Helping at risk communities

KBCraig said:

Any effective training is tailored to the audience, and it must take into account more than just physical limitations. Attitudes, prejudices, and political affiliations can vary from one self-identified group to another, and effective communication shouldn't stomp on anyone's toes.

Click to expand...

I spent 15 years in the training 'business', the last two were as Superintendent of Training for the entire USANG, which, at that time encompassed 82,000 enlisted personnel, and approximately 13,000 officers. So, I do have some familiarity with the principles and techniques of instruction. The only real variable in any successful course of instruction is the manner in which the core material is presented. In training for the lawful use of firearms the laws governing such use are codified by each state. There is no 'wiggle room' in the law. Utah no longer requires 'practical qualification' with a handgun for their CFP; it is strictly a knowledge-based, 'will issue' state. It addresses only the question, "Have you been familiarized with the laws governing the lawful carrying and bringing to bear of a handgun, and the use of deadly force?" Utah law doesn't care what your race, religion or sexual orientation may be. The law doesn't care if you carry a camo'd .50cal Desert Eagle, or a pink .22 Raven... or if you can consistently hit what you're shooting at!

My point was simply that the members of the LGBT community are governed by the same laws when it comes to the application of deadly force. It has not been made clear to me that since the LGBTs are governed by the same CFP laws, why does there have to be a 'special course' designed specifically for them? They have two ears, two eyes, and one brain for absorbing the instruction, which is identical to the majority of the general population. Since there is no 'qualification training' required, the only reasons I can see for a special course of instruction, would be to accommodate those who are less than comfortable with their sexual orientation, and are still 'in the closet'... and a slightly different avenue for generating a surge in positive cash flow for the instructor(s).

I'm sure somebody will be yelling "bigot" or "homophobe" over my position, but I am neither. My position is based upon (my) logic. I am sympathetic to the fact that the LGBT community is subject to crimes motivated by 'hatred' (a subjective term), but I don't see the perpetrator's motivation as a crime in and of itself. The crime is when they take physical action against the victim. My 'logical' assumption is that we are all protected under the law from the crimes of murder, assault, rape, arson, etc. However, we have no Constitutional protections from being offended or upset by the actions of others, simply because what offends or upsets a specific person is beyond codification. SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE. will be offended by the word "HELLO"! If you want to be accepted into the 'mainstream of society', with all the benefits thereof, you cannot do so by requesting and enjoying special accommodations above and beyond those provided to all citizens in the Constitution.

Is The Glass Half Empty or Half Full? It's All A Matter of PERSPECTIVE...

Dreamer said:

I doubt that you have actually done any real research into this topic or you would not make such an easily disprovable statement. It took me less than 15 minutes of rudimentary Goggle-Fu to completely shoot down your biased opinion with stats from our own government...

Although the FBI's UCR from 2010 states that in the "hate crime" category, race and religion are the more frequent motivator for hate crimes:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-victims

"minority races" make up nearly 40% of the US population, whereas LGBT people are only about 7% on average of the US population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

So if nearly HALF the hate crimes are race-biased (which would include Whites, NOT just "minorities"), but nearly 20% were sexual orientation biased, this means that a MUCH higher percentage of LGBT people are being targeted, on average for hate crimes than any other "target group".

The statistics pretty much bear this out, and you are incorrect in your assumptions.

I humbly submit that you need to re-calibrate the "truthyness" of your own personal biases and prejudices, now that you actually have the REAL statistics from a "good citation"...

Have a nice day...

Click to expand...

Kudos to you, Dreamer, for researching the statistics! Another way of looking at those lovely FBI (government) stats:
· 51.8 percent were NOT victims of an offender’s bias against a race.
· 81.1 percent were NOT victims of an offender’s bias against a religion.
· 81.4 percent were NOT victims of an offender’s bias against a particular sexual orientation.
· 86.3 percent were NOT victims of an offender’s bias against an ethnicity/national origin.
· 99.4 percent were NOT victims of an offender’s bias against a disability.
So, the mean average of crimes that are NOT based upon an offender’s bias is an even 80 percent, and the median average is just slightly higher at 81.4%.

Please don't anybody take this personally (unless there's a reason to do so), but there's an old saying that goes, "Figures can lie, and liars can figure". Governments, among others (scientists, medical researchers, etc.), world-wide seem to share a policy of presenting statistics only in a light that is favorable to their position - in relation to what they want those governed to believe. Our government is not above distorting or manufacturing statistics to suit their purpose, or ignoring statistics that are counter to their position. This they have proven many times since 1776 (i.e. - unemployment statistics reflect only those who are presently drawing unemployment compensation, not those who are physically and mentally capable of working, yet have exhausted their unemployment benefits, and continue the job search. Neither do those statistics reflect those who have given up the job search in despair, nor do they include the 636,017 'homeless' (NAEH stat for 2011) living on our streets.

Statistics tend to work in favor of the organization compiling them. It's been said before, and I will say it again... "I love my country, but I don't trust my government." (Google "Operation Gunwalker") Pax!

MOLON LABE

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. - Mark Twain

Click to expand...

The 'data' I provided above may lead to the conclusion that the problem is not really a problem at all, except to the victim of course. Give your customers a price break, a more flexible schedule, whatever. As long as the training is in accordance with the law and they can get their 'permit'. Individual student characteristics are completely irrelevant, to some folks anyway.

Utah CCW Training said:

Not saying these classes have anything to do with that, but it’s a nice thought!

Click to expand...

I've made it a point to OC at locations which have been robbed at gunpoint. The employees are understandably a bit on edge for the first minute of our conversation, then they warm right up to the idea honest, law-abiding citizens carry firearms, and for a good cause, rather than to harm them. They inherently understand the deterrent/counter effect of OC.

A small percentage of store owners have been knuckleheads, saying "We don't allow firearms in this store." I'm itching to ask them, "How well did that rule work for you a couple of days ago?" but I usually just shut my mouth except for a "No worries. I'll take my business elsewhere."

since9 said:

I've made it a point to OC at locations which have been robbed at gunpoint. The employees are understandably a bit on edge for the first minute of our conversation, then they warm right up to the idea honest, law-abiding citizens carry firearms, and for a good cause, rather than to harm them. They inherently understand the deterrent/counter effect of OC.

A small percentage of store owners have been knuckleheads, saying "We don't allow firearms in this store." I'm itching to ask them, "How well did that rule work for you a couple of days ago?" but I usually just shut my mouth except for a "No worries. I'll take my business elsewhere."

Click to expand...

If its not posted in the store front, how are you supposed to know? I'll alway perfer OC any day of the week! The biggest issue is the knuckleheads that call the police because "there is a man with a gun in the store" or being asked to leave due to an unposted store policy. Most of the 7-11 stores here have police keeping watch at certain times of the day. If the criminal elements saw a person like you with an open carry, they will look elsewhere and the store locations will be safer based on their customers and the police officer can take on bigger issues. I blame the lack of education about guns/2nd Ad Rights is what fuels these type of people and they go by uneducated emotions. Guess that would describe just about any liberal!