[Guest]

Hi all,

I started this thread because I made a post in a different section referring to a debate I had about this subject on THR (The High Road) forums. Below is the post with a link to the THR thread and associated and disclaimer. :lol:

Feel free to comment , even if you disagree with me ... really! :lol:

Ok, I have not gone back to re-read my post so I want to apologize if I come across as "condescending". I really try not to be but sometimes it sounds like it. However, I promptly PM'd folks to make sure that they knew that this was not my intent.

OK, qualifications aside ... below is the thread. I am linking directly to the page where I start the debate (scroll down towards the bottom) as the thread was originally about something else (weird topic). Thread was hi-jacked so I took the blame and apologized. Enough already, here goes ...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.p ... ge=5&pp=25

 

[Guest]

Flame on!

Let's get this party started!

Here was my reply to KONY on the hijacked thread:
<<
Good points on both side. I definitely see your side, i.e. that any step forward in legislation is momentum that we may never recover from.

I cherish my gun rights too, but at the same time I believe there are some people that are incapable of handling a gun safely enough to carry it around others. I keep going back to the saying of "your rights end where others' begin", and IMHO that is someone who cannot safely carry a weapon in public.

I like the driver's license analogy, you have to demonstrate proficiency at that before getting one (I know that driving is a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT). I think the spirit of a driver's license is that a car can be a deadly weapon, and a handgun would be a ???? Quite a conundrum IMO.
>>

 

[Guest]

I, too, have no problem with someone being required to demonstrate proficiency with a handgun before being allowed to carry it concealed. Reading through the other thread about CCW requirements, it's clear that all states are not created equal. I don't think the standards should be used as an impediment to issuing licenses (as some states/counties/cities would clearly do) but I think it's reasonable to expect that the guy with the gun at least knows the basic safety rules, can hit what he's aiming at from 10 ft and knows what the legal ramifications are of using his weapon.

I'd be surprised to find more than a minority of gun owners who don't believe in required proficiency -- but the real rub comes in how to enforce it. I think there's a fear of opening a Pandora's Box by adding legislation that does anything to address limitations in gun rights. We saw what happened last time we let Congress monkey around with gun control! So that leaves the States...I can only imagine what California's requirement would be like. Probably have to graduate from SWAT school and pass the bar exam!

As GEN Tommy Franks used to say (about fighting the war in Afghanistan): If it were easy, they'd call it bowling!

Jim

 

[Guest]

I'd be surprised to find more than a minority of gun owners who don't believe in required proficiency -- but the real rub comes in how to enforce it. I think there's a fear of opening a Pandora's Box by adding legislation that does anything to address limitations in gun rights. We saw what happened last time we let Congress monkey around with gun control! So that leaves the States...I can only imagine what California's requirement would be like. Probably have to graduate from SWAT school and pass the bar exam!

Virginia's training requirement only entails attending an basic pistol course (not sure if it HAS to be NRA-sponsored). This is not a big deal but I do not think there should be any stiffer requirements. These courses cost money and requiring more of them would make CHPs harder to obtain for poor folks and that is wrong, IMHO. To me, firearms training is every bit a personal responsibility as is the RIGHT to own a firearms.

 

[Guest]

I think it's reasonable to expect that the guy with the gun at least knows the basic safety rules, can hit what he's aiming at from 10 ft and knows what the legal ramifications are of using his weapon.

I'd be surprised to find more than a minority of gun owners who don't believe in required proficiency -- but the real rub comes in how to enforce it.

So I think that means that you agree with requiring demonstrated proficiency, but the potential for gun control laws (like the 1993 AWB and L.A. county's draconian regulations) to run amok far outweighs the good any new requirements would add.

These courses cost money and requiring more of them would make CHPs harder to obtain for poor folks and that is wrong, IMHO. To me, firearms training is every bit a personal responsibility as is the RIGHT to own a firearms.

My main disagreement with this statement is that you are assuming that someone else's standard of personal responsibility for training is sufficient to make them safe "enough" to carry and potentially handle firearms in public. My theory on people is "least common denominator", in that statisically people will essentially do what is the minimum for any situation. If the minimum for handgun training required for CCW is zero, then the part of the bell curve that contains "unsafe" people is going to be much larger than if some guidelines were established.

Back to the driver's license analogy - you're not required to go to a driving school you have to pay for, although that is an option if you choose. All you need to do is pass the test and demonstrate skills that are clearly outlined in the publicly available information distributed by the licensing office. The same could be true about CCW licensing. You can go out to the desert with Wally-World ammo and practice for the test beforehand. If you can afford a handgun you can afford this amount of preparation.

I agree with Jim that establishing and enforcing these standards hold the potential for abuse. However, the potential for ADs in public is also great IMO.

Jeff

 

[WeedNemesis]

Call me crazy but I think every discussion about licensing shows how society is moving away from personal responsibility and trying to put it in the hands of the govt. I belive there can and should be an economic incentive to being trained, either in the operation of a car or the carrying of a weapon. As an example if insurance co's offered a discount for drivers who went through training we should see people go through training. Same goes for life insurance. If someone is trained on how to defend themself their premium should be reduced to reflect the decreased risk of having to pay a widow. Granted the premium reduction would have to be enough to justify the expense of being trained.

 

[Guest]

My main disagreement with this statement is that you are assuming that someone else's standard of personal responsibility for training is sufficient to make them safe "enough" to carry and potentially handle firearms in public. My theory on people is "least common denominator", in that statisically people will essentially do what is the minimum for any situation. If the minimum for handgun training required for CCW is zero, then the part of the bell curve that contains "unsafe" people is going to be much larger than if some guidelines were established.

Well, just a personal example, but one that goes against your "least common denominator" thinking is ... I go to the shooting range at least once a week (sometimes twice if wife allows) plus I am fairly active on at least 4-5 different forums (if you count this as training, I do because its knowledge acquired from you fine folks!) ... so I know I am not just happy to get my gun and seek no other training. Not sure if this is the case with anyone else but judging by the traffic on this forum and people stating how much they like shooting their Steyrs, I don't think I am an anomoly.

 

[Guest]

Call me crazy but I think every discussion about licensing shows how society is moving away from personal responsibility and trying to put it in the hands of the govt. I belive there can and should be an economic incentive to being trained, either in the operation of a car or the carrying of a weapon. As an example if insurance co's offered a discount for drivers who went through training we should see people go through training. Same goes for life insurance. If someone is trained on how to defend themself their premium should be reduced to reflect the decreased risk of having to pay a widow. Granted the premium reduction would have to be enough to justify the expense of being trained.

Agreed! Owning a firearm is a personal responsibility and we can't let the gov't do our thinking for us. While I never really thought about an "incentive for training" program, I don't see anything wrong with it. Cool suggestion. 8)

 

[Guest]

Well, just a personal example, but one that goes against your "least common denominator" thinking is ... I go to the shooting range at least once a week (sometimes twice if wife allows) plus I am fairly active on at least 4-5 different forums (if you count this as training, I do because its knowledge acquired from you fine folks!) ... so I know I am not just happy to get my gun and seek no other training. Not sure if this is the case with anyone else but judging by the traffic on this forum and people stating how much they like shooting their Steyrs, I don't think I am an anomoly.

Of course the least common denomitor theory doesn't apply to people such as yourself that are firearms enthusiasts, who participate in forums such as this and most likely do what they are about - shoot their guns and thereby train with them.

I will wager, however, that you have been to the range on several occasions and witnessed unsafe gun handling that posed a potential threat to your safety and those around you. If these people can take a 3-hour class and an open-book test (like I did in Florida 12 years ago) and carry a handgun with no demonstrated proficiency in the most basic skills with a deadly weapon, don't you agree that the risk is elevated to the public around these people? If these same people were required to train enough either on their own or by taking a course in order to pass a *reasonable* test they had knowledge of beforehand, don't you agree the same person would be safer?

As they say, knowledge is power and I guess that's the crux of my argument. Not enough knowledge (interchangeable with "training") is being disseminated to people in this regard.

Jeff

 

[hihoslva]

I am relatively new to the world of firearms, as I moved to a very gun-friendly state (AZ) from a VERY anti-gun area (Long Island, NY).

My thoughts about the right to bear arms are changing, and I think it should be every citizen's right to protect themselves.

However, those citizens who lack any type of skills or training are a danger to everyone around them, including themselves.

Consider this:

In my CCW class, there were at least 2 people who had NEVER handled a gun before. One guy loaded his rounds in the magazine backwards on the firing line. The other was confused as to which lever/button was the safety. BOTH of them had their hands in unsafe positions on a loaded ready-to-fire pistol at some point in the shoot. Neither of these people knew how to properly handle a gun, even if they did well on the qualifying shoot (which they surprisingly did).

Now, consider that AZ is a right-to-carry state. Anyone with money, a drivers license, and who passes the 15 second background check can buy a gun.

What if these people decided they didn't want to take the CCW class, and only wanted to buy a gun? Is there a chance that they could buy a revolver, and walk around with it COCKED all the time because they don't know any better? Or pick up a 1911, and be cocked with NO safety on, because no one taught them how to USE the damn gun?

People who own and/or handle firearms without understanding all the parts and how the gun functions are a danger to everyone within a 1 mile radius of them at all times.

Improper gun handling leads to accidental gun discharges which leads to accidental shootings and accidental deaths. The probability of this type of accident goes down dramatically when the person with the gun is trained how to use it, and how to respect it.

In populated areas, you can figure that at least 5,000 people live within a one mile radius of your house. And if you discharge that weapon, every single man, woman, and child in that radius is at risk of being struck by your errant bullet. That's a very big responsibility.

Even something such as requiring gun shop owners to give the buyer a 5 minute rundown on how their particular gun operates could help a lot. Putting a firearm in the hands of someone who has no idea how to operate it safely is a dangerous proposition.

 

[Guest]

All of your points are very well taken. I am a firm believer in firearms training. Just get angry at the thought that it needs to be required by gov't instead of something we could seek out on your own accord.

Hiho, I understand as I moved here from NYC myself.

 

[Guest]

My suggestion...
One way to ensure gun-handling skills w/out opening too much of a pandora's box for Gov controll.

Stregthen the requirements for qualifications for CCW permits in three simple ways w/ out requiring great shooting skills.

1.)require a shooter to draw from concealment (after all your applying for a CONCEALED permit)and engage two targets w/ current qualification standards for accuracy(not that high).

2.)Require a reload while firing.

3.)Require that they be able to show clear before stepping off the firing line.

Whoever is judging/administereing this test should be able to ask anyone to leave and come back to requalify free later if they violate ANY one of the four cardinal laws of safety while doing this.

these are for those applying for permits only, to purchase a firearm to each state their own, but maybe require all FFL's to OFFER a 5 minute safety lecture to any new gun owners (most shops do this anyway I believe).

 

[Guest]

I too have seen plenty of idiots at the range. It turns my guts to think that they may have a carry permit. The problem is when you start to have basic requirements for people to exercise inalienable rights there are large segments of the population that can be affected. Extensive training courses could make it tough for elderly, handicap or poor people from obtaining a carry permit. Alaska and Vermont are the ideal way to go. While I would love everyone to have to complete extensive training I don’t think it is good for the legislature to mandate those requirements. I do think that in the political climate that we now live in training is not something that will go away.

 

[Guest]

Everyone on this board is an above average gun owner. The simple fact you are here makes you above average. I have spent the last 13 years in the gun business. I taught the Texas CHL course to over 300 people. How little most people know about proper gun safety, gun laws and use of deadly force laws scares me silly. I am not just talking about "Bubba" but educated professionals, sucessfull business people, the kind for people you would think had a sense of responsibility and they do have one. The problem is they do not percieve the need for the information they lack. Ten million VCR clocks blink 12:00 because the owners percieve no need to make it into a functioning clock. The only way to make the gun owner understand the need for training is to inform him of the need. The only way to inform him is to make him show up at a training class. The only way to make him show up is to have a law requiring the class as part of getting a license to carry. Every state now requires new hunters to have a hunter safety course to get a hunting license. The accident rate has declined to half of what it was before those courses were required. I believe we have a similar situation here.

 

[SELFDEFENSE]

No, since a right should have minimal to no gateway requirements.
Certainly less training than a driver's license since operating a gun is less comlex a psychomotor skill than driving a car which is a proven more lethal weapon than a gun. And any significant level of requirements can be used as backdoor gun control.
So we must live with the added danger in order to have the right at all. Plus its more dangerous on the highway with the current low level of driver training, and we readily accept that risk.

 

[midtnshooter]

Should Training Time For CCW Be Increased ?

Yes, Yes, Yes ! My training (years ago) was 20 hours in class (Tennessee) with four additional on the range. I learned legal issues that scared the sh*t outta me. Now our state has four hours in class with four on the range. Back when the targets were challenging, now ..... hehehe. But most of all, we have the right to carry. Our rights, our obligation.

 

[HIBACHI]

In NY there's no CCW class of any kind, but a rather lengthy period of time while an in depth background check is run. (Intended) Possession of a firearm is not required to obtain a CC permit, and any certification would require use of a State supplied? handgun. I am not in favor of any testing that might result in denial of a permit to a law-abiding person. It is the individual's responsibility to insist that whomever sells them a pistol also show them how it works and comes apart etc. It is also the individual's responsibility to understand the legal use and possession of a pistol as these finer points change from one locality to another in the state. We already have more than enough laws to deal with people who, through intent or criminal levels of idiocy, pose an undue threat to others. It might be someone's right to own a gun, but society doesn't owe anyone extra consideration if they fail to exercise that right responsibly. Additional testing for lawful possession seems like a strange thing to worry about in a country where many criminals walk around with brand-new guns tucked in their pants. In my city we average 2-3 shootings a night, none of them perpetrated by clueless but legal citizens. I'm more concerned about the clueless but legal drivers I share the road with every day.

 

[SELFDEFENSE]

"Additional testing for lawful possession seems like a strange thing to worry about in a country where many criminals walk around with brand-new guns tucked in their pants. In my city we average 2-3 shootings a night, none of them perpetrated by clueless but legal citizens. I'm more concerned about the clueless but legal drivers I share the road with every day."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
+1

 

[squirrelpotpie]

No, there should not be increased training requirements for a CCW.

Proper training in gun handling is always a good idea, however the training requirements should be the same as those for handling an unconcealed weapon - which is what it is likely to be once you go to use it.

State approval should not be required to own or shoot a firearm.

Folks have a right to defend themselves and to bear the responsibilty for their actions. So, it is certainly in their best interests to learn how to use their tools effectively but it should not be a requirement dependent on state approval.