Gun carry and training
A point:
My personal feelings are that people that carry in public should be very well-trained.
A few things. Due to legal sorts, the training you get in Tennessee as part of your mandatory course tends to focus on legalities. Not so much gun handling. Next, training criteria should not be so onerous as to make getting a permit overly burdensome.
January 15th, 2010 at 10:32 am
When I was in MI, I conducted CCW “training” courses to meet the legal requirement. The main thing we stressed was that the course is only a starting point that teaches certain legal points and basic gun safety; it does NOT prepare you to competently carry a weapon. Absent real training (as opposed to the government-mandated version), you are just another idiot with a gun. Sorry, but there it is.
I have ceased being amazed by the guy who spares no expense tricking out his gun with various aftermarket do-dads, but finds a $500 defensive pistol course to be a waste of time and money.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:01 am
My personal feelings are that people (like SFL&Hubby) that spout off on the internet should be better informed on the subject matter being discussed.
Fortunately for them, there’s no law banning public stupidity.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Guess I may be out of touch or we may be arguing semantics but how much training does it really take to carry a firearm?
The basic minimum requirement should be a person sufficiently capable of safe firearm handling as not to injure themselves (preferably) and not injure others — a necessity.
That really is it.
The most training courses simply makes a person more effective and more competent in using their firearm.
I am all for training and recommend that everyone get as much as they need to feel competent to handle their firearms safely.
I am not advocating irresponsible behavior or actions in carrying a firearm but if Granny Elsie is comfortable with keeping a revolver in her purse and can do so safely, why should we recommend a $500 1 to 3 day training course — when she will probably never need that level of training?
January 15th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Does that apply to cops too?
80 shots, 2 hits. Just saying.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Alan,
I’m not sure who your comment is addressed to so please forgive me if reply and it gets cross ways.
Again, in my opinion, it isn’t a matter of training but of competency and effectiveness.
In the situation of the cops, was it a matter of safely handling firearms or effectively employing them?
The issue under discussion at SFL (and here now) isn’t shooting proficiency but simply what level of training is needed to own, carry and handle firearms. The fire fight in Las Vegas is a magnitude in difference from the negligent discharge in the grocery store.
Most people won’t encounter such a fire fight, if they feel comfortable not training for it….why should we recommend they do so?
January 15th, 2010 at 11:34 am
“My personal feelings are that people that carry in public should be very well-trained.”
My personal feelings are that people that speak out in public should be very well trained.
My personal feelings are that people that practice religion should be very well trained.
My personal feelings are that people that want to petition the government for redress of grievances should be very well trained.
My personal feelings are that people that assemble for any purpose should be very well trained.
My personal feelings are that people that want to exercise their rights against self incrimination, unwarranted searches, or heck, even quartering of troops, should be very well trained.
Thank goodness my personal feelings don’t amount to a crock of beans regarding the exercise of individual rights in this country.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
While I understand and agree that training requirements could quickly be used to restrict gun ownership or carry.
Look around you at how many people cannot even park their car (That they practise with daily!) between two lines.
Although upon further thought, perhaps the penalties for inattention with a firearm would be enough after a few cases as to inspire others to be more careful?
And yes, our Friends with Badges should have access to more training.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Bob S, with respect I do think you’re out of touch. Please take a DTI (Farnam), Clint Smith or similar course. I think you’ll find that these courses do much more than simply making one more proficient in “using their firearm.”
How much training does it take to carry a gun (to use your question)? A lot more than that offered in basic CCW courses, the requirements of which are written by legislators. With due respect to people’s feelings of self esteem, if you think a CCW course or a basic gun safety course prepares you to carry a gun, you are at the unconscious incompetence stage of learning re this subject.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
I’ll take all the training someone wants me to take…provided they pay for it.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
To be clear, the question we are discussing over at my blog is the possibility of peer-oversight on training. I don’t think the gov is the proper entity to design regulation or training requirements or put them in place, for various reasons. What we have posited over there is a system where the gov basically hands out permits/licenses, but all guidelines and training programs are handled by a peer group. In other words, no gov regulations but group oversight. That way you can reach more people, make money to support the group’s interest rather than pour more in gov pockets, do outreach, etc.
Probably a total fantasy, but it works in lots of other areas.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Peer oversight can be useful (college research, CPAs reviewing CPAs). Or a total sham (Global Warming, government oversight of government).
January 15th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
MH,
From ThunderRanch’s website about their defensive handgun class
Course addresses basic skills of safety, drawing, loading, malfunctions as well as some advanced skills i.e. distance firing, injury drills, ground fighting, shooting and moving as well as other issues for defensive use of handgun.
I know how to safely handle my firearm, I know how to draw my firearm,
I don’t need to know how to handle a malfunction drill to safely carry my firearm. It is good to know but most people who carry never pull their firearm, out of those who do, most never fire, out of those who fire — how many suffer a malfunction?
It is good to know but it is simply making a person more effective in using their firearm which is different from carrying it.
distance firing, injury drills, ground fighting, shooting and moving as well as other issues for defensive use of handgun.
Those are all skills related to using the firearm, not carrying it.
It doesn’t take an 8 hour course of instruction provided by someone else to learn how to carry a firearm safely.
Millions of people carry and carry safely without ever attending training classes. I’m not against training classes at all, don’t get me wrong.
But what skills, abilities and capabilities are really needed — bottom line –to safely carry a firearm?
January 15th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
The problem with mandatory training laws is that eventually the training mandates will become like the “literacy tests” for voting in the Jim Crow era South. The police or government agency(who generally want to make sure that almost no permits are issued) will set up training criteria or standards that are either impossible to meet or so expensive to comply with that no one will be able to meet them. Or even worse, they will set the standards in such a way as to allow the government agency to make subjective decisions about who meets them. Once that happens, we are right back at the “may issue” permit system we had in most states until the mid-90’s. Under that system, only those people with the right kind of political influence were able to get permits.
January 15th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Not a fan of mandatory training, for many obvious reasons. I would strongly RECOMMEND further training though. I took a ladies defensive class before I took my CCW class, and I’m not stopping there either.
January 15th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Yep – there is definitely an “access” issue at play in most rights. Meaning unless someone can actually get to and exercise a right, just saying ‘no one is stopping you’ doesn’t really constitute no infringement. Free and unfettered; otherwise you are restricting it.
January 15th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
SFL,
Exactly and we already have a mechanism in place to catch those who don’t exercise proper responsibility and care when carrying — the current laws.
The effects of irresponsible carrying are fairly evident.
On the other hand, some professions that effect isn’t so easily seen – hence the need for self policing.
But isn’t the self policing in many cases unnecessary?
We have standards for electricians, barbers, mechanics.
To say that every needs to be an ASE certified mechanic or have that same skill set is a little overboard when most people only change their oil or spark plugs.
If people want to be able to rebuild their engine — great.
When it all comes down to it, the laws already on the books provide the information we need to have the minimum level. Don’t shoot yourself, don’t shoot other people, don’t shoot property, don’t carry in this place or that place.
January 15th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
I’ve got no problems with mandating a certain level of knowledge for those people *selling* those services as a business. That’s just basic fraud protection for consumers.
You want peer-reviewed criteria for your employees to sell services as a doctor, fine.
You want peer-reviewed criteria for your employees to sell services as am electrician, fine.
You want peer-reviewed criteria for your employees to sell services as a mechanic, fine.
But we should not need a peer reviewed certification
to take tylenol, add a light fixture to our own home, or change our own brakes. It may be a good idea to be knowledgable about how to do those things safely. But that is very different from needing permission from the gov’t (even if the guidelines are written by a peer-group) to do them.
So if you want peer-reviewed criteria for the employees of your armed security guard business, I’ve got no real problem with that. But to protect myself and my own family? Sorry, but I don’t need permission from you nor anybody else.
January 15th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
I think it’s find to say, as SFL does, “Free and unfettered; otherwise you are restricting it.”
However, if you want additional ammunition in the argument, I think it’s worth pointing out that states like Washington, who have no training requirement for Concealed Pistol Licenses, have a record of accidental and wrongful shootings by permit holders that’s just as good as anywhere else. In other words, there isn’t really much evidence that there’s a “compelling state interest” here, for those who think that sort of thing should be allowed to override our basic guarantee of rights.
January 15th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
But we should not need a peer reviewed certification.
Yup. Do we have “peer reviewed certification” and training for the free exercise of any other rights? Nope, and we shouldn’t.
Does SFL propose that there should be peer reviewed certification of anyone who practices Islam to make sure they’re not a radical jihadist? Probably not.
January 15th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Should be well-trained, okay.
Have to be well-trained, not okay.
January 16th, 2010 at 12:36 am
I got to go with Bob S. here. The training most are talking about are gunfighting skills not gun carry skills. Nice but not necessary since if you are carrying for self-defense, it is really unlikely you’ll end up in fire/maneuver or prolonged combat. Sure if you’ve got a fatwah on your head then it might be needed but for normal carry it is extra.
If additional training for carrying is needed, it needs to be situation assessment, identifying conditions that make up an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, shoot/don’t shoot scenario training, stress conditioning, not to mention mental preparation to use deadly force.
If the concern is someone carrying in public the training needed isn’t in gun handling but on identifying when the gun can legally leave its holster, identifying when you can legally discharge, identifying when you should not engage, how to maintain situational awareness, etc.