CPL w/o training? i think its crazy

[waterhouse]

My mind is made up. I would avoid this chick and flee if I ever saw her.
We're not going to make a difference, so how about all the guys reading this who want to arm their signifficant other, please please please teach them state rules and wahtever.

In some places, getting a concealed permit takes a lot of time. Perhaps the boyfriend in your scenario was having her fill out the paperwork first, and then he was going to take her to a range, give her several hours worth of safety and shooting lessons, and discuss with her the state laws. That way, when she finally got the permit, she would be ready.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but you seem to be basing this whole thing on one girl you saw talking on her pink cell phone. And yes, other than the pink cell phone part, I know several fairly attractive, petite girls (one of them even wears pink a lot) who are very good shots.

 

[Tom Servo]

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.

First off, this has echoes of the old, "there will be blood in the streets and vigilante shootings at every traffic altercation" mentality. Do these things actually happen? I never hear of them. It just smacks of stereotyping and generalising. Here in Georgia, tons of people have permits, but many never even carry. There's no guarantee this person will be carrying.

Second, do you know this person, or are you just going from first impressions? Yeah, she sounds questionable, but so do alot of folks I see at the range who turn out to be quite safe and adept shooters. Heck, I had blue hair for a while back in college. Not dark-blue-almost-black, but blue, like the color of a swimming pool. I filled out my first CCW app in pretty ratty clothes. Does that mean I wasn't qualified?

Point the steely eye of judgement inward first.

 

[UWstudent]

hey, you guys could be right.. and i really hope you are right..

 

[Janitor]

Ok

If you want to put blame on someone for the requirements, default to blaming a lawyer!

D##n you El T!!!

 

[pcf]

Jeremy Purcell

UWstudent,
Read about a kid named Jeremy Purcell. He was accidentally killed by one of the best "trained" professionals in the world. Complancency, poor judgement, cockiness, and an outright lack of respect for safety lead to the Purcell's death.

Training is very important, but it's just a hurdle or a crutch for weak minded individuals.

 

[UWstudent]

im sure well informed individuals are less likely to make mistakes than those who are not.
and i'm sure well informed individuals are less likely to put themselves and others in danger or risk when the threat is occuring. they'll also be less likely to commit something that could be used against them in a court of law.

put yes, there are instances like the DEA agent teaching kids about firearms.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

Pennsylvania has no training requirement for CCW, nor has it had one since it became a shall-issue state well over a decade ago. It has not resulted in a deluge of unjustified or accidental shootings.

There are a couple problems with requiring training:

1. It's yet another obstacle to the exercise of a fundamental right (I'd like to see AK/VT carry, rather than require CCW permits).

2. It opens another avenue for antigun officials to introduce their own discretion into what should be a procedure which should not allow them to add their bias.

 

[WayneConrad]

The right to keep and bear arms is not about personal safety. It is not even about the safety of the community.

It is about the ability of the people to, as a last resort against a government turned tyrranical, having failed at all measures political, to use those arms to reclaim the government for the people.

Although the untrained carrying firearms does not cause the problems we suppose it might, it's still too important a right to worry about little things like shootouts in the street. Governments kill far more people than the untrained citizen, and are the actual threat. And that threat is why the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct.

 

[Majic]

Just steer clear of this girl in the future since you have such a low opinion of her and while you are at it wonder about everyone else you happen to come in contact with because you won't know who is carrying concealed.

 

[XLMiguel]

". . .well regulated militia . . "

Well regulated = well trained. We the people have a legitimate interest in our safety such that untrained people carelessly running about with firearms constitute a real hazzard. If all the did was take themselves out, I'd just write it off to "natural selection", but . . .

I understand the arguements about a training requirement amounting to a barrier, but - IMNSHO, anyone who gets into firearms without training is a fool, and a dangerous one at that. I believe you can train yourself, but I also believe most people are lazy.

All 'n all, though, as long as we hold people accountable for their actions, if someone who didn't bother to train skrews up, they they should have the book thrown at them. That kind of negligence truly is criminal.

 

[ShackleMeNot]

took just about every handgun class at the firearms academy of seattle inc with completion of FAS-3

http://www.firearmsacademy.com

PS: i've also been taking brazilian juijitsu for 6 years now under marcelo alonso

Ask Marty what he thinks about your first post.

 

[Andrew S]

I am with you man.

In NV you have to take a class and qualify with the weapon you want to conceal before you can be issued a permit for it and I am perfectly comfortable with that.

People here dont take kindly to any restrictions on the second amendment and they tend to get pretty defensive when topics like this pop up. Just try and remember that and that you are a minority here when posting anything that can be considered "anti-gun." So be careful with your wording and be prepared to get an ear full for it.

 

[Tom Servo]

Well regulated = well trained. (...) as long as we hold people accountable for their actions, if someone who didn't bother to train skrews up, they they should have the book thrown at them. That kind of negligence truly is criminal.

Of course, we could fix this whole issue by putting gun-safety classes in our public schools...oh what the heck am I thinking. That'll never happen.

 

[Dave Dembinski]

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.

Yes, life can be very distressing when you make assumptions about the relative intelligence and experience levels of your fellow passengers on Spaceship Earth. Start doing that and next thing you know you start thinking banning kitchen knives is a common-sense measure for the good of society.

I've got no problem with CPLs being issued without training.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I think mandatory testing at the polls would be more imprtant. People do far more damage by electing morons to office, than they could do with a single handgun.

I agree, yet leftists cry that merely have to show some ID at the polls is racist, bigoted, elitist, and overly burdensome.

I have personal experience with the states of Washington, Indiana, and Pennsylvania which are shall-issue and have no training requirement. My ankles have not been reddened by blood in the streets there.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

i just remembered something..

about a year ago i obtained my CPL or CCW permit (WA), and all they did was made me fill out a page or two of paperwork, pay 60 bucks and throw a washington state firearms saftey pamphlet or something at me.

yeah, i realize they conduct a little investigation to make sure you're not medically insane and you haven't been evading the law enforcement recently..

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

What sort of training did you have in mind?

As someone who has been in the commercial training business for many years, I point out that training is a solution. When you advocate a solution, you ought to have a problem. And ideally, there ought to be some connection between the problem and your recommended solution.

I have heard people say, "Well, they ought at least to be able to strip and clean their guns." Hmmmm . . . so the problem is too many dirty guns?

Some people say they need to learn to shoot. So the problem is licensed citizens miss too many felons?

Others say, "They need to be trained in firearms safety." But firearms accidents are going down, not up.

What is the problem?

 

[Moondoggie]

I took the 16 hr, $80 CCW course in AZ.

I was amazed by the attitudes of other class members regarding the legal/ethical application of CCW...these folks had watched waaay too much TV!

The common perception was if you catch somebody removing the stero from your vehicle in your driveway you waste 'em on the spot. Just blast away. When the law was 'splained to them one of the older gents remarked "What good is this permit if you're not allowed to shoot anybody?" He was serious.

My training? Many iterations of "Application of Deadly Force" training during 26 yrs of Marine Corps service and many annual firing requals with rifle/pistol. 2 yrs as a reserve LEO, one yr of employment as an armed security guard (NRC Certified 120 hrs of training) at a nuclear power plant. Currently a USPSA certified range officer.

I'm hoping Nebraska passes CCW through our Unicameral in the next few weeks. I'll have to pass some sort of approved training to obtain my $100 permit. That's OK with me. Hopefully, because of the training requirement, some other CCW holder will know that they can't drop me with a shot in the back if they see me carrying a concealed weapon in the grocery store.

 

[Herself]

Well regulated = well trained. We the people have a legitimate interest in our safety such that untrained people carelessly running about with firearms constitute a real hazzard.

Can you back that up with stats? Accidental deaths due to firearms appear to be trending down!

It is debatable that well regulated = well trained. In the usage of that time, it can just as easily mean "equipped with standarized weapons" and "equipped with weapons having properly-adusted sights."
The justification clause in which "well-regulated" is found can also be read as, "The government's going to have armed and drilled troops," in which case "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means "...therefore, individual citizens should be able to have guns, too." Remember, the people writing this had just been through a conflict where citizen-soldiers with their privately-owned weapons had stood against government troops using standardized arms; they had reason to be concerned that the average guy might need to stand against soldiers.

If anyone carrying a weapon "screws up" they do face serious charges, and I see no reason why having had training should mitigate that as you have implied. Trained, untrained -- if you cause unjustified harm with your weapon, you're going to have to answer for it. It's about actions and consequences, not about doing well in class and getting a nice license or diploma.

-Herself

 

[USMCRotrHed]

The problem

I think the problem is: IF you have to shoot, you need to make sure you don't open yourself up to a criminal or a civil suit. CYA!

At one point in my life I went through the police academy, we spent 2 weeks on "Legal Matters" or as the academy lawyer/instructor subtitled it "How not to get sued". Almost sounds Monty Pythonish, huh.

Anecdotal evidence:

In my state just last week, there was a convienence store robbery. The clerk who had a CCW permit and was carrying got beat up. The store was robbed. While the turds were on the way out the door, the clerk shot one of them in the back and killed him. NOW the DA is deciding whether or not to bring charges against the clerk for manslaughter because he was no longer in grave danger when he shot.

Should he be put away or praised? Would you know if you didn't attend at least a class on the CCW laws in your state?

 

[wqbang]

Washington has been issuing CPL's since the 60's and there has been no blood in the streets due to lack of training.

Compare and contrast to states such as Vermont and Alaska with no licensing requirement. Idaho has no requirement for CCW out of town or in your car. Montana is the same.

Training is a modern feel-good measure added on to CCW bills in order to ease passage.

Am I saying training isn't needed or wise? Absolutely not.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I think the problem is: IF you have to shoot, you need to make sure you don't open yourself up to a criminal or a civil suit. CYA!

Yes, but that's your problem, not the government's.

It is one thing to mandate training -- which is often used to make permits hard to get -- and another thing for a wise man to select and participate in training voluntarily.

As I say, no one can show a problem related to lack of training of permit holders.

In my state just last week, there was a convienence store robbery. The clerk who had a CCW permit and was carrying got beat up. The store was robbed. While the turds were on the way out the door, the clerk shot one of them in the back and killed him. NOW the DA is deciding whether or not to bring charges against the clerk for manslaughter because he was no longer in grave danger when he shot.

Should he be put away or praised? Would you know if you didn't attend at least a class on the CCW laws in your state?

The answer is it doesn't matter if we know or not -- the DA will do what the DA will do, and he'll do it based on his prejudices, not on anything taught in a class to applicants for permits.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Training is a modern feel-good measure added on to CCW bills in order to ease passage.

Ding-ding-ding. We have a winner!

 

[Trip20]

UWStudent,

If WI gets it's CCW bill passed, I'll have to travel at least 2hours from my home (one way) in order to take the required class. It costs $150. Now tack on gas, food (this is a whole day affair), the $75 for the actual permit, and the cost increases substantially.

This is a huge pain in the rear, and an unnecessary one at that. Not to mention the amount of people who's budget cannot bear this costly requirement - thus a certain segment of society will be shut out of their right to carry - at least for a period of time.

Unacceptable.

You speak of a "20 question" test being sufficient. That test would be pretty darn close to useless. What you want is some feel-good measure in place so you can feel safe walking the streets. It sounds very much like certain other arguments I hear relating to gun control.

A simple test will be about as effective as when NYC started searching all persons who used their subway system to avoid a terrorist attack. The city put that measure in place to make everyone "feel good" that their officials were doing what they can to protect them. They were checking everyone. How many tax dollars were wasted... just so everyone could feel good?

 

[NineseveN]

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

Did you go through training to get your license to type? if not, stop posting on the internet.

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.

I smell a wolf in sheep's clothing. ..with a hint of sexism in there as well.

See, the thing is, many states have no testing or training requirement, the streets do not run with blood because of all the lowly untrained CCW people. I live in PA, no training required for a CCW and we issue as many as or more than most places; we have no problems here from untriained people killing others in the streets over pink cell phones.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Wqbang beat me to it:

Vermont and Alaska (and maybe soon Montana and Wyoming): ZERO requirements beyond being an adult non-felon.

And yet the streets of said states are not filled with mouthbreathing morons firing upon hapless bystanders. Verily, even the pink-frocked denizens of Juneau either choose not to carry guns, or are pretty good at tucking them into their Juicy shorts.

Is training a good thing? Darn skippy.

Should it be mandated and enforced by the good folks down at the DMV? Nope. The standing in line alone would be horrendous. Man, I hate the DMV...


-MV