just a little rant

[chances R]

I help a lot of new shooters.  Basic safety, handling, shooting skill, etc.  Sometimes people simply need time and experience to be minimally functionable.  Sooo, I sent one new shooter to a 'school' for a basic handgun course.  They come away with a CCP.  Folks, if there was ever a person who was no where close to ready to be turned loose to carry, it was this person.   Just another reason this CCP  was and is a terrible idea.  I teach the ECP class and certainly there are people who pass this course as well that should not carry a gun just based on the success of this course.  Oh well, I feel better......

[hipower]

Good for you. I like to think I have influenced several as well over the years. We all need to be doing this constantly.

[A.J. Holst]

VWas the CCP a nod to constitutional carry?

Dare I say attending a class to earn / collect a permit does not magically make one a good shooter.

If you don't think paying a pro for continuing education is a good investment, at least learn proper basics and practice, both live and dry fire and add context and critical thinking to your training.

[DaveTN]

Carrying a gun is a constitutional right and a natural right, even though this state doesn’t see it that way. It is a persons own responsibility to be trained to deal with a deadly force situation. The CCP was put in place for those that can’t afford training. The HCP class is not a training class and many can’t afford real training classes that runs hundreds of dollars for the class and ammo. But many of them can still get trained by friends or family. They have the personal responsibility to get trained, and we have no idea how many do.

Are untrained people shooting others a big problem? I don’t know. I know that many instances of bad shoots or negligent shootings come from those that have been trained. Again, its what the number crunchers desire the numbers to show.

My thoughts come from my experience of dealing with the victims of violence that needed the immediate ability to carry a gun, in a state that would not allow that, trained or not.

[E4 No More]

I wonder how our forefathers ever got by before firearm trainers came into being?

Yes, that was sarcasm. 

[Ronald_55]

23 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

I wonder how our forefathers ever got by before firearm trainers came into being?

Yes, that was sarcasm. 

Back then if you were too stupid to fight your way out of a wet paper bag you died early.... not now. Plus there was a much larger family level firearms training. Your Dad, or Mom, taught you to shoot because it meant one more person to hunt for the meat that they needed to survive. Now, that is not to say those people were trained like a soldier, but they knew which end of the gun went boom and to not point it at things they did not want to kill. 

[AuEagle]

I support training, but the Constitution doesn't require it to bear arms.

I believe owning, carrying in any way, is a God given right.

 

Edited September 17, 2020 by AuEagle

[E4 No More]

1 hour ago, Ronald_55 said:

Back then if you were too stupid to fight your way out of a wet paper bag you died early.... not now. Plus there was a much larger family level firearms training. Your Dad, or Mom, taught you to shoot because it meant one more person to hunt for the meat that they needed to survive. Now, that is not to say those people were trained like a soldier, but they knew which end of the gun went boom and to not point it at things they did not want to kill. 

I didn't live back then and I taught myself to shoot. My parents had nothing to do with it as they were Democrats living in the safe suburbs north of Kansas City, MO. I've never shot anyone - although I've come close in the performance of my duties. I've known of several cases of "trained" people both in the Marine Corps and on police departments that have "accidentally" shot people - including killing some. 

While I do not fault trainers for making a living from training people nor those that want to spend their money paying trainers, I don't believe they can train someone to actually be absolutely focused 100% of the time that they handle a gun. That is up to the individual, and it's well-established that people's ability to focus varies greatly no matter their training.

What I do think would help is showing anyone wanting to carry a gun is pictures of what a projectile, (rifle, pistol, or shot), does to human flesh, and the unvarnished financial and emotional impact that a moment of inattention can do to their lives using real-life instances. Kind of like the videos we were shown as teenagers when we went through driving school, but taken to the next level with how it effected their lives. When I was trained by the FBI, we went days being shown crime scene and autopsy photos of every manner of death someone can suffer. That was over 29 years ago and I can still picture a lot of them in my mind. It's very sobering.

[hipower]

1 hour ago, E4 No More said:

I didn't live back then and I taught myself to shoot. My parents had nothing to do with it as they were Democrats living in the safe suburbs north of Kansas City, MO. I've never shot anyone - although I've come close in the performance of my duties. I've known of several cases of "trained" people both in the Marine Corps and on police departments that have "accidentally" shot people - including killing some. 

While I do not fault trainers for making a living from training people nor those that want to spend their money paying trainers, I don't believe they can train someone to actually be absolutely focused 100% of the time that they handle a gun. That is up to the individual, and it's well-established that people's ability to focus varies greatly no matter their training.

What I do think would help is showing anyone wanting to carry a gun is pictures of what a projectile, (rifle, pistol, or shot), does to human flesh, and the unvarnished financial and emotional impact that a moment of inattention can do to their lives using real-life instances. Kind of like the videos we were shown as teenagers when we went through driving school, but taken to the next level with how it effected their lives. When I was trained by the FBI, we went days being shown crime scene and autopsy photos of every manner of death someone can suffer. That was over 29 years ago and I can still picture a lot of them in my mind. It's very sobering.

Sort of like the old videos we we shown in HS Health class on the effects of vd? 

That was a gut clinching experience!

[bersaguy]

Hunter training Courses/Classes teaches basic gun safety but in no way comes close to the education one should have to carry a hand gun to defend your self or a family member from harm. They are as different as day and night. The training one needs to be able to carry a concealed hand gun is much more intense and requires much more training and should not be mistaken for a hunter safety course.......JMHO 

[btq96r]

Freedom means assumed risks, like those who probably shouldn't be carrying firearms if they choose.  I don't see the situation getting better, but I have to be willing to assume that risk if I believe everybody in compliance with our rules as a society has the right to keep and bear arms.

[E4 No More]

3 hours ago, hipower said:

Sort of like the old videos we we shown in HS Health class on the effects of vd? 

That was a gut clinching experience!

Yes, particularly the cauliflower ones. 

[hipower]

1 hour ago, E4 No More said:

Yes, particularly the cauliflower ones. 

LOL. But squeamishly laughing.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

On 9/17/2020 at 9:41 AM, AuEagle said:

I support training, but the Constitution doesn't require it to bear arms.

I believe owning, carrying in any way, is a God given right.

 

True...but factually and historically at the time that the Constitution was written all able bodied males actually DID train with their arms for militia duty. The militias actually drilled and trained. 

The garbage that most people were taught in history class is that the militias of the British colonies were a bunch of bumbling hayseed hicks that couldn't line up and march down the road without falling off into a ditch. That is part of the "Myth of the Revolution" that a bunch of untrained farmers, on their own, armed with rifles, beat the mightiest military in the world. Nice story to tell the kids but it is not exactly true.

  In fact the "militia system" in the colonies was well established and had been around for about 150 years when the Revolution happened and those state militias had a fair amount of actual combat experience fighting Indians and the French and Spanish. Who here is familiar with King William's War? King Phillip's War? Queen Anne's War? War of Jenkin's Ear? Yamassee War?  Tuscarora War? Anglo Cherokee War?  Seven Years War ? Lord Dunmore's War? Anyone?   ALL of those took place East of the Mississippi between about 1650 and 1775. Also add in an innumerable number of Indian raids. There was A LOT of fighting that the state and town militias engaged in before the Revolution .  And they actually trained. Now their training was not as often or as intense as the British regulars and they were not held to the same fanatical level of discipline (and the British regulars held the militias in disdain due to that) but make no mistake about the fact that from the 1600s through when the Constitution was written able bodied males of military age did receive training with their firearm and got follow on training and drilling as part of their militia duty.  The concept of gun ownership devoid of any and all responsibility to society was a foreign concept to people at that time. 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Cruel Hand Luke

[A.J. Holst]

 

7 hours ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

all able bodied males actually DID train with their arms for militia duty. The militias actually drilled and trained

Today, my guess is a lot of new, suburbanite gunowners are trained through the magic of watching John Wick and playing FPS video games.

[chances R]

There is a huge difference in the right to own firearms and carrying a firearm in the midst of the general public.  Being able to talk does not make one a public speaker.  Same difference in my book.

[tnhawk]

I have heard many individuals speak and remove any doubt that they understand the laws pertaining to firearms.  The right to carry also has the obligation to know and follow the law pertaining to use of weapons.

[A.J. Holst]

2 hours ago, tnhawk said:

I have heard many individuals speak and remove any doubt that they understand the laws pertaining to firearms.  The right to carry also has the obligation to know and follow the law pertaining to use of weapons.

You mean constitutional carry doesn't supercede all the other 8,000 or so local, state, and federal gun laws?

[E4 No More]

On 9/18/2020 at 8:14 PM, chances R said:

There is a huge difference in the right to own firearms and carrying a firearm in the midst of the general public.  Being able to talk does not make one a public speaker.  Same difference in my book.

Really? Where is that in the Constitution? I seem to recall lots of pictures/paintings of the period, and not a one of them included a HCP or similar.

[chances R]

you didn't see crowds at the shopping malls though did ya?.....no subdivisions either.  There is a difference whether you want to admit the practicallity of it or not.  

[Chucktshoes]

9 minutes ago, chances R said:

you didn't see crowds at the shopping malls though did ya?.....no subdivisions either.  There is a difference whether you want to admit the practicallity of it or not.  

This argument doesn’t sound any less ridiculous in this context than when the Bloomberg shills try to use it to claim that the 2A only covers muskets. 
 

If you have to jump through hoops and ask for government permission to exercise a right, it isn’t a right. 

[chances R]

quite a bit of difference IMO.  Bloomberg wants to eliminate guns of all types.  I simply want people to be responsible in carrying a firearm in public.  Jumping through hoops for various reasons for centuries.....including buying firearms and the Constitution is still intact then and now.

[Chucktshoes]

I want folks to be responsible with firearms as well. I don’t want the government to be able to arbitrarily decide what that looks like. 
 

Just the same as with speech. Folks are responsible for their actions with a firearm or their speech. Prior restraint by the government is an abomination and anathema to liberty and the individual’s rights.  

[Alleycat72]

2 hours ago, chances R said:

quite a bit of difference IMO.  Bloomberg wants to eliminate guns of all types.  I simply want people to be responsible in carrying a firearm in public.  Jumping through hoops for various reasons for centuries.....including buying firearms and the Constitution is still intact then and now.

I think you should get the king's permission before having kids. After you get a license from the crown of course. Times have changed since people started having kids.

[E4 No More]

16 hours ago, chances R said:

quite a bit of difference IMO.  Bloomberg wants to eliminate guns of all types.  I simply want people to be responsible in carrying a firearm in public.  Jumping through hoops for various reasons for centuries.....including buying firearms and the Constitution is still intact then and now.

So how many trainers have shot either themselves or others on accident, or have simply had negligent discharges? Answer: Numerous.