know it is safe, but I still get that more careful than maybe usual because of a new system. My example: carried an LC9 and was very cautious, but became familiar with it and grew comfortable. Having a 1911 with the hammer cocked and knowing the short trigger pull makes me very cautious, knowing that the safety works and keeps it safe is fine, but as it is new I get the inexperienced care or concern. Both I carry with one in the pipe feeling that the difference between time pulling trigger and racking slide could be life or death.
Chambered, Sig DA, no safety. It is safe on my hip in my holster where nobody knows it's there but me. If I pull it out it is to use it, and I want it ready to use.
Always one chambered. Manual safety on if so equipped.
In my studies on Defensive shooting techniques I, thankfully, have been shown how to practice clearing a jam, reloading (a mag or shells) then racking WITHOUT the use of your free hand, You may NOT have a free hand.
Then what would you do, cower, run, fight?
The instructor demonstrated racking his semi-automatic by holding it low and using a well placed (and obviously practiced) backkick of his heel. He suggested and showed other techniques such as holding the rear sight against your belt, pocket and racking.
I was ready to learn-learn-learn and PRACTICE.
As another posted: "...Know when to apply your wide range of tactics
Know which skill sets facilitate the best use of your tactics..."
He Kicked the slide to chaqmber a round...wow....I guess thats how its done in the matrix
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!