Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Citizen gun training requirments

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 300 Win
    replied
    I do not think more training should be required but I wish it was available to people who want it, or know where to go and get it..

    Leave a comment:


  • GoldBadge
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • So Fla Cop
    replied
    Originally posted by GoldBadge View Post
    SoFlaCop 15 years ago.

    Gold Badge today....congrats on this honor.....

    Leave a comment:


  • GoldBadge
    replied
    Originally posted by So Fla Cop View Post
    I was posting "general" advice from an old instructor.
    SoFlaCop 15 years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • hemicop
    replied
    I get this type of question alot. While I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment & am a firm believer in training for anyone carrying a firearm, since the 2nd Amendment doesn't require it I see no reasonto mandate it. Az. has some of the most liberal gun laws in the Country (Thank God!) and I've never seen the trained-vs.untrained as a major issue in regards to civilans. Many gun owners, here anyways, seem to practice somewhat regularly are generally cooperative with LE and will ask a LEOs opinion on issues if they're curious or simply don't know. The "bad guys" here or anywhere will always do whatever they want with firearms so I don't worry about their proficiency or lack thereof. Keep in mind, too, that with our military drawdown you're getting alot of civilans now that have good, solid military training & probably more experience with urban gunfights than most cops, so that alone is a "plus" inregards to civilan gun ownership & responsibility. And of course there's always the old argument about personal safety in gun-free zones versus "open" areas. So overall I see no reason to mandate gun training. Firearms education---ABSOLUTELY--and I'd even argue it should be taught in schools as part of a "good citizen" class or something like that. IMO, sometimes we put too much emphasis on formal eduaction when we ought to be doing is teaching (?) good 'ol common sense, accountibility & responsibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • CCCSD
    replied
    Yes. It must be clear and cover ANY situation!


    Leave a comment:


  • So Fla Cop
    replied
    Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post
    What do you call it when you respond to a DV and he puts a gun to her head?

    When you walk into the 7-11 and there's a robbery in progress, and the perp is holding the clerk at gunpoint?

    Both are hostage situations anybody can face without warning.
    Really? You mean there are exceptions? I was posting "general" advice from an old instructor. Do we need to dissect it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    Article 5 only speaks to amending the Constitution. Amendments can be repealed and replaced. I may be wrong, but I do not remember any mechanism in the Constitution for amending an amendment.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmyVet
    replied
    Originally posted by allen_gamble View Post
    You put it better than I did. I'm tempted to compare it to people driving a car without ever learning how. However, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right, so I guess the analogy is dead in the water there. We can wish all we want that people would take carrying a gun seriously and train, but some of them never will.
    I was actually thinking of comparing it to the way people drive and I still think it is an appropriate analogy. Most people do not consider the ramifications when they drive recklessly, but we still license them and as you say, it's not a constitutionally protected right. We still hold those people accountable for their actions whether or not they understood the consequences of their actions because they should have. Same goes with firearms. Anyone carrying a firearm should train and be up to date with the legalities of doing so, but regardless of whether they do/are, they are still responsible for their actions.

    I know some civilians that take the responsibility very seriously, and some that do not. A one time course is not going to make much difference there. It is a perishable skill. It must constantly be practiced. Even if it was a requirement to repeat the course every so often, how often is enough? You're still not going to change the mentality of a person that doesn't head to the range on a regular basis or read up on their own.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmyVet
    replied
    Originally posted by CruiserClass View Post
    Article 5.
    Fair point. Thanks! However, I still disagree that the second amendment when it was written was intended to be amended over time. In fact, I think they counted it as one of the basic rights of a free nation. That's why it was number two and part of the Bill of Rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • CruiserClass
    replied
    Originally posted by ArmyVet View Post
    Where does it say that it was intended to be amended over time?
    Article 5.

    Leave a comment:


  • Che
    replied
    Originally posted by wilaw View Post
    I'm curious about other LE's opinion. In regard to deadly force In a hostile situation untrained people ...
    I must be old but my grandparents fought off Indians and banditos in their teens with no training. In the old days more people were familar with firearms and I distrust civilians with firearms but that is JMHO. (another story for another time)

    Leave a comment:


  • allen_gamble
    replied
    Originally posted by GreenLine View Post

    Still, they're exercising a right guaranteed by the Constitution. So if they follow the law, they're exercising their personal freedoms. I guess I just wish some of them took the potential consequences of exercising those freedoms a bit more seriously.

    Some states require as little as a 10-hour course, which to me doesn't really cut it.
    You put it better than I did. I'm tempted to compare it to people driving a car without ever learning how. However, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right, so I guess the analogy is dead in the water there. We can wish all we want that people would take carrying a gun seriously and train, but some of them never will.

    Leave a comment:


  • tanksoldier
    replied
    Originally posted by So Fla Cop View Post
    Correct. Rookies, for the most part, won't be conducting hostage rescue. .
    What do you call it when you respond to a DV and he puts a gun to her head?

    When you walk into the 7-11 and there's a robbery in progress, and the perp is holding the clerk at gunpoint?

    Both are hostage situations anybody can face without warning.

    Leave a comment:


  • Country_Jim
    replied
    When I draw my firearm I am thinking as well as reacting. If I couldn't do the two simultaneously there would be a couple of people dead that didn't need to be. Would I have been legally justified in those two instances? Yes, however legally and morally are sometimes not the same.

    As far a the Second Amendment being intended to be amended as society changes, I respectfully disagree. If you review the process to amend the U.S. Constitution, and keep in mind that it has only been amended twenty-seven times, I think you will find that our nation's founders made amending the Constitution nearly impossible for a reason.

    Stay safe.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 4936 users online. 311 members and 4625 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X