How do we address a problem like this?

[part deux]

oh goodie,  FD created another account.

There are lots and lots of local training options that don't cost several thousand dollars.  But, since you spent the money, you're very highly trained and the only one capable of self defense.

[CharleyVCU1988]

I am NOT freediver.  Let's make that clear.

I was led to these forums through discussion on TruthAboutGuns.

I did not see very many, if any, local options for force-on-force judgmental training.  I had to go out of state for that, which is absolutely ridiculous.  If I did miss some local options I will gladly eat crow.

In an ideal world, every single range should have some sort of live-action judgmental use of force class, with staff or local acting groups filling the part of roleplayers. 

What people like freediver or at least his newly found gungrabber allies never seem to grasp is the fact that quality training can be expensive and can be used to price working class people out of their rights.  When they blather on about accessibility for voting when it comes to voter ID ("disenfranchises the poor due to cost and time spent to try and get one") but don't even think about it for the 2nd Amendment their hypocrisy really shows through.

[part deux]

This is the course I took
http://www.shootdontshoot911.com/

A simple google search popped up a couple of other courses including this one
http://www.mtacusa.com/airsoft_vs_simunitions.html

how would you like that crow prepared?

[freediver]

Mr CharleyVCU: you and I are on the same page when it comes to training. I see no point in banning weapons or "grabbing" them. I firmly believe in 2nd Amendment rights. I think our citizens have not only the right to carry, but a responsibility to use their talents and training to make our streets safer.

Where I differ with many on this forum is what constitutes a "good guy with a gun". As you pointed out, being that effective "good guy" requires training, it requires practice, it requires a commitment that most gun owners aren't willing to make. Carrying a loaded firearm in public, whether it is OC or concealed, brings with it a somber responsibility to "get it right", to be able to put bullets in the bad guy and only the bad guy. I would like to see more gun owners acknowledge the complexity of a shooting situation and make the commitment to train up to it.

[autosurgeon]

Shadows and echo's

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[CitizensHaveRights]

Carrying a loaded firearm in public, whether it is OC or concealed, brings with it a somber responsibility to "get it right", to be able to put bullets in the bad guy and only the bad guy. I would like to see more gun owners acknowledge the complexity of a shooting situation and make the commitment to train up to it.

Do police agencies 'train up' as you suggest?
And yet, there are many more incidents like "Two NYPD officers shoot at man, put one bullet in him, two in innocent little old ladies, and 30+ bullets Lord Knows Where" and "Columbus officer shoots at dog, hits 4 year old girl" than there are incidents in which lawfully armed private citizens shoot the wrong person.

So, why do you want to hold all of us responsible for "fixing" something that almost never happens in real life? Do you hate gun owners that much?

[freediver]

I would like to see police agencies "train up" to a higher level of firearms proficiency. In this era of rampant budget cuts, I doubt that would happen.

Yes, I do want to hold US responsible for fixing the problems we face. WE are the gun owners, we are the ones in the sport or the passion (however you want to label it), we are the ones who know best how to fix it. We should own our sport, take responsibility for it, and raise the bar for gun ownership so that many of these problems go away. We should police ourselves, not let others outside the sport do it for us.

[Pond Scum]

....... Carrying a loaded firearm in public, whether it is OC or concealed, brings with it a somber responsibility to "get it right", to be able to put bullets in the bad guy and only the bad guy...........

If you are in the Paris theater and the bad guy is systematically murdering innocents one by one and he has innocents behind him in your line of fire do you take the shot and potentially hit an innocent or do you hold your fire while more people are murdered??

Not a good choice to have.  No one knows how they will respond in a high pressure situation until it happens  but I believe I would take the shot.

[CitizensHaveRights]

If crime and murders are at a 30-year low, shouldn’t the gun control crowd be happy? 

Why aren’t they touting that existing gun laws have led to these historic low violent crime rates?

Why aren’t FBI crime stats not the main headline for gun controllers?  “See see, the gun laws we advocated lead to a lower crime rate!”

Doesn’t this expose their real objectives like a flashlight on roaches?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/11/daniel-zimmerman/question-of-the-day-will-gun-control-advocates-ever-be-satisfied/

[freediver]

Mr citizenshaverights: the reasons that crimes and murders are at a 30 year low are many; economics, demographic shifts, changes in crminal law, etc. Crime is a very complex problem and I doubt you can reduce it to a simple cause and effect formula.

Since you state that current gun laws led to lower crime rates, can you please back that up with statistics?

Thanks.

[CharleyVCU1988]

Mr citizenshaverights: the reasons that crimes and murders are at a 30 year low are many; economics, demographic shifts, changes in crminal law, etc. Crime is a very complex problem and I doubt you can reduce it to a simple cause and effect formula.

Since you state that current gun laws led to lower crime rates, can you please back that up with statistics?

Thanks.

@partdeux - I'll concede - although I don't think I can give the literal answer as to how I want the crow prepared.

@freediver - the thing is though, gungrabbers keep saying that looser gun laws have led to more gun crimes - and yet overall the trends have not played out this way.  Sure, it's a complex thing - but the response of "current gun laws leading to lower crime rates" is more of a retort against those who try and simplify it in the opposite direction.

"Where I differ with many on this forum is what constitutes a "good guy with a gun". - per freediver

You mention training as some sort of difference - have you offered, well, anything else?

[freediver]

Mr charleyVCU: I have offered other suggestions as far as training and licensing and recurrency requirements. As you might imagine, these have not been met with much enthusiasm on these forums. I have expounded on those ideas in several threads and I won't repeat them here for the sake of brevity.

In my mind here are the basics: Before you buy a firearm you are required to attend and pass a firearms training course; legalities, safety, shooting techniques, proper handling and storage. You are issued a firearms license and can go shopping. If you want to carry out in the world, OC or concealed, we're going to up the training requirement. To ensure that you can be that good guy with a gun, we'll run you through, at very low cost, a tactical shooting course that involves both range and classroom work. Simulators that include training scenarios would be excellent. If you pass, you're blessed to go forth and carry and help protect your fellow citizens. Since these skills are perishable, you'd need to follow up every year or so to keep your carry qualification.

Now, let the firestorm of dissent begin! Most of the contributors to this forum can't be bothered to actually step up and learn some skills, then practice them. Hiding behind some ancient verbiage in the 2nd Amendment to justify someone's lackadaisicalness doesn't cut it with me.

[thamm]

If you pass, you're blessed to go forth and carry and help protect your fellow citizens.

Again, I am NOT carrying to come to the aid of others. I carry to protect MYSELF. I have no idea where you got the idea that all OC/CCers are wanna-be police officers.

[Ultra]

I'd put my skills against Freediver any day of the week.

[gryphon]

Tham is correct. We aren't cops we don't carry to protect others. We carry to protect ourselves. That's why I have a problem with Lt. Col. Grossman's assertion that you are either a sheep or sheepdog. I am neither.

[bigt8261]

Now, let the firestorm of dissent begin! Most of the contributors to this forum can't be bothered to actually step up and learn some skills, then practice them. Hiding behind some ancient verbiage in the 2nd Amendment to justify someone's lackadaisicalness doesn't cut it with me.

Then I suggest you may be better off somewhere else. Perhaps a local MDA knitting session.

FYI, not only do I train, I'm also a trainer. One who advocates for the elimination of the requirement for my job.

[freediver]

Mr bigt8261: Since you are a trainer, you know better than anyone just how unskilled the average human is when it comes to tactical shooting skills. It's just not something we're automatically good at. So, if we want to be that "good guy with a gun", whether in self-defense or in defense of others, we have to train up to it. We can't just "hope" that we'll be good at it. We won't be. It takes training, it takes practice, it takes muscle memory, and most of all, it takes a mental attitude where you're prepared to KILL someone.

If you want to run a marathon, ride the Tour de France, walk the Appalachian Trail, be a chess master, cook like a blue-ribbon chef, or speak Portuguese, you don't just "do it". You'll fail. You get instruction, you practice hard, and you become aware of your own limitations. In the case of firearms, we are dealing with potentially taking a life. We need to get it right the first time.

[bigt8261]

I reject your entire premise on two grounds. First, you don't have to be an expert or even somewhat skilled to defend yourself. This is proven dozens or even hundreds of times a year. Second, nothing that you referenced is or should be a precondition for the lawful exercise of one's right. Should people train? Sure. Should we require it? Not even a tiny bit.

I don't need to be able to run a marathon in order to go for a simple jog through my neighborhood.

[TheQ]

^^^Schooled^^^

[gryphon]

you don't have to be an expert or even somewhat skilled to defend yourself. This is proven dozens or even hundreds of times a year.

Actually thousands, or tens of thousands.  If you include incidents where no shots are fired, the figure is about 3.1 million according to the DoJ (wide margin of error ranging from 1.4 on the low end to 4.something on the high end).  The lowest estimates I have seen are 760,000 per year.

EDIT: to be fair, even the notorious anti-gun rights researcher David Hemenway states there are only 80,000 defensive gun uses per year.