Don't Get Training

[AZAK]

So, AZAK, if I understand you, it is not "politically correct" for some of us to suggest that it would be a conscientious and responsible thing for a gun owner to seek out training, because it may appear elitist and may have undesirable political consequences.

Suggesting that training, or even showing using examples or sound logic, is a good idea is a far cry from from making it a "moral obligation".

Once we introduce the idea that morality has anything to do with it, what about the FACT that if we did not own guns there would be zero danger of an innocent bystander being harmed by "incompetent gunowners"; after all this is more moral, the moral high ground as it were.

Sure you can argue this premise; however, don't introduce "moral obligation" and you don't open Pandora's box, or attempt to compromise an inalienable right.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

An inalienable right has nothing to do with a voluntary moral obligation.

We will differ on whether a guntoting incompetent or an incompetent voter is moral. They may have the right to do such but they are not acting morally.

Just as a doctor has the obligation to keep up when he or she attempts a procedure or give you a new Rx, if you put people at risk - you should know what's up. If you don't want to consider that consequences to others as part of your moral constellation of behaviors, then that's not defensible with Pandora's box, RKBA posturing. The voluntary nature of our discussion negates the black heliocopter rhetoric.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Suggesting that training, or even showing using examples or sound logic, is a good idea is a far cry from from making it a "moral obligation".

Really? We show training is a good thing because with training one can better avoid misusing his gun and better avoid injury to innocents. Given that, how does the responsible gun owner deny that getting training is the right thing to do?

 

[AZAK]

I will leave you fine gentlemen and ladies to continue this discussion to your hearts content. I have said what I have to say on this subject.
And leave you with this parting thought:

"If you suppose that good intentions justify intruding
on the lives and properties of your fellow citizens:
Do you appreciate being the target of somebody else's good intentions,
or haven't you had that particular dubious pleasure yet?"
Cat Farmer

 

[JohnKSa]

An interesting thought, perhaps, but it's not relevant to pax's assertions.

Suggesting that responsible gun owners have a moral obligation to learn to use their guns competently does not intrude on people's "lives and properties". It might make them think a little bit and could even make them feel guilty and irresponsible if they choose not to do the right thing, but that's the extent of it.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by pax: 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.

I really cannot see how anyone can disagree. First, there's the matter of having the skills to save them in the event. Then there's the matter of being free and solvent to continue to support them afterward. Both are more likely to be successful with sufficient training, and most of us cannot really afford too much.

Posted by AZAK: I do not believe that myself or anyone else "must" feel "morally obligated" to pursue training.

Well, I feel that anyone who chooses to drive a car is morally obligated to take reasonable precautions to reduce the likelihood of harming me or mine. That requires both skills in its safe operation and knowledge of the rules and customs of the road. Both require training. Same for goes for firearms.

Once we introduce the idea that morality has anything to do with it, what about the FACT that if we did not own guns there would be zero danger of an innocent bystander being harmed by "incompetent gunowners"; after all this is more moral, the moral high ground as it were.

Which, of course, overlooks the increased risk to one's family if one is unable to protect them....

 

[markj]

The question isn't whether that's all one needs to do to get a carry permit. The question is whether it's all one needs to be able to do to be reasonably comfortable that he (or she) will be able to effectively use a gun for self defense.

OK, how many times have you had to pull a weapon in SD? For most folks the answer will be never.

Once again we are talking about carring a gun concealed for personal protection. Not going after criminals, not breeching a doorway, not to protect every person in the immediate area.

I know I am not a rambo. nor do I intend to ever be.

 

[Frank Ettin]

OK, how many times have you had to pull a weapon in SD? For most folks the answer will be never...

Then why even carry a gun? But if you are going to carry a lethal weapon in public, or keep one at home for self defense, at least bother to learn to use it safely and skillfully, and to know the applicable laws regarding its use, whether you are required by law or not.

...Once again we are talking about carring a gun concealed for personal protection. Not going after criminals, not breeching a doorway, not to protect every person in the immediate area....

Yes, we are talking about carrying a gun for personal protection -- not chasing crooks or being a member of a dynamic entry team. But if the time ever comes that you will have to defend yourself or a loved one from a potentially lethal attack, how good are you going to need to be to be able to do so successfully?

The reality is that since you don't know what will happen, or how, you have no idea how good you're going to have to be. The better prepared you are, the more likely you'll be successful.

...I know I am not a rambo. nor do I intend to ever be...

Neither am I, and the classes I've taken, and my regular practice, certainly haven't come close to making me one. But I sure am more competent with my weapon than I was when I started to get my education in these matters. And I sure have a better idea of what I know, and don't know, and what I can do, and not do, than I had when I started to get my education in these matters.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by MarkJ: Know the laws, know when to use, know how to hit the target

Good.

Better: Know the laws, know when to use, and be able to draw and hit the targets quickly enough under stress and to do so without unduly endangering innocent persons. That takes training and it takes practice.

Best: Know the laws, know when to use, be able to draw and hit the target quickly enough under stress and to do so without unduly endangering innocent persons, and be able to recognize and address potential danger without drawing a gun.

Posted by fiddletown: The better prepared you are, the more likely you'll be successful.

True for all things, and particularly important when what is at stake includes the lives and safety of oneself and others.

...I sure am more competent with my weapon than I was when I started to get my education in these matters. And I sure have a better idea of what I know, and don't know, and what I can do, and not do, than I had when I started to get my education in these matters.

Goes for me, too, though I am far less educated and have had far less training than fiddletown.

 

[markj]

The reality is that since you don't know what will happen, or how, you have no idea how good you're going to have to be. The better prepared you are, the more likely you'll be successful.

My Grandma shot a guy was breaking into her house, she killed him without any training, she was familiar with her shotgun and knew how to load it, aim it and fire it. She lived to be 87.

Understand this, I have trained long ago and practise often.

I am against making it mandatory for a person to take advanced training to achieve a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

That stipulation will keep folks from getting a permit, so as I understand it, all of you think folks should have to take classes to get the permit.

Advanced classes like you suggest cost a bit more than the 100.00 most are paying in Nebraska for their training.

Get training after the permit is an option now, it is not madatory. I say leave it that way.

Why put more road blocks in place? or are you just anti gun and trolling here?

 

[smince]

so as I understand it, all of you think folks should have to take classes to get the permit.

Sorry. In 7 pages I've only seen one or two hold this position

 

[pax]

... and fiddletown and I weren't among those few.

pax

 

[Frank Ettin]

My Grandma shot a guy was breaking into her house, she killed him without any training, she was familiar with her shotgun and knew how to load it, aim it and fire it. ...

That only shows that the exact problem she had at the time could be solved by her with the skills she had at the time. If the exact problem had been different somehow, perhaps things would not have turned out so well.

And her experience doesn't change the simple fact that:

The reality is that since you don't know what will happen, or how, you have no idea how good you're going to have to be. The better prepared you are, the more likely you'll be successful.

 

[BlueTrain]

It occurs to me that most people in the armed forces aren't trained well enough with small arms to qualify according to some people's standards. But then, on the other hand, most training, initially at least, is merely familiarization anyway, not advanced training. However, I have also seen it stated that the advanced training is only the basic training but the trainees are paying more attention. Then on top of that formations sometimes establish battle schools if there is a need, because when the need for men is high, they tend to rush the troops through.

That is all gun handling and doesn't even begin to address legal aspects, which the armed forces call "rules of engagement."

 

[MLeake]

Training recommendations vs training requirements

markj and AZAK, you seem to think that "recommending training" = "requiring training" (markj) or else leads to a slippery slope that will ultimately require training (AZAK).

I don't agree with either viewpoint. Instead, I look at it kind of like I look at flying.

A private pilot does not need to get instrument certified. Most private pilots will only fly on days with very good weather, during daylight. Very few will fly at night, even in the best of weather. They are not required to pay the extra money, nor take the extra time, to learn to fly in instrument conditions.

Nor do I think they should be required to do so.

However, as a professional pilot pushing 6000 flight hours, I would very strongly recommend that all pilots who can afford the time, effort, and money should learn to fly solely on the instruments, for those days when the weather doesn't develop as forecast.

Seeing clouds move into the area all around you, or losing reference to the horizon due to sudden formation of haze, or finding oneself running a bit late and then returning to a coastal airport on a starry, moonless night (when it's really hard to tell stars in the sky from the reflections of lights in the water) - those are all situations that will pucker the butt of any pilot who can't swiftly transition to a full instrument scan.

Are those situations particularly likely, for a pilot who doesn't fly far from home, and who only flies on clear, sunny days? No, but they have still been known to happen.

One glaring example of this would be JFK, Junior. He did have some instrument training, but not much, and not enough for the hazy conditions he ran into over the Long Island Sound.

(Which brings up the argument that confidence out of proportion with actual training and ability can, and does, kill.)

So, I don't think IFR certification should be required for private or recreational pilots, but I do think such training would be extremely valuable to those people.

And I don't think training should be required for the exercise of a Constitutional right, but I think training would extremely valuable to most CCW types.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, it used to be that you had to prove understanding of the constitution before you could vote, at least for some people. And likewise, I suspect that some professional pilots would like to see private aircraft banned, the same way some people would like to see privately owned firearms banned. But the comparison with flying is pretty good, actually.

Lots of people own firearms, some presumably for "sporting" purposes. More accurately, there are lots of privately owned firearms. Some people here run up the averages. But most don't carry them, probably, for one reason or another. After all, most people rarely see anything remotely resembling a good reason to go armed. They've never seen a robbery, never see lions, bears, coyotes, wolves or packs of feral dogs or cattle. I only imagine there are a lot of awfully unlucky people posting here. Be that as it may, since they don't carry, there's a whole lot of things that quickly become irrlevant. You cease having to worry about what to do with your gun when you go to work, how to react to terrorists attacking the mall, how fast your draw is, and so on, although I think the whole idea behind the original post was about actually carrying the gun. And chances are, people who had a gun but had no intention of carrying it in public (I don't mean in public view, necessarily) just might be in favor of some form of required training to be permitted to do so.

 

[pax]

MLeake ~

Excellent post. The analogy to private piloting is very well thought out!

Once again we are talking about carring a gun concealed for personal protection. Not going after criminals, not breeching a doorway, not to protect every person in the immediate area.

Oddly enough, that's pretty much what I said in my initial post. RIF.

If you are the kind of person who would act to protect your family, your friends, and other innocent people around you when their lives are threatened, then you need more training than if you are the kind of person who would not. Someone who would not intervene to save others does not need as much skill as someone who would.

pax

 

[psyfly]

Sigh. I honestly don’t get it.

PAX, you are one of my heroes and I take to heart many good lessons I’ve learned from you. I worry, however, that a statement such as:

“If you are the kind of person who would act to protect your family, your friends, and other innocent people around you when their lives are threatened, then you need more training than if you are the kind of person who would not. Someone who would not intervene to save others does not need as much skill as someone who would.”

Sounds at least vaguely like only people of a certain (and, so far, largely undefined) skill level have any business trying to save their or others’ lives when the opportunity/necessity arises under less than ideal circumstances.

If I witness some ongoing situation in which I can even possibly have a chance of preventing serious injury or death to an innocent child, for example (and I use that extreme to minimize misinterpretation of, say, a domestic dispute) then I feel personally that I have a moral obligation to do whatever possible to prevent that from happening.

In such a situation I doubt that I will spend a nanosecond reviewing the level of experience and training I have before I act.

None of which is to negate my belief that good training is to be sought at every opportunity.

I’m sure I’m missing something.

Best,

Will

 

[pax]

Will,

Yes, you're missing something.

I'm not saying "Don't act."

I'm saying, "Get training if you think you would act."

There's a world of difference between those two.

pax

 

[mavracer]

If I witness some ongoing situation in which I can even possibly have a chance of preventing serious injury or death to an innocent child, for example (and I use that extreme to minimize misinterpretation of, say, a domestic dispute) then I feel personally that I have a moral obligation to do whatever possible to prevent that from happening.

Italics added.

Will wouldn't then your moral obligation to prevent serious injury extend to making sure your reasonably competent to do so?