Do you oppose Senate Bill 13-195? If so, why?

[muddywings]

I understand the opposition to most of the Bills being debated in the Senate but there is one which I thought that people on both sides of the gun debate would embrace. This is Senate Bill 13-195 which would put an end to online training for concealed-carry permits.

Over the years I have taken (and given) several CCW courses and, though I have learned a lot from every instructor, there are some courses that have focused a lot of attention on "the gun fight" but have completely ignored topics such as legal ramifications and Criminal/Civil Liabilities. Personally, I would like to see concealed-carry classes in Colorado standardized (like they are in states like Utah) where every instructor is teaching the same material and which requires the student to demonstrate not just proficiency in the use of a firearm, but also a course that thoroughly discuses topics such as situational awareness and conflict avoidance.

Most of the on-line courses that I have seen are nothing more than a regurgitation of the NRA First Steps course which, at best, offers only basic marksmanship skill. The other great limitation that I see with on-line courses is that the student's questions can go unanswered.

So, back on topic, do you oppose Senate Bill 13-195? If so, why?

I'm going to quote the OP and jump into the mix and say that I disagree with it out of principle too. The OC vs CCW and government intrusion into basic rights is where I feel that extra training, while good, is burdensome.
Also, I'm sure you provide a great service at www.ShooterReady.US but likewise, it seems there could be a tad bit of bias with your point of view as you would benefit financially from the passage of this law. Would you by chance offer free classes for those who make less than....oh say $40K a year or full time college student as a community service? I have seen quite a few instructors give out free classes to school teachers recently. I think it would be great if you could donate 1 Saturday a month to those people who are not finically well off yet upstanding members of our society.
Just spitballing here....

[cstone]

This is completely off the topic, but I am still not certain how the concept of concealed carry became a legislated form of carry. Historically, people concealed their firearms as a tactical consideration (no point in showing others that you are armed) and out of politeness for those around us who may be apprehensive at the sight of a firearm.

Whether a handgun is open or concealed does not change the fact that a firearm is present. I personally disagree with the idea of any legislatively constructed "gun free" zones. I personally cannot think of any place that good intentioned, honest, law abiding citizens should be prohibited from having a firearm.

Criminals do not obey the law, by definition. So which guns are prevented from being in a "gun free" zone?

As to training, our society has no training requirements for procreation. Some people who procreate, probably shouldn't. I do not want the government deciding who can and who can't procreate. I do not believe the government is qualified to provide training guidelines for those who do choose to procreate. I do believe most people should conceal their procreation, however there seems to be plenty of freely available simulated acts of procreation available on the Internet. Apparently on-line training is available for almost anything today

Be safe.

[sniper7]

George Zimmerman

True, we still have yet to see what will happen to him. I believe he will get off due to the laws and the pictures of his injuries.

[cysoto]

I believe he will get off due to the laws and the pictures of his injuries.

I agree! Sadly he has already been found guilty in "the court of public opinion."

[Sharpienads]

I agree! Sadly he has already been found guilty in "the court of public opinion."

No kidding.

[brobar]

Well I know my line of thinking is too extreme for a lot of the people here. I think EVERYONE should have firearms training... proof of that training if they are going to carry... and I think that training should start in the schools from a very young age starting with the Eddie the Eagle program. Math, science, history, firearms... it should be standard coursework. Why do you guys know that 2+2=4? Because you learned it in school. Why can't people learn that all guns are loaded, keep the finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot, how to properly handle, shoot, manipulate, store, work on, fix, troubleshoot, marksmanship fundamentals, advanced marksmanship, etc... in our schools and universities? If you make firearms training part of the curriculum, you won't have people whining about distance, price, vacation days, no Internet, etc...

Yes I think ALL people should be trained with firearms. Yes I think it should start when they are young and remain a part of the offered curriculum all the way through college. Extreme? Yea... so what!

If you have people learning about and getting trained with firearms at a young age... then maybe there wouldn't be so much fear and ignorance surrounding firearms when people get older. I was listening to a professor on the radio the other day talking about a safety course that he had to take at the university and when they were passing around ammo... some of the other faculty didn't want to even touch it without a tissue!!! Ignorance! Ignorance and irrational fear come from a lack of training and familiarity. Lets get that out of people at a young age before they are too far down the rabbit hole!

[Bailey Guns]

Well that's a far cry from what you posted earlier. And as long as we're dreaming, we might as well all get gov't issued M4 rifles with a lifetime supply of free ammo.

[brobar]

Well that's a far cry from what you posted earlier. And as long as we're dreaming, we might as well all get gov't issued M4 rifles with a lifetime supply of free ammo.

How so? I said I feel everyone should get in-classroom hands on training. I didn't go so far as to elaborate when, where or how. I said I couldn't understand why some would prefer to do it in a digital format if hands-on, live-fire training was available. I said it didn't make much sense (to me). However... the more I think about generations today... I guess I could see why some people would prefer it.

And what is with the issuing of M4's and ammo comment? When you take shop class... do you get issued a car and tools to take home with you to keep? When you take home ec... do you get issued sewing machines with a lifetime supply of thread and a gas range oven with a lifetime supply of self-rising flour?

[JM Ver. 2.0]

I do not support this bill. In fact, I do not support the CCW laws, as they Un-Constitionally infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms. I also do not agree with background checks, as they violate my 4th Amendment right to privacy.

Some times you say things that just totally Fuck my mind....

[DHC]

How so? I said I feel everyone should get in-classroom hands on training. I didn't go so far as to elaborate when, where or how. I said I couldn't understand why some would prefer to do it in a digital format if hands-on, live-fire training was available. I said it didn't make much sense (to me). However... the more I think about generations today... I guess I could see why some people would prefer it.

And what is with the issuing of M4's and ammo comment? When you take shop class... do you get issued a car and tools to take home with you to keep? When you take home ec... do you get issued sewing machines with a lifetime supply of thread and a gas range oven with a lifetime supply of self-rising flour?

Your responses seem to cast things in a very narrow frame of reference. Ex. your explanation of a generational difference to explain the POV's different from your own seems, well, a bit simplistic - IMO, of course.

As I read BG's response to your post, he was (I believe) merely carrying your argument to a further point in your own logic path. For there to be a mandate for universal gun training, there would need to be universal acceptance of gun exposure. i.e. using cstone's procreation reference - the very reason there is now a universal mandate for sex education (under the euphemism of 'health' education) is due to the universal acceptance that our youth are going to be exposed to sex. Your argument follows that example as a direct parallel - EXCEPT - there is no universal acceptance of gun exposure. If there were such universal acceptance - then your suggestion of mandated training in school makes sense - as does BG's comment about M4 issuance.

Make sense now?