What level of training is prudent for concealed carry?

Status
Not open for further replies.
but more "What level of training should a person obtain before they should feel that they are wielding the power to kill as safely as possible?"
Click to expand...

If I ever have to kill someone I want to kill them as DEAD as possible.

But, that is something that I hope that I never have to do.

A person should be able to determine for themselves when they are ready to carry. Nobody else has that right to decide when I am "good enough" to carry.
 
Again, lawyers have a way of gumming up the works. Lawyers will twist any requirement for Concealed Carry to make it more difficult for everybody to carry concealed.
Click to expand...

I don't see alot of problems with having a true practical shooting test to get your license (like a driver's license) which emphasizes the skills I mentioned above, since they should be considered necessary for the effective use of a handgun in a self defense situation. Some people in my CPL class (a while ago) had trouble hitting the paper at ranges under 5 yards. Those people are dangerous to themselves and those around them and they are probably unfamiliar with their weapon and it's safeties as well. Why not make sure they're reasonably competent before letting them carry?
 
I don't see alot of problems with having a true practical shooting test to get your license (like a driver's license) which emphasizes the skills I mentioned above, since they should be considered necessary for the effective use of a handgun in a self defense situation.
Click to expand...

That would be true if it could be drawn up, controlled and administered by other than government agencies.
I say this for 2 reasons:
1) It will be created by lawyers and NOT be what you intend because of the general bias against guns within MOST (most, not all) government and to please the special interest gun control freaks.
2) The test required to get a drivers license (at least in NY) has not been modified since 1937 and, somehow, the powers that be still consider it relevant to the intent of ensuring safe drivers. What, after all, does a 10 minute test REALLY tell you about a person ability to handle driving under real conditions?
 
I don't see alot of problems with having a true practical shooting test to get your license (like a driver's license) which emphasizes the skills I mentioned above, since they should be considered necessary for the effective use of a handgun in a self defense situation. Some people in my CPL class (a while ago) had trouble hitting the paper at ranges under 5 yards. Those people are dangerous to themselves and those around them and they are probably unfamiliar with their weapon and it's safeties as well. Why not make sure they're reasonably competent before letting them carry?
Click to expand...

Another arena where tests are improper is voting. Southern states enacted
literacy test requirement for voting. Then, the enforcers twisted this
requirement to exclude African Americans from voting. If the African
American passes a literary test in English, he would be then given one
in French. If he passes that, he would have to take another in Latin ...
until they could find one that he wouldn't pass.

I favor no laws which mandate anything for gun ownership or concealed
carry. But I do favor strong, voluntary and friendly encouragement
and suggestion by fellow gun owners.
 
That would be true if it could be drawn up, controlled and administered by other than government agencies.
I say this for 2 reasons:
1) It will be created by lawyers and NOT be what you intend because of the general bias against guns within MOST (most, not all) government and to please the special interest gun control freaks.
2) The test required to get a drivers license (at least in NY) has not been modified since 1937 and, somehow, the powers that be still consider it relevant to the intent of ensuring safe drivers. What, after all, does a 10 minute test REALLY tell you about a person ability to handle driving under real conditions?
Click to expand...

In MI we have to pass a road test to initially get our license. It's not terribly involved, but kids do fail it on a regular basis so it isn't a joke either; thats the kind of test I was referring to.

Why doesn't the NRA step in and start this then? Their course (Gun Safety Within the Home or something like that) was the basis for my CPL course, and I'm assuming for most states, so why can't we just edit the course to include a live fire test?
 
I didn't have to take any test to get my ccw as I was grandfathered in due to my age (I took and passed a hunting license test years ago, which would also have qualified me had I been younger than the non-test age limit).

I've heard about something like 20,000 gun laws on the books already. The majority of these are not enforced well enough. I don't like putting additional laws on the books to further restrict the Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" for citizens.

Gun crimes by ccw holders in my state is almost non-existant, even with the lack of forced classes, schooling, testing and such. Adding another law therefore isn't going to accomplish anything here.

Perhaps in more urban areas there is some benefit, but for native born Idahians especially, most have grown up using guns as a tool and hunting is ingrained in most.

Let's enforce some of the exisiting laws first, and see if there is a benefit to society by doing that.
 
Why not make sure they're reasonably competent before letting them carry?
Click to expand...

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Depends on your definition of infringement and then reasonable infringement.


You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre in spite of the right of free speech; so, can you require training for firearms in spite of the second amendment?

Good question.


The difference, IMO, is that the 1st amendment has long been considered to be conditional (so to speak) but the 2nd amendment was treated as essentially absolute for MANY years.
 
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Depends on your definition of infringement and then reasonable infringement.
Click to expand...

Carrying a concealed weapon such as we are talking has historically been interpreted as not being what the amendment is referring to or protecting; otherwise no license would be necessary in any state. I don't necessarily agree with that but my point is that it doesn't have a bearing on the argument.
 
As much as you can reasonably afford, plus regular practice.
Click to expand...

Okay...that is not really answering the question.

Keep in mind that this is a two part problem: what should "affordable training" should consist of? What is a "reasonable level of proficiency"? And how much would you expect to pay for a qualified instructor to instruct a novice to that level of proficiency?

Once that novice is proficient enough, how much would should that novice expect to spend in order to get that "regular" practice...assuming the worst possible circumstances (must drive approximately 5-10 miles round trip, must pay range fees, must buy practice ammunition)?
 
A person should be able to determine for themselves when they are ready to carry. Nobody else has that right to decide when I am "good enough" to carry.
Click to expand...

I said "prudent" not "should be required". People can do whatever they wish.
It's a free country. But we can discuss what exactly is safe driving, without
infringing anyone's privilege to drive. Similarly, my freedom of speech
ensures me the right to state what I think is safe gun ownership.
 
Once that novice is proficient enough, how much would should that novice expect to spend in order to get that "regular" practice...assuming the worst possible circumstances (must drive approximately 5-10 miles round trip, must pay range fees, must buy practice ammunition)?
Click to expand...

When someone is determined enough to get something done, they'll find a
way or ask enough people or read enough books ...

Dry firing is free. If ammo is too expensive, a person can start reloading.
If gas is too expensive, they can build a firing range in the basement.

Expense should not stop anybody from learning how to properly handle a
firearm.
 
Carrying a concealed weapon such as we are talking has historically been interpreted as not being what the amendment is referring to or protecting; otherwise no license would be necessary in any state. I don't necessarily agree with that but my point is that it doesn't have a bearing on the argument.
Click to expand...


That may be true but once upon a time NO ONE carried concealed, they most always open carried because it was assumed by way of tradition that we are allowed to do so. One of the significant reason for carrying concealed today is that we law abiding citizens have essentially been driven "under cover" by fear mongers. (I know, there are "tactical" reason also)
Current licensing is a violation of the amendment already and I don't think that because the states have been allowed to do so unchallenged justifies the action in the first place. I know you said you disagree with it already, so I'm not arguing with you.
If someone punches you in the nose and you don't do anything about it does that give them the right to do it? NO!
If the state violates a fundamental right and we do nothing, does it give them the right to continue? NO! but it does give them permission.
 
When someone is determined enough to get something done, they'll find a
way or ask enough people or read enough books ...
Click to expand...

Asking around or reading books is not the same as actual trigger time. Never was and never will be.

Now...please put a price tag on "reasonable".
 
I dont know, but I DO know a lot of people who dont need drivers licences!
Click to expand...

Right to arm and defend oneself is a right. Driving is a privilege. Half the
sphincters and morons on the streets should be taking the bus, in my opinion.

Now...please put a price tag on "reasonable".
Click to expand...

I can't. But I can say that someone who carries a firearm should be well
enough trained such that when life and death situation occurs they will
have enough muscle memory and confidence in their abilities to actually
allow the firearm to help them and not hurt.

The above paragraph does not mention money.

Cheers,

Jae
 
I don't think that the driver's license analogy is a good one, because like you said I too believe that owning a gun for self defense ought to be considered a right, whereas driving on public roads is considered a privilege.

My problem would be if the State required State administered safety tests. Then you have a collection of government pukes deciding if you are "safe" enough to be able to defend yourself.

Of course, they might decide that guns are inherently unsafe, and an affront to public safety, in which case, the bureaucracy will decide to "save" you by absolutely refusing to allow you to handle a firearm. Or even something a lot more pedestrian, but still terribly insidious, such as the clerk just doesn't believe in guns ownership and drags his feet, or somehow subverts the process every chance he gets.

The right to keep and bear arms is too important a civil right to put into the hands of bureaucrats in that way.

Having said that States that allow CCW/CHL are obviously requiring a competency test before issuing the permit. If this is to be done, then it ought to be allowable, as it is currently, to have private/third party entities administer the class and test so as to keep the influence of government away from the process as much as possible.

Should you then say, well let's make the test harder to pass, well then two problems would arise: 1) you might possibly infringe upon a person's right of self defense, that can shoot safely, but perhaps not at the level of a grade A pistolero, which wouldn't be right, and 2) Anti Self Defense types would charge that it isn't right that regular people should be forced by the State to learn "combat" training designed to kill people.

So, as it is, the status quo is probably the best compromise, that is, yes have a basic course and a basic competency exam for CCW/CHL carry only, administered by third parties, to make sure that you can handle the weapon safely, but to also allow the citizen to get more advanced training on his/her own.

After all learning how to use a gun safely isn't rocket science. And forcing people to have to learn advanced shooting techniques just to allow them to have access to guns or CC, would be akin to forcing an average driver to learn advanced stunt/race car driving before you give them a license.

I'm all for getting as much shooting (and driving, for that matter) training as possible. But this should be an individual's choice, not a matter of governmental coercion.

Anyway, just some initial thoughts that I had.
 
That may be true but once upon a time NO ONE carried concealed, they most always open carried because it was assumed by way of tradition that we are allowed to do so. One of the significant reason for carrying concealed today is that we law abiding citizens have essentially been driven "under cover" by fear mongers. (I know, there are "tactical" reason also)
Current licensing is a violation of the amendment already and I don't think that because the states have been allowed to do so unchallenged justifies the action in the first place. I know you said you disagree with it already, so I'm not arguing with you.
If someone punches you in the nose and you don't do anything about it does that give them the right to do it? NO!
If the state violates a fundamental right and we do nothing, does it give them the right to continue? NO! but it does give them permission.
Click to expand...

I really wholeheartedly agree with you. I just see the law interpreting (in violation of the 2nd amend. as you say and I agree) CCW as a priviledge instead of a right and don't want to give them any reason to revoke that 'priviledge'. Untrained people and those unmotivated to be so in my view are the largest threat to this being revoked, and I just really don't want to see this happen.

There was a shooting at a bar north of my home about a year ago. Two younger guys got into an argument; one (aggressor who had a CPL) followed the other into the bathroom, continued to argue, and a fistfight turned into one (cpl holder) shooting the other (he was unarmed, and luckily suffered only a flesh wound).

Now, carrying in a bar is illegal in MI. Aggravating a situation by following someone into the bathroom to continue an argument and then pulling a pistol when loosing a fistfight is also poor judgement. I believe that more involved licensing might have prevented this from putting a black eye on ccw holders, as those predisposed to such impulsive behavior might be weeded out when they find out they lack the patience and maturity to handle the process to attain such responsibility.

I would like to see the NRA step up to do this myself, as like others I do have a limited trust of our government.
 
I'm all for getting as much shooting (and driving, for that matter) training as possible. But this should be an individual's choice, not a matter of governmental coercion.

Anyway, just some initial thoughts that I had.
Click to expand...

I agree that the government should not get involved.

BUT, a healthy dose of peer pressure should work wonders. There's nothing
wrong with peer pressure.

It's like telling a drunk friend that he should take the taxi home. You're not
Uncle Sam and you're not even his Momma, but you should try very hard to
get him not to get behind the steering wheel when he is drunk.

Getting someone who can't hit the broad side of a barn to get the needed
training is a similar matter.
 
I believe that more involved licensing might have prevented this from putting a black eye on ccw holders, as those predisposed to such impulsive behavior might be weeded out when they find out they lack the patience and maturity to handle the process to attain such responsibility.
Click to expand...

Well then you'd have to include psychological testing, because short of that there is no way you'd weed out people with impulsiveness problems just with "more involved licensing".

Licensing designed to ensure operational competency can never ensure that one isn't a pure, unadulterated, idiot. In a free society, in order for the free to remain that way, occasionally, as indecorous as that might be, we have to deal with the mistakes of a few morons, and resist the knee jerk reaction to immediately come out with new regulation. Regulation that is often based on emotional and do-good-er reactions, that rarely withstand the scrutiny of sober deliberation and that unfortunately unleash all sorts of unintended consequences that end up biting us in the rear.

So more involved licensing, especially if done by the government, would only achieve one thing, and that is more infringement on our rights. And when the inevitable idiot does an idiotic thing, then because you've uncannily made the right to defend oneself a privilege indirectly tied to the behavior of idiots, then eventually that privilege will dematerialize into thin air as well.

BUT, a healthy dose of peer pressure should work wonders. There's nothing
wrong with peer pressure.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, societal pressure to behave properly, is a good thing, because you can't legislate stupid out of existence; by trying to do so you only end up hurting the non-stupid ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top