MANDATORY classes for ccw?

[ladder13]

Just because we have a 2nd Amendment ..........

Say what??

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I don't know about that but I found something interesting and scary. The title of the statistics seems to be written by someone with a particular point of view.

From VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
"Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Carry Killers
May 2007 to the Present"

Tennessee 15
Georgia 5
Texas 33

Maybe it's time to relocate?

That's a good report.

Let's take a look at those in Tennessee. Now how many of these could have reasonably been avoided with more CC firearms training? Zero. Well... maybe the girl who meant to only shoot boyfriend in leg.

Fight over girl at residence.

Mental problems. Home.

Argument in parking lot.

Drunk with shotgun. Home.

Road rage. Golf cart and Cadillac.

Mass murder. Disagreement over aluminum cans. Home

Shot girlfriend three times in parking lot. Domoestic violence history.

Argument between competing businesses and neighbors.

Shot wife in head and threw her in the river.

Double homicide (dumped girl in river) and then suicide.

Argument over where car was parked in parking lot.

Argument after car accident.

Shot boyfriend. Meant to shoot him only in the leg.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Of course the data is not complete and gathered by less than accurate means through media reports, but in any event the numbers look pretty low for the state of Georgia with no mandatory CC firearms training.

Wonder where all the reports of killing innocent bystanders by mistake are? Is it a mass delusion that such incidents are a great risk to society? Signs of hoplophobia? These are questions that Alan Korwin might help us answer.

 

[Wee Hooker]

It sounds like not only do you want to check up on proficiency, but also to make sure an applicant has the right attitude.

Are you going to be the "attitude and reason checker"?

(To "allot" means to dole out, or to distribute, or to assign a share. "A lot" is two words, and means a great many, or a large number. 'Scuse me for pointing that out, but that is a pet peeve of mine. Maybe you want to "allot" carry licenses?)

Thanks for the grammar lesson. I B N engineer. Engineers are notoriously bad at these things.

No I certainly do not want to be the "attitude checker". I recognize the right of all (without a criminal/mental illness background) to buy a firearm. Doesn't mean I need to be comfortable with every instance. My point is not to restrict these people but to educated them. FWIW, I have refused several gun shop offers for employment because of these personal feelings. Also FWIW, my state does require a basic firearms safety course before a LTC will be considered. I think it's good as a minimum but would like to see mandatory live fire training as well. Over and out.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The poll result isn't surprising so far, considering how many here support universal background checks. I'm guessing a large percentage of those in favor of one are also in favor of the other.

Considering this poll is on a firearms enthusiasts board....

About half or more households don't even own firearms so you can figure their response would be close to 100% in favor of mandatory training. Then add to it gun owners who are not enthusiasts or permit holders but just have a gun around the house... I would guess those folks would also be highly in favor of mandatory training. hmmmm.... It makes those 90% polls on background checks look believable.

 

[woodsltc]

Considering this poll is on a firearms enthusiasts board....

About half or more households don't even own firearms so you can figure their response would be close to 100% in favor of mandatory training. Then add to it gun owners who are not enthusiasts or permit holders but just have a gun around the house... I would guess those folks would also be highly in favor of mandatory training. hmmmm.... It makes those 90% polls on background checks look believable.

Phil I posted the following earlier in this thread and I think the vote in Ladder13's thread is skewed accordingly:

[Ladder13, I voted for "no" mandatory training, but when you look at how the poll question is worded ("mandatory" could be interpreted to mean just a little training or an extensive course on law with a demonstration of firearm safety and proficiency or anything in between)....Accordingly, I'm not surprised at how this poll is going.

I can't speak for all states, but my guess is that "most" states "already" require some sort of mandatory class in order to get a "carry license"....at least Tennessee does. Note: I said "most states". I know there are some that only require you to pay a fee and have a background check, but I think those states are in the minority.

I think most people are going to vote based on what they are already familiar with, which is some kind of mandatory training that's already required in their home state. JMO]

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Both sides of this argument have good points. Correct training is not a bad thing, if it is not used to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Most of us have seen people who seemed to lack training. Some of them were people with mental or moral deficiencies which training would not have corrected, but surely not all. The suggestion by truckemup97 in the predecessor of this thread (that training be mandated in the public schools) would seem to answer most of the valid objections. Of course, people whose culture mandates indiscriminate discharge of firearms would have to be exempted, but that probably doesn't account for a large percentage of the public-school population, at least not yet.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I think most people are going to vote based on what they are already familiar with, which is some kind of mandatory training that's already required in their home state. JMO]

Probably some truth in that. Though, there are only three of us from Tennessee who have voiced our position in this thread, me, you and Gregg. We all said NO. Great minds think alike.. regardless of home state law.

 

[Rule3]

THAT makes no sense.

Way to judge an entire group of people based on the conditions of a few. The poster didnt even mention alzheimer's but you found it necessary to base your argument on alzheimers.

I'm pushing 70 and my aim and physical strength isn't was it once was. However I know I get hit center mass in close proximity. It's good I know who your friends are and who thinks you're a second class citizen undeserving of the right to protect yourself.

No you assumed that.I also said senility.

I used it as an example of someone NOT knowing their limitations,in relation to driving and the same would apply to guns,I never said all Senior Citizens, you assumed that. I also said ANYONE not just elderly. You, based on your statement would demonstrate proficiency. If a person can not hit center of mass at close range how is he or she going to defend themselves??. If they get a shot off where does it go??

So you let us know when you "know your limitations" and decide to put your guns in the safe.

I also mentioned driving. we should let those who can not react or see well to continue to drive so we do not take away there "dignity" and then they run over a kid on a bike?

I live in a high retirement age area, I have sold many guns while working in a Gun Shop to Senior Citizens, Some are strong and sharp as a tack, others shake so bad and can barely pull the trigger, yes it scares me. They buy a gun even a revolver and do not know how to load it. Buy a semi auto and can not pull the slide back but by golly they have a gun!
Then they never shoot it or practice. Again I am not saying anyone of any age.

You want a Doctor with his hands shaking to have a scalpel start cutting on you ?
Go back and read my first post at the beginning of this thread.

 

[nachogrande]

training req'd for cc permits

at the current rate cc's are going out I'm afraid it's just a matter of time before something real bad happens. if people don't get some very basic skills and education. a voluntary training option perhaps, before it becomes mandatory. I'm afraid at some point in the not too distant future, general public safety and common sense is gonna win out over our constitution.

 

[Realzebub45]

Well if you have ever bothered to read the 2nd amendment or any of the supreme court rulings regarding the amendment you would see that they (forefathers) never addressed concealed carry as we know and think of it. I wasn't saying either of what you ask. The supreme court may have if depending on your interpretation of the highlighted portion below. (quoted from Wikipedia, [not best source but quick])

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]​

As to the legality of a woman carrying a weapon in her purse back then, well I'm not that old nor a legal scholar so I don't know and I bet you don't either.

Why would the left care what I say? I'm not expressing a theory, just an opinion as are you. I'm not against concealed carry at all. I just believe people with deadly weapons on their person should have some basic training on how and when to use one.

Founding fathers never used the words "concealed carry", so therefor you infer they did not "address concealed carry as we know and think of it"? You don't think the concept of having a small arm under their overcoat ever came up in their lives? They did not draw the distinction because there was no distinction for them. They had the wisdom to know that a righteous law abiding armed man was a great defense to tyranny and self. Really just a simple concept, and the second was written broadly for a reason.

Wikipedia cut and paste quotes are pointless. As a clue, Firearms were sold and marketed for a long time for their concealability and compactness, before all the laws of the 19th century. But you are saying still, that you think all those people were likely breaking the law? You could buy a full auto Thompson in a hardware store at one point but you are saying you think it as likely as not that a little colt pocket auto was illegal to carry in your vest pocket? Those people were all violating the constitution in your opinion? Or, you don't know?

I don't think one needs to be a legal scholar. Sounds like you are for CCW, just a government sanctioned and controlled limiting authority version of it. Lets give them another inch, shall we. I'm sure we can trust nancy pelosi and chuck schumer.

The more training the better, no one would argue. The best solution would be a voluntary one, but supported greatly by the appropriate organizations with the help of funding and volunteers.

 

[jag312]

One thing that no one has mentioned is a training session to teach the CCW applicant when the firearm can be used and what are the legal ramifications of discharging the firearm. No one has the right to use a firearm against another person without facing the consequences. I feel an applicant needs to be told what to expect when the firearm is used, even when the investigation eventually shows it to be a good shoot.

 

[dcxplant]

Of course I'm biased because I teach them!

 

[nachogrande]

a class before the class for potential applicants?

although no actual shooting and a written test seriously dumbed down. the ex FBI did a great job of laws, shoot/don't shoot, and post shoot expectations.

 

[woodsltc]

.

Well, Y'all know we have mandated drivers' testing in each state...How are we driving?

In both states that I sojourn....There is mandatory training for a concealed carry licenses.

That training by and large covers the lawful use of deadly force and firearm safety in the home as well as on the street.

I teach concealed carry classes.....I know full well, that just because someone receives the training to meet the states requirement, etc....

That you can advise folks of the laws surrounding concealed carry and the circumstances where one would have a legal defense in the use of deadly force,

You can instruct folks one how to safely and effectively handle their personal defense firearm, etc.......

But, all the best training in the world....Will not fix stupid.

Common sense....They got it or they don't.

Just one of many,

http://www.policeone.com/news/37857-police-defend-restraint-in-standoff-with-distraught-fellow-officer-nashville-tn


Go figger..................


.

Yep, all the training in the world can't fix stupid.

I remember when the incident with the Nashville police officer happened...was in all the Tn newspapers and TV news......I didn't realize 12 years had gone by since that occurred.

Don

 

[revolver59]

I think it should be a must!! Otherwise, it would be the same as putting a person behind the wheel of a vehicle,without prior training,which might cause serious injury,or death,to themselves,or others.I see no harm with training people properly, with any tool that they need or have to use.I also think that people that use cell phones in their vehicles on public roads, should go through a training program,hoping that they will come to their senses,and see what the consequences of texting while driving could be. I don't have a problem or an issue with police officers having computers in their cars , it is a great idea, but when I see one driving down the road, that has his or her nose stuck to the screen of their computer, that pisses me off . So proper training and knowledge of how to use any of these tools,and others,would be a great plus to our ignorant society.

 

[kisportolt]

Considering this poll is on a firearms enthusiasts board....

About half or more households don't even own firearms so you can figure their response would be close to 100% in favor of mandatory training. Then add to it gun owners who are not enthusiasts or permit holders but just have a gun around the house... I would guess those folks would also be highly in favor of mandatory training. hmmmm.... It makes those 90% polls on background checks look believable.

So are you saying that an enthusiast and permit holder cannot also be in favor of requiring some training? Or that you can only be deemed an enthusiast if you oppose any gun legislation that is proposed?

 

[Carrot]

The problem I have with anything mandatory is this:

-it may be extremely difficult for someone in very rural areas to find s class or expensive to get to one.

-the constitution says "shall not be infringed."

 

[Lost Lake]

at the current rate cc's are going out I'm afraid it's just a matter of time before something real bad happens. if people don't get some very basic skills and education. a voluntary training option perhaps, before it becomes mandatory. I'm afraid at some point in the not too distant future, general public safety and common sense is gonna win out over our constitution.

It's that last line that I have to take exception with. That one is naive and boils my blood. No disrespect to you nacho, but we need to nip this in the bud right now...

Common sense will win over the second amendment.

That one blows my mind. The second amendment is common sense. Our forefathers saw what happened and wrote the second amendment to prevent it from happening ever again!

Yes some states have rules and regulations that infringe on our rights. We have lost some battles. I am not okay with that and don't agree that a few more lost rights would be just peachy.

I train regularly and would love everyone to be trained. But to MANDATE training before you are allowed to defend yourself is wrong! A woman being beaten and raped in her basement doesn't need to prove she can hit a target 21 feet away. What she NEEDS is a snub nose full of hollow points she can push into the beast's belly!

Sadly we will have accidental shootings. We will have stolen guns on the streets. We will have people shooting their friend while cleaning a gun.

I can live with that. It is something we all must live with to be able to enjoy the right to carry a gun. Just as we have horrific car accidents and tragic plane crashes, we have to accept that as part of the deal we make to enjoy the benefit.

I think the negative attitude towards guns comes from the lack of knowledge of how much GOOD they do for us every day. You can see how great your car is when it takes you to work and back. You can't see how great that gun on your hip is unless you use it to save your life.

Guns are used thousands of times a year to prevent death, battery and theft. I think the average yearly statistic is around 3,500 times that guns save the day for citizens.

So when I hear of a tragedy like a mall shooting I also consider that in the last month hand guns probably kept 100 women from being raped, 100 people from being killed and 100 families from being assaulted.

I don't know what to say. This support for mandatory requirement by the government to exercise a right, especially on this forum, is very disappointing. I hope I can convince some of you to see the benefit of taking government regulations out of the equation.

 

[gm272gs]

I read that post about pouring gas on the fire, saying that just because we were in the military that we're not more proficient at firearms than anyone else.

I agree with that to an extent. I have met folks from all the services who only had a passing knowledge of safety and were too stupid to be allowed to have a firearm, even in combat.

That's not true for most, but certainly true for quite a few. Same with LEOS. Just because they carry one, doesn't mean they know all there is to know about it. I have a LEO friend who carries an AR15 in his trunk. He brings it to me to clean and maintain in working order. He's a driver, not a mechanic.

The difference is that he knows his limitations.

I voted "yes", but it's only because most people don't seek out certified instructors for proper training. Actually women do, but men don't, as a rule.

It's probably due to our society. Boys grow up and turn into men and are assumed to "know about guns" whether they do or not. They don't want to appear "unmanly", so they don't ask for help as much as they should. They watch YouTube videos and read self-defense manuals and figure they're ready for anything.

Women on the other hand, don't mind telling us that they know nothing (if that's the case - not making a generalization, here!) and want to learn. They make the best students, because they listen. Men (because they're men) think they know everything, even when they don't. They don't want to lose their "man card", so they aren't as forthcoming with their limitations.

That's my ramble. Figured I should add it.

 

[DeathGrip]

Common Sense,

I voted NO.

But we don't have Common Sense anymore. We have to be told what is Common Sense. By who? Maybe the VP?

The dumbing down of society has created a large lack of Common Sense.

I'm sick of being told what Common Sense is.