Something that bugs me about CHL's & Media

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.

I'm getting me some popcorn and a drink.

bigalexe said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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

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.

So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right

Click to expand...

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.

I'll Offer My Perspective..

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I Agree With Some Of Your Points...

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)

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

Works in Vermont and Alaska...

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.

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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!

Click to expand...

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.

So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right

Click to expand...

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.......................

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Or as compared to the bystanders shot by the cops. You know, the "trained professionals."