I have been thinking ever since I went to take the required CHL class in my state (North Carolina).
What I witnessed during this time was , quite frankly, Scary to me.
They showed some 2 hours worth of the most boring, monotone video I have ever seen since my Military training days.
It was some Old crusty Lawyer in a plaid, tweed suit with a red bowtie droning on and on regarding the gun laws, which essentially state (for the sake of paraphrasing) that you are entitled to shoot people only if they first use lethal force against you (I.E. the draw a deadly weapon on you first or otherwise directly threaten severe bodily harm or death). That is fine by me because it makes sense, sort of.
The kicker is that in this state, unless you first meet the above stated criteria of first being openly threatened and in significant danger you are not allowed to do anything, as well as you must FIRST attempt to leave the situation (I.E. duty to retreat).
Again this is fine. However, Where things start to get odd is when they get into the gun laws when concerned with alcohol and other mind altering substances.
They go on for a good 30 minutes of the 2 hours of video "training" on how it is illegal as well as a felony to posses, much less use a firearm while under the influence or even in the presence of alcohol or other drugs that are being consumed, especially if you are the one doing the consuming. This again, is simple common sense.
However, in the simulated scenarios on this video they specifically show a heavy set man exiting a bar obviously drunk to the point of stumbling who walks out into the parking lot and walks into a moving pickup truck as it is heading for a parking space.
They run this scenario twice.
In the first case, the drunk man is the agressor in the situation. He confronts the driver of the truck and procedes to beat him forcing the driver to flee to his truck to retieve a large fixed blade knife. The drunk drops into a shooting crouch and points his gun at him. Clearly the drunk man is in the wrong here.
In the second case, the truck driver exits his vehicle and proceeds to beat on the drunk man for running into his truck. Then he pulls a knife on the drunk so the drunk goes for his gun. In this scenario the drunk man is supposedly justified under law.
Only one problem, according to the law as it is explained in the state sponsored and provided training material this man should never have been in possession of the gun to begin with due to being drunk and on the premises of an establishment that serves alcohol to the public.
Talk about sending mixed signa;s to the people who are going to be carrying in this state.
Now we move on to the range "training".
Requirements are as follows.
40 rounds fired into a standard human sillouette target at a distance of 7 yards or so. (forgive me I didn't actually measure and the range is not marked for distances)
You are required to get those 40 rounds somewhere within the black of the sillouette, not even into any sort of vital area.
I witnessed while I was there people being allowed to "retest until they passed" As in they were given 40 rounds multiple times in order to pass the test and no one was observing them actually firing the rounds. I watched more than one person come in and state to the guy that they had never fired a gun before , had just bought the gun that day and wanted the class so they could carry the gun. (no waiting period here, only requirment for handguns is a county sherrif permit to purchase which takes only a few days to get)
These people were the ones doing the retesting.
I am all for people arming themselves to protect themselves. However I am against allowing people who are obviously not qualified to handle firearms safely from doing so. When you assume the responsibility of armed carry in public you also assume the responsiobility of doing so safely and legally.
My biggest fear after seeing how the class is taught is that one of these jokers may someday open fire on someone or accidentally shoot someone because they do not follow the 4 rules of firearm safety. Or worse that they may decide to do something stupid "hollywood style" and get themselves and others killed because they think that they have a gun and are somehow invincible because of it.
I am sincerely hoping that these people actually put in the time to train themselves on the guns they own and carry or will be carrying for the sake of general public safety.
What I witnessed during this time was , quite frankly, Scary to me.
They showed some 2 hours worth of the most boring, monotone video I have ever seen since my Military training days.
It was some Old crusty Lawyer in a plaid, tweed suit with a red bowtie droning on and on regarding the gun laws, which essentially state (for the sake of paraphrasing) that you are entitled to shoot people only if they first use lethal force against you (I.E. the draw a deadly weapon on you first or otherwise directly threaten severe bodily harm or death). That is fine by me because it makes sense, sort of.
The kicker is that in this state, unless you first meet the above stated criteria of first being openly threatened and in significant danger you are not allowed to do anything, as well as you must FIRST attempt to leave the situation (I.E. duty to retreat).
Again this is fine. However, Where things start to get odd is when they get into the gun laws when concerned with alcohol and other mind altering substances.
They go on for a good 30 minutes of the 2 hours of video "training" on how it is illegal as well as a felony to posses, much less use a firearm while under the influence or even in the presence of alcohol or other drugs that are being consumed, especially if you are the one doing the consuming. This again, is simple common sense.
However, in the simulated scenarios on this video they specifically show a heavy set man exiting a bar obviously drunk to the point of stumbling who walks out into the parking lot and walks into a moving pickup truck as it is heading for a parking space.
They run this scenario twice.
In the first case, the drunk man is the agressor in the situation. He confronts the driver of the truck and procedes to beat him forcing the driver to flee to his truck to retieve a large fixed blade knife. The drunk drops into a shooting crouch and points his gun at him. Clearly the drunk man is in the wrong here.
In the second case, the truck driver exits his vehicle and proceeds to beat on the drunk man for running into his truck. Then he pulls a knife on the drunk so the drunk goes for his gun. In this scenario the drunk man is supposedly justified under law.
Only one problem, according to the law as it is explained in the state sponsored and provided training material this man should never have been in possession of the gun to begin with due to being drunk and on the premises of an establishment that serves alcohol to the public.
Talk about sending mixed signa;s to the people who are going to be carrying in this state.
Now we move on to the range "training".
Requirements are as follows.
40 rounds fired into a standard human sillouette target at a distance of 7 yards or so. (forgive me I didn't actually measure and the range is not marked for distances)
You are required to get those 40 rounds somewhere within the black of the sillouette, not even into any sort of vital area.
I witnessed while I was there people being allowed to "retest until they passed" As in they were given 40 rounds multiple times in order to pass the test and no one was observing them actually firing the rounds. I watched more than one person come in and state to the guy that they had never fired a gun before , had just bought the gun that day and wanted the class so they could carry the gun. (no waiting period here, only requirment for handguns is a county sherrif permit to purchase which takes only a few days to get)
These people were the ones doing the retesting.
I am all for people arming themselves to protect themselves. However I am against allowing people who are obviously not qualified to handle firearms safely from doing so. When you assume the responsibility of armed carry in public you also assume the responsiobility of doing so safely and legally.
My biggest fear after seeing how the class is taught is that one of these jokers may someday open fire on someone or accidentally shoot someone because they do not follow the 4 rules of firearm safety. Or worse that they may decide to do something stupid "hollywood style" and get themselves and others killed because they think that they have a gun and are somehow invincible because of it.
I am sincerely hoping that these people actually put in the time to train themselves on the guns they own and carry or will be carrying for the sake of general public safety.
