Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by HerrGlock, Aug 10, 2012.
The link is about how canidates will handle SS and Medicare?
??????????????????? This is what I got
"Today's Hot Issue
Are you concerned about the level of training received by those seeking concealed-carry gun licenses?
Please login to vote and comment on the Hot Issue."
I wouldn't mind a yearly qualification for the specific firearm carried. We do it under LEOSA. It looks good in court too if you are involved in a shooting.
Since there is no required training for openly carrying a firearm with a tucked shirt, why should the state require formal training when I cover that same firearm with the same shirt untucked? What has really changed? Now you see it; now you don't.
I would like to see someone prove that those states where NON-cops who have no mandated training have higher rates of misuse and bad shoots before anyone pushes for any mandated training at all.
Until then I would like to see the states that do have mandated training drop the requirement.
Cops have an entirely different reason and set of circumstances to carry and their training or lack thereof has no bearing on this whatsoever.
So in what state that does not mandate training has it ever been an issue for a non cop? Ever?
Couple million people carrying for at least a couple decades if it were going to be an issue, don't you think it would already have become one?
If I understand your question,
No state I know of requires annual certification/qualification for a specific firearm being concealed carry. I do suppirt the idea.
There have been shootings where the ccw guy has shot a good guy by mistake. Just as cops have done.
The certification is one safety measure to ensure that the owner can at least handle and qualify with a specific firearm. As it is now, one may get certified and pass the shoot with a .22 and decide that he later wants to carry a much larger gun with a different trigger.
Why so much resisitance?
Everyone likes to shoot here. And it would help in court if the shoot went bad. Its not gun control, its bullet placement.
Did I get your question right? If you don't agree, its ok. Its just one mans opinion.
When I carry off duty, I am a private citizen and am under the same circumstances as you in the face of attack
My training is very good. Even netter training is out there at some firearm instruction schools.
This is just my opinion but it is your thread and I won't mention it anymore out of respect.
I don't know how anyone that reads forums like this can NOT be concerned about the lack of knowledge displayed by some of the law pertaining to CCW, use of deadly force, etc.
There is absolutely no training to get your CCW permit here in PA, you just need to pay $20. No other BS.
Mandatory training is just a slippery slope and is only another restriction on our Rights and a feel good measure.
I always resist someone or some state trying to infringe on a civil right. So should you.
According to the University of Chicago study cops shoot the wrong person 11% of the time. Non cops, 2%. That is not showing an overwhelming need to change things.
Even off duty you have a different mind set. You will interfere with a crime being committed against another. Most CCW holders will not, that's not what CCW is for, it's for SELF defense.
The reason it's different is the cop goes into a situation quite often without a clear understanding of who is the "good guy" and who is the "bad guy" and has to make value judgments without enough information. That's the nature of the job. Another part of that is the cop may very well have to use deadly force beyond arm's length. Same thing, just the nature of the job, on or off duty.
The CCW carrier ALWAYS knows who the bad guy is. The vast majority, call it 95% or better, of the time it's within arm's reach of each other. That's the nature of carrying a gun for self protection.
Completely different circumstances. If you want someone to have to live up to cop standards, give them a badge and arrest powers too and make them legally entitled to step in. Otherwise the two are not equal and only vaguely similar.
Nothing, in the 30 years of shall issue (AL, WA, PA, DE) has shown that mandating training does anything but throws another obstacle in the way of people exercising a civil right. Nothing in the 20ish years of the newer shall issue statutes that mandate training have ever shown that the training creates fewer misuses of a firearm, nothing.
As a matter of interest, the cases I've seen in the paper, people shooting because someone cut them off, etc, have all been in mandated training states. I do believe that's because of all the hoopla when the CCW permits started being issued and some ignored all common sense. Training obviously has not changed that.
We need to do away with mandated training and allow those with less disposable income also exercise their right to self defense. Yes, training is great and I urge everyone to take as many classes as you have time and money to take. I do not believe it should ever be mandated.
Yeah and we've heard all about all the bad CCW shootings in PA, right? All of the self defense cases that the jury loved hearing about no mandated training, right?
hmmm, the only one I know of the guy was carrying on a FL permit and that required training. Interesting. I do believe he's going to jail for life or damn close to it, but that permit did actually require training.
I am 100% for skills training requirement.
The normal CHL/CCW/CPL (etc) courses are supposed to cover laws and use of deadly force, but I can say for certain that the TX competency qualification is a joke. You can fully qualify by the 7 yard mark and completely miss the 15y and still pass.
I wouldn't mind at least 4 hours of practical shooting skills training with holster drawing, multiple target acquisition and engagement, and a real timed and scored result.
That should be a bare minimum... Just because people have been carrying for years with limited negative results isnt enough to argue with me against mandatory training.
There are lots of articles where a CC'er pulls, shoots, hits nothing, scares away BG and they're called a hero. I agree they're a hero, but the fact that the BG is still out there means they could have done more.
One could argue about the adrenaline dump and tunnel vision causing missed shots, but training provides muscle memory that can be relied on to bring the pistol up straight and true.
What you feel, believe or argue is basically irrelevant until you include why all the states that have zero training requirement have roughly the same bad shoot rates as the states that require training.
You are saying it's not really a right to bear arms, that it's a privilege the state can create ever increasing training requirements to keep. It can end up there is only one state approved course, it costs $500 and has a three year waiting list, is given once a year and is 40 hours long but only has 50 seats available. Exaggeration, yes, but that's just as "reasonable" as a mandated 4 hour course and is a very imaginable end result of mandated training being usurped by people who do not want CCW in the state.
Until you can prove the training actually changes the bad shoot percentage, we need to be taking away the mandate in the states that have it.
So a kill is the only desired outcome to you?
Strange, to me if I didn't even fire a shot and the guy ran away it would still be a desired outcome. Wouldn't count to you, though, "the BG is still out there"
My 86 year old grandma could never pass that training. Now you have denied her Rights and left her defenseless.
She knows her ability and will probably only shoot when someone is actually trying to pull her from her wheelchair. She doesn't need to have the ability to shoot out to 15 yards.
I'm on GT. How much more qualified can you get?
Reasonable counter.. But the number of required draws is much lower than we CCrs would think to have an impact on crime rates (not that we want to draw, just having an impact would require even more draws).