Something that bugs me about CHL's & Media


PDA






bigalexe
September 19, 2009, 12:41 AM
RANT WARNING, RANT WARNING, Poor Paragraph Warning!

Tonight the local NBC Affiliate in Detroit which is WDIV did a story discussing the increase in CHL applications and specifically the spike in females applying. There are 2 things here that drive me up the wall everytime I hear them in references to CHL's and female self-defense.

The first item has to do with female self-defense in general and isn't firearm related but it drives me nuts so im mentioning it. Everytime I hear about a female self-defense class I hear the term "Equalizer." I would like to know in this day in age exactly what says any female needs a "equalizer." Why, because an individual is a female it is assumed they will be on a less than equal footing with an assailant more-so than a man who is being robbed or otherwise assaulted. If I were an attacker I would of course pick an easy target whether it be male or female, that just makes sense.

The second item has to do with CHL's, news stories about them, and people who buy guns for self-defense as a reaction. The story which I saw tonight focused on a particular female individual (the CHL Class was almost 100% Female) who was a victim of a home invasion. According to the news story the individual then bought a gun not long after and enrolled in a CHL certification class. My problem here is that someone who just purchased a weapon and is not experienced with it and guns in general should not IMHO be applying for a CHL. The story even mentioned how the individual was scared of shooting it because they had not previous firearm experience. I just don't understand why it seems logical at that point that the individual be enrolling in a class to carry a weapon they are scared to touch!

RANT OVER.

Disclaimer: Yeah I know media is biased

If you enjoyed reading about "Something that bugs me about CHL's & Media" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bigfatdave
September 19, 2009, 01:08 AM
1- It isn't an equalizer for just women, but a handgun is about the best portable force equalizer available to any citizen.

2- Any citizen who wants to has a right to self-defense, your opinion regarding experience is elitist at best, and bigoted at worst. If the lady wants a gun, and wants training, it is neither your business, or the media's.

bigalexe
September 19, 2009, 01:17 AM
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon? I'll remember that next time my rib becomes collateral damage due to someone attempting to shoot an attacker and missing because they were completely incompetent with the firearm they were carrying.

21bubba
September 19, 2009, 01:26 AM
I'm getting me some popcorn and a drink.

Dr. Fresh
September 19, 2009, 01:28 AM
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon?

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Avenger29
September 19, 2009, 02:13 AM
My problem here is that someone who just purchased a weapon and is not experienced with it and guns in general should not IMHO be applying for a CHL. The story even mentioned how the individual was scared of shooting it because they had not previous firearm experience. I just don't understand why it seems logical at that point that the individual be enrolling in a class to carry a weapon they are scared to touch!

I certainly don't have a problem with someone who has zero firearms experience getting a CCW whenever they want. It's their right! I know that for our range session, our instructors covered basic safety and such quite well and gave instruction to the shooters so that they could at the very least use the gun safely and hit the target.

One of the problems I did see, however, was the result of ladies going to the gunstore, where they were immediatly pointed to the lightweight .38 snubbies. I am of the firm belief that a new shooter's first range sessions should be with a .22 caliber weapon. Shooting a loud, short bbl revolver that has recoil should not be the first weapon a new shooter fires.

The .38 snub is a great CCW gun (lightweight, easy to conceal, packs decent firepower) but they aren't the most pleasant for a new shooter nor are they the easiest firearms to shoot. The shooter I was paired with for my CCW class had this problem. I've gone into gunstores with ladies and without fail, each one has been pointed straight to the j-frame/clones with pink grips.

colorado_handgunner
September 19, 2009, 02:20 AM
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon?

Yep, kind of like how the Constitution does not require any experience to "keep and bear arms."

usmc1371
September 19, 2009, 02:23 AM
In oregon there is NO range time requried. Pay your money and get your permit and carry away. I think that any one who can get a permit has the right to do so But I also think any one who carries in public has the obligation to be trained well enough to: 1 defend them selves, 2 not kill an innocent bystander while trying to defend them selves.

IMHO I would like to see ever permit holder pass the DPSST standard befor their permit was issued, it aint hard. A non shooter with a few minutes of instruction can pass this very basic test of marksminship.


Yep, kind of like how the Constitution does not require any experience to "keep and bear arms."

This is a good point, it is every ones right to own/carry a gun. I personaly would like them to know how to use it befor they exersise the right to carry in public. I still feel that every permit issued is one step in the right direction away from the anti's.

bigfatdave
September 19, 2009, 02:24 AM
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right Yes.
Competent self-defense oriented pistol skills can be learned in an afternoon.
Perhaps you should step down from your elite position of experience, and share that experience with some new shooters.

Who was nice enough to teach you, anyway? I know you aren't 100% self-taught and complaining about people going for professional instruction ... that would be incredibly hypocritical.

Citizens have the right to self-defense with whatever arms they find suitable. People who can't be trusted with the arms they bear can just stop being citizens, for all I care.

stickhauler
September 19, 2009, 03:02 AM
In my opinion, anyone who is legally able to own a firearm should be allowed to obtain a carry permit if they so choose. I can't say I agree with states issuing a permit without at least the minimal training like the NRA's Basic Pistol Course being a requirement.

I do disagree with the notion that Competent self-defense oriented pistol skills can be learned in an afternoon.

That to me is simply a basic course, and anyone without experience taking such a course is going to be so overwhelmed with the level of information being passed along that they will actually remember merely a morsel of it.

IMHO, anyone who carries a firearm needs advanced training in self defense shooting, and the extent of such training deals with a helluva lot more than just figuring out how to load, hold and shoot a firearm.

As much firearm training as cops go through, you regularly hear of cases where they emptied their service weapon and failed to hit their intended target.

But maybe that's just me, myself, I'd hate to be an unintended "target" of someone who felt they needed to shoot a bad guy and didn't bother to see what else they might hit instead. Carrying a firearm is a responsibility that perhaps some in our society aren't capable of.

bigfatdave
September 19, 2009, 04:27 AM
That to me is simply a basic course, and anyone without experience taking such a course is going to be so overwhelmed with the level of information being passed along that they will actually remember merely a morsel of it.I was referring to the practical portion, and yes, shots into center mass at reasonable SD distances is a skill someone can learn in an afternoon ... and then go on to practice those skills until the muscle memory is ingrained.
A CC permit is a necessary hurdle, let's not start imagining ways to make effective self-defense more challenging to the people interested in defense more than in tactical training.
The training I got here in Ohio was more than adequate for generic self-defense fundamentals, and the responsibility of the student to get plenty of range time and/or further training was stressed, and there was a reasonable (and failable, unlike some other courses I've read about) demonstration of accuracy as part of the course. Those who already could shoot well enough got run through for a score, and those requiring a little more coaching got the extra instruction (and the idiot who couldn't keep his NIB never-fired first-ever pistol pointed downrange got asked to leave, I think they offered him a "basic pistol" or "first steps" course)
Carrying a firearm is a responsibility that perhaps some in our society aren't capable of. And until we have a way to ID those people and remove their citizenship, you get to either help out new shooters in an attempt to pay it forward (my choice) or learn to duck and cover. The people incapable of packing responsibly aren't going to be helped by tactical training anyway, the reckless and incompetent can't be made responsible and prudent by a defensive pistol course.

stickhauler
September 19, 2009, 05:18 AM
Carrying a firearm is a responsibility that perhaps some in our society aren't capable of.
And until we have a way to ID those people and remove their citizenship, you get to either help out new shooters in an attempt to pay it forward (my choice)

My choice as well, I belong to a shooting club in my area, and regularly help out those with a lower skill level than myself, and also get help from those at the club who have well more experience than I have. I guess I'm blessed to belong to a club that has several firearms instructors for local police agencies involved.


I was referring to the practical portion, and yes, shots into center mass at reasonable SD distances is a skill someone can learn in an afternoon ... and then go on to practice those skills until the muscle memory is ingrained.
A CC permit is a necessary hurdle, let's not start imagining ways to make effective self-defense more challenging to the people interested in defense more than in tactical training.
The training I got here in Ohio was more than adequate for generic self-defense fundamentals, and the responsibility of the student to get plenty of range time and/or further training was stressed, and there was a reasonable (and failable, unlike some other courses I've read about) demonstration of accuracy as part of the course. Those who already could shoot well enough got run through for a score, and those requiring a little more coaching got the extra instruction (and the idiot who couldn't keep his NIB never-fired first-ever pistol pointed downrange got asked to leave, I think they offered him a "basic pistol" or "first steps" course)

I also have a CCW from Ohio, and the standard classroom course is the NRA Basic Pistol Course, the test you take is from the course itself. And it's fine for basic concepts of handguns. In my class, any questions about regulations of the permit were handled in thumbnail sketches without offering legal opinions, because the instructors were not lawyers, and not qualified to offer any specifics of the laws. We have a training center locally which has a local DA on staff to teach the legal section of the course that I will take as time permits.

I think you miss my point on instruction, there are so many variables involved in defending yourself with a firearm that are not "point and shoot" in any way, and I fear many walk out of concealed carry classes actually thinking that if the only practice regularly on the range, they are well equipped to be a concealed carry holder. Hell, I know of CCW classes in Ohio that allow those taking the training to use a .22 pistol as their firearm for the classes, I think we'd both agree that small of a caliber is totally insufficient for defense unless you plan to walk up and shoot the bad guy under his ear. The "rest of the story" of training isn't tactical style training either, it involves threat assessment, keeping track of what's going on around you at all times, and the many other things that make you effectively safe to be carrying a firearm around the public, yet capable of actually defending yourself if need be.

bigfatdave
September 19, 2009, 05:51 AM
The "rest of the story" of training isn't tactical style training either, it involves threat assessment, keeping track of what's going on around you at all times, and the many other things that make you effectively safe to be carrying a firearm around the public, yet capable of actually defending yourself if need be.That's important stuff, but the responsibility lies with the citizen, further mandatory training to get a CC permit is an excessive infringment, in my opinion.

The course I took allowed any firearm that had a capacity of 5 or more rounds, including rimfire. As it was in the worst part of out local ammo shortage, I chose a .22 after weighing my options, and so did MrsBFD. I don't have a problem with demonstrating proficency with a .22, it at least beats firing a single blank into a hole in the ground (which I hear is common in the more backwoods quickie/sleazy classes), so long as the proficency requirement is reasonable*. Would it really matter if I showed up to the class with a .454 Casull instead of my Ruger mkIII? Shall we ban grandmas (who are just working up to centerfire) from CC until they come to the class with a bigger gun? For that matter, what's more important ... muzzle control and a steady hand, or the big boom from a rented .45?

My take on CC is pretty simple - any citizen has the right to effective self-defense, and every citizen has a responsibility to not recklessly endanger others in the course of their SD ... thus a skills requirement is somewhat reasonable. On the other hand, 10 hours of classroom instruction that gave no info not in the NRA-sponsored self-defense book and the AG's booklet was silly. The time spent going over "the parts of a revolver" would have been better utilized with a lawyer's take on the laws, or at least one-on-one instruction for the neophyte shooters. Seriously, I can read a book (unlike some people I encounter) on my own, just give me the damn test. I got a perfect score on that test at the end of the 10-hour class, but I would have had the same score at 0600 that I got at 1600. I would have preferred to spend that time going over more scenarios, or case law ... not taking a guided tour through a book I'd already read.


*The class I took (Cleland's in Swanton) required shooting for score on a man-shaped target at various distances out to 50', in 5-shot strings.
There were people who shot it casually (me), people who needed some coaching (not that many) to improve, and one asshat who was asked to come back after learning some muzzle control.

Pardon the lack of spell-check, work computers without Firefox, and the end of a long shift aren't helping.

Zach S
September 19, 2009, 05:57 AM
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon?
Works in Vermont and Alaska...

45Badger
September 19, 2009, 08:19 AM
I've got a question for all those worried about errant shots by under-qualified crime victims. Any stats on annual accidental woundings or killings caused by these these errant shots?

I suspect there are vrey few/none and it's more dramatic BS than fact. I have no info or data to support my opinion, but the only place I have ever read about this issue in on a gun forum. Never seen it on the news or in the newspaper.

bigfatdave
September 19, 2009, 09:28 AM
45Badger, I have always wondered about that, myself. On the one hand, hitting the target is apparently impossible, but hitting bystanders is so likely it becomes statistically worrisome? This is the same logic that get us trick frangible ammo in case you happen to shoot through a wall, because there's ALWAYS someone in the way when you miss.
I mean, I understand that as a gun owner, I'm responsible for every round that leaves the muzzle until it comes to rest ... but to worry about someone taking a shot at an armed mugger hitting an innocent bystander? Don't most CC shootings happen in an area occupied by the shooter and the threat, but otherwise empty? (I also don't have facts on that, not sure where to even start researching) I'm not about to call for restrictions on citizens being armed in public based on a bunch of what-ifs without a quantitative analysis of the threat a minimally-trained CC permit holder poses to the public.
I guess 20/20 did a study recently ... didn't they call it "Guns in America" or something? Are we calling that study valid now?

bcurry
September 19, 2009, 09:55 AM
Tonight the local NBC Affiliate in Detroit which is WDIV did a story discussing the increase in CHL applications and specifically the spike in females applying. There are 2 things here that drive me up the wall everytime I hear them in references to CHL's and female self-defense.


Not meaning to state the obvious, but I celebrate every time the media states that more people are armed and applying for CHL/CCW permits. From the bad guy's perspective, it means fewer "financial opportunities" for him and more opportunities for injury/death should the timid mark actually draw and shoot. The added media hype could be a deterrent within itself. Just my 2c.
bcurry

Deanimator
September 19, 2009, 10:18 AM
Why, because an individual is a female it is assumed they will be on a less than equal footing with an assailant more-so than a man who is being robbed or otherwise assaulted.
Unless you hang out with a bunch of former East German "female" athletes, that isn't a guarantee, but it's a safe bet.

Men (especially violent criminals) are generally larger and stronger than women. You can argue with biology, but you rarely win.

Deanimator
September 19, 2009, 10:23 AM
I've got a question for all those worried about errant shots by under-qualified crime victims. Any stats on annual accidental woundings or killings caused by these these errant shots?
People who bring this up prefer the CERTAINTY of being murdered execution style like the VA Tech students or the women in the Tinley Park, IL Lane Bryant store, to the POSSIBILITY that a bystander may be wounded.

It's as stupid as being more worried that the chemicals in the fire extinguisher used to put you out when you're on fire will cause cancer than that you'll burn to death.

22-rimfire
September 19, 2009, 10:26 AM
The second item has to do with CHL's, news stories about them, and people who buy guns for self-defense as a reaction. The story which I saw tonight focused on a particular female individual (the CHL Class was almost 100% Female) who was a victim of a home invasion. According to the news story the individual then bought a gun not long after and enrolled in a CHL certification class. My problem here is that someone who just purchased a weapon and is not experienced with it and guns in general should not IMHO be applying for a CHL. The story even mentioned how the individual was scared of shooting it because they had not previous firearm experience. I just don't understand why it seems logical at that point that the individual be enrolling in a class to carry a weapon they are scared to touch!


I have no problem with this what so ever. Doesn't matter to me if they never shoot a shot after the class. If you can't hit a adult at 10 feet with nearly any gun, you're in trouble. I don't understand why so many people think that because you have a permit to carry concealed that you have to be an expert shooter and practice in a tactical range weekly. If you are an American citizen of legal age and cirstumstance, you have the right to own a firearm and the right to defend yourself.

Folks are "scared to touch" a handgun because they don't understand how it functions. A few hours practice they should be just fine for the rest of their lives.

A gun is just another tool. I can fight better with a gun than I can with a baseball bat and it is hard to carry that baseball bat in your purse.

chuckusaret
September 19, 2009, 11:31 AM
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right

Yes, but I do believe, as a responsible adults, would practice to become proficient with the weapon.
How does a hunter become a proficient hunter? He goes hunting.
We let anyone and everyone get a hunting permit and allow them to take to our woodlands with high powered rifles with no training what so ever.

Folks are "scared to touch" a handgun because they don't understand how it functions.......................

Have you every thought why some people are afraid of guns? Why are they not afraid to touch or get in a car? They should be, but they were not told every time there was a car accident not to touch a car and that cars were "Bad Cars". Cars/trucks are the tools that kill more people than guns. The majority of these people have never been involved with a gun in any way and were raised by parents who in most cases trained them that all guns were "Bad Guns" and have also only read/watched the much embellished, by the reporter/editor, news stories as presented by our media. Most reporters include their opinion in reporting an incident to make it more news worthy. A recent shooting here in SE Florida the reporter stated that the person was shot by a rifle, most likely an assault style AK47. There was no evidence at the scene to support the reporter’s statement, and in fact it was proven the victim was shot with a pistol but this fact was never released to the readers. This reporter, IMO, added the "most likely an assault style AK47" because of other recent articles about illegal assault weapons sales to Mexico.
What ever happened to responsible journalism, what ever happened to reporting the actual event as it happened.

Action_Can_Do
September 19, 2009, 11:43 AM
Bigalexe
You do realize that somewhere, some reporter/liberal thinks that you don't have the experience to carry a weapon because you don't have 30 years of being a Navy seal under your belt. We learn by doing.

GEM
September 19, 2009, 01:04 PM
Empirically, how many innocents have been shot accidentally by CHL types as compared to the number of crimes thwarted by CHL types?

Nice to know before one rants.

bdickens
September 19, 2009, 01:28 PM
Or as compared to the bystanders shot by the cops. You know, the "trained professionals."

bigalexe
September 19, 2009, 01:53 PM
Ok I guess my thought process did miss a few points

-There are no statistics on accidental shootings from CHL owners. The incidence is probably very small.

-Very early it was asked how I thought I had so much experience. Well the fact is that I don't own a handgun as a matter of economics. My thought was that everyone who owns a gun has the responsibility to be as expert as possible with that weapon. I do not therefore possess a CHL. Personally I probably wouldn't apply for CHL until I had owned a handgun for at least 6 months and felt competent with it to an extent that taking a class would be more an educational experience in threat assessment and proper target engagement than basic firearm safety, and operation.

noskilz
September 19, 2009, 01:58 PM
Why, because an individual is a female it is assumed they will be on a less than equal footing with an assailant more-so than a man who is being robbed or otherwise assaulted.

Um, yes.

Mauserguy
September 19, 2009, 02:07 PM
Hmmmm.... "Equalizer"? I don't think I would want my gun to make me equal to an attacker. I want it to make me vastly superior to an attacker.

Oh well, at least people are taking an active role in their own safety.
Mauserguy

spartywrx
September 19, 2009, 02:10 PM
Well aside from the OP's rant, the piece on the local news was surprisingly not anti-gun biased. It actually appeared to be encouraging people thinking about buying a gun to go out and take the class and not demonizing firearm ownership.

It also focused on two black women and the class was taught by a black woman, debunking the gun owner = overweight sweaty white male myth. I'd say it was a pretty good piece of free pro-2a PR from a news station that reports on nothing but murders and robberies in Detroit.

kda
September 19, 2009, 04:57 PM
While I don't relish the idea of anyone getting a CCW permit without passing some basic range proficiency requirements (required here in AZ) I also wouldn't worry too much about those states that issue carry licenses to folks who are "scared of their gun" ... if only because whether they have a license or not, I doubt that they will actually be carrying that frightful beast around with them on the street. The part that is harder to understand is why they would want a carry license in the first place. I suspect that if they actually do decide to carry the gun someday they will also decide it would be nice to be able to hit something if they needed to ... and so they would eventually gravitate towards some handgun training.

Conversely, I am pleasantly surprised by the number of women and older folks of both sexes who I see at the local indoor range. They handle their weapons and shoot them well IMO. I'm guessing they are interested enough in self protection to actually carry their weapons if they have CCW permits and I have no problems sharing the streets with any of them.

stickhauler
September 19, 2009, 08:12 PM
The course I took allowed any firearm that had a capacity of 5 or more rounds, including rimfire. As it was in the worst part of out local ammo shortage, I chose a .22 after weighing my options, and so did MrsBFD. I don't have a problem with demonstrating proficency with a .22, it at least beats firing a single blank into a hole in the ground (which I hear is common in the more backwoods quickie/sleazy classes), so long as the proficency requirement is reasonable*. Would it really matter if I showed up to the class with a .454 Casull instead of my Ruger mkIII? Shall we ban grandmas (who are just working up to centerfire) from CC until they come to the class with a bigger gun? For that matter, what's more important ... muzzle control and a steady hand, or the big boom from a rented .45?


The instructor who did my class had about choices of firearms to use in the course. Their standard was you actually had to bring a firearm to the class, with a minimum caliber of .380. And, he also stated his opinion that any firearm you planned to use for carry should be shown on your training record, for liability purposes if nothing else. And I'd agree, most any lawyer for someone suing you for injuries after a self defense shooting (or a lawsuit by the survivors of the bad guy you shot) would make a point of claiming you were unqualified to carry a firearm that you hadn't demonstrated your proficiency with.

Your comment about "grandmothers working up to center fire" really makes me laugh, my wife, at the tender age of 69 demonstrated proficiency, and had no ill effects firing a handgun for the first time, using a .38 special. And she has had rotator cuff surgeries on both shoulders. There is another lady who shoots at our club that regularly shoots her husband's Taurus "Judge" using both .45 & .410 rounds, she might just weigh in at 90 pounds if you made her wear real heavy wool clothes and wet her down, and she's right around my wife's age as well. So I tend to discount the lack of ability of a "grandma" to shoot something bigger than a .22 caliber.

Lots of folks shoot firearms for fun at the range, my own thinking is that's a great thing for fun, but if you're shooting to demonstrate your ability to use a firearm for self defense, you might ought to use one that you would actually consider up to the task of defending your life if necessary.

bdickens
September 19, 2009, 09:06 PM
Ok I guess my thought process did miss a few points

-There are no statistics on accidental shootings from CHL owners. The incidence is probably very small.

-Very early it was asked how I thought I had so much experience. Well the fact is that I don't own a handgun as a matter of economics. My thought was that everyone who owns a gun has the responsibility to be as expert as possible with that weapon. I do not therefore possess a CHL. Personally I probably wouldn't apply for CHL until I had owned a handgun for at least 6 months and felt competent with it to an extent that taking a class would be more an educational experience in threat assessment and proper target engagement than basic firearm safety, and operation.
If we all waited until we were experts before we did something, none of us would ever do anything.

wally
September 20, 2009, 12:23 AM
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon?

I'd rather you put your efforts into worrying about if newly registered voters were competent to determine the future of our country.

--wally.

Javelin
September 20, 2009, 12:27 AM
An armed society is a polite society.

:)

bigfatdave
September 20, 2009, 01:28 AM
stickhauler, this "training record" you speak of does not exist.
My CC permit is proficiency demonstration, it does not specify any particular firearm beyond being a "handgun" permit.
Your example of a particular person does not negate the rights of my hypothetical permit applicant ... perhaps I was too specific in making up an example everyone could understand, I apoligize if you got the impression that I wanted to debate grandmas and guns, the point I was attempting to make was that any citizen who wants a CC permit is entitled to one, regardless of what they choose to pack and/or train with.

If you doubt the skills of someone who used a .22 target pistol to qualify, I'd be happy to meey up with you at my range and compete with whatever drill you choose, at any reasonable SD distance, with my PPS or my wife's XD.

stickhauler
September 20, 2009, 02:20 AM
The place you took your class at keeps no records? I took my class through a local gun shop, with two of three instructors employees at the shop, one a lady who runs their office, has NRA certification as a firearms instructor, and in her leisure time is a competitive trap shooter. The other main instructor is a part-time employee of the shop, and his full time job is instructor and range operations officer for Montgomery County, Ohio Sheriff's Department. The gun shop keeps on file the training documents of every student who entered and completed a concealed carry course through their shop.

The shooting club I belong to also offers CCW training, and keeps training records of every person who enters and completes their training.

Either place's training records may not be official records required by Ohio for those who take concealed carry courses, but are kept on file for their own record keeping, and for those who take their courses to rely on if they ever lose their course completion certificates. In the case of where I took my course, they offer qualification for any firearm you choose to carry if you took their course, with a certified instructor for a small fee.

Do I need to have such a record of file? I hope to hell not. But, if a person has to fire in self defense, rest assured that a lawyer for the person you shot, or their family if the person was killed can, and often do file suit on the CCW holder who fired in self defense. And they will seek out and find where you took your CCW classes. And if the place you took your class keeps a record of what you used to demonstrate your competency with a firearm, and such an event occurs to you, that lawyer will find you used a .22 to qualify, and likely will argue that you meant to kill someone that particular day if you shot using any firearm larger than a .22. Don't believe me? Do a little research on case studies of civil cases filed against concealed carry holders who fired in self defense and were sued in a civil suit, and learn the extent a lawyer will go to prove you did something wrong.

I have no doubt you're proficient with a firearm, you said you were, I have no reason to dispute that fact. We both know that some folks will take the course, rarely shoot again, and still consider themselves qualified to carry and use a firearm, if necessary, in self defense. If these same people used a small caliber firearm to qualify for the permit, and opt to carry a larger caliber handgun for carry, are they truly qualified to use it? I've got 2 great-grand-daughters that with minimal training could shoot proficiently enough to fill the bill for a permit using a .22 pistol, and they're 6 and 9. I've got a "c" note that says they wouldn't do as well shooting my 9mm XD, even with lots of training.

We're not talking about people with years of experience with firearms being the majority of those going through training for permits, we're talking about new folks to shooting who for whatever reason have decided to become gun owners, and concealed carry holders. You mentioned you could have passed the test for the classroom portion as easily at 6 am as you did at 4 pm, so could most of us who have been around guns all our lives. The focus of the instructors for the courses is a collective of the experience level of all those in a specific class of people taking the course. They know going in that some are going to be thinking it's a waste of damned time, they also know that some are going to be hearing the information for the very first time.

My belief is that in the near future all of us who hold permits will be required to have consistent training, across the board, in every state, to retain our permits. That's the quickest and most logical way to settle the issue of whether we can be armed in every state that allows concealed carry.

Cap'n Jack Burntbeard
September 20, 2009, 02:34 AM
This is the only time that I can say that I'm glad to live in Vermont.

bigfatdave
September 20, 2009, 08:10 AM
stickhauler, calm down.
Records of training, yes. Names, dates, written test score, pass/fail (and maybe even a score, but not at the place I went) for the practical portion are all kept.
Records of what pistol was used to demonstrate proficiency, NO. In the end, keeping shots on target is the same, all that changes is the speed and accuracy of follow-up shots when you go to a lighter caliber. Well, and noise, I suppose.

Records of training with the particular gun you use for SD can be used against you as well, how do you know that you won't be portrayed as someone looking to shoot someone?
"see, here's a pile of records with stickhauler training with the very evil gun used in the shooting!"
is just as likely as
"see, bigfatdave trained with a much smaller gun and isn't even qualified to use the PPS he carries every day!".

Either you employed deadly force or you didn't, let's not get paranoid about what a sleazy lawyer might cook up when suing you on behalf of some scumbag who needed deadly force, because there's no end to the possibilities for a frivolous lawsuit.

smallbore
September 20, 2009, 08:54 AM
Sounds to me like woman who purchased the firearm, applied for her chl & took/passed the issuing state's required course has chosen to 'refuse to be a victim'. If she & all the other women who participated in the mentioned course are choosing to protect their family/self from harm then my hat is off to them.

CajunBass
September 20, 2009, 09:07 AM
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon?

That sounds about right to me.

halfded
September 20, 2009, 09:12 AM
No mention of classes or permits in the Constitution last I checked..

9MMare
September 20, 2009, 01:47 PM
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon? I'll remember that next time my rib becomes collateral damage due to someone attempting to shoot an attacker and missing because they were completely incompetent with the firearm they were carrying.

According to most gun owners' beliefs, our 2nd amendment rights are unassailable. So, she has the right. Is she responsible enough? Who knows?

I have the same attitude towards people who have kids....ANYONE can have them, it's their right, but loads of them certainly arent qualified to raise them properly.

Cant do anything about them either.

So my attitude about CHL's is that 'freedom doesnt mean safe, it means free.' THere are risks that come along with freedom.


Plus, she's IN A CLASS learning to use her weapon, trying to be that responsible gun owner.

mljdeckard
September 20, 2009, 01:50 PM
Bigfatdave said it all. God created men. Samuel Colt made them equal.

NG VI
September 20, 2009, 01:52 PM
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon? I'll remember that next time my rib becomes collateral damage due to someone attempting to shoot an attacker and missing because they were completely incompetent with the firearm they were carrying.

She is getting training. How do you expect people to learn to shoot without taking the baby steps involved, including buying a weapon to learn with?

I believe that any adult U.S. Citizen without a history of violence or a disqualifying mental health condition should be free to carry any firearm they please, any way they please, so long as they do not endanger others or behave recklessly. This attitude that people should have some sort of government say-so before owning or using a weapon is ridiculous to me, the same way describing gun rip-off programs as "buy-Backs" infuriates me.

9MMare
September 20, 2009, 01:57 PM
-Very early it was asked how I thought I had so much experience. Well the fact is that I don't own a handgun as a matter of economics. My thought was that everyone who owns a gun has the responsibility to be as expert as possible with that weapon. I do not therefore possess a CHL. Personally I probably wouldn't apply for CHL until I had owned a handgun for at least 6 months and felt competent with it to an extent that taking a class would be more an educational experience in threat assessment and proper target engagement than basic firearm safety, and operation.

I got my CPL before I bought my handgun. My impression was that it took a long time to get one. (Apparently not in WA st however. I had it in a week.)

But because of the background check required, it has made several things easier since then, including picking up the gun I ordered online at my local shop, joining a local gun advocacy group, etc. It is my 'proof' and other's now dont have to run the background checks. It saves time if nothing else.

9MMare
September 20, 2009, 02:01 PM
Unless you hang out with a bunch of former East German "female" athletes, that isn't a guarantee, but it's a safe bet.

Men (especially violent criminals) are generally larger and stronger than women. You can argue with biology, but you rarely win.

Agreed. While a gun can even those odds, women are not as big or strong as men and in other areas of defense, mostly at a disadvantage.

We're 'equal,' not the 'same.' There's a difference.

TimM
September 20, 2009, 02:10 PM
I wish that there was a test of competence before someone was allowed to make some bigoted and asinine statement on an internet forum. But wait.... there is a first amendment right to free speech. Maybe we should get rid of that while we are at it?

Deltaboy
September 20, 2009, 02:12 PM
God Created Man, Col Colt made them equal.

mljdeckard
September 20, 2009, 03:20 PM
I have a DD 214 that says I am an expert with a rifle and a pistol. What it DOESN'T say is that the army standard for expert isn't really very high, especially for pistol. I could wave it around, and use it as 'evidence' that I have experience and training, and therefore I am professional enough to carry a gun, but I would know it isn't really true. The cowboys I grew up with were better at ten years old than I will ever be, and most of them don't have a scrap of paper to 'prove' it. To put this idea of a 'minimum' standard of competence is to do exactly what we did at the turn of the last century in making voters pass 'literacy' tests to be 'allowed' to vote. I would be doing all gun owners a disservice if I used my documented experience in the military as a reason I am competent, but they have not yet proven it.

9MMare
September 20, 2009, 03:48 PM
I wish that there was a test of competence before someone was allowed to make some bigoted and asinine statement on an internet forum. But wait.... there is a first amendment right to free speech. Maybe we should get rid of that while we are at it?

Tim, I'd like to just say that this is also the way that people get exposed to different perspectives. He didnt post maliciously, he was annoyed and expressed his opinions. THat is also his first amendment right....but then he gets different responses and if things stay civil, people can learn new ways of viewing things.

If we crush everyone that comes with a dumb question (could be me at anytime) or that expresses their views, then people will stop coming here and learning anything.


Very school-marm like....sorry, not really my usual attitude!

Art Eatman
September 20, 2009, 05:32 PM
We don't give awards for maximum emotion showed in a post. :D

FWIW: Some years back I ran across an article which claimed that Oopsies by police, nationwide, was some 33 people shot (hit; not necessarily killed)when the shooting effort was at a different person. Oopsies by non-police was alleged to be only three. This was a one-year compilation. "That's what I read." Use your own salt shaker.

IMO, logic would have it that most self-defense shootings are in relatively isolated situations. Inside a home, inside a business. Few other or no other people around besides the lawful person and the would-be robber. Thus, a low probability of an Oopsie.

bigalexe
September 20, 2009, 05:33 PM
Ok maybe I have a different view in the idea of Certification and taking a class and what that should allow one to be able do. Also i was not in the original post discussing the Constitutional right to carry a gun, if I wanted to post about that it would be a thread titled "Sign Here to Repeal the 1934 NFA and 1986 Full-Auto Ban."

When I look at someone as having "taken a class," I consider my course of study in college. Having 1 semester of drafting does not make me a drafter, it introduces me to the fundamentals, there is much more experience required to gain an NCA Accredited degree in Drafting than simply taking a course. A business would not also hire me as a draftsman with only a semester of training.

What i was originally posting is come from the same thought process. While its possible to learn fundamentals of a skill and gain some minimal proficiency in say 24 hours of concentrated instruction and practice. That isn't really enough training to make you ready to go out into the world and practice it.

Anyway that's where I was coming from, I'm not trying to upset people. Also the reason I make a big deal about female+equalizer statements is that I am a small male individual. It may be a personal issue but when I hear those statements I consider that they are implying that because I am male, then therefore I am big and strong which is not the case.

TimM
September 20, 2009, 07:17 PM
Tim, I'd like to just say that this is also the way that people get exposed to different perspectives. He didnt post maliciously, he was annoyed and expressed his opinions. THat is also his first amendment right....but then he gets different responses and if things stay civil, people can learn new ways of viewing things.

Though it may also seem like there was malice in my response, there was not. It just really surprised me that someone (especially on a gun forum) would object, for any reason, to a person having the right to defend themselves and exercise their 2A rights. It is a God and constitutionally given right to be able to defend yourself. It is a right, not a privilege.

bigfatdave
September 20, 2009, 07:31 PM
Anyway that's where I was coming from, I'm not trying to upset people. Also the reason I make a big deal about female+equalizer statements is that I am a small male individual. It may be a personal issue but when I hear those statements I consider that they are implying that because I am male, then therefore I am big and strong which is not the case.You aren't alone there ... I may be big and strong, but I'm also a fat guy with a gimp knee and an obvious limp. A legally concealed handgun and some proficiency with it make me worry a lot less about being a victim of a crime of opportunity, much as I imagine it does for a female shooter.
You are right about women not being the only ones who might want an "equalizer".

As far as the CC permit training, it doesn't matter how minimal (or even nonexistent) it is, because it is the responsibility of the citizen to be knowledgeable about the laws and proficient with their SD tools. The training may be mandated, but even the best training can be ignored by someone intending to abuse their rights.

Trebor
September 21, 2009, 12:08 AM
Originally Posted by bigalexe
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon?

Dr Fresh:
Yeah, that's pretty much it.

I agree with Dr Fresh. Everyone has the right to self defense and there shouldn't be any government required training or minimum compentency standard you have to demonstrate before you buy or carry a gun. The caveat is, of course, that you are still always responsible for your actions.

Remember that when the government can set the standards, there is nothing to keep the government from setting the standards so high that most people won't qualify. Look at how "Literacy tests" or "Poll taxes" were used to keep blacks from voting and you'll see how minimum standards can be used against gun owners.

I believe this even though I am a NRA instructor and I actively teach the NRA class needed to apply for a Michigan Concealed Pistol License. I draw my students from the Detroit area and suburbs and the Lansing area.

Mxracer239y
September 21, 2009, 12:49 AM
I feel somewhat like the black sheep. At 20 years old I had never fired a gun. I also had a CHL.

Why? I knew I supported the cause. I also knew I would be obtaining a firearm and becoming proficient with it in the upcoming months. It meant I had passed the background checks. It 'qualified' me to purchase a firearm private sale. My CHL showed the seller that I was not a felon, etc. I wanted to carry.

I was NOT a danger to society. I did buy a gun, learn to use it, and carry it. Nobody got hurt and my rights were exercised.

Why take that option away?

stickhauler
September 21, 2009, 01:16 AM
I feel somewhat like the black sheep. At 20 years old I had never fired a gun. I also had a CHL.


Obviously you live in some state that allows carry licenses at an age under 21. I was under the impression that possession of a handgun was limited to those older then 21 on a Federal basis.

Either way, you did what most (well, most folks I know personally anyway) feel is what is the proper method to prepare to carry a weapon for self defense. You sought out the training to assure you knew how to operate a firearm safely and made sure you continued to add to your knowledge base to make you more capable of carrying and using a weapon for your defense. I have no problem with you, when legally able, to carry a firearm for your defense.

However, there are lots of people who take a single course to qualify to carry, and never bother to continue to learn, never (or rarely) practice with a firearm. Shooting skills tend to diminish if you don't regularly actually fire a weapon. Check out other shooters when you go to the range to practice, if your experience is anything like mine, you'll see at least one or two that look like they have no idea what the hell they are doing, yet if you talk to them they'll tell you they carry regularly.

22-rimfire
September 21, 2009, 01:32 AM
There are a few states that allow licensed concealed carry between 18 and 21. At one time, I did not believe that until I looked it up. You can own a handgun in most states if you are 18; you just can't buy said handgun from a FFL dealer.

Competency with a handgun requires practice. Competency with a rifle at a minimal level requires little practice other than you are familiar with the operation of the firearm.

JWJacobVT
September 21, 2009, 08:41 AM
I know we have a many Ladies signing up for the local Women on Target handgun courses. Some ladies only wish to learn to shoot the 22LR they own for pest control, others started with the 22 and then tried many other makes,models and calibers during the end of course free shoot (9mm, 38, 357, 45, etc). Remember Women on Target like the NRA Basic pistol course are just that, BASIC. You gotta start somewhere. None of these or other classes are required for cc here in Vermont, but it seems that most folks are getting training from friends, family, NRA before carrying / using. Just my two cents.

rbernie
September 21, 2009, 09:19 AM
I agree with Dr Fresh. Everyone has the right to self defense and there shouldn't be any government required training or minimum compentency standard you have to demonstrate before you buy or carry a gun. The caveat is, of course, that you are still always responsible for your actions.
Correct.

It just really surprised me that someone (especially on a gun forum) would object, for any reason, to a person having the right to defend themselves and exercise their 2A rights. It is a God and constitutionally given right to be able to defend yourself. It is a right, not a privilege. Actually we see this a lot here. Some folk attribute this sort of attitude to snobbery or elitism, but I don't think that's always true (and certainly is not, in this case).

I do think that folk are being raised to expect life's problems to be dealt with via new restrictions instead of via critical thought. And that's OK, because that problem is fixable, via threads like this.

Glasstream15
September 21, 2009, 09:38 AM
I am a87 YO, 200 pound male. However, due to some medications for heart issues, 25 or 30 pounds of that is pure fat. Bad back, bad hips, bad knees and nerve issues that have reduced my physical strength to somewhat less than many women I know. In other words, my 110 pound, 20 YO grandaughter could kick my butt.

40 years ago i did a lot of rifle shooting, both target and some hunting. I was VERY good. But it had been 30 years since I held a firearm of any type until I decided to get a handgun for defense. I ended up with a Ruger P90, .45 ACP for my first handgun. Wow, .45 for the first gun. Well I have 3 others now, 2 Kel-tecs and a Glock and the Ruger is BY FAR the easiest to shoot and shoot accurately.

I took the class, taught by the SJSO instructer, and we fired 20 rounds at the outdoor FOP range, both to be sure we could actually use the gun we had and to make sure we could put 20 somewhere on the paper at 7 yards.

I got my permit and I spend as much time as I can at the FOP range firing all 4 of my handguns and my 18 1/2 inch shotgun. Sort of restricted by the price of ammo, I am retired and we live on fixed incomes. Depending on where I'm going and what I'm wearing all 4 hanguns take turns as carry weapons. But the Ruger is so big and heavy that the standard Florida retiree uniform of shorts and t-shirt don't allow it to be concealed except in the occasional cold snap. But the Ruger is the one that stays on the bedside table.

These handguns, along with my CWL, are an "Equalizer" But even with the ability to carry, which I do, we just avoid most dangerous places. Wally Werld and mall parking lots at night, certain areas of town and especially Jacksonville, day and night. And if I know we have to drive thru some of these areas the Ruger rides between the seats of my Grand Marquis.

All of this ramble is to say, I have the right to carry and I have a percieved need to defend myself and my Admiral and I have received, and continue to receive, training in doing so in the safest manner possible.

9MMare
September 21, 2009, 02:58 PM
Though it may also seem like there was malice in my response, there was not. It just really surprised me that someone (especially on a gun forum) would object, for any reason, to a person having the right to defend themselves and exercise their 2A rights. .

Nah, I didnt think you were being malicious.

bigfatdave
September 21, 2009, 07:33 PM
However, there are lots of people who take a single course to qualify to carry, and never bother to continue to learn, never (or rarely) practice with a firearm.And it is not the state's problem to regulate citizen's responsibility.
The answer is personal responsibility, not more restrictions. Maybe I'm uncompromising on that point, and perhaps it is an unpopular stance to take ... but more legislation makes subjects, while personal responsibility and respect for civil rights makes citizens.

benEzra
September 21, 2009, 10:15 PM
Personally I probably wouldn't apply for CHL until I had owned a handgun for at least 6 months and felt competent with it to an extent that taking a class would be more an educational experience in threat assessment and proper target engagement than basic firearm safety, and operation.
If you get the instruction up front (and might as well get the license while you're at it), your 6 months of practice may be more productive.

If you enjoyed reading about "Something that bugs me about CHL's & Media" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!