Don't Get Training
- Thread starter pax
- Start date
- Status
aarondhgraham
New member
I'm all for training,,,
I want to state that right off the bat.
But I am vehemently against making training a requirement for gun ownership.
It's not because I don't think it is valuable and/or desirable,,,
I'm against a requirement because it is all to often used as a tool to restrict ownership.
<RANT>
Pro-gunners will say training requirements make the gun toting populace more safe in their community,,,
And I can not argue with that on it's face value.
But Anti-gunners will just smile and say this is one more spurious roadblock we can put between people and gun ownership.
These types of laws always start with the best of good intentions,,,
But our legal system is not based on the intent of the law,,,
It is based on the letter of the law.
In our Supreme Court rulings they all know in their hearts what the Framers meant when they wrote "shall not be infringed".
But our system doesn't care what the framers of any law meant,,,
It supports "letter of the law" interpretations that have no connection to the original intent.
So if you open the tent flap and let the camel's nose of "reasonable" training requirement into your tent,,,
It will not be long before the anti-gunners use this as a precedent to set more restrictive requirements for ownership.
Then you see a system in where the moneyed elite can afford handguns,,,
But they have successfully kept the "rabble" from owning one.
</RANT>
This is not something you/we want to see happen.
Or maybe some of us gun owners do want it to happen,,,
I hear plenty of that talk at my rifle & pistol club every time we have a general meeting.
There is always some elite snob who wants to raise the rates for our range,,,
"Best way to keep the riff-raff out".
.
.
I want to state that right off the bat.
But I am vehemently against making training a requirement for gun ownership.
It's not because I don't think it is valuable and/or desirable,,,
I'm against a requirement because it is all to often used as a tool to restrict ownership.
<RANT>
Pro-gunners will say training requirements make the gun toting populace more safe in their community,,,
And I can not argue with that on it's face value.
But Anti-gunners will just smile and say this is one more spurious roadblock we can put between people and gun ownership.
These types of laws always start with the best of good intentions,,,
But our legal system is not based on the intent of the law,,,
It is based on the letter of the law.
In our Supreme Court rulings they all know in their hearts what the Framers meant when they wrote "shall not be infringed".
But our system doesn't care what the framers of any law meant,,,
It supports "letter of the law" interpretations that have no connection to the original intent.
So if you open the tent flap and let the camel's nose of "reasonable" training requirement into your tent,,,
It will not be long before the anti-gunners use this as a precedent to set more restrictive requirements for ownership.
Then you see a system in where the moneyed elite can afford handguns,,,
But they have successfully kept the "rabble" from owning one.
</RANT>
This is not something you/we want to see happen.
Or maybe some of us gun owners do want it to happen,,,
I hear plenty of that talk at my rifle & pistol club every time we have a general meeting.
There is always some elite snob who wants to raise the rates for our range,,,
"Best way to keep the riff-raff out".
.
.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And that is the very real world political dimension of the question. And I wonder sometimes whether some people don't have a reaction against training because state training requirements are largely politically motivated, as Tom suggests.Tom Servo said:
Nonetheless, whether required or not, getting good training is the wise and responsible thing to do. Whether or not government requires it is irrelevant to this discussion. We should require it of ourselves.
Well said.Tom Servo said:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Aaron, we acknowledge that training as a requirement as a political dimension as a tool to restrict gun ownership.
That's not the issue as I see it. The issue for me is that you have the moral responsibility not to do harm through incompetence when you act in an environment that contains more people than you!
That's the current issue.
Yes, training may be good for you - but I don't give a crap if you screw up and get killed by yourself.
But if you talk the critical incident sheepdog line, as many do, then you'd better stand up.
That's not the issue as I see it. The issue for me is that you have the moral responsibility not to do harm through incompetence when you act in an environment that contains more people than you!
That's the current issue.
Yes, training may be good for you - but I don't give a crap if you screw up and get killed by yourself.
But if you talk the critical incident sheepdog line, as many do, then you'd better stand up.
Oh, Tamara, I do deserve a good ribbing for that one!!!!
P.S. admittedly, having a double action only pistol in a pocket holster...in your pocket is not the ideal way to carry. Problem is that I generaly wear slacks, belt and a tucked-in shirt. I can't just rely on a shirt for cover - and I don't want something as involved as a shoulder holster.
pax said:
First off, thank you for linking that study, as it is nice to have actual confirmation of a personal belief I've held for some time now. You're also correct; it has been my limited experience in competition shooting that the more experienced and skilled the shooter is, the more aware of their mistakes and areas in which they need improvement.
I think Tam cut right to the heart of the argument with her second statement - people don't like being categorically proven that they can't shoot very well. It is much easier on the ego to just blast a shotgun into the berm at shot range with your friends, or shoot mediocre groups at 25 feet at the range than it is to go to a class or a match and actually have strangers see you shoot.
I tend to agree that make a training requirement a prerequisite to firearms ownership is a sort of trap. You either have a right to own a firearm or you don't, unlike hunting, which is more of a privilege and for which a training class is now required in some places. Of course you don't need a firearm to hunt.
To put a different angle on this question, however, how many of you ever took a driver's training class for "advanced driving" after you were twenty years old? Truck drivers do, I presume, and my brother-in-law did because he worked for a federal agency but I never did.
I keep thinking of past gun writers. Few ever mentioned training at all. Keith mentioned getting hints from "an old gunfighter, the real thing." But none of them went to any sort of gun handling class, except perhaps for those in the Border Patrol, many of whom seemed to have been gun writers. And I think Chic Gaylord said something about the subject. In any case it seems to be more of current thing.
To put a different angle on this question, however, how many of you ever took a driver's training class for "advanced driving" after you were twenty years old? Truck drivers do, I presume, and my brother-in-law did because he worked for a federal agency but I never did.
I keep thinking of past gun writers. Few ever mentioned training at all. Keith mentioned getting hints from "an old gunfighter, the real thing." But none of them went to any sort of gun handling class, except perhaps for those in the Border Patrol, many of whom seemed to have been gun writers. And I think Chic Gaylord said something about the subject. In any case it seems to be more of current thing.
aarondhgraham
New member
Hello Glenn,,,
I have absolutely no idea what you were trying to say here.
.
I have absolutely no idea what you were trying to say here.
.
Driving is something that most people do every day. After 10, 20, or maybe even 30 years of driving we attain a certain degree of expertise simply from experience.
How many times a month does the average gun owner fire a weapon....for how long and how many rounds? I'd bet the answer to that is somewhere around 1 hour of range time 2-3 times a year. How many times a week does the most experienced of us shoot our weapons (fondling and oogling don't count)? Now, compare that to driving.
Glenn:
I can agree with you that;
“…if you talk the critical incident sheepdog line, as many do…”
Then:
“…you have the moral responsibility not to do harm through incompetence…”
Otherwise, not so much.
A lot of us (myself, for the most part, included) don’t fancy ourselves to be sheepdogs, but will, nevertheless, do whatever we can to prevent some innocent child from being harmed.
As important an issue, however, is the distinct possibility that if someone is immediately threatening, for example, to execute some restaurant employee then I and my loved ones may well be next and I’m likely to take the shot on that account alone.
In which case, I submit that I neither have the moral obligation to be nor will I take the time to review whether I’m well enough trained to defend myself and mine.
None of which precludes that I will continue to maintain as high a level of competence as I can manage.
Best,
Will
I can agree with you that;
“…if you talk the critical incident sheepdog line, as many do…”
Then:
“…you have the moral responsibility not to do harm through incompetence…”
Otherwise, not so much.
A lot of us (myself, for the most part, included) don’t fancy ourselves to be sheepdogs, but will, nevertheless, do whatever we can to prevent some innocent child from being harmed.
As important an issue, however, is the distinct possibility that if someone is immediately threatening, for example, to execute some restaurant employee then I and my loved ones may well be next and I’m likely to take the shot on that account alone.
In which case, I submit that I neither have the moral obligation to be nor will I take the time to review whether I’m well enough trained to defend myself and mine.
None of which precludes that I will continue to maintain as high a level of competence as I can manage.
Best,
Will
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Well, I have. I like cars and driving and have taken several "driving schools" put on by a club I belonged to as well as a road racing course held by a well known driving school (Jim Russell Racing) at a well known track.BlueTrain said:
I don't think there was much of that sort of thing around in those days. I believe that Gunsite, founded in the mid-1970s, was one of the first practical shooting schools open to the private citizen.BlueTrain said:
Ok, best post of the Day goes to PAX. Very nice write up.
I like the reasoning of the state requirements but that doesn't explain seat belt laws. Of course I don't agree with seat belt laws (not saying seat belts are bad, just that the law doesn't belong, possibly is unconstitutional, IMO). It just points out that states will and do mettle where they shouldn't. I don't agree with no required training for a carry permit though. At the very least there needs to be some coverage of proper carrying (from a legal point of view) and of when it's appropriate to actually use a weapon. I think some basic use of the gun needs to be covered too with a range test so you know these people have at least fired a gun once.
I see it all the time. I'm at the Gander counter browsing the case (was just there yesterday in fact, to pick up the CZ85 I had seen the day before that had just come in used ... should have picked it up the day before, it was gone - darn
), anyways, browsing the counter and someone always comes in. They're looking for a gun. They've never owned a gun before, they don't know anything about them (they often have a buddy with that's an 'expert' 
), and what do they ask for? They want something they can carry concealed. Not something they can learn to shoot with. And they're buying whatever their buddy is telling them too, usually a .380 or the 40s&w. There's no moderation here, it's either the smallest gun they can fit in their pocket or the .40 ('because a 9mm can't knock the wings off a fly'). Without the required class, you know most of these guys would pick up a gun and just start carrying it. Everyone needs at least a little training. After all, the guy who shoots his knee drawing his gun, he might shoot my knee if I'm standing near him. I feel if you can afford the gun, then you can afford at least 1 class.
I like the reasoning of the state requirements but that doesn't explain seat belt laws. Of course I don't agree with seat belt laws (not saying seat belts are bad, just that the law doesn't belong, possibly is unconstitutional, IMO). It just points out that states will and do mettle where they shouldn't. I don't agree with no required training for a carry permit though. At the very least there needs to be some coverage of proper carrying (from a legal point of view) and of when it's appropriate to actually use a weapon. I think some basic use of the gun needs to be covered too with a range test so you know these people have at least fired a gun once.
I see it all the time. I'm at the Gander counter browsing the case (was just there yesterday in fact, to pick up the CZ85 I had seen the day before that had just come in used ... should have picked it up the day before, it was gone - darn
), anyways, browsing the counter and someone always comes in. They're looking for a gun. They've never owned a gun before, they don't know anything about them (they often have a buddy with that's an 'expert' ), and what do they ask for? They want something they can carry concealed. Not something they can learn to shoot with. And they're buying whatever their buddy is telling them too, usually a .380 or the 40s&w. There's no moderation here, it's either the smallest gun they can fit in their pocket or the .40 ('because a 9mm can't knock the wings off a fly'). Without the required class, you know most of these guys would pick up a gun and just start carrying it. Everyone needs at least a little training. After all, the guy who shoots his knee drawing his gun, he might shoot my knee if I'm standing near him. I feel if you can afford the gun, then you can afford at least 1 class.Glenn E. Meyer
New member
My point was clear - if you intend to get into a gun fight in a crowded environment - you have the responsibility not to do harm through incompetence.
You need to have a reasonable amount of experience as to make reasonable decisions and take competent actions.
If some guy stops, you on the isolated street and you blast away with your Judge and jerk the trigger all over - good for you.
If you do that in the crowded restaurant - are you a moral actor?
You need to have a reasonable amount of experience as to make reasonable decisions and take competent actions.
If some guy stops, you on the isolated street and you blast away with your Judge and jerk the trigger all over - good for you.
If you do that in the crowded restaurant - are you a moral actor?
I disagree. Paying $200 and sitting in a room for a required number of hours is proof of nothing. If you want to make sure that the future CCWer knows some specific information or has some specific skill, you should administer a test at cost. The vast majority of training requirements are just barriers for entry wearing safety requirement's clothing.
I'm also with Spacecoast. I didn't find the OP to be especially coherent in it's argument. Required training is unnecessary but some training is positively necessary? Are you just making a point that required CCW training is generally crap?
aarondhgraham
New member
Your point was not clear Mike,,,
Else I would not have asked for clarification.
However I do see your point now that it has been explained.
Where did you get the idea that I
I'm not the friggin Lone Ranger or Tonto,,,
I carry to protect me and mine,,,
Not other people.
Let them get a gun and protect themselves.
I got into a discussion last week with a gentleman,,,
We were on this exact topic you are referring to.
It was about a man who shot in self defense,,,
He put bullets in a house across the street.
I took the stance that it was a bad thing to do,,,
Putting innocents in harms way for my benefit or safety.
There were a lot of people in that semi-heated thread and most were dancing around the issue,,,
I was amazed at how many others simply talked about who was to blame,,,
They all (for the most part) kept stating it was the bad guy's fault.
They had lost the point that innocent people were endangered by bullets from the good guy's gun.
So I do see your point that it would be wonderful if everyone received combat training with their weapons,,,
It would be a wonderful thing to know that every gun toting citizen had discussed these scenarios,,,
But you and I both know that this should not be a state/nation mandated requirement,,,
It is an opportunity for ~backdoor gun control~ at it's most blatant.
On a personal level:
I never used the
I have never denigrated you or any post you have ever made here,,,
I would appreciate that same courtesy from you.
.
Else I would not have asked for clarification.
However I do see your point now that it has been explained.
Where did you get the idea that I
I'm not the friggin Lone Ranger or Tonto,,,
I carry to protect me and mine,,,
Not other people.
Let them get a gun and protect themselves.
I got into a discussion last week with a gentleman,,,
We were on this exact topic you are referring to.
It was about a man who shot in self defense,,,
He put bullets in a house across the street.
I took the stance that it was a bad thing to do,,,
Putting innocents in harms way for my benefit or safety.
There were a lot of people in that semi-heated thread and most were dancing around the issue,,,
I was amazed at how many others simply talked about who was to blame,,,
They all (for the most part) kept stating it was the bad guy's fault.
They had lost the point that innocent people were endangered by bullets from the good guy's gun.
So I do see your point that it would be wonderful if everyone received combat training with their weapons,,,
It would be a wonderful thing to know that every gun toting citizen had discussed these scenarios,,,
But you and I both know that this should not be a state/nation mandated requirement,,,
It is an opportunity for ~backdoor gun control~ at it's most blatant.
On a personal level:
I never used the
you accused me of doing,,,
I have never denigrated you or any post you have ever made here,,,
I would appreciate that same courtesy from you.
.
Without re-reading the original post, I think the general idea among most contributors here is that the training should not be required but it is without a doubt necessary, to some degree. I suppose you could argue on and on about to what degree it is necessary and what you should be able to do with your brand new handgun that you plan on carrying, be it a Sig Super-Duper or a nickel-plated break-top .38 S&W, which the seller claims never to have been fired except by a little old lady. It does make you wonder how our grandparents, all of whom supposedly went about armed all the time (with nickel-plated break-top .38 S&W revolvers--or .41 derringers), managed with no training, doesn't it?
Regarding seatbelts and government authority to do good, my late-father-in-law was a very conservative engineer. He actually had seatbelts installed in their Ford Ranch Wagon way back in the 1950s. However, I cannot claim to know what he thought about required seatbelts. He probably would have thought the seatbelts were poorly designed but that's just a guess.
I think it is worth pointing out that society in general, in the form of government, has a right to restrict or control behavior. While it is easy to argue that no one but yourself (and your passengers) have any interest in your surviving a collision, it merely being a restriction on your own freedom and no one elses, it is equally easy to think of things that are a little gray. It might be you have a god given right to have a fire in your fireplace but I guarantee you would not want everyone in town using coal to heat their house. But perhaps you live out of town! We can talk about floridation of water next if you like.
Returning to the original question, there is training and there is training. I think it would be a valuable thing to know a little something about the legal limitations of carrying weapons and using force. No doubt all firearms instructions cover those subjects thoroughly. But I wonder how many have second thoughts on going armed after hearing about what the law says?
Regarding seatbelts and government authority to do good, my late-father-in-law was a very conservative engineer. He actually had seatbelts installed in their Ford Ranch Wagon way back in the 1950s. However, I cannot claim to know what he thought about required seatbelts. He probably would have thought the seatbelts were poorly designed but that's just a guess.
I think it is worth pointing out that society in general, in the form of government, has a right to restrict or control behavior. While it is easy to argue that no one but yourself (and your passengers) have any interest in your surviving a collision, it merely being a restriction on your own freedom and no one elses, it is equally easy to think of things that are a little gray. It might be you have a god given right to have a fire in your fireplace but I guarantee you would not want everyone in town using coal to heat their house. But perhaps you live out of town! We can talk about floridation of water next if you like.
Returning to the original question, there is training and there is training. I think it would be a valuable thing to know a little something about the legal limitations of carrying weapons and using force. No doubt all firearms instructions cover those subjects thoroughly. But I wonder how many have second thoughts on going armed after hearing about what the law says?
When I was in school the teacher gave us tests on reading comprehension to summarize main points. As the reading level rose this became more difficult.
- Required training is necessary to prevent you from being a danger to others in the the exercise of your rights.
- The required training is generally insufficient to do that.
- If you intend on doing anything other than protecting yourself at close range you need more training to do that safely.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Aaron and others - get off the issue of the state mandate. That's not the debate. Again.
Also, my use of 'you' is generic as compared to the individual. I apologize if that is not clear.
I should have said: If one, blah, blah.
MTT summarizes it well.
About saving yourself, most training suggests that is the prime goal. However, in the school carry debates, we cannot avoid the subtext that the carrier will be a sheepdog. That's what's suggested repeatedly, overtly or implied.
And as I said before, the training objection is thrown in my face. Thus, there is a great inconsistency.
We train to save ourselves. But when we argue for school carry - we don't necessarily say that we will flee in terror or hide. We say that we will protect others. Then, if we imply that we must imply competency.
One might argue for school carry just an extension of removing all carry bans (my view). But if we argue for doing it in schools, then in the next breath do we say we won't get involved? We hide or flee?
What argument do you present? Then if you say we get involved, do we say the Constitution supports the right to be gun clown but I won't take the step not to be such?
Also, my use of 'you' is generic as compared to the individual. I apologize if that is not clear.
I should have said: If one, blah, blah.
MTT summarizes it well.
About saving yourself, most training suggests that is the prime goal. However, in the school carry debates, we cannot avoid the subtext that the carrier will be a sheepdog. That's what's suggested repeatedly, overtly or implied.
And as I said before, the training objection is thrown in my face. Thus, there is a great inconsistency.
We train to save ourselves. But when we argue for school carry - we don't necessarily say that we will flee in terror or hide. We say that we will protect others. Then, if we imply that we must imply competency.
One might argue for school carry just an extension of removing all carry bans (my view). But if we argue for doing it in schools, then in the next breath do we say we won't get involved? We hide or flee?
What argument do you present? Then if you say we get involved, do we say the Constitution supports the right to be gun clown but I won't take the step not to be such?
- Status