Rights vs. Responsibilities: Should We Require Better Training for Gun Owners?
I spent a recent weekend at the Wake County Firearms Education and Training Center, taking the NRA’s Personal Protection Outside the Home (PPOH) course. It is a handgun shooting course that focuses, strangely enough, on defensive shooting outside the home, out in the “real world.” Roughly one-third of the students in the class were NRA instructors of one kind or another. All of us had concealed carry permits.
After a Saturday morning in the classroom, we spent Saturday afternoon and all of Sunday morning on the firing line.
We shot from contact distance (so close the targets were singed by burning powder), out to a maximum range of ten yards. We engaged most targets between 3-5 yards, as would be typical in most scenarios one might encounter. Drills were fired using single shots and double taps, to the rarer “empty the gun” drills. Targets at the indoor range were engaged under normal lighting conditions to nearly complete darkness, where all we could make out was the rough silhouette of the target three yards away.
It was mentally and physically exhausting, but well worth it. We walked away from the experience with solid training under our belts and a wide range of new training exercises to employ. Several members of the class were back again the following weekend to receive their instructor ratings for this course, the most advanced defensive pistol course the NRA offers.
While we were completing our second day course of fire, there was a concealed carry class (like the one I wrote about for PJM two years ago) taking place in the other classroom at the range. When we came off the firing line and came back into the lobby between the classrooms, they were taking a break from the lecture portion of the course. Many students seemed to be suffering from lesson-inspired shell shock. The amount of practical carry information and legalese being thrust upon them in one day’s time was intense, and several looked like they had simply had enough. Within an hour, it would be their turn to exit the classroom and set foot upon the range for the rather minimal shooting qualifications our state requires.
They would spend roughly 1-2 hours on the range completing a prescribed course of fire under the watchful eyes of their instructors. They would not be graded upon how quickly or accurately they placed their shots on target, but upon a far more basic criteria: did they employ their handgun safely, without sweeping other students with the barrel of their gun?
A shooter who peppers five shots all over the target over the course of 20 seconds — abysmally slow by most any measure — would pass the course just as well as the shooter who put all of his shots in the ten-ring in a quarter of that time. The on-range portion of the concealed carry course was designed to make certain the student has basic safety skills … and that was all. But was that bare minimum of competence a student needs to pass the carry course range qualifications “enough” training?
After all, performing simple, measured tasks in highly restricted, heavily coached conditions is hardly the same thing as mastery of the skills a carry permit holder may be called upon to employ in the real world. People don’t stand still and wait for you to shoot at them, and you won’t be able to raise your hand and have an instructor clear your weapon if you have a failure to fire.
Collectively, our PPOH class had fired hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition, and more than 1,600 over the weekend’s training alone. We knew from our our experiences that the students completing the carry course would not likely finish a single box of shells that day and that many would probably not fire their guns again in the weeks, months, and years ahead, even if they attained their permits and even if they decided to carry a handgun frequently.
As shooters, students, and instructors, this concerned us.
Well Regulated;
This also refers to the operation and maintenance of the firearms themselves, that they be regularly used, properly stored, and routinely maintained. ( kept in regular Fashion)
It does not refer to placing restrictions on the Militia, this definition evolved a hundred odd years later as English language evolved.
WHY confine the sentiments to firearms only. We have been provided on public record at least one “representative of the People” saying, “WE IN THE CONGRESS DON’T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION”, AND A POTUS who has called the Constitution of the US (he’s REPORTEDLY a constitutional scholar/ Professor) “flawed” amd “defective”. THESE PERSONS who take an oath on accepting office to UPHOLD AND DEFEND that US CONSTITUTION, seem in need of lessons and supervision to what they’ve sworn before being “licenced” to administer the government of the USA. The government which affects millions of people world-wide. If these persons do not know the language AND the meanings of the words, then how can they be permitted to use the administrative and legal “weapons” of governance. It might be useful to remind ourselves that this POTUS, not ironically, spoke of the 57 states NOT 50 STATES of the USA.WHAT DID THAT STATEMENT REVEAL ABOUT HIS THOUGHT PROCESSES ? Nor did he understand the pronunciation of the word corps. ELITE EDUCATION / the NEW Harvard. John Adams et al THOSE OLD FOUNDING FATHER scholars where are you when we need you?
I can tell from reading your past columns your bit new to the whole gun things…. this below
“Drills were fired using single shots and double taps,”
Yeah never ever say double tap… thats both legal and professional advice to you. If you fire 2 round into a target that a controlled pair… double tap means that after you shot someone and their on the ground not moving you shoot them again… just because… you will goto jail or be brought up on war crimes if you double tap someone.
I’ll deal with the rest of the piece later.
To Robotech Master
Actually the term “double tap” was coined by the British SAS. They had switched to the 9mm pistol and found that during operations a single shot to the head did not always do the job. As SAS always shoot for the head with their pistols.. they simply trained to shoot twice at the head, boom,boom.. I’ve seen it and it almost sounds like one shot.
Good point.
“Double Tap” does not refer to a “coup de gras”, but refers to the method in which a pair of shots are administered. It all depends upon wether a second sight picture is obtained before the second shot.
Well, I can certainly understand your point of view, but I must disagree. Self-defense is a basic human right, unlike, for example, driving a car, flying a plane or operating a crane – activities for which training and licensing is (rightly) required. If we allow the exercise of basic rights to be subject to testing & licensing, we are opening a Pandora’s box. Next, perhaps ‘Parent Suitability Testing’? (hmm… that doesn’t sound so bad…)
If you cannot pull out your gun and shoot, without hesitation, I will take it from you. A gun without the will to use it can get you killed. A gun without the skill and speed to bring it rapidly into action will get you killed. Most situations in which a person would need a gun develop at zero yards range. The author is on the money in this respect. Someone walks up to you at the auto-teller, pulling out his knife or gun. How you hit a target at fifty yards is practically irrelevant. How fast you can pull out your gun, point and pull the trigger defines the outcome. You need to read the situation, and have your gun deploying before the opponent has completed deploying his own weapon. He is not going to wait for you, since this is not the OK corral. The confidence to use your weapon effectively is a weapon in itself, and should be as essential a part of training as safety and handling the gun. If you are frightened, you should give up your money. If you can walk up to a punk casing you, and ask if you can help him with anything, the odds are that he will depart, and you will not need your weapon. Predators are looking for prey – not other predators. Of course, getting out of Dodge and calling the police is still the best approach.
“The more dangerous the populus the more cautious the ruler” would argue against your resonable argument.
Excellent article!
I used to get more training when it was closer to me, geographically. It’s one of the things I miss by moving out of the major metro areas.
Minimal training desired, not required. The mere presence of a firearm can deter crime. Grandpa shouldn’t have to take a class to keep a snub nose near by to protect himself from (or even deter) a home invader.
I’m a resident of New Hampshire, which has zero training requirements, likewise for Vermont, Alaska, and several other western states. Our firearms safety rates are better than average, and our crime rates are lower than switzerland, while having much higher than average gun ownership rates.
Of course it makes an individual more effective in self defense to take a course like you describe, but the ‘well regulated’ part of the 2nd amendment isn’t a qualifying requirement to be able to exercise the right. There can be no qualifications limiting any right like that. You don’t take away a persons freedom of speech if they are mute, do you?
I definitely believe in gun control.
Control firmly the gun with 2 hands. No flinching when pulling the trigger.
And know that you are held (and quite frankly should be held) responsible for whatever happens as a result of your decision to pull that trigger. This includes hitting an innocent by-stander. You have the right to own a gun, carry it, and use it in your self-defense, but if you choose to use it, you forfeit the right to make a mistake. If anyone can’t live with this responsibility, then they shouldn’t own the gun. The requirement to use the gun in a responsible manner comes with the teritory when one chooses to own a gun.
I am not a gun owner, but I would love to see every state an open-carry state. I see no conflict, however, in requiring the same tests and recertification used by state troopers or even the FBI…and that includes psychological tests for clearance to purchase a gun in the first place.
I think that would also benefit the NRA et al as it will do a lot to weed out the “lone kook” who pops up every few years to make headlines and renew criticisim of the 2nd Amendment.
You are right on about kooks being responsible for most if not all of the crises involving the use of firearms for illegal purpose. But one has to ask the question “How do any kooks manage to get a badge with their gun?”.
A paranoid psychotic learns all the right answers on first application and aces a test on the second even when he hasn’t been coached by a fellow applicant or professional. In short they are often smarted than the a shrink.
Your next question should be “Which politician appoints said psycholigsts to write or administer the kook tests?”. Our education system has sunk to it’s present epogee by political influence on selection of test writers and school book design
You are right on about kooks being responsible for most events fueling the anti gun rants Pat, but one has to ask the question “Who qualifies the psychologists that weed out the kooks?” or “How does a kook get a badge with their gun?”. A paranoid psychotic learns all the right answers on first attempt and aces a test on the second even if they haven’t been coached by fellow applicants or a badge toting professional. Without the use of truth serum, no test answer is reliable.
Surely you wouldn’t suggest that a test writer or administrator hired through political influence be allowed to control gun ownership. Our education system has sunk to it’s present epogee mainly because of federal political influence on test writing and school book editing called for by appointed neurotics who are unknown when among their peers. (Neurosis has been reclassified as psychosis of lesser degree)
Every house must avoid the blame game and be responsible for it’s own cleaning (weeding) whether it be social, political, religious, racial, ethnic or even global warming.
Until that happens I’ll just abide by the “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” clause.
It’s not a surprise that you’re not a gun owner. This is a fundamental right we’re talking about. Not a public drivers license, and the argument for needing lengthy requirements or permits to exercise self defense is an abrogation of our Constitution and illogical on its face. The criminal element uses this to their advantage and currently they’re successful when they attack the most innocent among us because they know who follows the rules. Guns have been available throughout this nations history and suddenly we need a host of news laws “for the children.” That doesn’t make sense. Guns are easy enough to use that criminals can be successful using them with no training, yet somehow they’re so difficult to use if we need to defend life and liberty.
Make no mistake, I would like to see gun ownership increase and no special permit being required to carry that weapon down any street in the US once you pass what you need to pass to purchase a gun in the first place. How far would the likes of Colin Ferguson have gotten had half the people on that subway a firearm in a holster and the training to safely use it in a circumstance like that? A quarter even? A reliable probability that there would even be two people? My guess is that he would have never attempted his crime in the first place.
I believe that the 2nd Amendment was intended as the ultimate check-and-balance on the new government being created – something frequently brushed aside by those seeking to justify the Amendment’s continued relevance. Why? Well, not to put to fine a point on it, but association with anything the average person thinks of when they hear the word “militia” is more harmful than helpful in winning the confidence of public opinion.
Firearms for hunting, personal protection and sport were “no-brainers” to the framers, but are less so to us today and so do need special protection. When I speak of the need for training and periodic recertification requirements I’m thinking of the realities of our crowded urban spaces (like the subway). I’m also thinking of situations like the shooting at a church a few years back (the name escapes me now)…it was very fortunate that one of the congregants had a weapon and was able to stop the shooter, but it is unfortunate that he was unable to do so without accidentally hitting and killing a child himself. Was greater training the answer there? I’d like to think so. Police responding to the scene (had they been there) would not likely have stood by as the criminal shot more people, waiting for the crowd to clear out – but they would have been equally unlikely to have acted in a way that would have gotten bystanders killed. Yes, that would be a possible outcome even if it was the police on the scene (as they are human, and the situation would have been difficult to deal with due to the close quarters and the number of bystanders), but I’d venture to say it would have been a lot less likely than a civilian gun owner in a tense, crowded combat situation likely pointing his weapon at another human being for the first time.
Perhaps the “FBI training” part of my comment was a bit over the top, but if someone is going to carry a gun down main street (or through Times’ Square), I don’t think the accuracy and recertification standards applied to municipal (or state, even) police are out of line.
I also agree that in the current climate, stringent psych requirements could be used to needlessly frustrate gun ownership, and this should not be the case. But if gun ownership and open-carry practices were to be increased, there would need to be some kind of some kind of evaluation to weed out vigilantism, power-trippers, paranoid schizophrenics, etc.
And I do agree with “Old Sarge” below when he says that even the professionals make mistakes, although “pretty regularly” and “quite often” are relative terms, and I must disagree with the characterization he makes when I take into account every police contact that takes place in the country every day. That said, the degree to which they may have some validity is the reason I prefer state police to municipal police standards.
What you speak of was the way it was and those requirements were used to deny carry permits. If you feel the need to test to the max, fine, the rest of us probably don’t, we are not SWAT, FBI or any of those. They also make mistakes pretty regularly.
I would like to see no restrictions on carry, though I don’t care for open carry as low lifes will likely disarm you and use your own pistol on you. Happens to the police quite often, who are trained in weapons retention.
Anyone that is aware and paying attention can quite often figure out who is carrying, but if your weapon is not visible, it is an implied threat and limits their ability to attempt to take it as it is not seen.
As to double tap, If I say I feared for my life, you can bet I did, you can validate this by how rapidly I fired my pistol. I can empty a pistol quite quickly when frightened or surprised by a life threatening situation. At close range I probably won’t miss. I will be quite happy if I never have to go there.
I also draw and fire in response to an attackers actions, when he quits doing what ever caused my fear, I quite firing, it could be one shot or the whole magazine. Bad guys don’t lay down just because you wave a gun around or even shoot them. Two shots may not stop them, what ever it takes is my view. I want to be alive to tell my side.
I have had one situation where I reached for my pistol in fear, a guy was sneaking up on me from behind, I spotted him out of the corner of my eye and reached for my pistol, he froze, I had my hand on my pistol and it was a split second to draw and fire, but he continued to stand, no movement, we simply stared at one another, he finally backed off. Made my day, or should I say night, it was 2 AM.
I was in Vietnam, though not a combat sort, I dislike being touched, even more so if I don’t know the person is there, dislike surprises and sneaking up on me at night is not nice.
“a well regulated militia” most certainly implies that the militia has proper training…..across all areas of being a militia: firearms training being one area, understanding tactics, logistics, and drilled in proper military discipline, effective administration of warfare, and even the cleanup after a skirmish. Very encompassing.
I am asked often why I still prefer a revolver over the semi-auto, after all it can put more rounds down range more quickly. My response is that it matters less about how many shots are headed down range than where they hit. It takes only one well placed round to eliminate a threat. This takes practice. Much practice.
You alluded to the probable fact that many of the participants would not make shooting practice a habit. Unfortunately the cost of ammunition, and it’s current availability, does play an inhibiting role in this. Time constraints, and other obligations to work or family play a role as well. I suggest to people that they have a good .22 caliber pistol to practice with rather than burn more expensive higher caliber rounds at each session. The weight of the weapon should be the same as their primary defensive weapon, the noise level of a .22 is more ear-friendly especially with earplugs, and the cost of .22 rounds will allow for a family to enjoy the sport together.
And, just as with a new driving license, early on in a lifetime of shooting sport no one is very good. It takes years of practice.
The new “historical use” doctrine as elicited in the Heller case,allows anyone to have a gun in their home for personal protection, however, it would behoove the “gun world” to actually learn how to care and operate their weapons. You have to take a course and practice driving a car before you are set free upon the world, there is no reason that such a requirement should not be mandated for gunownership. If you can afford a gun, you can afford a proper NRA course on gun ownership. It is simply a balancing act: gun ownership balanced with the right of society to be safe when someone owns a gun. It is the responsible thing to do, why would anyone be against it. When the Constitution was written it took minutes to load and fire a weapon. Today’s weapons are extremely high tech, very fast and very lethal. The proper use and care of these weapons is a civi duty.And yes, civic duty is constantly legislated. It is nothing new.
Self defense and our right to bear arms enumerated in the Second Amendment is not a right granted by government for it to take away, but a restriction upon government for it to keep its hands off. The right to drive is not a fundamental right, therefore it makes sense that we can be licensed while on public roads. The restrictions that you propose not only help negate our Constitution, they are actually hurdles proposed by moral busy bodies that historically lead to unintended consequences.
A prime example of which is the state of California. Year after year the California legislature creates such legislation. The last gun law passed is always treated as an end unto itself that will save the populace until the next year, when a couple more, or a few, are introduced again. The end result being that by this time citizens are denied the best means for self defense. Men and women of the state of California and others states are being denied fundamental rights all in the name of “it’s nothing new.” Because the inmates are running the asylum. Restrictions are not a civic duty, but they certainly are a civil rights issue.
Hi raygun-
While you are absolutely correct that gun ownership is a right and driving a car is a privilege, the reasoning behind regulations is still the same. Also while the idea behind the Bill of Rights is the curtailment of government power it is also the acknowledgemnt that the government is there to oversee the republic and that the US is not a free-for-all.(Tried that during the Article of Confederation and it didn’t really work out so well)The government is also charged with the health and safety of society and it is on society’s behalf that laws are made and regulated. Even the rights inherent in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. I point to the euphemistic curtailment of the freedom of speech, where you cannot yell fire in a crowded theeatre, and there are additional libel and slander laws as well. Also for another example: while we have a right to assemble, municipalities have the right to regulate those assemblies by requiring bonds, police presence and denying acccess to certain areas in which to hold the assemblies. Safety of the public and the public good tends to win out. The level of scrutiny- strict scrutiny to be exact and that the state must have an overwhelming interest (forgive me if the language is not exact)in creating these laws that curtail any right in the Bill of Rights does stand and is consitutionally sound. Therefore, if the government wanted to require a course based upon the safety of society that those who own guns should know how to take care of them, use them and store them would most probably pass consitutionality and quite frankly is it really such a bad idea that those who own lethal weapons be responsible?
So in your opinion, rights only exist until govt decides that those rights are too dangerous.
Yes, it’s a terrible idea given that we can’t trust politicians as far as we can throw them. Your statement is especially notable when you make the assumption with the question “is it really such a bad idea that those who own lethal weapons be responsible?” as if to show those who do not want illogical government interference in a negative light. The suggested measures are the very problem that lead to unintended consequences. Though I’m sure to many they are not so unintended.
Well, the range of people with carry permits ranges from those with cop delusions, which the PPOH course leans toward, to the woman carrying a palm pistol she’ll place to the left of her rapists sternum before blowing his heart out. It is true that most gun owners don’t maintain rigorous training to conduct running gunfights requiring magazine reloads but then the odds of them every firing their weapon in self defense are infinitesimal. So while training is good, for the average carry permit holder shoot-don’t shoot scenario, gun retention and situation awareness/fear response control training would be more valuable before combat shooting courses. Just not as much fun.
Some people are better at shooting than other, the Constitution doesn’t distinguish it gives even the ‘bad’ shots the RIGHT to bear arms… I have a concealed carry permit, I also shoot from time to time in IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association) matches, I am not a ‘hot shot’, but I can defend myself. I think the USA could take a lesson from Switzerland, where ALL citizens are armed… might cut down on crime and lots of other bad behavior.
In a perfect world, everyone would pursue the skill-level you have described. Most will not. One need only describe the unlimited carnage the concealed carry permit holders have unleashed on the peaceful, unsuspecting public. The daily shootouts on every-other street corner that mow down hundreds (thousands?) of innocent bystanders.
The lack of such news in rebuttal to the dooms-day liberal predictions is perhaps a useful answer to your question. Permit holders seem to have the ability to act responsibly. In the concealed carry classes I attended (initial and renewal) the consequences attached to drawing my pistol, let alone firing it, are etched into my mind.
I’ve long advised non-shooters who wish to use or carry a handgun for self-defense on benefits of formal training and periodic practice. Unlike Mr. Owens, I’ve never confused my opinion of a good practice with making it a law. I do not believe the constitution requires militia training or membership or even marksmanship as conditions of firearms ownership. While it is nice to be among a group of enthusiasts who routinely and methodically do the one-ragged-hole bit, that level of accuracy is not required in self-defense. Neither is the mini-IDPA training he describes.
While I heartily endorse Mr. Owens’ support of good training for firearms owners, I am somewhat concerned with his message that it should be a requirement of firearms ownership or carry. But then, I fail to see the necessity of additional licensing for concealed carry for a citizen who has no legal impediment for firearms purchase.
Still one could argue, the founders chose the word militia, not self appointed individuals, gang or a mob. As in the military, everyone should know how to properly care for, maintain and operate his or her weapon(s). Everyone should understand when and when not to use the weapon. You don’t want Gomer accidentally shooting your butt off any more than you want your five year old driving the car.
“Militia”, in the Founders’ time, meant basically the body of the citizenry (men, at that time). In Arizona, our state constitution defines the membership of the state militia as follows in Article 16, Section 1:
“The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all capable citizens of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, and of those between said ages who shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing therein, subject to such exemptions as now exist, or as may hereafter be created, by the laws of the United States or of this state.”
This is very consistent with the intent of the Founders. Most were against a standing army, viewing it as a great threat to the people’s liberty. Their intent, codified in the 2nd Amendment, the defense of the states be left in the able hands of the armed citizenry.
Back then, calling up the militia meant sending a rider to all the nearby farms telling the men to grab their guns and assemble at the meeting place.
As a Canadian, I’d be happy to take training if it meant I could easily own a hand gun. Over the rainbow, eh? Of course, only the criminals have hand guns up here. I’m not sure what kind of training they’ve had. I’m sure the government’s right on it, though.
I agree with your instructor. It’s a matter of taking responsibility for your own actions, an old, now obsolete American virtue. Somebody who keeps handguns for self-defense and doesn’t develop basic competence and keep his skills fresh is deluding himself.
Here in the Democratic Republic of Illinois, we don’t even have right to carry concealed, but I understand your sentiment. Your skill level (and mine) was no better than the people you’re talking about at one time. It’s not up to us to require every other shooter to run through as many rounds as you have before they earn the privilege to carry.
Even worse, it’s not a matter of yet more regulation, and the last thing we need is more regulations written by career politicians and do-gooder bureaucrat committees. Like almost all other regulation, it will be used to restrictively control who can own a gun. Ask the California Attorney General’s office or the Mayor’s office in Chicago.
Bob Owens, don’t worry about it. Really.
Statistically, citizens who shoot people outside of the home shoot the wrong guy far less often than the highly trained police operative. Mostly, private citizens shoot the right guy. Even cops admit to that. (google the stats! it’s free!)
If and when it becomes necesary, in the course of human events that ocur under the too powerful government that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and others warned against, then we will once again form militias to bring it back under the control of the People. When the militias form, it will be a spontaneous event, affecting the entire continent, and those of us who take up the arms of a militiaman will not carry concealed, I assure you.
Firearms training is important, yes, but not as important as the act of will that demonstrates the individual’s refusal to be a victim of criminals or oppressors. We fought the Revolution for the first year as rank, but highly motivated amateurs who learned as they went. That turned out pretty well, I think.
I expect we could do that again, if needed.
By the way, if the militia of the future has nuclear submarines in the inventory, I’m your man in the engineroom.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This “IS the context of the 2nd Amendment, in its entirety.
I don’t see any thing here that would indicate that “specialized” training needs to be required. After all, operation of a weapon is not rocket science.
What this “IS”, is an attempt to further the restrictions already in place on the possession and use of a fire arm.
While training might be a fair minded idea for self defense minded owners, “instructors” like the author here, sound more like left leaning advocates designed to fill the ranks of gun owners and become the the default ‘voice’ for ‘educated’ opinion on new restrictions via polling or some other “official” criteria subjectively determined to be the front door to ubiquitous regulation by federal authorities,
Eventually leading to total loss of the Right by burdensome taxation to fund classes, training, certification, re-certification, license, administration, bureaucratic monitoring et al.
Sure, I want fellow gun owners to be as competent as I am at weapons handling and as knowledgeable of the responsibilities, laws and regulations already infringing on our Right to ownership. But the truth “IS”, this is subjective criteria, and that means some one else makes the “decision” as to your competency. And THAT undermines what is known as your RIGHTS. Get over it.
Disarming Americans by the federal authorities would be an out right declaration of war against citizens, freedom, liberty and the foundation of our own government. Leading, obviously to the dogmatic despotic totalitarianism of a Marxist state, the protection from which the Constitution was specifically designed to protect against.
Don’t like the rules here? Move. There are plenty nations around the world that would be happy to subjugate one more government supporting toady.
Knowing myself as I do, I would expect no less than to be, well, *expected* to be very versed in the documentation of as well as HIGHLY, REGULARLY PRACTICED in the same if I was to ever take on the responsibility that is a concealed weapon..
As the person on *THIS* side of another’s concealed weapon, I would expect no less of THEM……..
Either.
~
As anyone with military experience will tell you, well regulated does not mean more laws atop of more laws. It simply means proficency within one’s own abilities. Any shooter, wether or not they have a conceled carry permit, who values his or other lives will tell you one thing for sure. If you lack the understanding of self defense and courage to enforce it, you are dead, period. Personaly, I am a believer that the United States Constitution is my permit, and I am not about to ask for anyone’s permission to carry freely, wether it be openly or concealed. It is a very dangerous world we live in these days and without the courage to live as a free man, what good purpose does a permit have when you are pushing up daiseys?
Well regulated was not about being proficient with firearms in particular. But rather that when a militia was called forth that it would be trained as a military unit and put under proper command structure. That was what well regulated means historically and in a militia context. Not that any given individual would receive arms training outside of militia duty.
I am not opposed to a certain level of training with arms, but first let me preface that by being unequivocal in my opposition to any government regulations mandating as a precondition of arms ownership such training.
Instead I would approach it by insuring that public education k-12 was based strongly on the four R’s.. Readin’ Ritten’, Rithmatic’ and of course.. Riflin’ . No reason a hour a day could not be spent in arms training instead of all the wasted PC training currently in the curriculum. While this may not solve the idiots in our population, but at least they would be well trained idiots. It also would not let government infringe our rights if done at school.
Smart people realize that permission to carry doesn’t mean proficient. A lot of people start by owning firearms with maybe a little time on the range and possibly hunting. Some of these people get a carry permit. Fewer get additional training, and less practice.
My opinion is that if you take any course beyond the basics and then practice on a somewhat regular basis you well be better qualified to defend yourself that about 95% of the population of the USA.
The “context” of the question asked at the class (derived, apparently, because one elderly gentleman was marginally proficient with his chosen firearm, a Glock) seems to extrapolate a mountain from a mole hill to, perhaps, create a future revenue stream FOR those giving firearms classes.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I read the same second amendment (a simple one sentence structure) and extrapolate that it REQUIRES ALL citizens of ANY state to posses a gun, with or without a carry permit.
It is clearly a matter for the individual states to decide as the beginning introductory language to The Bill of Rights says clearly;
“The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
>>>”will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.<<<"
They are talking about the people's security who reside within the states, not the Federal governments or nations security. The entire Bill of Rights is what the Federal government CANNOT impose upon the states and thereby it's citizens.
Aren't civics classes taught in school anymore?
Well, perhaps we should bring back poll taxes to provide training for voters so they’ll vote responsibly? You know, those instinct voters shooting from the hip cause all the ruckus. It’s getting so a progressive politician is just a walking target for contagious name calling and sniping.
Having attended a CCW training course, many years ago, when they were first offered here in the Land of AZ, I had a similar experience.
There were approx. 20 people in the class. Several had never fired a handgun. The range portion was pretty scarey. Even parts of the classroom instruction was scary.
However, I learned a lot that day about my fellow countrymen (and women). The instructor was pretty good at emplaining the importance of being familiar with your weapon and staying proficient.
After the complete training there was kind of a “de-briefing” session and surprisingly, to me anyway, many of the scary people knew they were scary. A couple of them decided it was more responsibility than they wanted to take on and declined to actually get the permit. Others commented on how much they really didn’t know and wanted direction in where they could get more instruction.
So, it’s like with anything else… There are those that will plod along blindly, but the majority of people, I believe, are capable of understanding the repsponsibility part if even for their own survival.
What was it Mark Twain said? “To protect a man from his follies is to fill the world with fools”.
In one of his books, Heinlein wrote: The purpose of govt is to protect men from each other. When your govt decides to protect you from yourself, it’s time to get a new govt.
Also remember that the first part is a prefatory clause and in no way modifies the remainder. The Founders were very literate people and clearly said what they meant. Who knew that the basic meaning of the second amendment would ever be called into question because most people have forgotten the sentence diagramming rules they were taught in grade school.
As to requiring training to own or bear arms, absolutely not. If the government can require some qualification for you to exercise it then it is not a right. Should people get as much training and practice as they can? Absolutely. When asking this question it might do well to keep in mind all the people who have had little to no training and yet still successfully defended themselves in the heat.
Since actually joining and/or training with a legitimate militia or other organization will get you branded as a dangerous kook and enemy of the state getting sufficient training to exercise the “free state” clause is pretty near impossible. It appears to be completely antisocial to learn small unit tactics or urban warfare until and unless Uncle Sugar does it for you.
I must have missed the part where CCW holders have had a major increase in accidental shootings…
Or misidentified shootings by CCW holders are now exceeding those of well trained police officers…
Or an uptick of revocations of CCW’s due to criminal activity on the part of the holders…
Why has this article been written?
Because any time there is an event like this one a large number of citizens start complaining about how only police officers should carry firearms. Furthermore, it is the tension between the responsibility to be trained and the requirement to be “certified”. There is always the temptation to transform the responsibility into a requirement. Meeting that head-on as this article does is a good thing. In its own small way, the article describes yet another benefit of responsible citizenry versus the illusory benefits of government mandates.
I live in Texas, haven’t see much ruckus over CCL holders upsetting anyone on the few occasions when they have suddenly crawled up out of the wood work and got in the way of a predatory dirt bag. They have on occasions backed up a police officer. Did read of one guy, don’t remember if he was in Texas or maybe Florida, he chased down a guy and shot him, not to bright.
Our police have had a few bad days, last one I remember was an officer trying to shot a killer Pit Bull, missed and hit the owner, a 17 year old. Kinda funny in the sense that their was no mention of the officer being tore up by the Pit Bull, probably because the Pit was just happy to see him and wanted some pets. Pits are like that. They just don’t get the fact that most two leggers feel they should be put down, they think everybody loves them and just want to play and be best buddies.
Police have sorta got on a dog shooting spree of late, I don’t call them anymore, last time the trainee wanted to shot my dogs if they even looked like they were going to approach him, real idiot and knows nothing about dogs other then to fear them I guess. I live out in the country, deal with my own problems I guess.
The differences between proficiency, adequacy and incompetence are a constant dilemma when dealing with skill sets.
You are making the point that using a handgun should be done with rout muscle memory, just about at the level of instinct. This is an admirable goal. But doesn’t the military have published statistics showing that only 15% of all those trained, even to the point of proficiency, will not “shoot to kill” in a military engagement?
The series of judgements necessary to bring a weapon with you on a given day and then putting yourself into a position where you need to decide to use a weapon, during the routine course of a routine day; are much different than the skill of actually knowing how to use that weapon. The type of person who willingly carries a handgun day in and day out, when it is not part of a job requirement; is a much different person than the typical gun owner who legally and lawfully keeps his/her gun in a safe.
I have a concealed weapon permit. I live in the country and I will carry the concealed weapon occasionally while working on my property, but mostly in the remote case that a big cat, a young bear or one of the low-life meth addicted children of my neighbors and I will cross paths. When I go to the store, I usually leave my weapon home, or at most leave it in the car. I do not think I will be so surprised by some lethal force that I will not have the time or opportunity to retrieve my weapon from storage. Once I decide I need the weapon and once retrieved, I know I will regret not practicing with it more often, but I have no doubt that I could shoot to kill, even if I stumble or hesitate.
If I were ever in a McDonald’s, or at the mall and someone opened fire on the crowd, my gun would probably be in my car.
In the framing era when the Founders were on their own, well regulated meant self-regulated. When they had just defeated the army of the Crown, they loathed the idea of another standing army; well-regulated meant self-regulated. The Militia within the meaning of the second amendment does not answer to the Commander-in-Chief; again, well regulated meant and means today self-regulated.
This article calls for self-regulation, and that’s as it should be.
To answer your question. NO! I have never seen the second amendment so butchered, even by liberals.
It’s a sad sign of our times that we’re even having this discussion…as the practical use of arms was once a commonplace skill. We have allowed our civilization to be raped of this education, by twisted sociopaths.
Fundamentally, our basic human right to invent & utilize technology to enhance our lives must remain sacred and untouched, if we are to honestly claim a belief in liberty and equality.
We all have the RKBA, and the right to protecty ourselves and our families and communities from aggression. This right does not come with an age limit, eyesight test, hand-shakiness factor, or fancy certificates from the NRA. I may not be a Navy SEAL deadshot, or an IDPA champion, but my life is no less worthy of being saved. By me.
Sure, for ‘official’ militia duty, we must be ‘well regulated’ to be effective as a militia – this is common sense. Yet this does not intrude into my private life, where my RKBA should remain unmolested.
The training you’re highlighting in your article is important, no doubt, but what is its real intent? To create a corp of sharpshooting marksmen? No. It is primarily to educate the newcomer with a baseline degree of competence in both a practical and legal sense. When they carry their gun around in their holster, is it likely to be randomly going off simply because they’re not an expert? Of course not. Stats don’t lie. We simply do not have a credible hazard problem associated with amateur armed civilians.
What is important is if & when that awful time comes, do they know what they are lawfully and rightfully able to do, and do they do it without presenting a deadly hazard to other innocent lives. Again, the stats show that we, as a general body of armed civilians, behave with an exemplary display of competence.
When the hazard from armed civilians even begins to approach the hazard from civilian drivers, we can have another chat about ‘regulations’.
Until then, don’t go giving the sociopathic gun-banners any hopes.
I am strongly against legislating requirements for an individual to get a CCW permit. However, I agree that all need a good foundation in gun handling and marksmanship.
When I was in high school in FL more than a few years ago almost every high school had a rifle team and marksmanship and gun handling were taught in the schools and by 4H clubs, as was driver education. Now they teach neither.
This is the place to start.
The Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about needing training in its 27 words: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
All I want to know (need to know) is how to load my gun and point it.
OK, you’re qualified to responsibly exercise your 2nd amendment right. What qualifies you to responsibly exercise your 1st amendment right to write this piece?
I have had a carry license (I’m on my first renewal now) for about five years. I was qualified for the license in my state on the basis of my service in the military decades ago. At Ft. Riley, Kansas, as ROTC cadets, we went through a type of basic training and fired rifles and machine guns. Later, I began my two-year active duty in a 10-week course for Infantry 2nd Lts at the Infantry School, Ft Benning, Georgia. There, along with a wide variety of Infantry tactical and leadership programs, we got to fire 45 cal handguns, rifles, carbines, machine guns, 60 mil and 81 mil mortars. 3.5 inch rocket launchers, 75 mil recoilless rifles – http://www.olive-drab.com/od_infweapons_recoilless.php – and even participated in a gun crew to fire a 155 mil howitzer. At Ft Benning, I also participated in a field live fire exercise. (Truth in commenting: I was never in combat, there was very little hostile shooting going on during my tour.)
My state seems to have taken the position that safety training is the major reason for licensing, IMHO my state is correct in recognizing military service for safety training. I don’t look upon my license as a certification for my being able to effectively handgun down bad guys in all light conditions, in all environments, with perfect judgment as to the legal ramifications. These things are all up to me. It is my responsibility to enhance my ability to defend myself and innocent others from grave bodily harm. So I guess, in short, I agree with Bob and my state, Florida. Further, there doesn’t seem to be a problem with all the packers around here shooting themselves or others accidentally. So, if it ain’t broke…
Using the reasoning of the right as a restriction on the right.
I guess they could do that with all our rights. We need a properly educated press, so why not let the government do the training and decide who can write articles like this trashy one. We should not be allowing just anyone to congregate together, people who like and use guns can get dangerous, so anyone who has a carry permit will have to be limited in their friends. It would not do well to allow cults to be created that brainwash the masses, so the government should be allowed to decide what religions are in fact legitimate, maybe they could get the scientists of the global warming scam to spend some time determining which religions are valuable to society.
That right to remain silent and not be a witness against oneself, well, if you can keep your mouth shut after a few rounds of water boarding, I guess your golden. Right to an attorney, if you can afford an attorney after we take all your possessions and bank accounts into our control, you may have one.
I am sure glad we got people like you on our side. It is like the elites with their Harvard and Princeton and other elite University Degrees who like to tell us how much salt we are allowed in our food, what types of fats are going to be available in our diets, how much medical care we are entitled to and which we are not allowed to have, how much of our earnings we are allowed to keep and so forth. Glad to see that one of the elite concealed carry permit holders in our land has learned something from our bettors and has become one himself, so that he can enlighten us upon how unworthy we are and that additional limits on our rights is needed for balance.
With rights (power) comes responsibility. Yes, this is true. But I think you are conflating responsibility with government control. The responsibility is upon the individual, not the government. The greatest level of responsibility for such a great power as the power of life and death is to simply prevent anyone from having that right (power) ever.
Thanks to Bob Owens for this thoughtful, well-reasoned and carefully concluded essay. I think it the best of its kind I can remember reading.
I share the author’s concerns about training requirements, but I have come to believe, as he does, that state governments should not impose training mandates.
Still, I would like to see market forces play a role. For example, gun stores — in cooperation with the NRA and pro-active manufacturers like Glock — might offer discount incentives at the point of sale for handguns; encourage buyers to enroll in courses from basic handgun safety to self-defense. Similarly, states, in cooperation with law enforcement and, again with the NRA, might hand out literature to new permit applicants that emphasizes the benefits of safety training, on the one hand, and possible legal consequences of using a firearm in self-defense on the other.
#5 Tommy: “Still one could argue, the founders chose the word militia, not self appointed individuals, gang or a mob.”
Q: Who makes up a militia? ACORN? CodePink? No, it’s INDIVIDUALS. The fact is, it goes on to say “the right of the PEOPLE” – also INDIVIDUALS. With regard to “self-appointed”, that’s got to be one of the dumbest comments I’ve ever heard. Who self-appointed the NYT, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN to feed us the leftist garbage they do? If, under the 1st Amendment, I choose to self-appoint myself to buy a printing press and print a newspaper then I will do so whether or not you approve. If, under the 2nd Amendment, I choose to self-appoint myself to buy, own, possess and use a firearm and defend myself, then I will do so, whether or not you approve. The Bill of Rights guarantees me those rights without interference from you. You’re right, I don’t want Gomer shooting my butt off, but if Gomer is dumb enough to shoot himself, then so be it. Like #15 JT says, “What was it Mark Twain said? “To protect a man from his follies is to fill the world with fools”
Well, the world is fast becoming filled with fools because our government continues to think it has to be our nanny to protect us from ourselves. Anyone who buys a gun and uses it irresponsibly must answer for his follies, especially if s/he causes harm to another. If s/he causes harm to her/himself, then the rest of us are probably better off.
No other Constitutional right requires training, so why would the Second Amendment? As has been said already, each of us is responsible for our own abilities for whatever we do, whether carrying a firearm or driving a car or raising children.
It is the _Militia_ which must be well trained, as citizen soldiers;
The care and feeding of firearms is a necessary but secondary skill.
Gun _owners_ do not require any training, and per amendment II,
should not have any restrictions on the quantity or quality of arms
owned; A Ma-Deuce is just as legal as a .22 derringer.
Gun _carriers_ do not require training, or licensing, any more than
the owner of an automobile requires either to have the vehicle carried
from one place to another on a transporter truck.
Gun _users_ now, are a whole other category, but they still do not
require either training or licensing before the fact; _After_ the fact,
if their use of firearms has endangered, harmed, or killed innocent
bystanders, they should be judged and punished accordingly.
Bottom line: Give the State an inch worth of regulatory authority, and
it will end up taking a mile; There should be _zero_ restrictions on
the right to keep and bear arms.
Ok let’s learn what we’re talking about before suggesting more regulations. It’s very simple to see if an individual is capable of handling a gun by watching them shoot . That’s the test.
One can only imagine how the “Requirements” would escalate once the original law was put into place. Just like every other law, the gov. would be unable not to fix it. There would be a simple course for the new gun owner to take and pass. Then the “Pass” would get a lot more difficult. Then the courses would get more and more expensive so that the gun would become the cheapest part of the deal. Then a tax so that the records could be kept for future use. The person that caries and uses a gun for protection would be the last person in the list to benefit from the new law. The liability associated with carrying should be enough to make one think carefully about it and temper their use.
Hmmmmmm, should we also require voter training classes? How about free speech classes? Freedom of assembly classes? Perhaps the author should work on his confidence, they have classes and self-help courses for that.
When they start training and licensing the press then we can talk about the Second Amendment. As to their college, does not seemed to have worked, they are still totally irresponsible and out of control.
Bear in mind that the Founders had muzzle stuffers in mind.
Many years past I read a history of the 20th Maine involvement in the War between the States.
One of the first hurdles, the officers had to deal with….although ALL recruits were experienced crack shots…..they had to be subjected to lengthly fire drills. Muzzle loading rifles……a simple mistake would result in a non-functioning weapon. Many rifles were recovered from the battlefields with as many as 3 charges…
Current firearms are more reliable and user friendly but the principle remains.
Most anti-cipated encounters are not prolonged firefights but involve 1 perhaps 2 rounds fired.
Remember the participants of the famous OK Corral incident were experienced experts, using modern, breachloading, cartridge repeaters ….then blazed away for some minutes and yet inflicted few casualties….inconvenient truths. According to Hoyle, Wyate Earpe or Doc Holiday could have dispatched all the Clantons singlehanded.
More room to miss than hit.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!
At the time of the OK corral, smokeless powder handn’t been invented yet. After a few shots, they were lucky to be able to see more than a few feet.
The Founding Fathers had in mind weapons intended for military service/combat. It was not about the existing types of weapons, it was the purpose OF them. The first cannon the Revolutionaries fired was a personal one from in front of a pub. Military style weapons would be specifically the sort the Founders had in mind for that amendment.
Most people that own a firearm will do whatever it takes to keep them clean and well maintained. They will also be certain that they have the required training in order to not only enjoy their weapon at the range, but also be trained to use it in the home.
Should we have required training? Only if we are going to require training for other freedoms guaranteed to us by the US Constitution. Is it a good idea? Perhaps. That said, by and until the Constitution says that you can enjoy freedom of speech with a degree in communications there should be no limitations placed on the other freedoms that do not come from the State; rather, the ability to remove them are taken FROM the State.
Responsible gun owners get the training they need. Criminals don’t (and won’t) and we don’t need training to have rights that are granted to us by our existence.
Maybe a better question, which will undoubtedly answer yours, is should we require ultra-sound and counseling before abortions are preformed?
Since one is an emanations and penumbra right, and owning a firearm is an enumerated right, the test to infringe an enumerated right being much higher, lets see how that plays out.
Simply put — The test of infringement is far higher for an enumerated right.
Did I answer your question?
No matter the coating on the candy, any infringment on the right to keep and bear arms is just that. By limiting via cost restrictions (licencing) makes it harder for people of limited means to defend themselves. Affording a basic weapon legally can entail hundreds of dollars. By requiring additional fees, think poll tax, you limit who can defend themselves. Lets not go down this well oiled path. The left does enough without help from “well meaning” folks from the other end of the spectrum.
Of all those I know who own a handgun, they all have practiced using it & are capable of using it if the situation demands it, whether up close or from a distance. The ‘heat of the moment” responses issue applies to any & every attack. The attacker is just as ‘heated’ as the victim. Want my gun, sure, let me just empty it first!
Qualifications, limitations, regulations, requirements, standards, etc. are all part of the ‘we must control or eliminate guns” plan. Just as those who want to create localism councils to regulate content on talk radio. Once one gets to establish all sorts of regulatory standards, all one needs do is expand on that slowly but surely, until no one can speak freely or have a gun.
Who is responsible for most civilian deaths, other than wars, over the decades?
Guess what folks… its their own governments. And, just to be sure you understand what this means, those same governments also “DISARMED” their citizens prior to the carnage of government killings!
There is a reason for excessive, numerous, different, regulations & rules. They are designed to create impediments to whatever it is one is trying to control or eliminate.
Responsible gun owners already do the training thing. Pushing it is simply a back door try to come up with methods to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Very well said, AMEN!
Do we require training to practice Speech?
A Right, is a Right, after all.
More training means more restrictions. What happens if some “trainer” decides someone isn’t good enough? They lose their rights? The author of the article cites no evidence that lack of firearms training has led to a large quantity of accidents. Police have accidental discharges all the time and one assumes they are highly trained. There are more successful defensive uses of firearms than accidents from what I have read so I see no need to increase training requirements.
Of course people should voluntarily learn how to use their weapons and go to the range once in a while to keep sharp. Sounds like the author attended a class and now feels he is in a position to make judgments about the abilities of others. A very common human failing unfortunately.
If I keep and bear arms for the protection of myself and my family, in my own home, then the consequences of unsafe handling are likely inflicted only on those I care about.
When I carry concealed on the street, I have an obligation to use my power wisely and to avoid injury to innocents. Most untrained gun-handlers employ methods they have learned from watching TV shows, and have no concept of basic safety, or when deadly force is justified. Carrying concealed is a right, and there certainly is a corresponding responsibility to know how to handle safely, and when it is appropriate to use deadly force.
Safety training also protects our rights, from the yowling mass who seek only a marginal excuse to control us – I know, I live in California, where we already don’t have much left.
Warcrimes? Bwahahahahaha do you even know what you are talking about?
Why don’t we try something new in our government? Namely, leave us alone!!! If you feel that it is necessary to pass a law, rule or regulation, then leave the country. We have enough government on all levels. We don’t need anything further, no matter who is hurt, how much it will save, what moral message it carries or any of the other justifications for government intruding into our lives.
We have the predictable (which is not to say completely unjustified) paranoia of the gun-worshippers. I know that you guys beleeeve that the right to bear is a God-given, natural right, which also happens to be enumerated in the Bill of rights.
But living in the real world, all rights are subject to some limitation and common sense. Most of you know that requiring some training makes sense, but are leery of any government regulation thereof. You have already had to swallow the bitter pill of having the rights of some felons compromised. I am surprised that no one argues that keeping guns away from felons is just a trick to keep them away from all of us. You have absolute and religious feelings about something which ultimately is political and practical. Good luck to all of us in sorting this out.
I have seen a used handgun being advertised on my gun club’s email list and am giving serious thought to purchasing it. It would be my first handgun, after ten or so rifles and shotguns. I see practical reasons to purchase and occasionally carry it, but I hope I don’t contract the Second Amendment fever in the process. Do you think that I can catch it from the gun?
Probably not, but your first dirt bag encounter with you unarmed might be contagious, you could get the fever from that.
Likewise, I posted a comment to this thread early this morning, and it has yet to appear. How do I reach the black void into which my comments seem to be consigned?
There is no mention of training in the 27 words of the Second Amendment, namely: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There is no mention of “training,” which would be an “infringement.” The only training I need is how to load my gun.
Currently (in most locations) a person DOES NOT have to go through any safety training to own a firearm. Conversely, a person DOES have to go through a skills test to show their competancy before obtaining a driver’s license (and many times, training as well.)…
This is why in the year 2002 in the USA: approx 800 deaths were attributed to firearm accidents while only 40,000 (approx) deaths were attributed to vehicle accidents. Looks like mandatory training did a lot of good, there, Lenny…
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_10.pdf
You see, mandatory training is useless.
A responsible person will seek out training on their own.
An irresponsible person will ignore any training they’ve been forced to take.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
We need to parse this simple sentence out. It amazes me it causes so much confusion, but then English isn’t really taught anymore.
So, here is that sentence in plain language.
“Because a well regulated militia is needed for the security of a free nation, the right of the people to own a weapon and carry it may not be infringed.
So simple even a liberal should be able to understand it.
Patrick
Not “may”, “SHALL” or “WILL”. “May” presumes the connotation of “shouldn’t”, “shall” is concrete, as is “will”. The problem is that the government presumes to grant you rights, which are guaranteed by the human existence.
with the addition of “not” it in fact is unambiguous. I actually agree “Shall not” is the better construction in this case, however, it’s a little bit too big a word for the average liberal.
Patrick
Indeed. That was the qualification I intended. Well caught for the definition.
If anyone is an inside the belt pistol totter, check out the Crossbreed holsters. I have carried inside the belt for years and was starting to have nerve pain from using inside the belt holsters, these were not the cheap ones, but the 60 buck and up cost wise. Since using the Crossbreed holster the pain is gone and it is a pleasure to haul my heavy ole .45 XD around.
As author Bob Weir argues, exercise of any right necessarily bears a consequent responsibility. Free speech is far less risky than an errant bullet, yet one does not have the ‘right’ to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater either.
The right to bear arms is the fundamental right of the individual to have the means to exercise deadly force, and it is the only balance against the deadly force inherent in the collective power of government. The Second Amendment precludes the government from becoming the only possessor of the means of deadly force, which is the power of tyranny.
My rights always are limited by your presence in my world. Alone on an island, my gun handling right is absolute and limited only by my continuing survival. When you join me there, the direction in which I can point my muzzle is immediately diminished by half, and your survival then depends on my diligence in observing safe handling principles.
A well-regulated militia knows how to safely handle a firearm, and when it is appropriate to use it. Mindless assertion of limitless rights will only result in equally mindless deprivation of our essential freedoms.
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is
700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians
per year are
120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician
is
0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
Health and Human Services.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.
is
80,000,000.
(Yes, that’s 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths
per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths
per gun owner
is
.000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, statistically, doctors are approximately
9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, ‘Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.’
(courtesy of Joe, Sea Cliff, class of ’64)
Thanks for the perspective!!! Right on!!!
Nice data; What about the ratio of firearms to civilians and firearms to police depts. versus ‘accidental’ shootings per category?
I’d be willing to wager that the police have more ‘accidental shootings’, but, they are required to log all such incidents.
I’m not being sarcastic with you; But, I’d also be willing to wager that there are more civilians at the ranges than law enforcement, practicing with their weapons. (This would include any law enforcement at the range off duty.)
Our so called ‘press’, now endowed with the moniker ‘media’, has empowered itself with the ‘right’ to condemn and attack whatever behaviour it deems controversial, and ‘outrageous’. But, their sole motivation is to create ‘sensationalized’ articles that generate ‘hits’ and revenue.
Firearms/weapons are not the problem; They are inanimate objects like a baseball bat that could be classified as a weapon.
Respect for your neighbor is what’s necessary.
It seems to me that we should be like Switzerland. Very basic military training in school, 2 years mandatory service after high school, then up to you whether to stay military, go to college, whatever. If not to go that far, senior year of high school sort of run like ROTC, complete with weapons training. For those past that already, optional firearms training with certificate afterwards which would allow free purchase anytime, anywhere, of any form of firearm. National Vermont/Alaska/Arizona style carry law, no CCW required. It is true there should BE no restriction at all, but that presumes some basic knowledge like the good old days. At the VERY least, basic instruction AT the gun shop at time of purchase of first firearm, test to consist of safety rules of firearms handling.
NO.
At the founding and under the Militia Act of 1792 all able-bodied male citizens ages 17-45 were required to own a military weapon (at the time a musket, though sometimes including sword and pistols). Current federal law (10 USC 311) has a roughly similar definition of the legal members of the militia, the primary changes between then and now regarding membership was to remove race requirements, and to add some women (who were members of the National Guard). Of course, most of us can’t afford to own a modern military weapons now, and especially since the FOPA of 1986 (full auto weapons are available for sale, but their supply has been limited [by FOPA] and they are very expensive). That should change. An M-4 equivalent should be about $800. And no more presumption of guilt (which is what a form 4473 is btw). No more FFLs. Walk into the store – pay your money and walk out the door with your purchase. No CCW permits, and open carry everywhere except for where the government can be sued for failure to protect your life if something bad happens (except of course private property, which is the owner’s business).
At the root it comes down to power and trust. The aristocrats in our society don’t trust the people. For my part, I don’t trust them, and we need to reduce their power relative to ours. A machine gun in every home, just like the Swiss, would beneficially focus their attention on our needs, not on those of their masters on Wall Street.
Agreed. The Founders intended for every CITIZEN to own military grade firearms. Period. Not just flintlocks, swords, etc, but leaving it open to whatever came next in a device suited for combat. And they shouldn’t be anywhere near as expensive. No taxes, no licences, no restrictions on what you choose to own. I don’t want to feed a full auto, that’s expensive! 3 shot burst, okay. But yes, I should be able to walk into the local hardware store and pick up whatever I feel I can use freely. But as I said above, this presumes knowledge like we used to have. I really want anyone WITH a gun to know which end the bullet comes out of. There should be no control over what you own, you should just know how to use it.
The entire text of the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“Requiring” gun training can very easily be used to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Individuals in the Several States can take care of their own damned gun business!!!
Exactly right. There is no elitist or controlling thinking in 2nd Amendment. Your God-given right is to keep and bear arms. How you do that is entirely up to you save where other God-given rights bump up gently against it.
So spare us the nanny state crap, Bob Owens.
God-given rights do not require any extra licence.
PJ media is really going downhill fast.
I just checked the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, again. I could not find any reference requiring or permitting training and licensing. Apparently it is none of the governments business.
Right; Try reading the Tenth Ammendment; That’s why there is so much difference between states training requirements.
Consider who would be writing those laws requiring “X” training in order to purchase/own/carry a gun…are they motivated to produce a well-regulated citizen militia as the Founders envisioned? To help create safer, better-trained gun owners who are prepared and knowledgeable about the care and use of firearms? To promote the ownership of firearms?
Something tells me this is not the case. TPTB are motivated to disarm us any way they can. Armed citizens are, simply, an impediment to their agenda. Since they cannot ban guns outright without it begin (rightly) viewed as an act of war against the people, they use taxes and draconian restrictions on purchasing, owning and carrying guns instead. I call it “creeping disarmament.” Consider Chicago and Washington D.C. as just two prime examples of this in action….do you still believe that training requirements are a good idea? It’s far easier to give liberty away than to get it back…
Again, training in high school. Just like drivers ed. Just exactly like drivers ed. If you’re going to drive, you must show you know how. Bigger/huge vehicl? CDL. Test, approve, good to go. I’m not ever going to say that each firearm needs paperwork, just as you can buy any car you wish and drive it once you have a drivers licence. You can drive a Yugo, or you can drive a Corvette, but to drive you must have had training.
I grew up with guns out West – got my first .22 (a little kid-sized Remington single shot ‘trap door firing only shorts and longs, no long rifle) when I was six and my first shotgun (a .410) the following year and started hunting doves with my Dad, who was an avid hunter and collector, as soon as I could read well enough to pass a hunter safety course given by a local gunsmith, that was a prerequisite to getting a hunting license.
I believe everyone ought to be well-armed, but I also believe that no one who cannot pass a safety course and demonstrate rather minimal marksmanship skills should use firearms. That may be a ‘nanny state’ view, but it’s no more onerous than getting a driver’s license. Less so, since the state isn’t the one administering the courses.
If it were up to me, I’d require firearms training in school: starting with basic familiarization and safety in elementary school and culminating in live fire combat course training in high school. Every child in this great country has a right to become familiar with firearms – so they’re not afraid of guns as so many people are today – and to learn how to handle them safely, and to use them effectively.
Someone above said it perfectly. The temptation of turning responsibility into a requirement is strong indeed. I’ve had many years of firearms training and practice. Trigger time is happy time, and I love to target shoot. I’ve taken various tactical pistol courses in the military, so I’m not an untrained firearms user.
In a perfect world I would like to see some mandatory training. However, I do not trust government agencies to not use such requirements as a means of control. Disarming as many constituents as possible, so I would never advocate for such requirements, though I strongly advise anyone who owns a gun to spend some time learning how to use it. It ridiculous not to.
That being said, licensing is no substitute for skill, if it was, I wouldn’t have to endure the daily idiocy that is public roads, filled to capacity with licensed drivers, but far to few skilled ones.
The big problem with requiring training before a gun permit is issued is that many states and localities have used such training as a pretext for denying permits to all but the well connected.
They just assure that nobody they don’t like passes the course.
Why stop there? If “training” is important for a gun owner, lets insist on it for parents, journalists, before the first drink, before the first sexual encounter, before you go to college. Before you learn to read anything dangerous and unsettling. Before you have kids or start blogging. Before a battered woman can buy one.
Oh I know he doesen’t mean THIS. No one proposing training ever does. He is just stupid enough not to understand that once you empower officials to demand training to dos omehting peolpe ahve an absolute right to do, the “training” will expand like mold behind the wall. People like the author will always find more things that are “basic” to the training. People unlike the author will use it to strangle something they don’t like as they do in several cities now.
I am reminded of the famous demonstration by a ATF firearms “expert” in front of a classroom: the highly trained man told the class that he alone was an expert and they were not. He then proceed to demonstrate a draw –and shot himself in the foot. It’s on youtube.
Thank goodness no police officers were involved in drafting the Bill of Rights. I can just see the first amendment: “, “Congress shall make no law…where the journalist has completed a state-approved certification program.”
Yes, we need to require training prior to free men being allowed to use rifles and pistols. We also need to require training prior to allowing free men to purchase hammers.
The burden of proof that a free man is incomptent to be trusted with firearms is not on the free man. A day of reckoning is coming…
It’s something everyone should be brought up with. The sad thing is they aren’t.The best way to control is to disarm and divide.
When I bought .410′s for my kids, I just passed them out along with five boxes each of small slugs and told them to go out and figure it out with their friends. Not quite all of them made it back without some wounds, but by God, they had liberty up the yin-yang!
I didn’t want NRA instructors polluting my kids with their extreme gun ideas or myself making them feel bad about themselves with all my nanny state regulations about where the gun should be pointed, when their fingers should be on the triggers, what was behind what they were shooting at or any other of that stuff. I had them memorize the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, read at least ten of the Federalist papers and said, go get em!
Ha Ha Ha. You so funny, Doctor Jones. I know you are kidding, but your parable is flawed. As a free man it is your responsibility to train your kids in proper firearms usage. When I take my 12 year old out hunting, I didn’t depend on someone else to teach him how to handle a gun, because my life was in danger if he did it wrong. Consequently I would hand my Sig to my son before I would it to many adults. In his hands I know its going to be handled correctly.
Personally, I would like to see our representatives be required to study the constitution and then be required to pass a test before they are allowed to represent us. If we need draconian laws anywhere it must surely be to educate our elected officials about the oath to the constitution they take. I disagree with any comments here that wish to impose training on citizens who exercise their 2nd amendment rights. If you choose to carry a gun, then you chose the responsibility that goes with it, simple as that. As long as you don’t ‘break my leg or pick my pocket’, it’s none of my business that you choose to carry, it’s your choice as a freeman to do what you feel is right. All the gun owners I know are responsible people who understand the responsibility they take on when they carry a gun, most have sought out training and practice regularly. If you wish to impose regulation and training requirements, you declare yourself an elite, somehow more righteous and smarter than the rest of us. That, my friend, leads down the road to serfdom.
Neither the state nor federal government (the “we” the author refers to) has the authority to require anything in this regard.
The skeptics, I think, have the right of it. In my own classes, I encourage people to practice, practice, and then practice some more. That’s a good thing to do, but it’s not cheap. Figure, hereabouts, around $15 for range fees, and, say, $30 for a couple of boxes of ammo. That fifty bucks or so adds up, if you’re going to practice weekly, or even monthly.
And that’s not even getting into the issue of how useful, in practice, a moderately rigorous training schedule actually is. (Sure, if you pick people, a la the SEALs, for exceptional physical skills and train them constantly, they obviously do very well during planned conflict — but, alas, SEALs get mugged, too.) And, in my limited experience, many (by no means all) of the folks who are great at the gun games — IDPA and IPSC, say — lose a lot of their skills when they’re put under the pressure of even a mild shooting qualification. And let’s not even get into the likelihood of somebody taking up a Modified Weaver Stance and getting a “flash sight picture” when somebody comes at them in a darkened parking lot.
I think that regulations, at most, should require an applicant to demonstrate the ability to safely load, shoot, and unload a handgun. Beyond that, as good as practice and further training may be, it seems more than a little excessive to require it as a condition of being prepared to exercise the natural right of self-defense with the appropriate tool.
whose we kimosabe?
what i own, what my training is, and how i enjoy my possessions are no one’s business. if i break a law, shoot someone, threaten someone with a firearm, negligently leave a fire are in an area children can access arrest me. until then you all need to buzz off and eat yerselves.
Where would you prefer to live 1) In a state where you never know which “good guy” is carrying a gun, or 2) in a state where all hand guns are banned, even from the goog guys, and the “bad guys’ never gave up their guns ?
If you want option #1 then there will be fewer rapes, robberies, assaults, and a far greater probability that someone will come to your rescue in a crisis. Waiting for the cops to show up after the fact is not a rationale act by a responsible citizen. Take personal responsibility for the safety of self, family, and friends. Voluntarily acquire a permit if required by your state (even though it is none of their damned business) get a suitable handgun, and practice when possible. Practice is optional but prudent. Keep government regulation out of the process if you want to live in a free society.
Congressmen/Gun Rights Activists/the media, have been trying to impose their ‘interpretation’ of the Constitution and second ammendment for centuries.
‘Posse Comitatus’ prevents the use of the military for domestic police, thereby preventing a military coup by the Commander in Chief, or another arm of the government. (And even if this were employed, there would be massive desertions).
A “Well regulated militia” is one where the ‘citizens’ would band together to confront an enemy of the state(s), and threats to OUR liberties.
Today, these citizens would have to battle the media and the entire Democrat Party if they were called to arms.
Potential ‘threats’ have to be evaluated very accurately to avoid being imprisoned for the rest of your life with inmates that have also had a history of making bad judgements.
It’s the same as getting a ‘marginal’ education. If you feel lucky enough to just get by, go for it!
The truely self sufficient, responsible individual (which the Constitution embraces), shall seek the training, education, and experience.
The right to keep and bear arms is an amendment. To apply regulations to that amendment is to invite restriction and eventual elimination through regulations by governments.
Besides, if there is a real need for education before exercising a right, I would suggest training in voting rights. We are far more dangerous when we vote than when we shoot.
Obama and Alvin Greene are two recent examples. Harry Reid, Pelosi and Frank are more.
Just saying…
The author needs to work on his confidence, a self help course should help that. But then, maybe his next submission will be how the course was somehow not up to snuff. So….his lack of confidence should limit my rights…right? Sounds so…progressive.
Actually, there is a natural leveler to this entire discussion. That is the criminal and civil liability from using your firearm in any manner not proscribed by the laws in your jurisdiction.
If you have not studied, or been taught, your applicable laws, you have left yourself open to severe prosecution if you carry, brandish or use your gun. This is particularly true if all your “training” comes from the TV, movies, web posters or other similar sources.