Thoughts on Training Requirements for concealed carry

[Brian Pfleuger]

Do you think these folks would like to have had some training?

Apparently not. It's available and they didn't take it.



Shall we start listing fatal car accidents that occurred from lack of training?

Because something "happens" doesn't make it a problem. There are 300 million people in this country. 4 or 5 or 100 incidents do not make an epidemic that needs fixing. The more people you have the more stupid things will happen, education or no.

I wonder how many people a year drown in bathtubs? Maybe we should have mandatory training before taking a bath?
How many kids are hurt or killed every year due to the negligence of their parents? Mandatory parenting classes, anyone?

 

[OldMarksman]

Shall we start listing fatal car accidents that occurred from lack of training?

We do have mandatory examinations for drivers, and we have licenses. Is that what we need for CCW? Some people think so.

Because something "happens" doesn't make it a problem.

???

The more people you have the more stupid things will happen, education or no.

True, but that's not a valid argument against education.

I wonder how many people a year drown in bathtubs? Maybe we should have mandatory training before taking a bath?

They do not endanger me and their misdeeds do not threaten my rights.

How many kids are hurt or killed every year due to the negligence of their parents? Mandatory parenting classes, anyone?

Shhhh! I'll bet the idea is in th works.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Quote:
Because something "happens" doesn't make it a problem.
???

If you have an island with 50 people and you have 10 murders in a year then you have a problem. If you have 300 million people and you have 10 or 20 or 50 incidents a year then you do NOT have a problem. The more people you have the more incidents you will have, in direct proportion. Unless the probability of an incident increases disproportionately to the population then there is no serious cause for concern.

True, but that's not a valid argument against education.

Sometimes it is. There have been any number of things that have always happened throughout our entire history, not the USA, mankind. Does anyone seriously believe that there weren't unjustified and illegal killings when everybody carried swords? Now we carry guns and stupid people continue to do stupid things.

The question is, does it happen in numbers that are unacceptably disproportionate to the population? The answer is no.

Another point, DWI used to be a TRUE epidemic. We instituted all kinds of advertising, terrible legal and monetary consequences, severe jail time and guess what, it went down. Did it go away? No, not even close. Every single person that drives drunk is fully aware of the legal and other consequences of their actions. Does it stop them?
Why was the money and time spent on DWI worth it? It was worth it because it was near epidemic proportions.
Shootings by otherwise law abiding citizens are most certainly NOT anywhere even remotely approaching "epidemic" levels. The problem is almost entirely isolated to that same sort of small population of people who continue to drive drunk despite the education and consequences.


On top of all that, we have the cost of such mandated training. If it would have cost me another $500 to be able to get my handgun permit then I would have almost certainly not done it. If I had needed that kind of money to buy guns of any kind then I probably wouldn't have them at all. That would be a serious breach of my rights. Making the price of a right outside the means of the people is no different than denying the right.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...There are 300 million people in this country. 4 or 5 or 100 incidents do not make an epidemic that needs fixing....

Actually, politically it can. We've seen examples of one or two "bad event" generating awful legislation, especially when it involves guns in states in which a significant portion of the population is not "gun savvy."

And in any case, as mentioned earlier, a lack of state training requirements is a barrier to wide spread reciprocity.

...And---should enough issues ultimately manifest themselves, one likely result is the abridgment of our rights....

In many states we're dealing with a significant portion of the voting public that is fundamentally uncomfortable with guns. Do ambitious politicians, playing to that portion of the electorate, blow incidents out of proportion and feeds the fires of fear to fuel their political ambitions. Of course they do. Just look at New York.

We need to remember that there are a bunch of people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There are also a lot of people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. Some think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. These people vote. Enough of the fence sitters may be willing to go along with laws letting people carry loaded guns concealed in public as long as the state issues a license and sets some qualifications, but they wouldn't vote for any legislator who supported a law to let folks carry without qualifying.

We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they also vote.

...attorneys suggesting that training is a useful adjunct in your defense. It enables you to justify an action in an situation that looks ambiguous to a jury - if the point is made that training makes you deliberate (not a commando)...

That is the case, on many levels. Among other things, it can help establish you as someone who has taken the time and trouble to know what you are doing. It can also help you establish a reasonable basis for your actions.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

And in any case, as mentioned earlier, a lack of state training requirements is a barrier to wide spread reciprocity.

On the flip side, the unreasonable requirements of state with mandatory training is a barrier to reciprocity.

Actually, politically it can.

Unfortunately, you're certainly correct about that. However, what "is" does not equal what "should be".

Originally Posted by peetzakilla
...And---should enough issues ultimately manifest themselves, one likely result is the abridgment of our rights....

That wasn't the Peetzakilla who said that.... too many fancy words.

 

[bob.a]

Certainly demonstrating competence and possessing knowledge of the legalities of using deadly force is not too much to ask of someone who wishes to carry a deadly weapon in public.

We require motorists to demonstrate the ability to control an automobile before they're licensed to drive solo. As I recall, they also have to know the rules of the road.

Ex-military or ex-LEO should be considered competent based on their experience. and training.

There are a lot of folks I've seen who give me pause when I consider letting them out in public at all, to say nothing of their being in command of a 2000 pound vehicle or a pistol. For my own well-being and that of my loved ones, I'd like to know that they have at least heard a few basic firearm safety rules, and that they know what the long pedal does.

 

[OldMarksman]

There are 300 million people in this country. 4 or 5 or 100 incidents do not make an epidemic that needs fixing....

Fiddletown adressed that, but let me add--we had one high profile political murder in late 1963, one shooting spree in Texas in 1966, and two high profile assassinations in the summer of 1968--not one of which would have been prevented by gun laws. Four or five or one hundred? That's four in the course of four and a half years. The result was the enactment of a far-reaching and onerous Federal law that significantly restricted the importation, sale, transfer, and ownership of firearms and ammunition in this country.

Every now and then someone starts publicizing stats on CCW-related crimes, sometimes even adding in the failure of permit holders to pay child support timely. I agree with you--they do not make a compelling argument for additional restriction by any stretch--but that's just not the political reality.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I agree with you--they do not make a compelling argument for additional restriction by any stretch--but that's just not the political reality.

I know it's not political reality. Part of our disconnect here might be that I'm talking about what SHOULD BE not what IS.

i.e.- Should there be training requirements? No.
Will there eventually be enough pressure that there will be requirements? Probably Yes.

 

[Frank Ettin]

On the flip side, the unreasonable requirements of state with mandatory training is a barrier to reciprocity.

You may wish to see it that way, but states with training requirements aren't going to abandon them.

...what "is" does not equal what "should be".

What "should be" is immaterial unless it's politically achievable, and you've agreed that it is not. We need to deal with reality, not fantasy.

That wasn't the Peetzakilla who said that....

Sorry. I edit my post.

...If you have 300 million people and you have 10 or 20 or 50 incidents a year then you do NOT have a problem. ...Unless the probability of an incident increases disproportionately to the population then there is no serious cause for concern....

Really? Who appointed you to make that decision for the entire population? In some places, the body politic has a very low threshold for disproportionality, especially where guns are concerned.

For practical purposes, whether something is a cause for concern or whether the frequency of negative events is disproportional to the population will be a political decision made by that population.

...Does anyone seriously believe that there weren't unjustified and illegal killings when everybody carried swords? Now we carry guns and stupid people continue to do stupid things....

Perhaps, but in any case the public tolerance for such stupid things seems to have decreased considerably.

...Another point, DWI used to be a TRUE epidemic. We instituted all kinds of advertising, terrible legal and monetary consequences, severe jail time and guess what, it went down. Did it go away? No, not even close. Every single person that drives drunk is fully aware of the legal and other consequences of their actions. Does it stop them?...

Well good luck finding political support to ease the DWI laws. Good luck.

On top of all that, we have the cost of such mandated training...

Then let's all pull together and rally the RKBA organizations and instructors to help ease the cost for people who legitimately can't afford it. As it is, I and the people I teach with, receive no compensation. Our class fees are set to just cover our expenses -- range fees, materials, ammunition we supply, etc.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Will there eventually be enough pressure that there will be requirements? Probably Yes.

And recognizing that, it's important that we be a part of the process and maneuver ourselves into a position to influence what the requirements and standards will be. If we get ourselves sidetracked into an alternate universe, we'll find standards imposed on us by political hacks fundamentally antagonistic to private citizens carrying guns in public.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

What "should be" is immaterial unless it's politically achievable, and you've agreed that it is not. We need to deal with reality, not fantasy.

In this thread "Thoughts on mandatory training" it is not reality or fantasy. It is "thoughts". My thoughts are that mandatory training is unnecessary and overly burdensome.

The reality is that the "majority" believes no such thing about training. I'd be willing to wager that it never crosses the minds of most until it is spoon fed to them by someone with an agenda. Usually, that "someone" is a relative of someone involved in one of the few incidents and is now convince that we have an epidemic. (i.e.- Sarah Brady)

Additionally, just because the political tide is against us does not mean that we should turn and go with the tide.

And recognizing that, it's important that we be a part of the process and maneuver ourselves into a position to influence what the requirements and standards will be. If we get ourselves sidetracked into an alternate universe, we'll find standards imposed on us by political hacks fundamentally antagonistic to private citizens carrying guns in public.

First point, I agree. Second point, seems like giving up the fight to me. Just because we may see it as politically inevitable doesn't mean that we do not continue to fight it. For one thing, it may not be as inevitable as we think and secondly, even if it is we should fight unnecessary restrictions, regardless.

 

[rzach]

State-required training is just a way to keep some free people from being arm
my 4 year old knows that if you pull the trigger on any gun it will shot. training is about who's being trained.not the actual training .when i go to the range to shoot people assume that because i have dark black skin that i must not know how to use my guns.from Vietnam to Iraq i have carried and used ever type of gun. restriction and cost is all training is

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Duplicate

 

[Frank Ettin]

My thoughts are that mandatory training is unnecessary and overly burdensome....

And my thought is that if it's too much trouble for you to bother learning how to manage your gun safely and skillfully, getting educated on the laws of self defense and the use of lethal force, and demonstrating that you have these skills and know these things, then you shouldn't be carrying a loaded gun in public.

my 4 year old knows that if you pull the trigger on any gun it will shot. training is about who's being trained.not the actual training ....restriction and cost is all training is

If you really believe that, it demonstrates why training, especially significant training in the laws applicable to the use of lethal force in a civilian context, should be required.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

my thought is that if it's too much trouble for you to bother learning how to manage your gun safely and skillfully, getting educated on the laws of self defense and the use of lethal force, and demonstrating that you have these skills and know these things, then you shouldn't be carrying a loaded gun in public.

Really? Who appointed you to make that decision for the entire population?

 

[Frank Ettin]

I never said I was making the decision for the entire population. I expressly identified it as my thought.

So if we put the question to a general vote, which do you think the voters of the United States would choose?

[1] Allowing the carrying of loaded guns in public with only a background check but without any required training or qualifications; or

[2] Allowing the carrying of loaded guns in public with a background check and only after qualifying by demonstrating competence with a gun and an acceptable knowledge of applicable law relating to the use of lethal force.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

The opinion of the population is not indicative of right and wrong. It most certainly is not indicative of my opinion and it most certainly will not sway my opinion one way or the other. Unlike the vast majority of the population, I try to base my opinions on facts and logic, a concept which, by it's very nature, lends those opinions to being resistant to change.

One could word a poll question to get any answer one desires, just like the pollsters do every day and just like you have suggested above.

How about this:

1)The right to defend oneself is a fundamental right and should be available to every person.

2)The ability of a person to defend themselves should be controlled and dictated in it's availability, means and cost by the government.

Which do you think people would choose?

 

[rzach]

you do not need a gun to use lethal force

 

[OldMarksman]

Should there be training requirements? No.

Will there eventually be enough pressure that there will be requirements? Probably Yes.

The real problem, I think, is that the pressure will be to limit CCW authorizations, infringe on shall-issue requirements, back off on state pre-emption, and add ridiculous storage requirments. The antis don't want training requirements; they want "gun control."

If we have sufficient legal compliance, safe and responsible behavior, and a paucity of citations of incidents to support the antis' arguments, we may preserve our rights.

I agree that education is no guarantee, but I think is likely a worthwhile investment.

Our state law calls for an eight hour training course. Mostly classroom, about four hours on the law. no written exam, three targets at 21 yards with rimfire handguns, and a requirement to get 15 out of 20 on the page of a torso target. Wouldn't have passed over the governor's veto without it.

I have friends who think the course should be more stringent.

We still have editorials and letters to editors roundly criticizing our CCW law, and to my knowledge no one has given anyone reason to believe it's not a good ldea since it was enacted. But again, there's no central database....

 

[Frank Ettin]

How about this:...

That's not really the question presented in this thread, but go ahead and commission an established polling company to conduct a properly designed poll asking that question and let's see how it turns out.