Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states - Page 10

Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

This is a discussion on Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by dldeuce Personal responsibility is already mandated. There are all kinds of laws that mandate what your personal responsibility is. The law that ...

Page 10 of 36 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131420 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #136
    Member Array mg27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Personal responsibility is already mandated. There are all kinds of laws that mandate what your personal responsibility is. The law that mandates your personal responsibility not to murder someone applies to everyone. They don't mandate training on that law, except for legal firearm owners. What training do you think we should mandate for all the criminals that are actually the ones out murdering people with guns?
    Well then I'll say it this way. COMMON SENSE. I believe in common sense. If Im gonna carry I WANT to know how to use my weapon so I can defend myself and not hit the guy next to the threat. Criminals, yeah none of this applies to them because they dont even know or care about laws.. I think the government should stay out of the way and let people who are supposed to be free use that freedom to make the right decisions. Stop the nanny type of govt, and people will start acting like adults.
    If your a knucklehead with a gun and dont want to train, then your an idiot and thats on you!


  2. #137
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,109
    Heres another example of incompetant people who are killing us

    The accidental firing of a handgun in the Lake City Walmart Friday night led to the arrest of the gun's owner, Lake City Police Capt. John Blanchard IV reported.

    L.J. Johnson, 59, of 237 Campus Place, was charged with culpable negligence and improper exhibition of a firearm for the incident that happened about 10:28 p.m. at the store on U.S. 90.


    Blanchard said Johnson had a concealed weapon and holster that fell to the floor from its place of concealment, causing the gun to fire.

    The immediate and surrounding areas were searched for evidence of where the bullet had traveled. No one was injured.

    Johnson was jailed with bond set at $2,000, Blanchard reported.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  3. #138
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,923
    Quote Originally Posted by DocT65 View Post
    Most everyone on this forum has an opinion. I've offered mine and based it on data. I've not seen anyone of the opposing thought offer one thread of data to support their opinions, simply their own feelings--that's fine, but it makes for a weak debate. It continues to amaze me that any gun owner would be so arrogant in taking the opinion that they are above receiving training in handling, carrying or using a firearm. I train and practice every chance I get, and I carry every day, work or play. So that's my opinion.....I'm done with the topic.
    Excuse...but I started this thread to find out if anyone has any data that says that states like TX and other mandatory training states show any significant reduction in CC related incidents that are strictly related to folks making errors of judgement while CC'ing. Not accidents hunting, not how effective LEO training is, not accidents in the home, not criminal actions by users. THAT is the point of the thread. Somehow, and I knew it would turn into a fiasco. That is fine. It just shows that there is no data. How can one be supportive of laws that infringe on our rights (IMO) when there is no data to say the trainng is effective.
    Living in states that do not have mandatory training I can say this: my observation through watching the new, reading the newspapers, and talking to LE in areas tells me that there is no difference in whether someone has training or not.
    I talked to few LEO's that I know in NH and VT this week about thhis very subject. They do not how training would have affected any incidents they see...which BTW in NH to their knowledge there has been no one arrested for trespassing or in any other way of guilty of misusing a firearm in the last 5 years except one gentleman that fired a warning shot to a BG. That was dropped by the DA and no charges filed because technically he was within the law. Anecdotel evidence? Sure...but it supports my observations.

    Now, as far as being arrogant. Please dear Dr. tell me where I or anyone ever has said that they do not need training? Just please show me where that was said. If you can not the it is you sir being arrogant by assuming what others think. If you read the replies to this and other threads almost to a person everyone agrees training is a great thing...just should not be mandatory. I have more firearms training than most of the population and I still learn things from working as a consultant with DOD. So please sir, support your assertion or drop it.

    And, since I do not need to prove anything about this topic because I beleive laws that are made are the ones that need supporting data.

    After 24 hours this turned out to what I thought it would be: infighting and still no one can prove in anyway shape or form that CC related incidents are reduced in mandatory training states. If you beleive that laws should be passed on hunches and geusses then that is your opinion. But one thing this thread did prove is that from now on anyone saying that mandatory training is required and will reduce incidents needs to caveat that with "in my opinion". You nor anyone can state it as a fact.
    1MoreGoodGuy likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  4. #139
    RKM
    RKM is offline
    Distinguished Member Array RKM's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Who is handing firearms off to untrained clueless people? That analogy is what really gets under my skin. In your analogy, it's the government. The government denies everyone's rights and then they get to decide the criteria to hand us little people what ever guns they feel like we can have. People aren't clueless, and we don't need a nanny state.



    So you agree that little or no training at all is required in order for a firearm to be used to save lives and prevent crime, yet you are advocating the mandated training as part of a scheme of laws that are preventing millions from exercising their rights.

    Let me ask you. Why only mandate the training for CHL? Why not open carry? Why not for all gun owners? Isn't a high powered rifle in the hands of someone who "has no clue" a public safety concern whether he's out in the open or behind a piece of sheetrock? Should the government just hand out guns to these clueless people without training?
    I'm not advocating anything. Yes, I agree that a large portion of people who use a firearm in self defense have little to no training. I'm willing to bet these people are at least capable of demonstrating proper safety as well. I'm simply encouraging people to seek their own training. Training, and being able to show safety and competence with a firearm are two different things. Am I upset that PA doesn't mandatory safety class? No. If they did, would I be opposed? No.

    I do agree with you, we don't need a nanny state. Like saying when and where we can or cannot carry a firearm, what type or what caliber, open or concealed. As a matter of fact, I'd support constitutional carry, no license or permit required. I'd just encourage training and safety classes. Most people will be responsible and seek at least some sort of safety class or training. So I don't think mandating a government safety program is a must, I'm just simply not opposed. But it is a must to take safety seriously, and to learn the basics or seek training on your own time.

  5. #140
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,923
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Heres another example of incompetant people who are killing us

    The accidental firing of a handgun in the Lake City Walmart Friday night led to the arrest of the gun's owner, Lake City Police Capt. John Blanchard IV reported.

    L.J. Johnson, 59, of 237 Campus Place, was charged with culpable negligence and improper exhibition of a firearm for the incident that happened about 10:28 p.m. at the store on U.S. 90.


    Blanchard said Johnson had a concealed weapon and holster that fell to the floor from its place of concealment, causing the gun to fire.

    The immediate and surrounding areas were searched for evidence of where the bullet had traveled. No one was injured.

    Johnson was jailed with bond set at $2,000, Blanchard reported.
    That incident happened over two years agao:
    Accidental firing of handgun in Lake City Walmart | Gainesville.com
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  6. #141
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,109
    I did not post it for time purposes, as that's irrelevant. I'm sure I could find one that happened very recently. But the point is, there are too many untrained and uneducated people joining the group that have no background with firearms, and these types of incidents are unnecessary, hurt us all in the public eye, and endanger those around us.

    Furthermore, while I concede that posting all the accidents( and there are many) does not give any conclusive evidence that training would eliminate these issues, I feel that they demonstrate a serious issue that needs addressing in our firearms community, and hence my opinion that if you are going to be among the public with a CDW, then training in the proper use and handling with respect to proper holster selection and other issues unique to what we do be required.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  7. #142
    Member Array knowltk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    52

    POINT BLANK: Guns and Violence in America

    I just checked POINT BLANK: Guns and Violence in America for mention of training. This book is 500+ pages long and is packed with data and statistics. I could find no mention of the effects of training with regard to concealed carry.

    Edited to add: There is some evidence that hunters who have attended a hunter safety course are less likely to be involved in hunting accidents.

  8. #143
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,923
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    I did not post it for time purposes, as that's irrelevant. I'm sure I could find one that happened very recently. But the point is, there are too many untrained and uneducated people joining the group that have no background with firearms, and these types of incidents are unnecessary, hurt us all in the public eye, and endanger those around us.

    Furthermore, while I concede that posting all the accidents( and there are many) does not give any conclusive evidence that training would eliminate these issues, I feel that they demonstrate a serious issue that needs addressing in our firearms community, and hence my opinion that if you are going to be among the public with a CDW, then training in the proper use and handling with respect to proper holster selection and other issues unique to what we do be required.
    I hear what you are saying but you don't want to go down the road of accidents. I betcha I can find more with folks that have had "training" than folks that have had zero. And I am going by what some folks considered being trained:former LE, former military, CCP class.......How do you know this gentleman has never been trained?
    9MMare likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  9. #144
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    This may nor may not be construed to be "off topic" a bit, but one issue I have always considered is IF some of the regulations and attached fees and costs have a negative impact on lower income folks and minorities.

    It seems to me at least that a reasonable person would have to admit that the more it costs to buy a firearm and ammunition, then additional fees to "obtain a permit to purchase" (NJ for one example) then IF carry is allowed, fees and costs of said permit(s) . I believe a case can easily be made that such a system is imposing an unreasonable burden on folks "just barely getting by " now in this economy? Clearly this infringes on the Rights of lower income folks (many of which are minorities) IF you just can't afford to buy the handgun AND pay the costs and fees, you cannot exercise your RIGHTS? An easy way to discriminate against these folks is to simply make the fees higher and renew mandatory with high fees on an annual basis.

    I believe that this IS where the "forced training" etc. will hit the proverbial legal road block, especially IF the states cannot prove that training IS something that is "needed for the safety of it's citizens"...... thoughts?
    Both part I put in bold are valid concerns. Both are readily fixable. General revenue can
    certainly be used to fund the issuing authority so that the price to the applicant gets dropped
    to little more than the cost of postage and copying. Training --range test excluded of course--
    can be readily accomplished in today's world via computer. The poor can gain access to computers
    at libraries, at friend's homes, at schools perhaps. With the price of tablets tumbling, and
    the cost of WiFi at McD's about the same as Big Mac.

    I see that they have installed iPads in JC Penny Stores for customer use. I don't know what they
    block, but who knows, maybe you could do your on-line training there while your wife rummages
    around the various shelves.

    There is another self-taught option which could happen. The CHL handbook really needs to be
    put into plain English, not the flat out recitation of law and regulation which it presently is.
    An enterprising person or a pro-gun organization could create a training book and distribute
    it for little cost in a Kindle style version or as a .pdf.

    The impediments to training other than the range exam are fixable.
    The range exam is too important to omit IMO, and serves a valuable safety function. I don't think
    any court will find that particular requirement unconstitutional. It really is a matter of attempting
    to assure some public safety. You are after all responsible for where every bullet lands. If you
    can't hit the paper at 7 yards you shouldn't have a license.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #145
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post

    I don't advocate mag limits or such, but a minimum of safety KNOWLEDGE shoul be demonstrated prior to being allowed to go about on public with a firearm. It is for public safety which IS a province of the government ("Promote the general welfare"). Should one have to take a class to buy a gun, no. Carry one in public, no. But one should have to prove they are responsible to carry in, and potentially threaten the safety of, the public.

    .
    While I still disagree with the basic premise, this is a decent argument to make. However what guidelines would be recommended that a person should demonstrate? Personally, I do not think they should have to shoot...but perhaps show they know how to follow the 4 rules and safely load and unload a gun? (LOL can you imagine the sheriff's office where that little demo went on, day after day? Ha!)

    I'm not in support of it, but just thinking out loud.
    glockman10mm and Hopyard like this.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  11. #146
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,109
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I hear what you are saying but you don't want to go down the road of accidents. I betcha I can find more with folks that have had "training" than folks that have had zero. And I am going by what some folks considered being trained:former LE, former military, CCP class.......How do you know this gentleman has never been trained?
    I can prove that 100% of the people who ate tomatoes in 1899 are dead, but that doesn't prove tomatoes will kill you. The information you seek cannot be produced, but on the other hand , you can't produce information that training doesn't cut down on issues.

    So with that, I said my opinion, and backed up my reasoning with what I feel is clear, and rational thought, explained as best as my mental facilities allow, all the while being accused as anti 2A.

    With that said, I think we are now beating a dead horse.

    But thank you for a thought provoking thread, that all but a few were able to discuss without resorting to childish attacks on other members.

    I've just got nothing else to add.
    suntzu likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  12. #147
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,716
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    They don't have to. The appellate courts are already doing it, based upon Heller. You and the antis both love to use Heller to defend these anti-gun laws, but nothing in Heller says anything to suggest that any of these laws will survive a constitutional test. The only thing the ruling says about it is dicta. In the dicta, all it says is that the ruling doesn't automatically rule out long standing laws. That doesn't mean any long standing laws will survive. It just says the Heller ruling is limited.

    We don't know what the courts are going to say, but we know what the Heller court did say.
    Dicta is a pretty good indicator of what is on their minds, their present thinking and their future
    rulings.

    Did you read the ruling? It's a well reasoned ruling that makes the arguments
    YUP

    Again, I'm not defending anything. I'm explaining what the law is, and it isn't what lots of folks
    like to think it is. That's why you still can't carry in DC; still can't have high cap legally in DC, still
    can't get a license in IL, and why NY's draconian new law will probably stand.


    Added a moment later-- This is the definition of "dicta" :

    "Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. The plural of dictum." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Dicta

    One has to wonder why this dicta was included in the opinion if not to send a message to future
    litigants about how thing are likely, but not necessarily, going to be viewed.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #148
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    ...
    Texas man injured two people and himself after he accidentally fired his handgun Monday night while standing on line at a Walmart store, police said.
    MyFoxDFW.com reported that the suspect, who was not identified, accidentally fired his gun while he reached into his wallet at the Dallas-area store. The bullet hit the man in the buttock and shattered on the ground. Fragments hit a child in the leg and a woman in the foot, the report said.

    Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com
    The suspect, who has a concealed handgun license, apparently panicked and took off running, but was soon caught by police.
    He faces evasion charges and injury to a child.
    ...
    I thought that the Great State of Texas "required training" before issuing a "concealed handgun license," apparently it didn't help.

    Thank you for making the point of the OP regarding the idea that mandated training before issuance of a ccw does NOT enhance public safety.

    Ken
    9MMare likes this.

  14. #149
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,716
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    Pennsylvania.
    No Written test.
    No Oral test.
    No Classes.
    No Range Qualification.
    No "NO FIREARMS!" signs everywhere.
    No Blood Running In The Streets.
    No Accidental or Negligent Discharges happening everywhere & everyday.

    The County Sheriff suggests that citizens seek qualified, professional, training. Many DO. Others ask a friend, relative, or family member to give them basic firearm and safety instruction.

    Personal Adult Responsibility
    - It seems to work just fine for Pennsylvania.
    I do like PA's overall approach though to be honest there are aspects of it that concern me.
    Before Mercop disappeared from this board I had talked to him about providing personal training
    to my son and his wife; and to myself via his non-ballistic combat pistol course. We never did
    get together, but I thought I'd point out that I do not think the lack of a training requirement in
    either PA or WA is wise. It is convenient for the prospective license holder, but not all that wise.

    I guess you don't count Philadelphia when you mention "no blood running in the streets."
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #150
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    OK,

    I see a lot of folks saying that mandatory training and mandatory qualification is needed and should be required for a CHL. They state that it is for the protection of the public at large and for the protection of the person carrying the gun.

    Please, somebody show me stats, hard evidence, that mandatory training states are better than non mandatory training states as far as
    1. The wrongful use of a firearm by CHL/CCP holder
    2. Inicidents of arrests for trespassing by CHL/CCP holders
    3. Errant shots fired by CHL/CCP holders
    4. Illegel use of a fireamr by CHL/CCP holders EDIT:such as brandishing, bad shoots, ects....NOT crimes committed malichievously)

    Feel free to throw in other data.

    I understand that it may be the opinion of folks that training should be mandatory or not. But...if that is your opinion and you think it should be law then I would hope that you guys have the data to prove it. I for oone do not like laws neing made with anecdotal evidence or one or two spectacular events. That is like pushing through the AWB because of very isolted cases of misues of madman using those weapons.

    Laws should be made to protect the public and their should be data to back it up.

    OK...ball is in your court.
    Almost 150 responses and not one that attempts to actually address the OP above with "stats, hard evidence, that mandatory training states are better than non mandatory training states ... ." Way to go!

    Ken

Page 10 of 36 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131420 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

powered by mybb advanced weapons

,
powered by mybb all movies
,

powered by mybb best exercise

,
powered by mybb code search
,

powered by mybb criminal law

,

powered by mybb free full movies online

,

powered by mybb free online training course

,

powered by mybb law and order

,

powered by mybb legal

,

powered by mybb paintball stuff

,
powered by mybb reference
,
powered by mybb video of potty training
Click on a term to search for related topics.