CCW

I agree with qualifying. Quite a few LE are the same way, but the law is promoting the idiots, with no qualifications, and burning the LE that have carried their entire careers. At least require qualification for a CCW.

I've had recruits point their guns at me, shoot the ground in front of me, fire while I was down range etc...Needless to say, I've shown them the error of their ways.

If an experienced Agent/Officer failed to qualify, I took their weapon and car. They had to hitch a ride home. Then ride a desk, until they passed. It may seem harsh, but every scumbag is looking for an excuse to make money. And I did not want the responsibility for someone getting hurt because a jerk did not maintain proficiency.

Before I'd sign-off on anyone's ticket, they knew how to shoot and displayed a healthy respect and knowledge of their weapons.

Any instructor signing a certificate, after a 3 hour class, is in my mind an idiot waiting to be sued. Vicarious liability attaches. The few hundred bucks they make, will buy a nice box under a bridge, after the attorneys are through. And If they profess they have taught gunmanship in 3 hours, they are lying to themselves and their customers. Any real instructor/shootist would agree.

My classes would be cost prohibitive to most and take too much of their time. So John Q can play coyboy, until a knowledgeable person comes along and ruins their day.

I believe in the right to bear arms. But that right requires responsibility. Unfortunately, responsibility is becoming more rare daily.
Best,
Clay

Pardon me, being new here and all, I don't mean to ruffle too many feathers but that is a bunch of Bravo-Sierra.

What people don't need is more government involment in their daily lives. Legally possesed firearms account for just about 0% of gun crime.

"And should involve Legislators, to listen to suggestions, and protect citizens from themselves."

That is absolutely offensive to me as a clear-thinking citizen with an understanding of my countries foundation. It is not the role of government to "protect me from myself". Oh, they manage to do it sometimes (seatbelt laws come to mind), but it isn't their place and it should be resisted at every turn. There are lots of nice places over in Europe for folks who want the nanny-state to wipe their noses. No thanks.

"The 2nd Ammendment deat with responsible folks. Anyone carrying a gun , should exemplify responsibility."

Correct, anyone choosing to carry a firearm should take it upon themselves to be proficient with it's use, but the 2nd ammendment is pretty clear and trying to use it as justification for compulsary "hoops" that citizens must jump through before they may excersize their right is crazy.

"We've been lucky more CCW people have not been involved in more incidents, or the Kennedys of the country would be much more vocal. To keep the right, we have to govern ourselves and set examples."

Wrong, wrong and wrong.
1) More CCW's would mean fewer "incidents" and more captured/frightented/dead bad guys. We'd be lucky to have more, not less. 2) The "Kennedy's" of the world couldn't be more vocal and besides, appeasment is a bad strategy. 3) The way to keep your second ammendment right is to excersize it vigorously. The only people with a reason to fear an armed populace are criminals and tyrants. We have no shortage of either.

Appeasement may be the only way, in the future. As far as BS is concerned, if you think a 3 hr. class qualifies anyone to carry, the BS is thick. We have a right to carry, but that requires responsibility.

Today, I wouldn't trust most folks with a smoke-pole. Even if we have the right it doesn't bode well for the citizens when untrained jerks use their rights just because they can.

We have to protect ourselves from ourselves. I see more and more low-life scum, and yuppies unable to change a tire, without any concept of weapons, legally able to carry. I want them trained.

We have to realize there are 300M people in the U.S. and a fraction of that number have some training. It's like driving. Some courts have stated driving is a right, but the driver must pass a test. What's the problem with having someone carrying pass a test? A test we devise, not the government.

The Constitution is a couple hundred years old. The framers didn't foresee all the trash we deal with daily. To keep our rights from being circumvented more, we need to show we can handle things without government involvement. We can do this by displaying more than what is required. Then the liberal politicians would probably prefer having gun-toting citizens (trained) walking around. Recall, how they labeled any gun that looked macho, an illegal, horrible, man-killing machine? They based their assumptions on looks, only.

We know how the media uses single incidents to blow things out of proportion. Don't give them a chance. We've been lucky, but it will hit the fan and the good folks will suffer fools.

If Joe Blow, 3hr., smoke carrier, pulls his gun, or makes an armed mistake in front of me, he's a dead 3hr. QUALIFIED carrier. There are more stupid folks than most of us imagine. For the safety of others, and myself, I think all carriers require hands-on training.

In older times, parents and family taught kids gun safety. That ain't the case now. Anyone without a record, a 3hr. class, and a few bucks can buy anything and legally carry. Common sense dictates this is ridiculous. Constitutionally right, but stupid in reality.

If you want to stick it to the government, do something that won't wound or kill someone to make a point. I see road-rage constantly. Flipping a bird is less harmful than lead. And the bird flippers would toss lead if available. Anyone thinking people are able to govern themselves is in the ozone.

Because nothing has happened yet, means nothing. It does not predict the future by any mathematical standard. The probability, of some incident, is just less than 100% within the past few years. This tells us nothing of what may happen tomorrow.

Wrong, wrong , wrong, how many folks do you believe have been in a gunfight? Even experienced people miss their target and forget how many rounds have been fired. I'd rather let a scrote go than shoot an innocent person.

Figure out your priorities. Then check your bank account to see if you can afford being sued for everything you have. If you hit the wrong person, no matter how good your intentions, you will be responsible. Attorneys love hotdogs. And your statement would not sound "hotdog" if you said more TRAINED citizens carrying guns would curtail bad guys.

This club, along with numerous other gun organizations, could devise a set of standards, without government oversight, for all CCW. This would surpass current requirements and assure the guy next to you, if you both are carrying, that some semblance of order should be maintained.

I'm also an NRA Instructor for civilians, and require all students be familiar with their weapons and qualify at 15yds.. My name goes on their ticket and I'm not opening myself to undue liability. The NRA requires certain areas to be covered. If you spend additional time on all areas, they don't mind.

You may be a shootist, but most people are not. I've taught thousands of LE, military etc...and still see mistakes I've never seen before. Remember "Murphy's Law" when you think about arming everyone.

And Mark, don't worry about feathers. I'm new too, but have a lot of years dealing with bad guys. So saying my opinion is BS is your BS opinion. Looks like we're both full of BS opinions.
Best,
Clay

I don't think we disagree on what it may take to carry responsibly or that armed citizens should take the responsibility that comes with being armed very seriously, but we disagree entirely on where the onus of that responsibility should lie. I say it lies with the individual. Period.

I would resist any government restrictions on my rights out of priciple regardless of whether they might seem prudent in the short term or to solve one particular concern. We would all be wise to take that position.

Points about road-rage or other moronic actions of potentially armed citizens are moot. There is essentially nothing to stop those people from being armed now and there is also no indication that if they were it would lead to gun play. Why is it that in the areas of the US with the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest rates of violent crime and areas which remove restictions to gun ownership have historically had lower rates? More legally armed citizens doesn't increase violence, it reduces it.

I agree that anyone who carries should seek out quality training and be aware of the potential risks, but it should not be compulsory at the hand of the state or federal government. Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it's a good law. Seatbelts are a perfect example of that.

One last thing...

"The Constitution is a couple hundred years old. The framers didn't foresee all the trash we deal with daily"

Fair warning: comments like that will probably eventually lead to childish name-calling on my part. Our "founding fathers" were light-years ahead of their time and struggled mightily to produce a truly inspired set of documents (which I display in my livingroom) that need not be fooled around with by dopes like me and you (or especially the ones in DC) to settle the issues of the day. The bill of rights is timeless.

The lack of faith you display in your fellow citizens is a self-fulfilling prophesy. You deny their suitability for freedom so you would institute limitations which would "shelter" them and foster the very inabilty you first suspected them of having. Give the people their freedoms without shackles but let them also feel the full burden of the responsibilty that comes with it. People will rise to the occasion, and those that won't can move to France.

I don't propose government intervention in our rights. I propose our intervention. I have a right to protect myself from the citizens you are so sure will rise to the occasion. Additionally, I respect your views of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, they are living documents, formed to fit the times, even if the framers never covceived of vulgarities being the norm. That's what I meant by the framers not forseeing every possible event. They were brilliant, but not precognitive.

If someone owns a gun, and has received substantial training, I would imagine insurance companies would be favorable. I think the question is asked now when buying homeowner's insurance. It may work like car insurance? I don't know. But with my credentials, a corporation was able to save a substantial amount on premiums.

Any lack of faith, stems from numerous shootings and murders I've handled. About half involved regular citizens confronted with situations they couldn't handle, at the moment. Unless a contact wound, there were invariably more shots than one before the deceased was hit. This leaves room for other victims and is unacceptable.

We already require some course for a CCW. Why not extend it? We don't need the State to dictate how many or which classes we take. It's to our advantage to take as many as possible, become proficient as possible, and tell the State to take a hike.

I hate the courts interpreting from the bench, but fear there are too many hot-heads that would carry without some training. Perhaps you feel collateral damage is acceptable, until people catch on, I don't. In these cases the courts make law, contrary to their duties, to placate folks. Why give them a chance?

Your taking this forum as a personal matter exemplifies my argument. If you need to revert to name calling, have at it, it's your right. Just as it's mine to ignore you, fair warning and all.

Yes, the onus is on the carrier, but I doubt an innocent victim would be as understanding as you.
Have a Good Day

Well, that would be a stretch, but thanks anyway. As for the name-calling bit, that was largely "tongue in cheek", sorry if it didn't come across properly.

I respect your stated credentials, though I suspect they have led you to have an unusually high sensitivity on this subject. This is perfectly normal in any "industry". It comes with being intimately involved with negative circumstances.

Ask a mechanic what he thinks about a brand of cars and many will simply reply "they all suck" (I used to work as one). Why? because regardless of the fact that most of them work remarkably well for a remarkably long time, all the ones he sees are broken.

The fact is that gunfights involving licensed handgun owners are very, very rare. Cases where said gun owner was some "hot dog" who created or significantly worsened the situation are even more so. Not that it isn't a valid concern and not that it has never happened, but statistically, it pretty much never does.

As for being required to take a course, that depends on your location. I live in NY (which isn't particularly gun-friendly) and wasn't required to take any course. The process to get the permit is lengthy and expensive, but no training is involved. I did seek out training on my own, despite the fact that I have been exposed to firearms my whole life, and I think everyone should, but I don't believe it should be a matter for legislation.

Well, now it's not compulsory as to specific courses within states. It's just an idea, but it seems like most NRA Instructors would jump at a chance to give an inexpensive class, with NRA backing, to assist in getting folks trained (fairly well trained) to get the CWP. And a course wouldn't be a big problem.

The states don't want to get involved, liability issue, the people would have to be motivated to attend. The NRA could do all advertising etc...and the citizens would be NRA certified. The whole thing could cost less than $50. And the NRA gets credit, which they want anyhow. The NRA may pay most of the costs? The states are on thin ice with the 2nd as it is.

Hell, I'm just bouncing ideas off you. Although, it does beat a 3hr. classroom course, without any hands-on. The current holders would have to take the course only if they want the certificate and have reciprocity in other states. I think the states would welcome a structured course, rather than nothing at all.

We could maintain the 2nd, and make the states think they had something to do with safety standards. Seem like a win-win to me. I try to look for simple solutions to simple problems. Simple minded. If people want to carry, they would have to spend a little time to learn how to use their weapons. I don't think that's asking too much. It's not government regulated now, and if the citizens take the initiative, why should it be?

Let it rip.