What's up with 0-EDC in 60 seconds?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As an addition to the anxiety here, some states have constitutional carry.

So all one needs, is a gun. No training, no familiarization, maybe the gun doesn’t even function properly.

Just to restate: This is called constitutional carry. This what we all want, correct?

Yeah, it makes you think.
 
earlthegoat2 said:
As an addition to the anxiety here, some states have constitutional carry.

So all one needs, is a gun. No training, no familiarization, maybe the gun doesn’t even function properly.

Just to restate: This is called constitutional carry. This what we all want, correct?

Yeah, it makes you think.
Click to expand...
It is what we want.

People have to understand that freedom isn't free, and if you want to exercise your rights, you have to do so responsibly and take responsibility for your actions when you do.

Its not the states responsibility to train you, that's your responsibility. The second you give that up to the state, you just lose more of your rights, and all of a sudden, your rights are "privileges", and you have to ask permission to exercise them.
 
The requirements of an 8 hour class with 30 minutes range time to get a CHL is kind of a joke, but if that's all the person has access to it's better than nothing.
 
The problem with asking this question on a gun forum is all the responses will be, by definition, from 'gun people.'

Lots of folks buying guns these days aren't, and maybe never will be, 'gun people.' They're scared people, buying a tool to defend themselves. They're not interested in the intricacies of DA vs. SA, 9MM vs .45 or any of the other subtleties we discuss ad nauseum here.

They want a tool, and want to be sufficiently competent with that tool to (in their own mind) defend themselves. Same way we might go to a hardware store and pick up a hammer, not discussing the differences between a framing hammer and a claw hammer, or hickory vs. fiberglass as a handle. We need a hammer.

If you know any of those people, the best thing you can do is try to get them interested in the *sport* of shooting, to make them enthusiasts who will grow in skill and knowledge, pass it along to their families and support gun rights with their vote.

Larry
 
Seems like a fair amount of unfounded fear and mantra contradiction.

It's a common theme to recommend training particularly for new &/or inexperienced shooters and to question this scenario of CC is a bit misguided to me.

This seemingly deems CC as more dangerous than OC. But why?

Remember, a gun doesn't fire on its own. In a holster OC CC or sitting on a table really doesn't matter because it doesn't self fire all buy itself.


The bottom of the slippery slope is questioning whether someone should be required to have training before owning a gun.

But what is the right amount of experience &/or training should someone have before being able to excercise their 2A Rights?


I lived in AZ before & after they went to constitutional carry and none of the fears of gun fights at every gas station & convenience store came true.

AZ basically proved it's statistically irrelevant using a sample size of about 6 million people.

So, while maybe it's not ideal per the imaginary guide The Utopian Journey of New Gun Owner to CC Master, I really don't see a problem & kind of think it's misguided to think there is a problem based on the factual real life evidence that's in front of us.
 
As others said, with everything that's going on fear has driven guns sales. People don't know what they don't know. Someone who has never owned a gun before and knows nothing about guns other than what they've seen on tv and movies doesn't know how uneducated they are in regards to guns. I would hope that whoever is selling them the gun would stress the need for training, but I'm not optimistic that it happens as much as it should.

My oldest son and daughter in law brought up getting CC permits. Their experience is limited to range time with me. While they have experience shooting, I explained to them that they need additional training with firearms as well as in the law before they carry, and to their credit they completely agreed.
 
Last edited:
It is what we want.
Click to expand...
I would argue that it is not what we want. I certainly don't want untrained people with no experience with guns carrying them around in public.

That doesn't mean that I am in favor of government mandated training though--that's a far worse option, in my opinion.

In a perfect world, everyone would VOLUNTARILY get trained and tested to make sure they are safe and proficient before carrying or using firearms. That's what I would like to see.

Again, I'm not saying that training should be mandatory because that would be too much of an opportunity for abuse of power by the government.
 
I would argue that the states with Constitutional carry prove you concern is statistically invalid.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to see the statistics. I would say that the statistics of interest would be the ones on guns dropped by untrained/unskilled carriers vs. trained carriers, unintentional discharges by untrained/unskilled carriers vs. trained carriers, situations where a carrier could have used a personal weapon to stop a crime but didn't try due to lack of confidence or failed due to lack of proficiency, etc.

<Edited> Just to be clear, nothing in this post or my previous post on this thread states, or was meant to imply that untrained/unskilled/inexperienced carriers are causing widespread problems. I'm not saying: "Oh, we have to stop the untrained/unskilled/inexperience carriers out there from carrying because of all the gun accidents/injuries/mayhem resulting from it. I'm talking about what an ideal situation would be.<Edited>
 
Jimbo80 said:
The amount of first time gun buyers whose intro to firearms is a CWP class amazes me.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you live, but considering many people have never fired a gun at all I wouldn't be surprised. I helped conduct training and I stopped being surprised that 1/3 to 1/2 of the class might never have fired a gun...and I live in one of the highest gun ownership areas of the country.
 
Jimbo80 said:
The amount of first time gun buyers whose intro to firearms is a CWP class amazes me. Ive watched hundreds of people start to carry before they've shot a box of ammo! I don't get it.
Click to expand...
Being 'ready to carry', in the macro, probably requires more than just demonstrating mechanical proficiency with a slow-fire range qual from low ready and a recitation of applicable laws governing the use of deadly force. And yet we, and the folk around us, largely survived the learning process that comes with actually carrying - learning how to holster up, how to manage retention, how to actually clear leather safely, and other such fun things that aren't normally part of the LTC / CHL curriculum. We learn by doing, and I would argue that learning to carry is just as important as learning to shoot.

Specific to your observation - it's not like pistol ammo is dripping from trees these days, and a lot of guy buyers over the last year have been first-timers who want the ability to protect hearth-n-home. So they're doing the right thing - buying what they can find, and taking a class to learn the basics of how to carry it (from a legal perspective). If their interest extends beyond the immediate, then human nature will drive them to the range. If their interest is fleeting, then eventually the hassle of carrying will overcome their fear and the gun will eventually wind up in a drawer or on consignment.
 
Being 'ready to carry', in the macro, probably requires more than just demonstrating mechanical proficiency with a slow-fire range qual from low ready and a recitation of applicable laws governing the use of deadly force.
Click to expand...
The TX class isn't even a firearms training course. The shooting portion is just a test and the proficiency level required to pass is very basic. My opinion is that it was instituted primarily to let the instructor assess whether a person is a danger to themselves or others with a firearm, more so than to assess their ability to make holes in paper.

Anyway, anyone who is relying on a TX permit class for firearms training is going to be in for a surprise. They'll get a lot of information on the TX laws about carry and deadly force, but they are expected to come to the class ready to pass the shooting test.
 
JohnKSa said:
I'd be interested to see the statistics. I would say that the statistics of interest would be the ones on guns dropped by untrained/unskilled carriers vs. trained carriers, unintentional discharges by untrained/unskilled carriers vs. trained carriers, situations where a carrier could have used a personal weapon to stop a crime but didn't try due to lack of confidence or failed due to lack of proficiency, etc.
Click to expand...

Well those stats I'm sure arent tracked and personally think it's unrealistic to expect that granular of data is tracked.

Conversely, what data are you using to come to your conclusion to be concerned enough to not want those people to carry in public?


In AZ, there was no statiscally meaningful movement of shootings, accidental or intended, before and after the law changed in AZ.

I know this because I followed the state data for the 1st cpl yrs when I lived there (#1. #2...)

And none of the anti 2A politicians in AZ cite an increase after going to Constitutional Carry as reason to repeal it. They haven't even been really trying to repeal it... they just say guns are bad... ban AWs.


For the record, 15ish yrs ago I had a similar concern. Then I started looking at data and lived thru, 1st hand, AZ changing.


Similar to your disclaimer, I'm not suggesting training is bad or shouldnt be done or worthless. Quite the opposite. Skills and training are practically always good. But the AZ shooting data showed no statistically meaningful public safety difference.
 
When I took the concealed carry class in September, about 1/4 of the class were first time shooters who had trouble with basic operations like loading the magazine. But I've seen many of the students in follow up classes, and everyone here has plenty of time to train after taking the class -- some are waiting months for the first appointment to get fingerprinted, and then another 90 days for their permit.

Related, between the ammo shortage and high demand for concealed carry classes, most of the training classes at my local range have been cancelled. Someone just starting to shoot today would have a hard time getting ammo and training, and it would take 6-9 months here to get a permit.
 
bdickens said:
What's up with people not minding their own business is what I want to know.
Click to expand...

I am minding my own business. As stated earlier I sell firearms and training for a living. Understanding a buyer's thinking and motivation helps me turn one and done customers into "gun people" thereby enhancing my income. Anyway, thanks for the helpful input.
 
TimRB said:
Your point is well taken, but remember that many thousands of soldiers and Marines fired a gun for the first time in their lives during basic training. I suspect that quite a few police officers, too, got their introduction to firearms at the police academy. On the other hand, I have known lifelong shooters who were downright dangerous with a gun, both in their accuracy and general gun-handling. Go figure.

Tim
Click to expand...

And Navy and Air Force.
 
Moved to TX from a Constitutional Carry state (NH) - Frankly, I find the TX standards to carry kind of silly and meanwhile in NH post passing of Constitutional Carry there hasn't been 'the blood in the streets' that many (largely Dem) lawmakers were claiming - people generally self-governed just fine.

A government mandate of anything, training or otherwise, to get a license for carry usually doesn't actually help anything (standards are poor, vague, and just a guise for a money capture (in most cases)). It's a good way to prevent the poor from legally carrying to defend themselves.

I firmly believe that if you can legally purchase a gun, you should be (are) allowed to carry it - a government mandate of training isn't a magic wand and just having something in place as a feel good measure doesn't stop an untrained person from breaking said law; it only adds penalties if they're caught OR (and more importantly) if they actually do defend themselves in an otherwise open-shut case, not having the license only penalizes them for using their natural right to self-defense.
 
Conversely, what data are you using to come to your conclusion to be concerned enough to not want those people to carry in public?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that I was using any data to come to my conclusion. I'm using basic logic--that people who are trained/experienced/proficient/skilled are more likely to be effective with their guns, more likely to handle them safely, less likely to have accidents with them, confident enough to take action when necessary, better at making rapid decisions under stress, etc. If that were not true, then training would be useless. We can argue about the DEGREE to which training improves those things, but I made no attempt to quantify the level of improvement.
Well those stats I'm sure arent tracked and personally think it's unrealistic to expect that granular of data is tracked.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure they aren't either. You made the claim that my "concern" was proven "statistically invalid". Since you have the proof, I'd like to see it.
I know this because I followed the state data for the 1st cpl yrs when I lived there (#1. #2...)
Click to expand...
Interesting. Do you have links to the data that tracks unintentional shootings by people legally carrying guns in public?
I had a similar concern.
Click to expand...
You keep saying I have a "concern". I haven't said I have a concern--I really don't. Someone made a comment that we want untrained people carrying guns and I stated that's not what I want. I later clarified that I don't believe it's causing widespread problems or that it's a catastrophe, just that we would be better off (to some extent which I haven't attempted to quantify) if people would voluntarily seek training and hold themselves to some level of competence before they carry guns in public.

If there's really no benefit to firearms training, then why don't we stop giving the military and police firearms training? The savings in time and money would be tremendous!
 
earlthegoat2 said:
As an addition to the anxiety here, some states have constitutional carry.

So all one needs, is a gun. No training, no familiarization, maybe the gun doesn’t even function properly.

Just to restate: This is called constitutional carry. This what we all want, correct?

Yeah, it makes you think.
Click to expand...
Why be worried? Folks walk out of stores with all sorts of dangerous items like chainsaws, ladder, fast automobiles, etc. so why not a gun? It's called FREEDOM, and with it comes responsibility
 
George P said:
Why be worried? Folks walk out of stores with all sorts of dangerous items like chainsaws, ladder, fast automobiles, etc. so why not a gun? It's called FREEDOM, and with it comes responsibility
Click to expand...

Ok so maybe I was trying to stir the pot to see what side everyone is on.

Responsibility has been brought up a few times now. Everyone is absolutely correct about gun owners needing to be responsible for whatever it is they have said gun for. Unfortunately, we have been going through a few decades of decaying personal responsibility in our culture. People are becoming less self reliant to do what is prudent and more reliant on government and most unfortunately, lawyers. The tort law type.

The rise of leftism.
 
When I worked firearms retail it wasn’t uncommon to hear, even from long time gun users “oh that doesn’t matter, I don’t need to be able to shoot it, I’m just gunna carry it.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
CWP requirements?
Replies
24
Views
587
Otherguy Overby
O
M
  • Locked
Let's talk about CCW classes(your horror stories and opinions)
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Seattleimport
S
M
  • Locked
Central Florida, My Free Get Together Shooting Group
Replies
2
Views
218
scurtis_34471
S
T
  • Locked
Need your feedback in letter to the editor
Replies
2
Views
327
Monkeyleg
M
C
  • Locked
CWP - no gun. Supposedly CWP at age 18 - I'm not buying it.
Replies
17
Views
1K
Keegan
K
Back
Top