That is something I certainly NEVER intend on doing! But, if someone threatens my life in a crowded environmnet, I do intend on using whatever force is necessary to defend myself. If inocents get injured I expect the aggressor to be blamed, not the victim so long as the victim acted prudently.
Don't Get Training
- Thread starter pax
- Start date
- Status
That is something I certainly NEVER intend on doing! But, if someone threatens my life in a crowded environmnet, I do intend on using whatever force is necessary to defend myself. If inocents get injured I expect the aggressor to be blamed, not the victim so long as the victim acted prudently.
Skans,
You mean, just like everyone blamed the aggressor and not the defender in this thread?
Guess what. Real life doesn't always match fantasy life. Sometimes even well-trained people make mistakes. People without training, or with poor training, are more likely to make mistakes, many more mistakes and much more serious ones. Society does not give you a free pass to make those mistakes, no matter what the aggressor has done or intends to do.
If you choose to act -- "forced into it" or not -- you will get called to account if you get it wrong.
pax
You mean, just like everyone blamed the aggressor and not the defender in this thread?
Guess what. Real life doesn't always match fantasy life. Sometimes even well-trained people make mistakes. People without training, or with poor training, are more likely to make mistakes, many more mistakes and much more serious ones. Society does not give you a free pass to make those mistakes, no matter what the aggressor has done or intends to do.
If you choose to act -- "forced into it" or not -- you will get called to account if you get it wrong.
pax
Last edited:
The required training here in KS is laughable. with the exception maybe the firearm part definitions all the information from a safety aspect should be common knowledge by the time you reach adulthood. The "Stevie Wonder" shooting portion is even more of a joke.
Ultimatly we have but one basic human right ,you are free to do anything you want. We also have one basic human responsibility, to be accountable for those actions. most legislation today seems targeted to prevent this.
Ultimatly we have but one basic human right ,you are free to do anything you want. We also have one basic human responsibility, to be accountable for those actions. most legislation today seems targeted to prevent this.
MrArcheson said:
Well, that is one of my points, but hardly the main one. I'm a strong believer in good training, and that's one of many reasons I oppose state-mandated training. Such required training can't provide the high level of skill that an ethical "sheepdog" truly needs to learn; if it tries to provide that level of expertise, it necessarily excludes many people who most need firearms (the poor and people in crisis) from being able to exercise their right to protect themselves from imminent danger.
Furthermore (and this is more to the point), such required training has proven itself to be statistically pointless. In states without a training requirement (such as my own Washington state), there's no extra blood running in the streets. Arizonans found concealed carry so non-problematic that they moved to eliminate not just the training requirement, but the very permit process itself became optional rather than mandatory. Many states allow you to walk into an office, pay a small fee, and walk out with a carry permit that very day. This is what freedom looks like -- and it doesn't result in shootouts over parking spaces, blood running in the streets, wild west, yadda yadda ad nauseum. People who want to insist on a law forcing others to do something (such as "get training") should have a reason for that law, and "we just feel safer if you do" really isn't a reason. It might be politically expedient, but that doesn't make it rational or reasonable.
So what we've ended up with is a political compromise between the rational and the non-rational people, where many states require "training" but that training bar remains low enough that it doesn't exclude so many people that the courts have to take notice.
In most states, all the mandated training does is tell its participants:
1) DON'T use the firearm for this, this, this, or that -- here's what the state law says,
and
2) DON'T carry your firearm into this list of prohibited places -- here's what the state law says.
That's about it. Sometimes they bootleg a bit more information into the required classes, but the purpose of the class is to get these two basic points across to the participants. That accomplished, the state is satisfied and the permit is issued and home everyone goes. Some of them go home believing they now know all they need to know about protecting themselves with a firearm because they took "The Class."
Understanding that the required training classes do have such limitations, a smart person who wants to be prepared when something terrible happens will do what it takes to learn more. How much more? Well, that depends on whether he's the type of person who would defend only himself, or the type of person who would defend his family, friends, and people around him when their lives are threatened.
Those who would never lift a finger to defend another person under any circumstances, and those who carry the firearm as a good-luck talisman and aren't willing to use it -- well, those folks don't need training of any sort. Required training doesn't help them. Realistically speaking, the only people affected by these people's ignorance is themselves. When they get it wrong, they're the ones who suffer for it. When they break the law in ignorance, they're the ones who go to jail. When they can't get their guns out, or can't bring themselves to pull the trigger, or can't spot a setup in time to avoid it, they're the ones who lose the fight and get killed. Their ignorance doesn't kill other people, so why should anyone else care that they are untrained?
Those who might want to do more than that need to learn more than that.
pax
I agree it's necessary and that's my point. And if it's necessary, it should be required.
Then the question becomes whether the required training meets the goal. If not, do we throw it out? No, it needs to be changed so it does meet the goals. At least in my area I think the required training at least establishes a point where everyone with a permit will at least know something (which is better than knowing nothing). Should training and practice end there? No but now we are to the point where the state has met it's obligations to the people and it's up to individuals to do the rest.
As for the cost of training, I do agree it is too high. It should be more affordable like the DNR safety classes. Typically 15 or $20 gets you certified training in other areas. Of course these classes are run by volunteers who aren't making any money on them. And they are usually volunteers who know their stuff and teach it well, they do it out of a passion for their sport. I attended the snowmobile safety classes with my kids. Guess what? I learned stuff. Things like it's illegal to ride against traffic on the side of the highway at night even if you're in the ditch area, even if there is only a trail on one side of the road. Plan your trip accordingly before you go. Had I not been in the class, I would of had no clue (and ignorance is not an excuse).
btw - see all of the discussion? That's why I think it's a good post.
Last edited:
Not by me, they won't. Not by me. If someone acts in defending their life against an aggressor, I refuse to even engage in the game of nit-picking "mistakes" made by the victim when the victim acted reasonably to protect his own life or the life of others.
That's one thing I see the gun-hating media and liberals doing constantly - blaming good guys for casualties when its clear that the bad guy perpetrator was the one who created an ultra-dangerous situation for personal gain.
If a bad guy gets shot down by 15 armed police officers, the cops get blamed because "100 rounds were fired at ....suspect". If an inocent gets caught in a cross-fire you never hear the media pin it on the bad guy.
So, here we have gun owners, and I hear the same kind of crap I hear from the media and liberal gun-haters. Same kind of analysis - talking about what the good guy "should have done", what he "could have done, how things would have been different if "he had more training / better training".
Yes, I object to this. I already know how a jurry selected by a high-profile defense attorney or a liberal judge or a gun-hating prosecutor is going to look at a man who unintentionally shot someone else while trying to defend his own life. I don't need any legal mumbo-jumbo warning about this. I feel it necessary to voice my objection to engaging in the same kind of nit-picking of good guys that the media and gun-banners do routinely.
Place blame where it belongs - with the guy(s) who initated the unprovoked, life-threatening and violent behavior toward others.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
However, you don't get the final say. In the real world, is someone is defending himself or others and makes a mess of things, he is likely to be held accountable.Skans said:
You may not like it, but it is what usually happens in real life.
If it were reasonably priced at $15 like the DNR training, then I would expect everyone to pay for it. (although in MN, the poor can get the DNR training for free, they don't turn anyone away). Again, I feel if you can afford the $300 for the gun, plus ammo, plus range time to use it (all a must if you're going to have a gun right?), then I feel you can afford the $15 to carry it. Even at $50 to $100, it's a relatively small price compared to the other costs of having a gun.
Of course in MN it's not $15, it's 100 to 150 for the training because it's set up for profit, and it's another $100 to the sheriff to file some paper work. Ironically, a permit to purchase is free. The police dept doesn't charge a dime to run the checks and do the paperwork. (so if you just want home protection, there ya go).
What they should do away with is the costs of 'renewal' every 3 years. That's kind of silly.
Fiddletown - I've already acknowledged that I understand this. All I'm saying is that we, as gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates, should not fall into the same slanted trap that the main stream media and high-priced criminal defense and tort lawyers have developed over time.
I feel that the burden is on us to re-weight the discussion away from simply ignoring the bad guy's active roll. We should never ignore the unprovoked harm, damage, chaos, death, destruction, and complete disregard for human life simply for financial gain that the bad guy inflicts on everyone. What good does it do all of us - the people who have taken responsiblity for their own defense - when WE OURSELVES nit-pick those that have been forced into a situation of defending themselves?
Gee, why would anyone do that? The ccw permit is for your personal protection and family, not a permit to go vigilante, do you go out with the intention of getting into a gun fight?
Why not try to AVOID situations where a gun is needed? Avoid problem areas, why even go there?
When I raced cars, I had to pass a drivers test for the speed I wished to run at. When I was a bouncer/bodyguard I took classes taught me how to be a wall around a client and driving to get away from danger.
My cousins are LEO they have taken training for apprehension etc, it is their job. Not mine.
I see it like this, person carries needs to know and understand the laws concerning carry, and know how to load, reload and hit a target at 7-10 yards.
SWAT team members need advanced training. not civies.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
What good does it do? It helps us learn and prepare.Skans said:
It's not about blame. It's about what happens in the real world and how it happens. It's about assessing objectively what was done wrong and what was done right. It's about learning from others' experiences.
Police departments, the military and even well organized businesses conduct "after action" debriefings to learn.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
But you can't know ahead of time what's going to happen and what protecting yourself and your family will require you to do.markj said:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The crowded environment - to make my specific point:
If you argue for concealed carry on campuses, in church, in the mall, as a response to rampages or terrorists - you are postulating a gun fight in a crowded environment.
If you want to say that you will not use your gun in such situations and it is only for the isolated single mugger or burglar in your house, then say that.
If you have to protect yourself and family at Mumbai like horrors, you are in a crowded environs. If you are at Columbine II, VT II, you are in a crowded environs.
Case in point, after the recent "Ak-47" incident at the U. of Texas in Austin, we hear that the campus carry bill may come up again. It's not for the single mugger on a lonely street - now is it?
Independent of the state mandated training and the Constitution - if you carry in a crowded place - should you know what's up?
Also, the question of blame is a bit of sophistry. Yes, the shooter is responsible. But that does not negate your responsibility to not bozo when you try to use your firearm. You had two choices - don't use the gun. Or use the gun. If you do the latter, you are culpable for not making a reasonable effort to be competent if you risk others. The action of the shooter is irrelevant to your decision to be competent or not.
If you argue for concealed carry on campuses, in church, in the mall, as a response to rampages or terrorists - you are postulating a gun fight in a crowded environment.
If you want to say that you will not use your gun in such situations and it is only for the isolated single mugger or burglar in your house, then say that.
If you have to protect yourself and family at Mumbai like horrors, you are in a crowded environs. If you are at Columbine II, VT II, you are in a crowded environs.
Case in point, after the recent "Ak-47" incident at the U. of Texas in Austin, we hear that the campus carry bill may come up again. It's not for the single mugger on a lonely street - now is it?
Independent of the state mandated training and the Constitution - if you carry in a crowded place - should you know what's up?
Also, the question of blame is a bit of sophistry. Yes, the shooter is responsible. But that does not negate your responsibility to not bozo when you try to use your firearm. You had two choices - don't use the gun. Or use the gun. If you do the latter, you are culpable for not making a reasonable effort to be competent if you risk others. The action of the shooter is irrelevant to your decision to be competent or not.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
You are on a spelling roll, Tam!!
Glenn
Glenn
skans said:
The only problem with this line of thought is that it's obviously false. Even if someone attacks me, at no time during that attack are they forcing me to use my weapon. There is always another choice, even if sometimes that choice is to "allow myself to be killed". That's the problem with placing the blame on the aggressor, because when your choice as someone in a defensive situation is "fight or die" and you choose to fight, you are then morally responsible for the results of that decision.
I carry in public. Muggings don't just happen in alleys with brick wall backstops. I was mugged once in broad daylight in a parking lot - I was fortunate I didn't have to shoot, but you know what my backstop was? A popular gas station/convenience store across the crowded intersection. I have a moral obligation to every single one of those people in those cars, in that store that I will be trained to the best of my ability so that should I have needed to shoot my attacker, I wouldn't have unnecessarily endangered their lives with my incompetence.
- Status