OCing in Stratford Town Hall

[Lenny Benedetto]

imported post

Rich B wrote:

Lenny Benedetto wrote:

I would not want to be driving my car knowing that just because someone that is 16 they can automatically drive with out any formal training or passing some kind of minimal test.

Respectfully, I must point out the quality of drivers this churns out. When I look around at the drivers around me (especially when it snows), I am not seeing the cream of the crop and I don't get any warm, fuzzy feelings about the fact that our state potentially gave them licenses to drive. I don't believe the driving test or any of the other restrictions that are necessary really keep any of the worst drivers off the road.

Just like with the carry of firearms, people who don't want to undergo the training or are not capable can just drive or carry (illegally) without the license or permit (and they do).

Like I said, I am not trying to debate this. I never said anything about QUALITY. I said basic training, which is much better than nothing. If you cannot understand that point then fine.

I know that if I had my choice of being side by side on the firing line or any other place with another shooter, I would feel a bit safer knowing that the person next to me at least has some sort of basic training rather than none at all.

If you are bringing people that are breaking the law into this equation than you are not understanding my point at all.

And with that I end my posting on this subject.

 

[RR917]

imported post

also prefer the permit

 

[Rich B]

imported post

RR917 wrote:

also prefer the permit process... theres A LOT of people i know who i wouldnt trust with a firearm... a lot of stupid people, but more so, a lot of violent people..

Same here, but I fail to see where the permit process changes them or weeds them out unless they have a criminal record.

 

[atrule]

imported post

I believe that the permit process is unnecessary. Lenny and I have debated this on other threads. I believe that people would become safer as more people are acclimated to firearms. (This is one of the reasons we need people to OC in this state: to change the un-safe non-gun culture). I believe that, like driving, people will pick up on experience of people around them and develop it themselves, and through that they become safe drivers and safe gun owners. The more the merrier because of the development of culture.

However, I will repeat what someone else said on another thread, comparing the pistol permit to an airplane pilot's license: that it is a license to learn and that undergoing the permit process shows basic competency. I don't have my pilot's license, but I did take a few classes in it. And, I see that there is a certain culture of logical and calm action under stress that is around the airplane industry and community; a culture that OCers can learn from, especially at this early stage of re-introduction to the public.

Again, I don't believe that there should be a permit process. I believe Vermont's system is much better and more of what we need to be aiming for as Connecticutians. But, of all the reasoning to have the permit process, I found the notion that the permit is 'a license to learn' the most satisfying.

 

[Rich B]

imported post

atrule wrote:

I believe Vermont's system is much better and more of what we need to be aiming for as Connecticutians.

Absolutely.

 

[dcmdon]

imported post

Rich B wrote:

Lenny Benedetto wrote:

Rich B wrote:

dcmdon wrote:

"Look, the criminals don't even apply for pistol permits, its not the guys with the permits I worry about. Be safe".

Which is exactly why the permit process is so useless and unnecessary.

I disagree with our permit process being useless.

Oh so many years ago when I decided to get my permit, I had zero formal training in handgun use and safety.
Since the CT permit process requires the NRA training first, I did at least learn basic safety.
If I were to live in a state that did not require a permit to carry, the need or even desire to take any kind of training/safety course would probably have not happened and I would have been walking around with a gun without the benefit of the basics in handling and safety.

Now this is just my opinion and you may disagree if you want.
Let me also say that forced training is the only benefit I see with the permit process.

I am glad it worked for you, but I have seen plenty of people go through the same training and permit process that I would never be comfortable carrying around. So the permit process accomplishes nothing in my mind. Training is good, training is great, but just like our driver's license program, leaving it as a state mandate accomplishes nothing.

Good, smart people who want to be safe will seek out training and will be responsible members of society. People who are not smart and don't care about being safe will just do what they already do.

Rich,
I think thats wrong. There is a difference between an idiot who decides to carry but doesn't really know how to use a gun and a criminal. I do think that without a requirement for training, there would more poorly trained people carrying. These people would represent a threat to themselves and others.

So the permit process forces honest people to seek out training. I don't know how old you are, but at 42 I can still remember how cocky and invincible I was in my own mind, when I was 21. Training, who needs it. I get everything I need from Guns n Ammo.

I do agree that the background check portion of the permit process is pointless. As Detective Ayr said to me, criminals don't get permits.

One other thing. I've encountered a lot of poorly informed people in my pistol permit classes. Some of them were very familiar with the mechanics of shooting such as hunters or ex military guys. But they had never given full consideration to the defensive use of a handgun. I got the "dumb" questions from them as often as I got them from the homemaker who was only there because her husband wanted her to take the course.

1) So can't I just take it out and then he'll leave. (no, you don't present it unless you have already committed to pulling the trigger)
2) A cop told me the law says I can't carry in my car. (wrong)

The list goes on.

One other potential way to streamline the process, since I see the value in the training requirement but not the background check requirement is to allow the training instructor to issue permits on the spot, at the completion of the course.

Don

 

[Leverdude]

imported post

I think the reasons folks carry vary from region to region as do their experiences with guns. We feel a need for training, probably largely due to the regulated way we are used to dealing with guns, especially pistols. Virtually everyone in CT who has a handgun was forced to take a course.
Someone from a free state, like VT or other more generally gun friendly areas, might think training silly, like taking lessons to swing a hammer.
I'm not argueing the value of one thought process over the other, just offering up my thoughts.

That aside I think an automobile is a much more dangerous & difficult to operate thing that a gun. I'v an 11 year old I can hand a gun and a brick of 22's to and not give it a second thought. Sure wouldn't let him drive my truck though. Just sayin.

 

[dcmdon]

imported post

Before you get a drivers license you need to pass a test. I'd be good with that rather than an actual training requirement.

 

[Rich B]

imported post

It is fine if you disagree with me, but reality agrees with me. The doom and gloom that is forecast with every additional freedom we take back is simply not happening.

A great many states allow open carry with no permit and some allow concealed carry with no permit. They are not plagued with crime or any other terrible things. Quite the opposite in fact.

I understand the emotions behind the argument for permits, but the logic is backed by facts on the side against permits.

 

[Leverdude]

imported post

dcmdon wrote:

Rich B wrote:

Lenny Benedetto wrote:

Rich B wrote:

dcmdon wrote:

"Look, the criminals don't even apply for pistol permits, its not the guys with the permits I worry about. Be safe".

Which is exactly why the permit process is so useless and unnecessary.

I disagree with our permit process being useless.

Oh so many years ago when I decided to get my permit, I had zero formal training in handgun use and safety.
Since the CT permit process requires the NRA training first, I did at least learn basic safety.
If I were to live in a state that did not require a permit to carry, the need or even desire to take any kind of training/safety course would probably have not happened and I would have been walking around with a gun without the benefit of the basics in handling and safety.

Now this is just my opinion and you may disagree if you want.
Let me also say that forced training is the only benefit I see with the permit process.

I am glad it worked for you, but I have seen plenty of people go through the same training and permit process that I would never be comfortable carrying around. So the permit process accomplishes nothing in my mind. Training is good, training is great, but just like our driver's license program, leaving it as a state mandate accomplishes nothing.

Good, smart people who want to be safe will seek out training and will be responsible members of society. People who are not smart and don't care about being safe will just do what they already do.

Rich,
I think thats wrong. There is a difference between an idiot who decides to carry but doesn't really know how to use a gun and a criminal. I do think that without a requirement for training, there would more poorly trained people carrying. These people would represent a threat to themselves and others.

So the permit process forces honest people to seek out training. I don't know how old you are, but at 42 I can still remember how cocky and invincible I was in my own mind, when I was 21. Training, who needs it. I get everything I need from Guns n Ammo.

I do agree that the background check portion of the permit process is pointless. As Detective Ayr said to me, criminals don't get permits.

One other thing. I've encountered a lot of poorly informed people in my pistol permit classes. Some of them were very familiar with the mechanics of shooting such as hunters or ex military guys. But they had never given full consideration to the defensive use of a handgun. I got the "dumb" questions from them as often as I got them from the homemaker who was only there because her husband wanted her to take the course.

1) So can't I just take it out and then he'll leave. (no, you don't present it unless you have already committed to pulling the trigger)
2) A cop told me the law says I can't carry in my car. (wrong)

The list goes on.

One other potential way to streamline the process, since I see the value in the training requirement but not the background check requirement is to allow the training instructor to issue permits on the spot, at the completion of the course.

Don

Thing is that those thoughts about uneducated gun carriers being a threat to themselves or others are unfounded. The places with the most lax laws dont see any higher accident rates. Its easy to think things up, but the stats would be plastered all over the media if they showed that places with lax restrictions had higher incidence of gun issues.

As to the rest, instructors have spread misinformation quite alot too. Thankfully thats turning around. Not everybody gets a permit or a gun for personal saftey or defense either. A guy wanting to shoot Monday evening bullseye doesn't need the same training as a mall store ninja etc.

IMHO its a personal thing & since its supposed to be a right we are talking about I'm not inclined to tell someone else how to excercise it.

 

[JohnnyO]

imported post

Rich,
I think thats wrong. There is a difference between an idiot who decides to carry but doesn't really know how to use a gun and a criminal. I do think that without a requirement for training, there would more poorly trained people carrying. These people would represent a threat to themselves and others.

So the permit process forces honest people to seek out training. I don't know how old you are, but at 42 I can still remember how cocky and invincible I was in my own mind, when I was 21. Training, who needs it. I get everything I need from Guns n Ammo.

I do agree that the background check portion of the permit process is pointless. As Detective Ayr said to me, criminals don't get permits.

One other thing. I've encountered a lot of poorly informed people in my pistol permit classes. Some of them were very familiar with the mechanics of shooting such as hunters or ex military guys. But they had never given full consideration to the defensive use of a handgun. I got the "dumb" questions from them as often as I got them from the homemaker who was only there because her husband wanted her to take the course.

I am not trying to disagree with you but I would like to point out that the training associated with the permit process is minimal and extremely rudimentary.

I my opinion the basic NRA training that is required for a pistol permit is nothing more than a gun safety class and hardly prepares an individual to use a handgun for defensive purposes.

 

[Rich B]

imported post

Leverdude wrote:

IMHO its a personal thing & since its supposed to be a right we are talking about I'm not inclined to tell someone else how to excercise it.

Where the pro permit argument breaks down is there is no evidence that states with no permit requirements have problems (quite the opposite actually). And there is no evidence that the "training" mandated by our permit accomplishes anything.

Much the same way any idiot can pass the driving test and get a license, anyone can get a permit. And much the same way we end with stupid drivers, we can end up with stupid permit holders. That is just a basic fact of life.

When we have to weigh the two, I see no benefit to the permit, and I always err on the side of freedom.

That being said, understand I am not against training at all. I think it should be a mandatory part of our education curriculum actually. Pro gun or anti gun, your kids should know basic firearm safety.

 

[dcmdon]

imported post

Rich and John,

You both raise good logical points.

I am just continually astonished at how ill informed many of the people who I encounter in class.

 

[Rich B]

imported post

dcmdon wrote:

Rich and John,

You both raise good logical points.

I am just continually astonished at how ill informed many of the people who I encounter in class.

You say that like the class somehow fixes them. As they say, "You can't fix stupid".

I know of at least one permit holder of 24 years who is massively uninformed to the point of being a danger, and many LEOs who were not informed any better.

 

[RR917]

imported post

Rich B wrote:

RR917 wrote:

also prefer the

 

[Leverdude]

imported post

I cant comprehend how an infringement on a basic constitutional right is an acceptable necessary evil. Just because we can imagine ways that some people might cause trouble in no way gives anybody the right to infringe someones civil rights. Alot of the things I'm reading in this thread are thoughts that work against us & based on emotional drivel.
Our opinions are just that, opinions. If your ok with inflicting your opinion on others dont be upset when they inflict you with theirs. After all, the antigunners are doing exactly the same thing to a different degree. Every free person in the US has the right to keep & bear arms, whether the rest of us think they are responsible enough or not. Remember that presumption of innocence?
Theres no reasonable way to say that if your friend had a gun he would have used it instead of bottles etc & doing so does nobody any good. Its a fact that in states like CT where you need a permit to buy a gun that some people have suffered because of the delay. Women have been raped & killed because the authorities cant protect them & they had to deal with delays & waiting periods. IMO its inexcusable to require a permit for any use or posession of a handgun. CC I can deal with needing a permit, but needing one for OC or just to buy a gun is plainly a violation of basic civil rights & liberties.

Something either is a right or it isn't a right. If you need a permit to do it its not a right, or not recognized as one anyway.

 

[Leverdude]

imported post

JohnO wrote:

I am not trying to disagree with you but I would like to point out that the training associated with the permit process is minimal and extremely rudimentary.

I my opinion the basic NRA training that is required for a pistol permit is nothing more than a gun safety class and hardly prepares an individual to use a handgun for defensive purposes.

I agree, but in the case of CT its fine because not everybody wanting a permit wants to carry for defense. All that should be required is the NRA basic pistol course if anything at all. PA requires nothing beyond proof of who you are. At any rate why would someone wanting a pistol for hunting or target shooting need in depth defense training? They wouldn't & forcing them to go thru it just because some of us carry for protection is wrong. I'll be honest & say I learned almost nothing from my basic pistol course, but I'v been shooting since an early age. You cant even really fail the course if you are even almost trying.

I will say I think the backround check is ok, criminals dont try for permits because they cannot get them, if they could I think some would. Course they'd theoretically not be able to buy a gun anyway. I just find the backround check a pretty harmless thing since NICS is already in place and I need a permit anyway.

Actually I think with NICS up & running permits are much less important than they once were. They once proved that you were eligeable as well as competent to own a gun. NICS now proves eligibility instantly and since I dont think competency should be a requirement for owning a thing, that points moot.

What a great concept eh? Use a piece of the Brady bill to justify the nullification of CT's carry permit laws.:lol:

 

[Rich B]

imported post

+1 to Leverdude.

Well said. There is a certain emotional bias of "I had to get a permit, so should everyone else." and it just doesn't hold water. I understand it, and I once thought that way as well. Logic and reasoning have won me over. The permit law does nothing to prevent crime or make us more safe. It does prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their rights.

We already have on the spot background checks. We can be sure criminals are not buying firearms legally. Training is a matter of common sense. If someone opts out and does sometgibg wrong, we have laws for that.

Too often we as humans get caught up in this notion that we can prevent crime before it happens. We can't. That is just the way it is. Whether it be from stupidity or maliciousness or both, everyone has the right to be trusted until they demonstrate a reason to not trust them.

 

[dcmdon]

imported post

OK, let me speak more generally.

My goal would be to not prevent crimes, but possibly to prevent stupid accidents by raising the lowest common denominator.

I think then that in fairness you should be able to test out of taking a course.

 

[Rich B]

imported post

dcmdon wrote:

OK, let me speak more generally.

My goal would be to not prevent crimes, but possibly to prevent stupid accidents by raising the lowest common denominator.

I think then that in fairness you should be able to test out of taking a course.

But you miss the point we keep repeating. The current training does not make anyone more safe. There are not more accidents per capita in places like Vermont, Arizona or Alaska.

People who want to be safe will seek oyt training to make them safe. Stupid people who are not safety oriented will not. You cannot change that.