Skip to comments.Experts say rigorous training needed to prepare gun owners (mild barf alert)
Posted on 04/15/2012 5:10:28 AM PDT by rellimpank
Make no mistake - Dodge County Sheriff Todd Nehls is an advocate of concealed carry.
But Nehls wants people seeking permits to take the most rigorous training available, not just what gets a permit. He encourages firearm owners to shoot at a range during the day and at night, and in a variety of weather conditions.
"Strapping on a weapon puts you in a position to make a decision in a split second," Nehls says. "When you pull that handgun in a store to defend yourself or someone else, you don't see a paper target, you see a live human being. You begin to sweat, you begin to shake. You are deciding to intentionally kill another human."
Nehls would like to ask each permit holder: "Are you ready?"
That question is at the heart of the current cultural debate about the use of guns in the name of self-defense, fueled by the controversial shooting deaths of Trayvon Martin in Florida and Bo Morrison in Wisconsin and by laws like the "castle doctrine" in Wisconsin and others labeled "stand yo
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
“Use some common sense people. The better and more familiar one is with a gun, the better he/she can use it/shoot it, etc. I agree with the good sheriff that the more practice you have, the SAFER you will be when that moment of truth pops up. Its called practice.”
I don’t know what folks problem is with the article. If you train, you are more likely to survive an armed encounter and you are less likely to shoot an innocent man or woman. I know a lot of people who carry. And not many who can engage with their firearm within 2 seconds. In an emergency, they are as likely to shoot themselves getting it out of their purse/pocket/holster as to defend themselves.
Why should the government restrict your right to defend your life?
Suppose a nurse gets a job offer - at a hospital in a bad part of town. She will need to leave and walk to her car after dark. Should she need to sign up for a class, and then wait for the government’s approval before she starts carrying a gun?
I enjoy shooting, and most of my handgun shooting starts at 25 yards...but that has nothing to do with self-defense.
Suppose you have a looney ex who moves to your town 5 years later and starts harassing you, and blaming you for ruining his/her life. Should you have to wait for the government to approve before you start carrying?
A revolver doesn’t take a lot of practice to use effectively for self-defense. At self-defense ranges, all you need is to know how to pull it without snagging it on clothes, and how to pull the trigger.
The right to self-defense is given by God. It can’t be taken away by the state, although most states don’t understand that.
Oh - and the stuff about sweating, etc is bull pucky. A cop going into a dangerous situation will almost certainly feel that. But most self-defense situations don’t allow time for that until after the shooting. THEN you may sweat, feel sick, etc.
Is "rigorous training" needed to become a journalist? To publish a newspaper or read propaganda from a teleprompter? Is "rigorous training" required before a defendant is entitled to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers? Does he need to be "trained" before his person, papers, and effects are secure from illegal searches and seizures? Does he have to have a law degree to earn the right to confront witnesses?
What other constitutional rights need to be granted by the state following a period of "training?" Answer: NONE!
Our right to keep and bear arms does not arise from the state! Therefore, it cannot qualify that right, or in any way infringe on it.
“Why should the government restrict your right to defend your life?”
It comes down to when YOUR right to do anything impinges on OTHERS rights. In the case of CCW that would be others right to be in a public place without deadly attack. It has long been held the 1st Amendment doesn’t allow you to cry, “Fire!”, in a crowded theater because that speech endangers the lives of others. I’m a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment, and have been a Life Member of the NRA for 20 years, but unless it is implemented responsibly we will lose it.
***But Nehls wants people seeking permits to take the most rigorous training available,***
Military handgun training consisted of two hours of shooting 50 rounds. at the gun range on base. We were then qualified for one year.
“In the case of CCW that would be others right to be in a public place without deadly attack.”
Ah, yes - because training is needed to prevent a gun from jumping out and attacking people...
A background check to prevent nuts from buying guns would be nice...oh, but wait, we already have that nationwide. Except, of course, many nuts don’t show up in the system because schools, hospitals, doctors and families cover for them.
And because here in Arizona, that started allowing folks to carry without a permit, we’ve had a huge surge in people gunning down people in public places. Not.
The POINT of carrying is “to be in a public place without deadly attack”.
Oddly enough, I take a different view.
The citizenry have the right to be armed and defend themselves, but that is the entire extent of the equation, in *any* direction. Nothing else should be mandated or required, no matter its perceived importance. And there is some very deep logic in this.
1) The typical citizen is not, nor can they be trained to be, effective with a gun beyond their desire and means. For the typical person, guns are, and should remain, *a* tool to defend themselves if they want. If they see a gun battle in progress, even if armed, their first inclination should be to protect themselves and their families, *not* to involve themselves in the gunfight.
2) A subset of the citizenry are far more capable and willing to involve themselves in more than a defensive role. This means they are willing to on their own, involve themselves in an effort to prevent a crime in process or to perform citizens arrest of a criminal. And good for them, as they do much to protect us all. But for them, voluntary training is important, so should be encouraged, yet not required.
3) The public hire professional LEOs, who still should be thought of as citizens, to protect society all day and night. They are so busy at this, that they *do* need mandatory training to do it properly. Likewise, they have the extra firepower needed in case criminals are heavily armed. Still most of what they do is clean up after the fact.
4) A CC permit is both an active and passive defense, by the latter I mean that offenders become very aware that someone around them *might* be armed, and this makes their criminal activity much harder and dangerous. They can neither know nor assume training or the lack thereof.
The 1st Amendment most certainly DOES allow you to cry "Fire" in a crowded theater,... IF THERE IS A FIRE. You don't need the government's permission to do so. You don't need a permit to do so. No training is required. You are completely within your rights to exercise free speech in order to protect the lives of your loved ones and perfect strangers.
Similarly, you are completely within your rights to keep and bear arms and to use those arms to defend yourself with deadly force to protect the lives of your loved ones and others.
I have spent thousands of dollars to obtain permits and the required training that authorizes me to carry concealed in two-thirds of the states of the Union. The average person will never have the resources to do what I have done.
Despite my expenditures, I have not been able to overcome the "reasonable" burden created by the legislature of Kalifornia to demonstrate that I have "good cause" to carry a concealed firearm in my own home state.
The power to decide whether a given person is sufficiently trained or justified in carrying a concealed firearm has been used now for a century to disarm first minorities and then the general populace because liberals don't like guns and fear other people who have them.
To suggest that our Founders intended that the government shall be able to say who is armed and who is not, is to ignore completely the fact that our Founders went to war against their own government and were forced to contend with that government's attempt to disarm them during the military occupation of Boston. The "Shot Heard Round the World" was fired at Lexington and Concord because the existing government had sent troops to disarm the populace.
Our Founders stated in the Declaration, "...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, ...". I suffer under the government imposed requirement for justification and training that you appear to support. I'm a veteran trained in the use of arms. It's an insult for you or anybody else to claim that I am in need of more training or justification, after having carried arms in foreign countries.
If you think that I require more training or justification, that is YOUR PROBLEM. It is not my problem and has no bearing on my right to keep and bear arms.
As soon as I can find time to “retire” I plan on becoming very active in IPSC. Have names and locations near where I live and am looking forward to it.
If(when) I can find time to slip the golden handcuffs and go home.
“The 1st Amendment most certainly DOES allow you to cry “Fire” in a crowded theater,... IF THERE IS A FIRE”
C’mon, really? You didn’t feel a little bit stupid writing that? I’m sure you understood what I meant.
Do you think if George Zimmerman had been a little better trained he might have stopped and thought, “Maybe I shouldn’t be provoking a confrontation with this possible perp while I’m carrying”?
Not at all. People frequently use that example as justification for infringements of the Second Amendment. Since you failed to point out that the First Amendment seldom permits prior restraint, I pointed it out.
Now you can point out why you think the Second Amendment should be crowded with such prior restraints that I can't carry in my home state.
How many concealed carry permits were issued during the lifetimes of our Founders? I'm not aware of any such nonsense.
What exactly are the limits that a person carrying concealed must recognize? Are you suggesting that an unarmed neighborhood watchman must not keep a suspicious person in sight? Or that an armed watchman must give up his rights?
What about the training for Trayvon? Why not institute training for those who go unarmed that they must not treat surveillance as an attack; that a neighborhood watchman has a right to observe people in his neighborhood; and that a watchman may be armed and prepared to defend himself if attacked?
Suppose that Zimmerman had actually been "Detective Zimmerman", a plain-clothes law enforcement officer moon-lighting as security for the gated community.
Would Detective Zimmerman have hesitated to approach the suspicious person? How would the incident have played out differently?
Unfortunately, any legal requirement to do so carries an enormous potential of abuse by the state. Actually, it is more than potential, it is a long and depressing track record - look, for example, at the barriers the District of Columbia has seen fit to place in the way of firearms ownership once its allowance was mandated by the Supreme Court.
From the article, however, I get the impression that it is voluntary training the Sheriff is talking about. I'm 100% behind that.
Around here police are police whether on duty or not whether moonlighting as armed security or not so when Martin confronted “Officer” Zimmerman and asked him,”Why are you following me?”, he could have said,”I’m Officer Zimmerman of the Sanford Police and was wondering what you are doing here”. The final outcome, if Martin was still stupid enough to swing on him, would have probably been the same for Martin except an off duty cop would have shot him sooner. The other difference would be “Officer” Zimmerman would still be a free man. So what’s your point?
I was just wondering whether you would recognize the part that Martin's judgement might have played. Had Martin assumed that Zimmerman was justified in his inquiry and had Martin assumed that Zimmerman might be armed, then Martin would perhaps be alive. Zimmerman would not have had to do anything differently.
We've all heard of "suicide by cop". Perhaps we need to recognize "suicide by armed citizen".
“What exactly are the limits that a person carrying concealed must recognize?”
Mainly that any altercation you become involved in could turn deadly. When that happens your actions will be judged in the cold clinical environment of the courtroom where your panicked actions might not seem so reasonable to a jury.
“Are you suggesting that an unarmed neighborhood watchman must not keep a suspicious person in sight?”
No, I didn’t say that and the policy of the Neighborhood Watch in Zimmerman’s complex was to try and keep suspicious people in sight from a safe distance. In Zimmerman’s account of events he acted completely appropriately.
“Or that an armed watchman must give up his rights?”
The policy of the Neighborhood watch was no guns just to prevent incidents like this. There is a difference between a volunteer neighborhood watch and paid armed security. I’ve been armed security before and one difference is they usually wear their weapons openly displayed and are in uniform. In that case it probably would have been obvious to Martin why I was following him, but maybe not.
“What about the training for Trayvon?”
Yeah, well, Martin was a thug. Either a gangbanger wannabe or a budding gangbanger. His parents failed miserably at trying to make him a functioning member of society.
Oh, and by the way, to carry as armed security I was State licensed and underwent a much more rigorous training course than any CCW training required.
“I was just wondering whether you would recognize the part that Martin’s judgement might have played”
Like I said elsewhere, Martin was a thug. He wanted to put a beatdown on Zimmerman for the perceived affront of “dissing” him. Zimmerman had every right to shoot him, especially if Martin was really verbally threatening to kill him. Zimmerman’s gun probably saved his life. I also think it’s a travesty that he’s been charged unless there’s some pretty damning evidence not known to the public yet. Still the troublesome protected minority has to be appeased lest they riot and create more havoc.
Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck or left the gun in there. Granted he might be dead now if he had left without it. From the girlfriend’s original account, since changed I think, when Martin confronted Zimmerman and asked him,”Why are you following me?”, Zimmerman came back with an equally confrontational, “What are you doing here?”. Martin’s question was reasonable, Zimmerman’s response was not. If he had identified himself as a member of the neighborhood watch and said he didn’t recognize Martin and wondered what he was doing in the complex it might have gone differently. It also might not have since it’s pretty clear Martin was a thug and his gangbanger machismo demanded retribution against Zimmerman for “dissing” him. At any rate Martin stopped being reasonable and became a perpetrator when he slugged Zimmerman.
Wisconsin concealed carry ping
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this wisconsin interest ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.