Firearms training for ltcf

[TonyF]

My comfort is as irrelevant as this thread and discussion. Rights are not about my feelings or comfort.

OK, I guess I just need to learn how to "man up" in the face of tragedy.

Good day all.

[knight0334]

I'd concede to a quarter or semester of law, handling and live fire training as part of highschool required curriculum. ..grandfathering of course for those of us past highschool. ...sorta like how some states mandate drivers ed whether you ever get a license or not. Maybe even tack it onto GED and college requirements too.


That way, people still get some training - but it isn't required for your LTCF.

That should appease both sides.

[Pa. Patriot]

"Gee, another forum member with some hands on experience regarding poor gun handling skills of the untrained."

I've seen lots of poor gun handling...
I still oppose the notion of mandatory training. Am I simply reckless or ignorant of the problem? Or am I simply recognizing the simple but ultimate inability of such a restriction on a right being possible/legal and doubting the benefits will outweigh the consequences? Obviously the latter My analysis of the problem simply yields a different opinion.

[Pa. Patriot]

OK, I guess I just need to learn how to "man up" in the face of tragedy.

Good day all.

Not at all. IMO, it's about accepting the bad with the good and conceding that we can not save the world

There are certain sacrifices involved in being free. Not everyone wants to accept those sacrifices nor does everyone even want to be free. That counter position, of course, has it's own different set of sacrifices.

Point being, utopia does not exist. So no matter which side of accepting freedom one stands, or anywhere in between, we have to choose our position and live with the consequences.

If you want to reduce firearms accidents, in a free world, make training more available and "popular" to do.
If you want to reduce firearms accidents in a not free world, require it. I will assure you that path two will result in the eventual loss of the right to own firearms making the endeavor a wasted effort from the start. JMHO

[Brown-Bear]

I wouldn't mind seeing something like the NRA basic pistol course be a requirement.......maybe thats the wrong word. How about if you passed a cerrtain course and by passing this course which was not required you recieved a LTCF. Then you never had to answer any questions about purchasing firearms ever gain. I mean no PICS check, no nothing. You just slap that card down on the counter and your approved.

It would never happen, but you cannot stop me from dreaming.

Dave

[NineseveN]

Everyone seems to have permission to speculate except me.

Tony, I realize you're getting beat up here, that's bound to happen when you represent the one voice of a unique viewpoint on a hotly contested topic. But I want to take time out of the flogging to acknowledge the point above.

It's not that you shouldn't speculate, we all do, but be realistic also. You're not the only trainer in the world. I quoted Larry Correia from THR not because he's the only trainer in the country that teaches mandatory training that says that knuckleheads will do what they have to in order to pass and then throw what was taught to the wind and go back to being knuckleheads, but because he offered a convenient illustration at the time.

You teach optional safety classes to people that voluntarily seek you out for help. Of course they're going to become safer and more proficient if you give them the material. Of course you're going to see significant gains in the majority of students and yes, even irresponsible students will learn something because they're willing to. They want to learn, if they didn't, they wouldn't spend the hundreds of dollars and travel time to come see you to teach them. Your experiences in voluntary training simply do not automatically correlate to mandatory training, that’s a whole ‘nother ballgame as they say. And I am aware that many others in your community share the same viewpoint as you, they don’t know the answer, and that is sometimes part of the reason.

So it's not that what you see is not accurate, honest or even relevant to anything, it's just that I think you're making a huge leap in transferring your experiences to this problem.

[ChamberedRound]

There are certain sacrifices involved in being free. Not everyone wants to accept those sacrifices nor does everyone even want to be free. That counter position, of course, has it's own different set of sacrifices.

Agreed. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it".

There are definitely inconveniences and and risks associated with not requiring training to obtain an LTCF. I gladly recognize and accept those risks as the part of the price for living in a free society.

If you want to reduce firearms accidents, in a free world, make training more available and "popular" to do.
If you want to reduce firearms accidents in a not free world, require it. I will assure you that path two will result in the eventual loss of the right to own firearms making the endeavor a wasted effort from the start.

Agreed. The over-referenced but very history-verified "slippery slope" logic would likely be: training becomes regulation, regulation becomes registration, registration becomes confiscation.

[NineseveN]

Do I have to write down "I don't know" and have it notorized?

Tony, of course I realize this, but you seem to be arguing from the standpoint that training is needed, which is one step away from required. If you're of the mind that training is a great thing that all gun owners should want to voluntarily partake in, then why are you arguing with me? I never once said training is bad, I merely said that mandatory training is not the solution...and to my knowledge, that's something you have no real experience with. Or am I wrong, do you also train state-mandated courses outside of PA, like, in a state that requires training for an LTCF? Those are the experiences I’d like to hear from you because they directly relate to the discussion.

I'm going against mandatory training, not just TonyF, so if I make a point about mandatory training, I'm not assigning that position to you, I'm speaking to the total audience, the entire thread. Don't take it personally, but you can't sit in the middle of the fence and expect to not get hit from either side.

So, you just found the chink in my armor, huh? That's a very thin argument.

It's a thin response to a thin argument.

Is it really that simple? So why don't we propose a tax rebate so that every person 21 years and older can purchase a firearm and we'll solve the crime problem in our country.

I dunno, ask John Lott, that's his book title, not mine. As I said, I'm more comfortable to think of it in terms of more guns = less victims. I don't think guns in and of themselves actually reduce crime, but they do tend to reduce the number of victims of crime (noting that if I threaten or shoot in self-defense, a crime is still being visited upon me, so a crime still occurs). In the end, I guess one can condense it down into the same result, but in my mind, it's really not. Anyway, I digress.

And I didn't need to write a book to explain my position.

If you think my verbosity is a source of weakness, then I don't really know how to respond to that. I could just as easily say that I wrote a book, while you only had the knowledge to write a few paragraphs...either is a thinly veiled cheap shot. People tend to write what's on their minds and within their means. It takes me no more time or energy to write 5,000 words than it does for most to write a paragraph of 500. I’m not trying to shock and awe you, but I see no reason to restrict myself to a certain word count, it’s a free forum, I’m not being charged or paid by the word, so I just go with it.

Right back at you but no matter how much you try and butter me up, I'm not giving up one inch of ground.

Butter you up? Tony, give me a fucking break, I could give two shits whether or not you give any ground. I said I like you, that doesn't mean I'm going to hump your leg to get your attention. This isn't about you Tony, and that's exactly what I meant to convey. This isn't personal, I didn't want you to feel that it was. But it seems to me like you're starting to take it that way and I’m sad to see that.


I'm starting to get the feeling that despite your protests to the contrary, you really do know. You want mandatory training because you honestly believe it will cure these ills you perceive as plaguing us. What you don't know is whether or not it can actually be implemented and if so, how. That's what I'm getting from you on this Tony, and if that is indeed the case, if you really do feel that training should be required, but the logistics and implementation are the obstacles, then say that. Don't hide behind the "I don't know" mantra, because for someone who doesn't know if training should be mandatory, you sure are arguing pretty heavily in favor of it.

But who knows, I might be seeing something that's just not there due to being in the thick of it so to speak.

[TonyF]

I'm starting to get the feeling that despite your protests to the contrary, you really do know. You want mandatory training because you honestly believe it will cure these ills you perceive as plaguing us. What you don't know is whether or not it can actually be implemented and if so, how. That's what I'm getting from you on this Tony, and if that is indeed the case, if you really do feel that training should be required, but the logistics and implementation are the obstacles, then say that. Don't hide behind the "I don't know" mantra, because for someone who doesn't know if training should be mandatory, you sure are arguing pretty heavily in favor of it.

But who knows, I might be seeing something that's just not there due to being in the thick of it so to speak.

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

As I stated in post #97:

............ I submit that the only reason we don't see ND's on the street is because so few LTCF holders carry, and even fewer ever have to touch their firearm. IOW, "the problem" simply hasn't manifested itself .............. yet.

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

[Guns4Fun]

Wow, guys---I’m sorry for starting this thread. I did not realize that it was discussed before.

I was simply trying to see how others felt about training being required. As stated, I was on the fence. But after 97 posted the actual statistics, it does not appear to me that it is a huge problem with the number of deaths etc.

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. Because in a high pressure situation where you actually need to use a firearm for protection---even the best trained could fail under pressure but I think a trained individual will have a better chance of ‘doing it right” than an untrained person. Do I have statistics to back this up---no---but it makes sense to me.

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