CPL w/o training? i think its crazy

[Old Dog]

Laws governing a concealed handgun can carry considerably more serious consequences than those related to driving a car or operating a pop stand.

Wrong. One must disagree with this.

And the percentages of those adults who drive cars on public roadways versus the percentage of adults possessing CPLs who actually carry a handgun are ...? I submit most adults drive (maybe over 80 or 90% of all American adults?) daily, while probably less than 1% nationwide pack a firearm on a daily basis.

Anyway, you know a thread's gone on too long when the same arguments get rehashed on page 11 that were a pummeled deceased equine already several pages before ...

 

[NineseveN]

Did someone say "glue"?

 

[beaucoup ammo]

The Old Dog Hunts

Agreed, this has gone on too long..and I'm ready to share the guilt for resurrecting it one too many times!

Perhaps we can rehash this at a later date with fresher perspectives.

Take Care

 

[jtward01]

Out of curiosity alone ... who would you have define what is "reasonable proficiency"?

No reason the licensing authority couldn't appoint an advisory panel of experienced firearms instuctors, gun rights advocates, etc., to develop an acceptable performance standard.

In the one formal firearms course I took we were required to fire five rounds, reload, then fire five more from the seven yard line, all within 30 seconds. Stage two was five rounds each from right hand and left hand barricades at 15 yards. Stage three was five rounds from either prone or kneeling positions at 25 yards. That's 25 rounds on a regular police type silhouette qualification target for a total possible score of 250 points. Passing was a minimum score of 200 points.

Frankly, I think the 25-yard stage would be excessive for basic CWP class, but the seven and 15-yard stages might be appropriate.

 

[jtward01]

I also had to take a Driver's exam, I still speed, roll through some stop signs, I think I ran a red light once and I am sure I don't stop the required amount of feet away from a railraod crossing, nor do I always signal at the proper distance away from my desired exit or turn....just like everyone else.

I sure as hell hope you're more careful with your firearms than you apparently are with your automobiles.

 

[NineseveN]

I sure as hell hope you're more careful with your firearms than you apparently are with your automobiles.

Let's not even get started down the path of why the DoT's regs and motor laws are Draconian and not all of them are necessary especially given the advances in motor technology:


I drive 58 in a 55MPH zone

Because I might use turn signals at 85 feet away instead of 100 before turning if I am driving less than 35 miles per hour and 295 feet away instead of 300 if I am driving 35 miles per hour or more

Or because instead of coming to an abslute complete stop for 5 entire seconds, I roll down to 0.5 or 1MPH, stop for a second, check oncoming traffic and then go...like everyone else.

If those things make me unsafe, then the entire driving comunity at large in this and every other state is unsafe, more so even.



Now, tit for tat, I sure hope you're as cavalier about forfeiting your own rights as you are about forfeiting the rights of others...

...especially since it seems mostly based on imperfect and ignorant observations, a total and complete failure to grasp the USC and BoR and unsupported fears and scaremonger tactics.


You should give up your freedom of speech, what you are advocating is dangerous, giving power to the government and takling liberty away from the common citizen, some of the very principles this nation was founded in spite of.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No reason the licensing authority couldn't appoint an advisory panel of experienced firearms instuctors, gun rights advocates, etc., to develop an acceptable performance standard.

Acceptable based on what?

Once again, training is a solution. What is the problem? What accidents, crimes, or other bad things are happening because CCW holders are untrained?

 

[Herself]

And how many people does that one percent represent?

Wrong question. --Unless you accept the "one death is too many" fable, in which case, what are you doing about the far greater risk posed by doctors, automobiles, and half-full buckets of water?

CDC has a nice searchable database; an hour sent looking at causes of death can be quite instructive.

I

[in re 11% of all police shootings kill innocent bystanders, compared to 2% of civilian shootings] If these figures are accurate then it's clear that at least some police officers are not receiving adequate training.

Whaddaya want for police officers -- telepathic Brazilain jujitsu ninjas with I. Q.s of 200 and the reflexes of a cat? Such persons are rare -- if not altogether nonexistant -- and would command high salaries.

Civilians are more reluctant to shoot unless facing a clear and immediate threat, that's all.

Why won't you acknowlege that I've changed my position from mandatory training to simply a demonstration of a basic knowledge of firearms safety, concealed carry and deadly force laws, and a reasonable proficiency with their weapon?

Because that is a difference without a distinction; having to satisify such demand would itself mandate some form of training. The government might not be outlining the course, but they would certainly have outlined the requirements. It comes to the same thing -- and erects the same bar to the keeping and bearing of arms by citizens.

Why did you completely ignore the far worse risk factors I pointed out to you? Do you have an obsession with controlling other people's access to the means of self-defense?

There are many risks to your life and limb far greater and more immediate than the armed citizen. You would be wiser to focus on those -- and in particular on the ones that you actually have the means to do something about -- than to continue attacking the fundamental human right to self-defense and the Second Amendment that recognizes that right.

--Herself

 

[jtward01]

Wrong question. --Unless you accept the "one death is too many" fable . . . . .

And how many people would have to die or be seriously injured before you'd be willing to accept mandatory training for CWP carriers?

Why did you completely ignore the far worse risk factors I pointed out to you? Do you have an obsession with controlling other people's access to the means of self-defense?

I guess because there are only so many hours in the day, and we each have only so much energy, so we all have to pick our battles.

 

[Meplat]

but, shouldn't some sort of training be done?

Not sure. You willing to guarantee that training won't be used to arbitrarily keep qualified CCW holders from obtaining a permit? I wouldn't. Many localities would have a zero percent passing rate due to some bureaucrat's offended sensiblities at having an armed populace.

...but also, she was wearing flip flops, decked out in abercrombie, weighed probably 90 lbs and will probably be packing a .45 that was purchased from her over protective boyfriend..

My daughter went from a .22 Buckmark to a Model 29 with an 8 3/8" barrel in the course of one range session. Age? Nine. Weight? Not sure. Less than 90 lbs. though. No flip-flops (weren't aware they affected shooting), no abercrombie - just her favorite camo tee and jeans. By the end of week two, I would not want to bet against her on the falling plates...she LOVED hearing the sound of the .45's from her Glock making the steel plates go "sprang, sprang, sprang!" Don't be TOO quick to judge a shooter by their age/weight/sex.

 

[Herself]

And how many people would have to die or be seriously injured before you'd be willing to accept mandatory training for CWP carriers?

No number is high enough; nothing justifies violating the basic human and civil rights of others who have not themselves done harm. Unlike you, I have confidence in the good sense of my fellowman: the number will never be very large. Alaska and Vermont aren't bloodbaths -- and anyone can carry concealed there without so much as a by-your-leave. The citizens of those states are ordinary folk, no different to the citizens of the other 48.

That's where we disagree; you believe citizens are essentially all heedless children and government ought to play Nanny. I do not.

[In response to his obsession with restructing citizens access to keeping and bearing arms, as apposed to the many higher risks to his life and limb]I guess because there are only so many hours in the day, and we each have only so much energy, so we all have to pick our battles.

It is generally considered more productive to chose battles against the most dangerous opponents rather than the least dangerous ones; and more productive to chose battles you can actually affect.
The right to keep and bear arms in the United States is growing; restrictions are being removed rather than tightened. The per-capita rate of accidental homicides from firearms is decreasing and so is the overall murder rate.

Civil-right opponents -- like you and far worse than you -- are losing. The tide has turned. King Canute eventually had to admit he was all wet and so will you. Perhaps not here and now, but some day.

--Herself

 

[jtward01]

Okay folks, it seems that I had become concerned about a potential problem that so far hasn't manifested itself. I called the Attorney General's Office in Tennessee where training and range qualification is mandatory for CWP licensing, and in Indiana, where no training or qualification is required. At least in these two states there appears to be no significant difference in the number of accidental shootings by CWP holders. No data is kept in either state on how often a CWP holder actually hits his/her intended target.

While I still suspect that as more states adopt concealed carry laws and a longer and larger sample becomes available we may still see a problem come to light I concede that this is simply a suspicion on my part and may not in fact occur.

This being the case, I accept that mandatory training and/or a demonstration of knowlege and proficiency is not currently justified by the facts available.

 

[NineseveN]

Okay folks, it seems that I had become concerned about a potential problem that so far hasn't manifested itself. I called the Attorney General's Office in Tennessee where training and range qualification is mandatory for CWP licensing, and in Indiana, where no training or qualification is required. At least in these two states there appears to be no significant difference in the number of accidental shootings by CWP holders. No data is kept in either state on how often a CWP holder actually hits his/her intended target.

While I still suspect that as more states adopt concealed carry laws and a longer and larger sample becomes available we may still see a problem come to light I concede that this is simply a suspicion on my part and may not in fact occur.

This being the case, I accept that mandatory training and/or a demonstration of knowlege and proficiency is not currently justified by the facts available.

:banghead:

I doesn't matter if there were 1 million accidental deaths from CHL holders a year, you cannot subvert the Second Amendment to cure even the gravest of ills, period.

Find another way, such as training in school...something cannot be used to qualify, allow or restrict a right (because by their very natures, rights need not be qualified, they are not allowed and cannot be restricted). What is so hard about that, why must you attempt to step on the Constitution to solve an issue that is or is not there? Get creative, but if you try and advocate restricting our rights, you will meet heavy resistance.

 

[Firethorn]

Then we'd only have responsible, dedicated people voting. Probably only a few thousand in the entire USA. Good deal, too, since so few have any sense, loyalty, or courage.

Your post seems a bit garbled, but I think you're talking about some sort of shooting requirement to vote.

You put any such system in place, you'd have alot more people trying for it.

 

[Soybomb]

And how many people would have to die or be seriously injured before you'd be willing to accept mandatory training for CWP carriers?

How many people would have to die or be seriously injured before you'd be willing to accept the fact that concealed carry is a dangerous idea. Its a ticking timebomb waiting to go off. Just because nothing bad has happened so far doesn't mean it won't ever. Then you'll agree to ban ccw! (spooky how thats probably actually an arguement against ccw somewhere)

While I still suspect that as more states adopt concealed carry laws and a longer and larger sample becomes available we may still see a problem come to light I concede that this is simply a suspicion on my part and may not in fact occur.

Really? We're at what 46 states total and 37 shall issue?
Several states don't require training for licenses. I think statistcally you've got an excellent sample. I think new shooters playing with guns at home will always be where the accidents are. Guys letting their friends play with guns that they don't know aren't loaded, not checking the chamber of the glock before taking it down, racking it then ejecting the magazine. If you want to advocate training anywhere I think thats the place to start. Now I won't be suggesting mandatory training for firearm ownership though.

 

[Meplat]

i still dont think its right to grant people who have no idea how to use or handle a firearm, a CPL.

so, i know a couple of you are thinking its the CPL's respnsibility to figure everything out on their own but i GARUNTEE you that girl i mentioned above had absolutely NO idea what a pistol was.

I have known LEO's (still know a few, BTW) who are ignorant of our state laws RE: transport of a loaded firearm in your vehicle. You'd think with all their "training" they'd have a bit more knowlege...so is it so far fetched to think that someone raised in the shooting lifestyle might be unaware - even mystified - by the twenty some odd thousand gun laws on the books in this country? My own daughter even asked me about carry in her vehicle and obtaining a CCW for herself a few weeks back, and she's been shooting since she was a sprig of a thing.

spare the comments about your 90 lb wives and sisters that fit this girls profile, and how she could probably outshoot me. so what? im sure a lot of girls can out shoot all of us due to their lower center of gravity..

Actually, COG has little to do with it. A woman's heart rate is TYPICALLY lower than a males. Ever watched the crosshairs or front sight dance with each beat? Fewer beats per minute equals more time between beats to let off a steady shot. As to this girl's profile, YOU are the one who made the remarks about how she was dressed and how much she weighed, thereby giving a clear indication that you thought her size and dress were pertinent to her shooting abilities and/or knowlege. If not, they were muddled rambles, and I would never want to assume someone was randomly muddling.

so, for you guys that think a simple questionaire about fire arm saftey isn't necessary, then i guess you guys would feel very secure if this chick pulls out a .45 that she's never shot before and starts aiming it at the first guy she sees that sorta looks like the dude that stole her pink cell phone.

just not right.

Oooo. "chick". Does this make you a "cock"? Get real, will you? And, we can do without the sexist crap like your pink cell phone statement too. When you say things like that, you paint all women as hysterical little creatures who need your protection. Just as Nanny-State leftists claim for you and I.

Sounds to me like you're a bit vagiphobic there, sport.

 

[smince]

That's 25 rounds on a regular police type silhouette qualification target for a total possible score of 250 points. Passing was a minimum score of 200 points.

From other things you have said, would you be happy if someone passed and got to carry with the MINIMUM SCORE? I'd have taken you for a 100% or nothing guy. That extra percentage may be a stray round in the praking lot.

 

[Herself]

Okay folks, it seems that I had become concerned about a potential problem that so far hasn't manifested itself. I called [...] Tennessee where training and range qualification is mandatory [...] and [...]Indiana, where no training or qualification is required. At least in these two states there appears to be no significant difference in the number of accidental shootings by CWP holders. [...]

Gracefully done, JT! And you did your own research, too, which few people will. Thank you.

While I still suspect that as more states adopt concealed carry laws and a longer and larger sample becomes available we may still see a problem come to light I concede that this is simply a suspicion on my part and may not in fact occur.

There are, I believe, 38 states with "shall-issue" laws and several more "may-issue" states in which concealed carry permits are often granted. Why not continue your research?

--Herself

 

[jtward01]

Gracefully done, JT! And you did your own research, too, which few people will. Thank you.


There are, I believe, 38 states with "shall-issue" laws and several more "may-issue" states in which concealed carry permits are often granted. Why not continue your research?

--Herself

You want the truth? Cause I'm just damned tired of the whole subject.

 

[Herself]

You want the truth? Cause I'm just damned tired of the whole subject.

...I can't handle the truth! Aaaaagh!

Yeah, me too. But somebody's gotta. Lucky for us, there are a lot of folks who care.

--H

 

[El Tejon]

jtward, FYI, Indiana has had its carry regime in place for eight decades, even before carrying a gun was invented in large electoral states such as Florida and Texas. If such concerns were actually a problem, we would have seen a problem here long ago.

 

[NineseveN]

You want the truth? Cause I'm just damned tired of the whole subject.

Well in all fairness to yourself, you are getting pretty beat up in here. It's hard to be the lone gunman. I can certainly appreciate that. Take care.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And how many people would have to die or be seriously injured before you'd be willing to accept mandatory training for CWP carriers?

I'd ask you to meet three tests:

1. That people do die because of untrained CCW-holders. I'd want to see some statistics to prove your case.

2. That the level of wrongful/accidental deaths is greater than that for police (since CCW and police both exist for the same reason.)

3. That your proposed training has been validated and shown to reduce wrongful/accidental deaths.

 

[Janitor]

Frankly, I think the 25-yard stage would be excessive for basic CWP class, but the seven and 15-yard stages might be appropriate.

So - you disagree with the nessesity of some of the approved test? Will any new official test do better at meeting your approval? What if it doesn't meet mine? Or Old Fuff's, or Herself's, or NineSeven's idea of what makes sense in an exam?

See the point I'm trying to make?

At the end of the day, it just doesn't seem to matter.

This being the case, I accept that mandatory training and/or a demonstration of knowlege and proficiency is not currently justified by the facts available.

You've done the best work of all of us with this question. You've gone to the people with the numbers to prove to your own satisfaction that training seems to have little to do with the amount of blood in the streets. Thanks for digging that up.