My Month with a Gun, A Response to Heidi Yewman

There are plenty of other potentially destructive tools that require no specific training and no background check... knives, chain saws, hammers, mauls, gasoline, bleach, torches of various kinds, etc.
Click to expand...

Spacecoast,

I didn't know any of the above mentioned tools spit out projectiles at 1000+ ft/sec. Please don't start putting oranges in the apple cart.

All armed LEOs, military members, and security guards that I know of have to complete a weapons training course (and qualified) before being issued a firearm. But any 21+ yrs old with a clean record can buy a handgun and open-carry (or concealed in some state) in legal areas outside their residence without any training. If that constitute the price of "freedom", then I say we need to raise the price a bit.
 
twins,

You do realize, do you not, that accident rates in states with no training requirements have NOT been shown to be higher than accident rates in states with strict requirements?

That being the case, are you arguing from logic, or gut feelings?

And should you really wish to allow, let alone encourage, government to impose further restrictions on a core constitutional right?
 
Government has been known to overstep it's bounds. It has happened for a long time, but is happening at an alarming rate now. They will use "training requirements" as another method to limit gun ownership. I am all for recurrent gun training, but NOT mandatory training to own a gun. The 2A says nothing about training.
 
Twins, he's not falling into an apples-oranges dilemma, nor is he building a straw man. His cart is labelled "things that could kill, injure, or maim someone."

If you evaluate firearms as just another kind of potential weapon, can you see his argument? There is a lot of focus on firearms in the political realm, as well as the national media, where the guns are represented as this disproportional cause of death and injury. However, when you compare the number of deaths/year to any number of other potential weapons, it is not leading the list in terms of causing anywhere near the most deaths.

This is especially true when you extract those who deserved to be shot from the list. Include here the Boston Marathon bombers, those who engage LEOs, those shot invading someone else's home, etc.

Also, if you consider that training requirements as mentioned previously do not correlate to fewer incidents, then why allow the system to inject itself further?
 
Thanks Peeza!

You should consider re-formatting your piece and submitting it to "the Daily Beast" to see if they would publish it. Equal time and all that. Yours is much better, and might expose Yewman for the naive idealist she is proud of being.

One wonders how she might have reacted had the guy in the urine-soaked staircase grabbed her and tried to rape her on the second floor landing.

Being untrained and all...
 
I don't have any stats to back this up - I'd sure like to find them if available.

I don't know who "Twins" is any more than Ms.Yewman. What I do know - by observation - is that people of a certain stripe seem to believe the following:

Absent extensive Military/LEO training, those who carry a firearm outside their home are liable to just start blasting for little or no reason. I possess a carry permit and often do carry. To their mindset some day I'll whip out my roscoe and start popping off rounds when faced with some slight in a parking lot.

At the drop of a hat we'll all turn into what they see in movies and TV. Randomly spraying hot lead until our "clips" are empty.

I'd like to believe that they are projecting their own firearm fantasies on the rest of us. That they wouldn't trust themselves and therefore nobody else is to be trusted.

People like this rely almost exclusively on "studies". I'd like to see one that addresses this issue. The incidence of people who legally possess a firearm and subsequently endanger others and/or cause injury to others without defensible cause.
In other words...how often do people who pass a background check whip out their piece and start shooting at the slightest provocation.
 
twins,

You do realize, do you not, that accident rates in states with no training requirements have NOT been shown to be higher than accident rates in states with strict requirements?

That being the case, are you arguing from logic, or gut feelings?

And should you really wish to allow, let alone encourage, government to impose further restrictions on a core constitutional right?
Click to expand...

MLeake,

I'm not arguing, but if you think I am, who am I to argue? :-)

I guess all the law enforcement departments, military services, and security companies have it wrong and using their gut feelings to put weapons training in place for no apparent reason(s) except to waste money.

I have no opinion on what a person do with their weapon(s) inside their domain. When it comes to public domain, that's where we may differ because it may affect me or someone else.
 
All armed LEOs, military members, and security guards that I know of have to complete a weapons training course (and qualified) before being issued a firearm. But any 21+ yrs old with a clean record can buy a handgun and open-carry (or concealed in some state) in legal areas outside their residence without any training. If that constitute the price of "freedom", then I say we need to raise the price a bit.
Click to expand...

Before you make blanket statements like this, please take time to educate yourself as to the law. Many states' concealed carry permits require firearms education and a demonstration of proficiency.

But even if that were not the case, you're telling us that we should be so worried about the 21+ year olds with clean records walking around with concealed firearms, who otherwise meet the requirements of their states to receive a permit... that we should rescind their permits (and take those guns out of their pockets) until they receive a training to some level deemed "sufficient", maybe equivalent to the military or law enforcement.

Meanwhile, criminals walk around with impunity carrying firearms and other weapons, preying upon whoever they like knowing that it's pretty unlikely that they will run into someone with sufficient "training" to carry a firearm and who would otherwise be unable to repel them.
 
Last edited:
twins,

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Apples: Military, police, and security companies are PAID to perform a function, part of which requires the carriage and potential use of firearms. To varying extents, their employers are liable for the actions of (and harms done by) those personnel. Liability, both in terms of financial judgments and in potential loss of the public trust, is a major factor encouraging the setting of some standard of training.

Oranges: Private citizens, interested in defending themselves against potential abuses by bad guys, or potential attack by animals (for a moment the other day, I thought I might have to draw on an Akita, running loose, that came at me while I was riding my bike; happily, I was able to avoid that by jumping off the bike, using the bike as a barrier between me and the dog, and talking to him until he retreated - I like dogs and have no desire to harm one, but I am also not about to fight with an Akita.)

Now, if you can't establish that training among the private citizenry actually reduces accident rates, then you are arguing that they should train as do military, police, and security forces for what reason? You do realize that mandatory training has the following potentials for abuse, I hope:

1) Anti-RKBA governments could make training prohibitive, either by making it very expensive; scheduling it rarely; scheduling it at inconvenient times; scheduling it for prohibitive amounts of time (such as M-F, 8-5);

2) Even where governments would not pull such stunts, some people who might be able to afford a defensive firearm and a minimal supply of ammo may not have the disposable cash to put toward the training course; those same people might work multiple jobs and have no time to put toward the training course; they may also have limited transportation and no ability to physically get to where the course would be administered.

Now, we've had similar discussions on TFL before. You should know that I love training. I've trained with Mas Ayoob, as well as on multiple occasions with Uncle Sam. I shoot IDPA; I have a firing range in my west pasture; I have also trained for decades in martial arts. I am all for training, but I am not all for mandatory training.

I think, if you do a search, you will find similar sentiments expressed by Pax, Frank Ettin, Mas, Marty Hayes, Rob Pincus...

They all recommend training as much as is feasible, but last I checked not one of them favors mandatory training requirements for private ownership.
 
Twins, he's not falling into an apples-oranges dilemma, nor is he building a straw man. His cart is labelled "things that could kill, injure, or maim someone."

If you evaluate firearms as just another kind of potential weapon, can you see his argument? There is a lot of focus on firearms in the political realm, as well as the national media, where the guns are represented as this disproportional cause of death and injury. However, when you compare the number of deaths/year to any number of other potential weapons, it is not leading the list in terms of causing anywhere near the most deaths.

This is especially true when you extract those who deserved to be shot from the list. Include here the Boston Marathon bombers, those who engage LEOs, those shot invading someone else's home, etc.

Also, if you consider that training requirements as mentioned previously do not correlate to fewer incidents, then why allow the system to inject itself further?
Click to expand...

GM3,
Yewman's article is about carrying a handgun.
Brian's post is about carrying a handgun.
What does a handgun do? It propels a projectile at 800-1000+ ft/sec.
If a handgun can be extrapolated to be the same as other dangerous household tools or vehicles then your views are yours and we're done discussing this issue.

If we can stay on course and discuss strictly the "views and counter-views" of carrying a handgun (open or conceal) - as stated in Yewman's article and Brian's posts, then hopefully we can move forward.

With that said, it's my view the LE departments, military, and security companies made the right decision to institute a weapons training program so their forces can be more safe, lethal, and proficient at their job. They carry their weapons on a daily basis as the people who choose to open-carry (or conceal). What's the difference?
 
Again, the differences are of liability and responsibility; they are also of training that is provided by employers, rather than demanded of private citizens.

Those are big differences.

Then there's that whole, pesky 2A thing.

Yes, we have to have licenses to drive cars, but we do NOT have to have licenses to travel internal to the US. Travel is a right, travel by car is not a right, per se.

OTOH, Keeping and Bearing arms is a specified right.

And your claim that

I have no opinion on what a person do with their weapon(s) inside their domain. When it comes to public domain, that's where we may differ because it may affect me or someone else.
Click to expand...

is not supported by data; it's only your feeling. Otherwise, feel free to provide supporting statistics.
 
Last edited:
twins,

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Apples: Military, police, and security companies are PAID to perform a function, part of which requires the carriage and potential use of firearms. To varying extents, their employers are liable for the actions of (and harms done by) those personnel. Liability, both in terms of financial judgments and in potential loss of the public trust, is a major factor encouraging the setting of some standard of training.

Oranges: Private citizens, interested in defending themselves against potential abuses by bad guys, or potential attack by animals (for a moment the other day, I thought I might have to draw on an Akita, running loose, that came at me while I was riding my bike; happily, I was able to avoid that by jumping off the bike, using the bike as a barrier between me and the dog, and talking to him until he retreated - I like dogs and have no desire to harm one, but I am also not about to fight with an Akita.)

Now, if you can't establish that training among the private citizenry actually reduces accident rates, then you are arguing that they should train as do military, police, and security forces for what reason? You do realize that mandatory training has the following potentials for abuse, I hope:

1) Anti-RKBA governments could make training prohibitive, either by making it very expensive; scheduling it rarely; scheduling it at inconvenient times; scheduling it for prohibitive amounts of time (such as M-F, 8-5);

2) Even where governments would not pull such stunts, some people who might be able to afford a defensive firearm and a minimal supply of ammo may not have the disposable cash to put toward the training course; those same people might work multiple jobs and have no time to put toward the training course; they may also have limited transportation and no ability to physically get to where the course would be administered.

Now, we've had similar discussions on TFL before. You should know that I love training. I've trained with Mas Ayoob, as well as on multiple occasions with Uncle Sam. I shoot IDPA; I have a firing range in my west pasture; I have also trained for decades in martial arts. I am all for training, but I am not all for mandatory training.

I think, if you do a search, you will find similar sentiments expressed by Pax, Frank Ettin, Mas, Marty Hayes, Rob Pincus...

They all recommend training as much as is feasible, but last I checked not one of them favors mandatory training requirements for private ownership.
Click to expand...

MLeake,
According to you, I have no future as a fruit vendor. Darn it.

I'm not saying the same training for LEOs/Mil/SecCom as private citizen, but there needs to be some type of training (safety, ROEs, etc.) mandatory prior to purchasing a weapon. Are you saying if you take newbies gun owners and give them some type of training, there is no benefit? I say there will be some benefit.
 
You say there will.

The lack of a higher accident/incident rate in such constitutional carry states as Wyoming, Alaska, and Vermont says otherwise.

You keep saying, yet you keep providing no supporting data other than your feelings and thoughts. Why not do a look-up, and then come back if you can find any statistics that bear out your thought?

Edit: Note that I am all in favor of training; I have been known to provide free training to many a newbie. However, you favor REQUIRING training, which is a whole 'nother animal.

Just look at the shenanigans Chicago has already pulled since MacDonald, EG training is required but city code will not allow ranges to open in city limits...
 
Before you make blanket statements like this, please take time to educate yourself as to the law. Many states' concealed carry permits require firearms education and a demonstration of proficiency.

But even if that were not the case, you're telling us that we should be so worried about the 21+ year olds with clean records walking around with concealed firearms, who otherwise meet the requirements of their states to receive a permit... that we should rescind their permits (and take those guns out of their pockets) until they receive a training to some level deemed "sufficient", maybe equivalent to the military or law enforcement.

Meanwhile, criminals walk around with impunity carrying firearms and other weapons, preying upon whoever they like knowing that it's pretty unlikely that they will run into someone with sufficient "training" to carry a firearm and who would otherwise be unable to repel them.
Click to expand...

Spacecoast,
Please re-read my post. I didn't say "rescind permit nor taking any guns". I didn't say "training equivalent to military or LE".
 
The lack of a higher accident/incident rate in such constitutional carry states as Wyoming, Alaska, and Vermont says otherwise.

You keep saying, yet you keep providing no supporting data other than your feelings and thoughts. Why not do a look-up, and then come back if you can find any statistics that bear out your thought?
Click to expand...

MLeake,

I haven't looked up nor have supporting data for my view of requiring mandatory gun training for new gun owners. I'm providing my thoughts on a common sense level as to (xxx-fill in the blank) training = increase current level of mental, physical, emotional, etc. of subject. If it just happens that having a gun comes with all the magical "know-it-all", then my guns haven't brought me those powers. There are already many great training programs out there (NRA programs for example), why not incorporate them into current laws? Once again, my views.
 
Again, the differences are of liability and responsibility; they are also of training that is provided by employers, rather than demanded of private citizens.

Those are big differences.
Click to expand...
MLeake,
The liability and responsibility of a private citizen deciding to armed themselves outside their private domain should be a factor. Are you saying it shouldn't be a factor?
 
I am saying that they are not directly answerable to the public in the way that government functionaries are;

I am saying that you have not proven a benefit, in order to justify imposing a requirement that many law-abiding citizens would not be able to meet;

I am saying that "common sense" legislation seems to often cause an awful lot of problems that "common sense" legislators and their backers never seem to consider.

I am saying that you are effectively preaching a paradigm of "Prior Restraint," which in terms of the 1st Amendment never used to fly - but keep an eye on Senator Feinstein et al....

I am also going to point out that if some of us set what we do as training minimum standards, most people (including military, cops, and security) would not be able to qualify. The devil is in the details, and once you allow government to mandate training, you allow government to potentially make its requirements onerous in many ways.
 
Let's put it this way:

NO ONE advocates carrying without training as a good idea. Many of us simply don't think it's the government's responsibility or right to regulate that training. I would hope somebody with no idea how their gun works wouldn't strap it on and go outside looking for some bad guys to shoot up. That said, I don't think there should be licensure to carry period. I guarantee you the positive uses would grow more than accidental shootings/injury.
 
Well said, Dakota; I agree 100%. The military and police are being trained to fill a certain role designated by society. They also have much more leeway in the use of force than civilians do.

Sure, in a perfect world civilians who wish to arm themselves would achieve the same minimum levels of training as the police and military (and even higher, I hope). But an individual's right to defend themselves is just that; a right. It's not a privilege to be granted to them by the government after fulfilling some easily-abused and manipulated requirements.

The military and police are required to fulfill a certain level of training in order to perform their jobs of warfighting and law enforcement. But everyone should have the right to use a firearm to protect themselves and their family without permission from the government. However, any misuse of that right should be punished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top