So when do you shoot someone?

[spaniel]

Not sure what you think is wrong? I haven't really come out on one side of anything or the other. I'm asking questions. Is that wrong?

Quoting you from Post #9 in this thread, "It's scary that classes are not required". Perhaps you did not intend to take a side, but to the reader this seems a pretty clear comment supporting mandatory classes.

And no, it is not wrong to ask questions and I did not say anything to indicate differently. I think the attitude you have gotten in this thread is very disappointing. I have not been on this forum long myself but I really wish there was more reasonable discussion and less internet-tough-guy.​

 

[churchmouse]

I'm pretty sure he was referring to force on force scenarios with firearms, not fist fighting.

I know.....just running my keyboard.....

 

[churchmouse]

the "force on force" training being referred to is not hand to hand type fighting. It's firearm training using simunition rounds, putting you into specific scenarios, where you actually use a firearm to shoot someone. See the website for midset labs, which is here in Indiana.

I/we do this as well. Just making a reference to the fact that there are options to actually shooting someone with the right training.

And....just running my keyboard.

 

[Snapdragon]

Rather than REQUIRE it, if it's a good idea, why not incentivize it (like I mentioned in my previous post?)

Discounts on LTCH fees for those who submit a class certificate at the time of application.

That's sort of what I was getting at when I said I thought training should be "strongly promoted and encouraged". I think the incentivizing is a good idea.

 

[ColdSteel223]

Maybe a woman should be required to have training before having sex. Since it is her choice with all of the repercussions of that action.

 

[Dead Duck]

Maybe a woman should be required to have training before having sex. Since it is her choice with all of the repercussions of that action.

OK -

He has a good point here.
I can get behind this idea.

 

[Manatee]

And who said misogyny is dead?

 

[Bunnykid68]

And who said misogyny is dead?

Not anymore dead than misandry
[h=1][/h]

 

[Captain Morgan]

It's scary that classes are not required.

When you get a driver's license, you have to demonstrate that you know how to use a motor vehicle appropriately. Why not a gun? I know, I know, because rules are bad and we don't want the gubmint telling us what to do.

Not sure what you think is wrong? I haven't really come out on one side of anything or the other. I'm asking questions. Is that wrong?

Yeah, just sort of thinking out loud that it's a little scary that someone can own such a deadly weapon without any training. Wasn't really taking a stand either way.

Never did I say what I thought would be best. Ever. Those words were assumed and put into my mouth, and then people started arguing against a position I never took. Do I think it's scary that people are walking around with guns and have no clue how or when to use them? Absolutely. Did I ever take a stand on whether training should be required? No.

I raised the comparison of getting a driver's license and getting a gun license out of curiosity because I didn't clearly see the difference. I did not take a stand either way. Again, most posters heard what they wanted to hear and started arguing against a position I never took rather than genuinely trying to enlighten me.

"It's scary that classes aren't required" implies that it would be less scary if classes were required, which implies that it would be better if classes were required. So yeah, it seems like you're saying that you would prefer if classes were required.

My original question was almost a rhetorical one-- a thinking-out-loud realization that **** just got real. I know training is necessary. I have had training and plan to continue it. (Not that anyone even asked.) But as you say, nothing can truly prepare you for every situation where you may have to pull that trigger.

You said your question was rhetorical, and almost "thinking out loud," but it still describes your thoughts on the matter. I gave an explanation as to why people assumed you thought mandatory training is a good thing, yet you completely ignored it. Does the logic below make sense to you?

That's a lot of 'implying' and 'seeming like' and 'preferring', all of which are vague. If anyone had asked rather than assuming they knew what I thought, I would have told them that I am undecided about whether handgun training should be "required" or just more strongly promoted and encouraged. I was able to buy two guns and secure my LTCH without any mention whatsoever of the necessity of training or practicing. I took it upon myself to A) join this forum to become better educated B) take an NRA class and C) go to the range weekly to practice firing my guns. But not everyone knows what is available or feels the same level of responsibility, and yes, I think that's scary.

If buying a gun or getting a license without being required to have training is "scary," then what would you classify as "less scary" or "better than the current system" in regards to firearm ownership and ability to carry?

I'll just leave this here.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs..." - Theodore Roosevelt

I choose to let every man decide for himself how much training he needs. It's not my job, nor my problem. Nor is it anyone else's save the man who finds himself in the arena of battle. His choices are then truly his own.

 

[Snapdragon]

I'll just leave this here.

Already answered it.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I'm halfway serious here. I've got my LTCH. Got my guns. What I'm lacking is confidence about when it's appropriate to shoot in self-defense and when it's not. I know I have fairly good judgment, but I worry whether I will make the right decision about who/how/when/if to shoot if the time ever comes.

If I see a red sash, I kill the man.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Already answered it.

No, you didn't. If buying a gun or getting a license without being required to have training is "scary," then what would you classify as "less scary" or "better than the current system" in regards to firearm ownership and ability to carry?

 

[Snapdragon]

Not going there again.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Not going there again.

Why? Is it too difficult to answer a direct question? You complained that people jumped to conclusions about your mindset without asking you what you actually think. I asked direct questions about what you think would be better and "less scary," yet you refuse to answer the questions.

 

[ColdSteel223]

Maybe there should be training required to speak in public. I mean how dangerous would it be have people running around just shooting their mouths of about stuff.

How about a test to vote. Wouldn't that solve a bunch of problems?

 

[Jack Burton]

Jack: She already has to have an LTCH, so your point on further regulation is really only incrementalism.

The problem does exist as has been posted on other threads: reciprocity and ignorance are only two examples.

I remember taking a Coast Guard course on line many years ago in order to get my certification. It was informative and painless. I know all red-blooded boys feel they know everything there is to know about boating, so why the need for a course? Well, the rules of the road are mostly not understood by the public. The course went a long way to correcting that ignorance…and it also reduced insurance premiums.

I wonder how many INGO member could pass a simple test on the rights and responsibilities of handgun carry?

You still have not shown a problem to be solved. When you can prove that Indiana carriers are somehow inferior in lawful behavioiur to those carriers in other states that have mandatory training then get back to us. Otherwise your only argument is, and always will be, "I happen to like it."

 

[Snapdragon]

Why? Is it too difficult to answer a direct question? You complained that people jumped to conclusions about your mindset without asking you what you actually think. I asked direct questions about what you think would be better and "less scary," yet you refuse to answer the questions.

Answered it. You even quoted my answer a few posts up. " If anyone had asked rather than assuming they knew what I thought, I would have told them that I am undecided about whether handgun training should be "required" or just more strongly promoted and encouraged."

 

[ColdSteel223]

Have we discussed these topics before? I just thought I would toss these ideas out for discussion.


Maybe a woman should be required to have training before having sex. Since it is her choice with all of the repercussions of that action.

Maybe there should be training required to speak in public. I mean how dangerous would it be have people running around just shooting their mouths of about stuff.

How about a test to vote. Wouldn't that solve a bunch of problems?

 

[Captain Morgan]

Answered it. You even quoted my answer a few posts up. " If anyone had asked rather than assuming they knew what I thought, I would have told them that I am undecided about whether handgun training should be "required" or just more strongly promoted and encouraged."

You completed that post with, "I took it upon myself to A) join this forum to become better educated B) take an NRA class and C) go to the range weekly to practice firing my guns. But not everyone knows what is available or feels the same level of responsibility, and yes, I think that's scary."

AFTER that, I asked what you think would be less scary than the current system (of no training or education requirement).

Let me try asking a different way. You've already informed us that you think it's scary that training is not required.

What, exactly, would you find to NOT be scary, when it comes to people purchasing, owning, and carrying firearms?