Man pulls CCW to stop a fight

[carebear]

Under Alaska's new carry law, the state doesn't even go that far. All they do is tell you up front: "Hey, Joe Citizen, if you can legally own a handgun you can carry it."

And then they wash their hands of it. The total responsibility devolves on the individual, as it should in all things. You want to be ignorant of the law, too bad for you. Go directly to jail.

The private sector provides training, from fam and basic law to combat stuff, and you are perfectly free to pay and attend if you want to.

Just like buying a chainsaw, a boat and motor or a gas oven.

 

[carterbeauford]

Guess I'll have to defer to you on that one. I've never knowingly helped train a man who was prone to committing assault. Those folks don't pass background checks, usually.

Exactly my point. You don't train people to not punch other people in the face.

 

[Jeff White]

pax said;

Guess I'll have to defer to you on that one. I've never knowingly helped train a man who was prone to committing assault. Those folks don't pass background checks, usually.

I disagree. Often there are no charges filed in mutual combat situations. There are many brawlers out there who don't have sufficient convictions to fail a background check.

TC-TX,
From the research I've done all the required CCW classes do is ensure someone is exposed to the law and some basic concepts.

I've seen enough people slip through written tests, physical tests, intensive background invetigations, psyhclogical tests and graduate the police academy, who really shouldn't have a badge that I don't believe there is any process that will assure everyone who completes it will be able to act in a responsible manner at all times.

Self defense is a natural right and I don't think the state has any business mandating a certain level of education in order to carry an effective means of self defense.

The only way to deal with this kind of thing is on a case by case basis.

Jeff

 

[gunsmith]

I'm curious

I dunno, maybe I'm biased because I see a lot of guys who want to carry guns to show off, act like cops or just be macho.

Where do you see these guys?

I've hung around a lot of gun shops and ranges and have never ever
seen that.

What I have seen is anti's accusing all ccw'ers of this.

When I open carry out in the wilderness of Northern NV I don't run into
many other folks carrying.

I don't know (because of my lack of telepathic powers) what they think.
If they think that I am being macho, well they have that right.

However I talk about politics and lots of folks who vote
do not even know who the Vice President is or can tell me the difference between the Union and the Confederacy.

Therefore there should be mandatory training and psychological screening
before you are allowed to vote and buy newspapers

 

[jeepmor]

Training

This is why CCW permits should require a basic training laws. Why the hell is nobody pushing this? It would make us look better. We should be pushing for legislation like this.

I don't want to be involved in any process that makes the .gov machine bigger, it's too big already.

but they don't have the right to carry around me if they are ignorant of the laws

ummm, I'm afraid they do if you ever plan to go out in public, unless, of course, you are personally taking it upon yourself to train them.

I'm with Manedwolf's position nearly lock step, responsibility is the CCW holder's, no one elses. Making .gov bigger in the process does not help the cause, it hinders it.


jeepmor

 

[Stevie-Ray]

If you're carrying a gun, you just cannot get into a fight. Sometimes you cannot help being attacked, but a fight is something you had some part in starting, almost by definition.

Not necessarily. There are many cases of mistaken identity, and there are always people out there that are "gonna kick your ass" all simply because they think they can. Gang members are a perfect example, and you never know where they will turn up. I would try to diffuse a situation to save myself some bruising, of course, but like probably most, I'm not going to stand there and simply take a beating. Especially with the wife in a wheelchair. Wrong guy, if that's what you think.

About mandatory training? No way.

 

[TC-TX]

pax - I find it unfortunate that you must twist my words to try make a point...

I've never knowingly helped train a man who was prone to committing assault.

Neither have I - I never said that. I stated: they ALL learned a great deal of perspective and insight that they had never even considered before... that people very often - take on a whole new perspective for Actions in Public.

I cannot say with any certainty that anyone I've helped train showed any great surprise at being informed they should not go around attacking people.

Neither have I - I never said that. I stated: If person is willing to Learn, they can become knowledgeable and make sound decisions from a place of knowledge. It is not about attacking people but how to act or react when confronted.

 

[Old Fuff]

Ladies, Gentlemen, Folks.......

This all happened not too far away from where I live.... Like the person in question, I too have an Arizona CCW.


And to get that permit both he and I had to go through a 16 hour training course, pass a shooting range test, and go through the usual background test.

I have no idea what happened at the Wal-Mart store, although I will say that up to this they were very CCW friendly. It is highly probable that if the individual with the gun has been reported to the Arizona DPS (Dept. of Public Safety) his license would now be history, regardless of other legal action that might have been taken. Now I doubt anything can be done unless the Sierra Vista Police Dept. files a report with the DPS.

16 hours is not a lot of "book" training, but it's more then enough to make sure the applicant knows the rules and laws - and he or she has to pass a written test to prove they got the message. They also have to pass a basic marksmanship test.

I have nothing but the most bitter contempt for this person, because he has made life harder for everyone else that has a CCW. But please don't judge the rest of us by what he did, and don't think for a moment that someone in Arizona can get a CCW with no training or time on the range.

 

[klover]

After listening to the heated discussion about this with all the voices in my head, I (we?) have made some conclusions:

A) I need to let in one more voice into my head because I believe there is now an even number there, and I need a tie breaker.

B) No one else knows I have these intense voices arguing inside my head.

C) No amount of training by the outies can reveal my secret about the voices.

D) The guy who ran was carrying, and thus showed proper desecalation.

E) The guy who pulled (regardless of who started it) is automatically a possible target for anyone else carrying (because they may believe it their obligation to prevent a possible murder or endangerment of the public or for self defense).

F) Natural selection applies just as Darwin said.

G) Poor, ignorant, down trodden, and plain down on your luck? Not even the where withall to train? Then go defenseless as well, or go to jail!

 

[TC-TX]

TC-TX,
From the research I've done all the required CCW classes do is ensure someone is exposed to the law and some basic concepts.

You are correct Jeff.

It is a minimal amount of information at best, but it is at least a quantitative measure of SOME level of competence...

I prefer to walk into a room filled with people who are CCWing and KNOW that there is SOME level of competency...

as opposed to walking into a room not knowing WHAT - if any - level of competence exists.

I prefer to know that those folks carrying concealed do not put me and my family - or You and Your family - Or ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER - in danger because:

1. they have NEVER fired a handgun before (or they are poor shooters at best) or
2. because they think carrying a handgun gives them the automatic right to use it or
3. because carrying a handgun gives them the authority to act like PO-lice or
4. because they have no regard for the responsibility that goes with carrying.

I am CERTAIN we are safer because of the training requirement of the Texas Licensing process.

I never said it is Perfect... just Better than the complete omission of training.

If CCWers were responsible enough to insure their own competency, then I would be for the complete abolition of the training portion of the licensing requirement.

I do not see that happening.

YMMV - We can agree to disagree.

 

[pax]

I am CERTAIN we are safer because of the training requirement of the Texas Licensing process.

Okay. You made the assertion, now back it up. Your feelings when you walk into a roomful of students has nothing to do with it. Even the actions of x number of specific people on the range handling firearms under strict supervision are not going to tell you about their relative safety (or lack of it) on the street under real-life conditions.

So here's how to prove your assertion.

Take any two shall-issue states: one WITH a training requirement, and one WITHOUT a training requirement. Demographics and culture between the two states should be roughly similar.

Now compare the two states' per-capita rates of criminal or negligent acts committed by CCW holders. You could compare the general accidental-gunshot data too, if you can find it -- but remember a lot of those are going to be hunting accidents, so you'll have to find some way to compensate for it.

If you are CERTAIN there is a big difference in safety between states which require training and those that do not, the numbers should show it.

Find those two states and come back and post your data.

pax

 

[carebear]

I am CERTAIN we are safer because of the training requirement of the Texas Licensing process.

I suppose one could test that by looking at misuse rates by Texas CCW holders with CCW holders in other states with greater and lesser training requirements and then with Vermont and Alaska (though AK could be skewed since many that now carry without a permit may have had one back in the day).

What I am CERTAIN of is that the statistics will be so similar as to be statistically meaningless. What's the revoke rate nationwide? Close to 1% across the board?

Which is probably skewed since ther are still so few regular, daily, carriers that many probably ARE people "like us" who know a bit more coming in the door.

At any rate, definitely an "agree to disagree" situation.

With the happy recognition that so many of us in so many states are now able to have an opinion on "shall issue".

 

[TC-TX]

Don't need to pax... Like I said, I have no doubt.

I made the assertion based on My experienced opinion. I am entitled to that.

I am not trying to sell you on anything. I do not need to prove anything. I merely stated that - IMO - EDUCATED is safer than UNEDUCATED... INFORMED is safer than UNINFORMED.

You are free to disagree.

You are the one with the doubt... may I suggest you perform you own due diligence.

And may I also suggest that you heed your own advice:

the thread will be closed if the discussion is not maintained in a civil manner.

If you feel yourself getting a little too upset, or taking others' comments a bit personally, or being tempted to fling insults and accusations around, go do something else before you post.

Don't take this - or make this - personal pax.

I don't.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Manedwolf
Senior Member



Join Date: 11-10-05
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 3,186 Quote:
IMO, EVERY adult citizen has the right to carry but along with that right comes the responsibility to be trained and knowledgeable and capable in the use, safety and laws connected with carrying and using the gun.
The problem is most people just WILL NOT do what it takes to gain the knowledge and training on their own.

So you'd be in favor of expanding government to be bigger and more intrusive, to use taxpayer dollars to FORCE people to undergo such training by the government? They won't do it, so BIG GOVERNMENT must do it for them.

How...honestly leftist an idea.

When it comes to my safety I want you to be trained.
I don't care where you get the training but get it.
BUT MOST people are just too damned lazy to do it on their own and the worst ones are the "experts" that think they know what they're doing but usually don't know crap..


Leftist idea my ass.
I'm a commercial pilot. Do you think it's a leftist idea that the government demands that I have the proper training, and demonstrate proficiency, so I can safely carry your butt in my aircraft?

If people want to carry a gun they should meet minimum standards of safety to do it. If they won't do the training themselves, and most people won't, then for everyone's safety they should not be allowed to carry or forced to get the training.
Every idiot that uses their gun stupidly reflects on all of us.

 

[General Geoff]

Training is another step in a bureaucratic staircase you have to climb in order to get a license to carry, already.

Here's a BETTER idea:

Why not just require a test of firearms proficiency and/or situational awareness before license issue? If you already have sufficient training (official or not), you'll pass the test, be issued the license and be on your way. If you don't, then you can seek training in whatever way you wish (self education, or a class) to bring yourself up to par.


In an ideal situation, all public schools would have mandatory firearms proficiency classes taught, which would preclude this issue entirely.

 

[TC-TX]

When it comes to my safety I want you to be trained.
I don't care where you get the training but get it.
BUT MOST people are just too damned lazy to do it on their own and the worst ones are the "experts" that think they know what they're doing but usually don't know crap..

Leftist idea my ass.
I'm a commercial pilot. Do you think it's a leftist idea that the government demands that I have the proper training so I can safely carry your butt in my aircraft?

If people want to carry a gun they should meet minumum standards of safety to do it. If they won't do the training themselves, and most people won't, then for everyone's safety they should not be allowed to carry or forced to get the training.
Every idiot that uses their gun stupidly reflects on all of us.

Nice job Part II M2 Carbine

 

[carebear]

Because commercial aircraft pilots never get drunk and fly, or just make mistakes and cause crashes. Bet the statistics are about the same as "untrained" legal gun carriers making mistakes...

Oh WAIT... training isn't a panacea. It still depends on people making wise choices and exhibiting personal responsibility day to day.

Speaking as a representative of Alaska, and any Vermont members feel free to chime in, I feel just fine knowing my neighbors and strangers out in town could be walking around armed without training or any permit at all. If they are the kind of person who would commit a crime or have a stupid accident, they are the kind of person who would do that training or no.

 

[General Geoff]

Also, safety and liberty are CONFLICTING issues.

You cannot be absolutely safe in a free society. It's not possible.

And you cannot be free in an absolutely safe society.


That's why we carry in the first place. To ENSURE OUR OWN SAFETY. I'd rather take my safety into my own hands than leave it to Big Brother. And that includes mandatory govt. approved training for a concealed carry license.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Leftist idea my ass.
I'm a commercial pilot. Do you think it's a leftist idea that the government demands that I have the proper training, and demonstrate proficiency, so I can safely carry your butt in my aircraft?

Please. I'm an industrial electrician and needed the proper training also. 4 years worth. Strange, though, I learned about firearms in a matter of hours. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a pilot to lock out a 13,200V bus for me. You're comparing apples to onions. How much training do you get so you can carry that gun on board with you. That would be more on track, though I'm quite sure you wouldn't mind going back to school whatever it was.

He had the requisite training. Obviously you think it wasn't enough. How much training is enough?

 

[AnthonyRSS]

I'll support government mandated training when taxpayers buy my carry guns. Or when hell freezes over, whichever comes first.

Anthony

 

[Manedwolf]

I am CERTAIN we are safer because of the training requirement of the Texas Licensing process.

New Hampshire has NO training requirement for CCW, and there are no major problems as a result.

In fact, crime in cities of comparable size is well below that of Texas.

Do explain how this has made you "safer", when lack thereof has never been an issue here. If someone draws improperly, they lose their license and go to jail.

Texas, far from being a free state, also requires one to license glassware such as florence flasks, beakers and graduated cylinders, with assumption that you are going to start a druglab.

Texas is not a good example for a free state. It's been slipping into leftist thought disguised as loud patriotic bravado for some time, now.

 

[Fly320s]

I'd like for everyone to try a mental exercise. Attempt to keep an open mind, free of opinion, while reading the revised copy of the article that I posted below. You will notice that I changed a few of the important words, but not the pertinent ideas.

Thanks.



Holiday shopping tempers boiled over Sunday afternoon at Wal-Mart when a man pointed a knife at another during a fist fight in the store, according to Sierra Vista police.

About 5:25 p.m., between the store’s sporting goods and toy sections, two men began a verbal altercation that led to physical blows, Officer Mary Chatham said. During the altercation, one man pointed a knife at the other, she said. The man with the knife possessed a concealed knife permit, Chatham said. He told police he produced the weapon because his opponent, who was larger than him, had taken him to the ground, the officer said.

The man with the knife suffered a black eye and a bloody nose, she said.

The man who was reportedly threatened with the knife did not remain on scene until police arrived, and his identity as a potential victim remains unknown to police, the officer said.

“For whatever reason, he decided not to stay,” she said.

Wal-Mart personnel detained the man with the knife until police arrived, but declined to pursue criminal charges against him.

With no victim on hand and no charges pursued by Wal-Mart management, the investigation is stalled indefinitely, Chatham said.

Police awaited surveillance video of the incident from the store Tuesday afternoon.

“We could’ve pursued charges against him if we had a victim,” Chatham said. “According to an eyewitness, he (the man with the gun) threw the first punch.”

The man told police the other man threw the first punch, Chatham said.


OK, that's the end.

So, if the man had used his pocket knife, would your opinion change?

 

[Jeff White]

So, if the man had used his pocket knife, would your opinion change?

No, it's still Aggravated Battery if he started the fight. Since we don't know who started the fight, that's a moot point.

Jeff

 

[M2 Carbine]

General Geoff

Why not just require a test of firearms proficiency and/or situational awareness before license issue? If you already have sufficient training (official or not), you'll pass the test, be issued the license and be on your way. If you don't, then you can seek training in whatever way you wish (self education, or a class) to bring yourself up to par.

This I definitely agree with and would have liked to see in place when I first got my license.

BUT!
I'll tell you honestly, even being an ex LEO and I would have FAILED in such subjects as Law, Dispute Resolution and a couple others. Believe what you will, but I believe that most of the people that are carrying, without being trained and or tested, don't know what they think they know.

For instance how many of you guys, that think training and displaying competency shouldn't be required, has had even the slightest training in, for instance, dispute resolution?

That's very basic knowledge that a concealed carry licensee should know and which apparently the subject of this thread didn't have a clue about.

 

[Intune]

He had the requisite training. Obviously you think it wasn't enough.

Game, set, match. Well said, Stevie-Ray. One cannot legislate common sense. 4473 forms, AWB, select fire, class 3, 3hr classes, 8hr classes, Gunsite classes. When is enough, enough? When have I met your "standard" of citizenship? Infringe seems to carry a different meaning for each individual, doesn't it? I don't like the 800lb gorilla on my back. I am a U.S. citizen. If I draw the attention of an LEO and my record comes back clean and they feel there is nothing to warrant an arrest or detain me, kindly hand me back my weapon and I'll be on my way. Ignorance of the law has NEVER been a defense. Now "training" is required to enjoy a RIGHT? :banghead: Maybe it's just me...