Pages

Jump to bottom

74 comments

1 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 30, 2014 3:59:26pm

I realize, by the way, I didn’t at all address a host of issues, like mental competence, whether we should let people who are known to be drunks or otherwise irresponsible have guns. That area is even trickier: I am trying to stick here with just a reasonable, straightforward idea that people with guns should be trained in the use of those guns and able to demonstrate that they can use those guns for the purpose they have them.

2 Romantic Heretic  Jul 30, 2014 5:09:55pm

Good one.

The biggest problem is going to be changing the gun culture. Guns, as I’ve said before, are literally a holy icon in the States. A symbol of American exceptionality. Very few people will be willing to do that.

I agree that training is a big thing. Most people only know what end of the gun the bang comes out of. Wise use of a firearm requires far more than that.

3 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 30, 2014 5:23:21pm

Glad to see this Page up. It’s good to see you put your views up front. Some who have read our discussions might think I don’t respect your point of view or vice versa. That would be wrong. Good people come to differing conclusions all the time.

Disclosure to those who may not know- I have personal and professional interests here. I (sometimes) make a little money teaching gun skills and I serve on the BOD of one of SoCals largest public shooting ranges. Former NRA 5 discipline certified, then later got disgusted with ILA and dropped all things NRA. My wife and I have both have been competitors in handgun competitions including the World Speed Shooting Championship & IDPA.

I had already been including use of force law lessons in JKD martial arts classes that I once taught very regularly. That’s how I regard that responsibility. It’s not terribly likely a defensive blow will kill an attacker but an abundance of caution was my decision with no regrets. A fifty something body had cut back on the hard sparring workouts. Ah youth…

In principle I agree with a lot of what you have to say Obdicut. Requiring a knowledge of the rules and a well chosen minimum skill level makes excellent sense, of course the devil is in the details. Stop short of what’s needed, and the classes and tests don’t do what they need to. Go way too far and you wind up with a different set of problems. I’m in full agreement with almost all of Californians gun control laws. I don’t approve of blanket bans. Not on guns and not on CCW.

You will notice a lack of reference to the 2nd amendment. This is because referencing the 2nd amendment is not an argument, but just a citation of fact.

To me facts like existing laws deserve to be a part of an argument like this. So many other facts are welcome. Like gun accident rates. The current status of the 2nd is of course a fact that works in favor of basic gun rights and does not impede sensible regulations. ILA lobbyists & overly compliant legislators do that.

What has been done by the court of course can be undone by the court. For todays discussion I do consider todays status of the law. That means the 2nd as an individual right and it includes many regulations that held up to legal review just fine.

So-Two words describe a good argument for a defensive weapon, gun or otherwise. Self defense. Unless you play the sport why have a baseball bat? That defense right exists so the innocent may prevail in the immediate face of a predatory assault. A fighting chance. That’s a very basic right recognized from ancient times. So far back I think the weapon at hand was probably bronze. Or a club. Like any right of any significance, judgement and responsibility must apply at all times. Hard limits. Chasing a bad guy is not defense. Neither is preemptive action. To those who would say to another person that a defensive use gun is not for them at home, what then may they have for a last resort defense? Keep both the long odds and the serious nature of an actual assault in mind, though my intent is a rhetorical question to shape the thought experiment/decision process that precedes buying a gun and discussion in general.

I like what you have to say about risks being included to the facts presented to existing and potential gun owners. I don’t agree that your argument using those hard to take gun accident, violence and suicide facts means the right path is a ban enshrined in law as some (not you) would say.

About that training for your intended purpose-I’m going to suggest to most potential gun owners that they take a defensive course regardless. Am I featherbedding for my income? Not really. Dual use-Under attack many of us will grab whatever we can in self defense. If you have a gun and hear someone forcing their way into your home or hear gunfire close by like in your backyard you might just grab that gun. It can’t hurt you to learn more. If you are a hunter start with hunter safety and rules. Then step up and take the defensive course.

Thank you Obdi for recognizing the differences among us gun owners. The sensible among us have a difficult double duty task- Encourage reason and a bit of rhetorical moderation from both sides of what can be a very divisive topic. Sadly runaway rhetoric has led to all kinds of stupid memes and a hardening of resolve to not give in to the “other side”. I try my best to educate either side of the issue. This blog helps.

Well apparently I shoot better than I tweet-Capturing the Title “My Proposal For Gun Rights” was a mistake. I should have changed that. Deleted. And fixed.

Gotta go home and see to dinner probably BBL. But just in case-
Again thanks for a good Page.

4 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 30, 2014 5:38:46pm

re: #3 Rightwingconspirator

Thank you for your kind words. A few problems:

To me facts like existing laws deserve to be a part of an argument like this. So many other facts are welcome. Like gun accident rates. The current status of the 2nd is of course a fact that works in favor of basic gun rights and does not impede sensible regulations. ILA lobbyists & overly compliant legislators do that.

I’m sorry, but this doesn’t address the reasons I gave why the 2nd amendment is not appropriate to use in the argument. Do you care to address the reasons I gave?

What has been done by the court of course can be undone by the court. For todays discussion I do consider todays status of the law. That means the 2nd as an individual right and it includes many regulations that held up to legal review just fine.

I’m not just talking about today, though, and you shouldn’t either. If gun owners continue on their current course, politically, resisting common-sense gun regulations, they will eventually, and possibly very, very quickly, face an enormous backlash and restriction of their rights. Look to the future.

So-Two words describe a good argument for a defensive weapon, gun or otherwise. Self defense … Unless you play the sport why have a baseball bat?

Good question. Why? Do you mean for self-defense? I’m not following that part.

And again: Many countries have the right to self-defense while strictly limiting gun rights. So saying ‘self-defense’ does not form an argument. Self-defense without a gun is perfectly possible, and self-defense is also something that will, for most people, never come up in a situation where a gun would have benefitted them.

Thank you Obdi for recognizing the differences among us gun owners. The sensible among us have a difficult double duty task- Encourage reason and a bit of rhetorical moderation from both sides of what can be a very divisive topic. Sadly runaway rhetoric has led to all kinds of stupid memes and a hardening of resolve to not give in to the “other side”. I try my best to educate either side of the issue. This blog helps.

Can you please state clearly if you agree with the proposal that everyone with a gun should be required to train for the purpose they have the gun and to be tested in that training?

This would, of course, mean that many, many current gun owners in places like Texas where gun laws are incredibly lax would actually have to get training.

5 EPR-radar  Jul 30, 2014 8:01:48pm

re: #4 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

I’m not just talking about today, though, and you shouldn’t either. If gun owners continue on their current course, politically, resisting common-sense gun regulations, they will eventually, and possibly very, very quickly, face an enormous backlash and restriction of their rights. Look to the future.

Guns in the US is a clear case where a backlash pattern is very likely to occur, if any real changes end up occurring. I can’t imagine the sustained level of death/injury (and/or spectacularly horrific incidents) it would take to generate political will for any real change to US gun laws or gun culture.

However, I think it is fair to say that the difference between the outrage required to get to a compromise position of increased responsibility (without a ban) and the outrage that would lead to a significant ban is infinitesimal compared to the threshold for getting any changes made at all.

So the NRA’s intransigence has pretty much guaranteed that if anything real ends up happening relating to guns, it is likely to be very onerous indeed for gun owners and users.

6 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 30, 2014 8:28:09pm
I’m sorry, but this doesn’t address the reasons I gave why the 2nd amendment is not appropriate to use in the argument. Do you care to address the reasons I gave?

Briefly, sure. Decisions that are close have the same impact on the actions of those subject to the decision as a unanimous decision. Where one draws the line as to facts to exclude is a too subjective for me.

Good question. Why? Do you mean for self-defense? I’m not following that part.

And again: Many countries have the right to self-defense while strictly limiting gun rights. So saying ‘self-defense’ does not form an argument. Self-defense without a gun is perfectly possible, and self-defense is also something that will, for most people, never come up in a situation where a gun would have benefited them.

Many countries may well be right for them, but wrong for us. Lets say a country restricts gun ownership so a ordinary citizen can’t get one. Fine, What stops a criminal from getting a gun or another weapon that a law abiding victim cannot overcome short of a weapon a capable as a pistol? little if anything depending on details about that un named country and the prevalence of dangerous weapons in the hands of predators.

Can you please state clearly if you agree with the proposal that everyone with a gun should be required to train for the purpose they have the gun and to be tested in that training?

This would, of course, mean that many, many current gun owners in places like Texas where gun laws are incredibly lax would actually have to get training.
Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com

I have already agreed in principle. And I would submit that those who already have guns should have the option of going straight to testing to respect the training they already have. Or to correct where they don’t.

7 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 30, 2014 8:35:17pm

re: #6 Rightwingconspirator

Briefly, sure. Decisions that are close have the same impact on the actions of those subject to the decision as a unanimous decision.

They don’t, though. Dissents get used in legal argument all the time. Do you not know this?

Many countries may well be right for them, but wrong for us. Lets say a country restricts gun ownership so a ordinary citizen can’t get one. Fine, What stops a criminal from getting a gun or another weapon that a law abiding victim cannot overcome short of a weapon a capable as a pistol? little if anything depending on details about that un named country and the prevalence of dangerous weapons in the hands of predators.

You didn’t understand, or answer, the question.

You are saying “Self-defense’ is the argument for gun rights. Other countries recognize the right to self defense but still restrict guns. We recognize the right to self defense but still restrict body armor. Saying ‘self-defense’ does not lead inevitably to ‘therefore gun rights’, and you are acting as though it does.

Lets say a country restricts gun ownership so a ordinary citizen can’t get one. Fine, What stops a criminal from getting a gun or another weapon that a law abiding victim cannot overcome short of a weapon a capable as a pistol?

Well, in general the lower availability of guns in that country means that far fewer criminals will be armed. However, my proposal isn’t ‘restrict gun ownership so an ordinary citizen can’t get one’, so why are you asking me this? The reason I brought up other countries was to make the common-sense point that ‘gun rights’ and ‘self defense rights’ are not synonymous.

I have already agreed in principle. And I would submit that those who already have guns should have the option of going straight to testing to respect the training they already have. Or to correct where they don’t.

Great. I’m glad to make progress. So will you advocate this to other gun enthusiasts, that we end the practice of letting people own guns who are untrained with them? And since I already said that people who have already been trained can be tested, you don’t need to ‘submit’ that, it’s fine. It has to be a test that actually tests the scenario they want to use the gun in, though. Not just safety and accuracy and targeting, but real situational stuff.

8 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 30, 2014 8:41:04pm
Great. I’m glad to make progress. So will you advocate this to other gun enthusiasts, that we end the practice of letting people own guns who are untrained with them? And since I already said that people who have already been trained can be tested, you don’t need to ‘submit’ that, it’s fine. It has to be a test that actually tests the scenario they want to use the gun in, though. Not just safety and accuracy and targeting, but real situational stuff.

To what degree have you seen or been shown how good training in fundamental tactical skills translates from one situation to another? I’d like to see a refutation explanation of how the basics of defensive training fail when circumstances change. Edit-In your view or that of a pro trainer.

9 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 30, 2014 8:46:27pm
Well, in general the lower availability of guns in that country means that far fewer criminals will be armed. However, my proposal isn’t ‘restrict gun ownership so an ordinary citizen can’t get one’, so why are you asking me this? The reason I brought up other countries was to make the common-sense point that ‘gun rights’ and ‘self defense rights’ are not synonymous.

Let’s not conflate “armed” and with a gun.
The logical problem here is the bad guy may have a club or blade, and the good citizen who may be smaller or older sitting at home or at their business cannot overcome the attack without a weapon as capable as a gun. Having the right to self defense is not the same as access to effective tools of self defense.

Side note-i’m tired, and not typing well. Long tough day, lots of personal family drama. MIL is in the hospital and I have real world things to do.

I rest my case as stated.

Be well Obdi.

10 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 30, 2014 8:46:43pm

re: #8 Rightwingconspirator

To what degree have you seen or been shown how good training in fundamental tactical skills translates from one situation to another?

I haven’t. I’ve been told authoritatively, by friends who are cops, friends who are military, friends who are SWAT members, that the domains are very different and that most people are wildly overconfident in their ability to use weapons in a real crisis situation.

I’d like to see a refutation explanation of how the basics of defensive training fail when circumstances change. Edit-In your view or that of a pro trainer.

Well, you see, the circumstances change. I’m really not sure what to tell you. The main point isn’t the circumstances, it’s being tested in a way that attempts to get to the panic that you’d be feeling in the real circumstances.

11 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 30, 2014 8:48:37pm

re: #9 Rightwingconspirator

gun. Having the right to self defense is not the same as access to effective tools of self defense.

Yes, exactly. Which is why you saying ‘self-defense’ does not support a right to own guns. Which is what I said.

I also am not sure why we’re still talking about this, since what I proposes allows anyone to own a gun for self defense if they can demonstrate competence with it under testing. I would prefer that we also verify need, but I will happily settle with gun owners proving themselves competent in a crisis.

12 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 30, 2014 8:49:23pm
Well, you see, the circumstances change. I’m really not sure what to tell you. The main point isn’t the circumstances, it’s being tested in a way that attempts to get to the panic that you’d be feeling in the real circumstances.

I’ll look at this tomorrow.

13 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 30, 2014 8:56:43pm

Also: So will you advocate this to other gun enthusiasts, that we end the practice of letting people own guns who are untrained with them?

14 goddamnedfrank  Jul 30, 2014 9:32:51pm

re: #7 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

We recognize the right to self defense but still restrict body armor.

The United States actually doesn’t restrict body armor, except to felons. Same as guns. Connecticut restricts civilians to face to face transactions, no internet.

You do need State Department permission to export body armor.

15 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 30, 2014 9:42:36pm

re: #14 goddamnedfrank

The United States actually doesn’t restrict body armor, except to felons. Same as guns. Connecticut restricts civilians to face to face transactions, no internet.

You do need State Department permission to export body armor.

Huh. I thought it was in the aftermath of that thing in LA. Anyway, the point remains the same: Everyone restricts something for self-defense. It’s just various points where it stops.

16 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 5:52:06am

re: #13 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Also: So will you advocate this to other gun enthusiasts, that we end the practice of letting people own guns who are untrained with them?

I already have been advocating, and much more. California has a safety test required to buy a handgun at all. Most states don’t. I’m exactly the kind of person that will be needed to teach for the tests, give then and do the practical testing.

What’s the difference in practical terms between a guy that buys for target shooting and not defense?

Storage requirements and safety in regular handling are the same.

17 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 5:59:57am

re: #16 Rightwingconspirator

I already have been advocating, and much more. California has a safety test required to buy a handgun at all. Most states don’t. I’m exactly the kind of person that will be needed to teach for the tests, give then and do the practical testing.

What ‘more’ are you advocating?

What’s the difference in practical terms between a guy that buys for target shooting and not defense?

The guy who buys for target shooting should leave his gun at the range. If he wants to take it home, he should train for home defense.

Storage requirements and safety in regular handling are the same.

And that’s a problem.

18 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 6:01:01am

re: #11 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Yes, exactly. Which is why you saying ‘self-defense’ does not support a right to own guns. Which is what I said.

Given the nature of violent attacks particularly at home or ones place of business. I don’t agree that it’s appropriate to make it impossible, illegal or terribly difficult for the law abiding to get and properly store a gun.

Self defense means not just in the abstract but in the practical as to the best, most effective tool to do that job if needed.

19 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 6:03:43am

re: #17 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

What ‘more’ are you advocating?

Training and testing.

The guy who buys for target shooting should leave his gun at the range. If he wants to take it home, he should train for home defense.

As a matter of law? Not just no but hell no.

20 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 6:07:43am

re: #19 Rightwingconspirator

Training and testing.

Which is what I’m advocating. In the last thread, you were resisting the idea that the current training might not be enough. What is the ‘more’ that you are advocating?

As a matter of law? Not just no but hell no.

Then you don’t, actually, want more. Can you explain why, if someone has a gun at home, they shouldn’t be trained in the use of it for home defense?

You’re contradicting yourself kind of rapidly here.

21 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 6:10:02am

Hell no continued…
Lots of that practice with the gun short of firing it happens at home. We may well like to shoot at a variety of locations.

Obdi could you explain the differences between the two men I described in the previous page? That both trained at the academy and have a gun at home. Only one of them being a cop, but both get into a confrontation with a bad guy at home? By what measure is the training inadequate?

22 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 6:13:02am

re: #21 Rightwingconspirator

Hell no continued…
Lots of that practice with the gun short of firing it happens at home. We may well like to shoot at a variety of locations.

Okay, So you want the person to be able to own a gun at home but be disallowed from using that gun for self-defense?

Obdi could you explain the differences between the two men I described in the previous page? That both trained at the academy and have a gun at home. Only one of them being a cop, but both get into a confrontation with a bad guy at home? By what measure is the training inadequate?

I have no idea why you keep asking a question I’ve answered. My friend on SWAT and numerous other firearms people have said that training for a crisis and ordinary shooting are not comparable, that you can be A+ on gun safety and ‘defensive shooting’ in theory but still utterly be unprepared for a crisis situation. I want a test that actually addresses performance in a crisis situation.

If their training prepares them for this, there is no problem: they pass the test. If it doesn’t, then they get more training specifically for crisis stuff, and then (hopefully) pass the test.

What is the problem here?

23 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 6:19:56am

re: #22 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

I see, so a POST certified policeman by your measure is not qualified to defend himself at home with his service gun.

You lost me there. I don’t agree. The level of training you demand is excessive for a minimum starting requirement under the law.

This is me in complete disagreement.

24 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 6:22:13am

re: #23 Rightwingconspirator

I see, so a POST certified policeman by your measure is not qualified to defend himself at home with his service gun.

We’ve been over this. Please stop repeating it as though it’s new, and explain what your actual problem with this is. The POST certifed may or may not be qualified. If he passes the test, he’s qualified. If 99% of POST certified people pass the test we can dispense with the test for POST certified people.

What is the problem with that?

You lost me there. I don’t agree. The level of training you demand is excessive for a minimum starting requirement under the law.

This is me in complete disagreement

Why, though? If, as you say, POST training is sufficient then they’ll pass the test with no problem. So why are you freaking out about it?

Also, can you explain why you think someone doing target shooting should be able to keep their gun at home without being trained for its use in home defense? Do you want that person legally barred from using it in self-defense at home?

25 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 6:27:04am

re: #24 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

You are resisting my point of view and somehow misunderstood. My point is that training and testing at about the level POST calls for is adequate as a start to have the gun at work as a cop or at home as a ordinary guy for defense.

For starting to learn to shoot, beginning with sport/target shooting what California requires now will do.

Self defense with a gun is really not all that difficult except in extremis where you have multiple bad guys or they got all the way to you or a family member before you could act.

The problem we have is criminal use of guns. Misadventure. Theft of guns by bad guys. The exact level of tactical training is not what’s making the difference in gun accidents, suicide or domestic violence.

Try being hard on the bad guys and kind to the good guys for a change.

26 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 6:32:48am

Here is how it goes real world. First a guy is a target shooter to get the right habits for safety, storage, handling and yes shooting skills. He practices dry fire and sight picture etc at home. Handling. Then as he gets better he takes tactical type training, the diff being more use of force law lessons and a somewhat more sophisticated kind of shooting. Like from behind concealment like a door or wall.

And if we really want to do the big thing that makes a big diff in gun deaths, get the heck after the gangs that are having gunfights damn near daily. Double positive-You reduce both deaths directly and reduce the practical necessity of a violent defense for the good guys in the area.

27 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 6:33:00am

re: #25 Rightwingconspirator

You are resisting my point of view and somehow misunderstood. My point is that training and testing at about the level POST calls for is adequate as a start to have the gun at work as a cop or at home as a ordinary guy for defense.

I am not resisting or misunderstanding that. I completely understand that is your point of view. I am completely ready to be convinced. All that’s necessary is for POST-trained people to actually be tested in a crisis test. If they pass that, there’s no problem. So why are you objecting to it?

Self defense with a gun is really not all that difficult except in extremis where you have multiple bad guys or they got all the way to you or a family member before you could act.

Holy shit, really? Self-defense with a gun is really not all that difficult? This is your new position, self-defense with a gun, really not that much of a challenge to, at 2 AM in the morning, figure out of the person in your house is a threat to you, whether they’re armed or not, whether you should shoot or not is just not a challenge?

I’m sorry, but this contradicts both common sense, and what my cop and SWAT friends have to say about the challenge of effectively using a gun in a crisis situation. I think you may have gotten rather hyperbolic.

The problem we have is criminal use of guns. Misadventure. Theft of guns by bad guys. The exact level of tactical training is not what’s making the difference in gun accidents, suicide or domestic violence.

I am not claiming that I’d solve all problems with this. There’d be plenty of people who could pass the training and would still be careless with their guns, let them get stolen, wind up shooting themselves. However, it’d be a start in improving gun violence in this country.

Try being hard on the bad guys and kind to the good guys for a change.

Can you explain how wanting someone to be trained with a gun that they own in their home so that they can use it safely and wisely for self-defense is not being kind to them?

28 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 6:37:26am

re: #26 Rightwingconspirator

Here is how it goes real world. First a guy is a target shooter to get the right habits for safety, storage, handling and yes shooting skills. He practices dry fire and sight picture etc at home. Handling. Then as he gets better he takes tactical type training, the diff being more use of force law lessons and a somewhat more sophisticated kind of shooting. Like from behind concealment like a door or wall.

The tactical training should also deal with the most challenging part, which is that you’re going to be freaking the fuck out.

Also, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘real world’. In the real world, that we are in now, in many places people can just buy a gun and take it home with zero training.

And if we really want to do the big thing that makes a big diff in gun deaths, get the heck after the gangs that are having gunfights damn near daily. Double positive-You reduce both deaths directly and reduce the practical necessity of a violent defense for the good guys in the area.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘get the heck after’ the gangs. Gangs aren’t produced by a bunch of people deciding to be evil, but because of sociological conditions in the community. I’m all for fixing that sort of thing, but that’s a long-term plan. In the meantime, I’d like to do what we can to improve the safety of gun owners by having them competently trained.

What do you mean by ‘get the heck after’ gangs?

29 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 6:40:13am
Holy shit, really? Self-defense with a gun is really not all that difficult? This is your new position, self-defense with a gun, really not that much of a challenge to, at 2 AM in the morning, figure out of the person in your house is a threat to you, whether they’re armed or not, whether you should shoot or not is just not a challenge?

Okay so you presume the situation that is already way out of hand. And it’s way easier than with a club. Or defenseless.

POST includes stress tests and shoot/no shoot training and practice. Usually that a variety of threats via video projected onto a screen at the range. The screen or equipment reads where your shots hit. The instructor can tell you if you were right to shoot or not in a safe environment.

I think you under rate police training. Anyone including HRT or SWAT guys can get surprised and lose the confrontation. At 2;00am. So good alarms, locks, and doors help prevent that and moderate the scenario in a way that buys the homeowner time to get the gun call for backup, er I mean the police.

Ask your cop friends if they feel their training is so inadequate they must not go for their gun at home if confronted with violence.

30 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 6:43:04am

re: #28 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

What do I mean by real world? What I see with my own eyes. What does it mean to you?

This is where it gets weird-You don’t know what I mean by getting after the gangs, and you have a different view of how to deal with their practiced killers. Well at least I can find the second half reasonable.

“get after the gangs” strikes me as crystal clear English.

Okay I have better things to do than explain ordinary phrases.

31 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 6:53:05am

re: #29 Rightwingconspirator

Okay so you presume the situation that is already way out of hand. And it’s way easier than with a club. Or defenseless.

No, I don’t. That’s not ‘way out of hand’, that’s a completely normal home defense scenario. Please calm down, you’re not making any sense.

POST includes stress tests and shoot/no shoot training and practice. Usually that a variety of threats via video projected onto a screen at the range. The screen or equipment reads where your shots hit. The instructor can tell you if you were right to shoot or not in a safe environment.

Yes, and I don’t think that’s an adequate test, because its’ a very, very controlled environment.

I think you under rate police training. Anyone including HRT or SWAT guys can get surprised and lose the confrontation. At 2;00am. So good alarms, locks, and doors help prevent that and moderate the scenario in a way that buys the homeowner time to get the gun call for backup, er I mean the police.

Again, the police have partners and work in teams. Comparing the police to someone defending themselves at home is a terrible comparison.

So are you proposing that people who have guns at homes should also have to demonstrate they have good alarms and locks to be allowed to own the gun?

Ask your cop friends if they feel their training is so inadequate they must not go for their gun at home if confronted with violence.

My SWAT friend, being trained for crisis shooting, would feel comfortable. Another cop friend of mine has a wee bit of a drinking problem, not an alcoholic but generally gets pretty liquored up, so he leaves his weapon locked in his car. Another cop friend of mine, a horse patrol guy,says that the stupidest thing you can do is try to confront an intruder, and would just go out the back while calling the cops. He also thinks that cops need a hell of a lot more training than they currently get, and feels the shooting standards of cops have been dropping abysmally since he joined the force. Another cop friend of mine works in the records department and barely managed to requalify last year, and the requalification is straight up shooting, not a crisis test. I doubt he’d be confident in his abilities at 2:00 AM.

re: #30 Rightwingconspirator

What do I mean by real world? What I see with my own eyes. What does it mean to you?

Dude, please calm down. You were doing pretty well but you’re completely flipping out now and you’re really hurting your own case.

This is where it gets weird-You don’t know what I mean by getting after the gangs, and you have a different view of how to deal with their practiced killers. Well at least I can find the second half reasonable.

Let me make myself absolutely clear. If you go out and arrest every member of a gang, every single person in it, they will be replaced within a month.

I’m, yet again, disappointed that you’re contemptuously bailing out yet again and refusing to explain yourself, or answer completely straightforward questions.

32 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 8:43:22am

re: #31 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

I do find the idea that POST training & testing is too lax for a minimum standard to be allowed to have a gun in the home for defense to be unreasonable.

A cop asleep at home might have a partner, but that partner is probably not a cop and in bed with him. His day job partner is at his or her home asleep across town. that cop has 911 for backup same as you or me while at home.

33 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 8:46:19am

For anyone reading-If a guy has a gun at home for sport, and grabs it and one day shoots a dog that is hurting a child badly, what penalty would you propose for not yet having taken these required classes? Felony and take away his gun? Misdemeanor and ?? Infraction?

I refer to the law as Obdi suggests above.

34 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 8:47:48am

re: #31 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Just to be extra clear-I find a cop who took POST and a civilian who took POST to be comparable at home situationally for self defense.

Edit
I have no idea how it would be possible to regulate protection vs sporting possession at home. But for a stipulation lets say it somehow happens, it’s the law to have a certain level of training and testing. I find POST the way LAPD and California do it to be adequate to start. For the record in principle I think thats the highest that should be required. Ongoing training and qual tests like cops take would be fine with me.

35 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 9:01:32am

re: #32 Rightwingconspirator

I do find the idea that POST training & testing is too lax for a minimum standard to be allowed to have a gun in the home for defense to be unreasonable.

That’s fine. We can solve this debate by having POST trained people pass a crisis test. Then you can prove me wrong.

So why object to that?

A cop asleep at home might have a partner, but that partner is probably not a cop and in bed with him. His day job partner is at his or her home asleep across town. that cop has 911 for backup same as you or me while at home.

Yes, I agree. Doesn’t really have anything to do with anything I said.

You seem to have a much higher regard for cop training than most cops I know.

re: #34 Rightwingconspirator

Just to be extra clear-I find a cop who took POST and a civilian who took POST to be comparable at home situationally for self defense.

Edit
I have no idea how it would be possible to regulate protection vs sporting possession at home.

Anyone keeping a weapon at home should have to be trained for its use in home self defense. Why do you object to his?

But for a stipulation lets say it somehow happens, it’s the law to have a certain level of training and testing. I find POST the way LAPD and California do it to be adequate to start. For the record in principle I think thats the highest that should be required. Ongoing training and qual tests like cops take would be fine with me.

Again, I am fine with the idea that POST is fine. I just want to confirm it with a test of POST-trained people in a crisis situation. Why are you fighting that tooth and nail? If you’re convinced the training is adequate, they’ll do fine in the test. So what’s the problem? You haven’t been able to articulate this. Please do.

re: #33 Rightwingconspirator

For anyone reading-If a guy has a gun at home for sport, and grabs it and one day shoots a dog that is hurting a child badly, what penalty would you propose for not yet having taken these required classes? Felony and take away his gun? Misdemeanor and ?? Infraction?

I refer to the law as Obdi suggests above.

What if he grabs the gun and shoots the child by accident because he hasn’t been crisis-trained? Hey, how about we just train him to reduce the likelihood of that happening?

36 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 9:05:13am

And a reminder that as current things stand, there are a ton of people who have guns at home with zero, zip, nada, niente, not a single bit of training.

And my proposal is not, of course, to let people keep guns at home but prosecute them if they use them in self defense, it’s to make sure that everyone keeping a gun at home is crisis-trained so that they could actually depend on their abilities using it in a crisis situation.

And again, if POST actually does this, that’s great. Let’s test POST-trained people and see if it does. Based on what I hear from my SWAT friend especially, but also my other shooting friends, there is a ton of overconfidence in the shooting world about how much range training transfers to crisis situations.

37 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 10:21:17am

I’ll point out I’m in favor of a high level of training for family protection. Ican show it, link it, point anyone o great training. So who decides what level of tactical training is required to have a gun for protection at home?

I think the police already did. They have a good practical minimum standard to offer that’s good enough for new policemen and women.

cop asleep at home might have a partner, but that partner is probably not a cop and in bed with him. His day job partner is at his or her home asleep across town. that cop has 911 for backup same as you or me while at home.

Yes, I agree. Doesn’t really have anything to do with anything I said.

It has to do with what reality, i.e. actual events have shown so far. Have we seen a problem with people at home with POST level training? Show me the study or at least the raw data. I have no idea where to get it or the time to compile it myself.

And my proposal is not, of course, to let people keep guns at home but prosecute them if they use them in self defense, it’s to make sure that everyone keeping a gun at home is crisis-trained so that they could actually depend on their abilities using it in a crisis situation.

So how would that work if you had your way? Prosecute them with what charge? Er, what severity I mean. Felony? Just a fine? You skipped that question.

And again, if POST actually does this, that’s great. Let’s test POST-trained people and see if it does. Based on what I hear from my SWAT friend especially, but also my other shooting friends, there is a ton of overconfidence in the shooting world about how much range training transfers to crisis situations.

Is POST not a professionally created system as judged by professionals that understand lives depend on it? Caveat-My familiarity is LAPD and California ONLY. It gets real review by police trainers and executives. Certain incidents have changed the training so we know it can be responsive. If POST proved inadequate for simple home defense (unreasonable scenarios need not apply) it would be truly ground shaking in the LE community. If that training is inadequate for close up confrontations on the most familiar ground, and surrounded by walls all quite unlike the street they have a huge problem.

My impression is that again as a minimum starting point it’s fine. It’s a shame we don’t have some openly L.E. members to chime in here.

If we have any LE lurkers/readers please register and chime in!

About POST

Recruit-level training is designed to ensure that the officer-candidate has mastered the KSAs to perform essential job tasks. To the extent these tasks are universally adopted by POSTs across the country, the referent curricula are also adaptable. With modest modification to allow for local nuances, lesson plans, supportive audiovisual programs, and education aids would be suitable for open exchange among POSTs. The benefits are obvious. Less obvious, perhaps, is the potential for enhanced reciprocity among the POST agencies when considering the credibility of recruit level training already completed by an officer-candidate while a police officer in another state.

I am having a hard time assuming there is a lack of POST efficacy review among LE professionals like chiefs and head trainers.

I’m looking for the LAPD course guide for firearms but it may not be online.

What if he grabs the gun and shoots the child by accident because he hasn’t been crisis-trained? Hey, how about we just train him to reduce the likelihood of that happening?

I never said he should not get training. i said the opposite. You want a law that applies here and I need to know exactly how it works and what standard to apply in the required training to evaluate your proposal. But up front if that’s well beyond current standards for police just to start you lose me.

38 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 11:37:03am

re: #37 Rightwingconspirator

I’ll point out I’m in favor of a high level of training for family protection. Ican show it, link it, point anyone o great training. So who decides what level of tactical training is required to have a gun for protection at home?

Well, probably a panel of experts. But again, the test is the more important part.

I think the police already did. They have a good practical minimum standard to offer that’s good enough for new policemen and women.

And if that standard can pass the test, no problem.

It has to do with what reality, i.e. actual events have shown so far. Have we seen a problem with people at home with POST level training? Show me the study or at least the raw data. I have no idea where to get it or the time to compile it myself.

This data would be monumentally hard to compile, but again, we just have a test, you’re confident POST people would pass it, so what’s the problem?

So how would that work if you had your way? Prosecute them with what charge? Er, what severity I mean. Felony? Just a fine? You skipped that question.

No, I didn’t. I said that I want anyone who has a gun at home to be trained to use it for home self defense.

Is POST not a professionally created system as judged by professionals that understand lives depend on it? Caveat-My familiarity is LAPD and California ONLY. It gets real review by police trainers and executives. Certain incidents have changed the training so we know it can be responsive. If POST proved inadequate for simple home defense (unreasonable scenarios need not apply) it would be truly ground shaking in the LE community. If that training is inadequate for close up confrontations on the most familiar ground, and surrounded by walls all quite unlike the street they have a huge problem.

If this is true, then they can pass the test, so what’s the problem?

My impression is that again as a minimum starting point it’s fine. It’s a shame we don’t have some openly L.E. members to chime in here.

Why? Again, if they can pass the test, there’s no problem.

I am having a hard time assuming there is a lack of POST efficacy review among LE professionals like chiefs and head trainers.

They’re not testing POST efficacy for home-defense use. Why would they?

I never said he should not get training. i said the opposite. You want a law that applies here and I need to know exactly how it works and what standard to apply in the required training to evaluate your proposal. But up front if that’s well beyond current standards for police just to start you lose me.

Can you please state, clearly and straightforwardly, if you think that POST training is sufficient, why you are objecting so strongly to the idea of a test?

You keep going in a circle. You say that POST training is good for this sort fo thing. I say great, then they’ll pass the test no problem. You ignore that, and say that it’s sufficient. I say if it is, then no problem, they’ll pass the test. If 99% of POST-trained people always pass the test, then we can dispense with the test for POST-trained people.
Etc.

Again: If you think that POST training is sufficient, why don’t you want people tested? Please just answer that question, without sidetracking yourself into anything else. Why is the idea of a test so problematic for you?

39 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 11:47:25am

re: #38 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

What test, where, to what standard? POST? Something less? More? What is this test, exactly that you speak of? How do you propose we test POST? Or its graduates?

40 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 11:48:50am

re: #39 Rightwingconspirator

What test, where, to what standard? POST? Something less? More? What is this test, exactly that you speak of? How do you propose we test POST? Or its graduates?

You sure make it hard to agree with you that folks with guns need training that includes reasonable tests. A law though? How would that work?

41 jamesfirecat  Jul 31, 2014 11:50:33am

re: #39 Rightwingconspirator

What test, where, to what standard? POST? Something less? More? What is this test, exactly that you speak of? How do you propose we test POST? Or its graduates?

Let me see if I can communicate the point more clearly.

The test is to the standard that a person can be awakened from sleep unexpectedly, retrieve their gun from a gunsafe/some other safe storage device, load it, and then show reasonable target recognition and reflex speed in this state.

If people can not do this in a training environment then why should we expect them to be able to do it in a real life home invasion situation?

42 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 11:55:35am

re: #39 Rightwingconspirator

What test, where, to what standard? POST? Something less? More? What is this test, exactly that you speak of? How do you propose we test POST? Or its graduates?

Already asked and answered: Get a panel of experts, have them create a test. Why is this answer not sufficient for you?

re: #40 Rightwingconspirator

You sure make it hard to agree with you that folks with guns need training that includes reasonable tests. A law though? How would that work?

Why is it hard to agree with me? And what do you mean, how would that work? Anyone who purchases a gun has to say if they’re going to use it at home or if it’s just a range or hunting gun. if it’s for home, they have to pass a test for home use. If it’s range or hunting, tests for those. If you want to keep your hunting shotgun at home, you’ll need to pass a home test. What I’m saying is that the training (and tests) should be appropriate to what the gun is used for and where it’s kept.

re: #41 jamesfirecat

Let me see if I can communicate the point more clearly.

The test is to the standard that a person can be awakened from sleep unexpectedly, retrieve their gun from a gunsafe/some other safe storage device, load it, and then show reasonable target recognition and reflex speed in this state.

If people can not do this in a training environment then why should we expect them to be able to do it in a real life home invasion situation?

Exactly.

43 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 12:24:18pm

re: #41 jamesfirecat

So we have a student go to sleep. Then wake him and let him work the scenario through. So does the house alarm buy him a reasonable time to get the gun out of a fast safe? How long is reasonable, and are these experts guys like me, police trainers or what? Live fire in a 360 shoot house? Not many of those around.

I wonder if they make SWAT do this to take a pistol home? I don’t think so.

So we have a call for an unheard of and untested test.
This is a ridiculously high standard to allow a guy to use a gun in defense without penalty. It’s impractical to say the least. And just to start too. Wow. Yeah you guys lose me there.

Supine and closed eyes then step up and shoot? Okay we do that kind of thing already in training and competition.

44 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 12:26:00pm

re: #42 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Get a panel of experts, have them create a test. Why is this answer not sufficient for you?

What kind of experts? Guys like me and police instructors?

Meat world duties call. Catch up later?

45 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 12:29:37pm

re: #43 Rightwingconspirator

So we have a student go to sleep. Then wake him and let him work the scenario through. So does the house alarm buy him a reasonable time to get the gun out of a fast safe? How long is reasonable, and are these experts guys like me, police trainers or what? Live fire in a 360 shoot house? Not many of those around.

I wonder if they make SWAT do this to take a pistol home? I don’t think so.

So we have a call for an unheard of and untested test.
This is a ridiculously high standard to allow a guy to use a gun in defense without penalty. It’s impractical to say the least. And just to start too. Wow. Yeah you guys lose me there.

Supine and closed eyes then step up and shoot? Okay we do that kind of thing already in training and competition.

How is it a ridiculously high standard to show you can use a gun in the conditions you want to use it for?

46 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 12:35:47pm

re: #44 Rightwingconspirator

What kind of experts? Guys like me and police instructors?

Meat world duties call. Catch up later?

Yeah, guys like you and my friend on SWAT. Though obviously, he and you have very, very different ideas. He would really, really disagree with your assertion that home self-defense isn’t that hard.

I really don’t get why you think that showing that you can use a gun in an environment that tests the environment you’d use the gun in is a ridiculously high standard. It would seem to be more the exactly appropriate standard.

47 jamesfirecat  Jul 31, 2014 12:36:43pm

re: #43 Rightwingconspirator

So we have a student go to sleep. Then wake him and let him work the scenario through. So does the house alarm buy him a reasonable time to get the gun out of a fast safe? How long is reasonable, and are these experts guys like me, police trainers or what? Live fire in a 360 shoot house? Not many of those around.

I wonder if they make SWAT do this to take a pistol home? I don’t think so.

So we have a call for an unheard of and untested test.
Thisi s a ridiculously high standard to allow a guy to use a gun in defense without penalty. It’s impractical to say the least.

Supine and closed eyes then step up and shoot? Okay we do that kind of thing already in training and competition.

Okay let me respond one piece at a time.

“So we have a student go to sleep. Then wake him and let him work the scenario through. So does the house alarm buy him a reasonable time to get the gun out of a fast safe? How long is reasonable, and are these experts guys like me, police trainers or what? Live fire in a 360 shoot house? Not many of those around.”

“How long is reasonable, “

We can figure that out by looking at the statistics for how long it takes for someone to brake into a house during a robbery. I’m sure the statistics for this exist and it’d simply be a matter of examining them.

“And are these experts guys like me, police trainers or what?”

The principle being debated is that this should apply to EVERYONE who wishes to own a weapon for home defense.

“Live fire in a 360 shoot house? Not many of those around.”

Live fire is not necessary, bullets can be loaded into a real gun then shooting can be done with a paintball weapon to save on wear and tear.

“I wonder if they make SWAT do this to take a pistol home? I don’t think so.”

You’re correct, they do not. But you are also arguing from tradition, we are not debating what the current law is, but what it should be and why. Do not tell me that they are not required to do this, tell me WHY they are not.

“So we have a call for an unheard of and untested test.
Thisi s a ridiculously high standard to allow a guy to use a gun in defense without penalty. It’s impractical to say the least.”

Why is it ridiculously high standard?

Isn’t being woken up from sleep by a break in, and needing to gain access to your properly stored weapon before using it on an intruder a fairly common self defense situation as situations which require firearm related self defense go?

If it is not, what sort of situations do you think a person is most likely to need to wield a weapon in self defense in? Whatever you feel it is we should then have a test designed to examine people’s abilities to preform under those conditions if they wish to own a weapon for self defense.

I suppose the midnight break in is cliche, but can I’d argue it’s cliche because its a “common” situation as such things are measured.

48 jamesfirecat  Jul 31, 2014 12:51:48pm

By the way, I’d like to thank both of you, a lot of the reason I mostly read LGF rather than contribute these days is that it normally feels like I need to go pay someone $5 if I want to have an argument….

49 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 12:56:10pm

re: #48 jamesfirecat

By the way, I’d like to thank both of you, a lot of the reason I mostly read LGF rather than contribute these days is that it normally feels like I need to go pay someone $5 if I want to have an argument….

No you don’t.

50 jamesfirecat  Jul 31, 2014 12:56:53pm

re: #49 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

No you don’t.

Yes I do!

51 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 1:41:11pm

re: #46 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Yeah, guys like you and my friend on SWAT. Though obviously, he and you have very, very different ideas. He would really, really disagree with your assertion that home self-defense isn’t that hard.

I really don’t get why you think that showing that you can use a gun in an environment that tests the environment you’d use the gun in is a ridiculously high standard. It would seem to be more the exactly appropriate standard.

I’d love to have him in the chat and first, set some “givens”. By easy I don’t mean easy like folding a paper airplane or stand and deliver shooting. I meant easy compared to rolling up on a gunfight in progress or coming under fire first. You pull a car over and the guy bails out shooting at you and approaching your car fast. Shooting on the advance. Having all that gear on slowing you down. Complicated use of force policies.

Easy compared to the streets.

But my premise in the spirit of exploring your concept is finding that minimum starting standard for that guy at home.

Does your friend agree that a sleeping/wake up test to a certain accuracy and speed standard should be imposed on police that take the gun home and would use it if attacked? Would he correspond so i could communicate with him on this at all?

Oh almost forgot-easy with a gun compared to trying it with a different weapon or none at all. That accommodates the less than athletic in a fight. This frame of comparison is very different than “easy” like easy as pie.

Or would he contribute any outline of a minimum standard test to pass for civilians to take a gun home for protection?

52 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 2:05:08pm

re: #51 Rightwingconspirator

I’d love to have him in the chat and first, set some “givens”. By easy I don’t mean easy like folding a paper airplane or stand and deliver shooting. I meant easy compared to rolling up on a gunfight in progress or coming under fire first. You pull a car over and the guy bails out shooting at you and approaching your car fast. Shooting on the advance. Having all that gear on slowing you down. Complicated use of force policies.

But most of the time you have advanced knowledge, as a cop in the field, of what you’re up against, and have other cops. At night, the person breaking in may be some local kid who’s drunk or doing a dumb prank, or it might be an armed intruder, or it might be your daughter who forgot her keys, or it might be a cop.

Easy compared to the streets.

But my premise in the spirit of exploring your concept is finding that minimum starting standard for that guy at home.

Develop a test that’s a proxy for a crisis situation at home (and another, obviously, for CCW holders) and test people to that. I’m not claiming I’d design the test so I’m not sure why you keep pressing for details on it.

Does your friend agree that a sleeping/wake up test to a certain accuracy and speed standard should be imposed on police that take the gun home and would use it if attacked? Would he correspond so i could communicate with him on this at all?

I didn’t propose a sleeping/wake up test. I suggested a test that would test for that sort of thing. I don’t think that you can accurately or safely do it with someone sleeping and waking up. And yes, he thinks that the standards of police training for firearms are far too low and should be higher—along with my other cop friend who I’ve discussed this with, who cites the recent shootings in LA and NY as examples of how rough cop training can be. One of the main reasons for this, of course, is that cops spend very little time actually engaging in gun fights, very very little time, and many cops go their entire careers without having to fire their weapon.

But he also has a lot of other reservations about cops with weapons at home, mostly being that it limits the freedom of the cop. Most cops like to drink. It’s a bad idea to drink and have an accessible gun. Yet cops are basically mandated to do this, if they keep a gun at home. It also puts the children of police in more danger.

I keep being confused with why you’re constantly talking about cops because cops being attacked at home is not a very frequent occurrence, right? Why do you keep talking about it?

Oh almost forgot-easy with a gun compared to trying it with a different weapon or none at all. That accommodates the less than athletic in a fight. This frame of comparison is very different than “easy” like easy as pie.

You were the one who called it easy, so I’m not sure why you’re putting it in scare quotes. And do you get that the point of the test is to show that you can use the gun safely, as in, show that you’re identifying your target properly, that you’re doing good gun safety even while distracted and panicked, etc?

I mean, you’ll never be able to actually simulate a crisis, so this test is always going to be easier than the real world situation, but we can make it as good as we can.

Or would he contribute any outline of a minimum standard test to pass for civilians to take a gun home for protection?

I’ll ask him. But this is mostly based on what he said: That gun training isn’t crisis training, and that people need to be crisis trained if they want to use their guns in a crisis.

I’m really, really not understanding why this is so outrageous and weird to you. It seems very common sense and straightforwards to me, and your resistance to it is baffling.

I’ll ask him and my other cop friends if they’d be willing to post here or communicate with you, but I doubt they will. I’m not sure why you want them to, either.

You have not yet given any clear reason why, if as you insist POST training is sufficient, you’re objecting so strenuously to POST-trained people being tested. Can you provide a reason?

53 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 2:06:12pm

And again:

How is it a ridiculously high standard to show you can use a gun in the conditions you want to use it for?

54 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 2:07:16pm

I know a ton of ways to add pressure on the range. Pro tip-Use a timer like in competition

Really want real? 1/10th serious here- Get a paramedic to the range. Run drills keep score. Get a shot of synthetic adrenaline and re run the drill. Epinephrine? It’s been done before but not (literally) for the faint of heart.
The result was a slight reduction in accuracy. Very slight.

55 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 2:10:48pm

re: #54 Rightwingconspirator

I know a ton of ways to add pressure on the range. Pro tip-Use a timer like in competition

Really want real? 1/10th serious here- Get a paramedic to the range. Run drills keep score. Get a shot of synthetic adrenaline and re run the drill. Epinephrine? It’s been done before but not (literally) for the faint of heart.
The result was a slight reduction in accuracy. Very slight.

Again: I’m not saying I would design the test so I’m not sure why you keep getting hung up on test design.

How is it a ridiculously high standard to show you can use a gun in the conditions you want to use it for?

56 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 2:25:50pm

re: #52 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

The thing about cops and POST is to draw that comparison- as a way to explain what training has been deemed adequate for quite some time.

Since police do go home and are perfectly welcome to take that gun home and use it if needed- Prima facie thats a very well accepted standard. For a ;long time. If events had proven that inadequate it would have been changed.

Civilians adopting a regime like that as well established as it is seems pretty reasonable at least to me. I guess you disagree there? It’s just not close to enough? Yeah I’m unconvinced that should be a law.

57 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 2:28:14pm

re: #55 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Again: I’m not saying I would design the test so I’m not sure why you keep getting hung up on test design.

How is it a ridiculously high standard to show you can use a gun in the conditions you want to use it for?

To assume what we have is inadequate, (POST) and make it a law. That’s unreasonable. The proof of necessity is just not there.

58 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 2:30:56pm

The upshot from rejecting POST as inadequate is that the concept demands all our Police that have not gone to and passed an as yet undefined in any precise way- higher standard… Are not qualified to have a gun at home and must not, as the risk of a misadventure is too high.

Nope, I just don’t agree with that.

59 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 2:34:27pm

re: #55 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Again: I’m not saying I would design the test so I’m not sure why you keep getting hung up on test design.

Well you better figure out the outline so we have a basis of comparison to see if most or all of what you think we need is in POST or not. Is it SWAT level? HRT?

So at what point have we raised that bar so high that it double qualifies-Home and CCW?

60 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 2:36:44pm

re: #56 Rightwingconspirator

The thing about cops and POST is to draw that comparison- as a way to explain what training has been deemed adequate for quite some time.

I fundamentally don’t agree that police training and civilian training are similar domains. And again, if they are, it will be easy enough to prove it, because POST-trained people will pass the test without a problem.

Since police do go home and are perfectly welcome to take that gun home and use it if needed- Prima facie thats a very well accepted standard. For a ;long time. If events had proven that inadequate it would have been changed.

This is bad logic. There are many things that are inadequate that have not changed. You can’t say that because something has been around for a long time that it’s fine.

Civilians adopting a regime like that as well established as it is seems pretty reasonable at least to me. I guess you disagree there? It’s just not close to enough? Yeah I’m unconvinced that should be a law.

I could hardly have made myself clearer: I want people to pass a test. If POST enables them to pass the test 99% of the time, then POST without a test would be fine with me. What is unclear about this?

To assume what we have is inadequate, (POST) and make it a law. That’s unreasonable. The proof of necessity is just not there.

First of all, what we have is not POST. In many, many places in the US, you can take a gun home and use it without any training at all.

Second of all, I am neither assuming it is or is not adequate. You are the one who is making the assumption that it is. I’m saying “Let’s test that assumption.” If you are confident that POST-trained people can pass the test, and if I’m saying that if 99% of people pass the test we can say that POST on its own is fine, why are you fighting this so desperately? Why aren’t you welcoming it as a chance to prove you right?

The upshot from rejecting POST as inadequate is that the concept demands all our Police that have not gone to and passed an as yet undefined in any precise way- higher standard… Are not qualified to have a gun at home and must not, as the risk of a misadventure is too high.

No, it doesn’t say that they’re not qualified. It says we don’t know if they are, and they should pass a test.

I am really confused by your belief that police training is so be-all and end-all when it comes to firearms training. Shooting is really not a very big part of a cop’s life, and it doesn’t get a ton of curricular focus because of that. What curricular focus it gets is oriented around situations cops will find themselves in.

Again: why are you so resistant to the concept of testing?

re: #59 Rightwingconspirator

Well you better figure out the outline so we have a basis of comparison to see if most or all of what you think we need is in POST or not. Is it SWAT level? HRT?

It is not related to police ‘level’ of training at all, since it is for a completely different situation. And, no, I don’t need to figure out the outline. Why are you rejecting the idea of a crisis test designed by experts? I am not an expert, I should have no hand in designing the test.

So at what point have we raised that bar so high that it double qualifies-Home and CCW?

The test for using a gun in public and for at home would be very different scenarios, so they’d be separate tests.

The vehemence with which you’re rejecting the idea of testing is really, really weird.

61 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 2:59:03pm
I am really confused by your belief that police training is so be-all and end-all when it comes to firearms training. Shooting is really not a very big part of a cop’s life, and it doesn’t get a ton of curricular focus because of that. What curricular focus it gets is oriented around situations cops will find themselves in.

I never said it was a be all. I very clearly stated many times now it’s a sensible starting point. You are a lil bit puzzling there.

POST is not just training it has tests as part of the course. I still don’t see the evidence it’s not a good starting point.

62 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 3:08:46pm

Since police do go home and are perfectly welcome to take that gun home and use it if needed- Prima facie thats a very well accepted standard. For a ;long time. If events had proven that inadequate it would have been changed.

This is bad logic. There are many things that are inadequate that have not changed. You can’t say that because something has been around for a long time that it’s fine.

It’s not bad logic in the context of a system run by the very professionals you want to make the tests, that is already known to adapt with the times and incidents.Yous ell these guys and POST gun training short. Which facilitates your opposition to guns at home short of… whatever you say it needs to be based on a big repeat from qualified experts.

So you want the kind of experts that actually administrate POST firearms classes and tests to do that all over again adapted for home, as if we are certain we have the necessity. As if we have any indication at all apart from your opinion that it’s necessary. As if skills taught for one circumstance don’t translate at all. as if muscle memory about handling and safety and shooting would have to be re taught just because it’s a house not another indoor location. As if use of force rules go out the window at home. Rules on engagement.

Sorry, just not there with ya. Just don’t see the need. Gun accident rates have been declining a long time. Misindentity shooting by people trained at or at about the POST level are just not a big portion of gun tragedies.

I strongly suspect if we turned the level of resources we would need to do what you describe we could make a bigger difference elsewhere.

63 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 3:42:34pm

re: #61 Rightwingconspirator

I never said it was a be all. I very clearly stated many times now it’s a sensible starting point. You are a lil bit puzzling there.

POST is not just training it has tests as part of the course. I still don’t see the evidence it’s not a good starting point.

Okay. So it’s a good starting point for home-defense, some other, more crisis-oriented stuff could be added, and then people could pass a test for that.

What’s the problem?

So you want the kind of experts that actually administrate POST firearms classes and tests to do that all over again adapted for home, as if we are certain we have the necessity.

It is not just my opinion, though.

As if skills taught for one circumstance don’t translate at all. as if muscle memory about handling and safety and shooting would have to be re taught just because it’s a house not another indoor location. As if use of force rules go out the window at home. Rules on engagement.

No, some of that will translate. Not all of it.

But again, if you are confident it will all translate, why are you resisting the idea? If what you are saying is true, POST-trained people will just past the test with no problem.

Sorry, just not there with ya. Just don’t see the need. Gun accident rates have been declining a long time. Misindentity shooting by people trained at or at about the POST level are just not a big portion of gun tragedies.

So you’re fine with the current level of accidental shootings in the US at the moment, and misidentity shootings? You don’t think we should improve that, at all?

The main thing that is so bizarre about your furious opposition here is that if you are right, POST-trained people will simply pass the test. What is the big deal, if you believe they’ll pass the test, in testing them? Can you please answer that question?

64 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 31, 2014 3:57:44pm

Oh, and the level of domestic homicides, too.

65 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 7:43:39pm

re: #63 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Furious opposition? Furious? Easy there partner. We have seen furious around here. That ain’t it. I’m no more set or strident in my ways in areas of my own expertise than you are in yours.

And those were not scare quotes up there just a stab (misunderstood apparently) at highlighting a different context for the word easy.

For all our discussion, I’m just struck by the most curious coincidence. You and jamesfirecat called for realistic tests and training. And there is a national sport that does exactly that. A sport I happen to really enjoy. And you want to make a law that would instantly make that organization the biggest thing in gun training since the founding of the NRA. It would be the thing to do to prep for a real world defensive test. Target ID and all.

Remember your reaction when I pointed out that sport to you before? IDPA? If you saw one of those local matches you would see what I mean.

Making that kind of practice a legal requirement or facing a legal penalty in the event of a successful defensive encounter if one lacks that defensive credential is very ironic to me.

66 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 7:51:13pm
But most of the time you have advanced knowledge, as a cop in the field, of what you’re up against, and have other cops. At night, the person breaking in may be some local kid who’s drunk or doing a dumb prank, or it might be an armed intruder, or it might be your daughter who forgot her keys, or it might be a cop.

Now right there we have an example of where the training translates place to place exactly. When you have a gun your target ID responsibilities are the same very high level. This carries over into sport hunting too. As in an absolute MUST. Cop or civilian. Street, business, home, everywhere. We as police or civilians are taught we are 100% responsible for the full path of any bullet fired.

67 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 31, 2014 8:02:59pm

So you’re fine with the current level of accidental shootings in the US at the moment, and misidentity shootings? You don’t think we should improve that, at all?

Of course I want to improve those numbers and it sucks for you to imply otherwise. Low blow dude. A choice to disagree with your proposal is not what you imply here. Ah well anyone can make a mistake. Or two.

What is the big deal, if you believe they’ll pass the test, in testing them? Can you please answer that question?

Show me your test, and then I will answer.

68 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Aug 1, 2014 2:36:28am

re: #65 Rightwingconspirator

For all our discussion, I’m just struck by the most curious coincidence. You and jamesfirecat called for realistic tests and training. And there is a national sport that does exactly that. A sport I happen to really enjoy. And you want to make a law that would instantly make that organization the biggest thing in gun training since the founding of the NRA. It would be the thing to do to prep for a real world defensive test. Target ID and all.

Remember your reaction when I pointed out that sport to you before? IDPA? If you saw one of those local matches you would see what I mean.

Making that kind of practice a legal requirement or facing a legal penalty in the event of a successful defensive encounter if one lacks that defensive credential is very ironic to me.

So why are you resisting the idea of a test?

69 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Aug 1, 2014 2:40:36am

re: #67 Rightwingconspirator

So you’re fine with the current level of accidental shootings in the US at the moment, and misidentity shootings? You don’t think we should improve that, at all?

Of course I want to improve those numbers and it sucks for you to imply otherwise. Low blow dude. A choice to disagree with your proposal is not what you imply here. Ah well anyone can make a mistake. Or two.

Show me your test, and then I will answer.

Then this whole conversation has been completely pointless. I made it absolutely clear that I wasn’t going to design the test. But you have repeatedly been against even the idea of this test, insisting over and over that POST is completely sufficient on its own.

And you have never, ever, ever explained, if you’re confident that POST gives sufficient training, why you’re afraid of the idea of a test, not one composed by me, but one composed by experts.

I am, once again, incredibly frustrated by your lack of response to direct questions, your constant moving around of your arguments, and assertions that home self-defense is ‘pretty easy’ and that there’s really no big problem worth addressing with legal guns in this country.

Again, I am trying to help. I am trying to help responsible gun owners as much as anyone else. But the resistance to this in the gun community is going to mean that within our lifetime you will probably see a backlash of very strong gun restrictions, unless responsible gun owners meet the concerned public halfway. What I’m offering is a way to do that and you’re just so contemptuously rejecting it. It is incredibly frustrating.

70 jamesfirecat  Aug 1, 2014 6:18:56am

re: #67 Rightwingconspirator

Show me your test, and then I will answer.

Here is the crux of the mater.

Those of us who want to push forward this particular idea are not well enough informed on the subject of gun usage to suggest an appropriately tuned test as your disagreements with my suggestions of the “wake up test” proved.

I would suggest that we compile the statistics, find out what kind of situation firearms are most frequently used in self defense in, and then design a test to mirror that particular situation.

This may end up being the same as POST or it may be something different, but I feel it would be important to run the data and see what comes up.

Do you have a problem with those general guidelines?

71 Rightwingconspirator  Aug 1, 2014 12:05:14pm

re: #70 jamesfirecat

Here is the crux of the mater.

Those of us who want to push forward this particular idea are not well enough informed on the subject of gun usage to suggest an appropriately tuned test as your disagreements with my suggestions of the “wake up test” proved.

I would suggest that we compile the statistics, find out what kind of situation firearms are most frequently used in self defense in, and then design a test to mirror that particular situation.

This may end up being the same as POST or it may be something different, but I feel it would be important to run the data and see what comes up.

Do you have a problem with those general guidelines?

Not at all. Gathering the stats is the hard part.

72 Rightwingconspirator  Aug 1, 2014 12:06:48pm

re: #69 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Then this whole conversation has been completely pointless. I made it absolutely clear that I wasn’t going to design the test. But you have repeatedly been against even the idea of this test, insisting over and over that POST is completely sufficient on its own.

And you have never, ever, ever explained, if you’re confident that POST gives sufficient training, why you’re afraid of the idea of a test, not one composed by me, but one composed by experts.

I am, once again, incredibly frustrated by your lack of response to direct questions, your constant moving around of your arguments, and assertions that home self-defense is ‘pretty easy’ and that there’s really no big problem worth addressing with legal guns in this country.

Again, I am trying to help. I am trying to help responsible gun owners as much as anyone else. But the resistance to this in the gun community is going to mean that within our lifetime you will probably see a backlash of very strong gun restrictions, unless responsible gun owners meet the concerned public halfway. What I’m offering is a way to do that and you’re just so contemptuously rejecting it. It is incredibly frustrating.

I’m not asking you to design the test but just work with me on what might approach your goals here.

73 Rightwingconspirator  Aug 1, 2014 12:10:14pm
I am, once again, incredibly frustrated by your lack of response to direct questions, your constant moving around of your arguments, and assertions that home self-defense is ‘pretty easy’ and that there’s really no big problem worth addressing with legal guns in this country.

Much of this is simply untrue. Made an effort to show you the actual context I used the word easy in. “Moving around of my arguments…” Not sure what that even means. And I darn well did not say “there’s really no big problem worth addressing with legal guns in this country”

Then this whole conversation has been completely pointless.

Okay well then I guess I’m done. Too much effort in to be called pointless.

74 jamesfirecat  Aug 1, 2014 12:59:45pm

re: #71 Rightwingconspirator

Not at all. Gathering the stats is the hard part.

Hard for us as individual human beings, should be fairly easy for the government to do.

Just look up all the news stories that involved people actually using a handgun for self defense.

Are they mostly about people who used them to defend themselves from mugging in an alley, are they for people who were awakened by a break in and needed to defend themselves/their homes are they for something else I have not even considered?

Run the data, find out the situation, craft a test.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
E-Cig Co. Put Viagra, Cialis in Vape Liquids—the FDA Is Throbbing Mad The US Food and Drug Administration made clear on Thursday, October 11 that it has a major bone to pick with an electronic-cigarette vendor that illegally pumped prescription erectile dysfunction drugs into unapproved e-liquid products intended for vaping. The ...
Thanos
1 day, 9 hours ago
Views: 133 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Answering Voter Guide Questions as a Candidate So, my county newspaper, the Bridgeport, NE News-Blade sent me a questionnaire to create a voter guide for village voters asking my positions on issues in my town. I suppose I could expound on those for many pages, but ...
Anymouse 🌹
1 week ago
Views: 505 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Marvel’s Daredevil: Season 3 - Meet BullsEye See the origin story of Bullseye in Marvel's Daredevil Season 3, premiering exclusively on Netflix October 19, 2018. Watch Marvel's Daredevil on Netflix: netflix.com #Netflix #MarvelsDaredevil #CharlieCoxSUBSCRIBE: bit.ly About Netflix:Netflix is the world's leading internet entertainment service with 130 ...
Thanos
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 575 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
St. Vincent - Slow Slow Disco (Audio)Songs are living things. They grow, they evolve, they change their moods and personalities over time. The latest version of 'Slow Disco' originally found on MASSEDUCTION. Upcoming Live Shows: ilovestvincent.com Connect with St. Vincent:instagram.com@st_vincentfacebook.com
Thanos
2 weeks ago
Views: 698 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Sarah Palin’s Son Arrested on Domestic Violence Charges Sarah Palin's oldest son, Track Palin, was arrested Friday on domestic violence charges, Alaska State Troopers said. Troopers responded to his home in Wasilla at 10:37 p.m. after a report of a disturbance. Palin allegedly assaulted an acquaintance, then ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 2 days ago
Views: 710 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Elvis Costello & the Imposters - Suspect My Tears (Audio) "Suspect My Tears" from the forthcoming album Look NowPre-order the new album Look Now:Official Store (signed + exclusive merch): found.eeAmazon (CD + vinyl): found.eeiTunes (digital download): found.eeSpotify (pre-save): found.eeApple Music (pre-add): found.ee Listen to “Suspect My Tears”:iTunes: found.eeSpotify: found.eeApple ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 3 days ago
Views: 697 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Dark Phoenix In DARK PHOENIX, the X-MEN face their most formidable and powerful foe: one of their own, Jean Grey. During a rescue mission in space, Jean is nearly killed when she is hit by a mysterious cosmic force. Once she ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 4 days ago
Views: 726 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0