Why arming everyone with guns is not a good Idea.

[Demonslayer]

Here's the thing about training: it can often increase risk.

I don't buy it.

There have been a number of studies lately on advanced driver training courses:

Sounds to me like "advanced driving training courses" might entail a lot more than basic driving technique and rules of the road that we get in our drivers ed classes. I'd have to see the study but just from what you wrote here I'm envisioning a class that teaches people to drive quickly through cones, learn how to steer out of a skid, control the car on wet surfaces, etc. Perhaps people who are interested in driving such a manner are more aggressive drivers overall or something. I'd have to see the study, do you have a link?

I have no reason to think that firearms training is any different from driver training in this regard. Do you?

I absolutely do. You're trying to say that, based on some advanced driver training study you saw, that you think people who are trained how to properly load, shoot and secure a firearm are more dangerous than someone who uses a firearm without being trained? I think that's insane. I didn't know, for example, before someone showed me that one round stays in the chamber when the clip is released. Just showing someone that one thing would make them infinitely safer than someone who doesn't know that. Ditto not putting your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot, or how to always hold the firearm with the muzzle pointed down, etc. I think it's patently absurd to say someone who doesn't know these things would somehow be safer operating a firearm than someone who didn't know these things.

The better argument here is that most responsible gun owners, particularly those folks for whom guns are present and part of their family, train their children themselves from an early age. Must gun owners I know are extremely adamant with their children about learning and strictly adhering to safe firearms practices. None of these folks would say "I wanted to make sure my children were as safe as possible with guns around...so I decided not to teach them anything."

But despite the fact that MOST gun owners train their children responsibly, there's the lowest common denominator to think about, and I feel a basic firearms safety course and simple proficiency test is very little to ask of Americans who wish to exercise their right to own a gun.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's just one video of many that are labelled as a "comical fail," but there is nothing funny about it (everything about his posture screams he has no idea what he is doing, and the people around him had no regards for safety). People give these guns to people and let them shoot them, despite giving consideration to if the shooter can even handle the power of the gun. The video I was looking for was of a woman who shot a gun that spun in her palm and it ended up bashing her in the face. That isn't funny, but reckless stupidity that should be considered criminal. I have even read of incidents involving people who have died over such idiocy. That is what our gun culture and lack of regulations lead to.

Just as there is no single "feminism" or "black culture", there is no single "gun culture".
The gun nuts I run with are a world apart from the guy in the video or violent gangs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's the thing about training: it can often increase risk.

There have been a number of studies lately on advanced driver training courses: turns out that people who have taken them are actually at greater risk of collisions, because the confidence created by the training will stay high even as the skills degrade from lack of practice. This means that unless a driver commits themselves to consistent, frequent training and practice (and very few people do), the people who have taken this advanced training tend to overestimate their ability to handle emergency situations.

I have no reason to think that firearms training is any different from driver training in this regard. Do you?

No firearms trainers I know (& I know many) would make anyone more dangerous.
Safety is paramount.
And especially with beginners, instilling a healthy sense of fear of guns is often necessary.
(People start out over-confident.)

 

[Demonslayer]

No firearms trainers I know (& I know many) would make anyone more dangerous.
Safety is paramount.
And especially with beginners, instilling a healthy sense of fear of guns is often necessary.
(People start out over-confident.)

I mean the idea flies in the face of the entire concept of training. You train to get better at something, more proficient. Imagine saying the better football player is the one who doesn't train or airline pilots are safer if they just climb aboard and start flipping all the switches and doo-dads until the plane goes up.

 

[Revoltingest]

I mean the idea flies in the face of the entire concept of training. You train to get better at something, more proficient. Imagine saying the better football player is the one who doesn't train or airline pilots are safer if they just climb aboard and start flipping all the switches and doo-dads until the plane goes up.

It would depend upon on what one is trained to do.
If someone takes a street racing class, I can see that they'd become more dangerous on the street.
Whoever it is who trains fools to hold handguns sideways is an example.

 

[esmith]

Here's the thing about training: it can often increase risk.

There have been a number of studies lately on advanced driver training courses: turns out that people who have taken them are actually at greater risk of collisions, because the confidence created by the training will stay high even as the skills degrade from lack of practice. This means that unless a driver commits themselves to consistent, frequent training and practice (and very few people do), the people who have taken this advanced training tend to overestimate their ability to handle emergency situations.

I have no reason to think that firearms training is any different from driver training in this regard. Do you?

Do I think driver training is any different from firearm training? The simple and conclusive answer is NO. Training is training. Now your one comment (will use my words not yours) refresher training and practice is necessary to remain proficient in the desired skill is mandatory and is self evident. One loses muscle memory if one does not practice and one loses other skills depending on what one is attempting.
Again I find serious fault with your constant reliance on "studies" that do not take everything into consideration. You don't have to be a genius, or even a high school dropout, to know that if you do not practice you lose ones proficiency. But you and others seem to be fixated on statistics, and studies that support your argument that do not take into consideration all factors. Therefore until you or others can produce data that does consider all factors your reliance on said studies are groundless.

 

[Demonslayer]

It would depend upon on what one is trained to do.
If someone takes a street racing class, I can see that they'd become more dangerous on the street.
Whoever it is who trains fools to hold handguns sideways is an example.

What's with you and all your "good points" anyway?

 

[Prestor John]

Sounds like they needed a gun to defend themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

What's with you and all your "good points" anyway?

Pure accident.

 

[Demonslayer]

Again I find serious fault with your constant reliance on "studies" that do not take everything into consideration.

Those pesky statistics, always getting in the way of gut feelings.

You don't have to be a genius, or even a high school dropout, to know that if you do not practice you lose ones proficiency.

This sounds like you agree with me. My comment was simply to say that I feel Penguin's idea that people who are trained to shoot a gun are less safe than those who are trained to shoot one is silly.

Do you agree with that, or disagree? Don't you think, before picking up, loading and shooting a firearm, it would be safer if someone showed the person the ins and outs of how to load it, safely unload it, other features of the gun like the safety and some general concepts that people might not think of on their own like always keeping your finger off the trigger and keeping the muzzle pointed to the ground?

Therefore until you or others can produce data that does consider all factors your reliance on said studies are groundless.

You find serious fault with my reliance on "studies" yet you want me to find a "study" to back up my point? Good grief.

 

[esmith]

What training and experience do you actually have?

Just to satisfy your curiosity, and that is all it is, I will give you a brief synopsis.
At the age of around 8 was given my first BB-gun and received extensive safety instruction which was strictly enforced
At around the age of around 10 was hunting with my father
At the age of around 11 purchased my first firearm and was allowed unsupervised hunting privileges.
Continue hunting until joining the Navy in 1961
Maintained proficiency with various firearms, most notably the 1911 45acp, until my retirement in 1981. Had to qualify almost yearly with the 45.
Went back to elk and deer hunting until 1997. During this period obtained necessary requirements to obtain a CCW permit.
Period of 1997 to 2006 stopped practice with firearms due to circumstances
2006 went back to shooting and found that I had lost almost all of my expertise in firearm accuracy. Started practicing, along with my spouse, on at least a monthly bases, if not more.
2008 obtained a CCW permit for my state and continue practicing. Spouse eventually obtained hers.

Now by practice I don't mean the type of combat practice required of police officers. Only the practice necessary to remain proficient in safely handling a weapon and accuracy. I don't need the "good guy bad guy" decision making, nor clearing a structure.
That good enough for you?

 

[Demonslayer]

At the age of around 8 was given my first BB-gun and received extensive safety instruction which was strictly enforced
At around the age of around 10 was hunting with my father
At the age of around 11 purchased my first firearm and was allowed unsupervised hunting privileges.
Continue hunting until joining the Navy in 1961
Maintained proficiency with various firearms, most notably the 1911 45acp, until my retirement in 1981. Had to qualify almost yearly with the 45.
Went back to elk and deer hunting until 1997. During this period obtained necessary requirements to obtain a CCW permit.

With all that training you must be a lot more dangerous with a firearm than those who never had any training at all.

 

[esmith]

Those pesky statistics, always getting in the way of gut feelings.



This sounds like you agree with me. My comment was simply to say that I feel Penguin's idea that people who are trained to shoot a gun are less safe than those who are trained to shoot one is silly.

Do you agree with that, or disagree? Don't you think, before picking up, loading and shooting a firearm, it would be safer if someone showed the person the ins and outs of how to load it, safely unload it, other features of the gun like the safety and some general concepts that people might not think of on their own like always keeping your finger off the trigger and keeping the muzzle pointed to the ground?

I agree with you that anyone who is trained to understand how a firearm operates, the safety features of various types of firearms, noting that not all firearms have safeties (revolvers, semi-auto pistols[conventional that is], the proper use and handling of said firearms is considerably safer than one who only knows (maybe) which end the bullet comes out of). There is an organization that is vilified by the anti-gun crowd that promotes and teaches firearm handling and shooting; that organization is the NRA. But the anti-gun crowd can't have their biggest boogeyman teaching safety. Why if they even remotely suggested that the NRA was doing beneficial work in the field of firearms they would be ostracized from the liberal hate groups.

You find serious fault with my reliance on "studies" yet you want me to find a "study" to back up my point? Good grief.

I find serious fault with any study that lumps all data into one neat heap without investigating all of the nuances associated with the study. For instance I have searched a little and can find no data correlating firearm incidents with training or lack of training. So would one have to assume that "training" has little or no bearing on incidents with firearms? Yet my feather friend seems to think that advanced training could lead to firearm incidents. Just as his "study" linked advanced driver training to possible more automobile accidents?

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news, one sheriff wants his civilian workers armed....
http://www.wlwt.com/news/butler-co-sheriff-urges-civilian-staff-to-carry-weapons-at-work/40777018

 

[McBell]

Just to satisfy your curiosity, and that is all it is, I will give you a brief synopsis.
At the age of around 8 was given my first BB-gun and received extensive safety instruction which was strictly enforced
At around the age of around 10 was hunting with my father
At the age of around 11 purchased my first firearm and was allowed unsupervised hunting privileges.
Continue hunting until joining the Navy in 1961
Maintained proficiency with various firearms, most notably the 1911 45acp, until my retirement in 1981. Had to qualify almost yearly with the 45.
Went back to elk and deer hunting until 1997. During this period obtained necessary requirements to obtain a CCW permit.
Period of 1997 to 2006 stopped practice with firearms due to circumstances
2006 went back to shooting and found that I had lost almost all of my expertise in firearm accuracy. Started practicing, along with my spouse, on at least a monthly bases, if not more.
2008 obtained a CCW permit for my state and continue practicing. Spouse eventually obtained hers.

Now by practice I don't mean the type of combat practice required of police officers. Only the practice necessary to remain proficient in safely handling a weapon and accuracy. I don't need the "good guy bad guy" decision making, nor clearing a structure.
That good enough for you?

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/firearms-training.157133/#post-3590542

I am now over 1000 hours that I can verify.

 

[David1967]

With all that training you must be a lot more dangerous with a firearm than those who never had any training at all.

Only to the bad guy.

 

[metis]

Only to the bad guy.

The stats and simple logic say otherwise.

 

[esmith]

The stats and simple logic say otherwise.

and again you are listening to the 1/8 truths of the anti-gun zealots .

 

[McBell]

The stats and simple logic say otherwise.

please present said stats and logic.

 

[tytlyf]

and again you are listening to the 1/8 truths of the anti-gun zealots .

Anti-gun zealots? No one is anti-gun, we're anti-weak laws. But the NRA likes laws weak, otherwise they may lose some gun sales $$$$