CPL w/o training? i think its crazy

Status
Not open for further replies.
jtward01 said:
Enough with the personal stuff. It does nothing to advance the discussion of training, or at least a mandatory demonstration of proficiency for CWP holders.
Click to expand...

I agree, I am sincerely sorry you are down on your luck and I hope that things take a turn for the better for both you and our wife. Depsite our disagreements here, my best wishes to you and yours.
 
no. this is called indvid responsibility, i have the second amendment, it says i can have a gun, what i do with it after that is up to me, so if i shoot myslef or dont get instruction it is my own damn fault. thinning the herd, i think is an appropriate phrase here. besides, classes and form s and permits, is a really cool way for the state to get lots more info on you than you realize, plus it is all extra tax money that goes to them . i say we scrap all law including the bill of riths , and we write ONE LAW, from now on every law written by congress concerning, one person ,group, race, entity , etc. , now applies to all other persons, race, group, entity, etc. watch how fast the protestors come out when ,though they hate guns , have to pay for the same fees, classes, permits, etc. that you do. this should replace all federal state and local law.
 
NineseveN said:
I agree, I am sincerely sorry you are down on your luck and I hope that things take a turn for the better for both you and our wife. Depsite our disagreements here, my best wishes to you and yours.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I appreciate that, sincerely.
 
jtward01 said:
Thanks, I appreciate that, sincerely.
Click to expand...

BTW, I've been reading up on you at EMTCity, that thread about being armed while on EMT duty was a great read. That Asysin2leads guy is a, well, I better not say. :D

You have some honestly great views, I need to find a way to bring you around to reading the Constitution and BoR for what they are!
 
If our wonderful government ever gets off its ass and sends me the money it owes me...
Click to expand...

in case you haven't noticed, there's not alot of sympathy among members here for your entitlement attitude. the membership of this forum is heavily libertarian. btw, that's one of the primary reasons i like it here so much and your views have been largely unpopular.

And you would pay for all these prisons how?
Click to expand...

in an ideal (or even slightly better) society, there would be FEWER prisoners because many of today's felonies would be misdemeanors or completely legal. further, many violent felons would not survive long enough to get to prison. even more, of those who did make it, many would be executed shortly after their conviction. they would have a few appeals and a couple years but would not spend 20+ years waiting for us to get around to killing them. lastly, the facilities proposed by the earlier post would be vastly cheaper to build and maintain than today's penitentiaries (just for fun look up the etymology of the term).

I assume if that's your attitude you will refuse to accept your Social Security benefits when you reach retirement age?
Click to expand...

what benefits? i'm twenty eight. i'm paying for YOUR benefits, not mine. i'll never see a red cent. think i'm a little angry about this state of affairs? you don't even know the half of it but i doubt you would understand the reasons. i'm not angry that i'll never get paid by social security. i neither expect nor want a handout. i'm absolutely livid because MY money is being STOLEN without my permission to support a bald faced lie.
 
jtward01 said:
And you would pay for all these prisons how? Oh, you don't mind your taxes going up to build and staff them, and pay for the lifetime of food, clothing and medical care for each of these inmates? What a generous fellow you are.
Click to expand...

If prisons were actually prisons then it should cost much LESS to staff and feed the inmates than it does now. Then people would really fear the prospect of going, and we wouldn't have the crime rate we have. And if persons were sentenced to the fullest. And no plea bargaining...the list goes on.
 
My concern still centers around people with little or no firearms experience and expertise being allowed to have a concealed weapons permit.
Click to expand...

If that's a problem, you ought to be able to demonstrate it. You ought to be able to produce statistics that persons who receive their permits in states with no training requirement have a higher accident rate than those with training requirements.
 
I’ve really struggled with this question as well for all reasons mentioned about the right of the constitution. But the question I ask is if some bonehead without proper training shoots some curly headed little girl by accident and the local legislature changes laws because of it doesn’t that put our rights in jeopardy? Like I said this is a struggle because I don’t want government control any more than the next guy but in this case I guess I lean toward mandatory "Training" for CCW permits.
 
GoBrush said:
I’ve really struggled with this question as well for all reasons mentioned about the right of the constitution. But the question I ask is if some bonehead without proper training shoots some curly headed little girl by accident and the local legislature changes laws because of it doesn’t that put our rights in jeopardy? Like I said this is a struggle because I don’t want government control any more than the next guy but in this case I guess I lean toward mandatory "Training" for CCW permits.
Click to expand...

When did some bonehead shoot some little girl by accident because he didn't have training?

Suppose someone with training shoots a little girl by accident, and those same people in the legislature say, "See? No matter how much training they have, they still have accidents."

You can come up with all sorts of "might happens," but to be honest, look at what did happen. Firearms accidents are going down, not up.
 
[QUOTE

in an ideal (or even slightly better) society, there would be FEWER prisoners because many of today's felonies would be misdemeanors or completely legal. [/QUOTE]


Back when we actually used to execute murderers, rather than letting them sit in prison on our tax money, there were fewer prisoners.
 
UWstudent said:
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?

when i was waiting in line to return the paperwork and pay the money, i remember a dude who was making his girlfriend fill out the paperwork so she could obtain a CCW permit (i remember her b/c she was hot!! :) ) 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..

i just really hope she has took some formal training on how to use her firearrm. i did, but i've also been shooting since i was a kid since i wasn't raised in the urban downtown of seattle, but more into the country (shelton).
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the need for a statement of training, because it doesn't mean anything but that the person has shelled out $$ recently for an Approved Training Course.

Consider this hypothetical, if that were required, always. A person grew up around guns, a parent taught them how to use them from an early age, they can field-strip in their sleep, are an excellent shot and are incredibly safety minded. But...they have a family, and they can't afford much due to lack of income. They can just about afford a used hi-point or something that they need for a job where they have to go into bad areas of the city.

There's no way they can afford the bucks for the Certified Training Course, and they couldn't take the time off from nightshift work, they'd be fired. So that person can't get a CCW.

Isn't that a bit unfair, and doesn't that sort of negate the very equality for the Common Man that's part of why private citizens ought to be allowed to arm themselves?

CCW, to me, should be a right of being an American citizen, period. Once you add more and more restrictions and laws and requirements, (aside from Not Being a Criminal), you're right into the territory the gun-grabbers love.
 
Need Some Training

Helps to know how to drive if you want a license for that. Likewise, just a basic knowledge of handguns should be required of those wanting a CCW.

However, the price shouldn't be so high as to exclude those who can't afford $140 and up. That's not fair. State licensed instructors who really care about the "2ND" could volunteer their time to help defray the cost. I'd do it.

Take Care
 
Hey Old Dog

You said: "Shucks, why stop there? I say that all potential firearm purchasers must have completed at least one enlistment as a SEAL, Special Forces or Force Recon on top of that ...."

I was in a helicopter squadron asan aircrew member (crew chief/door gunner). My squadron was classified as "special operations capable". Does this count in your book? Well whether it does or not, I'm still going to go get recurrent training for my own good and enjoyment.

There is a tactical urban rifle course being offered in my town open to law enforcement and civilians coming up in about 2 months.
 
jtward01,

But under the same logic I submit that it has nothing to do with personal protection, either, and therefore requiring training and licensing of individuals who wish to carry a firearm for personal defense does not violate the intent of the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Oh, and by the way, the "troll" I was referring to is UWstudent, or udub as I call him.

Unless you are one and the same, I wasn't referring to you.



NineseveN,

Range trip sounds good to me.

DM
 
NineseveN,

Somehow I know you're gonna suggest I come to you.
Click to expand...

Actually, due to time and distance problems, I was going to suggest more of a "free range" range trip. You go to yours, I'll go to mine and we will both have a good time. If yours has a Ruger P90 to rent, give it a whirl, I would let you shoot mine if I was there. Let me know what you carry and I'll try to rent one of those.

Should be fun, but then any trip to the range should be fun.

DM
 
When I first started writing in this thread I advocated required training for CWP applicants. But several comments here and in e-mails I've received regarding people who were taught to shoot by friends of relatives, or those who received training in the Boy Scouts, ROTC or during military service has forced me to modify my stance. Rather than require training in safe and proficient firearms use I'd advocate that CWP applicants be required to demonstrate a minimum level of knowledge regarding firearms laws and safety procedures, and a meaningful demonstration of safe and proficient firearms handling and shooting. Basically a written exam and practical test.

Years ago, while I was still working as a paramedic, I was offered a part-time job as a security guard at the apartment complex where I lived. At the time Florida required guards to be licensed, and armed guards had to complete a firearms training course. As I recall, the training (conducted at the old Tampa Police Pistol Range when it was still open to the public) included two days of classroom instruction and one day on the range. Range qualification consisted of 10 rounds at seven yards, 10 rounds at 15 yards and five rounds at 25 yards. At seven yards we had to fire five, reload and fire five, all within 30 seconds. (I believe we were all using revolvers in those days.) At 15 yards we fired five from a right hand barricade, and five from a left hand barricade. The 25 yard line was fired from a prone position.

We used regular police silhouette qualification targets with the kill zone valued at 10 points, so we could score a maximum of 250 poiints. It took a minimum score of 200 points to qualify.

Again, I'm not advocating that CWP applicants be required to take a similar training program. How or where they get their training I don't care, but I do think it would be reasonable to require them to demonstrate a similar level of proficiency on the range.
 
Again, I'm not advocating that CWP applicants be required to take a similar training program. How or where they get their training I don't care, but I do think it would be reasonable to require them to demonstrate a similar level of proficiency on the range.
Click to expand...

What's the problem this training is supposed to solve?

Since you focus on shooting proficiencey, we can reasonably assume the problem is too many CHL-holders miss their targets when the chips are down?

Do you have any evidence that is true?
 
John,

If you could cast that requirement in stone so that it could never be fiddled with by gungrabbers, I would probably agree with you. The problem is not with a certain level of proficiency requirement. The problem is the door it opens for abuse of the system.

Take FOPA, for example. A bill introduced in Congress by gun rights supporters. Endorsed by the NRA. Amended by a NJ Senator to close the NFA registry. In spite of the fact that machine guns were prohibited by NJ state law within the borders of the state and the fact that only one registered machine gun had been used in a crime in 52 years.

The problem is not in your basic idea. The problems are with the statutory part of your idea, the nature of government, and the nature of people to subvert the political process by any means for the sake of attaining their own goals.

Considered by itself, in isolation, it's not a bad idea. It's only a bad idea when one considers what our opponents might try to do with it.

The basic idea could be subverted to change a shall issue concealed carry statute into a defacto may issue reality. Once that was achieved then it would only be a small step to never issue. Consider Maryland. It's technically a may issue state. Go looking for folks in Maryland who have a permit. California is on the way. May issue is never issue in some counties. Issue only to the well connected in other counties. And even approaches shall issue in others.

With the addition of the question of when to fire, Vern Humphrey has hit the nail on the head. What evidence do you have that 1)Untrained permit holders are shooting when it is not legally justified? and 2) when they do shoot they are missing their intended targets or hitting unintended targets. Where's the data? Either of your contentions would be shouted from the rooftops by the Brady Bunch if such had indeed happened. All I've heard is complete silence on this issue from that quarter.

Is there a true need for the power of the state to be invoked? Or are you just tilting at windmills?
 
allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. it does not say anything about concealed. in many states it is REQUIRED that arms be concealed. this sounds kinda like rights are being "infringed" to me. in az, my home state, open carry is perfectly legal and a ccw permit requires training and both a written and range test. the standards are very (pitifully) low. it seems to me that there is no problem there. want to bear arms? fine. want to conceal them? take a test and pay a fee.

that said (tm) there is a wide variety in training. when i took my course we got a lot of "what if" scenario type training as well as range time. when my girlfriend took the course, it was almost all classroom and of that, it focused mainly on just the law and safety. that is, there were very few discussions of practical application, tactics, threat resolution hardware considerations etc. that was all crammed into the course that i took. i feel like i got alot more for my money. the written and range tests are pathetically easy and demonstrate nothing. so even if the idea of mandatory training is accepted, in reality it doesn't seem to actually do anything.
 
Double Maduro said:
NineseveN,



Actually, due to time and distance problems, I was going to suggest more of a "free range" range trip. You go to yours, I'll go to mine and we will both have a good time. If yours has a Ruger P90 to rent, give it a whirl, I would let you shoot mine if I was there. Let me know what you carry and I'll try to rent one of those.

Should be fun, but then any trip to the range should be fun.

DM
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plan!

My buddy has a P90, so no need to rent one, I'll shoot his.

My carry is an HK USP .45 Compact if you were so inclined to rent one. :D
 
jtward01 said:
When I first started writing in this thread I advocated required training for CWP applicants. But several comments here and in e-mails I've received regarding people who were taught to shoot by friends of relatives, or those who received training in the Boy Scouts, ROTC or during military service has forced me to modify my stance. Rather than require training in safe and proficient firearms use I'd advocate that CWP applicants be required to demonstrate a minimum level of knowledge regarding firearms laws and safety procedures, and a meaningful demonstration of safe and proficient firearms handling and shooting. Basically a written exam and practical test.

Years ago, while I was still working as a paramedic, I was offered a part-time job as a security guard at the apartment complex where I lived. At the time Florida required guards to be licensed, and armed guards had to complete a firearms training course. As I recall, the training (conducted at the old Tampa Police Pistol Range when it was still open to the public) included two days of classroom instruction and one day on the range. Range qualification consisted of 10 rounds at seven yards, 10 rounds at 15 yards and five rounds at 25 yards. At seven yards we had to fire five, reload and fire five, all within 30 seconds. (I believe we were all using revolvers in those days.) At 15 yards we fired five from a right hand barricade, and five from a left hand barricade. The 25 yard line was fired from a prone position.

We used regular police silhouette qualification targets with the kill zone valued at 10 points, so we could score a maximum of 250 poiints. It took a minimum score of 200 points to qualify.

Again, I'm not advocating that CWP applicants be required to take a similar training program. How or where they get their training I don't care, but I do think it would be reasonable to require them to demonstrate a similar level of proficiency on the range.
Click to expand...


If you required this training of all citizens (say in school, maybe high school) and did not advocate it as a restricting condition to getting a CWP, I would fully support you, and my guess is many others in here would as well. The sticker for me is the restricting condition part or getting a CWP, not the training itself or that it would be required in some form, but it should not be a condition to exercise a right.
 
chopinbloc said:
allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. it does not say anything about concealed. in many states it is REQUIRED that arms be concealed. this sounds kinda like rights are being "infringed" to me. in az, my home state, open carry is perfectly legal and a ccw permit requires training and both a written and range test. the standards are very (pitifully) low. it seems to me that there is no problem there. want to bear arms? fine. want to conceal them? take a test and pay a fee.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part about the Bill of Rights limiting government only, and that anything not explicitely limited in the BoR is hands off for the government. it's not a list of what free citizens can do, it is the limits of how much government can interfere with our rights. So the fact that it does not say anything about concealed means technically the goivernment has no power to inringe upon it.
 
Chopinbloc

Your last post remined me of something I hadn't thought of since taking the CHL test here in Texas. It was a 1 day event..combining range and classroom with a break for lunch.

Maybe because he had a hot date, or was tired at the end of a long day..our primary instructor all but gave out the answers to the written test in reviewing the procedure following the exam.

Take Care
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Applied for WA CPL; Oregonians read this
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Alan Smithiee
A
A
  • Locked
Wife's CCW interview with Sheriff
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
6K
koja48
K
X
  • Locked
Words I never thought would come out of my GF's mouth
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
xenophon
X
3
  • Locked
LEO Weirdness re: spouse applying for CCW
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3K
Clipper
C
W
  • Locked
Fewer Gun Deaths - with more permits
Replies
21
Views
1K
TexasRifleman
T
Back
Top