| Author | Post |
|---|
hugh jarmis
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 02:45 am |
|
For me it's actually unnerving because it would make me nervous if I was in the car next to a guy doing that, but that's what's required.
I agree. I have to stand there and drop 5 rounds in my little airweight. That seems most odd of the whole scenario. Someone walking around with a holstered guy. OK. Having a gun in your hand loading it up. More attention arousing.
But like you say... Its whats required (shrug)
|
AaronS
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 04:36 am |
|
| You could try to find some moon clips for your 5 shot. Then you can unload/load all 5 rounds at one time.
|
Shotgun
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 05:25 am |
|
I was mainly just wanting clarification from eleuthera whether his method results in carrying a round chambered or not. It's his choice of course.
I'm aware that condition three carry is advocated in some circles. However it does not matter how good you get-- a condition three carry firearm will necessarily and unavoidably be slower to bring into action than a condition one carry. It won't ever be faster, it won't ever be equally fast. It will be slower. Maybe that fraction of a second won't matter. Probably it won't. But only maybe it won't. So the best anyone can say is "probably" and "maybe." In a gunfight, I want every advantage I can get. If that advantage includes a couple of tenths of a second, I'll take it.
If you carry in condition three, do you always practice racking the slide every time that you draw? If not, will you remember to rack the slide during the moment of "this is not really happening to me" when facing a real threat? Is all your training consistent with and directed towards compatibility with how you carry on the street? Just something to consider.
As far as being nervous about loading and unloading a firearm, or other administrative handling, I am not nervous as long as it demonstrates competence and safety. No more nervous than just watching somebody get into a car and drive away. If the person appears sober, competent and safe, then I experience no more concern regarding gun handling than I do to watching someone who appears sober, competent and safe drive away in their car. After all, operating a motor vehicle is far more complicated than operating a firearm.
Yes, we're more accustomed to seeing people operate vehicles in public than firearms. So we are not immune ourselves from the very bias against firearms that we hope to counter among the general populace? We say their fears will lessen once they get used to seeing it? Yet we experience fear with a similar basis? Regard your firearms with respect, not with fear. If this is what we wish of the non-carrying public certainly we should set the example.
Yes the stupid vehicle transport law forces us to handle the gun more than we would otherwise. Yes, that probably creates a greater number of opportunities for something to go wrong in theory. If you're not negligent in what you do in practice, nothing will go wrong. We ought to be able to handle the inconvenience of loading and unloading in stride. We ought not to be the ones who are made nervous by having to load and unload. If those who are unfamiliar with guns are made nervous by observing safe gun handling, then it is THEY who have the problem, not us. They are the ones who will have a greater personal interest in getting rid of the stupid vehicle transport law, since they are the ones who are made fearful of it's requirements. (I'm sorry, I cannot write "vehicle transport law" without the word "stupid" attached as a prefix. )
|
Shotgun
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 05:34 am |
|
AaronS wrote: You could try to find some moon clips for your 5 shot. Then you can unload/load all 5 rounds at one time.
I'm guessing Nik's gun is a .38 spl or .357 and not usable with moon clips, so a speed loader would be the way to go.
I don't know, do they make an airweight in something that uses a moon clip, 9mm or .45 ACP? Not that I'm aware.
|
eleuthera
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 07:28 am |
|
Shotgun - depends on the situation. For example, if I know a jumpy, agitated LEO is going to be confiscating my weapon and maybe not understand that my SIG doesn't have a safety....well, you see where I'm going with that.
The good news is my level 2 serpa lets me chamber a round and cock the gun without taking the gun outta the holster, so I can do either without ever worrying about a misfire.
Cuz I don't care how good you are, or what practice you subscribe to, there are only two types of gun owners: those who have had a misfire, and those who are going to. But to be honest, maybe I'm just extra freakin careful because I'm taking risks elsewhere (could you picture that headline? "guy who carried gun into mall shoots self accidentally")
Ya I love you guys too much to set us back like that :-D
|
Pointman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 12:12 pm |
|
Shotgun wrote: As far as being nervous about loading and unloading a firearm, or other administrative handling, I am not nervous as long as it demonstrates competence and safety. No more nervous than just watching somebody get into a car and drive away. If the person appears sober, competent and safe, then I experience no more concern regarding gun handling than I do to watching someone who appears sober, competent and safe drive away in their car. After all, operating a motor vehicle is far more complicated than operating a firearm.
Yes, we're more accustomed to seeing people operate vehicles in public than firearms. So we are not immune ourselves from the very bias against firearms that we hope to counter among the general populace? We say their fears will lessen once they get used to seeing it? Yet we experience fear with a similar basis? Regard your firearms with respect, not with fear. If this is what we wish of the non-carrying public certainly we should set the example.
You make an excellent point and I'd like to expand on it and what I was thinking. People talk on the cell phone while changing radio stations while driving, and they get into accidents and hurt people. That doesn't mean we should outlaw talking on the cell because of a select few, but I drive defensively and notice it.
Some uneducated people who strap on a gun will load up while pointing the gun in an unsafe direction, maybe sweeping others while holstering. Others will hear and see me load up, and maybe act as if I was a bad guy (picture an officer in the car next to me).
I know a guy who heard about the AG's memorandum and now wants to carry. He doesn't know a thing about firearms, never owned or fired a gun, and isn't the brightest bulb in the box (and I think he comes with a dimmer switch). Nice guy though, and a good family man. He's someone that should take a firearms safety class and then a permit to carry class so he knows what he's doing, or not buy a gun, in my opinion. I think doing so would make him and his family much safer than if he just bought a gun, and much much safer if he wanted to wear it in public.
It's not just the mechanics of safety, but when can you draw in self defense, what will happen to you if you do, what do you do if you're prosecuted, how do you handle criminal and civil charges if you use the gun in lawful self defense, etc. Wisconsin is one of the few states that let you make your own choice as to education; I hope he makes the right one.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 01:22 pm |
|
Pointman wrote: It's not just the mechanics of safety, but when can you draw in self defense, what will happen to you if you do, what do you do if you're prosecuted, how do you handle criminal and civil charges if you use the gun in lawful self defense, etc. Wisconsin is one of the few states that let you make your own choice as to education; I hope he makes the right one.
Not true - most states allow open carry of loaded handguns without any "education." Many states issue concealed handgun permits without any requirement for "education," e.g., Pennsylvania, or require only de minimis training, e.g., Virginia (proof of compentency includes any hunter safety course, online training certificate, previously issued CHP, or proof of honorable discharge form the military).
Training with guns is a good thing and the state should encourage it by tax credits (every state should pass an "unorganized militia tax credit or deduction") and free education in K-12 schools - but it should not mandate training which would then become a prior restraint on the right to bear arms.
In practice, open carry appears to make people MORE aware of what they are doing and more careful - conceal carriers seem to be the ones having negligent discharges around the coutnry by carrying guns in pockets and purses without proper holsters.
|
Shotgun
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 01:55 pm |
|
eleuthera wrote: Shotgun - depends on the situation. For example, if I know a jumpy, agitated LEO is going to be confiscating my weapon and maybe not understand that my SIG doesn't have a safety....well, you see where I'm going with that.
The good news is my level 2 serpa lets me chamber a round and cock the gun without taking the gun outta the holster, so I can do either without ever worrying about a misfire.
Cuz I don't care how good you are, or what practice you subscribe to, there are only two types of gun owners: those who have had a misfire, and those who are going to. But to be honest, maybe I'm just extra freakin careful because I'm taking risks elsewhere (could you picture that headline? "guy who carried gun into mall shoots self accidentally")
Ya I love you guys too much to set us back like that :-D
Gotcha. I don't think you meant to say "misfire" however. I believe you meant accidental or negligent discharge.
Well there's no way to absolutely prevent acts of stupidity from occurring. Inevitably, somewhere, that headline will happen, but when it does I doubt that it will involve you, eleuthera. But it sounds more like you wish to prevent the headline "jumpy agitated police officer shoots self." If YOU are following safe handling practices then shooting yourself or someone else accidentally is not going to happen.
I don't know, I'll have to give it more thought. I'm just bothered by the idea that "free men" anticipate having their rights violated. I ask myself, "free from what?"
If you look at the reports from other states on here-- states that have a longer and more widely known tradition of open carry-- we still find quite a few instances of OCers getting stopped by police. The plain truth is that unpleasant encounters with LEO can happen anywhere, whether it's Wisconsin, Virginia, Wyoming or even Vermont. If we compromise the exercise of our rights-- even to a small degree-- then it is victory for those who wish to make us fear to exercise our rights. The law already provides too many unreasonable restrictions on what we are allowed to do. I can't see self-imposing further restrictions upon ourselves. That's exactly what our enemies want us to do.
|
hugh jarmis
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 04:23 pm |
|
As far as being nervous about loading and unloading a firearm, or other administrative handling, I am not nervous as long as it demonstrates competence and safety.
Perhaps nervous was a bad choice of words. I'm more "selfconcious" about "soccer mom" seeing me loading and unloading my gun when I'm standing in a parking lot than I am about walking around with it in the holster.
Because I think the vehicle carry statute is retarded, I think that an average joe looking at me loading my gun standing next to my vehicle would be puzzled by that more-so than seeing me walking with a holstered gun.
Now that people are aware that open carry is legal, I still hear a lot of people who are WELL aware open carry is legal, surprised that you have to load and unload your gun every time you get in an out of your car.
|
hugh jarmis
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 04:43 pm |
|
Some uneducated people who strap on a gun will load up while pointing the gun in an unsafe direction, maybe sweeping others while holstering.
Pointman, are there any other gun myths you'd like to lay out here for the news media?
Are there any other pejorative comments you'd like to fuel the anti-gun "training mandate" crowd with?
Are you a firearms instructor? Because your comments of late seem to be pretty biased in that direction. Makes me think you have a financial stake in a training mandate.
I know a guy who heard about the AG's memorandum and now wants to carry. He doesn't know a thing about firearms, never owned or fired a gun, and isn't the brightest bulb in the box (and I think he comes with a dimmer switch). Nice guy though, and a good family man.
My BS meter is going off.
I digress...
I think that people who go buy power tools at home depot should make sure they know how to operate them safely before using them also.
He's someone that should take a firearms safety class and then a permit to carry class so he knows what he's doing, or not buy a gun, in my opinion.
I do want to say to people reading this forum that if anyone is coming on here, is thinking of buying a gun for the first time, has never owned a gun before, wants to get one now. Don't buy into the MYTH that you need professional firearms training before you exercise your rights.
Your constitutional rights do not come with training requirments. The right to protect yourself and your familiy shouldn't sit in wait while you find a class that fits in your busy life schedule. Sign up for the class and pay the fee. Then complete a class before you can exercise your right to protect yourself.
It GOES WITHOUT saying that in everything we do, we should learn to be better. It would be GREAT if everyone had the opportunity to take an "advanced driving" techniques" class before they get behind the wheel of a car. (think about it, drivers ed doesn't require you to learn and practice driving in snow) But the reality is that YOU as an individual have a right to protect yourself and its NOT rocket science.
If ANYONE wants to purchase a gun for the first time, and doesn't know how they operate you can go to "The Shooters Shop" in West Allis. If you purchase a gun from them. They will AS A COURTESY tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about how to safely operate the weapon you have purchased BEFORE you leave the store. If you go in during a time when they are not super busy THEY WILL ALSO take you down to their range for 10 - 15 minutes NO CHARGE and help you safely operate your weapon in live-fire practice. If they are too busy with customers, they will let you know a time to come back when they aren't usually busy to go down and spend a few minutes on the range with them.
I'm SURE most if not all other gun shops would do the same if you ask. I KNOW The Shooters Shop will because I called them and asked them this morning.
Please don't listen to guys like pointman who say:
He's someone that should take a firearms safety class and then a permit to carry class so he knows what he's doing, or not buy a gun,
Once you have purchased your gun and with the FREE instruction that will be made to you from the seller, know how to do so safely. You may likely wish to perfect your skills with advanced firearm classes. But you can do those at your leisure. Don't buy into the myth perpetuated by those who make money in firearms classes that its a MUST before you purchase a gun.
Firearms classes are a great idea. They are not a requisite to exercising your constitutional rights, and people who wish to cause you harm don't sit back and wait for 3 months for you to register, pay for, and complete firearms classes.
In my opinion of course.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 05:52 pm |
|
Yes, we should all keep in mind that if some one comes on here and continuously tells the readers they should pay for this and buy that and get insurance for that, the person probably has a personal agenda no matter how they sugar coat it.
|
eleuthera
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 06:09 pm |
|
You think guns are dangerous? How about voting? If we're going to force people to be trained to "government standards" in order to carry a gun, we should have everyone go through a "voting class" as well. Last November we clearly saw the danger of not having such classes.
Or how about freedom of religion classes? Un-trained people could get sucked into Islamic terrorist sects.
Or how about freedom of speech classes? We don't want anyone spreading anti-progressive ideas, they could be harmful.
Or, how about we just let free men exercise their rights in peace, but force them to be accountable for their actions?
Government mandates are never the solution to ANYTHING. More power in the government's hands means less in mine.
|
Max
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 138 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 06:55 pm |
|
More government meddling is NOT what we need. I do not know who is worse, the citizens that ask for more government meddling or the governments that oblige them.
Will we never learn?
|
Shotgun
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 11:15 pm |
|
I am a certified instructor and I recommend that people get all the training they can get to improve their skills. However I am absolutely against required training for citizens. You are correct, a constitutional right ought not to have a training requirement. I believe a person can take every firearms course offered by, say the NRA, or a hunter's safety course and not necessarily be any safer with a firearm than someone who has only spent some time with their father learning to shoot. Why? Because one's attitude towards safety is the most important thing. One cannot teach attitude in a course or a lesson. Firearm safety rules are few in number and so simple that the average child of 8 can understand them. The issue is whether the individual has the resolve to strictly and conscientiously adhere to safe gun handling principles at all times. It is not something that is dependent upon one's experience or training.
Nobody who has experienced a negligent discharge says afterward "I didn't know I should have kept my finger off the trigger and the muzzle pointed in a safe direction." It's not a failure in knowledge, it's a failure in attitude that leads to an unintended or unsafe discharge. Lectures will not ensure anyone has the proper attitude. We are all on our own.
Now, I have 3 state permits: Pennsylvania required no training. Florida required evidence of some training, in my case they accepted my military experience. Minnesota required that I take a specific class. I will admit I am having an internal debate about the different requirements of these states. Not all training, of course, is regarding gun competency or safety. A good portion of the MN class covered the legal aspects. I think most everyone would agree that more knowledge is better than less knowledge. We discuss the legalities of gun ownership and use so much on this forum that probably we know more about it than the average Wisconsin lawyer. (And we know the level of legal knowledge within the ranks of the police covers a range from the knowledgeable to the laughable-- to be fair to the police, that's probably not much different than the general public's range of knowledge.)
Anyone who goes armed without at least a basic knowledge of the law is foolish. Should there be mandated training on the law? Thinking out loud, I would have to say I guess not. One cannot easily legislate against foolishness, whether it be foolishness in the safe handling of a gun or foolishness in ignorance of the law. Anyone care to opine?
|
Shotgun
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 11:26 pm |
|
hugh jarmis wrote: Perhaps nervous was a bad choice of words. I'm more "selfconcious" about "soccer mom" seeing me loading and unloading my gun when I'm standing in a parking lot than I am about walking around with it in the holster.
Duly noted and I completely understand that feeling. Until we can get more soccer moms shooting (like that one in PA) we'll continue to have that self-consciousness.
|
eleuthera
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu May 21st, 2009 12:13 am |
|
If we were to legislate against foolishness, our legislators would have to resign!
Case in point - alderman in st francis who was trying to outlaw open carry because he doesn't understand pre-emption statutes. The government is much more dangerous than any one gun.
|
ScottM
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 37 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 21st, 2009 03:04 am |
|
I agree with Shotgun and Hugh, training is good and I encourage it but we cannot accept training requirements on the exercise of a civil right. As far as the stupid firearms transport law what exactly is the penalty for not unloading? Not that I would ever disregard a law that infringed on my rights. I always sit in the back of the bus and am happy to use the proper fountain, I'm just askin'.
Last edited on Thu May 21st, 2009 03:04 am by ScottM
|
Parabellum
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Thu May 21st, 2009 03:55 am |
|
ScottM wrote: I agree with Shotgun and Hugh, training is good and I encourage it but we cannot accept training requirements on the exercise of a civil right. As far as the stupid firearms transport law what exactly is the penalty for not unloading? Not that I would ever disregard a law that infringed on my rights. I always sit in the back of the bus and am happy to use the proper fountain, I'm just askin'.
$100, but they "might" just say you were concealing it by having it on your hip covered by the car door and/or your body .
|
ScottM
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 37 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 21st, 2009 04:18 am |
|
Parabellum wrote: ScottM wrote: I agree with Shotgun and Hugh, training is good and I encourage it but we cannot accept training requirements on the exercise of a civil right. As far as the stupid firearms transport law what exactly is the penalty for not unloading? Not that I would ever disregard a law that infringed on my rights. I always sit in the back of the bus and am happy to use the proper fountain, I'm just askin'.
$100, but they "might" just say you were concealing it by having it on your hip covered by the car door and/or your body. If I was going to ignore unconstitutional laws I would probably just leave it loaded when casing.
|
Pointman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri May 22nd, 2009 12:17 am |
|
I start out by saying we don't need to pass a law that binds the many because of the few, and it gets taken way out of context because I suggest that some people may want to get some outside education and it may not be in the best interest of others to carry a gun. Is it hostility toward common sense or what?
Not everybody is completely self-educated in the area of guns, self-defense, and the law. Jeez.
|
Current time is 12:07 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...   |
|
|
|
