General Categories > Carry Issues
Omaha oakview mall
Mudinyeri:
We can talk about specific anecdotes all day long but they do not prove a larger point. That's like saying, "my grandpa smoked three packs of cigarettes a day and lived to be 100 so cigarettes must be good for you." Or, "I knew a few people who drank a 12 pack of beer every day and none of them died of liver disease so alcohol must not be related to liver disease." A handful of anecdotes - to the good or to the bad - do not support an argument.
Certainly, there are instances of law enforcement officers being careless with weapons. There are also instances where someone with a gun might have prevented something ... maybe. Hindsight really isn't 20/20 as much as we would like to believe so. And there are also instances, I'm sure, where someone with little or no training or familiarity with weapons was able to do something positive with a gun. I'm not talking about anecdotes and could-have-beens. I'm talking about statistical probabilities.
Given a sample of say 100,000 random individuals, does anyone on here think it is truly realistic to expect that the individuals in the sample with less training and familiarity with weapons will do better than those with more training and familiarity ... on the whole? I'm not asking if there might be a few individuals with less training/familiarity that might do better than a few individuals with more. I'm talking about the overall results for the entire sample. Anyone who has taken a basic statistics course should understand the question I'm asking.
Does anyone know the NRA's stance on training? Now, I'm not saying that the NRA is the absolute authority on how we should view gun ownership, but they're probably about as close as it comes. In case you're not sure of their stance on training, they have an entire website devoted to it: http://www.nrahq.org/education/index.asp
OK, on to answer a few of the questions posed ....
Should it be my choice whether to take training or not? In a perfect world, yes. However, we do not live in a perfect world. Since we don't live in a perfect world, we've had to come up with laws as a society. Unfortunately, laws are largely reactive - they only come into effect after someone has broken them. How much better would it be for us to be pro-active as gun owners?
How can a law-abiding citizen carrying a "loaded, holstered firearm" potentially infringe upon my right to life? As long as the firearm stays holstered, the risk is low. However, once that firearm comes out of its holster, I think Ben's (2 E L O) example of the scenario in Dave's store is a good one to use. Suppose there was a law-abiding citizen carrying a firearm that day. Suppose that individual did not grow up with guns and had only received the training required in a Nebraska CCW class. Suppose the individual decides to pull his gun from his holster. He's nervous and relatively unfamiliar with his weapon since he never has time to get to the range. He's obviously nervous and stressed. He fires. His weapon sprays bullets around the store. An innocent bystander is hit and later dies. That's how a law-abiding citizen with a holstered weapon potentially infringes on someone's right to life.
In my CCW class we were shown a photo of a scenario where a man had a woman at knifepoint. He was behind her with only his head available as a target. The instructor asked the class who would take the shot. A guy behind me immediately bellowed that he would. Most of the rest of the class was hesitant. Having practiced similar scenarios just the weekend before I suggested that both the perp and the victim would most likely be moving, your adreniline would be flowing, your hand might be shaking and taking a head shot at 15-20 feet was a pretty big risk. The guy in the back grumbled something under his breath and the instructor moved on.
By the way, I was about 95% accurate in my shooting the previous weekend (meaning 95% of my shots hit the perp or missed the victim; of the 95% about 98% hit the perp). I was shooting at a still target while moving, to simulate a dynamic scenario. I know I'm 5% likely to hit the victim. Do you suppose the guy in the back had any such knowledge of his skill? Having met him and talked with him a bit, I doubt it. So, here you have a guy who has no idea whether or not he can make the shot ready and willing to take it without even a thought. What if the woman in the scenario was your wife, girlfriend, daughter, mother ...?
What training do I think is needed? Obviously, I have my own opinion. My suggestion would be that we as collective gun-owners agree upon some level of training and propose it ourselves - beat the Brady Bunch to the punch, so to speak. At a minimum, I'd like to see some scenario shooting as a part of the CCW test. (Let's see if the guy in the back of the room can make the headshot.) I'd also like to see some practice with mis-fires, FTF's, etc. as a part of the CCW process. I'd also like to see people get to the range at least once a quarter if they want to carry concealed. A little bit of retention training and practice would also be good. I haven't spent the time to develop a specific proposal for curriculum, but I don't think any of those things are onerous.
AAllen:
So what you are proposing is that i should not be able to carry concealed because i have not been to a class that teaches the items you spoke of (retention, dynamic situations ect.) in almost 2 years. In fact in that time span I have made it to the range only 3 times, and 2 of those were rifle training/practice.
Does it make a differance that over a year of that time was as an unarmed civilian federal employee working in a combat zone?
Yes I support training. Get all you can afford both in time and money. But just because you don't have the latest wizbang course does not mean you should not have the ability to defend yourself.
And in case you are wondering, fact based statistically civilians have a greater chance of hitting what they are shooting at without injuring bystanders that the Police and other highly trained responders. Even in the Walgreens example he hit over 50% of the time (4 to the body one down the barrel of the shotgun) thats double what police hit in that same situation. Don't use the emotional don't you think the statistics would be the way you say, because the facts go the other direction.
Mudinyeri:
AAllen, first, I'm not proposing anything. I suggested some things that I think would be valuable. As I stated, I haven't put together a syllabus that I would be ready to propose. I'm definitely not suggesting "whiz-bang" courses. I would only support substantive and practical training. (Of course, I might be overruled.)
Second, if someone wanted to "test out" because they felt their skills were sufficient without training I would have no problem with that.
Third, with respect to the statistics ... the statistical sample of LEO shootings is MUCH larger and much more statistically valid than that of civilian shootings. I haven't studied the research but the confidence interval for any research related to civilian shootings has to be a mere fraction of the CI for LEO shootings. Since you don't cite the research on which you base your premise (as I didn't) neither of our premises is more valid than the other. I will readily admit that I'm making an assumption that more training and practice improve performance. Of course, it seems to be a pretty sound theory since I can't think of a single discipline where the outcome isn't readily evident.
rluening:
Rights have nothing to do with statistics.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If people don't like it, it can be changed with a Constitutional Amendment. That won't remove our right to self defense, but at least the nanny state would have some control over it.
/rl
DaveB:
2 E L O and Mudinyeri, you both fully support the 2nd amendment, but only at home. Does that mean that cops are going to be everywhere to protect my family?
If criminals are exempt from training, why shouldn't I be? I don't think the criminals are any too concerned about stray spray, but I'll bet the law abiding citizen that is carrying a gun will be. I at least am going to protect my family and self as long as I have the right to do so. Training or not.
Gun control is nowhere to be found in the constitution or any of the amendments, nor is a training clause that meets with your approval. Besides, if the guy has 60 rounds through his first gun, 56 while getting his carry permit, he is well qualified to be an American with all the rights that go along with it.
I am done now, this is upsetting me too much, I don't live in Omaha, Illinois, or California. I live in America, land of what is supposed to be the free.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version