Irresponsible gun owners…

[Alexx1401]

I do not believe everone has the mental capacity to safely own and use a gun. The problem as I see it is an objective defining line between those that can and those that cannot. Should a burgaler that's a repeat offender have a firearm. What about a pedophile? The guy that is so drugged up he can't tell you which state he is in? I believe that law abiding citizens should automatically be have the right to have and carry a firearm from birth. But then again my it's only my opinion.

YEP!! The only real "problem" with not just carry but guns in general always comes down to personal responsibility. Of course every time someone does something "stupid" those who don't like guns point to this saying "we need" more laws. Every citizen who lives free should be free to defend themselves BUT, when they do stupid things they should have to pay for the mistake so they may learn from it. Instead we keep punishing those who do not do stupid things like that's going to fix it all.
As for "training" every time I hear this I just think of my last drive to work. Almost every time I get to see some real morons behind the wheel who took "training" to show they could drive a car. Works real good watching them as they seem to be out to kill someone on the road but somehow this will magically work with them if they have a gun? Sure it will.

 

[Mikej]

YEP!! The only real "problem" with not just carry but guns in general always comes down to personal responsibility. Of course every time someone does something "stupid" those who don't like guns point to this saying "we need" more laws. Every citizen who lives free should be free to defend themselves BUT, when they do stupid things they should have to pay for the mistake so they may learn from it. Instead we keep punishing those who do not do stupid things like that's going to fix it all.
As for "training" every time I hear this I just think of my last drive to work. Almost every time I get to see some real morons behind the wheel who took "training" to show they could drive a car. Works real good watching them as they seem to be out to kill someone on the road but somehow this will magically work with them if they have a gun? Sure it will.

This ^^^^. How about we punish people who use guns irresponsibly, or out right illegally? The current method is more laws for the "Law abiding" and a slap on the hand, a stern talking to, or abso-effing-lutely nothing!
It's so stupid I can't believe I wasted my time.

 

[Cavedweller]

When I was dining in a restaurant in Dallas I felt pretty secure that the other CCW people in the restaurant could probably stop a threat without spraying the room. And that most of the CCW carriers on the street knew when and in what situation they could draw and use their weapon. I have to tell you that I don't feel the same way here in WA. I think any state issuing licenses should require a certain level of education and proficiency and that it would not hurt us in the community to help make that happen.

Do you feel the same way when you see someone open carrying where that is legal without a license? Does that make you insecure? Would you put an end to that practice? Just askin'.

 

[Flopsweat]

YEP!! The only real "problem" with not just carry but guns in general always comes down to personal responsibility. Of course every time someone does something "stupid" those who don't like guns point to this saying "we need" more laws. Every citizen who lives free should be free to defend themselves BUT, when they do stupid things they should have to pay for the mistake so they may learn from it. Instead we keep punishing those who do not do stupid things like that's going to fix it all.
As for "training" every time I hear this I just think of my last drive to work. Almost every time I get to see some real morons behind the wheel who took "training" to show they could drive a car. Works real good watching them as they seem to be out to kill someone on the road but somehow this will magically work with them if they have a gun? Sure it will.

It's been my observation, over many decades and across multiple industries, that mandatory training is the least effective training.

 

[front_sight]

It's been my observation, over many decades and across multiple industries, that mandatory training is the least effective training.

May be, but it is 100 percent more effective than no training at all.

 

[front_sight]

Do you feel the same way when you see someone open carrying where that is legal without a license? Does that make you insecure? Would you put an end to that practice? Just askin'.

Fair question. My answer is yes and no to the first two questions. Here's my take.
Unless I am just missing something I have not previously considered, The advantages of open carry are:
1. It alerts would-be threats that you are in fact armed and MAY know how to use your weapon
2. It lets the rest of the public know you are not trying to hide the fact that you are armed, and that hopefully you know how and when to use it.
3. You can get your weapon into service faster than if it were concealed
4. It is more comfortable for you and less wear and tear on your clothes and weapon.

I can think of no more practical or tactical advantages to open carry

The disadvantages/downsides include:
1. It lets the bad guys know who to shoot first in the event you are present when they do their thing
2. It is a direct challenge to a certain unstable mentality with their own gun and looking for a fight
3. No matter how well trained your are, you can be overpowered and shot with your own weapon.
4. It may change the attitude of others who you have to deal with, and not for the better.
5. It make a LOT of people uncomfortable. No, that's not your problem, until you have to deal with them
6. There will be a certain expectation from bystanders that you get involved in any violent encounter, including one in which you wish to remain uninvolved, including being verbally identified to the bad actors as someone being encouraged to get into the fight - thus putting you and your loved ones in jeopardy.
7. In short, you are at an immediate and indisputable disadvantage; you don't know in advance who the bad guys are, but they know in advance you are a threat to them, and they have the element of surprise that YOU would have owned if you were instead carrying concealed.

To me, the thinking person has to weigh the advantages of open carry against the disadvantages and risks. I have never felt it was worthwhile or advisable to open carry IN THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH I LIVED.

That said, I can see open carrying in a place where the likelihood of the disadvantages are VERY low, such as certain rural and red states.

Does it make me insecure? No. Does it make me uncomfortable? Yes. I do not know the reasons why an open carrier has decided to do so, or their mental state. Are they just peaceful people wanting to protect their family? Or are they super macho and advertising they are willing to fight? If they do present their weapon and discharge it, are they proficient enough to not injure me or my family? I don't know that, so it makes me uncomfortable. Obviously by carefully (and unobtrusively) observing what and how they are carrying I might get a lot less uncomfortable. For instance if they are carrying a cocked and locked $3000 Wilson .45 in a $100 dress holster my mind tells me that I have a lot less to fear from this person than the guy with the Ruger P95 in a $25 Fobus holster. (I mean no disrespect to Ruger owners - you get my point).

No, I would not put an end to that practice where it is allowed. It is just my choice not to do it.

 

[bradsteen]

It's been my observation, over many decades and across multiple industries, that mandatory training is the least effective training.

I couldn't agree more. For training to be effective the student must be willing and able to learn, and the instructor must be capable of delivering the training consistently to a set standard, and convey it in a manner the student will understand. Mandatory training eliminates the requirement of personal initiative on the part of the student. It's no longer knowledge to be gained - it's a box on a form to be checked as quickly as possible.

The instructors are the other big component to keep in mind. They thrive when students are engaged; if students are just checking the box and not interested in learning, most of the really good instructors will move on to more fulfilling work, leaving the ranks to be filled by mediocre ones. Ask any firearms instructor if they would ever willingly teach people who are just there because they have to be. The answer is probably no, both because it's not fulfilling work and because an unwilling student is unlikely to take any of the safety rules or other subject matter seriously. When you mix that attitude with guns it's a dangerous combination.

Mandatory training will give us the equivalent of the DOL, but for guns. Why on earth would we want to model firearms training requirements off of a system like that? We are literally surrounded by people who break the rules of the road every single day. Tens of thousands of people are killed every year in vehicle related incidents, many of which are preventable and caused by irresponsible people... the same people who passed the state mandated drivers training. Oh and that system still doesn't prevent some people from choosing to break the law and drive without a license or insurance anyway.

I don't want people to be "trained". I want them to be well trained. Not because they have to be, but because they want to be. I don't understand why people think it's either mandatory training or nothing. There is a middle ground most people will find acceptable.

If we want to build a strong and positive culture around safe and lawful gun use, we need to start by ensuring relevant and high quality training is affordable and accessible to the average person. The highest quality training and the most capable instructors are in the private sector. Why would we not simply define what subject matter we want to ensure people to learn, and offer grants, rebates, reimbursement programs, tax write-offs, or other incentives to encourage people to go out and get that training?

This approach won't get everyone trained right away, but it will incentivise a lot more people to get training than do currently, and it will ensure the training they receive is current and of the highest quality possible. The added benefit is over time that knowledge they learn will transfer to more and more people, both through people attending classes and from them demonstrating their knowledge to others (family, friends, etc). Eventually with this method gun education will become as common as driving knowledge, with better adherence to good practices.

And since I'm already on my soapbox...

I don't know why we can't seem to understand the language of the second amendment as it was used at the time it was written and the actual words they used. It doesn't say "because everyone has a right to self defense, everyone should be allowed to carry a weapon". It starts off by stating the premise that it is necessary that the people have their own army (militia) to insure that they can respond to tyranny from the government. There is not even a period after that. There is a second, connected statement that says nothing should infringe on the right of people to have arms, and "bear" them when necessary. The fact that those two statements are connected in the same sentence clearly says that while personal self defense may be a very important and legitimate secondary benefit of owning arms, it was defense of the free state that was intended to be safeguarded by the wording of the 2A.

You are correct in saying that the defense of the free state was one very important ability they sought to safeguard in the bill of rights, but it is by no means the only one. Weapons were extremely common in colonial times, and not just guns - all types of arms were owned by everyday folk, including knives, swords, pistols, muskets, and even what some might call "weapons of war". For example, privately owned merchant ships were commonly outfitted with armor and cannons for defense against pirates or hostile foreign navies. For another, the militia referenced in 2A was composed of individuals who had to bring their own weapon to fight with.

Weapons were in common use because threats were real, varied, and constant. Disarming a person put them in significant danger of death or serious injury. In writing the 2nd Amendment the founders sought to ensure that the people would never be prevented from defending themselves from those threats, be they dangerous wildlife, marauding bandits, or the troops of a repressive government.

To claim that the 2nd Amendment is about a collective right to organize an army doesn't make sense in context of the other amendments, all of which outline specific individual rights and protections.

• I can speak and express myself freely
• I can publish and distribute content
• I can practice my preferred religion
• I can peaceably assemble
• I can seek redress from my government for grievances
• I am protected from unreasonable and / or warrantless searches and seizures
• I am guaranteed a speedy trial by a jury of my peers
• I am protected from being forced to pay excessive bail
• I am protected against being forced to incriminate myself in a trial
• I am protected against being forced to house and quarter government soldiers
• ...and so on...

It would be completely inconsistent with the context of the document to include a collective right in this list. Granted, many of these rights have been infringed upon over time (excessive bail, speedy trial, search & seizure, and peaceable assembly come to mind), and these are amendments, not commandments - they can be changed if enough people want it to happen. I just don't see that happening anytime soon, and I hope it never does.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

In regards to mandatory training....

We have mandatory training for getting a drivers licence...
Yet we still have accidents and or negligent driving , as well as just plain old piss poor driving and driving habits.

Now I understand that driving is a privilege and not a Right....
However we do have mandatory training for getting a hunting licence*....and again , we still have hunting accidents and the like.

The only thing that training "guarantees" is that one is "trained".
The quality or relevance of the training is not guaranteed.....
Whether or not one remembers and puts into practice what was trained is also a whole other matter.

Training in and of itself is no guarantee of safety....
Quality training as well as quality learning by the trainees , in conjunction with consistently putting into practice what one has learned or how one was trained...is also no guarantee of safety.

Safety is a individual responsibility ....I can be safe. , because I can choose to do things safely.
However , I can not make others be safe....since they have the same choice as I do :
To be safe or not to be safe...that is the question...
To paraphrase Shakespeare....
Andy

* edit to add...
Yes I know that hunting is also a privilege and not a Right...nor is the 2nd Amendment about hunting...
However...many people who do hunt...hunt with firearms.....

Edit to add part 2
I put in bold and italics to emphasize some important points are overlooked and under considered.

 

[Hueco]

Everyone talking about how mandatory training is garbage is absolutely right … but, that's why you flip the script.

Imagine this:
- Completing an annual training course is free for you and subsidized to the biz via tax incentives
- Completing said course gets you a cheaper USCCA rate
- Completing said course gets you discounts on gun safes/lockers/storage

The government has the power to influence behavior and culture on a massive scale - mostly through the tax code.

Mandatory training at cost to the individual is a barrier to entry that infringes on your rights and disproportionally affects the poorer among us.

Voluntary training that is free to the individual and comes with additional perks can be done and the result would be a more knowledgeable and safer society.

That something like this is never brought up just reinforces my belief that the D party platform doesn't actually care about safety or knowledge - they care about the barrier.

Y'all already know that. I just wish that the R's in congress would counter a mandatory training requirement with a government funded voluntary one.

 

[Knobgoblin]

^^^^ the cmp already exists. Doubtful that it will be expanded, but wouldn't it be nice.

 

[Xaevian]

unlicensed, open carry has been legal in WA my whole life, along with no training requirements. Why fix a non-existent problem? Just because some transplant feels uncomfortable?





See the problem, now?

 

[front_sight]

unlicensed, open carry has been legal in WA my whole life, along with no training requirements. Why fix a non-existent problem? Just because some transplant feels uncomfortable?





See the problem, now?

You mean the non-existent problem of the bad guy always having the element of surprise because they know in advance that you are armed, but you have no idea they are the bad guys until they shoot you first?

Maybe you do have a point. Maybe at least the people who refuse to take the tactical and social advantages of being able to carry concealed are revealed to all of us when they open carry. Then we can act on our comfort level with being in their presence.

 

[Xaevian]

You mean the non-existent problem of the bad guy always having the element of surprise because they know in advance that you are armed, but you have no idea they are the bad guys until they shoot you first?

Maybe you do have a point. Maybe at least the people who refuse to take the tactical and social advantages of being able to carry concealed are revealed to all of us when they open carry. Then we can act on our comfort level with being in their presence.

My point is that it was never a problem before. And if a person wanted to carry a concealed pistol, it has been a shall issue state with very few hoops to go through, without a training requirement for my entire life as well. It wasn't the wild west, and personal responsibility was a respected concept. Used to be a very gun-friendly state until relatively recently.

 

[Flopsweat]

You mean the non-existent problem of the bad guy always having the element of surprise because they know in advance that you are armed, but you have no idea they are the bad guys until they shoot you first?

Maybe you do have a point. Maybe at least the people who refuse to take the tactical and social advantages of being able to carry concealed are revealed to all of us when they open carry. Then we can act on our comfort level with being in their presence.

Problem? If your theory were true, there would be daily stories of open carriers being shot. There aren't. I've seen three such stories in the last decade. You seem to be seeing a problem where there is none. And your open hatred for those who open carry is getting tiresome.

 

[Xaevian]

Problem? If your theory were true, there would be daily stories of open carriers being shot. There aren't. I've seen three such stories in the last decade. You seem to be seeing a problem where there is none. And your open hatred for those who open carry is getting tiresome.

And also that.

 

[Alexx1401]

Problem? If your theory were true, there would be daily stories of open carriers being shot. There aren't. I've seen three such stories in the last decade. You seem to be seeing a problem where there is none. And your open hatred for those who open carry is getting tiresome.

This is a rather "common theme" with many. They decide something is "bad or wrong", so they spend a LOT of time telling anyone who will listen to them why things "could" go bad when people will not listen to them. Of course the fact that they can't find any problems happening does nothing to slow them down telling others how to live.

 

[ktgee]

Fair question. My answer is yes and no to the first two questions. Here's my take.
Unless I am just missing something I have not previously considered, The advantages of open carry are:
1. It alerts would-be threats that you are in fact armed and MAY know how to use your weapon
2. It lets the rest of the public know you are not trying to hide the fact that you are armed, and that hopefully you know how and when to use it.
3. You can get your weapon into service faster than if it were concealed
4. It is more comfortable for you and less wear and tear on your clothes and weapon.

I can think of no more practical or tactical advantages to open carry

The disadvantages/downsides include:
1. It lets the bad guys know who to shoot first in the event you are present when they do their thing
2. It is a direct challenge to a certain unstable mentality with their own gun and looking for a fight
3. No matter how well trained your are, you can be overpowered and shot with your own weapon.
4. It may change the attitude of others who you have to deal with, and not for the better.
5. It make a LOT of people uncomfortable. No, that's not your problem, until you have to deal with them
6. There will be a certain expectation from bystanders that you get involved in any violent encounter, including one in which you wish to remain uninvolved, including being verbally identified to the bad actors as someone being encouraged to get into the fight - thus putting you and your loved ones in jeopardy.
7. In short, you are at an immediate and indisputable disadvantage; you don't know in advance who the bad guys are, but they know in advance you are a threat to them, and they have the element of surprise that YOU would have owned if you were instead carrying concealed.

To me, the thinking person has to weigh the advantages of open carry against the disadvantages and risks. I have never felt it was worthwhile or advisable to open carry IN THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH I LIVED.

That said, I can see open carrying in a place where the likelihood of the disadvantages are VERY low, such as certain rural and red states.

Does it make me insecure? No. Does it make me uncomfortable? Yes. I do not know the reasons why an open carrier has decided to do so, or their mental state. Are they just peaceful people wanting to protect their family? Or are they super macho and advertising they are willing to fight? If they do present their weapon and discharge it, are they proficient enough to not injure me or my family? I don't know that, so it makes me uncomfortable. Obviously by carefully (and unobtrusively) observing what and how they are carrying I might get a lot less uncomfortable. For instance if they are carrying a cocked and locked $3000 Wilson .45 in a $100 dress holster my mind tells me that I have a lot less to fear from this person than the guy with the Ruger P95 in a $25 Fobus holster. (I mean no disrespect to Ruger owners - you get my point).

No, I would not put an end to that practice where it is allowed. It is just my choice not to do it

Just my two cents on this discussion.
Add to the disadvantage of your open carry list : In many metro areas of the country, you are asking to be stopped by the law. You are open to police harassment. And you are subject to investigations until they can prove that you are not a danger to the public. This means police calls for backup on an armed person and petty soon surrounded by police. This can escalate into an accidental situation or an armed confrontation. All it takes is a bystander can call 911 and report an armed man with a gun.

 

[Flopsweat]

This is a rather "common theme" with many. They decide something is "bad or wrong", so they spend a LOT of time telling anyone who will listen to them why things "could" go bad when people will not listen to them. Of course the fact that they can't find any problems happening does nothing to slow them down telling others how to live.

I was in a gun store several years ago and ahead of me in line some fudd was telling his friend (son?) some BS about nightstand guns. I forget the details, but when he walked away, I quietly told the guy that I have a quick-open safe near the bed and what brand it was. My version of quiet is not always so, and fuddy heard me and actually yelled "You won't have time!". So I asked him "How much time will I have? How many seconds? How far is my bedroom from the nearest external door?" He had no response. He just liked being right almost as much as I do.

 

[Alexx1401]

I was in a gun store several years ago and ahead of me in line some fudd was telling his friend (son?) some BS about nightstand guns. I forget the details, but when he walked away, I quietly told the guy that I have a quick-open safe near the bed and what brand it was. My version of quiet is not always so, and fuddy heard me and actually yelled "You won't have time!". So I asked him "How much time will I have? How many seconds? How far is my bedroom from the nearest external door?" He had no response. He just liked being right almost as much as I do.

Still have a couple gun boxes around here that long stopped using. When kids were kids they were great to have. Could have a gun with quick access yet not sitting there where kid could pick it up. I was asked about the same thing, would I have time a few times. I said unless someone had a key to my home and was REALLY good, yes I would have time. Even if they boot the front door open by the time they made it to where we slept I would have had a gun in hand. Few smash and grab scum carry a battering ram with them so they make a lot of noise getting in. For those trying to "sneak in" this is where the fur alarms were always nice to have. All of ours were never the kind who could attack them but they sure as hell would wake me up long before they got in the house.

 

[Flopsweat]

Just my two cents on this discussion.
Add to the disadvantage of your open carry list : In many metro areas of the country, you are asking to be stopped by the law. You are open to police harassment. And you are subject to investigations until they can prove that you are not a danger to the public. This means police calls for backup on an armed person and petty soon surrounded by police. This can escalate into an accidental situation or an armed confrontation. All it takes is a bystander can call 911 and report an armed man with a gun.

That used to be so in OR and WA, but information and even a few lawsuits have caused most metro PDs to issue bulletins on handling open carry reports. 911 operators are asking questions now on open carry calls to determine whether it's an issue or just an ordinary person. If you want to know more about actual open carry, check out some OC forums. If you haven't done it, it's easy to fall for the rhetoric. The worst most of us ever experience is some dirty looks. I once got to hear someone on their phone saying "But he's wearing a gun! You can't do anything about that?" but that's the extent of it.