Alphecca

Lastly, savor this moment because it won't last at this paper...

Are you sure this isn't some sort of cruel April Fool's joke on the part of the NYT...

Jeff, I had exactly the same reaction

Except for the Times article's last paragraph, which implies a bit of pining for the good old days when a massacre was the answer to every good gun grabber's prayers, it's not a bad article at all. And on a Sunday, too!

I think the Times' new and enlightened attitude toward gun possession is less extraordinary when we consider the latest shoot-em-up took place on an Indian reservation. MSM may feel a tad hypocritical (then again, maybe not) advocating further restrictions of liberties on a people who could plausibly argue they've suffered quite enough of them already.

The article in question comments,

"Police officers have the best training; people who get concealed-carry permits don't have that training," said Brian Malte, outreach director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who was the Colorado field director for the campaign when the Columbine shootings happened. "The worst thing that can happen in a church or school is where untrained people can shoot at each other."

From an absolute duffer's POV on the subject, thrown out for consideration, what would be the effect of requiring a certain level of proficiency before allowing a carry / concealed carry permit? Something below the level of expert, but above the 'shoot myself in the foot when I draw' stage.

Admittedly, it could be abused by gun control advocates, but I know I'd feel safer if the guy carrying next to me isn't likely to shoot *me* by mistake if someone else runs into the room waving a firearm.

Well-trained police officers? Ha! I have enough friends who are big-city cops to know how little truth there is in that statement. Don't get me wrong, I'd never want to get into a shootout with a couple of narco detectives, but a lot of beat cops handle their guns like they just came out of a hot oven. I suspect a lot of civilian concealed-carry licensees spend more time at the range than the average cop.

Don't have the citation handy, but I recall a case about ten years ago of a shootout in the NYC port authority bus terminal with one suspect and about a dozen cops. IIRC the cops emptied about two dozen magazines at the guy without hitting him. Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for what cops do for a living, but a lot of them are far from being firearms experts.

I would have no problem with a concealed-carry system that had very stringent training standards. I'm personally a licensed pilot, and in the US, if you jump through all the hoops, you as a private individual can earn the right to fly just as much plane as you can afford just like the professionals do. It's neither cheap nor easy but it's 100% fair. Concealed carry should be no different. Hell, let me pay to put myself through the same school as federal air marshalls and carry on planes. Like I said, same way FAA pilot licensing works.

Of course, gun licensing is up to states and ultimately cities in many cases, and given that I live in Boston the only way I will ever get to exercise my rights is if the Supreme Court hands down a tsunami-scale 2nd Amendment ruling. Needless to say, the Massachusetts state constitution, which was written by a bunch of strict Calvinists, explicitly guarantees freedom to bear arms. Somehow the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has found a right to gay marriage in there, but gun ownership, oh no, that's crazy talk!

Re: "Police officers have the best training..." but then, EVERYBODY KNOWS that the cops are armed. And their training doesn't help a bit if they have become complaicent. The advantage of armed CITIZENS is that the bad guys can only guess WHICH citizen is armed, or if several are, and they don't know. In court, the bailiff has THE gun; get his/hers, and you're home free, you can kill everybody else before the next cop shows up. But when average joes are armed, the chances are pretty good that the man or woman who took the initialive to BUY a gun has also taken the time to learn to shoot it properly.

A few years ago, in casual conversation with an acquantance who was a police officer, I asked him how often he fired his gun. His answer surprised me a little; twice a year, one box of cartrisges on the range. Based on that statistic at that time, I was FIVE TIMES better trained than that cop, because besides being ex-military (and a long-ago Navy pistol expert) I was going to the range every MONTH.

And most states that allow concealed carry DO have training requirements.

As far as the average citizens's proficiency with a handgun goes, I can only speak for myself. Safety is uppermost because I DON'T want to shoot myself in the foot. After safety comes marksmanship. I can hit what I aim at consistently.

Also, I took a great firearms safety and proficiency course in 1976- it was called US Army Basic Training. A certain Sgt. Prall made sure the lessons 'took'.

I can confirm what Ken said earlier- the cops I know (all three of 'em, take it for what it's worth) shoot twice a year on the range- a refresher, and their annual qualification. Dunno if every department is like that, but the ones around here are.

The issue of training is one that we can look at either theoretically, or practically. The theoretical arguments for requiring very stringent training seem to make sense -- but even those states (like PA) that have quite literally no training requirement for permit holders don't have the sort of problems that the theorists worry incessantly about.

Maybe they need a new theory.

I would have no problem with a concealed-carry system that had very stringent training standards. I'm personally a licensed pilot, and in the US, if you jump through all the hoops, you as a private individual can earn the right to fly just as much plane as you can afford just like the professionals do. It's neither cheap nor easy but it's 100% fair.

Ah... actually, no. And you said as much in your post. If it's not "cheap" then it's not "fair". If you set the barrier to entry at a thousand dollars to take the CCW class, and take three days off from work... you are prohibiting poor people from defending themselves effectively.

Most states (mine included) require some sort of training class before granting a CCW permit. My state's requirement is laughable, as any course (hunter familiarization, security guard training, the NRA's basic pistol course, etc) qualifies. I've taken several classes, some good... some bad (from a CCW perspective).

Ideally, my state would agree on a CCW course standard and make it mandatory before getting a CCW. In addition, they would provide the materials and syllabus (sp?) to any licensed instructor as needed, and set the price for the course to something reasonable (kind of like the state inspections we have for cars). That would make each CCW holder have CCW-specific training, but not make the entry to CCW so onerous that only the rich folks can do it.

The Air Marshals go through (IIRC) an 8-week training camp, the last 4 weeks of which they spend practicing for their firearms test at the end. The graduates of that school are very good at firearms marksmanship... but frankly, not everybody needs to be performing at that level.

"If it's not cheap then it's not fair." Fair enough, but that's not precisely my point. In Boston, NYC, NJ, CA, and many other cities and states, you could be a multi-millionaire, and you still have not much better than zero chance of getting a CCW permit.

One of the classic objections is to say, "We can't have untrained people with guns all over the streets." Fine then, let's pass a shall-issue bill that has very stringent training requirements. Not fair, but fairer than the existing regime.

I think one of the most interesting things right now is that the Democratic party is realizing that their pathologically anti-gun attitude has cost them a lot of white male votes they otherwise had a shot at. This plus the GOP congress means we're probably not going to see many attempts to ban guns at the federal level for at least a decade. Now it's a state-level fight.

Ryk--

Two points:
1) Most states with CCW laws do have some training requirement

2) My home state, Washington, doesn't. We have a very low murder rate and I've never heard of a problem with permit holders shooting themselves in the foot--which I'm sure the media would be delighted to report.

I HATE unsafe gun handling and the people who practice it, but I do worry about the purposes to which training requirements would be put. It can (although need not be) a form of creeping gun control because it's politically hard to say that training requirement shouldn't be raised. That hasn't happened in most places, but I'm still leery.

I am against too strict or expensive a regime for CCW applicants. Certainly a basic safety class and some time at the range but more than that just makes it tough for those who need it the most to afford it or qualify.

And training isn't everything. Remember that the NYPD (I think it was) had to have Glock increase the "trigger-pull" because cops WERE shooting themselves in the foot...

I'm a New Jerseyite living in Kentucky, and planning on heading to the D.C. area within the next year or so...

Will have to acquire my arms & training while I can...

I live in a state (Washington) with no training requirement, and accidents are extremely rare. I am not convinced that training requirements make any difference, and a study should be done before more requirements are added. People who want to carry guns legally tend to either be interested in guns, thus train/practice on their own - or they're not particularly interested and keep their guns in the holster/purse. I am heartened by the fact that thousands are carrying every day - trained and not trained - and accidents aren't happening with any notable frequency. People aren't as careless as the theoreticians think.

My brother is a retired law enformcement officer, after 25+ years in the Colorado State Patrol.
Tells me he only carried a fireare because he had to; never cared to shoot anymore than necessary to "qualify" and stay qualified. (typically 20 rounds every three months). Never considered himself especially "good", definitely not "expert".

He's told me he hated to clean his gun, so when he had a wounded animal, he would always look for a "deputy sheriff" or some other LEO who wanted to put the poor animal down. In 25 years, he shot only once outside of his limited qual. shooting, that was to put a wounded deer down when no other LEO or Division of Wildlife guy was handy. And that was the "day before his quarterly range qual." so he didn't even have to clean his gun an extra time.

Net: I'm sure he was competent, but in no way an "expert" -- many concealed carry folks are likely much more competent than many LEO folks.

Rob -

To rebut your points -

1 ) If most do, then all don't
2 ) Great!

The reason I put the question forward was more to address the concern someone ignorant of the case would have. True, someone interested enough to pursue a concealed-carry permit is more than likely to have a much greater proficiency than the average Joe off the street. I would also say that if the bar is made too low then you also have the possibility that someone without *any* training could be carrying. And that's the kind of person who makes me nervous.

"I practice gun control -- I hit what I aim at" takes on a much greater meaning in this context. The story related at one point where a man opened fire in a courtroom, and an audience member with a weapon returned fire. The guy in the audience died, but distracted the gunman enough so that fewer people were killed, according to the report. Now I don't know that there's anything short of combat that will train someone for that sort of situation, but a minimum proficiency test that is semi-strict certainly couldn't hurt. The fact that he opened fire and missed at short range gives me cause to wonder.

I would also argue against Darkmage and side with 'the snob' on the point of entry barriers. Not all children grow up in areas where firearms are taught 'at Daddy's knee' anymore. In Basic, probably 80% of the guys with whom I went through had never seen a gun before, and had no idea how to handle the things. They fired 10 rounds, usually in the general direction of the target, then were done. Does that qualify them?

On the other hand, in many places it is impossible to obtain the right to carry, no matter what your qualifications. I'd rather try and open those venues to people who can pass a standards test than take on something over which I have my own doubts.

I tend to think of it as a driver's license. I'd prefer *everyone* know what they're doing, even if they don't carry or feel the need to do so. And coming back to Rob's post again -- I noted that this type of test can still be a back-end form of gun control, in that it could restrict the ability to get a permit. Unfortunately, I don't have any good way to address that point, other than a change in attitude on the part of those who would try it.

what i find amazing is, a room full of civilians get shot up and our so called representatives call for more gun control. A judge and a couple of ada's get shot up and right away bills are pushed through to allow da's and judges to carry guns. so what we have is more employees of the government being armed while the rest of us have to jump through hoops for concealed carry, if we can get them at all. As far as nyc gun permits are concerned, money dose matter. ask howard stern, joan rivers, robert dinero and the host of other who's who in ny people, including the former editor of the ny times, that were issued full carry permits in nyc. Is the life of a judge, a da or a Hollywood celebrity more precious than that of the average citizen? privileged class? more armed government officials can only lead to more tyranical behavior on the part of the government. no citizen should be in favor of any legislation that would arm employees of the government without the same right? priviledge? being granted to all. just my thoughts on the matter.