My experience as an instructor is much different. “Most” people do NOT seek out training, especially for shooting in public.
A Much higher “Bar” than home defense.
They want just enough to get their “Permit to Carry”.
I suggest if you plan to carry/shoot in Public that you get further training in how to do that. There is much more to it than Defense of the Home.
@DEFENDER my rights do not end at my front door, they go where I go. “You” don’t get to say how others exercise their rights, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
And I’m thinking despite my many years of experience, and my continuing training, and my qualification as a certified concealed carry instructor, and despite you not knowing pretty much anything about me, “you” just declared me not fit to carry in public.
Does that about sum it up?
If “it” requires preconditions or pre-qualifications it’s no longer a right, just a heavily restricted privilege.
As far as I’m concerned as long as you can legally possess the firearm you carry open carry should be permitless.
Concealed carry, I feel differently about. It’s not those willing to carry openly that are running around the country committing crimes with their carry weapons in anything like significant numbers.
Would you agree with my earlier comment then about not making it mandatory, but making the local police station designate a place where citizens can be given 1 box of ammo and a lesson by a certified instructor for free? (Or in other words paid for by our taxes)
What other rights protected by the Bill of Rights would you also limit to “in your own home only”?
Is there any statistical evidence you can produce that supports your contention that the untrained carrier poses more of a threat to innocents in public than they do to a potential mass shooter?
Ok I have to ask. Why is open carry untrained ok but as soon as my shirt or coat covers it it’s not ok?
“Rights” often bring “Responsibilities” - We have the “Right” to Free Speech, but cannot Yell Fire in a crowded theater for the general public good.
But we “DO” have data on Actual “Trained” Police shootings - Avg Hit rates are 20% - so “Trained” Police Miss 80% of the time - in a real fight.
Any guesses on the “Miss Rate” for untrained, CCW’s shooting, in a real fight ?
Rights often carry Responsibilities. We have the “Right” to Free Speech but cannot Yell Fire in a Crowded Theater - for the Public good.
“You”, as a Trained/Certified Operator, would be Qualified to Shoot in Public,
as I would see it anyway.
The problem I have is people getting their “Permit” but no “Real Training”(Which many if not most “Permit” courses do Not) and thinking since they have their permit they are ready for a real fight in public.
And think we are remiss in not telling them they are probably Not ready for a Real Fight in Public w/o further Training.
And no-one is telling them they probably don’t have the skills for that.
But think they do since they have a permit.
You won’t have to worry about that unless you decide to go Active Shooter. If you do and I’m around then it would be perfectly acceptable to start worrying.
You make a lot of “I feel” this and that. Your feelings are irrelevant. My Rights do not end where your feelings begin.
Just because you don’t get the training numbers doesn’t mean others aren’t. As an example I’m currently looking for a carbine class that I can take at a reasonable cost including travel expenses. In the mean time I’m constantly picking the brains of two separate LEO firearms instructors that I happen to know. A buddy of mine has been helping me with my AR setup, he was an instructor in the Marines, now retired. Training doesn’t have to come at great expense and I would be a fool not to tap in to what amazing knowledge surrounds me.
Training numbers ? I am retired.
I am not worried so much about “me”, I am going to die at some point.
Not all that far off. And already have once.
I am more worried about people with little to no real training but thinking they are ready to shoot in public with a CCW Permit.
End up shooting some innocent by-standers etc.
The typical CCW course does not provide that type training.
ie Defensive Shooting in Crowded Public Settings.
But many, if not most “think” they are “Good to Go”.
And don’t realize how hard it will really be.
Carbine Class - good for you.
I shoot competition carbine, sometimes still win.
For the most part yes, I also believe that as the 2A states a “well regulated” meaning well practiced, it would be a good idea that there be more public gun ranges. I like the thought of free training class, though taxes are not actually ‘free’ and I didn’t mind paying for mine. Not to sure about the free box of ammo, with government budgets being what they are, You might wind up with steel case Tula or some such. For the short distances needed for self defense, pretty much any ammo should give respectable performance and accuracy, but I do prefer to shoot one of the brands I find reliable. I think a remedial class every four years is a good idea. Mainly because I know people with a permit but don’t shoot - as in haven’t in the last six or eight years. I think a course of fire could be adopted from something the USCCA, NRA or PDN teaches, the laws would need to be as per the state.
You can yell fire in a theater, if it really is on fire. If you use a gun, in public, for self defense, and are found to be defending yourself, that means there was a crime being committed. When a crime is committed, the assailant is charged with any other crimes directly linked to the original crime. If they are robbing someone, and one of their accomplices gets killed, the criminal is charged with that as well. I believe, people should seek as much training as they can, but, nothing in the Constitution requires any conditions to exercise a right. Furthermore, no amount of training can fully prepare any of us to take the life of another. We just prepare the best we can, then deal with the legal, physical, and mental fallout.
I agree that what is taught in many CC qual courses is not adequate to consider a person trained.
That’s a pretty big assumption @DEFENDER. I do tell them that. My instructors tell them that. The other teachers I trained with tell them that. Every training class I’ve been to tells them that including the CC qualifications courses (yes I took more than one). I certainly have NEVER been to a class where the instructor said “now you know everything”. The sheriff who issued my permit didn’t say it. The other people I know who carry (not my students) don’t think that way.
Your assumption is absolute and it sweeps up those doing the right thing with those who aren’t. That’s punishing the innocent because of the guilty.
This is a very broad statement… and not accurate. Some people don’t train, or don’t think they need to. Many people DO train.
And yet you would restrict the rights of those who ARE doing the right thing based on the behavior of those who are NOT. THAT is where infringement thrives.
Went to the county fair yesterday with my family. My hubby (an extremely experienced shooter and former special forces) open carried. I (a CC instructor) and my granddaughter (new to shooting but actually training hard and turning out to be an excellent accurate shooter) both carried concealed. It’s MO and a constitutional carry state. Of the 3 of us, I’m the only one with a CCW.
@wildrose your opinion would lump my granddaughter in with the criminals that are running around the country committing crimes with their carry weapons as the people you worry about and would rather NOT have carry with their shirt tails out.
The common denominator in your statement about who’s running around committing crimes is that they’re CRIMINALS … its not the CCers who are the problem.
@spence is right… did the state of our shirttails turn my granddaughter and I into a threat to the general public at the fair, while my hubby was not?
I’m all for restricting ANY carry of firearms by criminals who have relinquished their rights by virtue of their past actions. But the transition from Open to Concealed does not make my granddaughter or anyone else a threat to public safety.
You’re right about responsibilities, but responsibilities are not a precondition for the exercising of our rights.
Either we have a protected right to keep and bear arms or we don’t.
Either the most basic right of mankind is to defend ourselves and others or it isn’t a right at all.
There is no middle ground for either, they are either rights or they are heavily restricted privileges and the gov’t may arbitrarily set whatever qualifications they want on either or both.
The fire in a crowded theater meme’ is meaningless and has no force of law. You can shout fire in a crowded theater. If there is no fire or other emergency warranting the declaration you may be held liable civilly and criminally for any harm/injuries/death, that are caused by an ensuing panic.
I’ll ask again, do you have any statistical data supporting your statement that the untrained carrier reacting lawfully to a deadly force encounter with their firearm poses a greater threat to innocents than to the bad guys?
Can you give us a list of say 5 incidents over the last decade where the untrained person carrying and acting in lawful self defense accidentally killed or wounded innocents with a stray shot?
No I’m not lumping you or anyone else in with the criminals. What I am doing is making the point that your right to bear arms is not infringed as long as open carry is lawful and without permit.
I’m also pointing out accurately that it would be the rarest of incidents where someone carrying in the open suddenly decides to shoot up a theater, commit an armed robbery, rape, kidnapping etc.
Criminals rely on stealth and don’t want to stand out until they make their move so they hide their weapons until they decide to spring into action.
An important distinction here. “The Militia” is to be “well regulated”, the term means “operating as designed”, or “working properly”.
The right to keep and bear arms is not to be “well regulated”, it specifically states it “shall not be infringed”.
Scalia’s decision in the Heller case is probably the best explanation I’ve ever come across and I cannot suggest strongly enough that everyone should read it, study it, and strive to fully understand the meaning of the words, terms, and structure used in the drafting of the 2nd.
I’ll also point out that Cornell University provides us access to their law library online for free and the program is supported solely by donations.
Im not accusing you of lumping us in with criminals, but I would really like to know why a couple millimeters of clothing makes a difference to you. Especially if it’s in a constitutional carry state. I’m not looking for an argument I would just like to see your full point of view.
I think we all agree that if you are going to carry a firearm, you should be trained. However, the Second Amendment does not require training, just as the First does not require training.
Yes, there are limits to what you can say (fire in a crowded theater when there isn’t a fire). And yes, there are limits to what you can do with your gun in public - killing someone is illegal. Defending yourself is not.
The more training - continual training, not just a permit class - will give people the best chance to defend themselves.