Fatal Shooting During CCW Class

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there's an unbreachable gulf between the faction supporting some degree of mandatory training before firearms ownership/carry should be allowed to occur and the faction that believes their rights are being squashed outrageously if the smallest obstacle exists mitigating their ability to buy and own any type of firearm (from fully automatic military hardware down to .22 Nylon 66's for plinking) and being able to carry such firearms any time or any place - kindergartens, airports, polling stations, corner bar.... it's a travesty of justice if they're told 'No.'

What I see is lack of evidence to support the notion of government mandatory training.

I've yet to see an intelligent argument offering measurable evidence that suggests states with no mandatory training for a carry permit suffer over those that do. To suggest something is required for that which there is no evidence is precisely the mentality of Bloomberg and his hoplophobic pals "common sense" gun control. Now if someone can offer up some hard evidence I'd be interested to read it. GA/TN is a fine comparison. Similar demographics, similar culture, similar percentage of carry permits, border states. Tennessee requires training, Georgia does not. Where's the evidence that Georgia is suffering from untrained carry permit holders over Tennessee's trained?
 
Last edited:
I'm done with this. A man is dead. And all people here can talk about is being inconvenienced. Like being mad you are stuck in traffic because of a traffic fatality up the highway. Disgraceful. Only thing we have in common is an affection for S&W firearms.

You could not answer the question asked... and now are leaving. I understand.

Yes, a man is dead. If you have not yet noticed, the man was killed pursuant to a mandatory training class for a permit.
 
Last edited:
Well said. But sorting it out at this point is useless, as I think there's an unbreachable gulf between the faction supporting some degree of mandatory training before firearms ownership/carry should be allowed to occur and the faction that believes their rights are being squashed outrageously if the smallest obstacle exists mitigating their ability to buy and own any type of firearm (from fully automatic military hardware down to .22 Nylon 66's for plinking) and being able to carry such firearms any time or any place - kindergartens, airports, polling stations, corner bar.... it's a travesty of justice if they're told 'No.'

If people have carry permits why wouldn't you trust them in schools, airports or anywhere else? What's the difference if they were in the town park with 300 people present, walking down the street, or inside a full movie theater? All of a sudden, a license holder gets all freaky in a school or baseball game?
Let's assume they're trained to your standard.
If you don't trust people, don't issue licenses to carry then.
 
Last edited:
Jeez. All I'm advocating for is a basic firearms instruction course, run by competent instructors, with real standards to pass. Couldn't hurt to hear a lecture from the DA telling people the legalities of carrying a firearm and using it. Cause I guarentee you the average guy who buys a gun doesn't know the legalities of when and where he can carry.

But do whatever you want. All they really need to know is that the bullet comes out of the hole in the front and gets fired when they pull the bang switch! Just as our forefathers wanted!

Where in the Second Amendment would I find a condition to keep and bear arms? I'll admit that I'm a strict constructionist. The Second Amendment is the supreme law of the land. Follow the damned law!

I would encourage new shooters to take a handgun safety course; however, I'd never make such a course a precondition to exercising one's Second Amendment right.
 
@ChattanoogaPhil
@ladder13

As I said in my post, this discussion cannot be effectively parsed. Two sides have been staked out and whatever is said by someone on one side is met by automatic gainsay on the other. No one in the discussion can claim to make a thorough, comprehensive 'intelligent' argument that clearly defines one side as having the superior argument.

If a statement is made that yes, of course those with training are more likely to be more proficient with firearms and therefore safer so training and vetting should be part of firearms purchasing rights, it will be met with calls to 'prove beyond any doubt through exhaustive, overwhelming statistical data that such an assertion is correct'' which of course neither side can do because we're talking opinions here. And if that person can't provide such proof, they must either not understand the Constitution and/or are secretly 2nd Amendment hating elitists.

If a statement is made that anyone of any age for any reason should be able to carry a fully automatic BAR, a belt fed M249 or two thigh strapped UZI's into the secured area of an airport, power plant or an in-session meeting of congress or council (because the Constitution allows it by its lack of language preventing it) someone will counter that it scares the snot of others and only knuckle dragging, trigger happy barrel suckers want that right and others in their community have just as much right to feel as secure as gun owners.

There's no 'winning' in doing this here because this is fundamentally a rights vs security issue and that discussion will never be solved by arguing it over an internet gun forum. The real solution here is to simply vote in your own state, 1 of 50 laboratories in our Great Experiment we call our Republic. If your position is right, reasonable and ultimately the best course of action, surely a majority in that state will see that light and the laws will reflect that position, whichever it is. 'Win' the debate by exhortation, explanation and information aimed at fellow voters and your local politicos. No one here is going to be swayed one way or the other.

And no, I'm not attempting to suggest either side is correct here tonight. Yes I have an opinion, but I've learned sadly that on many forums, expressing a difference of opinion rarely invites honest, graceful discourse, but rather degenerates eventually into "You simply don't get it, you're an idiot! Go have intercourse with yourself!" That's hardly useful or constructive.

So, as I said, this debate involves two sides, each on the shore of an unbreachable gulf. Like predestination vs. free will, it ain't gonna get solved here and it'll only get personal.

kbm6893 has his opinion, you have yours. Fine. Wish each other well and have a nice night.
What can it hurt?
 
Last edited:
21 years old is an appropriate age.
Earlier you said that allowing a 21 year old to walk out with a new gun in 10 minutes was, "a lapse of good judgement." Now you're saying it's OK. I'm just trying to follow what you're driving at. I really do want to know what you think is a minimum demonstration of proficiency to own a gun?

Believe it or not, I completely understand your frustration at accidents like this. It was seeing the terrible gun handling at the range that made me take up instruction as a second profession.

I work very hard to be not only proficient myself, but to ensure I'm giving quality instruction to my students. I even take classes on how to teach so I can get better. I take notes in every class and my class is always evolving to get better and better.

Even so, let's look at the one place where there is mandatory training for everyone in the US; driving. There isn't a single state that doesn't require a written and practical test. Yet every year 10 to 20 times more people die in auto accidents than in total gun deaths which include intentional and accidental deaths. And, there are far more guns out there than cars.

To be completely objective though, that doesn't mean the mandatory training for cars isn't working. There could be many more deaths without it. That's impossible to prove though.

All we're looking for is some concrete answers. You mentioned minimum proficiency. OK, I'm with you, but, again, what is the standard and who gets to set it?



kbm6893 has his opinion, you have yours. Fine. Wish each other well and have a nice night.
What can it hurt?
Agreed, but with a slight modification. We can have a calm and well thought out discussion over things just like this. We can also wish each other well and even part as friends. However, I do believe it's possible to reach a point of agreement.

What can it hurt? It can hurt because if we don't challenge each other to stand up for our rights, it's easy to head down a path that can hurt us all.

There is a certain amount of ego in all of us. Once a statement has been made, it's hard to back down even in the light of quality reasoning. I don't expect anyone to come here and proclaim that something they read in a thread has changed their whole life and they now agree with everything. The idea is only to make us think. Iron sharpens iron. By this process of back and forth, we all become better.

At least that's what I believe. So, yeah, if a person makes a statement that includes verbiage telling us that we ALL should head down a certain path, I'm going to challenge it. If it's the right path, it will stand up to scrutiny.
 
and being able to carry such firearms any time or any place - kindergartens, airports, polling stations, corner bar.... it's a travesty of justice if they're told 'No.'

Tennessee passed "Guns in Bars" back in 2009 allowing legal carry of handguns in bars. It's been 7 years. The naysayer's predictions of widespread drunken brawl shootouts have not occurred.

What is it that drives the obsession to tell others "no"?

There are now 9 states with Constitutional Carry from Vermont to Arizona. What is generally occurring as a result of Constitutional Carry in theses states compared to states that are not Constitutional Carry that justifies government mandatory training for a carry permit? What about all the other states that don't require shooting proficiency testing for a carry permit? Big problems compared to those that do?

Gun control advocates have been proven wrong in virtually all their handwringing for decades including their biggest fear mongering effort against Shall Issue. Is it all just a big misunderstanding that somehow justifies Bloomberg and willing gun-owning accomplices in the opposition to Constitutional Carry?

It is incumbent upon those who wish to place burdens, mandates and restrictions on others to justify doing so.
 
Last edited:
You say something stupid, nobody dies. You screw with a gun, somebody does. Get the difference?

Actually, people die and have their lives ruined over all sorts of dumb things that other people say. Happens all the time.

I'm not a gun control advocate. Just a safety advocate.

Where have I heard that line before...?

Third, I love guns. Always looking to buy another.

You can be a hoplophobe and own guns. Many gun owners actually are. Talk to enough trap shooters, and you're bound to find a whole mess of them. Hunters and cops, too. And they tend to be the hardest ones to convince otherwise because they consider themselves gunny people, and that allows them to rationalize their views.

Model520Fan said:
Not sure that I understand, or even want to understand, all of this piling on kbm6893 because he admitted his ND.

He's not getting dogpiled because he admitted to an ND. He's getting dogpiled because he suggested that some degree of training be mandated.

Which is a pleasant thought--just legislate that everyone be competent. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way, and it's fraught with pitfalls.

Who decides what the training program consists of? What are the requirements for "passing" (a laughable concept if I've ever heard one)? What makes an instructor "competent"? I've attended moronic training classes, taught by thoroughly certified but completely incompetent instructors. Ironically, the 6-hour class I took to get my pistol license was the first.

In the end, it's the government that would decide what qualifies as competent, and that's something most of us would rather avoid.
 
Shall we take a moment of time to honor and remember the dead.



ADs can happen to anyone that handles firearms.

We all must be on guard to prevent injury or death,

be that of someone else or our own selves.

This applies both to the highly trained, or the not so highly trained.

Common sense is at a premium now 'n' days.


Of which many discussions on the subject is lacking.

It's a sad state of affairs here boys.



*

The spoken word is as free as air, but the written word is forever there....

There are a few here that really ought to Mirandize themselves, for every written word
shall forever be in the archives of this forum to be examined till the end of time.

A testament, to their philosophy of the principals of life,
What is truth and or what one would like the truth to be.

Oh, what power that words carry, to do good or to do wrong.



That is all for today.


.
 
Last edited:
The real solution here is to simply vote in your own state, 1 of 50 laboratories in our Great Experiment we call our Republic. If your position is right, reasonable and ultimately the best course of action, surely a majority in that state will see that light and the laws will reflect that position, whichever it is. 'Win' the debate by exhortation, explanation and information aimed at fellow voters and your local politicos. No one here is going to be swayed one way or the other.

On that we can find common ground. Your anti Open Carry sentiment and vitriol towards those who were fighting for their carry freedoms was rejected by the representatives of the good people of Texas. OC advocates won, naysayers lost. Well done Texas!
 
Last edited:
On that we can find common ground. Your anti Open Carry sentiment and vitriol towards those who were fighting for their carry freedoms was rejected by the representatives of the good people of Texas. OC advocates won, naysayers lost. Well done Texas!

Actually, the "victory" in Texas was maybe a half victory. The leader of Open Carry Texas Tarrant County wanted Constitutional carry, because he was prohibited from owning handguns since he had a criminal record. He was quoted as saying he wants Constitutional Carry so he can carry a handgun and not be stopped by the cops, since he knows he is prohibited from carrying a handgun. So he lost that one. From what I have read on this forums, and others, not a whole lot of people are OC'ing in Texas right now, just like I rarely see it in PA, where we have OC. And the .30-07 signs are already going up, prohibiting people from OC'i ng in certain businesses. So when your son is about to pee his pants, you'll have to choose between not going into that restaurant with the 30-07 sign and letting him pee his pants. I think many here would tell him to pee his pants. It's for Freedom!

The clowns walking into Starbucks and target with AR's were losers, who should have had better things to do than to fight for such nonsense. They called themselves Patriots. I call them imbeciles. If OC is THAT important to you (and other than woods walking or being on your own proerty, I can't figure out a benefit), then maybe you need to broaden your horizons a bit. There's a lot more to this world than guns, you know.
 
Actually, the "victory" in Texas was maybe a half victory. The leader of Open Carry Texas Tarrant County wanted Constitutional carry, because he was prohibited from owning handguns since he had a criminal record. He was quoted as saying he wants Constitutional Carry so he can carry a handgun and not be stopped by the cops, since he knows he is prohibited from carrying a handgun. So he lost that one . . .

Your version of the story is inconsistent with the facts.

Open-carry activists not so open about criminal past

He cannot obtain a concealed carry permit in Texas because of a prior misdemeanor theft conviction in 2000, at age 17, a circumstance which apparently keeps you from getting the permit (that argument is better left for another day). He is in no way prohibited from owning a handgun. He cannot open carry a handgun now, because Texas requires a CCW permit to also open carry. Had constitutional carry passed, he could have been stopped by the cops all day long and he would be perfectly legally carrying a handgun.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the "victory" in Texas was maybe a half victory. The leader of Open Carry Texas Tarrant County wanted Constitutional carry, because he was prohibited from owning handguns since he had a criminal record. He was quoted as saying he wants Constitutional Carry so he can carry a handgun and not be stopped by the cops, since he knows he is prohibited from carrying a handgun. So he lost that one. From what I have read on this forums, and others, not a whole lot of people are OC'ing in Texas right now, just like I rarely see it in PA, where we have OC. And the .30-07 signs are already going up, prohibiting people from OC'i ng in certain businesses. So when your son is about to pee his pants, you'll have to choose between not going into that restaurant with the 30-07 sign and letting him pee his pants. I think many here would tell him to pee his pants. It's for Freedom!

The clowns walking into Starbucks and target with AR's were losers, who should have had better things to do than to fight for such nonsense. They called themselves Patriots. I call them imbeciles. If OC is THAT important to you (and other than woods walking or being on your own proerty, I can't figure out a benefit), then maybe you need to broaden your horizons a bit. There's a lot more to this world than guns, you know.

See post #151.
 
@ChatanoogaPhil

What is it that drives the obsession to tell others "no" when there is overwhelming evidence that people handle their carry freedoms well. Yet, when naysayers are asked for evidence to support their burdens and mandates upon others they cry fowl? Why?

It is incumbent upon those who wish to place burdens, mandates and restrictions on others to justify doing so.

Well, the opposing point could ask the same questions in a similar manner. Others could ask you why you feel you have the right to carry weapons of a certain design and in such a manner that it alarms non-gun folk in your community, folk that have just as much right to feel safe and secure as you do to own firearms. That same person might also say the definition of 'to bear arms' isn’t clearly specified in the Constitution other than what you believe it means and how the courts have interpreted its meaning, and your interpretation is no more or no less valid than a court opinion. It is simply that, an opinion.

When you default back to 'I can and should be allowed to own/carry any type of firearms made by man because the Constitution says so' it can reasonably be argued based upon years of judicial interpretation that you might misunderstand the Constitution and are reading it hyper-liberally for your own purposes.

Yes, you can and should be able to purchase and carry guns, that is legal. But the 2nd Amendment does not clearly say either by exclusion or inclusion spell out exactly HOW one may do so. Therefore when one reads the 2ndA to their advantage and declares"Since there is no language barring me from owning or carrying fully automatic military weapons into any area of society I wish, then I should be able to", one paints oneself into a corner because by that standard of logic, since the 2ndA does not implicitly say that you CAN do the above, then it must follow that you can’t. It’s back to opinion and interpretation, a situation I know you clearly disagree with.

To answer your above questions I have to provide an opinion to an opinion. An opposing view might ask:
"What is it that drives your obsession to tell others 'no you can't feel safe in Starbucks, McDonalds or Six Flags when I want to carry an AR-15 next your children' when there is overwhelming evidence that people have gotten massacred with AR-15's? Yet when you are asked for evidence to support the burden and mandate of ripping away other's right to feel secure in public, you cry foul and default back to your interpretation of the Constitution as only reasonable interpretation and sole justification when that is simply your opinion, not a provable scientific fact. Why?”

That opposing point of view might also say to you that “It is incumbent upon those who wish to place the burden and mandate of enduring the carry firearms in places where the vast majority of fellow Americans don't want those firearms carried, to be able to justify doing so, and to do so with more evidence than the simple opinion of "Because I believe my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment says I can."

Again, I'm not taking sides. I'm simply pointing out that the "Because the 2ndA says so" argument is circular. You say you’re right and others are wrong and the foundation of that argument is based upon your opinion of what the 2nd Amendment says along with anecdotal evidence and stats that favor your side. Those that tell you you’re wrong and they are right are also basing that argument on what their opinion of the 2nd Amendment says coupled with anecdotal evidence and stats favoring their side.

You cannot solve this here. No one on either side can convince anyone here. I get that you’re passionate and you believe you’re right, but no more so than others with differing opinions do. I respect your opinion and your right to have your opinion. But I don't think because other folks on this forum have a differing point of view they're hysterical or elitist. I've read thoughtful points on both sides, and knee jerk attacks on both sides. Nothing's changed anyone's mind.

Charlie Rangel? Hillary Clinton? Michael Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Barack Obama? Yeah, those are bungling, self-obsessed, hypocritical elitists that are the worst form of lying tyrants our nation has produced in generations. But a simple post asking a differing question on this forum hardly meets that standard. I have yet to read anyone here say that guns should be banned, confiscated, registered or limited only to elected officials, celebrities or the wealthy. We’re all firearms enthusiast here and I think there’s a heck of a lot more common ground than not.

Having said that, I wouldn't open a discussion about abortion or religion on this forum either and frankly I think the topic of whether any qualifiers should be in place for firearms purchase / ownership / carry fits into the same type of polarizing catagories mentioned above.

It’s just unresolvable here.
 
Last edited:
TS,

I didn't declare anyone wrong. I simply asked for an intelligent measurable argument that states with no mandated training is measurably a problem in comparison to states that do. Again, dead silence.

Yes, you do have the right to suffer an irrational fear at the sight of someone carrying a gun not wearing a uniform, just as you might suffer an irrational fear of tall buildings. The problem arises when you believe that I am obligated to surrender and accommodate personal mental ailments. That said, I think there is a growing insidious mentality in that regard-- the right to not be offended at whatever one wishes to dream up.

Your comments about freedom not existing unless there is law that expressly allows it is akin to the thinking in countries ruled by dictators, not America. True, we would never reach agreement on this stye of thought. I thank the good Lord for his blessing of a sound mind.

Calling Bloomberg names is one thing, but ya either stand with him or against him.

Bloomberg - Against Constitutional carry (no state required training or permit for carry)
 
Last edited:
Your version of the story is inconsistent with the facts.

Open-carry activists not so open about criminal past

He cannot obtain a concealed carry permit in Texas because of a prior misdemeanor theft conviction in 2000, at age 17, a circumstance which apparently keeps you from getting the permit (that argument is better left for another day). He is in no way prohibited from owning a handgun. He cannot open carry a handgun now, because Texas requires a CCW permit to also open carry. Had constitutional carry passed, he could have been stopped by the cops all day long and he would be perfectly legally carrying a handgun.

So he can own a handgun, but not carry it concealed OR openly? So while my facts were a bit off base, he wanted Constitutional Carry so he could carry a handgun. It failed, so he's stuck looking like a tool walking around with an AK over his shoulder.
 
So he can own a handgun, but not carry it concealed OR openly? So while my facts were a bit off base, he wanted Constitutional Carry so he could carry a handgun. It failed, so he's stuck looking like a tool walking around with an AK over his shoulder.

The devil is in the details, but of course, being a retired LEO, you knew that part . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top