Do you CCW? Then watch this video........

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

Having seen people in class sweeping others, dropping mags one lady even dropped her gun and still pass makes me think that a little more training should be in order. I totally get the 2nd amendment. However would you agree that some people need to be trained before you let them run around with a loaded gun? I have trained my wife and kids how to use and care for guns. We practice quite a bit. I would trust my 15 year old daughter more than some of the people in that class.

[Gaddis 1,689]

So, basically you are saying that being hit by an untrained robbers bullet (morally? ) is somehow preferable to being hit by a bullet fired by a sloppily trained CCW holder?

 

And as an aside question here, did you ever go to a firing range when the average modern police officer tries to qualify with his service handgun?

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

So, basically you are saying that being hit by an untrained robbers bullet (morally? ) is somehow preferable to being hit by a bullet fired by a sloppily trained CCW holder?

 

And as an aside question here, did you ever go to a firing range when the average modern police officer tries to qualify with his service handgun?

 

Morals do not have anything to do with it. I just believe people should be trained. Yes I have seen some interesting stuff on police and military ranges.

[kdbutler 563]

I totally get the 2nd amendment.

 

You sure about that? The Framers didn't want government dictating how The People exercised a right to defend against loss of life, property, invasion, or tyrannical government. How free are you to exercise a guaranteed right, when those whom you may have to exercise that right against get to dictate the terms? Short answer: You're no longer free, you're a subject.

 

If it helps, don't think of your proposal in terms of the 2nd Amendment, rather think of how it could be applied to any others in the Bill of Rights (Free Speech, for example). Can you think of any government-imposed limits on your right to petition government for redress of grievances that you're willing to live with? That's where some of us are coming from. The 2A is pretty clear.

 

However would you agree that some people need to be trained before you let them run around with a loaded gun? I have trained my wife and kids how to use and care for guns. We practice quite a bit. I would trust my 15 year old daughter more than some of the people in that class.

 

I would agree that all gun owners should have training from someone who is competent in the safe use of guns. However, I don't want government imposing mandatory training (where government gets to decide who's competent, and who isn't) before a person gets to exercise an unalienable right. We who hold a license to carry, already endure certain infrigments on that right, whether aware of it or not. Just because we follow the laws, pay the fees, take the courses, get fingerprinted, background checked, and in some cases, register the firearm - doesn't mean we think its right.

 

I encourage all to train, but respect someone's decision to get as much, or as little training as they desire. You'll never hear me say that I want to use the force of government, so I can be more comfortable with how others exercise their rights. It's a slippery slope, indeed.

 

Edited September 23, 2011 by Kevin in Texas

[DogMan 2,343]

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't go around in fear of being accidentally shot by a CCW license holder because I don't remember this being a huge problem. If someone can demonstrate how this is a pervasive issue that must be addressed with more government regulation please enlighten me with the statistics and numerous examples that go along with an issue of this magnitude.

[dieb4iwake 60]

You all missed the point of the video...

Training is the most important factor and high stress training is the best.

[DogMan 2,343]

You all missed the point of the video...

Training is the most important factor and high stress training is the best.

 

Nobody missed anything. Everybody agrees the more training the better. We don't agree it should be a condition of issuing a CCW permit.

[Ken1961 14]

You all missed the point of the video...

Training is the most important factor and high stress training is the best.

 

Nobody missed anything. Everybody agrees the more training the better. We don't agree it should be a condition of issuing a CCW permit.

 

This is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

Thanks DogMan

[MT Predator 2,294]

You all missed the point of the video...

Training is the most important factor and high stress training is the best.

 

Nobody missed anything. Everybody agrees the more training the better. We don't agree it should be a condition of issuing a CCW permit.

 

I think someone missed the meaning of my example referring to the licensing requirements for driving a potentially deadly vehicle down a public road. All I got was the "Second Amendment doesn't give you a right to drive" in response. Ok, how about flying or operating a train, crane, bus? They all require a demonstration in proficiency before a license is issued. So do you all agree these those engaging in the above activites should demonstrate they can safely do so before being granted a license to do it in public? What is different about someone demonstrating they can safely operate a firearm before letting them carry it in public? I don't get it apart from some people getting all wrapped up about the 2nd Amendment.

[timy 1,185]

You all missed the point of the video...

Training is the most important factor and high stress training is the best.

 

Nobody missed anything. Everybody agrees the more training the better. We don't agree it should be a condition of issuing a CCW permit.

 

I think someone missed the meaning of my example referring to the licensing requirements for driving a potentially deadly vehicle down a public road. All I got was the "Second Amendment doesn't give you a right to drive" in response. Ok, how about flying or operating a train, crane, bus? They all require a demonstration in proficiency before a license is issued. So do you all agree these those engaging in the above activites should demonstrate they can safely do so before being granted a license to do it in public? What is different about someone demonstrating they can safely operate a firearm before letting them carry it in public? I don't get it apart from some people getting all wrapped up about the 2nd Amendment.

 

Pretty much. The car wasn't around back when they put the constitution together or it probably would have been mentioned. I seem to recall that they hung horse thieves once upon a time so messing with one's transportation was indeed frowned upon. As has been mentioned, it is a slippery slope but there are restrictions in place already.

 

As to competence with a weapon, yes I believe there are people who shouldn't be able to carry. What about an aggressive type person with Alzheimer's or Dementia? Is anyone really going to argue the right to carry for people with severe mental issues? What would be the cut off point there? I'm not aware of any laws regarding such, but don't think it would be a good idea for blind people to carry. Is that going down the slope or just a matter of common sense?

 

During a break while taking my class I talked to one guy who admitted not knowing why he was there. When I asked what he meant, he said he didn't even like guns, had never fired one, and was only there "for something to do". Yet at the end of the class he was just as legally able to carry as anyone else. Gun ownership is a a right but carries a rather substantial responsibility along with it. There are quite a few people who don't get that connection. Encouraging someone to get training is fine but carries no weight whatsoever. That being the case, you could have someone with zero experience trying to use a weapon to defend themselves and others. Not a good idea in my opinion.

 

One of the latest "laws" the government wants to cram down our throats is headlights that come on automatically when you turn on the wipers. Now why on Earth would this regulation be needed? All you have to do is use common sense and turn on your lights in low visibility conditions. Simple, huh?

 

 

 

 

[MT Predator 2,294]

Gun ownership is a a right but carries a rather substantial responsibility along with it. There are quite a few people who don't get that connection.

[DogMan 2,343]

Sure we have the Right to Bear Arms but should the untrained and inexperienced have the right to use them in public? Your friends or family could become someone's backstop. I have the right to buy a big fucking Kenworth but I have to be tested, then licensed, before driving it down the public roads you, your friends, and family travel on.

The Military has standards a shooter must achieve to be qualified to carry duty weapons. If you can't qualify on the weapon, then you are not drawing one from the armory.

Why does it seem too far fetched to establish a training and qualification standard for CCW?

 

To your first question, the answer is Yes, absolutely. Everyone has the right to "use" a gun in self defense. No laws are needed for that, not even the second amendment. That will never change. Now, as for who should be able to have their own gun with them when they need it........When someone finds themselves in a bad situation a lot of things "could" happen. Another thing that "could" happen is that the person successfully defends himself and never comes close to hitting anybody but the bad guy. Another thing that "could" happen is that the bad guy kills his defenseless victim because the victim wasn't "qualified" to carry. BTW, I believe you can buy a Kenworth and drive it down the road without a CDL if it's not for commercial purposes, but I get your point. My point is, everyone has a right to be able to defend themselves whether or not someone else or some government agency thinks they are "qualified" to do so or not.

Whoooo!......Can I get a Amen and a Uh Huh!

Edited September 24, 2011 by DogMan

[kodaline 178]

My two cents. CCW permits do NOT give you the legal authority to use the gun with impunity. You are responsible for your bullets,

even in defense of your life. The driving analogy is flawed. as a driver's license allows you to USE the vehicle, whereas a CCW

allows you to bring it with you.

 

Training is important, but it should not be made a condition of carrying a gun. You are still responsible for your bullets, and the

licensing agency should seriously stress getting training, but it should rely on good faith in your fellow man and common sense

that it will occur, NOT a law.

 

My state, Indiana, requires no training to get a license. I took a course once, and all I got out of it was that I needed to work on

my hot swapping mags a bit more. Not at all saying the course was bad, just that I was beyond it. I recently taught a group of

10 to shoot, with none ever having shot one before. Not bragging here, at all, but I've got enough skill to CCW.

 

However, according to a hypothetical state law, I might not UNLESS I take their specially approved hypothetical course. Add

to that that government fucks up ANYTHING they get involved in, and one can see that giving them any legal authority over

good people having the right to carry is a bad idea.

 

Yes, people should get training, but the government should not be the one to make them do it.

[Gaddis 1,689]

Maybe (like with that idea proposed a few years back that if an attorney gets a convicted killer released from prison who then goes out soon after and kills someone in cold blood again), that the attorney himself then shares at least half blame for the second murder happening, and could be criminally charged himself? If a criminal starts a gunfight, and innocent bystanders get hit in the ensuing melee (even from bullets fired by a licensed (but poorly trained) CCW holder), that the criminal is then held legally responsible for any injuries that his reckless actions instigated?

 

I mean, they already have (quite stupid! ) laws on the book that if you take part in a crime where someone is killed (even if you were just driving the car that the killers were in, even if you did not know they were contemplating killing someone at the time) that you can be charged as an accessory to the murder too.

 

What's the big difference (inserting my favorite word: "Morally" here ) between the two scenarios that I have outlined here?

 

I mean, not to be a cop basher here, but it's kind of hard to sue a police officer for discharging a negligent bullet. What's good for the Goose....

Edited September 24, 2011 by Gaddis

[read_the_wall 614]

Some states allow carry without permits, let alone training.

 

Alaska

Arizona

Vermont

Wyoming

 

No training required here in Washington, but they still take my money and fingerprints.

Personally, I have training, but would still carry without classes as long as I

understood the limits of my experience with the firearm I carry... My choice

 

My vote.....none of anyones business if I carry until someone has to find out....

 

lame video

[MT Predator 2,294]

The driving analogy is flawed. as a driver's license allows you to USE the vehicle, whereas a CCW

allows you to bring it with you.

It's not that flawed. A Class A Commercial Driver's License is a lot different than your regular one. Chile will back me on this one as I know he is a driver. So what you are saying is my 16 year old who just got his regular drivers license, (which does compare to some of the minimum CCW training requirements in this case IMO), has the right to be behind the wheel of a Semi-Tractor with a 13 speed transmission, (which does not shift like a Civic), and a 60 foot Lowboy trailer loaded with a 75,000 pound bulldozer, driving on a public roadway? They don't handle or stop like a car either BTW. Once again, I believe a demonstration of proficiency is required for both as both can kill innocent people if you do not know what you are doing. Here in FL the CCW training requirement is silly IMO. If you are Active or prior Military or LEO, training is waived with paperwork as both get training. Otherwise, you can get a crash course, (no live fire) training course at the local gunshow to fulfill the requirement. My friend's son just got his CCW through the local gunshow mall ninja academy and he seriously is the last person needing to be hauling around a loaded firearm unattended. He'll probably shoot his dick off someday as he carrys "Mexican style", no holster.

[MT Predator 2,294]

BTW, I believe you can buy a Kenworth and drive it down the road without a CDL if it's not for commercial purposes, but I get your point. My point is, everyone has a right to be able to defend themselves whether or not someone else or some government agency thinks they are "qualified" to do so or not.

RV guys skirt around the CDL requirement by running neutered semi tractors (minus a rear axle), pulling a fifth wheel RV trailer. Agriculture guys can skirt around it with a Farm permit in some states. Both the RV guys and Agriculture guys lack proper training and testing and are potentially very dangerous on the public roads BTW. If I want to run a dump truck down the road, I need a CDL Class B. Some motorhomes being driven on public roads by retired 70 year old drivers are bigger than the damn dump truck and require no CDL training or licensing. I see your point. Everybody SHOULD have the right to defend themselves but in order to carry anywhere in public, concealed or open, they SHOULD have proper training and demonstrate their capability IMO. If you had witnessed the fucked up shit I've seen on Military and Law Enforcement ranges, let alone Public ranges, you might see where I am coming from. Anyone passing a background check to buy a firearm is good to go for self defense at home anyway. We are talking about a state by state, even counties and municipalities, licensing requirement to carry.

[kdbutler 563]

The driving analogy is flawed. as a driver's license allows you to USE the vehicle, whereas a CCW

allows you to bring it with you.

It's not that flawed. A Class A Commercial Driver's License is a lot different than your regular one. Chile will back me on this one as I know he is a driver. So what you are saying is my 16 year old who just got his regular drivers license, (which does compare to some of the minimum CCW training requirements in this case IMO), has the right to be behind the wheel of a Semi-Tractor with a 13 speed transmission, (which does not shift like a Civic), and a 60 foot Lowboy trailer loaded with a 75,000 pound bulldozer, driving on a public roadway? They don't handle or stop like a car either BTW. Once again, I believe a demonstration of proficiency is required for both as both can kill innocent people if you do not know what you are doing. Here in FL the CCW training requirement is silly IMO. If you are Active or prior Military or LEO, training is waived with paperwork as both get training. Otherwise, you can get a crash course, (no live fire) training course at the local gunshow to fulfill the requirement. My friend's son just got his CCW through the local gunshow mall ninja academy and he seriously is the last person needing to be hauling around a loaded firearm unattended. He'll probably shoot his dick off someday as he carrys "Mexican style", no holster.

 

At the risk of taking this even further off-topic: Sure, driver's licenses (CDL, Public Passenger - Chauffeur, DL, etc) are required for operation of motor vehicles on public roads. In Texas, I can operate a motor vehicle, even farm equipment, without license on private land. The point is, when you use public roads for transportation, you have a reasonable expectation to follow licensure laws and meet a minimum proficiency with the vehicle you are operating.

 

Since as a CHL-holder, I am restricted from carrying in all public (government) buildings in my state; its a reasonable assumption that if I need to defend myself it will most likely be on private property (barring shootouts in the middle of a busy street, or while driving on a public road). Outside of the state of Texas handgun proficiency requirements, there's really no other reason for additional requirements.

 

We can point out the differences between holding a DL and holding a CHL ad infinitum - we just can't understand it for you.

 

By the way: I know you feel really strongly about mandatory training requirements for CHL-holders beyond the licensure requirements. But, do you really want to be the guy who gets to call someone else's proficiency (and eligibility to carry) into question, when their own state (and those with reciprocity) ALREADY trusts them? That could be some entertaining shit to watch.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Kevin in Texas

[kodaline 178]

Sorry, MT, it just doesn't work, and it doesn't work for two reasons:

 

1. A CCW allows you to carry a gun, not to use it. It is legal to own a Mack truck without a commercial license, the license gives you the right to operate it.

What you are drawing an analogy to is a GUN PERMIT, not a CCW.

 

2. Your analogy of a commercial driver's license requiring training also doesn't work, as the equivalent to a commercial vehicle

in the firearms world is restricted weaponry, which, also, is not the subject of this conversation.

 

You have a RIGHT to have a weapon to defend yourself. This is a RIGHT, not a privilege. The government is NOT ALLOWED to

make rules restricting that, and, anyone who doesn't understand that basic concept needs to go read the Constitution.

Carrying a concealed weapon is what the "bear" in the Amendment means.

 

Yes, training is a great idea, but, it cannot be made a condition of carrying a gun. It's like having enough money to support a kid

before you go having one is a great idea, but we can't make it a condition of having one, because, in both cases, the government

would be invading our lives. America is founded upon good people making the right call, self governance. Unfortunately, we

no longer live up to that lofty goal.

[DrThunder88 912]

The experiment in the video had a number of flaws. The fact that they weren't picked up on by the reporter is shameful but entirely within the playbook of mainstream news agencies, which is also a shame.

[MT Predator 2,294]

1. A CCW allows you to carry a gun, not to use it.

You damn sure can use it here in Florida and the law is on your side if it is justified.

[454496 71]

Thats a funny video. They give city people a gun with play bullets and they actually try to shoot someone with it.

 

I bet there are people in California that have tried to shoot someone with an empty gun.

Edited September 25, 2011 by 454496

[read_the_wall 614]

So if or country is invaded by........say Mexico.......or

is forced to defend itself against a coup.....say by left

wing nut jobs that want to require training for c.w.p.'s..

 

do we have to get training before we defend our country ?

it is our right to keep and to bear arms.....

[kodaline 178]

1. A CCW allows you to carry a gun, not to use it.

You damn sure can use it here in Florida and the law is on your side if it is justified.

 

Lol. Dude, I grew up there. Remember, you shipped that stock to my old man? He likes it, by the way.

 

A CCW does not give you the right to use the gun. You already have the right to use a gun in certain circumstances

and having a CCW or not will not change them.

[Scott Kenny 144]

Let's license churches and ministers, gotta meet the requirements ya know.

We already do that. Churches, at least, have to meet 501c3 requirements in order to be tax-exempt non-profits. In order to *keep* their 501c3 certification from Uncle Sam, the churches themselves run seminaries to train priests, and then AFTER the priest-to-be is trained, he has to be ordained by the church. This ordination is recognized by the government.

 

'Keep and bear arms.' Open carry is bearing arms, too.

 

Personally, I want everyone who carrys concealed to have to go through the police shoot/no-shoot trainer *and pass it*. And, for the record, I'm not sure *I* can pass it.

[DogMan 2,343]

Let's license churches and ministers, gotta meet the requirements ya know.

We already do that. Churches, at least, have to meet 501c3 requirements in order to be tax-exempt non-profits. In order to *keep* their 501c3 certification from Uncle Sam, the churches themselves run seminaries to train priests, and then AFTER the priest-to-be is trained, he has to be ordained by the church. This ordination is recognized by the government.

 

'Keep and bear arms.' Open carry is bearing arms, too.

 

Personally, I want everyone who carrys concealed to have to go through the police shoot/no-shoot trainer *and pass it*. And, for the record, I'm not sure *I* can pass it.

 

So, since you do not believe you are adequately "trained" to defend your own life, I assume you do not carry a gun anywhere outside your house. Because if you do, you're a hypocrite. And if you don't, it's just really all kind of sad a pathetic.