Don't Get Training
- Thread starter pax
- Start date
- Status
Nope
The role of government is to do what the people are unable to do themselves
Or with more authority.
I would like to add that there are some things which some of the people can do on their own, but that not all the individuals can do.
Things which we believe that is to the benefit all the people. An example is high school drivers ed. Not all people can afford to take a similar drivers ed class on their own, but we are better off if all potential drivers do so.
Once again I am not a fan of using "morals" in this context.
thesheepdog
New member
Much like they do today, where they even think for us?
thesheepdog
New member
Hmm; government involvement shouldn't ever be necessary. It's not fully moral obligation either-though i agree on this mostly.
Ok, then, WHY do you value additional training?
That's the point I was making as well. This thread isn't about raising/imposing legal standards on people, rather it's about the self-imposed obligations that result from understanding the implications of owning/carrying a firearm.
Legal restrictions are imposed on people from the outside to regulate their behavior.
The obligations that the OP is talking about should be imposed from the INSIDE as a result of that person understanding the ramifications of owning and carrying a deadly weapon for the purposes of self-defense.
The OP mentions mandated training (as it pertains to privately owned/carried firearms) to point out that even when required it is minimal and also to highlight the fact that if we all act responsibly that there's no need for state mandated training at all.
The point of the second paragraph in the OP is to move AWAY from state mandated training--"there's no reason for the state to get involved in the training issue".
The whole idea that started this thread was that we should each, as responsible firearms owners/carriers SELF-impose training standards on ourselves with the standard being that we should get as much training as we can. That state imposed training standards for private carry when they are required at all don't meet the higher standard that we as individual responsible firearms owners should each impose on ourselves.
That's not in the original thesis. The original thesis states that government training as it applies to private ownership and carry of firearms is minimal and is oriented not towards enhancing the skill of the individual to handle difficult situations but is rather oriented towards preventing the individual from being a danger to others. It points out that the value of this particular type of training is limited but it does not state categorically that all government training is useless nor does it even go so far as to state that this particular type of government training is worthless.
It also starts off by noting that it's only provided in some states in which statement is implicit the fact that it's not required/provided in other states. I suppose in that case it could be stated that it's worthless as it's difficult to argue that it has value when it doesn't exist.
I'm sure this subject is near and dear to all of you, but to most it isn't. I do not know anybody in this community who does not have guns in their house, and it has been that way for generations. And, they have a pistol or two if they can remember where it is, or where they locked it away if they have children around. Other than hunting season most people don't give them a lot of thought. I'm sure they are aware that they are available for a home invasion or such, but it is so unlikely that nobody thinks about it much. So, when I see ownership/carry the ownership part throws up a flag with me.
Now, if you are talking about concealed carry in public places that is another level of responsibility. I have a concealed carry permit, but I have never carried in a public place and it is unlikely that I ever will. Of the dozen or so people with concealed carry permits that I know none of them carry with any regularity if at all. It was more of a convenience not having to go through a background check and avoiding a hassle if you happened to have a pistol in the car going or coming hunting and that type of thing.
Obviously, where you live the hazards that you face can be entirely different. And, if you decide to carry everywhere you accept an entirely different level of responsibility.
I can see no one size fits all consensus on a level of training, at least for the ownership/ part.
Now, if you are talking about concealed carry in public places that is another level of responsibility. I have a concealed carry permit, but I have never carried in a public place and it is unlikely that I ever will. Of the dozen or so people with concealed carry permits that I know none of them carry with any regularity if at all. It was more of a convenience not having to go through a background check and avoiding a hassle if you happened to have a pistol in the car going or coming hunting and that type of thing.
Obviously, where you live the hazards that you face can be entirely different. And, if you decide to carry everywhere you accept an entirely different level of responsibility.
I can see no one size fits all consensus on a level of training, at least for the ownership/ part.
Well that's your personal feeling on the matter. As Lincoln said though
smince you have to be joking. Just because every soldier is not a trained sniper doesn't mean that government is incapable of training people to do complex tasks.
Your argument seems a bit amorphous. First you say government is incapable of A. Then you seem to say while government is capable of A it sometimes doesn't succeed. Now you seem to be asking about a cost benefit analysis of A.
What point are you trying to make?
ZeroJunk...
... I don't think most of us are espousing "one size fits all" methodology.
I think what most of us are saying is that there is a pragmatic side, that says for one's own good it's better to have more training than less; and there's a moral side, that says if you think you are willing to draw a weapon in defense of self or others, then you should seek out as much training as you can reasonably afford (in money and time).
Some people feel that there is only the pragmatic argument, and there's no "moral" to it.
I don't think any of us have argued in favor of the government mandating training, nor do I think any of us have said "everybody should train to level X."
But just buying a gun because you can, and not learning about its safe handling, let alone effective employment, is morally irresponsible and pragmatically next to worthless.
... I don't think most of us are espousing "one size fits all" methodology.
I think what most of us are saying is that there is a pragmatic side, that says for one's own good it's better to have more training than less; and there's a moral side, that says if you think you are willing to draw a weapon in defense of self or others, then you should seek out as much training as you can reasonably afford (in money and time).
Some people feel that there is only the pragmatic argument, and there's no "moral" to it.
I don't think any of us have argued in favor of the government mandating training, nor do I think any of us have said "everybody should train to level X."
But just buying a gun because you can, and not learning about its safe handling, let alone effective employment, is morally irresponsible and pragmatically next to worthless.
If you read my post, I said .gov training is geared to LCD. Qualification scores are set up so that anyone should be able to pass. To fill quotas often standards must be lowered, and yet we still see barely passing scores regularly. Hopefully it will be enough. If it isn't we have huge sums of tax money to cover the lawsuits...
Reality sucks sometimes, but it is what it is.
Sure, there are specialties you mention like Sniper School and the AMU (among others), but this isn't available to everyone, is it? Only a very small percentage.
Many of these highly dedicated soldiers and LE take classes with money out of their own pockets, because this type of training just isn't available at the Fed/State/local level. Every private class I've taken has had at least 3-4 Mil or LE lamenting the fact that this kind of training isn't offered to them anywhere else.
So I ask: if government training is effective, why do individual soldiers and LE who want the best training seek private instruction?
The most common definition I can find for moral obligation.
If you excersize your right to bear arms your responsible for your actions if you fire a shot. While you may or may not be held criminally liable for injuring a innocent. You will most certainly feel guilt/remorse, at least I hope you would, weather or not you feel your training is up to snuff.
most common related words.
Maybe I'm just living in the wrong era, But my understanding of moral obligation means an attempt to be a better more responsible person.no matter what skill is at hand driving, shooting, self defense or whatever you do.
If you excersize your right to bear arms your responsible for your actions if you fire a shot. While you may or may not be held criminally liable for injuring a innocent. You will most certainly feel guilt/remorse, at least I hope you would, weather or not you feel your training is up to snuff.
robmkivseries70
New member
Quoting Blue Train,"On the other hand, that makes life interesting." I had to chuckle, It is a preparedness thing, to whit, The phrase," May you have an interesting life." is a Chinese curse. It behooves us all to be prepared.
Best,
Rob
Best,
Rob
I've been busy for the last few weeks and not around much, but wanted to say a loud AMEN! to MLeake's most recent post. (And thank Pax for bringing up the issue.) Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. The right to keep and bear arms comes with the responsibility to know how to do so safely and effectively.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I like that way of putting it.sakeneko said:
Well now, go out in the bush with a gun and kill a bunch of things only to come back and find this is still going on.
I am not asking you to do anything, I accept the training needed to achieve a CCW here in Iowa and feel for MOST folks is all that is needed. We dont plan on going out, finding bad guys and engage them in a fire fight. No we understand that a gun CCW is for our own personal protection. On the other hand there are states that require no training at all. I for one will not be so vain as to tell them what to do or how to do it, some here may take note of that. I ask again out of all the permit carriers how many have had to shoot someone? What is the percentage? like .003%?
And you know this how? You assume a lot there not knowing me or my abilities at all.
If a person feels the need for training, guess what? They can go get it and pay for it, but to say or infer that without this higher level of training you will be useless shows a complete lack of understanding.
A gun is and can be a terrible thing, used wrongly or on the wrong person will lead to tragedy so dont be so fast to pull it and shoot. A gun isnt the answer to every situation you encounter in your lifes journey.
Stay away from known bad places, shop at daytime, stay out of malls and other places where huge gatherings may be. In other words use a little common sense as you go about your daily tasks. Your brain is the best tool you have at your disposal.
I am not asking you to do anything, I accept the training needed to achieve a CCW here in Iowa and feel for MOST folks is all that is needed. We dont plan on going out, finding bad guys and engage them in a fire fight. No we understand that a gun CCW is for our own personal protection. On the other hand there are states that require no training at all. I for one will not be so vain as to tell them what to do or how to do it, some here may take note of that. I ask again out of all the permit carriers how many have had to shoot someone? What is the percentage? like .003%?
And you know this how? You assume a lot there not knowing me or my abilities at all.
If a person feels the need for training, guess what? They can go get it and pay for it, but to say or infer that without this higher level of training you will be useless shows a complete lack of understanding.
A gun is and can be a terrible thing, used wrongly or on the wrong person will lead to tragedy so dont be so fast to pull it and shoot. A gun isnt the answer to every situation you encounter in your lifes journey.
Stay away from known bad places, shop at daytime, stay out of malls and other places where huge gatherings may be. In other words use a little common sense as you go about your daily tasks. Your brain is the best tool you have at your disposal.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Yes, we know you do. Some of us think you're fooling yourself. And in any case, that is a far lower standard than many of us are willing to accept.markj said:
Well then, let's just say that without a higher level of training one is at considerably greater risk of (1) being less effective, and (2) being a greater danger to himself and others.markj said:
So do the responsible thing and take the time and trouble, and incur the expense, to get some adequate training beyond what may be legally required.markj said:
And you think all that will guarantee your safety? You're fooling yourself again.markj said:
And a trained and educated brain is better than one that is not -- just as a sharp saw is better than a dull one.markj said:
- Status