View Full Version : Vetting those whom you train or teach..
One thing I enjoy more than actually shooting is teaching someone new how to shoot or helping someone who may have been in it a while learn something they didn't know. I enjoy most the ability to go to a class or school and learn new things.
I am very fortunate in the opportunities I have had to get into a position to help others. There are many of you in local groups or training outfits who are in the same position. With the training boom in recent years, especially what the dvd & online video media have to offer, it will only be a matter of time before this pops up on someone from the anti's radar.
If you teach or take part in a local training group, or regularly take new shooters to the range, now would be a great time to really start vetting people before allowing them to join in. Don't do anything that could end up on some media mole's hidden video that can be used against us. You all know the kind of behavior or language that I mean. For a law abiding one of us to end up on 60 minutes on a hidden cam instructing a class and a poor choice of words or actions is not what we need now.
We also need to make sure we do not train or teach anyone who may flip out and do one of these vial actions. Don't be affraid to ask questions if you have an unknown show up for a class or training group. Don't be affraid to hurt someone's feelings who for whatever reason gives you a bad gut feeling. I am all about helping others as I am forever grateful for those who have taught me, but I was vetted before every class I took. We damn sure cannot afford to teach a would be Adam Lanza anything. I know you may or may not have the resources to background check someone; find an LEO in your area & see if they can help you out. Ask for a concealed weapons permit or proof that they actually purchased a firearm recently in their name.
Be vigilant, as I am sure with 2A being in the limelight like it is now and so many training videos online, it's only a matter of time before some nutcase or reporter trys to make use of such a resource for a nefarious purpose.
lethal dose
12-20-12, 09:19
Well said, Chad. Having copious amounts of Yankee Redneck blood in me, I am certainly not afraid to speak out or even hurt someone's feelgoods. With that said, I have done so many times in the past and typically only instruct on a word of mouth basis, albeit rarely these days as my ranges are on my property in Ohio. Either way, well said.
Earlier this year before all of the hoopla, I started meeting with other people that were interested in shooting, building, and tweaking AR's. Almost like a knitting club, for rifles. One of them is someone I knew for a good year before either of us said 'hey, I've got some firearms, and I like to go shooting.' We had this same talk, about being really careful of who we are associating with, what their motives are, etc.
There are some that I think may belong to the 'tin foil hat brigade,' but the biggest thing we've been noticing and working to correct has been safety. Trigger discipline, muzzle discipline, following range rules (our range and meeting sponsors are sticklers for flagged chambers during cold range/cold room) and such. Some see it as 'being too picky,' but hoopla aside, safety is paramount. We haven't all met up since Newtown happened, it will be interesting to see how January unfolds.
Without a doubt safety is the biggest issue with new shooters. If there is anything that is on our side, it is the absolute boom in new shooters in the past few years. I see this more at the monthly match I run than classes. Month after month, new folks who have never owned a gun, didn't have any family members who were into guns but (due to friends from a large local University) have got into AR's. Really of no fault of their own, they are most times very unsafe to begin with. They just haven't had the exposure. Most of the ND's and accidents we've had at the match are sadly from LEOs. The new guys are almost always receptive to ANY advise, but you have to be comfortable in giving that advice, sternly if need be. Again, sadly most LEOs that we've had are not open to suggestions. They'll listen to me sometimes as I am in LE, but since I am just a patrol guy and most of the ones we've had problems with are a lot of times local SWAT guys; they feel superior and I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Yeah ok. But that is just the way it is. Always express how important safety is.
JW777 will tell you, unsafe acts and stupidity happen EVERYWHERE. Just like the former Suarez Trainee at LAV's Advanced Pistol 2 years ago, demonstrating the "Metal on Meat" concept on the sidelines after lunch. We were absolutely astounded at this guy's actions. This guy should have known better, but you will get many new comers that sadly don't. It is your responsibility to teach them if they come to you.
That said, if you take on the responsibility of getting in a position to coach or teach, get to know and vet whomever you let on the range.
Excellent thread. I had recently had someone come to me asking about firearms and training due to making small talk about AR-15s and what not. Guy told me later on in another conversation that he has had mental issues and is on meds. That's a no-go for me even helping the guy.
...... end up on some media mole's hidden video that can be used against us. You all know the kind of behavior or language that I mean. For a law abiding one of us to end up on 60 minutes on a hidden cam instructing a class and a poor choice of words or actions is not what we need now.
Sad thing is I don't see this as out of the realm of possibility.
I always try not to get too distracted while shooting. It's especially hard in a group of people while running a match.
FWIW...I've never felt unsafe in one of your squads.
I've watched you.......watching them. :cool:
davidjinks
12-20-12, 12:03
You know, I may be taking your post out of context...
But are you recommending that those who sign up for a class should somehow have to be vetted in order to take a class? Vetting as in a background check, criminal history, interviews type vetting? Or are you advocating a secret behind the scenes, the end user won't know type secret squirrel shit?
All because some ****ing douchenozzle offed a bunch of kids? So now not only do I have to pay with (Possibly) my gun rights but now I'll have to worry about some instructor "Vetting" me to take a training course because of someone else's crime?
Is that what you're saying?
One thing I enjoy more than actually shooting is teaching someone new how to shoot or helping someone who may have been in it a while learn something they didn't know. I enjoy most the ability to go to a class or school and learn new things.
I am very fortunate in the opportunities I have had to get into a position to help others. There are many of you in local groups or training outfits who are in the same position. With the training boom in recent years, especially what the dvd & online video media have to offer, it will only be a matter of time before this pops up on someone from the anti's radar.
If you teach or take part in a local training group, or regularly take new shooters to the range, now would be a great time to really start vetting people before allowing them to join in. Don't do anything that could end up on some media mole's hidden video that can be used against us. You all know the kind of behavior or language that I mean. For a law abiding one of us to end up on 60 minutes on a hidden cam instructing a class and a poor choice of words or actions is not what we need now.
We also need to make sure we do not train or teach anyone who may flip out and do one of these vial actions. Don't be affraid to ask questions if you have an unknown show up for a class or training group. Don't be affraid to hurt someone's feelings who for whatever reason gives you a bad gut feeling. I am all about helping others as I am forever grateful for those who have taught me, but I was vetted before every class I took. We damn sure cannot afford to teach a would be Adam Lanza anything. I know you may or may not have the resources to background check someone; find an LEO in your area & see if they can help you out. Ask for a concealed weapons permit or proof that they actually purchased a firearm recently in their name.
Be vigilant, as I am sure with 2A being in the limelight like it is now and so many training videos online, it's only a matter of time before some nutcase or reporter trys to make use of such a resource for a nefarious purpose.
No, just make sure you are not a felon. I don't know of anyone who teaches who doesn't atleast ask for a CWP and want to know prior training experience. I'm not talking about a "crawl up your tail" investigation, just mainly for folks who do teach not to get slack in who they let in their class, and to do what they pretty much already do. I assure you, I do not mean anything out of reason. The instructor can only do so much, but if a wacko does actually learn something and puts it to use, who will be punished by it in the long run? Every single one of us.
Lots of instructors do that very thing for ITAR purposes, among other reasons. Unless known to me within two degrees of separation (referred by a friend/colleague I already trust...), I require that my private students have a VA concealed carry permit; it lets me know to a reasonable degree that certain metrics have been met, and that that individual's not a waste of my time OR likely to be an outright menace.
It's by NO means a guarantee, merely one step among many for the purposes of responsible due-diligence.
It's also not a requirement across the board of the industry. Nor is it a piss-test-for-welfare plan.
It's not because of what any douchenozzle did last week, it's because we've not had a shortage of douchenozzles since....oh...let's say Genesis. It's in the same vein as ANY business with a "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I'm not gonna boot any student simply because his nose reminds me of an uncle I don't like, but even somebody "vetted" can hit all the wickets any instructor or cadre lay down, yet STILL manage to be a a soup sandwich (not intentionally dangerous, but still a mess...) or a dipshit, deliberately negligent, or any number of other hazards.
If an instructor is in no position to tell you what bona fides you as a student, must possess, then by the same token, you as a student are in no postion to tell any given instructor he's required to teach you on the basis of simply drawing breath, or that he's discriminating against you if he does not. His business, and you vote with your wallet.
We gnash our teeth and wring our hands over how NON-proactive folks are; it doesn't stand to reason to rail against somebody BEING proactive within the boundaries of the law AND responsible commerce.
And, why would you "worry" about ANY vetting process? That's a genuine question, not busting your chops. You submit stuff, it either goes through or does not go through....
What's to worry?
Furthermore, even in basic NRA Instructor Classes this is harped on. They tell you to always check out whom you let in a class and always, always, always act professional as you never know who is wearing a hidden camera and may even make statements to illicit a response from you that may or may not be taken out of context by the media to make gun owners, trainiers & the training community look bad.
The statement was my way of saying for guys teaching to stay on their toes and watch their six. Nothing more.
davidjinks
12-20-12, 13:16
It's no worries to me. You're absolutely right that I vote with my wallet as should every other person out there.
What I take issue with is the way/time frame this subject is being broached. Why now? Why haven't the instructors been doing it since day one? What is so different now as opposed to a year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago? I understand the ITAR side of things. But I don't think that's what the OP was hitting on.
Lots of instructors do that very thing for ITAR purposes, among other reasons. Unless known to me within two degrees of separation (referred by a friend/colleague I already trust...), I require that my private students have a VA concealed carry permit; it lets me know to a reasonable degree that certain metrics have been met, and that that individual's not a waste of my time OR likely to be an outright menace.
It's by NO means a guarantee, merely one step among many for the purposes of responsible due-diligence.
It's also not a requirement across the board of the industry. Nor is it a piss-test-for-welfare plan.
It's not because of what any douchenozzle did last week, it's because we've not had a shortage of douchenozzles since....oh...let's say Genesis. It's in the same vein as ANY business with a "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I'm not gonna boot any student simply because his nose reminds me of an uncle I don't like, but even somebody "vetted" can hit all the wickets any instructor or cadre lay down, yet STILL manage to be a a soup sandwich (not intentionally dangerous, but still a mess...) or a dipshit, deliberately negligent, or any number of other hazards.
If an instructor is in no position to tell you what bona fides you as a student, must possess, then by the same token, you as a student are in no postion to tell any given instructor he's required to teach you on the basis of simply drawing breath, or that he's discriminating against you if he does not. His business, and you vote with your wallet.
We gnash our teeth and wring our hands over how NON-proactive folks are; it doesn't stand to reason to rail against somebody BEING proactive within the boundaries of the law AND responsible commerce.
And, why would you "worry" about ANY vetting process? That's a genuine question, not busting your chops. You submit stuff, it either goes through or does not go through....
What's to worry?
This subject has been approached years ago, it is not just being brought up. I started training years back and I always was asked for a CWP and my past experience for any class I took. I did bring it up in this post because in the coming months the media and the anti's will use any ammunition they can to push an agenda. There are a huge number of new training companies in my area as well as others. Many from these outfits read on here but do not post. I know of a few personally. We all pretty much have active regional training groups as well. What we don't need is
A. To end up educating someone who goes forth and does an unspeakable act such as the one just committed.
B. Someone in a leadership or even a member/attendee role doing or saying something that gets caught on tape and plastered on the news making us look in any negative light. Read my Chest Thumping post and put 2 and 2 together.
All I am saying is to make sure, now more so than even, we all act professional in what we do and do all we can to assure we do not give out any information or educate someone who may go out and commit a evil act. I realize no one has a crystal ball to know whom may be capable or planning to do what, but just exercise common sense.
I think you may be digging into this a little too deep.
Why now? Why haven't the instructors been doing it since day one? What is so different now as opposed to a year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago?
It's not "now," is all. Lots of instructors have been doing some form of vetting/prerequisites since before most of us can articulate, though certainly not all.
Nobody's advocating that investigators get tasked, credit reports produced and 6hr "lifestyle" polygraphs get administered, like a firearms student is a DoE-Q clearance candidate (or whatever they're calling that, these days...). ;)
What Hootie's saying is functionally no different than any one person or group promoting NRA memberships, for example, in light of recent events.
A reminder of practices/resources that have been in place, and to not be complacent. Sensible awareness that there's folks out there willing to cherry-pick an experience to fit their agenda.
I think it boils down to "be vigilant"
Watch those around you--get to know them and what motivates them. It helps tag bad eggs early.
davidjinks
12-20-12, 14:38
Okay, I understand where you're coming.
However that's not what I got from his original post. I take issue with this:
"I know you may or may not have the resources to background check someone; find an LEO in your area & see if they can help you out."
I couldn't multiquote from my phone but that's from the OP.
I've never had anyone pull a background check on me in order to take a shooting course. The only time I've ever been asked to give out information was for introductory purposes at the beginning of a class.
This is where I'm asking for clarification from the OP. Is he advocating running a background check on students or not? If not, maybe the wording should be changed. This way there's no misunderstanding.
If what he is saying is something like: Get a feel for your students by chatting them up, get some background on where they're coming from and why they're doing XYZ...
It's not "now," is all. Lots of instructors have been doing some form of vetting/prerequisites since before most of us can articulate, though certainly not all.
Nobody's advocating that investigators get tasked, credit reports produced and 6hr "lifestyle" polygraphs get administered, like a firearms student is a DoE-Q clearance candidate (or whatever they're calling that, these days...). ;)
What Hootie's saying is functionally no different than any one person or group promoting NRA memberships, for example, in light of recent events.
A reminder of practices/resources that have been in place, and to not be complacent. Sensible awareness that there's folks out there willing to cherry-pick an experience to fit their agenda.
And I should have been more clear. In my mind, what I was thinging & I'm going to parallel this to imagine if you are a flight school instructor. If you were to get someone who wants to learn how to fly a plane, but has no care about learning how to land. If in a training group or class and something strikes you as odd, or if someone seeks you out from having read your postings on what classes you've taken & comes to any of you asking for help but you don't know them. Get to know them. If they have off the wall request, something shooting wise that relates to the flying statement and you get a gut feeling about it, listen to that feeling. I mentioned LE help, as if someone alerts you as to something off, something that would put that person on your radar, he may very well be on LE's radar too.
Again, I think you are digging too much into what I said.
davidjinks
12-20-12, 15:34
That's better clarification. Thank you.
I'm a literal type of person. When you said "Vet" and "Background Check" and mentioned getting local LEO to help, that has a literal meaning of pulling a bonified background check.
As I mentioned in my last post, if you meant to get to know XYZ, then I'm tracking with you.
And I should have been more clear. In my mind, what I was thinging & I'm going to parallel this to imagine if you are a flight school instructor. If you were to get someone who wants to learn how to fly a plane, but has no care about learning how to land. If in a training group or class and something strikes you as odd, or if someone seeks you out from having read your postings on what classes you've taken & comes to any of you asking for help but you don't know them. Get to know them. If they have off the wall request, something shooting wise that relates to the flying statement and you get a gut feeling about it, listen to that feeling. I mentioned LE help, as if someone alerts you as to something off, something that would put that person on your radar, he may very well be on LE's radar too.
Again, I think you are digging too much into what I said.
My line of thinking is just because all the past assclowns who do these types of crimes have been untrained, doesn't mean tomorrows assclown will be too. We need to watch for this & do what we can to prevent it.
No, just make sure you are not a felon. I don't know of anyone who teaches who doesn't at least ask for a CWP and want to know prior training experience.
So no NEW shooters.
Did I say anything about no new shooters? No I didn't. I said to be vigilant & to continue to do the same vetting that has been done since gunsite & similar places opened.
I think it boils down to "be vigilant"
Watch those around you--get to know them and what motivates them. It helps tag bad eggs early.
That's pretty much what we are doing. We're 'self-professed amateurs' ourselves, and not in any way teaching/instructing/training others anything beyond safety and basics for those who need it. There are some people we probably won't invite on range trips anymore, due to disregard of safety, even after offering gentle-to-firm suggestions.
As far as the 'build club' we have, we are watching out for people who might think our interests branch in to some sort of 'anti-government' movement. (Be they undercover agents or insurgents of sorts looking for like-minded folks.) I remember a couple of occasions during the heavy 'militia days' of the '90s being approached by people unknown to us that seemed a little too comfortable talking about insurrection with perfect strangers. After a few times of seeing them around (at a very rural range) and no one really being interested in engaging them either way, they were never seen again. Feds? Separatists? Tactless fools? Who knows...
You know, I may be taking your post out of context...
But are you recommending that those who sign up for a class should somehow have to be vetted in order to take a class? Vetting as in a background check, criminal history, interviews type vetting? Or are you advocating a secret behind the scenes, the end user won't know type secret squirrel shit?
All because some ****ing douchenozzle offed a bunch of kids? So now not only do I have to pay with (Possibly) my gun rights but now I'll have to worry about some instructor "Vetting" me to take a training course because of someone else's crime?
Is that what you're saying?
I could have sworn I saw something of this nature on the EAG tactical website. I think it said something about having a CCW as a requirement for taking a class. I could be mistaken.
I could have sworn I saw something of this nature on the EAG tactical website. I think it said something about having a CCW as a requirement for taking a class. I could be mistaken.
Yes Pat requires a CWP or equivenlant. I have trained under many other big names. For me it was the same for all of them. I didn't think anything of it. I really do not understand why the uproar. Even if an instructor required a back ground check prior. If you go buy a gun you get one, if you go on a field trip with your kid at school you have one. Basically with EAG asking for a CWP he is being provided with documentation that you have been checked out. Look around at your big named instructors. They will most all ask for this.
Furthermore, this is what can happen without any vetting what so ever. We all know our gun facts, but yet we see the spin the media has been putting on it telling outright lies. Ok let's say as an instructor I blindly let folks attend and have no idea who Michael Moore is. Even a basic google search would tell me who he is and by checking his drivers license or CWP I could determine that he is not giving me a false name. But me being a trusting guy, he gives me the name Rupert Dale Maggot III and I believe him. So he comes to class with a hidden camera recording and over the course of 2 days gets plenty great shots that he can cherry pick & edit to make it look however he wants. Maybe he even gets lucky & catches a student, whom I may have no knowledge or control of running their mouth about what they're going to do if someone comes after their guns.
Well all is great for me until 2 weeks later and I am plastered all over the 6 pm news for teaching some anti-government right-winger wackos how to fight with a gun. When all I did was teach a basic marksmanship/gun handling class to grown normal men. If you don't think the media would salivate at the chance to chew on that steak you're wrong. Once it's on prime time, it will not matter how in the right I was. I am done. That's best case. Worst case is some nut job slips through the cracks & goes on to do something horrible.
So if an instructor asks about your background, it's not to be all secret squirrel on you, it is to protect him, his welfare, in my case who's name is associated with what I do, and the shooting community as a whole. Nothing more. It's no jab against potential students, it just is what it is. If you have a problem being checked out, would you sign up for a class hosted at a LE Facility or some place like USTC? Cause I promise you will be checked out before they allow you one foot onto their property, even if it is an open enrollment class, your host will provide your info to them.
For me personally it comes down to this. Negligence on my part that would allow someone who had a criminal past come learn something from me that they in turn use to harm an innocent person is something I cannot live with.
Outlander Systems
12-21-12, 06:11
Firearms License = Go
No Firearms License = No Go
If you can't get a permit, you don't have any business at a class.
Also, what the hell would you be doing there if you don't carry? Pretty pointless.
It's like learning karate and leaving your feet at the crib.
davidjinks
12-21-12, 07:32
A true supporter of the rights of their fellow Americans!
Here's some food for thought:
Someone in NJ who cannot get a CHL should not be allowed to train? Even though they are allowed by law to own firearms but not allowed by law to carry them they're somehow not worthy enough to attend training classes? Same with DC, IL, MD, NYC, etc...
Is that what you're saying?
How about a person who can own firearms, does so legally, wants to train to become more proficient with those arms is the reason they're attending classes.
EDITED TO ADD: I've got a very good friend of mine that lost his leg in an IED attack that is training in BJJ.
Firearms License = Go
No Firearms License = No Go
If you can't get a permit, you don't have any business at a class.
Also, what the hell would you be doing there if you don't carry? Pretty pointless.
It's like learning karate and leaving your feet at the crib.
A true supporter of the rights of their fellow Americans!
Here's some food for thought:
Someone in NJ who cannot get a CHL should not be allowed to train? Even though they are allowed by law to own firearms but not allowed by law to carry them they're somehow not worthy enough to attend training classes? Same with DC, IL, MD, NYC, etc...
Is that what you're saying?
How about a person who can own firearms, does so legally, wants to train to become more proficient with those arms is the reason they're attending classes.
EDITED TO ADD: I've got a very good friend of mine that lost his leg in an IED attack that is training in BJJ.
Which is specifically why I stated in the OP "A CWP or proof they have purchased a firearm in their name" which indicates they have had a NICS check. You know, that little speed bump that denied Lanza from buying his own rifle.
I have a question Jinks, have you ever taken a class from a well known instructor?
davidjinks
12-21-12, 08:24
A well known instructor...like Vickers, Thunder Ranch and the sorts? No.
Which is specifically why I stated in the OP "A CWP or proof they have purchased a firearm in their name" which indicates they have had a NICS check. You know, that little speed bump that denied Lanza from buying his own rifle.
I have a question Jinks, have you ever taken a class from a well known instructor?
Outlander Systems
12-21-12, 08:28
I didn't realize we had a constitutional right for a private instructor to train us. I thought that was a privilege.
Knowing is half the battle.
davidjinks
12-21-12, 08:33
Who said anything like that?
Reading is fundamental.
Don't side step the question that was asked of you. Do you stand by what you said or not? Some people cannot get a CHL because of the state they live in. By your words, those people shouldn't be allowed to take training classes. Is that what you meant and stand by?
I didn't realize we had a constitutional right for a private instructor to train us. I thought that was a privilege.
Knowing is half the battle.
Outlander Systems
12-21-12, 08:35
Who said anything like that?
Reading is fundamental.
Don't side step the question that was asked of you. Do you stand by what you said or not? Some people cannot get a CHL because of the state they live in. By your words, those people shouldn't be allowed to take training classes. Is that what you meant and stand by?
If you can't carry, what's the point?
It's like wanting to take motorcycle racing classes, but you can't ride a motorcycle except in your driveway.
30 cal slut
12-21-12, 08:39
A true supporter of the rights of their fellow Americans!
Here's some food for thought:
Someone in NJ who cannot get a CHL should not be allowed to train? Even though they are allowed by law to own firearms but not allowed by law to carry them they're somehow not worthy enough to attend training classes? Same with DC, IL, MD, NYC, etc...
Is that what you're saying?
How about a person who can own firearms, does so legally, wants to train to become more proficient with those arms is the reason they're attending classes.
EDITED TO ADD: I've got a very good friend of mine that lost his leg in an IED attack that is training in BJJ.
IL, MA, and NJ have Firearms Owners ID's (needed to purchase long guns and ammo in a store in MA and NJ, any gun in IL).
It's a good idea to check DL and CCW, if any, for any organized training at the beginning of the class.
Unfortunately, due to recent events, red flags that might trigger a bit more inquiry - reallly young male shooters (18-21 years in age).
davidjinks
12-21-12, 08:42
So the only reason to have a gun is to carry it.
The only reason to take a class is because you carry a gun.
If you can own a gun but, by law, cannot carry a gun you can't get the proper training to use said said gun.
What about those people who own guns, legally, who cannot carry a gun, by law, but still want to protect their homes and families and want the training?
If you can't carry, what's the point?
It's like wanting to take motorcycle racing classes, but you can't ride a motorcycle except in your driveway.
davidjinks
12-21-12, 08:44
A FOID card was not what was stated. A CHL is what was stated.
IL, MA, and NJ have Firearms Owners ID's (needed to purchase long guns and ammo in a store in MA and NJ, any gun in IL).
It's a good idea to check DL and CCW, if any, for any organized training at the beginning of the class.
Unfortunately, due to recent events, red flags that might trigger a bit more inquiry - reallly young male shooters (18-21 years in age).
How about a person who can own firearms, does so legally, wants to train to become more proficient with those arms is the reason they're attending classes.
What I think he's saying is a person should learn how to safely handle and manipulate a firearm prior to signing up for a course. Even an introductory course. And, be prepared to show that you have those skills.
Is that too much to ask?
Who wants to be on the firing line with someone who just bought their weapon the day or week before? Recipe for disaster.
Outlander Systems
12-21-12, 08:49
So the only reason to have a gun is to carry it.
The only reason to take a class is because you carry a gun.
If you can own a gun but, by law, cannot carry a gun you can't get the proper training to use said said gun.
What about those people who own guns, legally, who cannot carry a gun, by law, but still want to protect their homes and families and want the training?
If you can't carry, what's the point?
davidjinks
12-21-12, 08:52
Apparently you're incapable of understanding the question I asked you. It's pretty much a waste of time.
If you can't carry, what's the point?
Outlander Systems
12-21-12, 08:54
[QUOTE=davidjinks;1476741]
How about a person who can own firearms, does so legally, wants to train to become more proficient with those arms is the reason they're attending classes.
[QUOTE]
What I think he's saying is a person should learn how to safely handle and manipulate a firearm prior to signing up for a course. Even an introductory course. And, be prepared to show that you have those skills.
Is that too much to ask?
Who wants to be on the firing line with someone who just bought their weapon the day or week before? Recipe for disaster.
Dude, no shit. I am sick of getting flagged by Johnny Dumbshit who just bought a brand new gun with 100 "flawless" rounds through it.
My motorcycle racing analogy holds true; I can't compete in WERA without meeting a minimum set of requirements for both myself and my bike, as well as my equipment. Is it too much to ask that someone has some sort of validation that they aren't a complete jackass or felon, in order to fire a weapon in my vicinity?
If you can't carry, what's the point?
What about in the home, or on your own private property? Not looking to argue, but proficiency is the point.
davidjinks
12-21-12, 08:58
So in order to LEARN how to do those things they would have to seek INSTRUCTION but they would be turned away because they don't have a CHL.
That's what he is saying.
What I think he's saying is a person should learn how to safely handle and manipulate a firearm prior to signing up for a course. Even an introductory course. And, be prepared to show that you have those skills.
Is that too much to ask?
Who wants to be on the firing line with someone who just bought their weapon the day or week before? Recipe for disaster.
Outlander Systems
12-21-12, 09:04
What about in the home, or on your own private property? Not looking to argue, but proficiency is the point.
I'm not trying to be a pompous, insufferable ass. I'm just being pragmatic.
I don't attend handgun courses just for the party of it.
If you honestly see a need, I'm sure there's a means to reach an accord with an instructor.
But a validation method isn't unreasonable. I've come across some real idiots in the firearms world.
It's like saying I should be allowed to go through the Q Course, "just 'cause I wanna".
My qualifications?
"just 'cause I wanna"
Outlander Systems
12-21-12, 09:11
My example of motorcycle racing is the same thing.
I can't just willy-nilly even do a track day(training) without meeting a set of standards first.
And "cause I wanna" doesn't fly there either, so I don't see why it's a problem for firearms-related stuff as well.
"You're shit isn't even safety wired. Why should I let you on the track"?
"cause I wanna"
See? Sounds pretty stupid.
A FOID card was not what was stated. A CHL is what was stated.
You're cherry-picking. Of course there's other means. Nobody has stated that a CHL/CCW/Whatever Your State's Acronym Is is the only way, IF an instructor has a vetting process to begin with.
If you can't dial back on the histrionics, I'll just gut this to nothing but the posts that don't smack of a shrill hissy-fit. You're too busy accusing people to bother learning anything.
I would think that any instructor/training organization that were offering classes in a state that does not allow for concealed carry would not make a CCP a requirement. Stands to reason.
What is reasonable, IMO, is that anyone who has a desire or need to own a firearm, be prepared to spend time after the purchase to become familiar with the gun.
If you don't have a friend that has experience to show you the ropes, at the very least, read the instructions that come with the gun, perform dry fires, handling and safety manipulation and spend time at a range actually firing the gun. Not ideal but I suspect many people have done it and done it competently.
davidjinks
12-21-12, 09:44
There was no cherry picking. I asked specific questions that were stonewalled.
There was no theatrical performances on my end. I believe it's been all open debate with straight questions. If you consider my questions a shrill hissy fit, do what you must.
I'm learning quite a bit. Especially after reading your accusatory post.
You're cherry-picking. Of course there's other means. Nobody has stated that a CHL/CCW/Whatever Your State's Acronym Is is the only way, IF an instructor has a vetting process to begin with.
If you can't dial back on the histrionics, I'll just gut this to nothing but the posts that don't smack of a shrill hissy-fit. You're too busy accusing people to bother learning anything.
I tell you what Jinks, if you are ever in SC I'll donate a days worth of my time on the range in a VSM Class Format to you. All I ask is you provide a DL, CWP, or a receipt where you purchased a firearm in your own name.
You are correct that owning a firearm is a right. I 110% agree. Going to a training class where the instructor has to pay for a range, pay for insurance, and take on the liability of whatever may come from that class down the road is a privilage. If as an LEO I get in an OIS this weekend, you can bet with 99.999% certainty that by next week a lawsuit by the perp or his family will name me, the city, the firearms instructor who trained & certified me as well as anyone else their lawyer thinks they can squeeze a dime out of. So, it does behoove the private instructor to vet who he lets in his class.
This is not someone incurring on your rights, and that is what you are trying to make of it. This is about safeguards that private companies & individuals put in place to reduce the risk of contributing to a problem down the road. Furthermore, like others around who teach, as an LEO (personally) or others who are Mil, can you imagine the mushroom cloud that would be should I through negligence train the next Hollywood bank robbers or nuts that go crazy? Not just what my conscience would have to bare, but the sheer fallout on the community as a whole? I am not willing to risk my future, my family's future, LAV's name & reputation, nor that of my Dept, nor that of anyone who may wind up a victim of me being slack. It just ain't happening.
If your local LE Agency held a firearms safety class, do you honestly think they would allow you to attend without atleast a simple warrents/history check?
SeriousStudent
12-21-12, 20:36
I honestly think Chad has a good point.
So far, a lot of the trainers in the firearms/security industry have really been "below the radar", so to speak. I'm very scared of the day when some graduate of the firearms equivalent of "Rex-Kwan-Do" does something really stupid or kills someone. When that happens, the whole industry will likely be affected, and not positively.
They will do it through sky-high insurance costs, and legislation.
I've taken a VSM class (not from Chad) and found the instructor to be very sharp, very safe, and very much wanting to work with us students. Frankly, it was a hell of a lot better than the instruction I got as a Marine grunt.
To davidjinks - I think you are finding an arguenment where there isn't one. The often-heard refrain regarding training is "When you have a question, contact the instructor." If you live in an area where there is no CHL, I am will to bet the instructor will work with you.
All these guys are saying is, let's not give free ammo to the other side.
Your very first post in this thread starts with the sentance "You know, I may be taking your post out of context". I think you are.
I'm not crawling up your backside. I'm being polite. I'd be happy to discuss this over a beer, and I'd buy. I think everyone is concerned right now, after a horrible tragedy and possible future legislation.
From Chad's post, the man would be happy to work with you. I bet other instructors would do so as well. They just don't want to see things change for the worse.
And I love the "Rupert Dale Maggot III" reference. ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.