Much as I am opposed to the concept of mandatory training...

[wayneinFL]

can I add on a slightly un-related note that I like qualifying, and I wish more instructors for CCW courses were gung-ho about it?

I'm all for giving the nervous people a second chance, if they couldn't get most of their 10 shots in a pie plate at 10 yards.

I'm not for arming people who can't hit what they are aiming at.

I know it's a little ot, but it is mandatory training I'm all in favor of...make your 80 (Or whatever it is where you live) or shoot until you can.

Personally, I'm not satisfied with getting ten shots in a pie plate at ten yards, but I'm not going to make someone else do that.

How good do these people have to be? Bear in mind most people are not going to attempt to take out an attacker in a hostage situation across a crowded bank lobby. Most are probably comfortable with training themselves to shoot an attacker at arm's length at an ATM, and would never pull a gun in a situation beyond that.

Hell, some of these people may simply want the permit so that they can carry a knife or a Taser. IMO, they shouldn't even have to shoot.

And in any case, I don't see where this would have prevented the situation in the OP.

 

[orthosophy]

it's unrelated to the op. Not to the topic.

And I don't expect them to be Wild Bill Hickock. I just am not comfortable with people who can not shoot a gun accurately being told they are legally covered to carry it in public.

If you shoot me dead, or even worse, my kid or gf while you are defending yourself, it makes you a killer.

Really, I have no problem with the shooting only being a thing for people who intend to carry, I couldn't care less if they want to have a permit to carry weapons with an endorsement section for firearms if you qualify. Personally, I think most people would be better served by a taser anyway. Probably more willing to use it, too.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

The ability of someone to hit a circle on a piece of paper under classroom conditions is irrelevant to what they might or might not hit in a SD situation.

How many videos have we all seen of police officers returning fire, emptying their guns, from distances of 8, 10, 15 FEET and hit nothing but air?

No matter how poor we might think their training, it is EONS beyond ANY reasonable training that might be required of a CC citizen.

 

[farmerboy]

I work at a dept with two other officers. One cant hit the broad side of a barn if his barrel was resting on it and the other in a situation where is is needed, well I believe he would get back in his vehicle lock the doors and haul butt. Neither one ever shoots and yes get in a situation and see how your score drops...training, training and more

 

[orthosophy]

Peetz, by that argument, why require LEOs to train? Or soldiers? We can't just pick the best video game players and arm them, can we?

or can we?

Honestly, the chances are low, astronomically low that I will ever be shot by a CCW with crappy aim, but someone has to win the lottery. I would just as soon that we enact a reasonable standard, or the anti gun lobby gets even more ammo and we end up being hypocrites. If your sights are off by three feet, or you're not willing to spend the time to hit a non moving pie-plate at ten paces (here in Iowa, you can use a .22 and a laser sight and people still fail because they don't bother to take the time to see if they are set right) maybe you should do the gun owning community a favor and not carry said gun. A headline that reads "Man Accidentally Kills 12-Year-Old" is going to set the cause of legal gun owners back in a hurry. It won't do the 12 year old any good, either.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Don't be absurd.

The point is that police, even the worst trained, are trained far beyond what would be any reasonable standard for CC. Not only are they better trained, they deal with and expect violence on a daily basis. Yet, they still sometimes (with boring regularity) blast away and hit nothing but air.

Therefore, your training for CC would be useless in so far as decreasing the likelihood of stray shots wounding bystanders.

Which, by the way, where exactly is this problem that this training is intended to solve? If we're going to offer "solutions" to "problems" lets not be like politicians and invent the problems from thin air.

So....

First, there is no problem to solve.

Second, no reasonable training would solve the problem if it did exist.

Third, there is no training requirement for using a megaphone, worshipping a god or printing a newspaper. What is the rationale for requiring one for some other tool used for some other right? I would argue that certain violent religious groups and certain free speech is far more dangerous than CCWers have PROVEN to not be.

 

[output]

Can someone explain to me how training would have affected the outcome of this situation any differently?

He forgot to check the chamber. He broke a rule, and there should be some sort of consequence(s) for his actions.

I have seen video of a trained Swat officer shooting himself in the leg during a demonstration in a classroom filled with children. How much training do you think that Officer had prior to shooting himself? I just do not think mandatory training would have affected the outcome. We as shooters, friends, family members, need to ingrain the four rules of firearm safety into the heads of our friends and family members.

When I was a child I can remember my grandfather teaching my cousin (and me) a very valuable lesson. My younger cousin kept carelessly handling an unloaded handgun while we were at a shooting range for an outing. My grandfather had explained his version of the four firearm safety rules to us multiple times that day. My cousin obviously was not paying attention, was being naive, rebellious, or might not have cared. Later as we were getting ready to pack up for the day, no hearing protection on, laughing and joking etc… My grandfather asked my cousin to come over one last time and have a look at a different handgun. As my cousin reached in for the handgun my grandfather deliberately discharged it into the side of the hill. That experience scared the crap out of my cousin and me. To this day we still talk about it. It taught us both a lesson. Always treat a firearm with respect. That was over 20 years ago. I am not sure if I agree with the way my Grandfather taught my cousin the lesson but it worked nonetheless. He taught all six of his sons the same way some 20+ years before us.

 

[orthosophy]

I hate to break it to you, but ingraining anything is called training.

informing you of the law is training.

Forcing you to qualify with your own gun is training, if not de jure, de facto.

It is ridiculous to claim no training is needed. Your examples of LEOS being crappy shots is a straw man argument, AND begging the question. Not only are we NOT discussing police training, all you have proven is how training is imperative and even police need more of it.

If you cant hit the bad guy without killing me, don't shoot. Forcing you to listen to that message is called...training. That training forces you to face the fact that you may not be the lone ranger. It makes you aware that you can miss and hit other people. And that is called training.

 

[MLeake]

orthosophy, the thing is, the type of training you want people to get should be something they self-impose, morally.

It should not be a requirement of government, period, because as soon as we ok the government setting training requirements, the stage is set for government to create onerous requirements - such as Chicago requiring training, but banning shooting ranges.

Meanwhile, it seems from your posts that you are borderline anti. Most people would be better off with Tasers? Really?

Interesting, as most police officers only deploy Tasers against unarmed suspects. A LEO will typically only attempt to use a Taser against a suspect who is armed with a contact weapon if there is at least one other LEO present, with gun drawn, who can deal with things if the Taser doesn't resolve the issue.

Even with multiple LEOs present, a LEO won't attempt a Taser against a suspect armed with a ranged weapon (firearm, crossbow, etc).

Plus, you get one shot with the Taser.

I find it mind-numbing how often people will recommend a Taser or OC spray as a viable alternative to a gun. That you would do so shows me that you need more training....

 

[orthosophy]

I have a strict rule against arguing on the internet. Therefore, this is the last post I make on this topic.

Calling me "borderline anti" because I want people to have safe habits, so the DON'T kill other people on accident and cost me my right to carry is asinine.

Calling me anti because I don't want Captain Shakeyhands of the I-dont-care-enough-to-learn-how-to-shoot-my-own-gun Brigade to pull a gun and point it my way is asinine.

Calling me anti for a personal belief that most people wouldn't be willing to use a gun even if they had one and, a taser is better than an easy abduction or providing a criminal with a gun you won't use (or miss them with, because you thought you could manage with no training) is asinine. As a side note, the tasers and stun guns I've seen are darn near foolproof. You probably could use them with no training. At least if you miss you won't hurt an innocent bystander. Assuming someone who never learned how to properly shoot their gun will get more than one useful shot without endangering the rest of us is stretching it.

Ignoring the point that good practices come from someone training you by passing it off as a chance for that evil government to get to you is making me wonder if there are a ton of experts out there who weren't assisted in their own training by a government. I seem to see quite a few using tactics perfected in various armed forces, bureaus, agencies, and departments.

I would never claim training is essential and then deny the ability to get it. That is also an asinine statement totally irrelevant to the discussion.

The idea that you would agree there are certain things a person should have down before they consider carrying a gun would indicate you are in favor of training, but not letting anyone you don't approve of do it. A statement like that --I agree, but you're wrong, because I don't want anyone telling me what to do and it should be a moral thing-- sounds a tad antisocial to me.

As an aside, I agree that morality shouldn't be legislated. I hope the majority of voters do too. My guess is a significant number will side with the "Moral Majority" and vote for a candidate who doesn't agree with you and I.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Getting repetitive and personal. Time to call it a night.