Printable View
I'm with you, I want people trained, at least minimally, I also want them tested to insure they can retain the information, I want them to be a legal adult and I want them licensed so their license can be pulled if need be. That being said, if you have the training, passed the test, are not a felon or mentally impaired in any way and are an adult I don't believe that the government should be able to deny you a permit, anywhere in the US. Just my opinion....Quote:
Originally Posted by acparmed
OK all you training required advocates; you seem to be putting forth the argument that without state mandated training there will be “blood flowing in the streets” just like the liberal anti-gunners. Explain the total lack of any problem in Vermont in particular or Indiana, I lived in Indiana for 45 years and am totally unaware of any problems involving “untrained” CCW holders.
Folks, I feel everyone should be trained. However, I also feel everyone should have the right to defend themselves at anytime. If they choose not take any form of training thats on them. I encourage folks to take a course and practice often, but in no way should it be manditory. Firing 50-500 rounds at targets that don't try to harm you is just target practice anyway. There are some challenging courses out there, but nothing like real life.
Give this a thought...We drive cars everyday, but how many of us attended much more than drivers training in high school.
Be careful folks, the Second Amendment has enough enemies without us beating up on her also.
I don't see that argument being suggested by anybody. No rights are considered absolute, and they never have been. Reasonable controls/restrictions have always been a part of the game, and suggesting that model be used with 2nd Amendment rights does not suggest anything other than that.Quote:
OK all you training required advocates; you seem to be putting forth the argument that without state mandated training there will be “blood flowing in the streets” just like the liberal anti-gunners.
David-
Quite frankly you strike me like many of the professors at the university where I work. Full of book learning, great theoretical thinkers and most generally full of BS and totally lacking in anything close to real world experience. They went from high school to college, got a BS degree (very fitting) went on to an MS (More of the Same) and then straight to the PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper) and started teaching. I am in, let’s call it "technical support" and I find most of them to be generally incompetent and inept in most areas :reddy:
I, too, am an instructor (actually, we all are at one time or another) NRA certified, DTI affiliate, International Association Of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors. Manditory training works about as good as manditory permits - idiots will do what idiots will do regardless of the laws you pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by acparmed
I have big problems with words like "allowed." And I tend to have bigger problems with the tyrant wanna-be's who throw them around.
The right to self defense is an ABSOLUTE, the tool you choose to use for that job is YOUR buisness and no one else's. If you MISUSE that tool and injure another person or their property with out reason then you should be held accountable. However, the "guilty until proven innocent" type of thinking that goes into the manditory training line is unacceptable. It is elitist and it is tyranny. Begging the "Kings" permission to exercise a right is not an option.
Are there people out there that scare me who own guns? Yeah, there called governments. Personally, some of the worst gun handling I've seen on the range has been displayed by police officers. Those same officers received and were granted "permits" to carry by the people who trained them and will also be issuing your gun permit. No thanks.
I'm just not of a mind to dictate to others how they should live, what they may own or what they may carry. Perhaps there are some here who are better men than I and can make those choices for others, but somehow I doubt that.
Life is full of risks and I embrace that with vigor. I'll take my chances with the average person on the street rather than turn the responsibility of my own safety over to bureaucrats. I'll teach my own children safety and government programs can eat chain, thank you very much.
I'll run my ranges HOT and I'll treat my students like adults.
And maybe, just maybe, the real solution here is for us as instructors to become more involved. I know I give a lot more free lessons than what I get paid for. So, if training is something you believe in and something you think everyone should have, then go train them. I mean, if you want something done right, do it yourself. :wink:
No sir!Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
That's why it is called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Reasonable Controls. They can be only amended, no controls, no restrictions. Reasonable controls/restrictions... you mean like those Reasonable Gun Control Laws?
Preach on Brother Glock21!
It's not black & white.
I am from PA. ~ no training is mandatory ~ There is not much additional blood running in the streets.
Proper training benefits the individual in addition to the general cause of RKBA. Better training & Knowledge Of Gun Basics is great preventative insurance for everybody...And it helps keep the "Liberal Left Whiners" at bay.
Would I like to see folks better trained & better able to defend "family, life, & limb? " ~ Yes, Of Course."
Would I feel a little safer in a room of properly trained armed persons? ~ "Yes, I would."
But would I want to DENY the Little Old Lady (who wants to keep a revolver at home for personal protection) her RIGHT to buy own a gun because she did not complete her required combat courses? ~ "No, I would not."
Like it or not....many ordinary people with no real training still manage to somehow put a hole in the Bad Guy with the "Family Rossi .22 Revolver" as he is breaking in & climbing in their bedroom window at night.
Like it or not...some untrained firearm owners also manage to tragically plug "Little 5 Year Old Johnny or Mary" because they "Didn't Know The Gun Was Loaded." It sure is a "Double Edged Sword!"
This is where an organization like the N.R.A. Sucks Big Time.
All those dollars poured into the N.R.A. & they could be doing So Much More to promote general firearm safety.
Like maybe actually contacting all new gun owners with a personal phone call & offering them free basic training classes & maybe offering senior citizens a ride "to and from" a few basic local instruction classes.
Or...maybe a free video handed out with every firearm purchased.
Cripes! ~ I could only think of about 100 assorted different things that they could do to promote a safer gun environment for everybody in general.
Like maybe paying a decent salary to N.R.A. trained instructors that could make "house calls" like visiting nurses to local households just to demonstrate basic proper "in home" gun handling.
The gun makers could all "chip in" a few bucks also.
Whatever we do voluntarily to promote gun safety ~ we don't hafta worry about Congress passing laws to mandate it!
Just my humble opinion.
You know, nothing makes me madder than people accusing someone of being a liberal believing that there will be "blood flowing in the streets" simply because someone's opinion is different than your own. Resorting to name calling is EXACTLY what liberals do when they disagree with someone.
On the political scale, I am probably farther right than most of you here. But I don't want to be in a plane you are flying unless you are a licensed pilot, I don't want you performing surgery on me unless you are a licensed doctor, I will not dive with you if you are not a licensed diver, etc. I have not heard one single person say in this or any other forum that the training required by any state is so hard to pass that the requirement is restrictive in getting a permit. And I have not heard one person in this thread say anything about restricting the purchase, possession or use of a handgun for any reason. Nor has anyone said anything about denying the little old lady the right to have and use any type of firearm she chooses to protect herself. I believe I stated very clearly that my statements were my opinion and that the government should not be able to deny you a permit anywhere in the US if you could meet minimal standards.
Do you also take exception that I would also require you to not be mentally impaired? Or that you not be a felon? Or that you not be minor? Would you issue a CCW permit to someone on your range that continually sweeps you and your other students with a loaded firearm and finger on the trigger? Would you issue a permit to someone that you know is paranoid schizophrenic? If you answer yes to any of those questions then I would say you are the one that is hurting the cause of gun rights and feeding the cause of the anti-gunners. And, in my opinion, if you are a firearms instructor and don't understand the importance of training, you should probably not be an instructor.
Obviously, some of you don't believe that there should be any standards or requirements at all to obtain a CCW permit. And for me, that's okay. It's your opinion, you are entitled to it and I won't flame you for having it. You are not the "King" (as stated above) any more than I am. Your opinions have no impact on me, mine have no impact on you. But if you believe that having an opinion that is different than yours is "unacceptable", you might want to reconsider who you are accusing of being an "elitist" or "tyrant wanna-be". :mad:
Outstandingly Stated Bumper. I'm with ya
I agree with ya too bumper
Bumper,
You are right, we need to calm down a bit. As to minimum standards, the law already sets those standards for firearms purchases. When they run your information from your application they find out if you fail to met some of those standards...age, felon, restraining orders...yada, yada...
As to mental impairment and schizophrenics, we must rely on the person filling out the form because that information is easy to fake or generally just not available. There isn't a nut bag data base in every state.
In my state, the mandated state training is minimum 4 hour classroom, 4 hours range time with less than 100 rounds fired at 7 yards. After that, you fill out an application and the Sheriff issues the permit in 45 days if you pass the backgound check. Then it's... Yeeehaaa Tex, load up and move out, your qualified for the next three years. You don't have to do anything further.
However, my DD214 and Military Police training certificate are not acceptable as they aren't signed by an approved instructor. They are acceptable in other states. Hunters education may also be used in some states. So training isn't standard nor difficult to get.
Here's an example of what bothers me...
Lets say poor old Joe is an honest, hard working, law abiding person. His home just isn't located in the best part of town and he's not well off. Crime is on the rise and he fears for his safety and that of his family. He has to go out late one night to get some cold medicine for his three sick kids. It's late and he's nervous about going out to get this medicine. But, the hacking cough of his poor little three year old drives him to it. He has his Daddy's old pistol up in the closet, but he hasn't touched it in years. He doesn't have a permit to carry. What does he do?(and the choice must be made then, not later)
Take his Daddy's gun and risk becoming a felon?
Take the chance that nothing bad will happen?
If you are a good, law abiding citizen why should you be denied the basic right of self defense because of a piece of paper?
We all have made a difficult choice. We choose to bear arms for our defense and that of others. We take classes in deadly force, we read books on self-defense, we study the laws, we practice with our weapons and we become more alert. That is natural, we want to be prepared.
I practice every month, I read the laws, I discuss the issues with others who make these same choices. I share my experiences and I encourage/pester folks to practice and study. I also accept that a laminated piece of paper is no shield should I make a poor decision with my firearm. Face it, you shoot someone, you are very likely going to court.
Say what you will and disagree all you like. You will not change my mind nor adjust my attitude about this. Vermont seems to be doing OK so I really don't see the problem.
I'm not angry, just perplexed. I won't say anymore unless flamed.
If I might weigh in in this subject, I see a potential problem with government mandated training requirements. At first, the government (state/local) may make these training/tests relatively easy. Then, in the event of a very anti-selfdefense government coming to power, the test/training may be made so only Seal Team Six plank holders can pass. Rights, guaranteed rights, may be taken away if done slowly, and in small enough increments.
This is also the problem I see w a national ccw. You have now empowered the Federal government w the control of issuing lisences rather then at least keeping it in the State's hands. And we all know how easy it is to end up with a very anti gun, anti self defense President who would sign off on any legislation to infringe on our rights. It would now be easy for licensing to be made so cumbersome no one could get it.
Personally, I have found most folks who get a permit and then carry past the two week "i'm cool, i've got a gun" phase, usually voluntarily seek training.
Dan
I don't really disagree with your example; you make a compelling arguement in the above situation. There are, however, situations that would run contrary to each of our opinions. I don't believe I am difinitively right or wrong in my opinion, nor do I believe you or anyone else is. As QKShooter, I believe, said this is not a black and white issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikaldulee
The problem is not the idea of training being a "good idea" - Of course it is - heck, that's why I became an instructor. I was one of those people who thought I knew how to shoot until someone took the time to point out the error of my ways. I have remained always a STUDENT first, and an instructor second, since that day. I'm the first one to say that 98% of the American gun owning public dosen't have a clue whenever the subject comes up, but I'm also the first to invite someone to the range on my dime.
Now, are you suggesting by your examples of piolts and doctors that you want someone else to come to your armed defense 24-7? Or that it is your job to be trained and permitted so you can defend others? We're not talking about other people defending you here, we're talking about a person doing it for him/herself. I wouldn't recommend that a person remove their own brain tumor, but I also don't care if they try, and I'm not sure how any type of training or license would prevent someone that stupid from attempting it. Apples and oranges.
Licenses and tests and classes and permits all cost money. They are by their nature, discriminitory. It's the same hidden agenda that says a poor woman in the inner city is not "allowed" to own a "cheap Saturday Night Special" even if that is all she can afford. I often smell racisim when I hear people discuss this subject - not accusing anyone of that here, it's just that historically, gun control and gun permits have been racially and class based - and if nothing else, are always used by someone to those ends.
This is a much bigger subject than just your goofball neighbor walking around with a Davis auto stuffed down the front of his pants. What is being suggested is turning the right of personal protection over to government approval - when in reality, part of personal protection is PROTECTING YOURSELF FROM GOVERNMENT. Fox/henhouse people. It's a bad idea that always ends up in genocide in the long run.
Now, just to put it out there...as a reminder: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE.
I credit the next bit to John Farnam:
"Gallant, fearless men and women boldly confront and accept all risks
inherent with life. They proudly claim their own magnificence and confidently
step into the arena every day. Such personal daring is incomprehensible to
grasseaters, for whom perpetual fear and self-doubt is a way of life. They
invariably die is wretchedly as they live. We owe them no apology!"
I stopped worrying about what other people "might" do years ago and I started concentrating on what I DO. Embrace the risk and live.
Right now, it is "illegal" for our own troops to carry sidearms in the "green" zones of Iraq - the soldiers I know, the ones who live by the above doctrine, do it anyway. So much for permits.