Firearms training for ltcf

[justashooter]

I agree with you on this, but I gotta play Devil's Advocate a little bit.



Most people, if not all, agree that by requiring a license at all for CC, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. By that logic, what is the harm in a training requirement?

training requirements can become a "jim Crow" situation. training can be made difficult to access, expensive, time consuming, intimidating, demeaning, etc, and all of these selectively at the whim of the administrator. by discretion, an administrator can disenfranchise an entire class of people, or worse yet, all but a select class.

[NineseveN]

I'm not letting you get away with this one. The data means something. The data doesn't prove anything. Phooey.

It doesn't need to prove anything (I even said it doesn't prove anything in the section of text you pulled that from), it shows a lack of data period. I don't need to prove the negative, but I can illustrate that even the best information we have shows that nothing is occurring. And the data does show that as again, if it were occurring, it would be counted in with that data. And if it actually is occurring, then as I suspected, the number is so small as to be irrelevant and not indicative of a major problem that justifies a solution that forces one to give up essential liberties. Either way, it illustrates a lack of proof for the argument that this is a problem. It doesn't prove it, and it doesn't need to, you can't require me to prove a negative and then declare your concerns are valid while the data that shows a lack of evidence for it is not.

That's a pretty long list for being a small fraction of your post but irregardless, I still maintain the data doesn't mean much.

Um, Tony, that entire section of text relevant to the CDC data is comprised of 576 words out of 3086 in the entire post (not including the last part about the link to the old thread), that's less than 19% of the post spent on that data. I was being very forgiving with the 1/3 of my argument, it's more like 1/5 in reality.

I offered up one anecdote (the 100+ co-workers). The rest of my argument is based on what I experience in training classes year after year after year. IMNSHO, my reality brings a heck of allot more to this debate than any theory but you're sounding off like the anecdote is the heart and soul of my argument and it isn't.

Your personal experiences while training, despite being extensive, are still examples of anecdotal evidence. Your experiences are valuable, but they're far from empirical in nature. In all honesty, anecdotes are the heart of your argument. In many ways, they do translate (what you see in shooters both young and old, new and experienced in voluntary training classes), but that doesn't mean they even remotely come close to being valid within the realm of mandatory training classes, no matter how deeply real and personal they are to you. You can't take the personal experiences of a minority of people in a given field and call it anything other than anecdotal, because that's what it is.

I really fail to see how anything I wrote was harsh or over the top or that could be characterized as an attack.

It was just a figure of speech, not indicative of a personal insult or ad hominem.

And I think you're over-complicating a very simple issue. When we talk about firearms safety we're talking about absolutes, not concepts. I don't need to attend a class in philosophy to understand how firearms safety relates to LTCF holders carrying in public.

Many people in the training community act like the word "safe" is trademarked and that they get a dollar every time they use it and that they also get to be the final arbiter on what "safe" really is. That's not how it works, one can't hijack the word and make those decisions. In fact, there's not even a consensus on what exactly "safe" is in the training community. Sure the 4 rules are there, but there are a bunch of other training-specific rules that vary from course to course, class to class and individual to individual. That's not indicative of absolutes no matter how much one wants it to be. And that doesn't mean that all of it automatically translates into safety at places other than training courses in an absolute sense.

I don't put you guys on a pedestal like some people do, if you're going to make a claim of absolutes, I expect you to prove it. Repeating it does not constitute proof. A consensus, even if one existed, does not constitute proof.

It's no different than the claims that openly carrying a firearm isn't safe. If you're going to make that claim, you have to show what actually occurs and at what frequency, otherwise, you're just using some sort of hyperbole to make your point, and that doesn't cut it. I could just as easily say that walking down the sidewalk isn't safe because someone's car could jump the sidewalk and kill you. That's something that has actually happened that we can prove has happened, it's empirical, but that doesn't prove anything in and of itself in terms of risk or safe versus unsafe. To qualify risk (and thus what is safe versus unsafe and to what degree), we need a ratio or some form of odds for and against. The odds that someone will kill you by jumping their car on a sidewalk are extremely low, we know this because the analysis has been done on it. So we all feel pretty safe walking down the sidewalk because while it could happen, it isn't likely to happen. You can't get there on anecdotes and postulation alone.

[NineseveN]

I tried to exit this thread gracefully but I feel I need to set the record straight.

As I stated in post #97:



This issue was the focus of my participation in both this thread as well as the last.

I guess I got stuck on what you said earlier in post #75:

I want everyone to know that I am very uneasy about the state mandating training for two reasons.

1. They'd probably dick it up (the training curriculum).

2. I'm also concerned about turning a Right into a privilege.

But I have a specific perspective on the overall issue because of my involvement in the training industry.

My opinion is based on the realities I observe first hand and no amount of numbers and statistics, qualifiers and quantifiers, theories and possibilities are ever going to change those realities.

Combine that with what you've said about the problem being real and inevitable in its growth and that training in some form is a solution to it...that just rings to a certain tone to me. But again, I allow for the notion that I'm seeing what is not there due to my position in all of this. It wasn't an accusation or a personal attack, it's just how I'm reading you, keeping in mind that I just might be wrong on that. I'm just having a difficult time shaking it, again, based on what you have said. Being on the fence and being passionate about a subject at the same time isn't an enviable position, it really does create mixed messages where none really exist sometimes.

[NineseveN]

I will state that I have not viewed Tony’s responses to be that of “mandatory” training being required. My take on it is that “he does not know” but he does believe that anyone taking on the responsibility to carry should get training----I agree. I am of the opinion that if you are going to carry a firearm you should be responsible enough to seek out the training required to be proficient in the handling and use of a firearm.

And at least people like Tony and the rest of the FIRE Institute staff actually do something about it by offering training in a state that doesn't mandate it. That's not an easy or terribly lucrative thing to spend so much time on in most cases.

Again, sorry for getting people a little heated over the topic.

Not your fault, people feel strongly one way or the other, we get heated on on own.