- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Concealed carry permit
Posted on 12/9/13 at 7:18 pm to dawg23
Posted on 12/9/13 at 7:18 pm to dawg23
Dawg, I agree with you for the most part along with Tiger. The problem is when specifics start being stated.
Sure there are. There are bad apples in every bunch. But the vast majority of CC'ers are extremely law abiding people (by an insurmountable margin). I too feel some people are loose cannons and shouldn't carry, but the facts speak for themselves. I can't let my emotions get in the way because that is exactly what the anti's base every single argument on - emotion. How many of these permitted people end up behind bars for getting too frisky with their CC piece? I can't think of any.
"Mentally incompetent" is objective for the most part but can be slightly subjective too. If someone is blatantly unsafe (sweeping muzzle, finger on trigger, etc.) in my class I won't pass them since that is an objective basis. But if I just "think" they are incompetent, what right do I have to tell that person he or she can't defend his/her self?
If a person can't shoot in the 10 ring all day but shows me he/she is safe with his/her gun, I think that is all the proof I need. That's how I define competence.
The decision making process of whether or not to draw the firearm is much more important than the ability to shoot a steel plate at 50 yards. The vast majority of CC encounters will be one-on-one and close-range anyway. If the handgun never has to leave the holster, that is the best outcome.
I absolutely advocate for proper training though. And as you know, rarely do CC'ers do real training. The class definitely is not even close enough to true training.
If you think my logic is flawed, let me know. You have much more experience in the instructor game than I do and I feel I can always learn new stuff.
quote:
There are plenty of people who have no business carrying in public.
Sure there are. There are bad apples in every bunch. But the vast majority of CC'ers are extremely law abiding people (by an insurmountable margin). I too feel some people are loose cannons and shouldn't carry, but the facts speak for themselves. I can't let my emotions get in the way because that is exactly what the anti's base every single argument on - emotion. How many of these permitted people end up behind bars for getting too frisky with their CC piece? I can't think of any.
quote:
argument. I'm a life member of the NRA -- but I don't think those who are mentally incompetent,
"Mentally incompetent" is objective for the most part but can be slightly subjective too. If someone is blatantly unsafe (sweeping muzzle, finger on trigger, etc.) in my class I won't pass them since that is an objective basis. But if I just "think" they are incompetent, what right do I have to tell that person he or she can't defend his/her self?
If a person can't shoot in the 10 ring all day but shows me he/she is safe with his/her gun, I think that is all the proof I need. That's how I define competence.
The decision making process of whether or not to draw the firearm is much more important than the ability to shoot a steel plate at 50 yards. The vast majority of CC encounters will be one-on-one and close-range anyway. If the handgun never has to leave the holster, that is the best outcome.
I absolutely advocate for proper training though. And as you know, rarely do CC'ers do real training. The class definitely is not even close enough to true training.
If you think my logic is flawed, let me know. You have much more experience in the instructor game than I do and I feel I can always learn new stuff.
2
Posted on 12/9/13 at 7:34 pm to bapple
Exactly how many ckasses have you actually taught?
Posted on 12/9/13 at 8:18 pm to dawg23
quote:
Exactly how many ckasses have you actually taught?
Could count them on one hand.
I'm merely asking for your opinion on my philosophies for the most part. I know our teaching styles are gonna be different because you've been at it for so long.
Posted on 12/9/13 at 10:40 pm to dawg23
quote:
I don't think those who are mentally incompetent, and//or those who haven't demonstrated competency with a handgun, should be allowed to carry in public.
I agree, as well. My concern relates to the problems objectively defining both areas of competence. We all know the anti's don't want us to own ANY guns and especially don't want ANY civilians legally carrying concealed. I don't want to see the anti's make the rules so restrictive that no one is able to qualify. We all know they wouldn't be above doing that. Of course, the mentally defective should already not be able to legally purchase guns, but again that's easily worked around because of the problems defining mental incompetence and the lack of such mental health information being available in the instant criminal background check. :bang head: But again, we must be careful w/ even well meaning restrictions lest the anti's use them to basically make legal ownership of guns illegal for many w/ benign mental health issues.
Posted on 12/9/13 at 10:46 pm to TigerOnThe Hill
quote:So beat them to it and require more training? Then we could say that so and so is now more qualified.
I don't want to see the anti's make the rules so restrictive that no one is able to qualify
I have said it before, but I am 100% for gun dealers strongly pushing first time buyers to get training
Posted on 12/9/13 at 11:01 pm to Hammertime
quote:
I don't want to see the anti's make the rules so restrictive that no one is able to qualify
So beat them to it and require more training? Then we could say that so and so is now more qualified.
In theory I'm ok w/ that, but it's a fine line. For example, LA recently passed legislation allowing ccw holders to legally carry in churches, as long as they have successfully completed additional training; but at last check, I don't think anyone ever defined what additional training consists of.
quote:I agree wholeheartedly.
I have said it before, but I am 100% for gun dealers strongly pushing first time buyers to get training
Posted on 12/9/13 at 11:10 pm to TigerOnThe Hill
The tipping point for me on that was when I was trying to pick up a new 22 from Puglia's in Metairie. This guy was in there trying to buy an AR, a desert eagle, and a 45 all at once. After talking to him, he admitted he hadn't ever owned a gun before, but needed to "get one before he couldn't". That was his only reasoning
Posted on 12/9/13 at 11:25 pm to Hammertime
quote:
After talking to him, he admitted he hadn't ever owned a gun before, but needed to "get one before he couldn't".
But he was driven to the market solely for the fact that Obama said he wanted to push legislation through.
He is the best gun salesman in history.
EDIT: Thanks for letting me borrow your pistola. I already popped the large backstrap on there and it feels like heaven. Can't wait to try her out.
This post was edited on 12/9/13 at 11:27 pm
Posted on 12/10/13 at 7:27 am to TigerOnThe Hill
quote:
In theory I'm ok w/ that, but it's a fine line. For example, LA recently passed legislation allowing ccw holders to legally carry in churches, as long as they have successfully completed additional training; but at last check, I don't think anyone ever defined what additional training consists of.
This is correct. LSP's position is -- the law does not require, nor authorize, LSP to define the training requirements.
I only know of a few churches that have set up "security teams" that take the additional training. Two of those guys (from the same church) were in a two-day class that I took with Tom Givens in Baton Rouge last weekend (Rangemaster's Dynamic Marksmanship class).
Shooting a handgun at the range is one thing. And very few folks that I see can do this well (I shoot a few thousand rounds/month, plus teach CCW classes -- so I see a lot of folks shooting at the range). But defending ourselves (i.e. "fighting) with a handgun, under stress, is a significantly different challenge.
I'm fine with people having guns in their homes, and don't really care what training they have had -- although I would hope that they have reasonable gun-handling skills. But when people start carrying I public, where I and my family may also be walking around, they need a higher level of skill. They have a moral and a legal obligation to do so.
If anyone doubts the "legal obligation," call and chat with the EBR District Attorney, Hillar Moore. Hillar will tell you right up front that you're gonna be held to a "higher standard" (his words) if you carry in public. He hasn't, to my knowledge, publicly defined that standard -- but I don't want to find out after-the-fact that he has told a grand jury that my level of training & preparation sucks.
Good training is relatively expensive. But so are attorneys -- if we find ourselves in criminal court or in civil court. And so are funeral expenses (if our family has to make those arrangements for us because we came in second place in a gun fight).
Buying a gun is "step one." Becoming proficient with it is a long, and generally unending, process. The good news is that most of us enjoy shooting handguns. So the training stuff is fun. And training gives you a chance to find out if your gun//holster//mag pouch//cover garment//etc. really works under stress.
I'm no expert -- these are just my "interwebz opinions."
Posted on 12/10/13 at 7:37 am to bapple
quote:
If a person can't shoot in the 10 ring all day but shows me he/she is safe with his/her gun, I think that is all the proof I need. That's how I define competence.
Wasn't trying to pick on you, but you and I have different standards//definitions of competence.
Being safe with a handgun includes being able to hit your target. Because if we miss, that bullet still goes somewhere, and we're responsible for whatever damage it causes.
The vast majority of people I see at the range can't keep their shots in a 10" group at 15 feet -- under zero stress with no time constraints. Put those people under stress, and tell them they have "x" number of seconds to place "y" number of hits on "z" number of targets and things change.
quote:.
The vast majority of CC encounters will be one-on-one
I'm not sure where you read or heard this (youtube ?), but the FBI Uniform Crime Report begs to differ. And has differed with your opinion for many years. Statistically there will be more than one attacker.
Posted on 12/10/13 at 7:54 am to dawg23
quote:
Wasn't trying to pick on you, but you and I have different standards//definitions of competence.
No offense taken. I have considered taking one of your courses because I'm sure there's a lot I can learn from you.
I see competence as coming before proficiency. I guess that's where our definitions slightly differ.
Competence to me focuses on being safe and not putting others in danger by being a dumbass, like sweeping with your muzzle, finger all over the trigger, etc. Proficiency takes a lot longer to accomplish.
quote:
Being safe with a handgun includes being able to hit your target. Because if we miss, that bullet still goes somewhere, and we're responsible for whatever damage it causes.
Amen. Rule #4: Be sure of your target and what's beyond it.
I would never advocate someone attempt a shot they don't think is safe, especially with innocents around.
quote:
The vast majority of people I see at the range can't keep their shots in a 10" group at 15 feet -- under zero stress with no time constraints.
I absolutely agree with that too. A stress-free environment with a harmless piece of paper doesn't do much to prepare you.
quote:
I'm not sure where you read or heard this (youtube ?), but the FBI Uniform Crime Report begs to differ. And has differed with your opinion for many years. Statistically there will be more than one attacker.
I should have clarified - the vast majority of CC encounters will not be mass shootings where there are a large number of innocents around. The victim will most likely be alone. So being a superb marksman isn't absolutely critical since the attacker/s will probably be at very close range anyway.
Thanks for your feedback. It is highly valued.
This post was edited on 12/10/13 at 7:58 am
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News