NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Information Arsenal => Topic started by: JTH on April 29, 2016, 04:34:30 PM
-
Over the last couple of years, I periodically see commentary by people who have recently taken their state CCW course, talking about what they learned, how they did, etc.
And every once in awhile, I read something that makes me wince a little. Sometimes it is a story from their instructor that incorrectly applies a law, sometimes it is a picture of the target from their qualification where the official target wasn't used, sometimes it is from someone's advertising for their class in which they tell people to bring 30 rounds which means they aren't fulfilling the NSP's requirements for practice prior to the firearms qualification. The problem isn't ever the student, the problem is what is being taught in the class.
It occurred to me that perhaps many people don't know that the list of topics required in the curriculum for the course, along with the qualification course of fire, is available online as part of the NSP rules and regulations.
So, I wrote about it, and included the link. Even if you have already gone through the class, keeping a copy of the regs is a handy thing, because you can use it to answer any questions you might have about anything you might need to do with respect to following the laws for CCW in Nebraska. (Such as changing your address, losing a permit, what form you have to send in to report injuries or damage, etc.) If you haven't been to the class---it'll give you an idea of what should be covered in the class, so you can make sure that you are getting the information that you paid for.
https://precisionresponse.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/nebraska-state-ccw-course/
Make sure that the class you are taking is taught by someone who is teaching all the curriculum, and that your test results (and firearms qualification) are valid. You don't want to end up in a story like this one:
http://www.news-herald.com/article/HR/20150525/NEWS/150529711
-
I recently completed my training and was very impressed. Not just with what was taught about safety, fundamentals, and legal ramifications, but everything else that goes into carrying a concealed weapon.
<climbs on soapbox>
I don't think everyone should be carrying a concealed weapon. Don't get me wrong, I know it's our right and boneheaded felons and wife-beaters out there lose that right, but there are some people, law-abiding people, that do more harm than good. We've all heard the stories about the guy who uses his weapon to defend his property or the show-off who fires a shot into the wall as he's showing his buddy his new piece. I feel that carrying is something that has to be earned, by demonstrating you're willing to train, to learn, to accept the consequences of what will happen to you and your family if you ever encounter a situation where deadly force is required and you choose to use it. It's a responsibility that's not to be taken lightly and so far, I've been impressed with the members of this forum as I have not gotten the impression to the contrary.
<climbs down from soapbox>
The training that everyone gets when carrying concealed should make them stop and think about what they are getting themselves into. As a prior military cop, I know it all too well. I've seen it first hand. Expect to be arrested, expect to lose your weapon, expect to go through a living hell. If you think then when you shoot the bad guy, you'll find yourself wrapped in a comfy blanket in the back of an ambulance sipping hot coffee while the cops around you are trying to console you, you need to quit watching TV. The real world isn't like that.
There is no "fast track" as the article that jthhapkido posted pointed out. In fact, an 8-hour class doesn't even do it justice. Be prepared to commit, to train, to study, and realize that now that you carry a concealed weapon, your life with change forever. You are now a sheepdog. If you can't handle that, it's ok to be a sheep.
-
I don't think everyone should be carrying a concealed weapon.
Agreed. Many people aren't ready for the responsibility, don't want it, or have made conscious choices about what they can live with in terms of how they will act. (Whether they are realistic or not is separate from the decisions they have made currently.)
Don't get me wrong, I know it's our right and boneheaded felons and wife-beaters out there lose that right, but there are some people, law-abiding people, that do more harm than good. We've all heard the stories about the guy who uses his weapon to defend his property or the show-off who fires a shot into the wall as he's showing his buddy his new piece.
True, but....the reason those get made into such a huge deal is based on how rarely they occur.
I feel that carrying is something that has to be earned, by demonstrating you're willing to train, to learn, to accept the consequences of what will happen to you and your family if you ever encounter a situation where deadly force is required and you choose to use it.
That, however, I disagree with strongly---because I don't think people should have to "earn" the right to defend themselves.
I see a LOT of people at the range that I wouldn't want to be using a gun in the same bay as myself, much less in public. I find many people have no concept of actual safety practice, and many people have wildly over-inflated views of their own skills.
NONE of that, to me, makes any difference as to whether or not I think they should be able to own the tools that will allow them to effectively defend themselves.
The way I think about it is this:
1) Everyone has the right to self-defense.
2) If you have the right to self-defense, then you have a right to the most effective tools for self-defense.
If you don't let people use effective tools, you are saying that some people (older, weaker, smaller, handicapped, etc) don't have the right to self-defense, because they need those tools.
If someone says that people need to prove something before they can be allowed to have those tools, then they are saying people have to prove that they deserve a right. Or prove that their "need" is sufficient for something that is a right.
This is separate from whether or not I'd REALLY REALLY REALLY like it if more people would actually get training. Safety training, firearm skills training, self-defense training (which is a lot more than "how to use a self-defense tool") ---- I really wish that everyone who has a gun (of any type) would get good, quality training.
But I personally would never say that they have to get training or prove that they'd had training before they are allowed to have what they need to effectively defend themselves.
You are now a sheepdog. If you can't handle that, it's ok to be a sheep.
I've got to admit, I hate the sheepdog/sheep terminology, because I can't stand all the nonsense that Grossman made up. When he first started doing his talks, I read his book and really got into a lot of what he said. As time went by, parts of it started to make less sense to me, and as research showed that not only was he incorrect but making up a lot of stuff that research didn't say, the whole area started to really grate on my nerves.
One of the major reasons for that is the idea of a "sheepdog" -- because we aren't. We aren't there to protect "the sheep" --- not only is that not our job, but we don't have the legal cover for doing it that LEOs have.
And calling people who may not understand the concepts of self-defense "sheep" isn't going to make any friends, and more importantly, isn't going to get them to start thinking differently. Not only that, but plenty of people who are clueless about self-defense concepts find, when it comes down to it, that they CAN defend themselves. (Obviously it is much easier, and you are much more likely to be safe, if you have training, understand the law, and are paying attention.)
I personally think that everyone should have access to the tools we have deemed effective for self-defense purposes. If we say that someone can't, then we are saying that they don't deserve to be able to defend themselves.
IMO.
-
Many people aren't ready for the responsibility,
To choose their own life or death?
Survival is a natural right...self-defense aids survival.
No one should determine your right to survival except you. Hammer-fist, pointy stick or gun, what difference does it make how you survive? The threat you determined has attempted to end your survival has been eliminated. You survive.
The problem comes from "I think" since that always seems to lead to "there should be a law".
If a person wants to enhance their survival, then they should train with what ever tools they hope will assist their survival. Carrying a weapon does not ensure survival. Even being well trained with a weapon does not ensure survival.
My point: We don't need the CCW. We don't need the training classes. We don't need more laws. There are enough law to deal with pretty much everything already. If someone wants to enhance their survival with a weapon...then they should seek training. But, the laws, rules, regulations and "people should" snobbery should all go away. Having State law, training and everything else doesn't change a thing in a legitimate case of survival.
-
To choose their own life or death?
Unfortunately, yes.
What he saying is that although we all have the right to defend ourselves, many people just aren't ready to stand up and do it themselves. They have the right to defend themselves, but some people expect others do it for them and thus are not well prepared to do it if the need arises.
-
I wrote, regarding someone's statement that they didn't think that everyone should be carrying a concealed weapon:
Many people aren't ready for the responsibility, don't want it, or have made conscious choices about what they can live with in terms of how they will act. (Whether they are realistic or not is separate from the decisions they have made currently.)
To which it was replied:
To choose their own life or death?
I'm thinking that given the rest of what you wrote, you either didn't read what I wrote, or you were replying to the person before me (that I was replying to in the first place.)
Considering that later I said:
That, however, I disagree with strongly---because I don't think people should have to "earn" the right to defend themselves.
{snip}
The way I think about it is this:
1) Everyone has the right to self-defense.
2) If you have the right to self-defense, then you have a right to the most effective tools for self-defense.
I'll note that "carrying a concealed weapon" and "choosing their own life and death" are not the same thing. Matter of fact, they aren't even remotely the same thing.
My comments were specific: There ARE people out there who are unprepared to accept the responsibility that comes with carrying a concealed firearm. Similarly, there ARE people who are completely against the idea. There are others who have made decisions for themselves that there are lines they won't cross (whether I agree with them or not has no bearing on that, nor whether or not I think they'd change their mind when in a real self-defense situation).
The ability to defend oneself starts in the mind, not the inanimate object. And there are plenty of people out there who do not have the mindset needed for it.
That is separate from whether or not they should have access to the means, or the opportunity to carry the tools, if they decide differently. As I said:
1) Everyone has the right to self-defense.
2) If you have the right to self-defense, then you have a right to the most effective tools for self-defense.
S_N_NE also said:
Survival is a natural right...self-defense aids survival.
No one should determine your right to survival except you. Hammer-fist, pointy stick or gun, what difference does it make how you survive? The threat you determined has attempted to end your survival has been eliminated. You survive.
Actually, that rather supports my point. Because plenty of people out there DON'T think about self-defense and what it means. Their choice is counter-survival.
That's their choice, though. Some people don't want to think about it, don't want to prepare to keep themselves and their loved ones safe, and don't do anything about it.
That is separate from whether or not they should have the ability and access to the tools necessary should they decide differently.
The problem comes from "I think" since that always seems to lead to "there should be a law".
I'm curious where, in my post, you found something like that. (I note that personally, I'm all in favor of thinking. :) )
If a person wants to enhance their survival, then they should train with what ever tools they hope will assist their survival. Carrying a weapon does not ensure survival. Even being well trained with a weapon does not ensure survival.
True. The important point again is "IF a person wants to enhance their survival" --- some people are uninterested in taking the responsibility for their own survival and either through personal choices directly, or because they've been convinced that it is someone else's job, instead choose to NOT enhance their survival.
My point: We don't need the CCW. We don't need the training classes. We don't need more laws. There are enough law to deal with pretty much everything already. If someone wants to enhance their survival with a weapon...then they should seek training. But, the laws, rules, regulations and "people should" snobbery should all go away. Having State law, training and everything else doesn't change a thing in a legitimate case of survival.
Unfortunately, in this state, currently you DO need those. Whether that is "right" or not is a separate issue---the point of the OP was simple in that since in Nebraska you DO have to take an official class following the official curriculum with the official qualification, if your instructor does NOT do those things it is possible that your class certificate might be invalid, which means not having the ability (currently, in this state) to get a concealed handgun permit.
Now, if you wanted to start a thread about how constitutional carry should be the law, I'd completely agree with you. But...right now the law in Nebraska is that you need the official course to get the permit.
And if your instructor doesn't teach the class correctly, or doesn't run the firearms qualification correctly, then you might not be able to get the permit. So check your instructor carefully before taking the class.
-
I recently completed my training and was very impressed. Not just with what was taught about safety, fundamentals, and legal ramifications, but everything else that goes into carrying a concealed weapon.
<climbs on soapbox>
I don't think everyone should be carrying a concealed weapon. Don't get me wrong, I know it's our right and boneheaded felons and wife-beaters out there lose that right, but there are some people, law-abiding people, that do more harm than good. We've all heard the stories about the guy who uses his weapon to defend his property or the show-off who fires a shot into the wall as he's showing his buddy his new piece. I feel that carrying is something that has to be earned, by demonstrating you're willing to train, to learn, to accept the consequences of what will happen to you and your family if you ever encounter a situation where deadly force is required and you choose to use it. It's a responsibility that's not to be taken lightly and so far, I've been impressed with the members of this forum as I have not gotten the impression to the contrary.
<climbs down from soapbox>
The training that everyone gets when carrying concealed should make them stop and think about what they are getting themselves into. As a prior military cop, I know it all too well. I've seen it first hand. Expect to be arrested, expect to lose your weapon, expect to go through a living hell. If you think then when you shoot the bad guy, you'll find yourself wrapped in a comfy blanket in the back of an ambulance sipping hot coffee while the cops around you are trying to console you, you need to quit watching TV. The real world isn't like that.
There is no "fast track" as the article that jthhapkido posted pointed out. In fact, an 8-hour class doesn't even do it justice. Be prepared to commit, to train, to study, and realize that now that you carry a concealed weapon, your life with change forever. You are now a sheepdog. If you can't handle that, it's ok to be a sheep.
I am in agreement with you with one exception. I am better described as a porcupine in the world of self-defense.
I am not a sheep, a wolf or a sheepdog. I'm not looking to be prey. I'm not looking to prey upon others and I'm not in the business of protecting the flock. :)
-
I'm curious where, in my post, you found something like that. (I note that personally, I'm all in favor of thinking. :) )
And I salute you for your continued efforts to get the rest of us to think. :)
-
Unfortunately, in this state, currently you DO need those. Whether that is "right" or not is a separate issue---the point of the OP was simple in that since in Nebraska you DO have to take an official class following the official curriculum with the official qualification
Let's not forget that 28-1202 is also still a valid law...
28-1202.
Carrying concealed weapon; penalty; affirmative defense.
(1)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person who carries a weapon or weapons concealed on or about his or her person, such as a handgun, a knife, brass or iron knuckles, or any other deadly weapon, commits the offense of carrying a concealed weapon.
(b) It is an affirmative defense that the defendant was engaged in any lawful business, calling, or employment at the time he or she was carrying any weapon or weapons and the circumstances in which such person was placed at the time were such as to justify a prudent person in carrying the weapon or weapons for the defense of his or her person, property, or family.
(2) This section does not apply to a person who is the holder of a valid permit issued under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act if the concealed weapon the defendant is carrying is a handgun.
(3) Carrying a concealed weapon is a Class I misdemeanor.
(4) In the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this section, carrying a concealed weapon is a Class IV felony.
Source
Laws 1977, LB 38, § 234;
Laws 1984, LB 1095, § 1;
Laws 2006, LB 454, § 22;
Laws 2009, LB63, § 10.
Although is comes with considerable legal difficulties, it is still legal under the right circumstances to CCW without a permit in Nebraska
-
Let's not forget that 28-1202 is also still a valid law...
Although is comes with considerable legal difficulties, it is still legal under the right circumstances to CCW without a permit in Nebraska
Very true, and a good point.
The main problems with it (going back to the issue that our state constitution was deliberately amended so that constitutional carry was SUPPOSED to be the law) is that permit-less carry is only an affirmative defense, and that means that it will be up to the officer at the time to start the process of determining how much you are going to have to spend in legal fees to "prove" your right to self-defense. (I completely detest the idea of affirmative defense with regard to something that is legal according to our state constitution.)
Not to mention the fact that in court, you KNOW someone is going to bring up "since this state HAS a permit system, why didn't you just try to be legal that way" argument even though that argument is stupid and makes no sense---but might be convincing to a jury.
So I think your comment of "Although is comes with considerable legal difficulties" is spot-on, and is also a fairly damning indictment of our state legal system, given our constitution.
-
I recently completed my training and was very impressed. Not just with what was taught about safety, fundamentals, and legal ramifications, but everything else that goes into carrying a concealed weapon.
<climbs on soapbox>
I don't think everyone should be carrying a concealed weapon. Don't get me wrong, I know it's our right and boneheaded felons and wife-beaters out there lose that right, but there are some people, law-abiding people, that do more harm than good. We've all heard the stories about the guy who uses his weapon to defend his property or the show-off who fires a shot into the wall as he's showing his buddy his new piece. I feel that carrying is something that has to be earned, by demonstrating you're willing to train, to learn, to accept the consequences of what will happen to you and your family if you ever encounter a situation where deadly force is required and you choose to use it. It's a responsibility that's not to be taken lightly and so far, I've been impressed with the members of this forum as I have not gotten the impression to the contrary.
<climbs down from soapbox>
The training that everyone gets when carrying concealed should make them stop and think about what they are getting themselves into. As a prior military cop, I know it all too well. I've seen it first hand. Expect to be arrested, expect to lose your weapon, expect to go through a living hell. If you think then when you shoot the bad guy, you'll find yourself wrapped in a comfy blanket in the back of an ambulance sipping hot coffee while the cops around you are trying to console you, you need to quit watching TV. The real world isn't like that.
There is no "fast track" as the article that jthhapkido posted pointed out. In fact, an 8-hour class doesn't even do it justice. Be prepared to commit, to train, to study, and realize that now that you carry a concealed weapon, your life with change forever. You are now a sheepdog. If you can't handle that, it's ok to be a sheep.
With all due respect I disagree with some of that.
A few decades ago your “average” gun owner might have been the guy with a red plaid jacket and Elmer Fudd hat, taking to the Pennsylvania woods every fall to get his deer. Now with a generation who have returned from their own wars abroad (and an enemy trying to bring one to us at home) you’ve got a new shooting renaissance and booming interest in firearms. Hey, that’s all fine and dandy. But the caricature now is much less Norman Rockwellesque. Now we have That Guy as the self-proclaimed expert: the guy with the 5.11 cargo pants and tactical goatee and punisher sticker on the back of his car. He might have only picked up a gun for the first time when he was in basic training, but now he’s an expert and an operator, and knows waaaaaaay more than people who don’t have his experiences in "the sandbox."
At the same time you’ve got lots of other tactical goatee guys setting up an entire training industry trying to convince us that we’re going to spontaneously combust if we even touch a gun without months of training.
I don’t entirely buy that. Like most of us here in agriculture / rural America, I pretty much grew up with a gun in my hand straight out of the womb. I learned to accept consequences and responsibility of a gun before I was ten. I was operating heavy machinery, in close quarters with family members, years before my peers took “drivers ed”. I'm not repeat not saying that's the exact equivalent of intensive firearms training. I am saying that what makes a person smart (from an "emotional intelligence" perspective) and responsible and level-headed under stress is very complex and is stuff that goes back to their earliest years of development and how they were raised.
I’m all for training, but it’s not the end-all, be-all. You can send someone at work off to leadership training, but they still will come back as bad manager if they’re a bone-headed idiot because they were raised by bone-headed parents. And if you take someone who already has common sense and leadership skills, then yes they’ll come back better, but they were already a better leader un-trained than the idiot is after training.
Training is good, but an unhealthy preoccupation with training as a requirement is antithetical to what the NFOA should be promoting. To say that anyone is able to define who does or doesn't have the needed emotional intelligence goes against what we believe, and is a problem permeating our society which we should be fighting. That kind of thinking leads to bad politics. It also leads to bad policing from poor officers who fail to view themselves as simply a citizen who's there to help, and start to view themselves as smarter or better trained.
And, I'm yet to be convinced statistically that training builds emotional intelligence relevant to an unpredictable one-in-a-million chance a person would have to use lethal force. At least, I'm not sure it builds it any better than any other exercise that forces a person to operate under stress and tunnel vision, whether it's motorcycle racing, or performing in an athletic event in front of a crowd, or that Pennsylvania hunter learning to overcome "buck fever" when a monster deer presents himself for a few seconds.
Firearms have been in civilian hands for many hundreds of years and, for all that time, have done a dandy job of leveling the playing field between bad people and good people. They were serving that role, and deemed as a human right, long before the tacticool pants and punisher stickers, and long before training gurus started to pigeonhole the world using hackneyed, false trichotomy logical fallacies involving sheep and dogs.
Just my two cents.
-
Well, I have to admit, I did not intend to stir up quite the hornet's nest, but I am glad I did. What makes this such a great country to live in isn't just the Second Amendment, but also the First. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (or something along those lines). I want everyone reading this to understand that I have a deep respect for everyone's opinion and after reading through the posts this week, it has given me some perspective.
I have no idea how to keep this brief, but I will do my best. First, a quick backstory. I grew up in western Omaha (before Elkhorn was annexed) and never touched a gun when I was a kid (thanks to an "absentee" father). I went to college, got a degree in Criminal Justice, and became an Air Force cop after I graduated. I served for 10 years and got out as a Captain. I was then a Correctional Officer at the Lancaster Country Jail for 6 years. I now fix computers for one of the largest employers in Lincoln. I have two kids, girl and a boy, who are now teenagers.
The reason I'm painting this picture is because my opinions are based on my experiences, just like everyone else who is reading this right now. I experienced many things when I was in law enforcement, but by far what made the biggest impact was when I responded to one of my airmen who had taken his own life with his service weapon. My kids were very young when that happened, but after seeing that, and the devastation it left behind with this young man's family, I told myself that I would never have a gun in the house until BOTH my kids were mature enough to handle that responsibility. I got out in May 2005 and bought my first gun since that incident 4 months ago. For 11 years, I've taught them about guns, how to respect guns, how to handle guns, and even taken them out shooting, always under my watchful eye. But there has never been a gun in our house until now.
Some people may not agree with me, and I respect that. But I would venture a guess that those people also have not seen what a 9mm round actually does to a brain cavity at point blank range or the look in a mother's eyes when you have to deliver her son's personal effects. It's the experiences of life that formulate our opinions. I agree that we have a God-given right to defend ourselves, no question about that. And yes, a handgun is a great tool to achieve that end, so is having emotional intelligence. Using all the tools available to you is paramount, but what that looks like is different for each person. The reason I think training is so important is because I know what happens when you're under stress and adrenaline takes over. Your body will go into autopilot and will revert to its training (i.e what its done before over and over again). Training is learning. Whatever form that takes is up to you. Whether it's in a classroom or on a range, it's teaching yourself what to do when your body goes into autopilot. Again, that's just my opinion based on my own experience.
Look, I'm new to this forum and this organization, so I get that I'm the rookie and have no clue. But I want everyone to know that I'm looking forward to growing as a responsible gun owner and learning about everyone's perspective on not just this, but other topics as well. If I've offended anyone here, I sincerely apologize. That was not my intent. I'll set aside the soapbox for now and listen to those with more wisdom than I.
Side note, the whole sheepdog "trichotomy" was something I heard from my unit back in 2001, long before American Sniper. I never heard of Grossman before, so I can't speak to his research, it was just something I found interesting. The reason I decided to carry was not just to defend myself and my family, but the people I work with, other patrons, and those who cannot defend themselves. I am completely aware that in doing that, I take on a whole different level of responsibility if I involve myself in a matter that I otherwise shouldn't, but it's a burden I'm willing to bare.
I'm not trying to agitate the hornet's nest further, so again, if I have, my apologies. Perhaps it's best if I stick to offering free 9mm brass casings ;D
-
Well, I have to admit, I did not intend to stir up quite the hornet's nest, but I am glad I did. What makes this such a great country to live in isn't just the Second Amendment, but also the First. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (or something along those lines). I want everyone reading this to understand that I have a deep respect for everyone's opinion and after reading through the posts this week, it has given me some perspective.
I have no idea how to keep this brief, but I will do my best. First, a quick backstory. I grew up in western Omaha (before Elkhorn was annexed) and never touched a gun when I was a kid (thanks to an "absentee" father). I went to college, got a degree in Criminal Justice, and became an Air Force cop after I graduated. I served for 10 years and got out as a Captain. I was then a Correctional Officer at the Lancaster Country Jail for 6 years. I now fix computers for one of the largest employers in Lincoln. I have two kids, girl and a boy, who are now teenagers.
The reason I'm painting this picture is because my opinions are based on my experiences, just like everyone else who is reading this right now. I experienced many things when I was in law enforcement, but by far what made the biggest impact was when I responded to one of my airmen who had taken his own life with his service weapon. My kids were very young when that happened, but after seeing that, and the devastation it left behind with this young man's family, I told myself that I would never have a gun in the house until BOTH my kids were mature enough to handle that responsibility. I got out in May 2005 and bought my first gun since that incident 4 months ago. For 11 years, I've taught them about guns, how to respect guns, how to handle guns, and even taken them out shooting, always under my watchful eye. But there has never been a gun in our house until now.
Some people may not agree with me, and I respect that. But I would venture a guess that those people also have not seen what a 9mm round actually does to a brain cavity at point blank range or the look in a mother's eyes when you have to deliver her son's personal effects. It's the experiences of life that formulate our opinions. I agree that we have a God-given right to defend ourselves, no question about that. And yes, a handgun is a great tool to achieve that end, so is having emotional intelligence. Using all the tools available to you is paramount, but what that looks like is different for each person. The reason I think training is so important is because I know what happens when you're under stress and adrenaline takes over. Your body will go into autopilot and will revert to its training (i.e what its done before over and over again). Training is learning. Whatever form that takes is up to you. Whether it's in a classroom or on a range, it's teaching yourself what to do when your body goes into autopilot. Again, that's just my opinion based on my own experience.
Look, I'm new to this forum and this organization, so I get that I'm the rookie and have no clue. But I want everyone to know that I'm looking forward to growing as a responsible gun owner and learning about everyone's perspective on not just this, but other topics as well. If I've offended anyone here, I sincerely apologize. That was not my intent. I'll set aside the soapbox for now and listen to those with more wisdom than I.
Side note, the whole sheepdog "trichotomy" was something I heard from my unit back in 2001, long before American Sniper. I never heard of Grossman before, so I can't speak to his research, it was just something I found interesting. The reason I decided to carry was not just to defend myself and my family, but the people I work with, other patrons, and those who cannot defend themselves. I am completely aware that in doing that, I take on a whole different level of responsibility if I involve myself in a matter that I otherwise shouldn't, but it's a burden I'm willing to bare.
I'm not trying to agitate the hornet's nest further, so again, if I have, my apologies. Perhaps it's best if I stick to offering free 9mm brass casings ;D
I see no reason you should apologize. You've just sparked a healthy discussion is all.
You're on the right course. Keep it up. :)
-
With all due respect I disagree with some of that.
A few decades ago your “average” gun owner might have been the guy with a red plaid jacket and Elmer Fudd hat, taking to the Pennsylvania woods every fall to get his deer. Now with a generation who have returned from their own wars abroad (and an enemy trying to bring one to us at home) you’ve got a new shooting renaissance and booming interest in firearms. Hey, that’s all fine and dandy. But the caricature now is much less Norman Rockwellesque. Now we have That Guy as the self-proclaimed expert: the guy with the 5.11 cargo pants and tactical goatee and punisher sticker on the back of his car. He might have only picked up a gun for the first time when he was in basic training, but now he’s an expert and an operator, and knows waaaaaaay more than people who don’t have his experiences in "the sandbox."
At the same time you’ve got lots of other tactical goatee guys setting up an entire training industry trying to convince us that we’re going to spontaneously combust if we even touch a gun without months of training.
I don’t entirely buy that. Like most of us here in agriculture / rural America, I pretty much grew up with a gun in my hand straight out of the womb. I learned to accept consequences and responsibility of a gun before I was ten. I was operating heavy machinery, in close quarters with family members, years before my peers took “drivers ed”. I'm not repeat not saying that's the exact equivalent of intensive firearms training. I am saying that what makes a person smart (from an "emotional intelligence" perspective) and responsible and level-headed under stress is very complex and is stuff that goes back to their earliest years of development and how they were raised.
I’m all for training, but it’s not the end-all, be-all. You can send someone at work off to leadership training, but they still will come back as bad manager if they’re a bone-headed idiot because they were raised by bone-headed parents. And if you take someone who already has common sense and leadership skills, then yes they’ll come back better, but they were already a better leader un-trained than the idiot is after training.
Training is good, but an unhealthy preoccupation with training as a requirement is antithetical to what the NFOA should be promoting. To say that anyone is able to define who does or doesn't have the needed emotional intelligence goes against what we believe, and is a problem permeating our society which we should be fighting. That kind of thinking leads to bad politics. It also leads to bad policing from poor officers who fail to view themselves as simply a citizen who's there to help, and start to view themselves as smarter or better trained.
And, I'm yet to be convinced statistically that training builds emotional intelligence relevant to an unpredictable one-in-a-million chance a person would have to use lethal force. At least, I'm not sure it builds it any better than any other exercise that forces a person to operate under stress and tunnel vision, whether it's motorcycle racing, or performing in an athletic event in front of a crowd, or that Pennsylvania hunter learning to overcome "buck fever" when a monster deer presents himself for a few seconds.
Firearms have been in civilian hands for many hundreds of years and, for all that time, have done a dandy job of leveling the playing field between bad people and good people. They were serving that role, and deemed as a human right, long before the tacticool pants and punisher stickers, and long before training gurus started to pigeonhole the world using hackneyed, false trichotomy logical fallacies involving sheep and dogs.
Just my two cents.
I am a training evangelist. However, since I put much stock in the old adage about leading a horse to water, I don't believe it should ever be made mandatory. Beyond that, I have such little faith in government to get it right, I don't want them involved. Too much room for abuse IMHO. "Can't operate at Seal Team Nineteen levels? Sorry Grandma, no gun for you."
I do believe all who carry should get as much training as possible and not just in the shooting skills bit. Legal, trauma med, mindset, physical, all that and more is good and in many ways, more important than the shooting skills.
As for myself, I find that the more I learn, the less I know.
You just don't know what you don't know.
-
Captdad17,
First of all, welcome to the NFOA and the forum and thank you for your service. You have absolutely NO need to apologize. Like you, I had some ideas and beliefs when I first became interested in firearms. MANY of those have changed.
My first comment is a much more broad subject. I hear many people talk about there rights to free speech, to own firearms, etc. They often tell other individuals that they cannot limit their right to free speech. For example, if an individual tells you to shut up in a public place, they are not oppressing your 1st Amendment rights. However, if the government tries to stifle you, then this could be considered an infringement. In the same way, an individual who says you can not possess any firearms in or on their rental property that you are leasing, this is not infringing on your second amendment rights. The bill of rights is meant to limit the federal government not individuals or businesses.
Regarding the Airman that shot himself. That is a sad story and I wouldn't wish this experience on anyone. A few questions though. If he had not had his service weapon available, would his mental illness not been present, or would he have healed? If he had come to that horrible low point where suicide seemed to be the best viable solution to his problems, could he have killed himself in any other way? I personally think you are putting too much emphasis on the firearm. This is the attitude of most non-gun people, especially those who are anti-gun. They believe that if guns weren't present, everyone would be nice, they wouldn't kill, and suicide wouldn't happen. That just isn't true. A firearm is simply a hunk of metal and plastic. It needs a person to use it in the wrong way.
I used to believe that there should be broader limits on who can posses firearms. Some kind of test or measure. While we all know people who would be wise not to own firearms, it is a slippery slope. We all grew up watching movies of rogue police officers bending (and sometimes absolutely breaking) the law to catch that evil bad guy. In the movie we all accept it because after all, they're the good guy and they are putting away (or killing) the bad guy. In the real world, we don't want this regardless of the good intent. Someday you could be the victim of such a shortcut in justice when an officer believes you are the bad guy. Do some criminals go free...yes. This is an unfortunate result, but the alternate scenario where the legal system is disregarded is by far a more frightening proposition. In the same way, we may find that "reasonable" gun laws will soon be used against us.
Fly
-
I see no reason you should apologize. You've just sparked a healthy discussion is all.
You're on the right course. Keep it up. :)
Agree, don't apologize. My opinion is just that. We need to hear and consider all perspectives.
My only point was that kids have been growing up with a gun in their hands for a long, long time. Human beings have not changed much in the last couple hundred years. The only thing that is new on the scene is that liberals think they can perfect society and create a new one in their namby pamby image. We need to firmly reject the liberals' attitude that there is a "problem" that needs "fixed." Most of the social ills we have today can be blamed on the attempts they've already made to "fix" the world.
-
I'm not trying to agitate the hornet's nest further, so again, if I have, my apologies. Perhaps it's best if I stick to offering free 9mm brass casings
No apologies necessary. We are all entitled to our individual opinions even if the rest of you are wrong (I kid, of course). Honestly it is always refreshing to hear an exchange like we have been going through in here lately. Fresh members is always good for the organization. Although I don't know that I agree with your reasoning for not keeping a firearm in the house, for the same reasons OnTheFly pointed out, I understand why you didn't and respect you for being willing to make that decision.
As for the offer of free brass.. Be careful throwing shiny brass things out in front of a bunch of reloaders, it just distracts them and could start a mad rush. :)
Welcome to the forums and I look forward to more great discussions.
-
Regarding the Airman that shot himself. That is a sad story and I wouldn't wish this experience on anyone. A few questions though. If he had not had his service weapon available, would his mental illness not been present, or would he have healed? If he had come to that horrible low point where suicide seemed to be the best viable solution to his problems, could he have killed himself in any other way? I personally think you are putting too much emphasis on the firearm. This is the attitude of most non-gun people, especially those who are anti-gun. They believe that if guns weren't present, everyone would be nice, they wouldn't kill, and suicide wouldn't happen. That just isn't true. A firearm is simply a hunk of metal and plastic. It needs a person to use it in the wrong way.
I want to point out that I don't blame the gun for this. I know he would have carried this terrible act out using whatever means he had available to him. I'm not saying that if he hanged himself I would had forbidden rope in the house, but that was also the first time I had seen up close, with my own eyes, what kind of devastation a gun in the wrong hands can do. All that went through my head for many many years afterwards was how I could live with myself if my own son got his hands on a gun and did that by accident. Hindsight being 20/20, I could have purchased a firearm a long time ago and kept it a vault, but that image of my airman always played back in my mind. Still does to this day, but it's time for me to move on and let my family experience the joys, and respect, of shooting.
Case in point, yesterday, my mother of 80+ years who never touched a firearm in her life came out to my range and got to do just that for the first time in her life. She enjoyed every minute of it. Nice way to spend a Mother's Day weekend (minus all the damn smoke).
-
Case in point, yesterday, my mother of 80+ years who never touched a firearm in her life came out to my range and got to do just that for the first time in her life. She enjoyed every minute of it. Nice way to spend a Mother's Day weekend (minus all the damn smoke).
That brings to mind a question...
Has anyone every had someone go shooting for the first time and NOT like it? My wife spent years in fear of my guns, wouldn't even be in the same room with a disassembled gun, and after she went shooting the first time I couldn't get her to calm down. She just kept going on about how much fun she had! Kept putting the paper plate in front of me and showing how well she shot.
Has anyone had someone that came away from their first time and said, "Never again."?
-
I've never had someone *not* like shooting after their first time, but I have had someone say "Meh, that was okay" after she shot the first time.
-
That brings to mind a question...
Has anyone every had someone go shooting for the first time and NOT like it? My wife spent years in fear of my guns, wouldn't even be in the same room with a disassembled gun, and after she went shooting the first time I couldn't get her to calm down. She just kept going on about how much fun she had! Kept putting the paper plate in front of me and showing how well she shot.
Has anyone had someone that came away from their first time and said, "Never again."?
I haven't gotten my wife out shooting with me, but she says her father took her shooting. She's absolutely terrified about guns, and will not touch a gun (but doesn't complain too much about me with the ones I inherited when my dad passed and the 2 I've purchased).
I have a feeling her dad gave her something that was way too big for her, and didn't warn her about the kick (yes, he can be a bit of an ass).
-
Last time I went home to visit family, I took a couple various weapons. I had my younger sister shoot (who was totally anti-firearms). I talked to her calmly, had her dry fire, then put in 1 round. She was like .. WOW ..
Now my step-dad on the other hand .. yes .. he did not like it at all. I did not make fun of him or degrade him or anything .. firearms are not for everyone.
-
Disregard I looked it up. They submit records to the NSP.
-
I have a feeling her dad gave her something that was way too big for her, and didn't warn her about the kick (yes, he can be a bit of an ass).
Somewhat the reason my wife was so scared of firearms. Apparently her grandparents used to own a skeet/trap range here in Omaha and her mother, who was working the line there at the time, was nearly shot by a careless idiot who forgot his shotgun was still loaded.
Take your time and work with her gently and she will come around. 5 years after I got my first gun she got her CCW.
-
Somewhat the reason my wife was so scared of firearms. Apparently her grandparents used to own a skeet/trap range here in Omaha and her mother, who was working the line there at the time, was nearly shot by a careless idiot who forgot his shotgun was still loaded.
Take your time and work with her gently and she will come around. 5 years after I got my first gun she got her CCW.
Ehh, I've been trying. Recently, her sister's boyfriend was selling his Glock 17, so we went over to look at it (I ended up purchasing it from him). She was asking questions (don't know where she learned that a Glock doesn't have an external safety, but she was asking if it was ok "that it doesn't have a safety on it"). I had no magazine in, tried to get her to hold the gun, and she wouldn't even do that. She gets really freaked out by guns in general.
Now, on a positive note, she is not complaining that I will be taking a class so I can obtain my CCW (the reason I was looking at the Glock 17 in the first place), so she is really slowly coming around.
-
Quote (selected)
The problem comes from "I think" since that always seems to lead to "there should be a law".
I'm curious where, in my post, you found something like that. (I note that personally, I'm all in favor of thinking. :) )
That would be: <climbs on soapbox>
I don't think everyone should be carrying a concealed weapon.
Except for the word "don't", I saw "I ... think". I am still bothered by how our right to self-defense has been turned into a privilege by Nebraska Legislation. Somehow, a few people have again determined that they may potentially solve an issue by creation of law. We know law-abiding citizens are not a problem and are the only ones that will follow worthless laws. Making people file forms, produce documents, take classes, pay fines, file fingerprints with the State Patrol...is not a right.
Instead, we mull over semantics of what and how constitutes self-defense and who is what sort of animal in predator vs. prey and ignore that in a State with a Constitution that guarantees the right to use firearms also strips that right with conceal carry laws. And that those laws only strip right from those compelled to follow those laws. As I recall, those persons that choose to ignore basic right and law are the reason the rest of us realize the need for self-defense.
-
Instead, we mull over semantics of what and how constitutes self-defense and who is what sort of animal in predator vs. prey and ignore that in a State with a Constitution that guarantees the right to use firearms also strips that right with conceal carry laws. And that those laws only strip right from those compelled to follow those laws. As I recall, those persons that choose to ignore basic right and law are the reason the rest of us realize the need for self-defense.
There's room for all manner of discussion on this forum. And I believe we have covered the state of Nebraska's shortcomings on SD law in other areas of this forum plenty of other times. The topic is not ignored.
And I don't think EVERYONE should get to own a firearm and I don't think EVERYONE should get to carry a concealed weapon. There are immature and otherwise unstable folks out there who simply shouldn't be allowed near weapons of any kind. (Knives, golf clubs, baseball bats, cars, etc.)
But how to accomplish that goal without hampering the good guys? Aye, there's the rub. Government, in typical government fashion, goes the heavy handed route and declares all of us incompetent until we prove otherwise by standards the government establishes. How best to do it? That debate will go on long after all of us are long gone.
-
Quote (selected): The problem comes from "I think" since that always seems to lead to "there should be a law".
I'm curious where, in my post, you found something like that. (I note that personally, I'm all in favor of thinking. :) )
That would be:
Quote from: Captdad17 on May 02, 2016, 05:45:26 AM
<climbs on soapbox>
I don't think everyone should be carrying a concealed weapon.
You'll note that those two quotes were from two different people....which was my point. You quoted me, and said, in response to MY saying "I think," that thinking "always seems to lead to there should be a law."
And in my case, where I said "I think" directly, which you quoted, it didn't. Matter of fact, my "I think" directly went into "there shouldn't be a law."
Except for the word "don't", I saw "I ... think".
....except I didn't say anything about how there should be a law. Quite the opposite.
Hence my comment about how I believe that thinking is a good thing, and that thinking (and stating one's thoughts) doesn't automatically mean limiting other people's thoughts and rights. It is certainly true that some people's train of thought goes:
I don't like this --> other people shouldn't do it --> it should be wrong for other people to do it --> we should make a law so other people can't do this.
But many other people who think and state their thoughts, disagree with the above. If we don't think about things, and we don't discuss them, then the people who DO think it should be up to them to limit other people will continue, and no one will stop them.
I am still bothered by how our right to self-defense has been turned into a privilege by Nebraska Legislation. Somehow, a few people have again determined that they may potentially solve an issue by creation of law. We know law-abiding citizens are not a problem and are the only ones that will follow worthless laws. Making people file forms, produce documents, take classes, pay fines, file fingerprints with the State Patrol...is not a right.
I agree.
Instead, we mull over semantics of what and how constitutes self-defense and who is what sort of animal in predator vs. prey and ignore that in a State with a Constitution that guarantees the right to use firearms also strips that right with conceal carry laws.
Actually, I think we can do all of those things at the same time---because effective self-defense means understanding violence, criminals, and the law, too. It is possible to have discussions of many things regarding rights and self-defense, and just because we have one doesn't mean we have forgotten about the other.
Even a cursory search of the NFOA forums will shows that discussions of our rights occur frequently, in the midst of all the other topics.
And that those laws only strip right from those compelled to follow those laws. As I recall, those persons that choose to ignore basic right and law are the reason the rest of us realize the need for self-defense.
Agreed.
I still believe thinking is a good thing. And discussing what we think, and what it means, is a good thing. In my opinion, if we DON'T, then the people who substitute what they believe for thinking ("I believe this, therefore you shouldn't be able to do this") will take over.
-
And I don't think EVERYONE should get to own a firearm and I don't think EVERYONE should get to carry a concealed weapon. There are immature and otherwise unstable folks out there who simply shouldn't be allowed near weapons of any kind. (Knives, golf clubs, baseball bats, cars, etc.)
A perfect example is the teenager who is awaiting trial for using his pickup to run a car full of other teenagers off Blondo Street following a typical teenage BS argument.
If I can't trust someone with a gun, I don't feel I can trust him without one, either.