Conclusive Proof: Even Journalists Are Intelligent Enough to Carry Firearms

Even Journalists Are Intelligent Enough to Carry Firearms

Courtesy Louisville Courier Journal

The Kentucky Senate passed a constitutional carry bill last week. Constitutional carry, if you’re unaware, means that Americans don’t need a government permission slip to own, keep and bear arms. It applies the Second Amendment as it was written and intended, acknowledging every American’s innate right to armed self-defense.

That Senate vote, however, was a revolting development as far as the Louisville Courier-Journal’s Joseph Gerth is concerned. He’s appalled that, if the Bluegrass State joins the ranks of 14 other constitutional states, people like him — Kentuckians with virtually zero experience in the use of firearms — will be legally able to carry a concealed handgun.

In the eyes of Kentucky, I’m perfectly qualified to hide a pistol somewhere on my body and then in a restaurant full of people, a store that doesn’t bar guns or on a crowded city street, reach for that weapon and blast away at someone I think is a threat to me.

I had never in my 53 years shot a handgun before Saturday.

Gerth left the safety of his Courier Journal cubicle long enough to venture out to a local gun range and try his hand.

Gerth writes that he had actually shot a .22 rifle when he was a kid. He borrowed his photographer’s Ruger SP101 in order to take a concealed carry class. How did the rank beginner do?

The whole truth of the concealed-carry training is that it’s really not that difficult. (The class trainer) said he’s never had to fail anyone in 19 years as a firearms instructor.

The written tests consisted of 25 multiple-choice and yes-and-no questions — most of which I suspect the majority of people could have answered before taking the class.

The gun range test wasn’t terribly difficult either. You are required to fire 20 shots and hit a life-size target 21 feet away with at least 11 of the rounds.

So Gerth picked up the silver .357, loaded it with .38 Special ammo and…

I stepped to the firing line on Saturday and blasted away. I’m not certain exactly how many shots I got in the target, but I suspect it was either 19 or 20.

I passed easily.

Nice shootin’, Tex!

Wait…we thought that owning and carrying a firearm was a responsibility with which the average un-trained Kentuckian couldn’t possibly be entrusted.

Many people who want concealed-carry permits are skilled and knowledgeable gun owners, but that’s not who we need laws like this to address.

The law should be there to protect us all from the people who have never touched a handgun before they drop $500 on a counter at their local gun shop or the guy who has to borrow a Ruger .357 from the photographer assigned to shoot pictures of a firearms training class.

Like me.

In his piece for the Courier Journal, Gerth details other aspects of the class that are certainly beneficial for all gun owners, particularly those who want to carry a firearm. Topics like basic gun safety, safe storage practices, etc.

The class taught how to deal with police officers if you ever come in contact with them while you’re carrying a concealed weapon — to make sure neither of you end up dead.

But most important may have been nearly two hours of videos in which dour-looking lawyers with monotonous voices explained the law about when you have the right to shoot someone and when you don’t.

No question…that’s the kind of information that’s good to know. But Gerth thinks that’s not nearly enough.

Despite my near perfect-to-perfect performance on the range and my perfect performance on the written exam, I’m smart enough to know that I shouldn’t be carrying a concealed deadly weapon.

We beg to differ.

We’re totally on board with Gerth getting more practice and training before he chooses to carry a firearm. That’s always a good thing and something any gun owner could benefit from.

But it shouldn’t be a requirement. The Founding Fathers didn’t include a proficiency test when they wrote the Second Amendment. They recognized that every American has a natural right to keep and bear arms; the tall and the small, the young and the old, the bright and the journalists.

In every state that’s liberalized their gun laws (shifted from “may issue” to “shall issue,” legalized campus carry, or gone full-constitutional) opponents have made the same, tired arguments you’ve heard over and over again. Blood in the streets. Fender-bender shootouts. Modern-day Dodge City levels of violence.

And it hasn’t come to pass anywhere.

The fact is, as Gerth demonstrated himself, guns are fundamentally simple tools. Virtually anyone can use one (load it, open end toward the bad guy, pull the trigger).

That’s how little old ladies manage to defend themselves every single day against muggers and burglars (examples here, here and here). That’s how old guys fight off yoots who want to take advantage of their age and infirmity (here, here, and here). We’re almost sure there’s an old saw about that, but it seems to have slipped our mind.

We’d wager that none of those people linked above who successfully defended themselves with guns had any kind of formal training at all. And probably very little practice shooting. People defend themselves with firearms about 1.1 million times a year (mostly without ever pulling the trigger). How many of those do you think had the slightest bit of training?

So yes, Joe, we’d like everyone to go through the kind of class you did. And get out to the range a few times a year to knock off the rust. But not everyone can afford the expense or the time. And that shouldn’t be a prerequisite for exercising your Second Amendment rights to protect yourself and your loved ones.

As you documented so well for all the world to see, it’s not all that difficult, Joe. Even you managed to do it.

 

comments

  1. avatar Jack says:

    He’s pretty proud of himself…perfect to perfect.

    1. avatar NM says:

      And yet no pictures of his target…

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Just spitballin’ here, but if Joe thinks he shouldn’t have a handgun (or any gun at all), he is correct. Just like that old saying, “If you say ‘I can’t’ you are right.”

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Just spitballin’ here, but if Joe thinks he shouldn’t have a handgun (or any gun at all), he is correct.”

      Preach it. There have been a number of times over the years people have told me that they would never own a gun, because they would be tempted to go apeshit with it.

      I commended them for having the self-knowledge, and made a mental note not to ever invite them to join me at the local range…

  3. How about a “Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use” article regarding the Jussie Smollett “attack”?

    1. avatar Gadsden says:

      Who would’ve been defending themselves in a staged attack?

      1. avatar Kevin says:

        Another question – What would’ve happened if a licensed concealed carrier in Chicago had stumbled upon the attack and shot the two assailants?

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          If Smollet is proven to have created a false report then he should be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law.

          I can’t stand racists, bigots or liars.

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          ” What would’ve happened if a licensed concealed carrier in Chicago had stumbled upon the attack and shot the two assailants?”

          Most likely, the concealed-carrier would be held not liable, and Smollett would be charged for murder.

          But, that’s Chicago. All bets are off…

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The Founding Fathers … recognized that every American has a natural right to keep and bear arms; the tall and the small, the young and the old, the bright and the journalists.

    I see what you did there!

  5. avatar binder says:

    We have formal classes that teach our kids how to read and drive, civics, history and math. Why in the world do we not teach firearms proficiency to our kids in public schools?

    “The Founding Fathers didn’t include a proficiency test when they wrote the Second Amendment.”
    Well that because the idea of the majority of people not learning how to use weapons while growing up with imaginable to them. The right we hold so dear come from the militias and their British Longbows that required 10 years of training.

    The fact is that the pro-gun side ignores the well regulated militia part even more antis. The antis just try and twist it while we just flat out ignore it.

    1. avatar Sam says:

      I obviously can’t speak for anyone else, but I spent 16 years learning how to properly use a firearm before I bought my first one. I learned at the feet of my father and my grandfather, and the idea of not knowing how to use them is still foreign to me. I will never understand why someone would depend on people who are literally miles away to protect them in any given moment.

      1. avatar napresto says:

        Opposite for me. I grew up in a pretty gun-agnostic family, and didn’t own a firearm until I was in my mid twenties. I think I could count the number of times I’d shot on one hand before that, and none of those times included more than rudimentary training. My first rifle was a Savage .22 bolt action, which I still have and love.

        Years of training didn’t seem especially necessary – the rifle was like any other potentially hazardous tool, and I treated it as such: with a power saw, you read the safety instructions and don’t stick your finger near the blade; with a rifle, you keep the dangerous end pointed in a safe direction and your finger clear of the trigger. learned the rest as I went.

        I don’t believe that special training should be required for gun ownership, although I do think, also like tools, that sensible people should start simple and work their way up. Training and education can make this journey richer and deeper, but gun safety is actually a pretty obvious kind of thing that can easily be made a habit.

        1. avatar jimmy james says:

          Probably one of the best 2A arguments I ever read. I came from the same kind of household despite my dad having grown up going to the dump on sunday afternoon with his buddies to shoot rats with 22’s. I can just hear my grandmother saying, “oh those boys!” What a great analogy about the power tools. Any fool can buy a power tool, ladder, nail gun, can of gasoline, lawnmower, etc. and do all kinds of damage to themselves or anyone else. No permit or waiting period.

    2. avatar Excedrine says:

      The actual fact of the matter is that the pro-civil rights side knows that the “well-regulated militia” part was simply a perfunctory clause to justify its addition to the Constitution. Furthermore, it makes absolutely no respect whatsoever to hardware, so the quip about British Longbows and the training that they require adds less than zero to the discussion. We’re NOT “flat-out ignoring it” and you damn well know that we aren’t, too. The anti-civil rights side IS who’s actually ignoring parts of the Second Amendment (and literally all of the rest of the Constitution as well for that matter), and THEY are ignoring the entire second half of it — while also working tirelessly to gut the mere physical ability to fulfill the first half altogether with their racist, sexist, classist gun control laws.

      Even those laws that mandate training.

    3. avatar Gadsden says:

      Wrong again, Binder. Perhaps you should try reading books instead of jerking off too HuffPo.

    4. avatar strych9 says:

      “The fact is that the pro-gun side ignores the well regulated militia part even more antis.”

      If you use the definition of the term “well regulated” as it was used at the time you find it’s not applicable to this discussion.

      You can’t use the term in a modern interpretive context without assuming that the Founders knew the detailed future of how English would evolve over the next 200 years. Since we can be pretty confident that the Founders didn’t know the future in such detail we use the definitions that were used at the time to find the meaning of the statement as it was intended.

      Substituting the definitions used at the time for modern equivalents we get this: “A properly functioning Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      The 2A’s use of “well regulated” doesn’t mean “within the confines of government regulation”. It means “functioning properly” or “functioning as expected”.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        From Webster’s 1828:

        “REG’ULATED, participle passive Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.”

        The first def is “Adjusted by rule”, also “subjected to rules or restrictions”.

        Sorry, 2A was never meant to be absolute.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sorry, 2A was never meant to be absolute.”

          Let me restate your proposition.

          The founders, who had a greater grasp of “the King’s English” language than any one living today (or in 1828) actually intended the Second Amendment to read something like:
          “A well circumscribed and federally controlled militia, which, among other things, is intended to stand between the federal government and the rights and powers of the States, and the people of the States, is necessary to secure those rights and shall not be subject to restrictions of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, except as the federal government deems necessary to hinder that right when the exercise thereof shall be deemed inconvenient to the federal government.”

          I.E, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is subject to the grace and benevolence of the very government the militia is posed to prevent from tyrannical rule. “Shall No Be Infringed” being mere eye candy.

          Got it.

        2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          Oh, we’re going to go down this rabbit trail again, are we?

          People like you are just so ignorant of political history and the founding of the US. OK, well, you were the one who wanted to shoot your mouth off, so here we go.

          The origin of the phrase “well regulated militia” doesn’t come from the Founding Fathers, it comes from Scotland, and the writings of Andrew Fletcher, aka “Fletcher of Saltoun,” who penned a treatise titled: “A Discourse of Government With Relation to Militias.”

          Therein, you will see the first use (that I know of in history) of the phrase “well-regulated militia,” and you will see further therein, that “regulation” refers to how the militia was trained.

          https://archive.org/details/discourseofgover00fletuoft/page/n4

        3. avatar Gadsden says:

          You should really actually read what the founders opinions on the 2A were, miner. Again, these things are found in actual books. Something liberals like you have a desire to see burned because you want to hide the truth.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sam, thank you so much for an actual citation to support your view, it speaks well of your intellectual curiosity.

          Unfortunately, the careful reading of the document you saw it shows that the writer indeed required that the militia be governed by the civil government rules and regulations, as passed by their parliaments.

          I do like the idea of compulsory military service and training, I think that’s what we need now before individuals can own firearms.

          But the death penalty for masturbation or as they called it self abuse, does seem a bit harsh.

          “No woman fhould be
          fufTered to come within the camp, and the crimes of abufing their own bodies, any manner of way, punifhed with death.”

          And here is the passage where the author clearly states that these malicious should be subject to laws passed by the civil governing bodies, what we today call Congress he called Parliament.

          “All councilsofwar; and thofe councilsto have for rule, certain articles drawn up and ap- proved by the refpective parliaments.”

          And I concur with the author, all militias should be governed by articles drawn up and approved by Congress through the normal process of legislation.

          So Sam, I got to ask, did you actually read the document you cited? Because the document clearly states that a well regulated militia includes rules and regulations passed by Parliament or Congress. This would authorize firearms legislation regarding the militia.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So Sam, I got to ask, did you actually read the document you cited? ”

          I did not find a sentence that declared a person must first receive permission of government to obtain or keep a firearm. I found no sentence that declared a person of the militia must first have firearm training before being part of the militia. I found no sentence that declared a person must undergo formal training in firearm use and safety before being allowed to possess and use a firearm. I found no sentence that individually owned firearms were restricted to use in the home. I found no sentence that a well-regulated militia was to be accompanied by smothering of individual rights as a condition of service.

          Is that what you are asking?

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          “What I would offer is, thatfourcamps be formed, one in Scotland, and three in England ; into which all the young men of the refpective countries fhould enter, on the firft day of the two and twentieth year of their age ; and remain there the fpace of two years,

          In this camp they fhould be taught the ufe of all forts of arms, with the neceflary evolutions ; as
          alfo wrefrling, leaping, fwimming, and the like exercifes.

          There being none but military men allowed within the camp, and no church* men being of that number,”

          The key phrase being “all the young men”, this is a universal draft like most European counties, especially the Swiss system that our RKBA is based on.

          Once you’ve finished your service, you go home trained in arms and ready to serve your country.

          And I especially like the exclusion of church men, as religion has no place in government.

      2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “The 2A’s use of “well regulated” doesn’t mean “within the confines of government regulation”. It means “functioning properly” or “functioning as expected”.”

        If one looks at a clock repair manual from the late 1700s, you will see that the nut at the bottom of a Grandfather clock’s (known as a ‘Tall clock’ back then) pendulum, it is called the regulator. It is the nut you rotate clock-wise to slow the movement, and counter-clockwise to speed it up. It moves the mass of the pendulum up or down, ‘regulating’ the speed of the clock…

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Geoff, I must concur with the documents that Sam cites, I don’t think they were talking about clocks.

          Sam noted that this document is the first mention of the term well regulated militia and he’s right, that’s exactly what this document concerns. And the author is unequivocal about requiring parliament or Congress to pass articles with rules governing the militia.

          “All councilsofwar; and thofe councilsto have for rule, certain articles drawn up and ap- proved by the refpective parliaments.”

          And I must support Sam on his selection of this document, the compulsory military service he advocates with formal training in arms is exactly what we need to make sure that everyone who has a gun knows how to use it safely and understands the rules of engagement.

  6. avatar enuf says:

    Well, I suppose if he has a state of mind that it is too much responsibility for him then, no, he should not have a gun. At which point he should reconsider what other powerful things he shouldn’t be in charge of. Such as an automobile. Or a pen. Word processing software too, many dangers there. May want to especially wary of beer ……..

  7. avatar Hannibal says:

    “In the eyes of Kentucky, I’m perfectly qualified to hide a pistol somewhere on my body and then in a restaurant full of people, a store that doesn’t bar guns or on a crowded city street…”
    -Yup, doesn’t take much effort or skill to do that.

    “…reach for that weapon and blast away at someone I think is a threat to me…”
    -Uh, that part’s not quite so simple, Bernie Goetz.

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Despite my near perfect-to-perfect performance on the range and my perfect performance on the written exam, I’m smart enough to know that I shouldn’t be carrying a concealed deadly weapon. — Joe Gerth

    Many of us know about a common Progress trait: elitism. Usually, that means a Progressive claims to be elite and therefore knows better and/or is better than the masses. Could it be that Mr. Gerth desperately wants responsible, capable, and proficient firearms handling and ability to somehow require weeks of training? Otherwise, if it only takes an hour to be responsible, capable, and proficient with firearms, how can anyone claim elite status and deny firearm rights to the masses?

    Even though Mr. Gerth acquired all the necessary skills to be responsible and proficient with a half-day training program, he still insists that even he isn’t “there” yet, and therefore no one else is “there” yet, and therefore practically NO ONE should ever be able bear arms in public.

    The mental gymnastics that Progressives employ is mind boggling.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “Could it be that Mr. Gerth desperately wants responsible, capable, and proficient firearms handling and ability to somehow require weeks of training?”

      Possible but unlikely. Instead what he probably wants is the cost of weeks of required training as a barrier to plebs carrying a firearm.

      “…he still insists that even he isn’t “there” yet, and therefore no one else is “there” yet, and therefore practically NO ONE should ever be able bear arms in public.”

      To be fair it’s possible that he’s still uncomfortable with the whole thing due to a lack of experience. Lot’s of people start out with Israeli Carry for a while before they get comfortable with the idea of carrying one in the pipe. Novelty is something we’re naturally wary of and until the novelty wears off there’s still some anxiety even when we logically know there shouldn’t be.

      “The mental gymnastics that Progressives employ is mind boggling.”

      Not really. If you look at the way we process information and combine that with their actual goals rather than their stated goals it starts to make a lot of sense. Progressive logic only requires mental gymnastics if you assume the speaker is being honest about their goals and intentions. If, instead, you remove their stated goals and intentions and go with what the real goals and intentions generally are you end up with a system of thought that doesn’t involve mental gymnastics but rather logically based deception.

      Of course this isn’t true of your average voter who supports gun control. They just do it for the feelz.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        “Progressive logic only requires mental gymnastics if you assume the speaker is being honest about their goals and intentions.”

        This is, I think, true for the most part but it is also a key reason I am increasingly annoyed by progressives in many areas but particularly with respect to gun issues. In my view, if someone cannot be honest with me about their motivations and they try to force me to comply with their wishes anyway then I am likely to oppose that person regardless of what their issue or position is. I tell people all the time that I am much more likely to accept a proposal I don’t personally like if they can make a legitimate case for that proposal. That progressives can’t seem to do that causes me to almost summarily dismiss their ideas. In my view it is ridiculous to expect me to negotiate or debate in good faith if my opposition begins with a lie.

  9. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I hope he has had training on what to write and what not to write.
    My gosh, to think that anyone walking down a crowded sidewalk could just talk to anyone!

    Or write an article that was maybe, critical of our current government.
    Perish the thought!
    Just what the hell is this freedom thing?

  10. avatar strych9 says:

    The history of the term “bulletproof” pretty much proves that the amount of training necessary to use a firearm fairly effectively isn’t very much and, since the invention of firearms, hasn’t been very much.

    From the end user’s point of view guns have been simple and effective since they were invented, which is WHY they were invented.

  11. avatar Shwiggie says:

    As Clint once said, a man’s got to know his limitations. And it’s fine that this guy doesn’t feel ready to carry. It’s not fine that he wants to make that decision for everyone else.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      This type of position, which is not uncommon, belies a good deal of arrogance on the part of the person who holds it. Essentially he is saying that if he is not able to safely and competently carry a gun then most other people can’t either because, in his mind, he is better than most other people. Even though he says he is the type of person who shouldn’t be able to carry a gun without training, I believe that is just false humility.

      To quote him:

      “The law should be there to protect us all from the people who have never touched a handgun before they drop $500 on a counter at their local gun shop or the guy who has to borrow a Ruger .357 from the photographer assigned to shoot pictures of a firearms training class.

      Like me.”

      In other words, if I’m not good enough then all you other morons certainly aren’t. It never even enters his mind that most people are completely capable of assessing their own skills and making their own decisions. Further, he assumes that he is a special kind of human because he has determined that something is beyond his capabilities – completely ignoring the fact that most people make the same kind of self-assesments on a daily basis in a wide variety of decisions.

      The fact that he feels he needs to enlighten everyone about the potential for harm from unqualified gun owners indicates that he thinks the rest of us aren’t capable of figuring that out for ourselves. I’ve known several first time gun owners, mostly friends and acquaintances who seek out my advice before buying their first gun because they know me to be a “gun guy”. In my experience, people who are considering getting their first gun are very cautious, very circumspect and they carefully consider the choices they are making – both about the gun(s) they are buying and the implications of becoming a gun owner. This glib characterization of the dolt with $500 and no concept of what he is doing is just a convenient trope that allows the author of this piece to maintain his illusions of superiority.

      If it were not already true that the vast majority of people understand and respect the gravity of carrying and using a firearm then, given that there are hundreds of millions of them in this country, we would see orders of magnitude more incidents of people getting shot than we do. The very fact that only a very small fraction of the population is ever unjustifiably shot indicates that people pretty much know how to safely and competently use their guns.

      This elitist mind set runs through a large proportion of the “reasonable restrictions” and “keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them” arguments. What those proposing such controls are essentially saying is that they know what is best for everyone and we should accept their proposals because we should also accept that they are more knowledgable, more enlightened and just plain better than everyone else.

  12. avatar Wayne says:

    I live in Kentucky and have a CCDW issued by the state that has been in my wallet for over 20 years. I am a huge fan of 2A, but I hope this bill does NOT pass. It will endanger everyone. Example would be a woman wants to go to the store for milk, and boyfriend/husband says throw my pistol in your purse. Said female never fired it but it is in her purse. She reaches for her wallet and catches the trigger and bang. I can buy a lear jet but can I fly it? NO, same goes with firearms. Train then purchase.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “…boyfriend/husband says throw my pistol in your purse. Said female never fired it but it is in her purse.”

      First, the current law doesn’t prevent this scenario. It merely assigns a punishment if the lady, supposedly sans a permit in this example, gets caught.

      Second, if nothing happens then nothing happens. Having the gun (with the trigger guard covered properly) in her purse is as big a threat as car keys in the pocket of a drunk. If she doesn’t need the gun and doesn’t play with the gun then there literally cannot be an “incident” where “things go pear shaped”.

      Third, what you’re supporting is a malum prohibitum law. It requires no mens rea, which is problematic. The idea that it is malum prohibitum AND requires no mens rea is doubly problematic. Effectively what you’re saying is that because an accident could, maybe possibly occur in the perfect storm of bad circumstances someone should be prohibited, under penalty of law, from doing something that harms no one 99.99% of the time.

      Forth, the fact that she has no experience with the gun significantly decreases the chances that she would accept this offer and, assuming the BF/husband has some experience, there isn’t much chance the offer would be made in the first place.

      Could it happen? Sure, in fact it probably has. You just don’t know about it because nothing happened. However, restricting people via the law because something “might” happen is a superhighway to hell. The fact that a small number of people might do something stupid isn’t a reason to place a legal restriction on everyone.

      This is a solution in want of a problem and the solution is just plain bad.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      You and binder get a check from bloomberg?

    3. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Wayne, I see where you are coming from, I think. Now a days, with how fast info/news moves, most of the time when there’s a gun shot, the result is not good. We can blame most of it all on the media distorting the truth.

      It takes a lot of money ($200 permit and $250 for CCW class, $100 in ammo) and effort (backgound checks, face2face interview, all the driving to appointments, 16hrs class instruction and range) to conceal carry in a state like CA. I don’t want gun owners, with little common sense, doing dumb 5h!t to compromise what little rights I have left (moving is not an option right now). These few folks out there simply cannot comprehend that they have (on or off body) a weapon that can cause great damage by a simple pull of a finger. I don’t have a solution, just a concern. Yes, we’re all human, but it got to a point where they had to print “do not eat” on those small desicant packets.

    4. avatar MyName says:

      So, given that you are capable of choosing not to buy a lear-jet because you know you can’t fly it, what makes you assume that your fictional woman is too stupid to determine for herself whether or not she can safely carry a gun and whether or not to obtain one?

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    Well at least Gerth didn’t have a sissy meltdown like Gersh KUNTsman…btw Wayne no training is required in Indiana for lifetime CC/open carry. Where’s the bloodbath you imagine oh trained gunslinger?!? Shall not be infringed…

  14. avatar enuf says:

    “In the eyes of Kentucky, I’m perfectly qualified to hide a pistol somewhere on my body and then in a restaurant full of people, a store that doesn’t bar guns or on a crowded city street, reach for that weapon and blast away at someone I think is a threat to me.”

    No, that is wrong. The state said you pass minimum requirements. It did not call you “perfectly qualified”. Nor does your state say you can shoot at anyone you think is a threat. Go test that theory and watch the barred doors of the jail cell close in around you. If you shoot somebody anywhere in this country the cops and the local prosecutor will make a decision on if your gun use was a justifiable act.

    “Trust me. I’m a skilled sharpshooter. The state says so.”

    No, the state said no such thing. Again, you met minimum requirements. That’s it, that’s all, there’s nothing special about you on this point.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Funny how C students always think that they’re A students because they “passed”.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        It is also interesting how often people who just learned a new thing think that they are now an expert on that thing while assuming everyone else has no insight into that subject whatsoever.

  15. avatar 4808 N says:

    I’m sure vehicular laws were passed with journalists like him in mind…..

  16. avatar MLee says:

    Essentially he’s admitting he didn’t know anything at all, which is very typical. People never know how much they don’t know about something they know nothing about. Now that he’s stuck his toe in the water, he has a better understanding of how much there is to it all.
    What he needs to warm up to, you don’t need a vast knowledge to embrace or possess confidence that you can defend yourself or other in a life or death situation. He’ll come around after more reflection.
    He likely won’t admit it, but he will feel that empowerment that everyone feels when they first begin to carry, which is simply the enhanced ability to succeed when previously they would have been a victim.
    A small portion of it is gained in knowledge while the rest is mind-set and determination.

  17. avatar UpInArms says:

    He’s lucky he’s in Kentucky. In some states now (or soon) borrowing that .357 from his buddy so he could write his silly article would make him a felon.

  18. avatar Darkman says:

    Just an observation…Had a young lady in a license to carry class. About 23, single with two kids. Lived in bad part of town and decided she needed a firearm to protect her family. I struck up a conversation with her during a break and asked her why she was taking the class. While talking I asked her if she had ever shot a firearm before. She said that she hadn’t. In fact she had never held a gun even a toy one. I was able to get her some training through the sheriffs office as they were doing the training. Now ask yourself is training really a bad thing. Sure it seems a hassle for those of us who are knowledgeable in firearms use. Most of us got our training from our parents or the military. Not everyone gets that privilege. Just ask yourself one thing. Do you really want that type person carrying a firearm anywhere around you or your family?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Do you really want that type person carrying a firearm anywhere around you or your family?”

      It doesn’t matter what I think. What matters is a constitutionally protected (enumerated right) says.

      Training is good. Training can be fun.

      Looking at the number of DGUs every year, no one can rationally conclude that even a majority of the defenders were well, or even minimally trained. Given the lack of evidence that hordes of untrained gun owners are responsible for a scary number of “accidental discharges the killed people”, no one can rationally argue that the unfamiliar gun in the purse is an intolerable risk to society.

      How easily we require our preferences be imposed on others via law or group shaming.

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Jeez Sam take a pill man before you blow a gasket. Never said anything about mandatory training or taking away any ones Rights. Just made an observation and helped someone become a safe firearms user. Seen the ugly side. Just as soon not see it again.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Do you really want that type person carrying a firearm anywhere around you or your family?”

          Doesn’t it seem like the only possible resolution for this is some sort of required training prior to allowing purchase of a firearm? Otherwise, how do we walk about not being in fear that someone will mishandle a gun and endanger ourselves and families?

          You asked how I would feel? I explained my feelings are irrelevant, and why.

    2. avatar Deliverance says:

      So did you score or what?

    3. avatar UpInArms says:

      Yeah, actually, I do. The number of times a round is discharged during a DGU is ridiculously small. In the overwhelming number of cases, simply presenting a firearm is enough to make the bad guy reconsider what he’s doing. So, I support training– get as much of it as you can. But in terms of training being some kind of deciding factor in a confrontation, the probabilities say no.

    4. avatar jwm says:

      I have no problem with training. It’s when you guys that make your living off training start talking about making the training a requirement that I get sensitive.

      People have a right to defend themselves and their loved ones. IF they wish to spend on training that should be their decision. Not yours and not a pols.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Bingo. Some states require several hundred dollars in training as part of the CCW license and the classes are not only full but limited to a few students. Only a few are authorized so they can keep the prices up.
        And none of it helps you in court if a DGU goes down.

      2. avatar Kyle says:

        A Training requirement is always a bad idea. Its just the latest stumbling block to throw out by the gun grabbers.

        First its 4 hours, then its 16 hours, then its 48 hours.

        The anti-s can always say, “x hours” of training is not enough, it needs to be “x+y hours”, then thats not enough and needs by “x+y+z” hours.

        The entire line of logic is a trap.

    5. avatar GS650G says:

      Plenty of untrained people shoot guns for the first time into thugs saving taxpayers millions. I would not deny that woman a gun nor tell her she wasn’t allowed to carry it.

    6. avatar enuf says:

      I believe in encouraging training. Make it cheap, subsidize a basic level of skill with tax payer dollars. We do that with the First Amendment (reading + writing being essential to FREE SPEECH). If we subsidize the First Amendment we should do the same with the Second.

      So hell yes, single mom worried for the safety of herself and her children, how about taxpayer support with a sliding scale?

      I recall a few years back in Tucson a charity did something like it with private donations. Set women up with a pump action shotgun, training ans secure storage. Strictly home protection oriented. Seriously pissed off a certain political demographic in that city, but they had a waiting list right away for the program.

      Now that ought to be a national policy.

    7. avatar MyName says:

      “Do you really want that type person carrying a firearm anywhere around you or your family?”

      Sounds to me like she decided she needed a gun to protect herself and her family so she went to a class, engaged someone more experienced than her for advice and then accepted an offer for additional instruction. She is exactly the type of person I want carrying a firearm.

  19. avatar GS650G says:

    Gerth doesn’t respect the fact he lives in a country that allows him a choice of carrying a gun. Other countries arm goons and beat people up. Journalists get it worse.

  20. avatar rt66paul says:

    Any dangerous tool should have a little practice. A hammer takes some getting used to as do other woodworking and metal working tools. You practice and learn to weld or solder, just as you should a firearm. The store will be glad to sell you these tools, but a responsible person will take it easy before trying to be Mr. framer/carpenter.

    It is always a good idea to peruse the instruction manual, even with an iron or a toaster.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      How many tools require a license fee? Are restricted from use in a dozen different venues?
      Stop comparing guns to everything else. It makes an argument that is illogical.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      “You practice and learn to weld or solder, just as you should a firearm.”

      In my experience as a someone who used to do X-ray inspected TIG for a living, you can teach 95% or more of people how to safely use a gun in 30 minutes. A hammer takes about 30 seconds. OTOH, you can teach, at best, 10% of people to be a half-way decent welder in five years. I walk through buildings and I shudder to think that a CWI passed most of the welds I see.

      Welding takes a significant talent and skill on top of that. Guns really are a very simple item that’s very simple to use and quick to learn, they require no talent and little skill to use to great effect.

  21. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    I am one of the millions who did not have firearms training from parents or the military. But I did have a desire to learn how to use a handgun and get a carry permit. Concerns about workplace violence was the reason. For me, initial training was paramount. I was not going to take the CCW class and make a fool of myself. The training was well worth the bit of money, not a lot of money. I learned safety, I learned to shoot a handgun, and yes, in one session I learned that it was not at all hard to hit the target with combat effectiveness out to ten yards as a rank newbie. Mostly, I learned I liked shooting as a sport. Cost me a lot of money later on guns and ammo, but well worth the entry fee. I later took the CCW class after another training session and a half dozen or so rental experiences. It was painfully obvious who knew how to shoot and who didn’t. One woman at the CCW was downright scary in her obvious inexperience and inability to hit the target from even 3 yards. With, you guessed it, a snub nosed revolver that probably set her back $500. While I agree that hundreds of dollars worth of training, 16 hours or whatever idiocy is required in California, for example, is way out of line, as a newbie gun owner without experience you are a disaster waiting to happen if you don’t get some kind of training. A willing spouse or friend would do, if reasonably competent and able to explain and supervise the basics, beginning with the safety rules. Sure, I watched a lot of YouTube videos, but nothing beats hands on. Just my opinion. As an afterthought – I did the same with golf. One lesson for a lot more money than the gun lesson convinced me that I should not be a golfer!

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Great approach. I had shooting experince prior to my CCW training. But what helped me was I home carried for a year before I applied for my permit. I bought holsters (I qualified my 5 favorite guns), tried differnt types of carry, did work around the house and played with my kids, adapted my wardrobe for minimal printing, practiced drawing and dry fire. My ccw confidence was up going into ccw training. For folks not ready to conceal carry, I suggest trying home carry first, but first know your laws, legal home/property boundaries, and how, if it does, the castle doctrine applies.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    And here we have more proof — as if we needed it — that “journalists” are the absolute and unmitigated scum of the Earth.

  23. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    If he’s not competent to carry a handgun on his person, then he is in no way competent to write for public consumption, nor be involved in the press.

  24. avatar Sora says:

    The journalist was a freaking Commie and that’s reason enough that he should not be carry or having any weapons.
    Commies are not humans and thus they do not have right to self-defense or life.

  25. avatar AD says:

    Even Louisville is pretty gun friendly once you get rid of the politicians and news critters.
    I’d like to see some action from the House on this. The governor has said he’ll sign

  26. avatar DW says:

    I took my CCDW class at that very same range. Good people, very knowledgeable, great selection for rent and sale. The range is very clean, and an RO is always nearby. My CCDW instructor was very patient with those in the class that showed minimal knowledge, and focused his time with them rather than those of us that were obviously more familiar with our firearms.

    But here’s the best part. You don’t have to pay for a class to get that attention. And you don’t have to own a gun. Walk in, declare yourself as a newbie that doesn’t even own a gun. The counter staff will show you various firearms from their rental fleet. Walk back with you. Loan you eye and ear pro. Show you how their range works. Guide you through the basics of shooting. But most of all, they will ensure that you have a great and safe time. Why? Because they believe in the 2A. They’ll do this even if you work for the Courier Journal.

  27. avatar Brian G Lowery says:

    To quote “Dirty Harry” – “A man’s got to know his limitations” the operative word there is HIS if YOU know YOU aren’t a responsible enough adult to carry a weapon then don’t but do NOT presume that just because YOU are not that I am not.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Bingo; this guy’s lack of confidence in his abilities has nothing to do with a lack of training –he said himself he passed the basic quals that demonstrate he was fully capable of drawing & engaging a target at 21ft– or education –he said himself that he easily passed the test questions having to do with the law & justified use of force. He simply doesn’t *want* to carry a gun, personally, and has projected his reluctance onto the whole of humanity; ergo, more training is needed to keep ‘mistaken’ willing gun owners like us from being able to carry handguns.

    2. avatar MyName says:

      Presuming that you are not competent is precisely what he is doing. He is doing so because he thinks he’s better than you and if he can’t handle a gun, you certainly can’t.

  28. avatar barnbwt says:

    Convinced the training programs in place are *crucial* to teach newbies
    Proves to himself he never needed the class in the first place to carry & engage targets safely
    Conclusion; the training should be even longer before one is allowed to carry

    WTF.

  29. avatar Kap says:

    Dick-wad is another blowhard, with a Sense of Moral superiority (I’m better than thou) an because I am superior, you have to listen too me, I’ll bet he likes illegal aliens, Muslim Jihadists, and is a Democrat at heart!

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      You mean he is a member of the Bush family?

  30. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    Kentucky has had no permit open carry for over 200 years.

    Of the 8 who voted against no permit concealed carry, one was retired cop and Republican Danny Carroll. Of course government parasite Carroll has supported every tax hike to come down the pike. Put forth a bill giving more protections for the personal files of government employees. Mr. Carroll also took a major crap on the 1st Amendment with his vote for the bill that requires the state to not do business with Kentucky citizen owned businesses that boycott an insignificant nation on the other side of the world.
    Never trust a politician, no matter if they are a Republican.

  31. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    A Kentucky CDWL is pretty handy it. It exempts you from the FBI check when buying a firearm from a dealer. It also covers all weapons. So if you choose to carry an automatic knife, a set of knuckles or a ASP baton you are covered. All three are legal in Kentucky, but you cannot carry them concealed without the permit.

  32. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Don’t project your shortcomings on to the rest of us, Mr. Gerth.

  33. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Not all but many white men like Mr gerth are unhappy when law abiding black men get concealed carry permits in kentucky. I’ve had mine for 10 years now.

    https://www.ammoland.com/2018/11/concealed-carry-holder-stops-mass-murder-before-police-arrive/#axzz5X2yTgaqD

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email