P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
10.4 on that Vern .. oh yeah!!!
The quality of CCW in this country
- Thread starter WolfDog
- Start date
- Status
Zundfolge
Member
Why not basic firearms safety/handling/marksmanship taught in Junior High or High School?
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Oh - I wish, how I wish.
Long, long ago ............ before zero tolerance had been even invented .........
Markheck1
Member
HAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!! Then we'd have a bunch of crazed little gun nuts running around!!!!!
Society as we know it will cease to exist!!!
Seriously....this might be a problem in some schools, but I think a Hunter Safety Education course would be good for most kids...Too bad we can't do something for the good of most kids, because of the "Bad" few.
TheFederalistWeasel
member
Dreadfully low I must say, we have an enormous holding facility next to the Department of Unclaimed Airline Baggage near our headquarters located just outside Leaveusthehellalone, Virginia where we house them all until we can repatriate them into the fabric of society.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Feared as much ... and those you get never complete pairs either.
As was heard in old days in ''Rowan & Martin'' ...''Sock it to me''!
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Privileges are allowed or disallowed. Rights are respected.
That saidâ„¢, I have no doubt there are some incompetent people with CCW permits wandering around on the loose. If their incompetence were a serious problem, we'd have heard about it a long, long time ago. They're probably a danger primarily to themselves.
Zach S
Member
Yeah, the training is a joke. However only 1.22% of the permits have been revoked, so even though the training sucks and it would appear that there are a lot of "unqualified" people with CHPs here in NC, it doesnt appear to be a problem.
Then again, only 1% (rounded up) of NC residents have a CHP anyway.
Then again, only 1% (rounded up) of NC residents have a CHP anyway.
chetrogers
Member
I took the required class for Oregon thinking one day that i would get my CHL and to tell the truth it was very easy.I have decided to wait till im a little more ready for the major responcibility with carrying a firearm at all times.I dont think i shot more then 25 shots in that class and it was fun but easy at the same time.I then took the Rifle class then the Shotgun Class.Im joining the gun club next week and everything looks good for me.But i still think i need some more "real gun time"..My #1 priority is safety as it should be for everyone.I Know a few people with there CHL that probably shouldnt have it.But there is going to be a few rotten apples in any bunch...
So everybody agrees that RKABA is a right and should not be infringed by any requirement for a class, or permit, or anything -- even though some of us have to put up with that infringement and agree to do so in order that we have an arm that we can then uninfringedly bear.
And most everybody that is not from Vermont or Alaska agrees that bearing that arm concealed is a privilege that we are willing to jump through hoops to get, for whatever reason we each have for wanting to CCW.
But now a whole lot of you get into a tizzy about how much, if any, training a body needs to have/ought to have/must have before they CCW.
Somebody's grandpa drives a car, but the grandkid says he really should not. I have not read that the grandkid has turned him in as being a danger to the rest of the population. I guess that means that if and when gramps injures something or someone gramps is going to be held accountable for what he did. But not till then.
Is that not just about what everybody is getting at regarding all those untrained/undertrained CCW-ers out there? That if they screw up they will be held accountable for their actions - if that is getting themselves killed because thay had no idea of how to shoot and actually hit a target, or if that is hitting the wrong thing/person, or if it is pulling out the hog-leg at the officially wrong time.
If I were a BG and knew that any Tom, Dick or Mary could pack just because they paid the fee, I for one would be sure NOT to work with a BG-buddy -- cause there is a real good chance that anybody who is allowed to CCW would shoot me instead of the BG-buddy they thought they were aiming at. And given the amount of bad luck/karma most BG's seem to carry (ask me later how I know this) they have just as much chance of running into a bullet from somebody that either knows what they are doing or just got real lucky pointing in my direction while I'm being the designated BG of the moment.
It would be real nice if everyone CCW-ing did not shoot me (a CCW-er who has bothered to get training and who does practice more often than not) unless they really, really meant to. But if they do shoot me, they will find out how well I was trained by both shooters and lawyers.
stay safe. and go back to playing nicely.
skidmark
And most everybody that is not from Vermont or Alaska agrees that bearing that arm concealed is a privilege that we are willing to jump through hoops to get, for whatever reason we each have for wanting to CCW.
But now a whole lot of you get into a tizzy about how much, if any, training a body needs to have/ought to have/must have before they CCW.
Somebody's grandpa drives a car, but the grandkid says he really should not. I have not read that the grandkid has turned him in as being a danger to the rest of the population. I guess that means that if and when gramps injures something or someone gramps is going to be held accountable for what he did. But not till then.
Is that not just about what everybody is getting at regarding all those untrained/undertrained CCW-ers out there? That if they screw up they will be held accountable for their actions - if that is getting themselves killed because thay had no idea of how to shoot and actually hit a target, or if that is hitting the wrong thing/person, or if it is pulling out the hog-leg at the officially wrong time.
If I were a BG and knew that any Tom, Dick or Mary could pack just because they paid the fee, I for one would be sure NOT to work with a BG-buddy -- cause there is a real good chance that anybody who is allowed to CCW would shoot me instead of the BG-buddy they thought they were aiming at. And given the amount of bad luck/karma most BG's seem to carry (ask me later how I know this) they have just as much chance of running into a bullet from somebody that either knows what they are doing or just got real lucky pointing in my direction while I'm being the designated BG of the moment.
It would be real nice if everyone CCW-ing did not shoot me (a CCW-er who has bothered to get training and who does practice more often than not) unless they really, really meant to. But if they do shoot me, they will find out how well I was trained by both shooters and lawyers.
stay safe. and go back to playing nicely.
skidmark
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
WolfDog,
I don't know how long you've been in NC. I don't know if you are familiar with the battles that took place in order to get the legislature of the state of NC to pass the law which made any kind of legal concealed carry possible, how long that took, and what sacrifices were necessary to get it.
It is the legislature itself which is completely responsible for the training requirements IN EVERY DETAIL. No one has any choice about the minimum training they provide, the law covers that in detail. Obviously what you got was no more than the law requires, which is what MOST instructors teach here in NC, and there are reasons why almost all instructors stick exactly to the legislature's program of instruction. Read on...
But you DID get your carry permit, right? I suggest you remember that it hasn't always been possible to do so, that what NC has certainly isn't the best possible system but it IS a system. That was not the case when I moved here in the early 1980s, there was no provision whatsoever for permitted carry, the law on open carry on the person was so vague and had such varying interpretations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction that there was no way to comply with it.
There are a LOT of things than can be criticized about NC's permit system. BUT IT HAS ONE, and that is saying something at least. NC's permit has wide reciprocity as well, which is another good thing about it.
I took the instructor training course when the law was first passed. I was already an NRA instructor in several self defense disciplines and I looked forward to teaching prospective concealed carry permit holders.
But the way the law is written saddles the instructor with responsibility for whatever the student does after the permit is issued, and I was not prepared to assume that liability, even for the limited POI the legislature required. So I have not taught any classes to prospective permit holders and in fact never bothered to get a permit myself, since first 'mistakes' without a permit are misdemeanors (not the really stupid stuff of course, those are felonies too) while _any_ error by a permit holder is a felony.
Yes, the videos are horrible. They were horrible when they were first produced. But your lawmakers want you to watch them in order to get your permit and instructors have no choice but to show them. Yes, the training is very basic. But that is what it took to get the law passed and the advocates who supported it were willing to settle for what they could get.
The only other choice was no permit at all, until something else could get passed. And there was no guarantee anything better ever would.
As to the 'real' Second Amendment arguments here in NC, those were never even a question as far as the legislature was concerned. In fact the Second Amendment arguments don't apply to the law in NC... or in any other state save those which adopt Vermont style carry. That's what we wanted here, was Vermont style carry. We took what we could get then, out of the legislature we had then. Sorry, but that's the way it was.
FWIW,
lpl/nc
I don't know how long you've been in NC. I don't know if you are familiar with the battles that took place in order to get the legislature of the state of NC to pass the law which made any kind of legal concealed carry possible, how long that took, and what sacrifices were necessary to get it.
It is the legislature itself which is completely responsible for the training requirements IN EVERY DETAIL. No one has any choice about the minimum training they provide, the law covers that in detail. Obviously what you got was no more than the law requires, which is what MOST instructors teach here in NC, and there are reasons why almost all instructors stick exactly to the legislature's program of instruction. Read on...
But you DID get your carry permit, right? I suggest you remember that it hasn't always been possible to do so, that what NC has certainly isn't the best possible system but it IS a system. That was not the case when I moved here in the early 1980s, there was no provision whatsoever for permitted carry, the law on open carry on the person was so vague and had such varying interpretations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction that there was no way to comply with it.
There are a LOT of things than can be criticized about NC's permit system. BUT IT HAS ONE, and that is saying something at least. NC's permit has wide reciprocity as well, which is another good thing about it.
I took the instructor training course when the law was first passed. I was already an NRA instructor in several self defense disciplines and I looked forward to teaching prospective concealed carry permit holders.
But the way the law is written saddles the instructor with responsibility for whatever the student does after the permit is issued, and I was not prepared to assume that liability, even for the limited POI the legislature required. So I have not taught any classes to prospective permit holders and in fact never bothered to get a permit myself, since first 'mistakes' without a permit are misdemeanors (not the really stupid stuff of course, those are felonies too) while _any_ error by a permit holder is a felony.
Yes, the videos are horrible. They were horrible when they were first produced. But your lawmakers want you to watch them in order to get your permit and instructors have no choice but to show them. Yes, the training is very basic. But that is what it took to get the law passed and the advocates who supported it were willing to settle for what they could get.
The only other choice was no permit at all, until something else could get passed. And there was no guarantee anything better ever would.
As to the 'real' Second Amendment arguments here in NC, those were never even a question as far as the legislature was concerned. In fact the Second Amendment arguments don't apply to the law in NC... or in any other state save those which adopt Vermont style carry. That's what we wanted here, was Vermont style carry. We took what we could get then, out of the legislature we had then. Sorry, but that's the way it was.
FWIW,
lpl/nc
My main and only real complaint with the system is that the entire system is a joke that should not even be required in the first place.
Forcing people to jump thrugh the legal hoops to register for a conceal carry permit is ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous that the law as determined in NC even goes so far as to state in the training that the state assumes prior firearm training before attempting getting a CCW here.
It is not the fact that they require this idiotic training that bothers me. It is the assuption made by the state that is IMHO a gigantic loophole in the system in regards to the assumption of acquired training on behalf of the permit reciever in the first place.
Yes I believe that it is a right to keep and bear arms. However the simple fact that all the states except Alaska and Vermont seem to have some form of CCW loaws on the books the states have essentially turned that right into a granted privavledge to do so legally. aAnd by doing so they have essentially put upon themselve the requirement to regulate something that is not regulateable in the public safety realm which will eventually come back to bite them square in the tail some day.
All it will take is some enterprising money hungry antii-gun lawyer to take up the cause and discover that the laws assume something in regards to training in firearms before "granting" a CCW permit when someone shoots some BG somewhere to create a huge mess for all of us.
In regards to my getting my permit. No I have no gotten it yet. The holidays ate up my money I had put aside to pay for the permit, background check and fingerprinting. I plan to in the next couple of weeks get the paperwork trail started on that as I just put my new soon the bw CCW gun on layaway.
In regards to the whole issue of training and what not. NO it should NOT be mandatory. NO it should not be some state sanctioned thing.
My point was the fact that in NC the laws that they put into record and in doing so forced requirements upon the residence of this state to become registered in order to carry a gun here have no requirement to do so even though they specifically state in the training on the laws for CCW and lethal force authorisation that they assume that training has been acquired. Major hole there in the logic to me.
Firearms ARE a right in the country. The RIGHT to possess them as well as use them is written into the very founding of this country.
The lawmakers however have turned it into a granted privaledge more than a right by the simple fact of requireing a permit to carry a gun on your person for the pupose of self defense. It may be a right, but if you don't have that permit you are going to jail if you ever get caught with your gun. Does that sound like a right to you?
If the states are going to require us all to get a permit they darn well better make sure that the laws they write in no way infringe on the 2nd amendment right to the guns they are registering. They also better make sure that they are not assuming responsibilities they are not willing to enforce or otherwise supervise or some lawyer scum somewhere is going to try and have our rights revoked through the supreme court due to the badly worded laws or how they are publically presented to the general populace. After all, when the state tells you how the state interprets the laws they impose on us, the lawyers will be more than happy to shove that interpretation back down the throats of the politicians if they see a chance to grab at the spotlight or otherwise dupe the people of this nation into further stupor in regards to thier loss of rights.
Forcing people to jump thrugh the legal hoops to register for a conceal carry permit is ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous that the law as determined in NC even goes so far as to state in the training that the state assumes prior firearm training before attempting getting a CCW here.
It is not the fact that they require this idiotic training that bothers me. It is the assuption made by the state that is IMHO a gigantic loophole in the system in regards to the assumption of acquired training on behalf of the permit reciever in the first place.
Yes I believe that it is a right to keep and bear arms. However the simple fact that all the states except Alaska and Vermont seem to have some form of CCW loaws on the books the states have essentially turned that right into a granted privavledge to do so legally. aAnd by doing so they have essentially put upon themselve the requirement to regulate something that is not regulateable in the public safety realm which will eventually come back to bite them square in the tail some day.
All it will take is some enterprising money hungry antii-gun lawyer to take up the cause and discover that the laws assume something in regards to training in firearms before "granting" a CCW permit when someone shoots some BG somewhere to create a huge mess for all of us.
In regards to my getting my permit. No I have no gotten it yet. The holidays ate up my money I had put aside to pay for the permit, background check and fingerprinting. I plan to in the next couple of weeks get the paperwork trail started on that as I just put my new soon the bw CCW gun on layaway.
In regards to the whole issue of training and what not. NO it should NOT be mandatory. NO it should not be some state sanctioned thing.
My point was the fact that in NC the laws that they put into record and in doing so forced requirements upon the residence of this state to become registered in order to carry a gun here have no requirement to do so even though they specifically state in the training on the laws for CCW and lethal force authorisation that they assume that training has been acquired. Major hole there in the logic to me.
Firearms ARE a right in the country. The RIGHT to possess them as well as use them is written into the very founding of this country.
The lawmakers however have turned it into a granted privaledge more than a right by the simple fact of requireing a permit to carry a gun on your person for the pupose of self defense. It may be a right, but if you don't have that permit you are going to jail if you ever get caught with your gun. Does that sound like a right to you?
If the states are going to require us all to get a permit they darn well better make sure that the laws they write in no way infringe on the 2nd amendment right to the guns they are registering. They also better make sure that they are not assuming responsibilities they are not willing to enforce or otherwise supervise or some lawyer scum somewhere is going to try and have our rights revoked through the supreme court due to the badly worded laws or how they are publically presented to the general populace. After all, when the state tells you how the state interprets the laws they impose on us, the lawyers will be more than happy to shove that interpretation back down the throats of the politicians if they see a chance to grab at the spotlight or otherwise dupe the people of this nation into further stupor in regards to thier loss of rights.
Hardtarget
Member
I live in Tennessee. Years before we got a permit law, I tried to get one through the "who do you know" system. The guy I knew was a customer at my work place. The SOB told my boss that he(my boss) really didn't want me to carry because " he'll just wind up shooting you". So I let him know what I thought of him (see preveous SOB comment) and continued to carry w/o permit until the law passed several years later.
Now to the thread...When I took my CCW course, we had a full day of class. covering all kinds of topics...gun terminology, safty, law, situations, shoot/no shoot "problems" ect. Next day we went to the range. Typicaly, there were some non shooters and some that just didn't listen to instructions. First, we approached our targets. muzzle only three FEET from the paper. Our instructor called for one shot at center. The young lady to my left put ten from her .380 into her target...the only comment was about her counting and math skills. Yea...she passed. Several just squeaked by.
I took the Tn. hunter safty class three times,(one time for me, then again as my two sons needed their certificates). Even though we had some safty info in the CCW class, I wish there had been more...but its true, you hardly ever hear of AD/injury so maybe it is enough. I've managed to hunt and shoot for forty five years with out shooting off any toes or loosing any buddies. Looking for many more years of this.
Mark.
Now to the thread...When I took my CCW course, we had a full day of class. covering all kinds of topics...gun terminology, safty, law, situations, shoot/no shoot "problems" ect. Next day we went to the range. Typicaly, there were some non shooters and some that just didn't listen to instructions. First, we approached our targets. muzzle only three FEET from the paper. Our instructor called for one shot at center. The young lady to my left put ten from her .380 into her target...the only comment was about her counting and math skills. Yea...she passed. Several just squeaked by.
I took the Tn. hunter safty class three times,(one time for me, then again as my two sons needed their certificates). Even though we had some safty info in the CCW class, I wish there had been more...but its true, you hardly ever hear of AD/injury so maybe it is enough. I've managed to hunt and shoot for forty five years with out shooting off any toes or loosing any buddies. Looking for many more years of this.
Mark.
SapperLeader
Member
My first choice would be no requirement Vermont/Alaskan type carry. If there is going to be legal requirements, make it a shall issue permit, add a safety course and maybe throw a little bit of law into it.
It sucks that we have to go through these processes to gain a "right" to bear arms, but its better than having no ability to carry concealed in the eyes of the law. If you don’t like your laws, look into local grass roots organizations and help support them.
In Virginia, we have the Virginia civil defense league, a truly awesome group, who are always pushing to make our gun laws better. Last year they helped remove localities having different laws than the state, and the one gun a month rule for ccw/c&r holders.
Get involved; even if nothing gets accomplished for a while, it will make you feel better to have done something about the status quo.
It sucks that we have to go through these processes to gain a "right" to bear arms, but its better than having no ability to carry concealed in the eyes of the law. If you don’t like your laws, look into local grass roots organizations and help support them.
In Virginia, we have the Virginia civil defense league, a truly awesome group, who are always pushing to make our gun laws better. Last year they helped remove localities having different laws than the state, and the one gun a month rule for ccw/c&r holders.
Get involved; even if nothing gets accomplished for a while, it will make you feel better to have done something about the status quo.
I see where your coming from on this but keep in mind any adult in North Carolina with a clean record and not having certain medical/mental conditions and meeting age requirements can carry openly (weapon in view) without any tests or permits! There are no required classes, tests, or permits to Bear Arms openly in North Carolina or many other states; just rules. The paperwork bureaucracy begins when you want to carry concealed!
Alaska & Vermont are on the right track! Do you require everyone to take a course and show proficiency in the use of a handgun or just set guidelines -- They made the correct decision!
I was an Alaska resident from 1984 to 1999 and was there when they started their CCW program - Yes, they had one and it did not go over that well with Alaskans. One requirement was you could not carry, for CCW purposes, a handgun of larger caliber than the one you used in your proficiency test. I used a .45acp in order to cover all bases. I could carry any caliber handgun openly without a permit because open carry was not included in the CCW Law. Alaska politicians saw the error of their ways and killed the CCW program in the last year or so -- Good Move!
Gary
Alaska & Vermont are on the right track! Do you require everyone to take a course and show proficiency in the use of a handgun or just set guidelines -- They made the correct decision!
I was an Alaska resident from 1984 to 1999 and was there when they started their CCW program - Yes, they had one and it did not go over that well with Alaskans. One requirement was you could not carry, for CCW purposes, a handgun of larger caliber than the one you used in your proficiency test. I used a .45acp in order to cover all bases. I could carry any caliber handgun openly without a permit because open carry was not included in the CCW Law. Alaska politicians saw the error of their ways and killed the CCW program in the last year or so -- Good Move! Gary
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
As I said, there are no documented problems that mandate training.
Yes, some people are poor shots -- but so what? What detectable -- not PREDICTED, actually DETECTED -- problem does that cause?
There aren't any statistics that show there is a problem that can be solved by training.
Yes, some people are poor shots -- but so what? What detectable -- not PREDICTED, actually DETECTED -- problem does that cause?
There aren't any statistics that show there is a problem that can be solved by training.
CCW classes
If you think about it, the most important to teach in the classes is not gun handling. Folks want to be responsible for their safety, then let them. If they want to be able to use the gun, then they better go find out and practice before they have to, so that they might be able to actually defend themselves. Not the responsibility of the class to assure that they can actually defend themselves, that is on their shoulders. It is the responsibility of the class to show them WHEN AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS they can defend themselves with a weapon. Otherwise, people would be getting themselves into massive legal problems. Safety is also stressed, which is for the protection of the applicant and others. The only thing that gets short shrift is gun handling, and if someone is planning on using a firearm, it is their own task to learn to use it properly. It is not possible to make good shooters out of untrained applicants in a short time. Would you deny them the right to carry for defense because they are poor shots? Not me, because simply having the gun might save their life, and even the worst shot can hit someone from touching range.
Give me someone that knows when to shoot over a wild gunfighter when I'm around, because anyone is likely to miss under stress.
BTW, in Florida, we fired ONE shot at my class to prove that we understood how to work the firearm. No one missed the target at about 5 ft. Good enough for some level of defense IMO, and good enough to entitle you to defend your life if you need to.
If you think about it, the most important to teach in the classes is not gun handling. Folks want to be responsible for their safety, then let them. If they want to be able to use the gun, then they better go find out and practice before they have to, so that they might be able to actually defend themselves. Not the responsibility of the class to assure that they can actually defend themselves, that is on their shoulders. It is the responsibility of the class to show them WHEN AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS they can defend themselves with a weapon. Otherwise, people would be getting themselves into massive legal problems. Safety is also stressed, which is for the protection of the applicant and others. The only thing that gets short shrift is gun handling, and if someone is planning on using a firearm, it is their own task to learn to use it properly. It is not possible to make good shooters out of untrained applicants in a short time. Would you deny them the right to carry for defense because they are poor shots? Not me, because simply having the gun might save their life, and even the worst shot can hit someone from touching range.
Give me someone that knows when to shoot over a wild gunfighter when I'm around, because anyone is likely to miss under stress.
BTW, in Florida, we fired ONE shot at my class to prove that we understood how to work the firearm. No one missed the target at about 5 ft. Good enough for some level of defense IMO, and good enough to entitle you to defend your life if you need to.
Vern Humphrey
Member
There's a lot you CAN teach, but there's no evidence that you NEED to teach anything. There hasn't been a rash of CHL holders engaging in unjustified shootings.
Shaughn Leayme
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 245
The thing about training requirments being mandatory, is that one can design a course of fire that while realistic, may require you to be on level with a Delta Force operative or some other high speed low drag individual...last time I looked those folks practiced/trained thousands of hours on a regular basis to get where they are with some one else footing the bill, be a great way for some one with an agenda to prevent or impede applicants for CCW or even casual firearms ownership.
It's far from a perfect world and given the numbers, I will take my chance with a novice CCW with a crash course instruction under thier belt, my odds are a lot better than with the person who just received his/her license to drive a 6000 lb guided mis.... er 3/4 ton truck.
It's far from a perfect world and given the numbers, I will take my chance with a novice CCW with a crash course instruction under thier belt, my odds are a lot better than with the person who just received his/her license to drive a 6000 lb guided mis.... er 3/4 ton truck.
Eskimo Jim
Member
From what I understand, quite a few states prevent a person from owning a firearm unless they have a permit. The permit that is issued is a carry permit as well as an ownership permit. Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me to see new shooters that have no experience and little skill at shooting accurately.
MA has several different firearm permits that are available. They do offer a permit that would allow a person to use their firearm at home or work and to legally transport it to the range to practice with it. This makes since for someone who has no interest in carrying a concealed firearm. MA also offers a concealed firearm permit or license to carry.
Given the circumstances, perhaps the instructors are trying to get more people into the gun culture by giving the students a passing mark so that they can buy a firearm and therefore practice with a handgun and become more proficient with its use.
The instructors should definitely be spending more time with the new shooters and help them out with basic technique. THe problem that I've seen with the basic safety courses that I've taken is that the material in the course or instructors do not provide either a book list, internet list or other lists of resources for further study or learning to the student.
As an experienced handgunner in the class, did you offer to help the new person?
Of the places that I've lived, I liked VT's laws best. You buy what you want, go through the instant background and you're all set. Most sellers that I've bought from have asked me what I wanted the particular firearm for. I hope that sellers would help a new handgunner to sell a product that will be useful to the customer and helps to educate the customer where to find instruction if the customer needs it.
-Jim
MA has several different firearm permits that are available. They do offer a permit that would allow a person to use their firearm at home or work and to legally transport it to the range to practice with it. This makes since for someone who has no interest in carrying a concealed firearm. MA also offers a concealed firearm permit or license to carry.
Given the circumstances, perhaps the instructors are trying to get more people into the gun culture by giving the students a passing mark so that they can buy a firearm and therefore practice with a handgun and become more proficient with its use.
The instructors should definitely be spending more time with the new shooters and help them out with basic technique. THe problem that I've seen with the basic safety courses that I've taken is that the material in the course or instructors do not provide either a book list, internet list or other lists of resources for further study or learning to the student.
As an experienced handgunner in the class, did you offer to help the new person?
Of the places that I've lived, I liked VT's laws best. You buy what you want, go through the instant background and you're all set. Most sellers that I've bought from have asked me what I wanted the particular firearm for. I hope that sellers would help a new handgunner to sell a product that will be useful to the customer and helps to educate the customer where to find instruction if the customer needs it.
-Jim
Last edited:
Hhrshooter
Member
It is up to the individual themselves to invest and train themselves. You get what you put into your choice to go armed. Now, this doesn't in anyway take away the responsibilty you now carry. There is a practice called(escalation of force). Thinking clearly is a must when confronted in a hostile enviroment or situation. Your first choice had better be to flee. If you cannot do this then you had better be mentally prepared to do what you have too in order to survive. I do wish people who decide to carry a weapon would really put some thought into the responsibility they now carry on their shoulders. I don't look for trouble but i know it could be there. I have to say this and those who have, i believe would share my feeling on this. I have taken a life with a firearm, and it is tragic for everyone involved. I had plenty of training prior to this and always thought i would do right and good if i had to to do this action. It was not what i thought it would be or how i would feel about it. You will ask yourself , was i right?, did i have to choose the path i did?, could i have done it another way so it didn't end like it did? There isn't any training on that aspect of what you will end in that fraction of decision making. You will accept that responsibility! You will be judged right or wrong! you will pay right or wrong in many ways you never even considered. I believe in my heart i had no other option for my actions. If it would ever happen again, i hope i am able to make the best and Right choice again.I can't say i agree with mandating more for training as i have to say more reflection on your purpose to carry and your understanding of what if? I do carry when i feel the need too, but i don't believe it is cool nor is it for everyone. The best safety you can ever have with a firearm is YOUR BRAIN!
Aguila Blanca
Member
I agree with you regarding the need to assume personal responsibility if one chooses to arm oneself.
However, I am against your being against allowing people who are (to you, at least) not qualified to handle firearms to do so. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about qualifications. It says that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The rational approach to this, then, is not to prohibit "unqualified" persons from gun ownership/carry, but rather to institute madatory firearms training in the schools so there won't BE any unqualified people.
Once qualified, naturally it would be their choice whether or not to avail themselves of the right to use the training.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I agree -- anyone who can vote has a right to bear arms.
Mandatory training CAN be used as a device to restrict this right -- and in some cases, antis have tried to set the training standards higher than the average man can reasonably attain.
Mandatory training CAN be used as a device to restrict this right -- and in some cases, antis have tried to set the training standards higher than the average man can reasonably attain.
- Status
Similar threads
