CPL w/o training? i think its crazy

[WayneConrad]

A short list of some deaths caused by governments against their own disarmed people:

Nazi Germany: 11 million, give or take a few
Stalin: 10-50 million
Khmer Rouge: 1.7 million

Our ultimate need for arms is to defend ourselves against governments: Either a foreign invader, or our own turned tyrranical. The magnitude of the threat to each of us from governments gone bad dwarfs any from shaky-handed elders or poorly trained rambos. This is not hypothetical: The numbers show how dangerous governments have been.

The problem with requiring permission for bearing arms is in who must give the permission: The very government that, should it turn tyrranical, we must use those arms against in defense of our very lives.

Now do you see the problem with requiring government permission to keep and bear arms?

 

[NineseveN]

Your comparison with a driver's license is a good analogy, but by your logic we might as well stop requiring driver's license exams and testing since it doesn't weed out all bad drivers.

Ah, but Driving is a not a right, whereas keeping and bearing arms is...which is where the differences lie.

The driving analogy is only useful when discussing training/testing and restoration of rights after prison.

It seems we have it backwards. Anyone can own a car regardless of their history (criminal or not), and if one kills another with a motor vehicle, once relased from prison, they may purchase and potentially operate a motor vehicle.

Commit any felony, and say bye bye to firearms for good. Commit some misdemeanors and say bye bye as well.

 

[CleaningAccident]

As a staunch defender of the "United States Bill of Rights" I feel compelled to make comment here.
You may feel free to use your "First Amendment Right" to argue with me, thanks again to the Bill of Rights that protects your right of free speech and those that have defended it.

Second Amendment of the U.S Bill of Rights:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
in·fringed;
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

The Second Amendment guarantees protection from infringement, by government, judicial, police.....neighborhood associations...the lady next door......the college student that decides under what conditions people should be allowed to use their constitutional rights ...or anyone else that would otherwise deny people of the guaranteed liberty. It makes no provision for anyone to infringe upon that right, no matter what their position or political agenda is.

No matter how well intentioned a self-appointed judge may be, the Bill of Rights guarantees the citizens protection from "their superior judgement" of their perfect society.

I'll leave you with one example of of just such a visionary-
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolf Hitler, 1935

 

[Herself]

Remember, I watched a CWP student point the gun down range, close her eyes, turn her face away and then pull the trigger. She still got her certificate of completion for the class.

And what did you do the first time you fired a handgun, JT?
The first revolver I fired as an adult, I walked the darned barrel back and forth over a pretty wide arc, certainly well off each side of the paper of a close target all through the loooong trigger pull and it leapt in my hand like a live thing when the hammer fell; the first autoloader I fired, I darned near took off a thumbnail! I didn't get much better very quickly, either, though I did manage to stop injuring myself.

In a state with carry restrictions for the unlicensed, a class of the sort you describe can easily be a person's first time (or second or third) to the range and is almost certainly the first time there's anything at stake.

Beginners at anything often look like hell doing it. They're scary and clumsy and inappropriate. This tells us little or nothing about how much they can learn or how much they will learn. It tells us nothing of their motivation.

All we're learning about in the incident you're so fond of relating is your own aesthetic sense and your lack of trust in the instructor and range master. Such trivia might be of interest but it is not of any use. Still, thanks so much for sharing; your fear of other people is palpable.

Are you saying you'd like to be walking to your car in the mall parking lot with your children when this woman pulls out her carry gun to fend off a carjacker and starts blasting away with her eyes closed?

I would not like to be in proximity to any gunfight; nobody would, especially those who have. But I have been, you may be; and we can be pretty sure that at least one side in any such battle has little training and no permit or license to carry. The odds of taking a stray round are actually rather low (and will be even lower with me laying on my belly under a Caddy -- I ain't that brave!), so low that adding the dubious benefit of some mandatory training to one participant doesn't change them significantly. It may even make it worse: police officers are about five times as likely as armed, honest civilians to injure bystanders instead of bad guys in a gunfight. Statistically, I would be less safe if the cops rode to her defense!

I would really like to know how you could be sure her eyes were shut unless you were on the wrong end of the range or hovering way too close to a noob under instruction, by the way; but no matter. She started her learning the day you watched her with the supercilious horror of the better-trained, when few if any of her rounds went where she wanted them to go. Of course, carjackings happen at close range; if she gets a couple shots off at arm's length, she already got the guy without needing to aim, just point and blam!


...You keep dreaming up scary hypotheticals. They're just dreams! Try to remember that as an EMT, you were handed a seriously skewed sample of the amount of stupidity, bad luck and violence any one person is likely to be directly subject to. Most folks do have a smattering of good sense and we trust them with all manner of dreadful instrumentalities, from automobiles to electricity, from weedkiller to MAPP-gas torches. Granny may confuse the plaster of paris with confectioner's sugar and poison us all! --But you'd win a lot of bets wagering against it happening.

There are risks in our lives; it is up to each of us to evaluate the risks we face and act accordingly. Your evaluation of the risk to others from "untrained" citizens exercising their natural and fundamental right of self-defense is quite out of keeping with the actual risk. If it wasn't, Vermont would be a bloodbath.

--Herself

 

[jtward01]

And what did you do the first time you fired a handgun, JT?

I really don't remember, I was only five or six at the time.

The first revolver I fired as an adult, I walked the darned barrel back and forth over a pretty wide arc, certainly well off each side of the paper of a close target all through the loooong trigger pull and it leapt in my hand like a live thing when the hammer fell; the first autoloader I fired, I darned near took off a thumbnail! I didn't get much better very quickly, either, though I did manage to stop injuring myself.

Were you applying for a permit to carry a handgun in public at the time? Probably not, you seem to have more sense than that.

I would really like to know how you could be sure her eyes were shut unless you were on the wrong end of the range or hovering way too close to a noob under instruction, by the way; but no matter.

As I've said repeatedly, she closed her eyes and turned her face away from the target. I was in the shooting lane next to where these students were being "tested" and when she turned her face she was looking straight at me (or would have been looking, if she'd opened her eyes).

Your evaluation of the risk to others from "untrained" citizens exercising their natural and fundamental right of self-defense is quite out of keeping with the actual risk. If it wasn't, Vermont would be a bloodbath. --Herself

The crime rate in Vermont is so low as to make it statistically insignificant. According to the Vermont Attorney General's Office (I called today), on average firearms are used for personal defense less than five times a year in that state.

I spent much of the day on the telephone today with folks at the NRA and the CDC. I also tried to track down John Lott at FSU, without success. Unfortunately, no one I spoke to is aware of any statistical comparison between CWP holders in states that require meanful training and those that do not. I guess I'll be spending the next couple of days writing to the licensing authorities in those states that require training and those that do not asking several questions.

1. What percentage of persons licensed to carry have actually discharged their firearms in a defensive role?

2. Of those who have discharged their firearms in a defensive role how many have hit their intended target?

3. Of those who have discharged their firearms in a defensive role how many have injured a bystander?

If these figures are available it should present a pretty interesting picture. I'd be happy to see suggestions for other questions I might include.

Frankly, I have no doubt that even if statistics show that untrained CWP holders are killing hundreds of innocent bystanders each year (which I don't really expect, of course) there are those on this forum that would still be opposed to mandatory training or other qualifying criteria (such as passing a short written test on firearms safety/concealed carry laws and demonstrating proficiency on the range) for CWP applicants.

 

[Herself]

I spent much of the day on the telephone today with folks at the NRA and the CDC. I also tried to track down John Lott at FSU, without success. Unfortunately, no one I spoke to is aware of any statistical comparison between CWP holders in states that require meanful training and those that do not.

Correct -- because the numbers are so small that they don't support anyone spending moe than a few minutes looking into it on the public's tax moeny!

I guess I'll be spending the next couple of days writing to the licensing authorities in those states that require training and those that do not asking several questions.[...]

Good luck with that bit of pot-stirring -- you'll find many keep no such stats. My opinion is that your delight at this project clearly reveals you to be nothing more than a tool of gun-grabbers.

I notice you've simply ignored the fact that statistically, police officers -- surely as well-trained a group as you wish citizens who carry concealed should be compelled to be -- are five times as likely to shoot the wrong individual than are armed private citizens. How much better with their weapons than the cops do you believe private gun-owners ought to be? Could it be there is really no level of proficiency that would still your fervid fears?

You still don't get it, do you? --At the Federal level, there's no Constitutional basis for the kind of restrictive requirements you want to impose on others; ignoring the 14th Amendment for the moment, at the State level, several States are barred from imposing them as well. So not only is it immoral to restrict the poor, the busy, the slow-witted, the clumsy, the dyslexic and the disabled in the keeping and bearing of arms, it is extra-legal as well. And once they're out, it's on to the rest of us -- very likely starting with you.

Frankly, I have no doubt that even if statistics show that untrained CWP holders are killing hundreds of innocent bystanders each year (which I don't really expect, of course) there are those on this forum that would still be opposed to mandatory training or other qualifying criteria (such as passing a short written test on firearms safety/concealed carry laws and demonstrating proficiency on the range) for CWP applicants.

What price freedom? Do you any[/i[ idea of the carnage wreaked by trianed and licensed drivers? Yet you are not complaining how government should set the bar even higher to indulge in that deadly activity. Do you even suspect the death toll amoung children from large buckets with more than a few inched of liquid in them? --Yet you're not calling for mandatory training of those involved in bucket trades! And privately-owned swimming pools, my heavens, they're deathtraps; but you're happy to leave the children and adults to die in them at a rate much higher than the death rate from all gunshot deaths combined. Why is that? Could it be there's a bee in your bonnet? A bee named "Brady," perhaps?

--Herself

 

[beaucoup ammo]

JT Ward

For what it's worth, the framers of the "Virginia Military Clause" shared your belief that some training was in order:

Virginia Militia Clause:? "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State."

Take Care

 

[jtward01]

A short list of some deaths caused by governments against their own disarmed people:

Nazi Germany: 11 million, give or take a few
Stalin: 10-50 million
Khmer Rouge: 1.7 million

Our ultimate need for arms is to defend ourselves against governments: Either a foreign invader, or our own turned tyrranical. The magnitude of the threat to each of us from governments gone bad dwarfs any from shaky-handed elders or poorly trained rambos. This is not hypothetical: The numbers show how dangerous governments have been.

The problem with requiring permission for bearing arms is in who must give the permission: The very government that, should it turn tyrranical, we must use those arms against in defense of our very lives.

Now do you see the problem with requiring government permission to keep and bear arms?

Absolutely. Never advocated government licensing to own firearms. This thread is simply about requiring those who want a license to carry a firearm in public to demonstrate that they have a working knowledge of concealed carry and deadly force laws and a basic proficiency with their weapon.

You want to keep a dozen AKs at home in the closet I got no problem with that at all.

 

[jtward01]

I notice you've simply ignored the fact that statistically, police officers -- surely as well-trained a group as you wish citizens who carry concealed should be compelled to be -- are five times as likely to shoot the wrong individual than are armed private citizens. How much better with their weapons than the cops do you believe private gun-owners ought to be? Could it be there is really no level of proficiency that would still your fervid fears?

Are those stats based on total shootings, or on a ratio? If based on total shootings then it's not surprising at all since police officers are involved in gun fights far more often than armed citizens. If they're illustrating a ratio, say (for example) for every 100 times they use their firearms the police will shoot the wrong person 10 times, while for every 100 times they use their firearms an armed citizen will shoot the wrong person two times (your 5 to 1 ratio) then I would be very surprised.

Could it be there's a bee in your bonnet? A bee named "Brady," perhaps?

I find the statements and policies of the Violence Policy Center and its sister groups to be at least mis-leading, sometimes outright lies and always disgusting. Please do not compare me with that group of fanatics and lunatics.

 

[smince]

Absolutely. Never advocated government licensing to own firearms. This thread is simply about requiring those who want a license to carry a firearm in public to demonstrate that they have a working knowledge of concealed carry and deadly force laws and a basic proficiency with their weapon.

You want to keep a dozen AKs at home in the closet I got no problem with that at all.

What if your neighbor has the "closet full of AK's" and has to shoot a home intruder. Don't, by your own logic, they need to have MANDATORY training to simply posess the weapons they have because they MIGHT POSSIBLY have to use said weapons for defense? Better have training because the whole block may get shot up if they don't.

 

[jtward01]

For what it's worth, the framers of the "Virginia Military Clause" shared your belief that some training was in order:

Virginia Militia Clause:? "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State."

Take Care

Wouldn't it have been great if the US Constitution had included similar words? Then there would have been no question of individual rights. The words "composed of the body of the people" would have made it clear that everyone was to be allowed to own a firearm.

Perhaps it could have read - "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Of course, it still leaves open to interpretation just what is meant by "a well-regulated" militia. This, of course, is what those who advocate gun control base their arguments on, so it certainly wouldn't solve all the controversy, but it sure would have helped.

 

[JohnBT]

When they start requiring training for parenthood I'll agree to training for hunting, fishing and concealed carry.

John

 

[jtward01]

What if your neighbor has the "closet full of AK's" and has to shoot a home intruder. Don't, by your own logic, they need to have MANDATORY training to simply posess the weapons they have because they MIGHT POSSIBLY have to use said weapons for defense? Better have training because the whole block may get shot up if they don't.

Yes, I suppose it would be better. But the only way to require the training, or at least a demonstration of proficiency, would be as part of a licensing program and I have no desire to require licenses for firearms ownership. Licensing for concealed carry is already in place in most states.

 

[Deathrider1579]

I would just like to remind everyone that even the CHL/CPL/CCL/CWP whatever you want to call you concealed carry license is in fact unconstitutional.

If i want to carry an AK-47 strapped across my back that I have never even fired or looked at this morning when I bought it and some ammo at the corner store. Its legal (if you are living where the government keeps to the constitution). The whole idea of needing a license to do anything drives me up the wall (drivers license included) its all unconstitutional.

Training not required, you are going to have dumasses who do stupid things with or without a license.

Accursed liberals and ignorant Americans

Those who threaten our right to keep and BEAR (this means haul around how ever we see fit) should be treated like an enemy combatants and a immediate threat to our lives.

-DR

 

[jtward01]

When they start requiring training for parenthood I'll agree to training for hunting, fishing and concealed carry.

John

Don't some states already require completion of a hunter's safety course in order to get a hunting license?

 

[NineseveN]

Yes, I suppose it would be better. But the only way to require the training, or at least a demonstration of proficiency, would be as part of a licensing program and I have no desire to require licenses for firearms ownership. Licensing for concealed carry is already in place in most states.

1. What's the difference between a license for carry and a license to own?

While some of us work to repeal the license requirement for carry, you want us to be on board with another unconstitutional restriction that could and would be used as a vehicle to deny our Second Amendment rights.

2. What is wrong with my suggestion that you advocate everyone being required to learn proper laws and saftey in regards to firearms at the highschool or lower level? Would you care to address that? Why does it have to be requirement to exercise a constitutional right, therefor being unconstituional?

 

[hub]

clp

i thought thats what we used to clean m16's with, not a fragile issue, but if it is give everyone a 45. just act a fool somone in this plce has the nuts to tell you your wrong and should accept the conciqueinces (spelling) you will be caught soon enough and you will go too jail! i believe in 2nd chanches but not in this form peace im out....

 

[NineseveN]

Don't some states already require completion of a hunter's safety course in order to get a hunting license?

Doesn't matter, there is no explicit right to hunt. Apples to oranges. Hunting is a sport, keeping and bearing arms is a right. Just because you need one to practice the other (in most cases) does not give them both equal weight, importance or validity when it concerns our rights.

 

[jtward01]

If i want to carry an AK-47 strapped across my back that I have never even fired or looked at this morning when I bought it and some ammo at the corner store. Its legal (if you are living where the government keeps to the constitution). -DR

Why don't you go ahead and do that, DR? Then you can get yourself arrested and appeal your conviction all the way to the US Supreme Court and get this whole gun control issue settled once and for all. Sure, you may have to sell your house and everything else you own to pay the legal bills, but if you're so certain that you're in the right what does it matter? Surely all like-minded gun owners will flock to your defense and send you many thousands of dollars to make up for your losses. You do trust your fellow man to do the right thing, don't you?

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Jt Ward

Indeed it would have! Only one state provision (Virginia..1776) included the term "the Body of the People," and both this provision and the similar ones in the Second Amendment drafts were sources for the Militia Clause, not the operative clause.

Take Care

 

[NineseveN]

Why don't you go ahead and do that, DR? Then you can get yourself arrested and appeal your conviction all the way to the US Supreme Court and get this whole gun control issue settled once and for all. Sure, you may have to sell your house and everything else you own to pay the legal bills, but if you're so certain that you're in the right what does it matter? Surely all like-minded gun owners will flock to your defense and send you many thousands of dollars to make up for your losses. You do trust your fellow man to do the right thing, don't you?

I am thinking that he lives in an area where this is legal, which would kinda snuff your argument from the door. But I could be reading him wrong.

 

[jtward01]

1. What's the difference between a license for carry and a license to own?

While some of us work to repeal the license requirement for carry, you want us to be on board with another unconstitutional restriction that could and would be used as a vehicle to deny our Second Amendment rights.

2. What is wrong with my suggestion that you advocate everyone being required to learn proper laws and saftey in regards to firearms at the highschool or lower level? Would you care to address that? Why does it have to be requirement to exercise a constitutional right, therefor being unconstituional?

A license to carry allows you to carry that weapon in public places and not just in your home, vehicle, while hunting or target shooting or whatever.

I have no problem at all with having marksmanship training included as part of a school curriculum. Wouldn't it be great if all these young people were exposed to the fun of shooting. The future of our sport would be much brighter. I just don't think it's a realistic goal in today's society. There's already been pressure in some places to drop marksmanship from high school ROTC programs and the Boy Scouts.

 

[Deathrider1579]

I am thinking that he lives in an area where this is legal, which would kinda snuff your argument from the door. But I could be reading him wrong.

I am NineseveN though its not advisable. I live in Texas, from what I understand of the law here you can walk around with a rifle (not a pistol grr stupid illegal laws) without breaking any laws. The problem comes when you "cause a disturbance" i.e. some one calls the cops cause you are running around with a rifle (a scawy eviwl bwack wifle). So they can't get you for just carrying it but they can find crap to screw up your weekend.

I was mostly saying what life should be like across the US.

2. What is wrong with my suggestion that you advocate everyone being required to learn proper laws and safety in regards to firearms at the high school or lower level? Would you care to address that? Why does it have to be requirement to exercise a constitutional right, therefore being unconstitutional?

I think that’s a great idea NineseveN! perhaps it should be a requirement for graduation from High School or grade school?

All laws that restrict the ownership of weapons are illegal end of story. Unfortunately our courts are filled with liberal soft shells who want a disarmed workforce (after your guns are gone your not a citizen / free man any more).
Why? I don't know but that’s the way they are ruling and acting.

You are either a citizen or a peasant / serf, you get to decide where you fall.


-Dr

 

[beaucoup ammo]

How Many Years Has It Been...200+?

I'd say 95% of us posting here don't go shoot for their supper. Back when the Framers were busy outlining our country's future, it was common for many..IMO, to be proficient enough with a weapon to go blast a squirrell or two at 50 yds to toss in the pot.

I'm very Pro 2nd, AND see the value of knowing the dynamics and responsibility of a handgun/ rifle (and the attendant laws) before carrying concealed or otherwise. It IS 200+ years later and, like it or not, making a dumb mistake because of lack of know how regarding weapons.. sets the Pro 2nd among us back 3 steps for every one we take forward.

We have a right to bear arms..lets not give the "anti's" more ammunition by shooting ourselves in the foot due to ignorance of the very thing we're fighting for.

My gripe is the Price of a CCW. It disenfranchises a lot of Americans from exercising their right...hell, some CCW instructors should donate their time and expertise to help bring the cost down.

Sometimes you have to deal with reality...in a not so perfect world.

Take Care

 

[NineseveN]

A license to carry allows you to carry that weapon in public places and not just in your home, vehicle, while hunting or target shooting or whatever.

I was asing a fundamental question, not asking for a definition.

You want to further restrict and regulate a license to carry which swe have now, yet you don't want that same license and restriction on owning firearms...why is it okay for one and not the other? Explain the difference.