Don't Get Training

[MTT TL]

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?

No reasonable person ever does. In truth if you don't ever want to be in a gun fight this is the easiest thing in the world.

Don't carry a gun.

This won't keep you from being murdered, violated or robbed.

Why not try to AVOID situations where a gun is needed? Avoid problem areas, why even go there?

Where do you suggest we go that is perfectly safe? School, church, government building, nursery, computer store, day care center? All these places are the sites of shootings and murders. Cemeteries are pretty safe I think.

My cousins are LEO they have taken training for apprehension etc, it is their job. Not mine.

Apprehension is too hard, too dangerous. A single LEO will not often try to apprehend a dangerous person by himself. Certainly not an active shooter.

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.

A SWAT needs team training. Most civilians no longer need team training unless they plan on operating as a team (say husband/wife) to defend their home and family or in public. Good team training is in really short supply and even more expensive.

 

[KLRANGL]

Glenn, if you go out of your way to be a "sheepdog" I agree with your point.
But what if, using your carry in school example, someone comes in and starts shooting up the classroom. If you return fire and hit someone who, without your actions would most likely have been shot anyway, are you still being negligent? Morally, legally?
That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious what you think...

Cemeteries are pretty safe I think

Actually, I was watching Gangland, and MS-13 in DC decided to bring two women out to a cemetery to be killed.

 

[Tamara]

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.

Not necessarily. This is where various "felony murder" statutes come into play. From a legal standpoint in some jurisdictions, any bodies that stack up in the course of a felony are credited to the felon. Ex.: Joe-Bob and Bobby Joe break into someplace with murder and rapine in mind. In the ensuing fracas, Bobby Joe gets iced, whether by slipping on a banana peel and falling down a well, or by the blast of the homeowner's shotgun. In either case, his death would go on Joe-Bob's tab as the main felon.

 

[NRAhab]

Agreed, but that's the legal consequence, I'm actually specifically concerned with the moral consequences. While Joe-Bob may be legally responsible for them, I personally wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life knowing that I killed an innocent bystander. The legal system may say that Joe-Bob's responsible, but I know that he didn't pull that trigger, either.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...This is where various "felony murder" statutes come into play. From a legal standpoint in some jurisdictions, any bodies that stack up in the course of a felony are credited to the felon...

True, but our felon might not have an exclusive.

Depending on circumstances, if someone defending himself made a hash of things and, for example, recklessly contributed to the death of an innocent, he might also have some criminal (and perhaps civil) liability as well.

 

[pax]

While Joe-Bob may be legally responsible for them, I personally wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life knowing that I killed an innocent bystander.

The final chapter of Lessons from Armed America was the most difficult thing I've ever written. It contains a discussion of what happened after a man shot his own young son during a violent encounter with a felon.

There are real people involved in every tragedy, people who would do anything for a "do over" that life simply won't give them.

If you are the sort of person who would act to save the lives of your family members, you owe it to them and to yourself to get as much training as you can afford. Even if you do everything right, things can still go south -- but how would you feel if you knew in your heart that you hadn't done your best for them?

pax

 

[Tamara]

Isn't separating the "legal" from the "moral" one of the whole points of this thread?

 

[AZAK]

Pax states:

but how would you feel if you knew in your heart that you hadn't done your best for them?

Ah, now there's the kicker.

I live in Alaska, where no training is required... also no permit is required for either open carry or concealed carry; an arrangement that I agree with. As has been mentioned, no blood running in the streets.

If we begin with an agreement in the 2nd Amendment, along with the concept of inalienable rights and living within a Republic, it is ultimately an individual's legal/civil responsibility to be accountable for one's actions.

While handing over political power to the government (which now can legislate/regulate or at the minimum attempt to regulate the people, in theory working for the best interests of the people while maintaining the "standards" set forth upon the creation of the government) that government can create "rules" that the individual will be held accountable to; however, ultimately it is still the individual's own moral code and values which will determine their personal belief system.

This belief system may or may not include training with a firearm. It may or may not include advanced training with a firearm.

An individual may consider the very small chance that he/she may have to actually face an altercation resulting in the use of a firearm in defense of oneself and or loved ones, and decide that the X number of hours and the Y dollars taken in training would be better spent with his/her family.

Another individual may consider the same chances, and decide to seek training, spending both time and money away from the family; again believing it to be to the benefit of the family.

Which individual is doing the "best for them"?

Regardless of social/legal ramifications (which exist) each individual has the opportunity to make his/her own mind up concerning such topics.

We all have a limited amount of time, not one of us is guaranteed to be waking up tomorrow, and how we spend it is paramount to any legacy that we may leave behind.

 

[smince]

If it were reasonably priced at $15 like the DNR training, then I would expect everyone to pay for it.

What kind of training do you REALLY expect for $15? Do you expect Gunsite/Thunder Ranch quality? Ain't gonna happen...

The average LEO gets what, 40 hrs training in the academy (maybe)? The average cop isn't a gun person and there are countless threads on the lack of quality training in many departments. We all know plain 'civilians' who outshoot average LE officers. I say this as someone who worked part-time at our local range and saw officers barely pass weekly, but holster up and be out there protecting our streets.

Any .GOV sponsored training (if not used as a limiter on owning a gun) is going to be sorely lacking. I base this on the track record of the many other programs. It will be geared toward the lowest common denominator being able to pass, not to provide anyone with a realistic amount of defensive training.

The very best training I have taken was $400 for a two day course (10 hrs each day). That breaks down to $20 an hour. I don't think paying that for good training is out of line.

 

[BlueTrain]

And while I'm at it, I'm glad I don't have to take an English proficiency test, being from a place where it isn't spoken all that well.

 

[Skans]

There is always another choice, even if sometimes that choice is to "allow myself to be killed"...... and you choose to fight, you are then morally responsible for the results of that decision.

With all due respect, we'll just have to agree to disagree. There is absolutely no way you will ever get me to agree that I have a choice to "fight or be killed". If my only choice is to die or risk the possiblity of an inocent being injured as a result of my fighting for my life - I feel that the person fighting for his life has absoulutely no responsiblity whatsoever for injuring an inocent person. None. Zip. Zero. And, if I were Presidnet, Senator and King - I'd provide someone defending themselves against a violent, life-threatening, unprovoked attack absolute immunity from any possible lawsuits. That's how strongly I feel about this.

 

[pgdion]

What kind of training do you REALLY expect for $15?

It's really good if it's done by volunteers. The $15 is the cost for filing paperwork with the state. All of the snowmobile training classes and DNR firearms safety classes have been outstanding. As said before, these are run buy guys who live for this stuff. They teach the classes for free in the interest of expanding and protecting the sport they love. The easiest way to lose any rights is to abuse them. They're only desire is to share and preserve their sport. The snowmobile class that only costs $15. How good can it be? It's run by 4 avid snowmobiler's with a guest speaker from the DNR and is sponsored by the local fire department. The guys that run it are lifelong snowmobiler's and also firemen. It covers all the laws, safety including safe snowmobiling, weather (frost bite/freezing), and basic first aid. It covers hands on basic snowmobile maintenance and safe riding and an actual field test. They even have their own snowmobile that was donated for the class. Sound pretty good for $15? The DNR firearms safety class was just as well run. The only reason the cost is low is no one is doing it to make any money. Concealed carry is a big big business for the gun ranges here in MN and the state is clearly using it as a revenue generator as well. Maybe not a bad thing (great for the economy as people with a lot of guns can usually afford it) but (and a big but here) ... it does disadvantage the poor. No doubt about that.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Glenn, if you go out of your way to be a "sheepdog" I agree with your point.
But what if, using your carry in school example, someone comes in and starts shooting up the classroom. If you return fire and hit someone who, without your actions would most likely have been shot anyway, are you still being negligent? Morally, legally?
That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious what you think...

That's a good question, and I have been reading quite a bit about the psychology and philosophical views of blame sharing.

I think that I am not negligent if I made a reasonable attempt to be proficient with the instrument I chose to carry and that I acted in a manner with some concern for the outcome. I did not act recklessly. I made a rational risk evaluation and acted.

I decided to carry an instrument that can do collateral damage and thus, I need to know how to use it.

If I did kill an innocent - I would feel on an emotional level that I was culpable and regret it. Even if rationally, I saved many.

Hurting an innocent through positive action, even for a good cause, is seen to be a bad thing on the emotional level.

It is the choice I made to carry, that makes me have the responsibility to have proficiency. That's independent of the bad guy, IMHO.

 

[Skans]

I've taken several of the "entry level" type gun courses. Took a couple of courses so that I could shoot at various private / semi-private ranges. Took a course to get my CCW permit. Not one of them taught me anything about defending myself with a gun, or against someone who happens to be pointing a gun at me. They basically read you their 10 page safety manuel and tell you what the laws, rules, etc. are to keep you from getting arrested / thrown out of the range.

Then, I've trained with folks who are experts at teaching others how to defend themselves and use their concealed weapon in defense of themselves. There's a world of difference between this kind of training and the former I described. In fact, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It's like comparing reading your 10-step quick set-up pamphlet that came with your new laptop to learning how to program in HTML.

 

[pax]

AZAK,

From my very first post in this thread:

So he owes it to himself and his family to learn more. Again, if he chooses not to, it's his life and he's the one who ends up mourning the consequences if he gets it wrong.

*shrug*

I'm just saying that if you choose to carry a deadly weapon without learning how to use it well, and then your action killed one of your own family members in part because you'd been too busy / cheap / proud / in denial to learn the things you really needed to know when the crisis came, all the self justifications in the world wouldn't help you sleep well at night afterwards.

pax

 

[smince]

Then, I've trained with folks who are experts at teaching others how to defend themselves and use their concealed weapon in defense of themselves. There's a world of difference between this kind of training and the former I described. In fact, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Agreed. One isn't likely to get that level of training for $15

I did take a very good course that cost me $100 dollars that was 10 hrs long. However, there is the ammo cost (we shot almost 750 round during this time) that will 'disadvantage the poor'. You're not going to learn much with a box of ammo, so besidee volunteers giving their time, someone is going to have to front the rounds to become proficient.

 

[mavracer]

One isn't likely to get that level of training for $15

One could get a heck of a lot of training for $15 worth of late fees at the public library. Not for one instant do I beleve it to be equivelant to a good instructor, But I got more from reading Jeff Cooper's book than I did from my state mandated training.
It is indeed sad that some would beleve that mandated training be enough on either side of the right to carry.

You're not going to learn much with a box of ammo, so besidee volunteers giving their time, someone is going to have to front the rounds to become proficient.

If someone has the desire to learn, they will google Liz Murray.there is much that can be learned and practiced without ammo.
I was a pretty good shot long before I ever fired a center fire handgun. A BB gun and a BB trap will go a longer toward marksmanship than excuses.

 

[MrAcheson]

Agreed. One isn't likely to get that level of training for $15

I did take a very good course that cost me $100 dollars that was 10 hrs long. However, there is the ammo cost (we shot almost 750 round during this time) that will 'disadvantage the poor'. You're not going to learn much with a box of ammo, so besides volunteers giving their time, someone is going to have to front the rounds to become proficient.

That's the big thing with people suggesting shooting classes that are, say, only $200. The class might be $200, but the cost of the ammo you expend which will probably equal that much again. Add in transportation and lodging and you're looking at $600 at least. This is no longer a sum that I can, among other things, neglect to mention to my wife.

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.

I see now. Your point is that state training is generally firearms safety basics, state firearms carry law basics, and state self-defense law basics. It's basically training in how not to hurt yourself or others or get yourself arrested. None of this is sufficient to teach you how to actually employ a weapon in a crisis situation. It is definitely not sufficient to give you the marksmanship skills to do so.

 

[AZAK]

pax

*shrug*

I'm just saying that if you choose to carry a deadly weapon without learning how to use it well, and then your action killed one of your own family members in part because you'd been too busy / cheap / proud / in denial to learn the things you really needed to know when the crisis came, all the self justifications in the world wouldn't help you sleep well at night afterwards

Just like not taking the time, because one was spending that time elsewhere (possibly with firearm training in part?), to be actively involved with one's children's education and upbringing might have some culpability in their prison sentence. "It all started because my Daddy was too busy to come to the school play..."


Who makes you judge?

You do for yourself.

Most are going to agree that training is a good idea for improvement; for most pursuits. However, the "need" for improvement is a personal decision based on individual beliefs and individual values.

Just as my first post was addressing in part Tamara's:

Isn't separating the "legal" from the "moral" one of the whole points of this thread?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While I certainly understand the expense issue - one might point out that if you do shoot and it goes awry, your legal expenses will dwarf $600.

If, to go back to my particular scenario for this discussion, you shoot in trying to stop a rampage shooter, workplace avenger or terrorist and you hurt an innocent - you would contact an attorney immediately. Even if criminally cleared, the civil case might be costly.

Would $600 be worth it as a touch of insurance that you may not screw up?

Hard choice, isn't it? It does suggest that one doesn't blithely intervene or suggest you would do such. Police commonly pay damages for hurting innocents and they have government resources for their defense. You don't.

If you act as a Samaritan but kill some kid, don't expect a hero's attaboy.

I do understand the money issue - sigh. I worked some extra thingees so that my gun fun doesn't impact normal household and family needs.