I know, I know, another gun thread....

[TAX GUY]

I think the biggest issue is that the laws vary from state to state and those of us that live in states with strict laws are baffled with some of the blanket statements. All this is part of another discussion.

Regarding this thread, there are a lot of assumptions being made and just opinions being thrown about. No one except the person carrying that rifle will know what HIS intentions are/were. If he's not breaking any laws then nothing can legally be done to make him stop. I know that's not what many want but sadly, that's what it is. Personally I would wonder what he was doing in my neighborhood only because WHERE I LIVE it is illegal to OPEN carry. Other than that, if it was legal here, I probably wouldn't think twice about it. But, that's MY opinion and MY feelings. They're not right and they're not wrong.

 

[Kies99]

You mean like Virginia's online concealed carry class? $40 and 20-45 minutes and 20 true/false online questions later and you're good to go: http://wtvr.com/2012/09/11/holmberg-online-concealed-carry-classes-just-too-easy/ .

You don't live in Virginia? Don't worry! http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/0...y-for-non-virginia-gun-owners-to-get-permits/ .

Ohio requires 8 hours, 2 of which must be range time and live-fire training. That's why I was asking what the poster considered "extensive training". I was just curious as the poster made the statement that NO STATE requires extensive training.

I'm in PA and there is no training requirement.

 

[rajak73]

You mean like Virginia's online concealed carry class? $40 and 20-45 minutes and 20 true/false online questions later and you're good to go: http://wtvr.com/2012/09/11/holmberg-online-concealed-carry-classes-just-too-easy/ .

You don't live in Virginia? Don't worry! http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/0...y-for-non-virginia-gun-owners-to-get-permits/ .

But you're online Virginia permit either resident or non-resident is not valid in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New York City, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Virgin Islands, Washington, American Samoa, N. Mariana Islands

 

[LisaR]

Just curious...what do you consider "extensive training"? There are a number of states that require training before issuing concealed carry permits (Ohio and Virginia are examples).

Ohio requires 8 hours, 2 of which must be range time and live-fire training. That's why I was asking what the poster considered "extensive training". I was just curious as the poster made the statement that NO STATE requires extensive training.

I'm in PA and there is no training requirement.

I think 2 hours worth of live-fire training should be mandatory to own a gun in your own home.

If you want to carry a concealed weapon or open carry, under no circumstances do I think 2 hours is enough time. I think you should be required to train every eight weeks if you are going to walk around in grocery stores, libraries, sporting events, restaurants with a loaded gun. Anything less than that is unacceptable to me. Every two months you need to go to a mandatory live-fire training program run by a certified instructor.

Watch the video below. Listen to the police talk about muscle memory when firing a gun and how critical regular training is. After one to two months of not firing a gun, you lose any training you've built up. I don't know how people can honestly believe that their 2 hours class is enough training to make them prepared to handle a gun in crisis situation? I don't understand why a person carrying a gun in public wouldn't want to be the best they can be with their weapon? But nobody wants to do this. Zero - 2 hours worth of training seems to be more than enough in the eyes of most gun owners.

20/20 ABC News video:

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I think 2 hours worth of live-fire training should be mandatory to own a gun in your own home.

If you want to carry a concealed weapon or open carry, under no circumstances do I think 2 hours is enough time. I think you should be required to train every eight weeks if you are going to walk around in grocery stores, libraries, sporting events, restaurants with a loaded gun. Anything less than that is unacceptable to me. Every two months you need to go to a mandatory live-fire training program run by a certified instructor.

Watch the video below. Listen to the police talk about muscle memory when firing a gun and how critical regular training is. After one to two months of not firing a gun, you lose any training you've built up. I don't know how people can honestly believe that their 2 hours class is enough training to make them prepared to handle a gun in crisis situation? I don't understand why a person carrying a gun in public wouldn't want to be the best they can be with their weapon? But nobody wants to do this. Zero - 2 hours worth of training seems to be more than enough in the eyes of most gun owners.

20/20 ABC News video:

I don't think you can fairly compare police to CCW civilians. That would be like requiring drivers to train with their cars every week since that's what racecar drivers do. The role of a CCW is much different than that of law enforcement.

 

[robinb]

Back to the original post, it appears that Ohio allows people to open carry a legal firearm without any type of permit or training with a couple of minor restrictions. So, this man carrying his rifle on his back on his little walkabouts may have no training with his firearm whatsoever.

 

[LisaR]

I don't think you can fairly compare police to CCW civilians. That would be like requiring drivers to train with their cars every week since that's what racecar drivers do. The role of a CCW is much different than that of law enforcement.

I'm not comparing the two. I don't expect a civilian to be trained like a police officer. Not every police officer is even trained to the same level. But it is absolutely ridiculous that gun owners can carry a gun in public with zero to two hours worth of training. Some don't require any live training! I don't know how that isn't utterly ridiculous to all gun owners. I've detailed more than once on these threads about women I know who carry and have never once fired a gun. That is unacceptable. I don't know why someone who carries a gun wouldn't want to have regular training?

And I knew this would be compared to driving. While I am sure there are some people who get their license and then only get behind the wheel of a car once a year, most people who get their license with the intent to drive do so somewhat regularly. I know people who live where there is great public transportation and they have a license just in case so there are exceptions, but if you plan on driving, you usually do just that. My mom wasn't a big fan of driving when she first got married and my parents could only afford one car so she didn't go anywhere while my dad was at work. My dad made it a priority to get my mom out on the road on the weekends so she could improve her confidence and her driving ability. It is what responsible people do.

 

[TAX GUY]

I'm not comparing the two. I don't expect a civilian to be trained like a police officer. Not every police officer is even trained to the same level. But it is absolutely ridiculous that gun owners can carry a gun in public with zero to two hours worth of training. Some don't require any live training! I don't know how that isn't utterly ridiculous to all gun owners. I've detailed more than once on these threads about women I know who carry and have never once fired a gun. That is unacceptable. I don't know why someone who carries a gun wouldn't want to have regular training?

And I knew this would be compared to driving. While I am sure there are some people who get their license and then only get behind the wheel of a car once a year, most people who get their license with the intent to drive do so somewhat regularly. I know people who live where there is great public transportation and they have a license just in case so there are exceptions, but if you plan on driving, you usually do just that. My mom wasn't a big fan of driving when she first got married and my parents could only afford one car so she didn't go anywhere while my dad was at work. My dad made it a priority to get my mom out on the road on the weekends so she could improve her confidence and her driving ability. It is what responsible people do.

I would love to shoot that often and do try to as much as possible. I've seen some shooters that are very good shots. I've also seen shooters that are terrible shots. With some, no matter how much training they have or get, they just aren't good shots. For the record, I had posted this a little while back on facebook...

Here's my suggestions...

This will apply to all states. Require a safety course and a written test (I had to do this in MA). Then require an actual shooting test. Once complete, they are issued an LTC the requires an application and... a state and federal background check (I had to have this done in MA). Once the license is issued, it must be renewed every 5 years that also requires another background check but state and federally. Any charge and conviction of domestic violence or any felony is an immediate suspension of said license and surrender of firearms and ammo (10 year period required before reapplying for LTC and if allowed, all testing needs to be redone). All gun sales and purchase are processed via an ownership transfer application (needs to be done at a licensed firearms dealer).

In light of that, they should also be able to remove some of the current restrictions in place. Restrictions like allowing adjustable stocks, lifting the ban on high capacity magazines and perhaps one or two others.

Those are some suggestions to get BOTH sides to move. It drives me crazy to think if I want to carry and if I leave the MA borders, I can't carry across state lines. If I get my LTC in other states, then I need to know which states honor that LTC and which don't. If we could have universal laws and universal licenses, that would be a huge step in the right direction. It should hopefully also curb some of the "legal" purchases from one state and allow that person to illegally bring it to another state.

It may not be the answer, but I think it's a start in the right direction. I couldn't see how any responsible gun owner would disagree. Similar laws would be required for transport and storage.


Any further training or additional shooting is up to the individual person. Most gun owners I know jump at the opportunity to go to a range to shoot. Not everyone will. Comparing to driving is somewhat similar. Those that drive daily or often get their practice in and become better. Some, no matter how often they drive are still bad drivers. Not everyone is required to take lessons. As much as we'd love to see them take them or just stop driving altogether, it doesn't always happen.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I think we live in 2015, not the Wild West, and people should act like it.

 

[rajak73]

I'm not comparing the two. I don't expect a civilian to be trained like a police officer. Not every police officer is even trained to the same level. But it is absolutely ridiculous that gun owners can carry a gun in public with zero to two hours worth of training. Some don't require any live training! I don't know how that isn't utterly ridiculous to all gun owners. I've detailed more than once on these threads about women I know who carry and have never once fired a gun. That is unacceptable. I don't know why someone who carries a gun wouldn't want to have regular training?

And I knew this would be compared to driving. While I am sure there are some people who get their license and then only get behind the wheel of a car once a year, most people who get their license with the intent to drive do so somewhat regularly. I know people who live where there is great public transportation and they have a license just in case so there are exceptions, but if you plan on driving, you usually do just that. My mom wasn't a big fan of driving when she first got married and my parents could only afford one car so she didn't go anywhere while my dad was at work. My dad made it a priority to get my mom out on the road on the weekends so she could improve her confidence and her driving ability. It is what responsible people do.

And how do you know that gun owners don't practice regularly but drivers do? I know a lot of gun owners who practice regularly and are very proficient with their firearm. There's so much misinformation out about CCW holders, you do know that part of the places you listed about carrying a firearm is prohibited where I live right? Should it be nationwide, you bet, but you can't just pick and choose which states laws you want to use.

 

[rajak73]

This will apply to all states. Require a safety course and a written test (I had to do this in MA). Then require an actual shooting test. Once complete, they are issued an LTC the requires an application and... a state and federal background check (I had to have this done in MA). Once the license is issued, it must be renewed every 5 years that also requires another background check but state and federally. Any charge and conviction of domestic violence or any felony is an immediate suspension of said license and surrender of firearms.

And this is the requirement in our state also, must apply for a CCW permit, IN PERSON, at the State Patrol office. AFTER they have did another background check, you have proper documents, a permit is issued. So let's see, if I wanted to buy a handgun, get a CCW permit...a background check from the local Sheriffs office before I get a permit to buy, buy a handgun, another federal background check for the purchase and then for a CCW permit another background check.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I would love to shoot that often and do try to as much as possible. I've seen some shooters that are very good shots. I've also seen shooters that are terrible shots. With some, no matter how much training they have or get, they just aren't good shots. For the record, I had posted this a little while back on facebook...

Here's my suggestions...

This will apply to all states. Require a safety course and a written test (I had to do this in MA). Then require an actual shooting test. Once complete, they are issued an LTC the requires an application and... a state and federal background check (I had to have this done in MA). Once the license is issued, it must be renewed every 5 years that also requires another background check but state and federally. Any charge and conviction of domestic violence or any felony is an immediate suspension of said license and surrender of firearms and ammo (10 year period required before reapplying for LTC and if allowed, all testing needs to be redone). All gun sales and purchase are processed via an ownership transfer application (needs to be done at a licensed firearms dealer).

In light of that, they should also be able to remove some of the current restrictions in place. Restrictions like allowing adjustable stocks, lifting the ban on high capacity magazines and perhaps one or two others.

Those are some suggestions to get BOTH sides to move. It drives me crazy to think if I want to carry and if I leave the MA borders, I can't carry across state lines. If I get my LTC in other states, then I need to know which states honor that LTC and which don't. If we could have universal laws and universal licenses, that would be a huge step in the right direction. It should hopefully also curb some of the "legal" purchases from one state and allow that person to illegally bring it to another state.

It may not be the answer, but I think it's a start in the right direction. I couldn't see how any responsible gun owner would disagree. Similar laws would be required for transport and storage.


Any further training or additional shooting is up to the individual person. Most gun owners I know jump at the opportunity to go to a range to shoot. Not everyone will. Comparing to driving is somewhat similar. Those that drive daily or often get their practice in and become better. Some, no matter how often they drive are still bad drivers. Not everyone is required to take lessons. As much as we'd love to see them take them or just stop driving altogether, it doesn't always happen.

Add to this something about once the LTC has been acquired that's your background check to purchase a gun. Show your LTC ID and that's it. I'd also remove restrictions on suppressors.
Its a good idea, just every time gun owners and supporter have tried to come to the table, were told to give up rights but almost never get anything in return.

 

[LisaR]

I would love to shoot that often and do try to as much as possible. I've seen some shooters that are very good shots. I've also seen shooters that are terrible shots. With some, no matter how much training they have or get, they just aren't good shots. For the record, I had posted this a little while back on facebook...

Here's my suggestions...

This will apply to all states. Require a safety course and a written test (I had to do this in MA). Then require an actual shooting test. Once complete, they are issued an LTC the requires an application and... a state and federal background check (I had to have this done in MA). Once the license is issued, it must be renewed every 5 years that also requires another background check but state and federally. Any charge and conviction of domestic violence or any felony is an immediate suspension of said license and surrender of firearms and ammo (10 year period required before reapplying for LTC and if allowed, all testing needs to be redone). All gun sales and purchase are processed via an ownership transfer application (needs to be done at a licensed firearms dealer).

In light of that, they should also be able to remove some of the current restrictions in place. Restrictions like allowing adjustable stocks, lifting the ban on high capacity magazines and perhaps one or two others.

Those are some suggestions to get BOTH sides to move. It drives me crazy to think if I want to carry and if I leave the MA borders, I can't carry across state lines. If I get my LTC in other states, then I need to know which states honor that LTC and which don't. If we could have universal laws and universal licenses, that would be a huge step in the right direction. It should hopefully also curb some of the "legal" purchases from one state and allow that person to illegally bring it to another state.

It may not be the answer, but I think it's a start in the right direction. I couldn't see how any responsible gun owner would disagree. Similar laws would be required for transport and storage.


Any further training or additional shooting is up to the individual person. Most gun owners I know jump at the opportunity to go to a range to shoot. Not everyone will. Comparing to driving is somewhat similar. Those that drive daily or often get their practice in and become better. Some, no matter how often they drive are still bad drivers. Not everyone is required to take lessons. As much as we'd love to see them take them or just stop driving altogether, it doesn't always happen.

I agree with much of what you said. Do you find that gun owners support your ideas? From what I have read on the Dis, I'd be willing to bet that quite a few would not be in favor of much of this.

I love the idea of a shooting proficiency test! I would most definitely be in favor of that. I would want renewal of that to be yearly, though. Too many things can change in a years time. I am betting most gun owners do not support the idea of a shooting test.

I like your ten year period for domestic violence and felons, but I would say that would be the minimum sentence and then years are added based on how serious the crime was. A domestic violence that was truly out of control violence needs to be taken more seriously than two people who had too much to drink and shoved one another.

I see the woman who fired into the Home Depot parking lot was just handed down her sentence. She got probation. She can't buy, own, or carry a gun for 18 months. She lost her concealed carry license until 2023. I would have liked to see her lose all guns until 2023 instead of just the 18 months. I'd also have preferred a mandatory ten year moratorium on guns for her instead of eight. Well, if I'm being honest, I would prefer she was never allowed to own a gun again because I believe the nature of her crime was serious, reckless, and just nutty behavior, but that won't happen.

 

[LisaR]

And how do you know that gun owners don't practice regularly but drivers do? I know a lot of gun owners who practice regularly and are very proficient with their firearm. There's so much misinformation out about CCW holders, you do know that part of the places you listed about carrying a firearm is prohibited where I live right? Should it be nationwide, you bet, but you can't just pick and choose which states laws you want to use.

I can only tell you about people I have met personally or that I *talk* to online that carry and their lack of training. I can tell you that every single one of those people drive a car on a daily basis. A guy I know just posted one of those "share your memory" things on Facebook celebrating the CCW permit that he got along with his wife a year ago. I know for a fact that he goes to the gun range a few times a year (which makes him far from experienced, but at least he goes). I also know for a fact that she hasn't gone since the day they got their permits. She still carries her gun everywhere she goes. And not for nothing, but these two like to drink. I'm not judging them, I like to drink, too. I no longer go out with them, though, because they think it is fine to throw back drinks while having guns strapped on. They aren't any better than the person who drinks that much and feels like they can get behind the wheel of a car. They don't drink and drive. They use an Uber. So they realize they are too drunk to drive, but feel they are sober enough to still have a gun on their hip! Does my experience define every CCW holder? Of course not. But the fact that people CAN get a concealed weapon and not have to even fire a gun one time is disturbing.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I think 2 hours worth of live-fire training should be mandatory to own a gun in your own home.

If you want to carry a concealed weapon or open carry, under no circumstances do I think 2 hours is enough time. I think you should be required to train every eight weeks if you are going to walk around in grocery stores, libraries, sporting events, restaurants with a loaded gun. Anything less than that is unacceptable to me. Every two months you need to go to a mandatory live-fire training program run by a certified instructor.

Watch the video below. Listen to the police talk about muscle memory when firing a gun and how critical regular training is. After one to two months of not firing a gun, you lose any training you've built up. I don't know how people can honestly believe that their 2 hours class is enough training to make them prepared to handle a gun in crisis situation? I don't understand why a person carrying a gun in public wouldn't want to be the best they can be with their weapon? But nobody wants to do this. Zero - 2 hours worth of training seems to be more than enough in the eyes of most gun owners.

20/20 ABC News video:

I'm not on wifi so I can't watch the video now, but if that's the one I'm thinking of from a couple of years ago. Theirs several problems with using it;

1st- they make sure the person can only sit in the one seat, so the active shooter knows exactly where the CCW would be sitting when he enters the room.
2nd- they make them wear tight fitted shirts so as to inhibit access to your firearm.
3rd- who wears gloves and paintball masks? This is done to make it more difficult to access your firearm.

It was set up to show failure and they stacked it to reach that goal.

 

[TAX GUY]

Add to this something about once the LTC has been acquired that's your background check to purchase a gun. Show your LTC ID and that's it. I'd also remove restrictions on suppressors.
Its a good idea, just every time gun owners and supporter have tried to come to the table, were told to give up rights but almost never get anything in return.

Here in MA we're issued a PIN with our LTC. That PIN must be used to purchase (either through a dealer OR private party, because the private party sale MUST be handled through a licensed dealer) any gun. Ammo only needs to show the LTC or FID card. That PIN acts as a code that the background checks have been completed and is OK.

I agree with much of what you said. Do you find that gun owners support your ideas? From what I have read on the Dis, I'd be willing to bet that quite a few would not be in favor of much of this.

I love the idea of a shooting proficiency test! I would most definitely be in favor of that. I would want renewal of that to be yearly, though. Too many things can change in a years time. I am betting most gun owners do not support the idea of a shooting test.

I like your ten year period for domestic violence and felons, but I would say that would be the minimum sentence and then years are added based on how serious the crime was. A domestic violence that was truly out of control violence needs to be taken more seriously than two people who had too much to drink and shoved one another.

I see the woman who fired into the Home Depot parking lot was just handed down her sentence. She got probation. She can't buy, own, or carry a gun for 18 months. She lost her concealed carry license until 2023. I would have liked to see her lose all guns until 2023 instead of just the 18 months. I'd also have preferred a mandatory ten year moratorium on guns for her instead of eight. Well, if I'm being honest, I would prefer she was never allowed to own a gun again because I believe the nature of her crime was serious, reckless, and just nutty behavior, but that won't happen.

All of the other gun owners I know are fine with what I've said above. Then again, they are all in MA where most of those items are already in the laws. They are all for training too and try to encourage practice and shooting often. To retest at license renewal would be tough. Again using the driving as an example, that's not a requirement to drive so why with guns? Yes, lots of drivers SHOULD be retested as lots of guns owners should too but to have it as a requirement for everyone? There could be ways around it such as documented range time as proof and if a certain amount of hours are not obtained then there's possibility of losing the license. I compare that to my license for work. I need "xx" hours of continuing ed over a period of time in order to stay current and renew the license. Something like could be attached as most gun owners are willing to shoot and "practice". Now, it would just be a matter of getting "certified" locations and "authorized" confirmation that these person(s) did it. I will anticipate the next hurdle with this and acknowledge that there WILL be forged certifications sent in by "buddies" and the like. There is no fool proof method that can easily be used. Add to that, most gun owners are willing to work towards a solution as long as there was give AND take. There are already lots of laws and restrictions in place (again, here in my state and in other states as well), so when we hear more control and more laws, we'd like to hear what it is and also ask for some of the items in place to be lifted. Thus far, I'm hearing a lot of put more laws and restrictions in place but owners get nothing in return (or even any say).

 

[rajak73]

I agree with much of what you said. Do you find that gun owners support your ideas? From what I have read on the Dis, I'd be willing to bet that quite a few would not be in favor of much of this.

I love the idea of a shooting proficiency test! I would most definitely be in favor of that. I would want renewal of that to be yearly, though. Too many things can change in a years time. I am betting most gun owners do not support the idea of a shooting test.

I like your ten year period for domestic violence and felons, but I would say that would be the minimum sentence and then years are added based on how serious the crime was. A domestic violence that was truly out of control violence needs to be taken more seriously than two people who had too much to drink and shoved one another.

I see the woman who fired into the Home Depot parking lot was just handed down her sentence. She got probation. She can't buy, own, or carry a gun for 18 months. She lost her concealed carry license until 2023. I would have liked to see her lose all guns until 2023 instead of just the 18 months. I'd also have preferred a mandatory ten year moratorium on guns for her instead of eight. Well, if I'm being honest, I would prefer she was never allowed to own a gun again because I believe the nature of her crime was serious, reckless, and just nutty behavior, but that won't happen}

So I can only talk about my state, but felons are prohibited from owning ANY firearm or a knife with a blade length of a certain size. No exceptions. No time limit. ANY domestic violence charge prohibits you from owning a firearm no matter if it was out of control violence or as simple as too much to drink pushing match. I'm a handgun owner, I've been through 2 background checks to purchase 1 firearm. One for the permit to buy the other when I bought the gun. If I wanted a CCW permit, besides the training and classes I would have to take I would have to have another background check. How many background checks should I have to have? Also, I love the home depot parking lot case, everybody uses that ONE incident about gun owners, how about the one in Omaha, NE that got the guy trying to rob her house in the closet and cocked the empty gun by the door and told him if he came out she was going to blow him away? (She said it differently but I would get points if I printed what she actually said) He sat in the closet until the cops arrived. Funny I didn't hear the national media talk about that one just the home depot gal, {Which by the way was a idiot and MOST gun owners would agree}[/QUOTE]

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I'm not comparing the two. I don't expect a civilian to be trained like a police officer. Not every police officer is even trained to the same level. But it is absolutely ridiculous that gun owners can carry a gun in public with zero to two hours worth of training. Some don't require any live training! I don't know how that isn't utterly ridiculous to all gun owners. I've detailed more than once on these threads about women I know who carry and have never once fired a gun. That is unacceptable. I don't know why someone who carries a gun wouldn't want to have regular training?

And I knew this would be compared to driving. While I am sure there are some people who get their license and then only get behind the wheel of a car once a year, most people who get their license with the intent to drive do so somewhat regularly. I know people who live where there is great public transportation and they have a license just in case so there are exceptions, but if you plan on driving, you usually do just that. My mom wasn't a big fan of driving when she first got married and my parents could only afford one car so she didn't go anywhere while my dad was at work. My dad made it a priority to get my mom out on the road on the weekends so she could improve her confidence and her driving ability. It is what responsible people do.

But, the point of the driving comparison is that while daily drivers do get daily PRACTICE, they aren't required to get any TRAINING, nor are they EVER retested on their skills unless they manage to have their license revoked (or allow it to expire).

When I'm behind the wheel of my car, the lives of everyone else on the road are quite literally in my hands. OTOH, if I were a CCW holder & carrier (I'm not), nobody's lives are in my hands until my gun comes out, which probably wouldn't ever happen in my lifetime.

And for the record, I'm not opposed to training & proficiency requirements for CCW. I just find it odd that in a country with 500 accidental firearm deaths annually and 30,000 vehicular deaths annually that people think gun training requirements should be MUCH stricter, while seeming to be perfectly okay with untrained drivers obtaining a lifetime license after a 20 minute test.

 

[rajak73]

But, the point of the driving comparison is that while daily drivers do get daily PRACTICE, they aren't required to get any TRAINING, nor are they EVER retested on their skills unless they manage to have their license revoked (or allow it to expire).

When I'm behind the wheel of my car, the lives of everyone else on the road are quite literally in my hands. OTOH, if I were a CCW holder & carrier (I'm not), nobody's lives are in my hands until my gun comes out, which probably wouldn't ever happen in my lifetime.

And for the record, I'm not opposed to training & proficiency requirements for CCW. I just find it odd that in a country with 500 accidental firearm deaths annually and 30,000 vehicular deaths annually that people think gun training requirements should be MUCH stricter, while seeming to be perfectly okay with untrained drivers obtaining a lifetime license after a 20 minute test.

You are correct. Here in Nebraska, all we have to do is send the paperwork in every 5 years, I haven't had a test since I was 16, many, many years ago!

 

[LisaR]

I'm not on wifi so I can't watch the video now, but if that's the one I'm thinking of from a couple of years ago. Theirs several problems with using it;

1st- they make sure the person can only sit in the one seat, so the active shooter knows exactly where the CCW would be sitting when he enters the room.
2nd- they make them wear tight fitted shirts so as to inhibit access to your firearm.
3rd- who wears gloves and paintball masks? This is done to make it more difficult to access your firearm.

It was set up to show failure and they stacked it to reach that goal.

Yes, that's the video.

It is impossible to replicate a potential mass shooting. Did anyone ever think a nut job would go into an elementary school and shoot up a bunch of little kids? There isn't one ideal way to replicate it. In this scenario, the trainee with the gun is specifically told they are the only ones with a gun and they will need to use it at some point that day. That is far more warning than anyone got in any of these other shooting situations so it should be an advantage.

As for the masks, those were necessary for protection so I get that, but it doesn't change anything. The assumption is one will be doing their normal thing when a mass shooting occurs. Did the mask get in the way? Maybe. Would it have been anymore of a distraction than sitting in a dark movie theater with a shoot em up movie blaring out of the speakers? Probably not. One doesn't know what they may or may not be doing, wearing, where they'll be sitting, etc if a mass shooting happens.

I didn't think the shirts were tight, but again, most people don't dress for a potential shooting.

As for sitting in the front row, that didn't bother me at all. I don't really care that the trainee was "shot." The point was to give the trainee a clear line to the "bad guy." If the trainee was in the back row, my guess is that would have made the video even more effective because those that did shoot would likely have hit other innocent people in the room.