Concealed Carry Myths


Decent article on concealed carry myths and why CCW is actually a good thing.

Link Removed
 

HK4U

New member
Good article. I sent it to those on my e-mail list and made a copy. Thanks for posting.
 

Scarecrow

New member
thanks for the post. good read... can't argue with fact, unless you have less than half a brain and unfortunately those people are everywhere.
 

Canis-Lupus

New member
Analogies that maybe make a CC point.

U get in a car not being trained to ever drive one, you will wreck pretty soon. You let a law-abiding citizen buy something as lethal as a gun with an untrained 'driver' behind the trigger and U have pretty much the same disaster waiting to happen even on a very safe controlled firing range if they point it @ a M8 'just for fun'. The 1st part of military BRM is taught in a classroom not on a range. You don't get to even fire it if you don't know how to clear it, maintain it or use it properly. Doesn't take long to learn how to drive a car, nor fire any pistol, takes years to do both very well. Now add the concealed part to the mix, and you have many more laws and variables to figure out than ever come with driving a Honda Civic, but maybe with an 18-wheeler hauling gasoline. IMHO a person with little to no training on how & when to use a gun & when not to is critical, or that jerk who upsets the untrained CC novice is now looking @ a drawn pistol & maybe someone behind the trigger who will use that to make a point of misusing that pistol and land themselves in jail, sending a jerk to the hospital or the morgue. When the cuffs come off the CC novice goes into a pre-trial hearing as to why they 'feared enough for their lives' that they used the very last resort/tool of self-defense as their 1st not last option. "But he provoked me!" better be he provoked you with MUCH more than words, gestures or threats! Maybe he fired a gun at you, or rushed @ you with a knife is now a more acceptable reason as to why the other person is now on a slab in a freezer with a tag tied to his toe & U are now looking at a world of legal trouble, or U did everything by the book and U may just walk free. If U screwed it up, maybe years in jail or paying for some jerk's wheel-chair, medical bills, etc., for the rest of his life. Most of that would never happen with a good state/federal train-up prior to being granted the awesome responsibility of walking around non gun-toting folks with a concealed weapon, which in untrained/immature hands is nothing more than a permit to legally carry your shooter hidden, without the extensive training required to know when and how taking it out of hiding is even lawful, smart, or (most times) dead wrong. Any branch of our military, any cops or any persons issued a weapon to protect themselves performing duties from security to filling ATM's or driving armored cars spend a LOT of time learning what constitutes a threat worthy of a ballistic response and which can be handled in many less lethal ways, or by back-up who do that for a living, cops/SWAT. So hell yes I do support that statement: "I favor required training for everyone before they can obtain a CCW license." To do anything else is to hand out drivers licenses to all teens @ 18 because they are now 'adults' and 'by God' should be able to drive whether they ever learnt to drive a car or not! A ton of steel going at 55mph with an untrained driver @ the wheel is a very dangerous weapon to others and the untrained driver behind the wheel who maybe thinks a red light means speed up and show the other loser driver what their V6 can do to some rusty old 4-banger. I wonder how many USA patrons I upset today by stating that who wish their computers could send a HP into my brain? If that's you, then maybe think about leaving that pistol at home and take up a good martial art. IMHO a CC permit is around a brown or black belt in total familiarity with the weapon and the CC laws that allow you the privilege of carrying or using that pistol where most other's can not. Earning a black belt in Karate takes years of training and discipline making the 1st-dan a lethal weapon who wouldn't be at the dojo if he or she just went around crushing windpipes for petty nothing rumbles or proving what a bad-ass he was in bars. The 4th-dan who trained me told every student the best Karate move he ever knew was to disengage from a fight you know you'd win, and only use your skills when everything else has failed. Training any martial artist white belt in only blows that kill (2 months of training tops) is very similar to giving some hot-head a token black-belt in martial arts that normally takes years to master, or as weapons go a CC permit to kill just as fast without ever learning hundreds of precise moves perfectly (CC Laws), repeating 20-30 katas on every trip to a dojo (range-time, CQC courses and advanced CCW courses) or supervised kumite for that next dan. Then as a good driver one day you get a CDL to haul toxic chemicals thru a populated area, or a 3rd-dan into full contact kumite trying for a title belt, or in weapons, the day you land a job as a well-paid fugitive retrieval pro, or a body-guard for a VIP on a risky trip to some country where 15 y/o's are shooting at the person U get paid to protect, & U for preventing them from pulling it off. Just analogies!

Canis-Lupus
 
Last edited:

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Very well written, except where he says that it is common sense to require training before people can exercise 2A. OK, while we're at it, why don't we also require training and permits to exercise free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and right to peaceably assemble. Also, while we're at it, why don't we also require states to obtain a license before they can exercise all the powers not denied to them by the constitution (tenth amendment, a.k.a., state's rights amendments). As soon as he shows me where the constitution mandates a training requirement, I'll go over to his side. Until then, he's full of it.
 
Very well written, except where he says that it is common sense to require training before people can exercise 2A. OK, while we're at it, why don't we also require training and permits to exercise free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and right to peaceably assemble. Also, while we're at it, why don't we also require states to obtain a license before they can exercise all the powers not denied to them by the constitution (tenth amendment, a.k.a., state's rights amendments). As soon as he shows me where the constitution mandates a training requirement, I'll go over to his side. Until then, he's full of it.

Sometimes I think some need training on how to use free speech, and some "press" members definitely need training on how to give unbiased news. Just kidding, however, we all must remember that no right is unlimited. With each right comes an equally great responsibility to use it properly.
 

FN1910

New member
I agree with the author's training requirement based on this limitation. I really don't care what you do in your home or on your property with guns. I think anyone should be able to have agun in their home and that 2A covers this completely without any kind of registration, or other restrictions. However once you walk out on the street in the public interacting with others then a different set of rules apply. Your rights end where mine begin and vice-versa. One's rights do not override those of another.

You cannot go up and down the street shouting through a PA system at 2 am waking everyone up no matter what 1A says. You cannot peacebly assemble where my group has already assembled and the press cannot print or report lies. there are restrictions when it comes to the rights of others. 2A does not override the rights of others and once you step out of your house you then give up some of your 2A rights like it or not.
 

HK4U

New member
I agree with the author's training requirement based on this limitation. I really don't care what you do in your home or on your property with guns. I think anyone should be able to have agun in their home and that 2A covers this completely without any kind of registration, or other restrictions. However once you walk out on the street in the public interacting with others then a different set of rules apply. Your rights end where mine begin and vice-versa. One's rights do not override those of another.

You cannot go up and down the street shouting through a PA system at 2 am waking everyone up no matter what 1A says. You cannot peacebly assemble where my group has already assembled and the press cannot print or report lies. there are restrictions when it comes to the rights of others. 2A does not override the rights of others and once you step out of your house you then give up some of your 2A rights like it or not.




and the press cannot print or report lies.


Someone needs to tell the press that because they haven't received the message.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
I agree with the author's training requirement based on this limitation. I really don't care what you do in your home or on your property with guns. I think anyone should be able to have agun in their home and that 2A covers this completely without any kind of registration, or other restrictions. However once you walk out on the street in the public interacting with others then a different set of rules apply. Your rights end where mine begin and vice-versa. One's rights do not override those of another.

You cannot go up and down the street shouting through a PA system at 2 am waking everyone up no matter what 1A says. You cannot peacebly assemble where my group has already assembled and the press cannot print or report lies. there are restrictions when it comes to the rights of others. 2A does not override the rights of others and once you step out of your house you then give up some of your 2A rights like it or not.

You're absolutely right that having rights does not mean that someone can't be punished for using them irresponsibly or in a manner that harms others. However, I am still against a training requirement being required to exercise 2A. Look at Vermont and Alaska; has the lack of a training requirement ever made a difference in those states? What about the states that allow unlicensed open carry; has the lack of a permit or training requirement for open carry ever made a difference in those states?

The point I'm trying to make is that, yes 2A is not absolute, but only insofar as long as the right is not abused; a law abiding citizen with no training who is carrying a concealed handgun hardly fits this definition. Everyone knows that RKBA does not give anyone the right to commit armed robbery, or the right to murder someone simply because you don't like them. A training requirement for law abiding citizens is not either in the word or the spirit of the Constitution; it is nothing more than an infringement, much like a training requirement for exercising free speech. Yes, acquiring training, whether in a formal classroom setting or with the help of a knowledgeable friend or relative, is always a good idea, but one's right to keep and bear arms, whether at home or out in public, should never be denied due to a lack of it.
 
Last edited:

The Gunny

New member
I can see your point with the training requirement however if it is not a requirement in the state I see no reason th change it. In WA state it is not a requirement and in my case I have been shooting guns my whole life. I have served 22 years in the Marines and been in a couple of wars even had to put rounds down range on occaision so I would not feel I needed to take a course. However if I was required to by law I would. I guess I am just saying I'd do it if I had to but would rather not have to.
 

FN1910

New member
Gunny - People get all upset any time you mention training or certification requirements and start to state all kinds of objections and rights. I was in a CWP certification course with two ladies that when we had to demonstrate our proficiency at the range, out of 50 rounds each at 3 yards, together they hit the target (full size silhouette) 3 times. That is 3 out of 100 rounds. Neither one could ever fire the gun without closing their eyes and looking away. I don't care about what they do in their home but I really do not want to be near them in a Wal-Mart if they decide to try to take out a BG.

There is a difference between training and certification. Most people have no idea of the laws, I mean everyone knows if you shoot someone outside your house you are supposed to drag them back inside. Just some kind of certification that you know the difference between murder and self-defense, and which end of the gun the bullet comes out of is all I care about if you are going to be out in the public with your gun.
 
+1 I feel that due to ever changing laws that gun owners should get some type of training on the law on a regular basis. A good example would be the state of NV. Up until January of this year, you needed a NV CFP if you wanted to carry a concealed firearm in NV. Nevada didn't recognize carry permits from other states. As of January of this year, NV recognizes many carry permits from out of state. The "big 3" used to be FL, NV and UT. Now it's down to the "big 2".

My point is that laws change, so some formal training wouldn't be a bad idea.



gf
 

FN1910

New member
I was in a pawn shop looking their guns and started talking to this lady. She said that her nephew had given her a shotgun for protection and showed her how to fire it. I asked if she had ever shot it and she said no and that she really didn't need to because her nephew was going to trade teh shotgun for a Glock. I sort of nodded and she then asked "What is a Glock"? I said it was a brand of pistol. She said "What do you mean pistol?" :blink:

I really hope her nephew takes her out to the firing range before she decides that she needs to carry it to Wal-Mart for protection.:icon_cry:
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
Forgive me for butting in, but I've been following this thread for a bit, and I think there's a basic misunderstanding at work.

There is no...and there should BE no...restriction on a "Right". It's yours, a gift from God, to do with as you please, just because. No tests, no qualifications, and no further requirements.

However...

While everyone has (or SHOULD have) the Right to own and wear a firearm if they so choose (in my opinion), that doesn't mean that everyone should exercise it. Some people shouldn't be driving a car. Certainly some people shouldn't be voicing their poisonous, vile opinions to the public. Some people shouldn't vote! In fact, some people shouldn't even PROCREATE!!

But they have that right (or 'privilege' in the case of driving). If someone demonstrates while being trained that they have zero aptitude for a certain activity...shooting, driving, whatever...they should be councelled that they should perhaps abandon their efforts and told why.

Yes, my Rights stop where your begin, but which of your Rights is abridged because I choose to wear a sidearm, concealed, while walking down the same street with you? How are you to even know I'm wearing it unless conditions dictate that I have to employ it, either for my own safety or, perhaps, yours?

Sorry, but I have to echo Ted Nugent: "The 2nd Amendment IS my Concealed Carry permit." I need no other.
 
Forgive me for butting in, but I've been following this thread for a bit, and I think there's a basic misunderstanding at work.

There is no...and there should BE no...restriction on a "Right". It's yours, a gift from God, to do with as you please, just because. No tests, no qualifications, and no further requirements.

However...

While everyone has (or SHOULD have) the Right to own and wear a firearm if they so choose (in my opinion), that doesn't mean that everyone should exercise it. Some people shouldn't be driving a car. Certainly some people shouldn't be voicing their poisonous, vile opinions to the public. Some people shouldn't vote! In fact, some people shouldn't even PROCREATE!!

But they have that right (or 'privilege' in the case of driving). If someone demonstrates while being trained that they have zero aptitude for a certain activity...shooting, driving, whatever...they should be councelled that they should perhaps abandon their efforts and told why.

Yes, my Rights stop where your begin, but which of your Rights is abridged because I choose to wear a sidearm, concealed, while walking down the same street with you? How are you to even know I'm wearing it unless conditions dictate that I have to employ it, either for my own safety or, perhaps, yours?

Sorry, but I have to echo Ted Nugent: "The 2nd Amendment IS my Concealed Carry permit." I need no other.

Hello Ektarr, no one butts into a conversation here and I believe you and I may have discussed this before. While rights are God given, no right is unlimited each comes with an equally great responsibility. Since there are many who abuse rights, this is where laws come into play. An example would be the right to peacefully gather. The limits on this would be not blocking a public road or doing so on private property, etc. Free speech limits would be no slander, no inciting a group to a riot or lynching, etc. We all believe in the 2A and some are very passionate about it. While I believe all law abiding citizens have the RKBA, there are some limitations on that right just as any other. God gave us those rights but he also gave us free will and that's where problems arise.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,384
Messages
622,979
Members
74,199
Latest member
jerpar69
Top