CPL w/o training? i think its crazy

[roo_ster]

Wise Acre Reply

...When you advocate a solution, you ought to have a problem. And ideally, there ought to be some connection between the problem and your recommended solution.

I have heard people say, "Well, they ought at least to be able to strip and clean their guns." Hmmmm . . . so the problem is too many dirty guns?

Some people say they need to learn to shoot. So the problem is licensed citizens miss too many felons?

Others say, "They need to be trained in firearms safety." But firearms accidents are going down, not up.

What is the problem?

[devils_advocate]Hey, what if the problem is that I'd feel a whole lot better about things if everybody who gets a CHL has the requisite amount of gov't functionary-mandated training.[/devils_advocate]

SOLUTION:
Maybe the the solution is a Rx for prozac for the worrier, so the rest of us who don't worry are not effected. Hey, this could work! It is targetted at the real problem, it leaves the rest of the population undisturbed, and the costs fall where they ought (on the worrier).

 

[smince]

Once upon a time, I bought a new 1911. Went to the PD range the next Saturday to test it. A group of officers were there to qualify. The rangemaster said to wait and I could shoot after they were done. A few officers didn't show up, for what ever reason. The rangemaster said I could shoot their qual course if the officers didn't object, and none did. So with a 1911 I had never fired before, I aced their own qual course 98/100 (two hit high out the "scoring ring"). Several barely qualified, and the highest score was 80/100.

Point: Most officers, like most citizens, are not "gun people". Unless you are a serious shooter, you will not practice. So, unless you have to re-qual evertime you renew your permit, what is the use of a proficiency test to begin with? Some of these individuals barely met the requirements to keep their job and are there to protect us on the streets. Ms. Pink Cell-phone is hardly a worry, I'd say.

 

[roo_ster]

Not So Wise Acre Reply

You shouljnd't have to have training to exercise what is a human right.*

Next thing, you'll need SERE school creds not to experience cruel & unusual punishment.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

[devils_advocate]Hey, what if the problem is that I'd feel a whole lot better about things if everybody who gets a CHL has the requisite amount of gov't functionary-mandated training.[/devils_advocate]

SOLUTION:
Maybe the the solution is a Rx for prozac for the worrier, so the rest of us who don't worry are not effected. Hey, this could work! It is targetted at the real problem, it leaves the rest of the population undisturbed, and the costs fall where they ought (on the worrier).

You have correctly identified the problem and come up with the ideal solution. Go to the head of the class.

 

[Herself]

Again, I'm not advocating that CWP applicants be required to take a similar training program. How or where they get their training I don't care, but I do think it would be reasonable to require them to demonstrate a similar level of proficiency on the range.

Gun-grabber weasel-word alert.

Very unlike the strict wording of the Bill of Rights, "reasonable" is astonishingly fluid. Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein believe the fireams limitations they propose are "reasonable." Unlike you, they're in a position to do something about it.

Let the camel's nose in the tent and you'll have the whole camel, by and by. It is only a matter of time. All freedom is "unreasonable" to those who seek to control others.


Elsewhere, jtward wrote "...enough of the personal stuff..." This is pretty amusing, since it was he who first made an issue of his and his wife's disabilities. Don't try to use it as a trump card if you are not willing to lose the hand!

You know, I really do not think it is all that "reasonable" to allow someone with Parkinson's to be keeping and bearing arms, since muzzle control is next to impossible for them; and a man with a severely bad back probably shouldn't have them either, lest he injure himself from the recoil, or flinch with pain at a critical moment and discharge the weapon unaimed. Aren't you glad I'm not in charge?

You may be a saint in many ways, Mr. Ward, but it sure looks to me like you want poor people, stupid people and ditzy underweight blondes to die at the hands of brutes. I'm not down with that.

--Herself

 

[chopinbloc]

ms. herself, if i weren't already involved with a most wonderful person, i would be most enamored with you on the strength of your prose alone.

Did you miss the part about the Bill of Rights limiting government only, and that anything not explicitely limited in the BoR is hands off for the government.

i did not miss it. i prefaced my post by saying that i was playing devil's advocate. i am a libertarian at heart and, to be quite honest i feel that the constitution does not go far enough in some places to enumerate specific human rights. i would prefer to be left the heck alone by government in every part of my private life and feel that government - on a federal level at the least - has only the obligation of providing for the common defense and printing money. i feel this way not because the constitution says so but because that is all i want from .gov.

 

[jtward01]

Elsewhere, jtward wrote "...enough of the personal stuff..." This is pretty amusing, since it was he who first made an issue of his and his wife's disabilities. Don't try to use it as a trump card if you are not willing to lose the hand!

You know, I really do not think it is all that "reasonable" to allow someone with Parkinson's to be keeping and bearing arms, since muzzle control is next to impossible for them; and a man with a severely bad back probably shouldn't have them either, lest he injure himself from the recoil, or flinch with pain at a critical moment and discharge the weapon unaimed. Aren't you glad I'm not in charge?

You may be a saint in many ways, Mr. Ward, but it sure looks to me like you want poor people, stupid people and ditzy underweight blondes to die at the hands of brutes. I'm not down with that. --Herself

I only brought up the personal stuff to counter someone's characterization of me as "wealthy."

You're right about the Parkinson's. That's why my wife had to stop going to the range with me. As for my back problems, I'm responsible enough to realize that when taking my pain meds it's possible I'm not safe to handle a gun. That's why I stopped going to the range more than a year ago. I've never felt the need to carry for protection. I don't even keep my guns loaded at home. Don't feel the need for it. Of course, I do keep about 1,500 rounds of ammo around for situations like New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.

In none of my posts have I said anything about poor people (hell, I AM poor now), stupid people or "ditzy underweight blondes." I believe you're confusing me with some others who have posted here.

 

[Herself]

...I am dropping the "personal stuff" JT; but don't bring it up if you don't want to discuss it. Me, I am something of a gimp, and nearsighted to boot. Perhaps an enlightened government with an eye to the greater good would deny defectives like me the right to carry, too. Lucky for me, in Indiana the "government" is a bunch of grunting cavemen, rife with bizzare ideas like self-reliance and punishing actions rather than possibilities.

In none of my posts have I said anything about poor people (hell, I AM poor now), stupid people or "ditzy underweight blondes." I believe you're confusing me with some others who have posted here.

Nope, haven't confused you with anyone, though it was UW who used the blonde as a bad example.

Mandatory training takes time, costs money, and requires book-smarts of persons who may have little to none of any or all of those requirements. You are quite happy to let them die, be injured or be robbed at the hands of thugs, just so you may feel safer about who is allowed to exercise a fundamental human right. I cannot agree with that; your stance in this matter is immoral.

--Herself

 

[jtward01]

Me, I am something of a gimp, and nearsighted to boot.

Mandatory training takes time, costs money, and requires book-smarts of persons who may have little to none of any or all of those requirements.

I'm glad your infirmatives haven't affected your ability to shoot that new Colt .38 Super you just bought.

If you've read all my posts then you would know that I've modified my stance. Instead of mandatory training I'd be quite satisfied if CWP applicants only had to demonstrate a knowledge of the applicable laws and firearms safety procedures and a proficiency in the safe and accurate handling of a firearm.

If you're suggesting that I would be opposed to arming someone who doesn't have the mental agility to understand the legal limitations of their carry permit or the basic rules of safe gun handling then you're damned right.

 

[USMCRotrHed]

If you're suggesting that I would be opposed to arming someone who doesn't have the mental agility to understand the legal limitations of their carry permit or the basic rules of safe gun handling then you're damned right.

It seems to me that you are confusing a right with a priveledge. It is a priviledge to drive a car or fly an airplane. That is why skill testing and knowledge requirements exist. However it is a right to keep and bear arms, a fundamental right according to the constitution. Why are special requirements necessary to exercise a right.

All of our rights should have the same basic requirments for us to exercise them. If you require tests in order to carry a weapon then you have just given the government the logic trail and precedent to require tests before you can exercise your right to practice the religion of your choice, or the right to free speech, or the right to a jury trial, or even run for political office (hey, maybe we're on to something!). I could go on but I think you see my point.

 

[pax]

... opposed to arming someone who ...

See, there's the problem, right there.

The discussion isn't about whether you would give anyone anything. People already have a basic human right to own and carry around property. That's the default setting. So the discussion isn't about whether you would give people that right, but about whether you would take that right away from them.

You wouldn't be arming them in any case. Not unless or until you start purchasing handguns for strangers. Again, it isn't an issue of what you are willing to give others; it is a question of what you would take from others if you could.

The question is whether you want to make someone a criminal simply for exercising a basic human right while being unable or unwilling to jump through some very artificial hoops. And your answer is yes.

pax

 

[K-Romulus]

I’ve really struggled with this question as well for all reasons mentioned about the right of the constitution. But the question I ask is if some bonehead without proper training shoots some curly headed little girl by accident and the local legislature changes laws because of it doesn’t that put our rights in jeopardy? Like I said this is a struggle because I don’t want government control any more than the next guy but in this case I guess I lean toward mandatory "Training" for CCW permits.

The Brady Crowd uses just this point when persuading the last holdout state legislatures to circular-file shall-issue bills. All it takes is a handful of "data," and blissninny legislators crow "we told you so." Better to head them off at the pass . . . training standards for security guards should be the same whether you're guarding the local Safeway or your own family.


http://www.bradycampaign(dot)org/facts/issues/?page=ccw

Do You Feel Safer Sitting Next to Someone Carrying a Gun?

Many people say no to that question, and for good reason. Most people who have permits to carry concealed weapons - people who are not law enforcement officers - have limited training and undergo less testing than even a novice police recruit. Yet they are led to believe that, given a dangerous situation, they will use deadly force with the same care and consideration that police officers will. Once a bullet leaves a gun, who is to say that it will stop only a criminal? . . .

(emphasis in original)

 

[Herself]

I'm glad your infirmatives haven't affected your ability to shoot that new Colt .38 Super you just bought.

No, they haven't. But the Colt is very far from new. It's a pre-series 70, one of those "guns bought and left in a sock drawer" that some anti-gun gun-owners like to look askance at. The socks were good to it.
I don't buy new stuff. Can't afford it.
I operate that gun well enough to suit myself and not so badly that it scares people at the range; what more could one ask?

If you've read all my posts then you would know that I've modified my stance. Instead of mandatory training I'd be quite satisfied if CWP applicants only had to demonstrate a knowledge of the applicable laws and firearms safety procedures and a proficiency in the safe and accurate handling of a firearm.

Good heavens, JW, have you even read "the applicable laws" at the State and Federal level? Few persons outside the legal profession have time to swot the law. Perhaps we ought to be required to do the same to operate an automobile, too, instead of picking up a few simple rules of the road? Have you? --But driving is not a basic right; the keeping and bearing of arms is.
And as for "proficiency," are you sure you want to disarm the 80-year-old Granny who needs a .38 revolver to keep the wolves at bay, but who cannot hit the broad side of a barn at 20'? Why? What've you got against Granny?
"Safety procedures:" some people won't follow them. Think of it as evolution in action! But they are far from secret. Most gunnies will share them unasked and every owner's manual, darn near every publication about guns, has the Big Four Rules.

The vast majority of persons choosing to carry do learn safe gun-handling, they pick up the basic rules of carry and when to shoot or run in their State and they at least learn which end the bullets come out; and they do this without a bunch of fiddlin' laws standing between them and their innate right if self-defense.

You want to disarm the imperfect. You may not understand your goal as that but once begun, it only has one end: disarming victims, starting with the halt, the lame, the weak, the clumsy, the elderly, the poor and the slow. I really expected more compassion from a former EMT!

--Herself

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The vast majority of persons choosingto cary do learn safe gun-handling, they pick up the basic rules of carry and when to shoot or run in their State and they at least learn which end the bullets come out; and they do this without a bunch of fiddlin' laws standing between them and their innate right if self-defense.

You want to disarm the imperfect. You may not understand your goal as that but once begun, it only has one end: disarming victims, staring with the halt, the lame, the weak, the clumsy, the elderly, the poor and the slow. I really expected more compassion from a former EMT!

--Herself

You're right. I know I sound like a broken record, but I'll say it again to those who are for mandatory training -- show me the problem!

Show me the statistics that show CCW-holders have more accidents, commit more crimes, or do anything at all bad at a greater rate than the general population.

 

[Double Maduro]

See, there's the problem, right there.

The discussion isn't about whether you would give anyone anything. People already have a basic human right to own and carry around property. That's the default setting. So the discussion isn't about whether you would give people that right, but about whether you would take that right away from them.

You wouldn't be arming them in any case. Not unless or until you start purchasing handguns for strangers. Again, it isn't an issue of what you are willing to give others; it is a question of what you would take from others if you could.

The question is whether you want to make someone a criminal simply for exercising a basic human right while being unable or unwilling to jump through some very artificial hoops. And your answer is yes.

pax

+1

As usuall, you have cut right to the heart of the matter and explained it so that even the reasoning impaired and the anti's can understand it. That is, if they'll actually read it and think about what you said.

DM

 

[Correia]

Late to this discussion, but I just volunteered to be called upon as a CCW instructor in this state to testify in favor of Alaska/Vermont style carry before the state legislature. Don't know if I'll be the one that testifys or not, but I look forward to doing so if asked.

Utah has a training requirement. Apparently some CCW instructors are prepared to testify against losing the training requirment. (Why? My guess, loss of income, but justified by the arguments of the pro-mandatory training folks on this thread.)

In my experience from the other side of the table, regardless of what training is required, the responsible will be responsible, and morons will be really well behaved during my class, and then go back to being themselves five minutes after I sign off on their application.

I'm all about training, but it should be voluntary, not mandatory.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Late to this discussion, but I just volunteered to be called upon as a CCW instructor in this state to testify in favor of Alaska/Vermont style carry before the state legislature. Don't know if I'll be the one that testifys or not, but I look forward to doing so if asked.

Utah has a training requirement. Apparently some CCW instructors are prepared to testify against losing the training requirment. (Why? My guess, loss of income, but justified by the arguments of the pro-mandatory training folks on this thread.)

In my experience from the other side of the table, regardless of what training is required, the responsible will be responsible, and morons will be really well behaved during my class, and then go back to being themselves five minutes after I sign off on their application.

I'm all about training, but it should be voluntary, not mandatory.

And, if I may be so bold as to suggest a theme for your testimony:

In every state when shall-issue laws are debated, those opposed make dire predictions -- there will be shootouts for parking spaces, the crime rate will soar, and so on. Those predictions never come true. Never. Not in this state or any state that has passed a shall-issue law.

Let us not make the same mistake now. Let us not waste time with the imaginative predictions of those who are in no position to know. Instead, let us go and look for ourselves. Let us look at Vermont and Alaska where neither training nor licenses are required. What do we see there?

We see no increase in crime, or in shootings, accidental or otherwise. And we won't see any dire consequences here, either.

 

[Correia]

Vern, that pretty much says it, doesn't it?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, that pretty much says it, doesn't it?

Yes. Of course, there are people who will deny that to their dying breath.

 

[jtward01]

And as for "proficiency," are you sure you want to disarm the 80-year-old Granny who needs a .38 revolver to keep the wolves at bay, but who cannot hit the broad side of a barn at 20'? Why? What've you got against Granny?

I just hope to God she never has to pull that .38 out in public, 'cause if she's as unskilled as you claim she'll be at least as great a danger to the innocents around her as she is to the "wolves."

Remember, I watched a CWP student point the gun down range, close her eyes, turn her face away and then pull the trigger. She still got her certificate of completion for the class. Are you saying you'd like to be walking to your car in the mall parking lot with your children when this woman pulls out her carry gun to fend off a carjacker and starts blasting away with her eyes closed?

 

[Henry Bowman]

Remember, I watched a CWP student point the gun down range, close her eyes, turn her face away and then pull the trigger. She still got her certificate of completion for the class. Are you saying you'd like to be walking to your car in the mall parking lot with your children when this woman pulls out her carry gun to fend off a carjacker and starts blasting away with her eyes closed?

A person like that is no less dangerous simply driving her car. I'm not saying that I'd "like to be walking to my car in the mall parking lot with my children when this woman pulls out her carry gun to fend off a carjacker and starts blasting away with her eyes closed," but I'm willing to accept that risk as part of the price of freedom and prefer it to the alternative (which unfairly and unjustly restricts my rights).

 

[Trip20]

So from what I gather, have to be good at something before your allowed to do it. That is, you can't protect yourself unless your proficient. To do so will be a felony. This goes for firearms, and fist fights, right?

Welcome to America.

I don't think so.

An 80yr old grandmother can't hit the broad side of a barn, I don't care - she should still have the same right you and I have. You need to have faith that by her own accord, or through a family member, she'll receive range time, training, and encouragement. But even if she does not, being a bad shot by no means should require you to surrender your life.

Maybe this old lady is better at you in negotiations, de-escalating situations, or avoiding them all together. Maybe because you fall short in these areas we should jerk your permit? Crap, now we have to develope another test.

She's less of a danger to the community than a 21yr old hot-headed male who goes around instigating fights because now he's "packin' heat." But he's ok with you because he's a good shot, knows how to function his firearm safely, was able to pass a background check, pass a written test, and pass a range certification.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[NineseveN]

I just hope to God she never has to pull that .38 out in public, 'cause if she's as unskilled as you claim she'll be at least as great a danger to the innocents around her as she is to the "wolves."

I don't know what I can say to impress upon you that training is not the perfect solution. What do we do with people that just can't absorb the material? The people that get CWP's and then get training on their own do so because they have a desire to improve, those that don't, don't.

Correia is/was an instructor, and if you talk to most instructors, they will tell you the same thing that he did, "the responsible will be responsible, and morons will be really well behaved during my class, and then go back to being themselves five minutes after I sign off on their application", so how does that solve the problem you are so concerned with that hasn't materialized in the real world? Telling someone what the law is won't ensure that they follow it (or else none of us would speed or roll through stop signs now would we? We did pass a test telling us not to, didn't we?). Telling someone how to do something in the classroom does not ensure that they will follow such instruction outside of the classroom. Again we're back to the responsible folks will (which they already do without mandatory training) and the morons won't.

You have an uphill battle here and you're not gaining any ground without providing the following:

Proof that the lack of required training is a danger and causes the types of problems you have used as examples of your argument.

Proof that testing someone ensures that they will be safe even if they have no desire to absorb and apply the material outside of the classroom/testing environment.

I have given you an example of how your premise on the latter fails every single day, hundreds of thousands of times, every time someone gets a driver's license.

Remember, I watched a CWP student point the gun down range, close her eyes, turn her face away and then pull the trigger. She still got her certificate of completion for the class. Are you saying you'd like to be walking to your car in the mall parking lot with your children when this woman pulls out her carry gun to fend off a carjacker and starts blasting away with her eyes closed?

Hypothetical material won't win this argument. What we do have factual evidence of is that every time you give the government more control over a right, you lose some of that right. Any time you restrict our rights or advocate removing them 'for the good of the community' or for 'safety's sake', you are setting yourself up to be raped. In 1995, when Act 17 was passed (having been supported by Sportsmen organizations, the NRA and the HCI types) I wrote a few editorials that were distributed locally professing that this very thing could and would happen.

Folks kept giving me the same BS arguments as you have here. This was supposed to make us safer, but all it did was provide leverage for the JBT's to abuse the system and restrict or revoke our right under both the US and the PA constitution.


I am all for some form of mandatory training, provided it has no bearing on whether or not you may exercise your rights. I want Vermont Carry here in PA where such discussions would be moot in the first place. Again, if you were to propose such training for everyone, say in High Schools or Middle Schools, I would be all for it, so long as whether or not you passed the course had no bearing on being able to exercise a right.

I’m sorry if I made little sense here, I’m battling a lack of sleep and the onset of what appears to be an annoying head cold. I can’t think very well today.

 

[jtward01]

An 80yr old grandmother can't hit the broad side of a barn, I don't care - she should still have the same right you and I have. You need to have faith that by her own accord, or through a family member, she'll receive range time, training, and encouragement. But even if she does not, being a bad shot by no means should require you to surrender your life.

Not being allowed to carry a firearm in public is a long way from surrendering your life. I haven't heard anything about the mass slaughter of people in states without concealed carry, have you?

Maybe this old lady is better at you in negotiations, de-escalating situations, or avoiding them all together.

And what, exactly, would those skills have to do with carrying a gun in public except make it less likely for her to need a gun?

She's less of a danger to the community than a 21yr old hot-headed male who goes around instigating fights because now he's "packin' heat." But he's ok with you because he's a good shot, knows how to function his firearm safely, was able to pass a background check, pass a written test, and pass a range certification.

You're right, she probably is less of a danger to the public, but that doesn't mean I'm "OK" with the "21yr old hotheaded male . . . ."

 

[jtward01]

I don't know what I can say to impress upon you that training is not the perfect solution.

I have given you an example of how your premise on the latter fails every single day, hundreds of thousands of times, every time someone gets a driver's license.

Never said training was a perfect solution. Your comparison with a driver's license is a good analogy, but by your logic we might as well stop requiring driver's license exams and testing since it doesn't weed out all bad drivers.