Armed and untrained

[Double Naught Spy]

Worse than armed and untrained or armed with an attitude, according to a friend of mine, is Drunk, uneducated, and armed, a dangerous combination.

I have no wish that anyone's rights be infringed, but here lately I have had the pleasure of working with several 'untrained' folks who had legal permits to carry. While they could recite the rules for safe gun handling, some never made the link from recitation to actual gun handling. I think it may be easier to give marksmanship instruction than to convey safety information such that the newbie understands the rules and the implications of those rules.

Some stupid behaviors may eventually become self correcting, like the guy I saw looking down the muzzle to see if he could see the bullet in the barrel. Some behaviors may result in persons other than the untrained gun owner getting hurt. This last week, I watched a guy work the slide on his 1911, one live round falling to the ground, another going into battery. Several people yelled at him to holster his weapon as there was somebody down range from the goober. His comment really hammered home his lack of understanding or potential significance of his actions. He said, "I am sorry, but I wasn't going to shoot." As most of you have read in other places, many accidental shootings were by people who were not intending on discharging their weapons.

This type of problem is unique to gun handling or new. You can see similar behaviors in people operating dangerous equipment around the home (lawn mowers, weed wackers, hedge trimmers) and especially in the ways that people drive. There is just some gap between knowing how to be safe and being safe.

Here is a classic pop song quote
"...I knew the gun was loaded, but I didn't think it'd kill..."
-- Glen Frey, Smuggler's Blues.

 

[lonegunman]

Double Naught Spy you got the Glen Frey quote screwed up:

The quote is " I knew the gun was loaded, but I didnt think he'd kill.

Glen was talking about a person, not the gun, doing the killing.

 

[David Blinder]

I'm torn on this difficult subject because I do think most people have the right to carry but you also have to examine what a right is. To me, it's a benefit that people are entitled to but it must cause nobody else harm or expense. A person with a firearm has a greater ability to do physical harm than an unarmed person and by definition, an untrained person is less capable than a trained one. The problem lies with how competent a person needs to be and how should it be judged. Does a governmental entity have the ability to judge? Probably not. Does that mean that everyone should be able to carry with no proof of ability? Again, probably not. Although I detest restricting gun rights in any fashion, I lean toward the side of mandating some sort of proficiency testing because I'm not fond of a person excercising their right to carry while endangering my right to life. To me, proper training is needed for one to excerise their right to carry and if a person is unwilling or unable to train, they forfeit their right to bear arms. For the most part, the United States has paid a great price to maintain rights and we, as citizens also have to put forth effort to keep those rights.

 

[lonegunman]

Organized training does not imply competence.

Take a look at LEO's, plenty of gun related accidents with them, despite the fact they have been "trained".

Ultimately, passing a training course will not make someone safe.

It will give many people a false sense of security though.

Which of the following would constitute better "training":

Scenario 1: 25 yo man taught to shoot at age 5 by his grandfather, who continues to shoot on a weekly basis.

-or-

Scenario 2: 25 yo man who passes the 3 hour "Janet Reno Course in Gun Safety", then never shoots again.

 

[7th Fleet]

I have a real problem with firearms in ANY untrained hands, it's kind of like turning someone loose with an automobile that has never even been behind the wheel before, and then allowing them to drive on a crowded interstate.

This is why my Police Department sponsors gun safety/self defense seminars for new gun owners and for those who want to apply for a CCW. This is all free of charge and we furnish everything, from the ammo, targets, instructor and range, we will even provide them with a gun if they don't have one. All they have to do is show up and spend a Saturday with us and we even give them a nice certificate suitable for framing, to show that they attended a gun safety course.

7th

 

[lonegunman]

7th fleet:

The problem, though, is that some of your students will know more than your instructors.

Going to some free course doesn't imply you have been "trained".

And I wonder if you department is unintentionally accepting liability for possible injuries that result from accidents caused by people who receive your training.

I mean, lets say Joe Ruger takes your class, then goes home and promptly shoots his kid in the head accidentally.

Sooner or later a slick lawyer is gonna go after the course providers.

Dont get me wrong, I absolutely think people need to be taught gun safety. It is not the government's job, or authority, to do that though.

Guns have been around a lot longer than organized state approved safety courses, you know.

 

[James K]

Hi, Orlando 5,

If the shoe fits... Just let me know where you are so I can be a couple of counties away when you get mad at someone.

Hi, Apple a day,

He was not a felon when the incident happened. The narrator stated that he said that he was returning from the pistol range which was why he had the gun in his car. (Probably BS; a guy like that would have been carrying, just waiting to blow someone away.)

My problem was the hot headed way he ranted about his rights, sounding very similar to some folks on here. Five years of stainless steel toilets and baggy jeans and lockdowns still hadn't taught him that rights have limits. He didn't have one bit of concern about the dead girl or any thought that he might have been wrong.

Jim

 

[Covert Mission]

Blunder and others summarize my feelings (stated at length earlier). With rights come responsibilities. As a gun owner, you have the responsibility to safely and competently exercise your right to gun ownership, and especially carrying in public.

Who sets the standards, and how high? Well, if it were the gov't (and it is in many CCW states), I have some problems with that. State-sanctioned police officers are often not nearly as safe and proficient with their firearms as they should be, and our bureaucrats turn a blind eye to that (training and ammo costs money!). That is hypocrisy, so if they're going to make demands of CCW holders, the same proficiency should apply to all (I know that most police officers receive 20-40 hours of firearms training in the academy, but it apparently doesn't "take" in many cases). I admire what 7th Fleet's agency is doing, and I'm going to propose it to my local police/sheriff dept. I will volunteer some of my time, as an NRA certified trainer.

I totally understand where some here are coming from... the slippery-slope of gov't dictating the standards and the opportunity to then abuse that, and set the bar so high that it will discriminate against many. Who will watch the watchers?, is the old question. In my state, pro-gun activists worked VERY closely with legislators to draft the CCW laws. I think the training standards are too liberal, but that's just my opinion.

UPDATE: By the way, dry fire work at home, with a safely unloaded gun, offers a great way to improve gunhandling skills and trigger control. Not a shot fired! The best shooters I know spend from 15 mins a day to several hours a week just practicing presentations (draws), target acquisition, and smooth trigger breaks, at home. I try to as often as possible. Given that the "average" armed confrontation occurs at under 7 yards‹where rapid and skilled gunhandling rather than precision shooting is required‹ this dryfire work could make all the difference, along with the occasional live-fire practice. My .02

 

[Monkeyleg]

These numbers might help put some of these arguments in perspective. Since Florida enacted their CCW system in 1986 ('87?) the state has issued 776,383 permits. There are currently 263,171 valid permits in citizens' hands. During that period, only 1,397 permits were revoked for any type of criminal behavior, including I would assume mishandling. And Florida has one of the least restrictive training requirments of any state (hunter safety course, basic handgun course, military service, etc).

Just food for thought.

 

[slickpuppy]

Interesting thread. The differences of opinion are very much aligned with the geographic locations of the posters.

 

[orlando5]

If the shoe fits... Just let me know where you are so I can be a couple of counties away when you get mad at someone.

If you are scare of “untrained” people carrying guns, you might want to move to another country where firearms are banned.

IMHO that was a bad remark, labeling every person that disagrees with you as crazy. I expected this from a bleeding liberal board but not from a gun board. We are all adults here.

Like many other on this board I do not trust our government to do the right thing. I think less government is good.

The more you give to the government the more they want. We see this same cycle over and over again.

 

[Legionnaire]

Great thread. Too many good thoughts to comment on them all, not to mention all the good questions. So here's my bottom line.

CCW should be a right. I know the 2nd Amendment, and use the words "should be" consciously. I live in a "discretionary" versus a "shall issue" state, and do not believe this is "right." I do not believe there should be any competency (gun handling) test. I'd like to see all states adopt Vermont's position. If you're a law abiding citizen, you can carry; don't even have to be a citizen of this state.

That said, rights have associated responsibilities, and I believe anyone who carries should have enough personal motivation to want to know the law, to want to be safe, and to want to be competent. I don't get to the range to practice as often as I'd like, but I take a serious training course once a year from one or another of the good schools. Not everyone can afford this expense, but all should still seek to improve their understanding and their skills.

The law will [should?] hold those who use a firearm in defense accountable. "Justifiable homicide" is a defense; in fact, it's a good defense. But it's also a positive defense. It says, "Yes, I shot him, and here is why it was justified." The responsibility that goes with the right suggests you better be d**n sure of your justification.

 

[Apple a Day]

Jim,
Gotcha. I thought that sounded kind of wierd.
Stranger things have happened... like me reading carefully once in a while

 

[MeekAndMild]

I still think that the government should pay for training like they do in Switzerland.

Kids should start it in the seventh grade and have an hour a day a week, just lke they have for physical education.

No one should pass high school until they can show basic proficiency. I think that all government benefits, indeed citizenship itself should be dependant on the ability to shoulder this responsibility.

 

[Ed2000]

"A untrained person with a gun is a liiability to themselves and society"

This is indeed a load of horse ****! and I second the comment that the majority of civillian lives saved by the use of a weapon are by people with no formal training at all.

I have been safely and competently shooting all my life. I never had any type of formal training except for when I had to RENEW my CCW permit after having one without incident for about 6-7 years. Oh, I also had to take a very lame hunter safety course to continue buying hunting licenses.

With 15 minutes of practice, I can get most non shooters to consistently hit a torso sized target at 15 yards with a .38 revolver. Yet, these liberals in that are influencing CCW laws are often requiring 8 plus hours of "formal training" at the cost of hundreds of dollars on top of expensive CCW fees. Training is good, training requirements are BAD.

 

[FPrice]

Ed2000

I have to disagree with your analysis and comment. An untrained person IS a liability, and an individual who carries a firearm for self-defense without knowing how to use it is, in this day and age, a threat to our collective ability (not necessarily our rights) to own and use firearms. You may not agree with this statement, but unless you understand the potential threat that firearms accidents and mis-use (not criminal use) pose in the hands and words of the anti-gun crowd, you don't realize that we can still lose this ability. Too many people think that just because we have this right that we can never lose the ability to exercise it. They are sadly mistaken. Unless we work carefully and intelligently to protect ourselves, we might wake up one day to find that those who do not share our views have finally gotten enough power to force the issue to our detriment.

Being involved myself in training classes for new firearms owners I see a need for training both in the safe and practical use of firearms and the legalities involved with firearms ownership. This need does not spring from any governmental insistence on training but from a lack of parental guidance and training which I consider to be the best and most desirable training. In short, I feel that a knowledgeable and motivated parent is the best source of firearms training for a child. Sadly that seems to be occuring less and less inour society.

You appear to understand and appreciate the importance of training by your statements about training non-shooters. You seem to be providing the mechanical aspect of shooting but there are also legal and moral issues which need to be addressed. When CAN you shoot? When DO you shoot? If you carry a firearm for self-defense you need to know these things and be disciplined enough to be safe at all times. An untrained and un-motivated person cannot be depended upon to adhere to these requirements.

We are probably not as far apart in our thinking as some may consider. We both agree that training is good. The question is, at what point does a person become sufficiently trained to be a responsible and safe gun-owner?

 

[prhm]

Here in Wasington state we are not required to pass any type of test to obtain your CCW, simply give them your 60$ and your good to go.
I am strongly opposed to having to take any kind of test in order to exercise one of my rights.
Jim, driving a car is not a right, no where does it say The right to keep and drive cars. So they can have all the tests they want for all I care.
Even though I have never had any type of formal training, I am close to fitting into lonegunmans example. I am 24 years old, I was tought to shoot and handle firearms safely when I was 8. I practice dry fire daily and on the range bi-weekly. I never use anykind of rest when practicing, I usually try to follow stress fire techniques one time on the range and use slower aimed fire the next. After shooting for this long I am fairly good at hitting a man size target at 25 yards.
I am not some macho wantabe solider type guy. I am an average man with a wife and 2 daughter to protect. I personally dread the day that I will ever actually have to fire one of my weapons at another human, but I take pride in the fact that I know I can do it without harming anyone else.
No one should be denied the right to protect their family because they can't pass some stupid test!

 

[355sigfan]

What a load of horse ****! I can gaurantee you that the majority of civillian lives saved by the use of a weapon are by people with no formal training at all.

No its horsecrap when some moron with out training uses his or her weapon improperly and eithers gets killed or kills someone innocent. Training is a good thing.
PAT

 

[ArmySon]

You can lead a horse to water but can't force him to drink.

You can force somebody to have training but if the individual has an attitude problem, no amount of training will rectify that.

Here in Pennsylvania, there's no training requirement for your CCW. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? It all depends on your point of view and belief in the Second Amendment.

Yes I firmly believe that training is invaluable when it comes to self-defense. Knowing when, how to and the after effects of shooting cannot only save your life but save your butt after the confrontation.

There are 3 battles that have to be won during and after a shooting. The shooting itself, criminal/civil court and morale issues. It's absolutely best if you never have to draw your gun.

Should there be a restriction placed upon CCW, ie training? Sorry but while it sounds like a great idea, until I don't see the numbers to back that theory up.

Anybody have the numbers from Vermont?

 

[lonegunman]

355 sigfan:

You say it is "horsecrap when some moron without training uses his or her weapon improperly and either gets killed or kills someone innocent".

Well what they heck do you call it when somebody with training does the same thing?

Going to a gun safety training course will not solve this problem. If it did, LEO's would never shoot the wrong person, never have accidental discharges, never miss and hit bystanders, etc.

I am not trying to throw off on LEO's. They have a hard job to do. But training doesnt make them perfect, and it will not make CCW holders perfect either.

The problem with a training requirement is that the government will be able to decide who is adequately "trained" and therefore grant the right to carry only to certain people it chooses.