[HTML1]
“As an experienced law enforcement officer, I fully support the right of a citizen to carry a concealed weapon. A firearm is a great tool in the hands of a trained individual. However, the assumption that an adult, licensed driver is somehow able to safely handle and carry a concealed firearm is flawed. At a minimum, training in the safe handling, firing and carriage of the weapon is essential.” – Officer Jeff Engl [not shown] in a letter responding to a USA Today story “12 states on path to guns with no permits“
Right. Because your average driver can be relied upon to remain in control of their car (with 20+ levers, pedals, and switches) at all times, but a handgun (with a max of 4 controls) is simply too complicated. Time to bring out one of my favorite quotes:
“If you think you can’t be trusted with a gun, get help. If you think everyone else can’t be trusted with a gun, get humble. If you think I can’t be trusted with a gun, get bent.”
Moonshine, the driving analogy is flawed. You have to take a written and practical and even eye sight test to get a license so you have proven you have the skills.
“You have to take a written and practical and even eye sight test to get a license so you have proven you have the skills.”
—–
Oh, really? Is that why there were over 35000 deaths attributable to motor vehicle accidents in 2010, but only 600 deaths attributable to the accidental discharge of firearms?
Mr. officer commie pinko FLAME DELETED should go read the bill of rights and STFU.
It is a god given right to defend yourself and it is the right to bear arms that stops people like officer douche bag from telling you that you don’t got the common sense of a house fly therefore, no gun for you!
People that can afford to buy a gun already have the common sense not to shoot themselves and anything that obstrucks your ability to go buy a gun is wrong.
“People that can afford to buy a gun already have the common sense not to shoot themselves . . .”
Where is this perfect planet that you live on? The name “Tex” ring a bell? Or any other myriad number of numbskulls that end up shooting themselves on a regular basis?
Not saying that mandated training is the answer. Just that the ability to buy a firearm doesn’t bestow magical powers on its owner.
Yes, sir! I second this point, & if anyone needs proof just look at the IGOTD posts that appear just about every other day here.
Personally, I’m fine with people shooting themselves. And I’m ok with the occasional accidental fatality as well.
People are going to die, accidents are going to happen, the idea that if we could just find the right set of rules then we could eliminate all accidents, and all deaths and that we could all live to be 150 years old is ridiculous.
This is a free country.. which means we should be free to enjoy the fruit of our successful decisions and we should also be free to suffer the consequences of our poor decisions. Which sometimes will include injury and or death, and yes… sometimes the death of another person. And yes… I’m ok with this.
I’m in the market for a chainsaw. So in addition to my product research I’m also reading up on proper handling, and my buddy who owns a tree service is going to come over and help/teach me.. why? because I know that chainsaws, when not handled properly, can be quite dangerous. They can also be a very effective tool when use properly. Should we start regulating who can and can’t own anything that could potentially be dangerous?
It’s risk vs reward. The reward is the freedom to live how you want. The risk is that you might get hurt.
This is exactly the point that I keep making. Not ALL gun owners or CCW guys are fit and responsible. That’s the problem.
“Mr. officer commie pinko douche bag should go read the bill of rights and STFU.”
Perhaps you should re-read the Bill of Rights. He has the right to his opinion and the right to tells others his opinion.
Demanding he STFU because you disagree is immature and the type of thing that makes us reasonable individuals willing to have open dialog on the 2a have a hard time getting people to listen to us.
The terms of the debate are changing. That’s a win. Keep debating, but don’t forget that the mere fact that we’re here is a huge accomplishment.
“A firearm is a great tool in the hands of a trained individual. … At a minimum, training in the safe handling, firing and carriage of the weapon is essential.”
Yes, training is a good thing, BUT – let us now discuss the DEA agent who shot himself in the foot while teaching a “gun safety” class at a local school. Or the ICE agent who recently shot his supervisor in the Federal building in LA. Or the Calif Hwy Patrol officer who walked up on a downed, cuffed suspect under control of another officer, and triggered a shot into the ground near the suspect’s head. Or the cop in Canton, OH who went berserk on the CCW licensee, threatening him with execution. Or …. (go to http://www.keepandbeararms.com or enter “The Only Ones” in your search engine.)
So if training is a minimum for the right to carry a weapon, may we assume that none of the above “experienced law enforcement officers” were trained? Or is the “training is a minimum” just another way for the anti- self-defense crowd to find ways to deny the right to bear arms?
“…shall not be infringed.” [Except by us aristocrats who know what’s best for the peasants.]
Thank you pete.
You said that much better than I did or could have.
My only REAL point is we have the “right to bear arms”.
Nowhere does it say in the 2nd amendment that you must be “trained” to bear arms or have a certain intellegence level, or any other thing you could attach to that right.
If it really bugs you then get a constitutional convention together and have that bill changed……or take the easy way and get Obumbles to regulate your rights away.
You’ve already lost that battle, my friend. Even Justice Scalia says reasonable restrictions are OK. That means all that nonsense about “shall not be infringed,” is already out the window. Now, it’s just a question of how much infringement is right.
Robert, article claims RI is one of the states with a bill introduced- do you know anything about this?
“As an experienced
law enforcement officerlumberjack, I fully support the right of a citizen tocarryown and operate aconcealed weaponchainsaw. Afirearmchainsaw is a great tool in the hands of a trained individual. However, the assumption that an adult, licensed driver is somehow able to safely handle andcarryoperate aconcealed firearmchainsaw is flawed. At a minimum, training in the safe handling,firingoperation and carriage of theweaponchainsaw is essential.” –Officer Jeff EnglTexanHawkAccidents, and the right to be stupid, are the cost of living in a free society.
From a book I’m reading:
“And when I’m free, will I be free to go?”
“Sure you will. And we’ll be free to kill you. It’s dangerous being free, but most come to like the taste of it. You’ll see.”
Officer Engl’s premise that training is essential can’t be refuted. Of course training is essential. It’s the damn permit that we can do without. Training should be strongly encouraged, but Constitutional Carry should be the law of the land.
Not just technical training, but some grounding in relevant law, so that folks who know what they’re civilly or criminally liable for when it comes to ricochets or overpenetration understand how much accuracy, awareness and good judgement matter.
‘Swhy I’m torn on the matter, and can’t seem to summon up the blood for strong opposition to a reasonably comprehensive testing regime (such as TX).
I have no problem with training, but I know formal required courses will be used as a form of gun control and denied permits due to paper work, lack of ranges being offered, irregular hours being scheduled, etcetera.
Just wait until this cop ends up on IGOTD like so many of his trained fellow officers.
Car drivers didn’t used to be licensed either, yet enough of them ended up being on roads that fatal accidents were frequent and horrific.
If the percentage of the population that drives today has firearms ten years from now, a basic ‘driver’s ed’ and simple written test and range test is hardly an infringement on anyone’s rights.
Do you hear anyone ****ing about how being required to have a driver’s license adversely affects their freedom?
I agree with the LEO on this one. There are many on this site who are exceedingly confident in their shooting and self defense abilities. Why not prove it to at least one other person under minimal stress conditions? The CCW training could be as simple as many of the courses already offered at your local shooting range, and should certainly include the self defense laws of the state in which the permit is issued. Training is the only way to mastery, so why not begin the path prior to obtaining a CCW?
There’s plenty of LEO bashing to be had on this site, but there are also plenty of LEOs who handle firearms after double shifts, long hours, and the obligatory bullshit paperwork and such that tends to follow police work. They handle firearms everyday, and sometimes on multiple occasions, and in stressful environments. I’m not excusing any negligent discharge or IGOTD incident, but I am saying that armchair commandos don’t work under those conditions.
So if you’ve got the skills, why are you so afraid to get your qualification on?
I understand that my opinion may be offensive, but I’m alright with that. I’ve done numerous qualifications, and found them to be useful in training and evaluation (like taking the occasional slice of humble pie). I also believe every state should be “shall issue.”
Same goes for motorcycle training too. One other thing to remember is that good trainers will see and correct your bad habits pretty quickly, and during my CHL qual shoot one of the other shooters had some fairly basic problems with their grip (limp-wristing) that the instructor sorted out. If a shooter is doing that under ideal conditions, Xenu save her if she had run into that in the real world with real crims without taking the class..
I’ve learned that when a person says “but” or “however” they really mean “forget everything else I said.”
Comments are closed.