Concerned about the level of training received by those seeking CCW? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Concerned about the level of training received by those seeking CCW?


HerrGlock
08-10-2012, 04:29
http://www.dispatch.com/content/polls/opinion/the-hot-issue/2012/08/0810-concerned-about-concealed-carry-training.html

JW1178
08-10-2012, 05:27
The link is about how canidates will handle SS and Medicare?

pipedreams
08-10-2012, 05:40
The link is about how canidates will handle SS and Medicare?

??????????????????? This is what I got

"Today's Hot Issue

Are you concerned about the level of training received by those seeking concealed-carry gun licenses?

Please login to vote and comment on the Hot Issue."

HalfHazzard
08-10-2012, 11:12
Yes: Yes concealed carry is scary!:rofl:

GRIMLET
08-10-2012, 13:53
I wouldn't mind a yearly qualification for the specific firearm carried. We do it under LEOSA. It looks good in court too if you are involved in a shooting.

LoadToadBoss
08-10-2012, 16:18
Since there is no required training for openly carrying a firearm with a tucked shirt, why should the state require formal training when I cover that same firearm with the same shirt untucked? What has really changed? Now you see it; now you don't.

HerrGlock
08-10-2012, 16:58
I would like to see someone prove that those states where NON-cops who have no mandated training have higher rates of misuse and bad shoots before anyone pushes for any mandated training at all.

Until then I would like to see the states that do have mandated training drop the requirement.

Cops have an entirely different reason and set of circumstances to carry and their training or lack thereof has no bearing on this whatsoever.

HerrGlock
08-10-2012, 17:00
I wouldn't mind a yearly qualification for the specific firearm carried. We do it under LEOSA. It looks good in court too if you are involved in a shooting.

So in what state that does not mandate training has it ever been an issue for a non cop? Ever?

Couple million people carrying for at least a couple decades if it were going to be an issue, don't you think it would already have become one?

GRIMLET
08-10-2012, 17:48
So in what state that does not mandate training has it ever been an issue for a non cop? Ever?

Couple million people carrying for at least a couple decades if it were going to be an issue, don't you think it would already have become one?

If I understand your question,
No state I know of requires annual certification/qualification for a specific firearm being concealed carry. I do suppirt the idea.

There have been shootings where the ccw guy has shot a good guy by mistake. Just as cops have done.
The certification is one safety measure to ensure that the owner can at least handle and qualify with a specific firearm. As it is now, one may get certified and pass the shoot with a .22 and decide that he later wants to carry a much larger gun with a different trigger.

Why so much resisitance?
Everyone likes to shoot here. And it would help in court if the shoot went bad. Its not gun control, its bullet placement.

Did I get your question right? If you don't agree, its ok. Its just one mans opinion.

GRIMLET
08-10-2012, 17:53
Cops have an entirely different reason and set of circumstances to carry and their training or lack thereof has no bearing on this whatsoever.


When I carry off duty, I am a private citizen and am under the same circumstances as you in the face of attack


My training is very good. Even netter training is out there at some firearm instruction schools.

This is just my opinion but it is your thread and I won't mention it anymore out of respect.

cowboy1964
08-10-2012, 19:08
I don't know how anyone that reads forums like this can NOT be concerned about the lack of knowledge displayed by some of the law pertaining to CCW, use of deadly force, etc.

Lee-online
08-10-2012, 19:20
There is absolutely no training to get your CCW permit here in PA, you just need to pay $20. No other BS.

Mandatory training is just a slippery slope and is only another restriction on our Rights and a feel good measure.

HerrGlock
08-10-2012, 19:31
If I understand your question,
No state I know of requires annual certification/qualification for a specific firearm being concealed carry. I do suppirt the idea.

There have been shootings where the ccw guy has shot a good guy by mistake. Just as cops have done.
The certification is one safety measure to ensure that the owner can at least handle and qualify with a specific firearm. As it is now, one may get certified and pass the shoot with a .22 and decide that he later wants to carry a much larger gun with a different trigger.

Why so much resisitance?
Everyone likes to shoot here. And it would help in court if the shoot went bad. Its not gun control, its bullet placement.

Did I get your question right? If you don't agree, its ok. Its just one mans opinion.

I always resist someone or some state trying to infringe on a civil right. So should you.

According to the University of Chicago study cops shoot the wrong person 11% of the time. Non cops, 2%. That is not showing an overwhelming need to change things.

Even off duty you have a different mind set. You will interfere with a crime being committed against another. Most CCW holders will not, that's not what CCW is for, it's for SELF defense.

The reason it's different is the cop goes into a situation quite often without a clear understanding of who is the "good guy" and who is the "bad guy" and has to make value judgments without enough information. That's the nature of the job. Another part of that is the cop may very well have to use deadly force beyond arm's length. Same thing, just the nature of the job, on or off duty.

The CCW carrier ALWAYS knows who the bad guy is. The vast majority, call it 95% or better, of the time it's within arm's reach of each other. That's the nature of carrying a gun for self protection.

Completely different circumstances. If you want someone to have to live up to cop standards, give them a badge and arrest powers too and make them legally entitled to step in. Otherwise the two are not equal and only vaguely similar.

Nothing, in the 30 years of shall issue (AL, WA, PA, DE) has shown that mandating training does anything but throws another obstacle in the way of people exercising a civil right. Nothing in the 20ish years of the newer shall issue statutes that mandate training have ever shown that the training creates fewer misuses of a firearm, nothing.

As a matter of interest, the cases I've seen in the paper, people shooting because someone cut them off, etc, have all been in mandated training states. I do believe that's because of all the hoopla when the CCW permits started being issued and some ignored all common sense. Training obviously has not changed that.

We need to do away with mandated training and allow those with less disposable income also exercise their right to self defense. Yes, training is great and I urge everyone to take as many classes as you have time and money to take. I do not believe it should ever be mandated.

HerrGlock
08-10-2012, 19:34
There is absolutely no training to get your CCW permit here in PA, you just need to pay $20. No other BS.

Mandatory training is just a slippery slope and is only another restriction on our Rights and a feel good measure.

Yeah and we've heard all about all the bad CCW shootings in PA, right? All of the self defense cases that the jury loved hearing about no mandated training, right?

hmmm, the only one I know of the guy was carrying on a FL permit and that required training. Interesting. I do believe he's going to jail for life or damn close to it, but that permit did actually require training.

PettyOfficer
08-10-2012, 19:42
I am 100% for skills training requirement.

The normal CHL/CCW/CPL (etc) courses are supposed to cover laws and use of deadly force, but I can say for certain that the TX competency qualification is a joke. You can fully qualify by the 7 yard mark and completely miss the 15y and still pass.

I wouldn't mind at least 4 hours of practical shooting skills training with holster drawing, multiple target acquisition and engagement, and a real timed and scored result.

That should be a bare minimum... Just because people have been carrying for years with limited negative results isnt enough to argue with me against mandatory training.

There are lots of articles where a CC'er pulls, shoots, hits nothing, scares away BG and they're called a hero. I agree they're a hero, but the fact that the BG is still out there means they could have done more.

One could argue about the adrenaline dump and tunnel vision causing missed shots, but training provides muscle memory that can be relied on to bring the pistol up straight and true.

HerrGlock
08-10-2012, 19:53
I am 100% for skills training requirement.

The normal CHL/CCW/CPL (etc) courses are supposed to cover laws and use of deadly force, but I can say for certain that the TX competency qualification is a joke. You can fully qualify by the 7 yard mark and completely miss the 15y and still pass.

I wouldn't mind at least 4 hours of practical shooting skills training with holster drawing, multiple target acquisition and engagement, and a real timed and scored result.

That should be a bare minimum... Just because people have been carrying for years with limited negative results isnt enough to argue with me against mandatory training.

There are lots of articles where a CC'er pulls, shoots, hits nothing, scares away BG and they're called a hero. I agree they're a hero, but the fact that the BG is still out there means they could have done more.

One could argue about the adrenaline dump and tunnel vision causing missed shots, but training provides muscle memory that can be relied on to bring the pistol up straight and true.

What you feel, believe or argue is basically irrelevant until you include why all the states that have zero training requirement have roughly the same bad shoot rates as the states that require training.

You are saying it's not really a right to bear arms, that it's a privilege the state can create ever increasing training requirements to keep. It can end up there is only one state approved course, it costs $500 and has a three year waiting list, is given once a year and is 40 hours long but only has 50 seats available. Exaggeration, yes, but that's just as "reasonable" as a mandated 4 hour course and is a very imaginable end result of mandated training being usurped by people who do not want CCW in the state.

Until you can prove the training actually changes the bad shoot percentage, we need to be taking away the mandate in the states that have it.

HerrGlock
08-10-2012, 19:54
There are lots of articles where a CC'er pulls, shoots, hits nothing, scares away BG and they're called a hero. I agree they're a hero, but the fact that the BG is still out there means they could have done more.

So a kill is the only desired outcome to you?

Strange, to me if I didn't even fire a shot and the guy ran away it would still be a desired outcome. Wouldn't count to you, though, "the BG is still out there"

Lee-online
08-10-2012, 19:56
My 86 year old grandma could never pass that training. Now you have denied her Rights and left her defenseless.

She knows her ability and will probably only shoot when someone is actually trying to pull her from her wheelchair. She doesn't need to have the ability to shoot out to 15 yards.

Angry Fist
08-10-2012, 19:56
I'm on GT. How much more qualified can you get? :dunno:

PettyOfficer
08-10-2012, 20:00
Until you can prove the training actually changes the bad shoot percentage, we need to be taking away the mandate in the states that have it.

Reasonable counter.. But the number of required draws is much lower than we CCrs would think to have an impact on crime rates (not that we want to draw, just having an impact would require even more draws).

GRIMLET
08-10-2012, 20:02
HERR, understand this is my opinion of how things would be in my world.
I cannot afford much in terms of training. If you want it free, join a pd or so. Sorry.
If you try to play the percentage game you lose. Why? Because just one life. A child, a wife or a man is not a statistic, they are a person, a family member.
Is the Pa shooting the dollar store death? I'm saddened by it.
As an off duty leo, I am just as sure or unsure as you who may be the real bad guy. But I do have some training........
I'm not trying to anger you. You seem slightly peeved.

Responsible gun ownership and carry is what I support. I'm sure you do too.

PettyOfficer
08-10-2012, 20:05
So a kill is the only desired outcome to you?

Strange, to me if I didn't even fire a shot and the guy ran away it would still be a desired outcome. Wouldn't count to you, though, "the BG is still out there"

I'm not blood thirsty, but with the 21' rule and the potential for the BG not running is why I train for multiple center mass shots.

You hit the BG at least once, the odds he goes to a hospital increases, and the odds of catching him increases, and if he's caught, that's one less BG on the streets.

I did say I consider the shooter a hero, but the BG has been given another chance to harm people who are not CCing.

PettyOfficer
08-10-2012, 20:05
I'm on GT. How much more qualified can you get? :dunno:

Okay, I changed my mind, mandatory 6 months GT membership :)

PEC-Memphis
08-10-2012, 20:21
There have been shootings where the ccw guy has shot a good guy by mistake. Just as cops have done.
.

According to a study Referenced by "Gun Facts", innocent bystanders are accidentally shot in about 2% of "civilian" shootings, and 11% of LEO shootings.

The ccw guys do better than the LEO guys; but keep in mind that LEO's are running into a situation, and ccw's are already there or running away.

oldman11
08-10-2012, 20:27
If I understand your question,
No state I know of requires annual certification/qualification for a specific firearm being concealed carry. I do suppirt the idea.

There have been shootings where the ccw guy has shot a good guy by mistake. Just as cops have done.
The certification is one safety measure to ensure that the owner can at least handle and qualify with a specific firearm. As it is now, one may get certified and pass the shoot with a .22 and decide that he later wants to carry a much larger gun with a different trigger.

Why so much resisitance?
Everyone likes to shoot here. And it would help in court if the shoot went bad. Its not gun control, its bullet placement.

Did I get your question right? If you don't agree, its ok. Its just one mans opinion.
In Texas the minimum caliber to qualify is .32 caliber. No one I know shoots a .32 caliber. Mostly it's 9mm (.355 caliber).

GRIMLET
08-10-2012, 21:04
According to a study Referenced by "Gun Facts", innocent bystanders are accidentally shot in about 2% of "civilian" shootings, and 11% of LEO shootings.

The ccw guys do better than the LEO guys; but keep in mind that LEO's are running into a situation, and ccw's are already there or running away.

I appreciate your contribution and your views. Most leo shootings are a diffferent scenario than the average ccw permit holder. I'm not here to what if it to death.

An innocent person shot by a well meaning friendly is never a percentage or statistic.

GRIMLET
08-10-2012, 21:07
In Texas the minimum caliber to qualify is .32 caliber. No one I know shoots a .32 caliber. Mostly it's 9mm (.355 caliber).


Whatever they feel comfortable with. However, should they then ccw a .44mag double action trigger revolver they have never fired?
If they qualified with it, we could rest assured they could handle it.
Thanks for your views.

HerrGlock
08-11-2012, 02:59
HERR, understand this is my opinion of how things would be in my world.
I cannot afford much in terms of training. If you want it free, join a pd or so. Sorry.
If you try to play the percentage game you lose. Why? Because just one life. A child, a wife or a man is not a statistic, they are a person, a family member.
Is the Pa shooting the dollar store death? I'm saddened by it.
As an off duty leo, I am just as sure or unsure as you who may be the real bad guy. But I do have some training........
I'm not trying to anger you. You seem slightly peeved.

Responsible gun ownership and carry is what I support. I'm sure you do too.

I'm not peeved in the least. Your argument is pure emotion with nothing else and I'm just trying to get you to see it.

If you can show the bad shoot rate is worse for states with no training requirement then your "If it saves one life" will have some basis in fact.

If there is no difference, then your argument falls flat and is basically invalid.

Concealed carry for non-LEOs hsa been around for over 200 years, has been common for a few states with no training requirements at all for over 30 years and has been very publicised and increasingly more common in states both with and without a training requirement for 10-20 years.

If your argument of training saving any lives due to bad shoots, your argument that any jury has ever been swayed by any mandated training, there would be examples of it. You would be able to show where states with mandated training have lower bad shoot rates. There would be trial transcripts with "The defendant went to Front Sight for a two week course..."

There are neither. That means you either believe it's a right and we should further decrease the entry fee to exercising the right, or you believe it's a privilege that the state can dictate training to whatever end they care to.

With my 214 the only state I've found that would not accept that as proof of training is UT. This isn't about me. It's either a right or it is not. You are saying it is not. I disagree.

HerrGlock
08-11-2012, 03:03
I appreciate your contribution and your views. Most leo shootings are a diffferent scenario than the average ccw permit holder. I'm not here to what if it to death.

An innocent person shot by a well meaning friendly is never a percentage or statistic.

Yet you are the one who said LEOs have to go through training yearly so you would support that idea for non-LEOs. When it's shown that the two have nothing in common for types of shootings you're now saying that's a "what if"? No, it's a fact, non-LEOs do not make the mistakes in shootings that LEOs do because the two situations are completely different. You were the one who suggested because it's a good idea for LEOs under LEOSA that you would support it under CCW laws. That's a requirement unsupported by fact.

TheJ
08-11-2012, 03:13
I beleive everyone should seek and get the best training they can get access to. I also think basic firearm and CCW training should be a requirement to graduate from public high school. However, I do not think it should be a legal requirement just to keep and bare arms to exercise the basic human right of self defense

GRIMLET
08-11-2012, 08:44
I don't have emotional thought. I have analytical thought. Its been confirmed through training and testing.

I have no way of compiling stats from shootings. Finding how training and qualification factor in a courtroom is impossible.

I only said leos must qualify yearly with their off duty weapon. There is a huge difference between qualification and training.

I know it is a right to own firearms.
I encourage responsible gun ownership and responsible concealed carry.

I will never be convinced that annual qualification is a bad thing.
It is doubtful you will see it as anything but something to limit your rights.
Lets agree to disagree.



Off point
214, what branch/ mos?
Me, US Army combat medic


Be safe.

Fanner50
08-11-2012, 14:23
Just be glad they have a gun. A gangbanger can kill you holding the gun upside down or sideways. I guess we Can feel superior and elitist though to the masses who don't shoot a thousand rounds a month but still have a permit. :dunno:

unit1069
08-11-2012, 17:41
It was made very clear during my CCW class what responsibilities accrue to CCW holders and if someone is serious enough about accepting this responsibility I trust that individual is smart enough to have all the bases covered. We are supposed to be a nation that values individual freedom and responsibility, right?

Gunnut 45/454
08-11-2012, 18:02
GRIMLET
When every other right in the Bill of Rights has a test madated by law to use them, then you can enforce /enact one on the 2nd! Until that day all the restrictions and mandated training to use the right to bare arms need to go away!:steamed:

PEC-Memphis
08-11-2012, 18:09
I appreciate your contribution and your views. Most leo shootings are a diffferent scenario(1) than the average ccw permit holder. I'm not here to what if it to death.

An innocent person shot by a well meaning friendly is never a percentage or statistic.(2)

(1) That's why I added, "but keep in mind that LEO's are running into a situation, and ccw's are already there or running away."

(2) A strange comment coming from a person only capable of analytical thought. I am in no way indicating that an innocent human life is ONLY a statistic, and the loss of innocent life isn't tragic. However, statistics are the way to analyze where problems exist and possible remedies.

A6Gator
08-11-2012, 18:19
Sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for... Some bureaucrat, in the name of better training or improved CCW "safety", might require that you drill a 2"X2" post-it at 35 yds from the holster with 5 shots in 3 seconds. He's not, technically, restricting your right to carry in his state, just that, if you can't do that, you're not trained well enough. How many here can do that?

As much as I can see the need for balance, in this case, I always come down on the side of "less is more..." YMMV

GRIMLET
08-11-2012, 20:13
(1) That's why I added, "but keep in mind that LEO's are running into a situation, and ccw's are already there or running away."

(2) A strange comment coming from a person only capable of analytical thought. I am in no way indicating that an innocent human life is ONLY a statistic, and the loss of innocent life isn't tragic. However, statistics are the way to analyze where problems exist and possible remedies.

1. When I'm off duty, I am under no order to run to the sound of gunfire. I may just do that. Or I may head for an exit or find a defendable spot.
Off duty, I am a private citizen. Just like you. Didn't I explain this? Ok. Now I have.

2. I never said I was ONLY capable of analytical thought.
A persion dying is not analytical. It does not have to be emotional either unless you care about them. It is a fact. I understand most families and friends of a wrongful death would be emotional.

You have your views and opinions and I have mine. We don't agree. Its ok......
Relax.

GRIMLET
08-11-2012, 20:14
Sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for... Some bureaucrat, in the name of better training or improved CCW "safety", might require that you drill a 2"X2" post-it at 35 yds from the holster with 5 shots in 3 seconds. He's not, technically, restricting your right to carry in his state, just that, if you can't do that, you're not trained well enough. How many here can do that?

As much as I can see the need for balance, in this case, I always come down on the side of "less is more..." YMMV

Less is more may be lacking in court if you ever have a bad shoot.

Just saying......

Fanner50
08-11-2012, 23:02
Less is more may be lacking in court if you ever have a bad shoot.

Just saying......

If you have a "good shoot" you may still be going to court.

Maybe the only people who should be allowed to have a CCW are the ones on Glock Talk with over a thousand post. We KNOW they know how to use a gun. :whistling:

GRIMLET
08-11-2012, 23:09
If you have a "good shoot" you may still be going to court.

Maybe the only people who should be allowed to have a CCW are the ones on Glock Talk with over a thousand post. We KNOW they know how to use a gun. :whistling:

Hmmmmm..........
That's not really your opinion, is it?

Lt. Donn
08-12-2012, 06:07
Here in my state, New Mexico, 15 hours of CC training is mandated to qualify for your license. In addition, 2 years after certification, you must have a 2 hour refresher course. Wait, there is more..you must demonstrate proficiency with each "type" of firearm.ie: Revolver or Self-Loader to carry either AND the license is caliber specific...so qualify with a 9mm and you can carry any lesser caliber, but not a larger caliber..same with revolvers.

soflasmg
08-12-2012, 06:13
The 2nd amendment mentions nothing about training. We are talking about God given rights here not privileges granted by some sovereign.

Using a handgun is not rocket science in any case.

TheJ
08-12-2012, 06:20
I'm pretty sure there are at least eight states that have no training or proficiency qualification requirement at all and yet the statistics do not bare out the fears of those who feel it should be a legal prerequisite just to be able exercise the basic civil right of self defense.

Firearms training is a great thing and should be sought by all, especially those who keep and bare. But to tell citizens "you are not granted the human right of self defense until you prove yourself worthy of it to the state" is to look at the equation backwards.

Again, we don't have to wonder what would happen if there was no legal requirement, we already know simply by looking to the states that have none. Any other position is simply not supported by the empirical evidence.

GRIMLET
08-12-2012, 07:22
Lets keep an eye in that case I mentioned earlier where a ccw accidently shot the store manager in the head and killed her.

I bet his lawyer wishes he had a qualification on that firearm.

pmcjury
08-12-2012, 07:31
Considering I live in a state that is known for ****ty gun laws, this is one area that they do a pretty good job at. NYS has no requirement for training. It took some time to get my permit but it was mostly just time waiting.

If we are going to talk about training needed to ccw let's talk about training for the actions protected by the first amendment. Nothing crazy just a two week course for free speech a month long state approved course on any religion you are thinking about joining.

If we can keep one person from joining the wrong religion wouldn't it be worth it.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

jdavionic
08-12-2012, 07:36
God forbid we should allow individual responsibility to exist in this country.

Yes, I do believe that people who carry should get training AND practice repeatedly. This approach would be a responsible way of carrying. However I do NOT believe it should be mandated by the gov't.

There are many examples of people saving their life or lives of their loved ones who have little to no training. Likewise, there are many examples of people carrying that have made costly mistakes (either by jeopardizing life or actually taking a life) due to irresponsible carrying - just do a search for TBO's posts.

However I'd rather live in a country that offers the freedom of allowing people to make these choices. Sure, it adds risk when you don't have a nanny gov't controlling every aspect of carrying qualifications. However I view the risk of gov't abuse of power as being much greater. That's JMHO though.

Bren
08-12-2012, 07:51
We've carried guns for hundreds of years with NO training. In KY, the police required no training when I started in the 80's and we only instituted a state standard for qualification (equal to CCW) when we had to for LEOSA. Yet we have managed for hundreds of years to effectively use guns for self defense. Why? Because in the real world self-defense rarely requires more than being able to point a gun at somebody 3 feet away and jerk the trigger. If the whole population could carry with no training, it wouldn't concern me in the least.

CDR_Glock
08-12-2012, 07:54
I believe that a qualification for some period, as is done for Military, should be necessary with regards to knowledge of laws and demonstration of a level of competency. It is a privilege to be able to carry. It is an individual's responsibility to ensure that it is carried out safely and judiciously.

GRIMLET
08-12-2012, 08:01
I believe that a qualification for some period, as is done for Military, should be necessary with regards to knowledge of laws and demonstration of a level of competency. It is a privilege to be able to carry. It is an individual's responsibility to ensure that it is carried out safely and judiciously.

Quick!!!! Correct your post!!!!
It is a right to be able to carry, not a privilege. Unless you live in one of THOSE places..... and you still need a permit in the other places.....

So quickly fix it before the cold dead hands guys attack you.
Hahahahahaha

GRIMLET
08-12-2012, 08:07
Considering I live in a state that is known for ****ty gun laws, this is one area that they do a pretty good job at. NYS has no requirement for training. It took some time to get my permit but it was mostly just time waiting.

If we are going to talk about training needed to ccw let's talk about training for the addictions protected by the first amendment. Nothing crazy just a two week course for free speech a month long state approved course on any religion you are thinking about joining.

If we can keep one person from joining the wrong religion wouldn't it be worth it.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

What addiction is being protected by the first amendment?
Not being rude, I just don't know.

Even though you were making a point, I think your post about a class on the first amendment and then mentioning a WRONG religion is a little ironic.
once again, no rudeness intended, just an observation.

pmcjury
08-12-2012, 08:23
What addiction is being protected by the first amendment?
Not being rude, I just don't know.

Even though you were making a point, I think your post about a class on the first amendment and then mentioning a WRONG religion is a little ironic.
once again, no rudeness intended, just an observation.

Actions protected by the first amendment* stupid auto correct.

When I said the wrong religion I ment wrong for any particular person nor that the religion is wrong. I would have been more clear

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

GRIMLET
08-12-2012, 08:24
Actions protected by the first amendment* stupid auto correct.

When I said the wrong religion I ment wrong for any particular person nor that the religion is wrong. I would have been more clear

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

No worries.
But you have to admit, pretty funny.

pmcjury
08-12-2012, 08:39
Yeah it was. Although sometimes I swear there are people that are addicted to the sound of their own voice, so it fits for them

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

Glockrunner
08-12-2012, 15:17
http://www.dispatch.com/content/polls/opinion/the-hot-issue/2012/08/0810-concerned-about-concealed-carry-training.html
Until every legal citizen in the USA is required to pass testing and training requirements for maybe having to exercise their 2 amendment rights, I stand against manadory training for anyone desiring a CWP or having a desire to purchase a firearm for whatever purpose.

Mandatory training is just a way for those that "think" they are better trained to push their beliefs on others. We witness this almost daily anymore. Those that want to protect others against themselves.....

I have provened my ability with my sidearm and fully understand many have little to no training. Others that have may have gone years without refresher training too.

I really don't think it is an issue. Each time I pick up a news article that tells the tale of some old person taking out the trash warm my heart. I know too that deep down, many firearms are drawn without ever being fired, and protecting a live.


You, that want training: Offer training to the criminals that they need to really chose a different path in life. Put your money and effort into educating them of the pitfalls of the choices they make when deciding to kickin a door. I hope you get a good return on your dollar.

Me I would rather spend my money on legal gun toten citizens and purchase everyone of them a box of ammo.

ken grant
08-12-2012, 15:49
Get Training, Pay a Fee,beg permission to use a Right?????

BULL***T

A6Gator
08-12-2012, 16:06
Less is more may be lacking in court if you ever have a bad shoot.

Just saying......

If you have a bad shoot, it doesn't matter how much training you have...

I take personal responsibility for my training and maintaining currency. My point was, facilely demanding the government to require more of something may have unintended consequences.

GRIMLET
08-12-2012, 17:39
Hey guys, a yearly Qualification for a specific firearm being carried is not Training.

Be safe.

GRIMLET
08-12-2012, 17:42
Until every legal citizen in the USA is required to pass testing and training requirements for maybe having to exercise their 2 amendment rights, I stand against manadory training for anyone desiring a CWP or having a desire to purchase a firearm for whatever purpose.

Mandatory training is just a way for those that "think" they are better trained to push their beliefs on others. We witness this almost daily anymore. Those that want to protect others against themselves.....

I have provened my ability with my sidearm and fully understand many have little to no training. Others that have may have gone years without refresher training too.

I really don't think it is an issue. Each time I pick up a news article that tells the tale of some old person taking out the trash warm my heart. I know too that deep down, many firearms are drawn without ever being fired, and protecting a live.


You, that want training: Offer training to the criminals that they need to really chose a different path in life. Put your money and effort into educating them of the pitfalls of the choices they make when deciding to kickin a door. I hope you get a good return on your dollar.

Me I would rather spend my money on legal gun toten citizens and purchase everyone of them a box of ammo.

Your first paragraph said you would......

Nevermind.

Y'all. Be safe. GRIMLETT-OUT

Glenn E. Meyer
08-14-2012, 20:05
If you are in court, the shoot is ambiguous to say the least. Some legal scholars say that training is good as it will make the case that your shoot is rational. On the other hand, the DA may imply that training is an indication of premeditation.

I've seen both. Also, jury simulation suggests that folks with gun negative attitudes will view training as a negative, blood lust and progun folks may think the opposite. But it depends. Hunters not into the self-defense gun world may view tactical training as a negative.

Complex, isn't it?

That's not saying much about requiring training.

I do think that if you want to carry and make the case that you are defender of the right in critical incidents, you have a moral responsibility to train as well as the practical benefits of stress innoculation.

I also know that when I try to make the case for things like campus carry, there are objections about the untrained nailing an innocent.

RussP
08-14-2012, 20:10
......

Jon_R
08-14-2012, 20:23
hmmm, the only one I know of the guy was carrying on a FL permit and that required training. Interesting. I do believe he's going to jail for life or damn close to it, but that permit did actually require training.

FL Live Fire Minimum can be fire a 22 at least one round into a bucket of sand. If you shoot yourself the instructor might not pass you but basically it is just to add cost to the process. I used my DD214 to satisfy the training requirement and I never touched a handgun my entire time in the service.

I personally don't think you should have to get a permit to carry so I certainly don't think you should have to get a permit and some watered down worthless state mandated training. No data shows it matters just raises the cost. Save the money and voluntarily get training that matters.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 14:18
Hey guys, a yearly Qualification for a specific firearm being carried is not Training.

Be safe.


Shall not be infringed.

Aren't you the guy who claims to be "libertarian" ? :rofl:


I love those types. :rofl::rofl:

Shoot, if you're a libertarian, I must be an all out anarchist. :rofl::rofl:

JW1178
08-15-2012, 15:29
On paper, some of this sounds like a really good idea. However, reality is that the average Joe/Sue with no firearms training isn't a problem.

Sometimes I think that people should have their head examined before buying a gun. It may have prevented a few of these mass shootings as well as many of these murders where the BG buys a gun and then very soon after that goes on a killing spree. However, I don't trust the government to keep those standards at a logical level and instead move things around so hardly nobody can get past the standards. Give them an inch, they will take a mile. The incompetent government's idea is "waiting periods" which may have, and I am sure has prevented a few angry people and nutcases that have gone manic from carrying out a crime, at least tempararily, but on the other hand, it has prevented many people who actually NEEDED protection right then and there from obtaining it and resulted in their deaths. I have read about a case in CA where a woman who had just left her abusive husband went to buy a gun because he swore he would kill her. During the waiting period he killed her.

I have met too many people who have guns but know nothing about firearms safety and are quite dangerous with a gun. Anyone who has been to a typical gun range can attest to that. It's not just in their hands, but people who leave guns out where kids can get to them and such. I think people should know a thing or two about gun safety. Might prevent a lot of accidents. Legal training as well because some people have no idea of the laws to when they can or can not use their weapons. Training too, some people can't hit the broad side of a barn from 4ft away. Once again, I don't trust the government to be honest. They will make some redicious test and some high fee course you have to take and will prevent a lot of common people from being able to get a gun.

All in all, owning, and especially carrying a gun is a HUGE responsibility, as well as a liability and it's up to the person who owns/carries the weapon to know for sure exactly how/when/where/why to use their weapon.

GRIMLET
08-15-2012, 19:43
Shall not be infringed.

Aren't you the guy who claims to be "libertarian" ? :rofl:


I love those types. :rofl::rofl:

Shoot, if you're a libertarian, I must be an all out anarchist. :rofl::rofl:


Yes, I am very LIBERTARIAN. I am also for RESPONSIBLE firearm ownership.

Thanks for the love. No matter how you meant it, I'm flattered. Really, thanks, but no. I'm hetero but I support you in your lifestyle. hahahaahh

If you have not noticed, anarchy and Libertarianism are VERY alike. hmmmmm


Seriously, great avatar. Type O Negative was great.
Summer Girl off of Suicide is Self Expression is their best.