Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states - Page 13

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; Some data "we" do have is that CC reduces crime rates especially violent crimes. With that in mind, WHY isn't CC paid for by the ...

Page 13 of 36 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415161723 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #181
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,635
    Some data "we" do have is that CC reduces crime rates especially violent crimes.

    With that in mind, WHY isn't CC paid for by the authorities who want it (training etc. ) Clearly the amount being spent on trials, prisons , jails etc. would be greatly reduced by more and more folks legally carrying. The places that are "gun free zones' (Chicago DC etc.) have huge numbers of gun related crimes compared to other places who welcome CC. Rather than look at it as "additional costs" isn't it much more likely that long term it would greatly reduce costs and save lives a win-win....


  2. #182
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    With all due respect..

    "THE RIGHT" is to both keep AND Bear arms , carrying in public is covered and a guaranteed RIGHT "which shall NOT be infringed" hence it's "not" the right to own arms, but to keep AND bear them (carry them anywhere and everywhere by any legal citizen in fact)

    What has happened over time (and should not have IMO) is we the people have allowed others to "decide" there CAN be limits placed on things that clearly are not allowed. Infringe , encroach mean what they mean

    Finally someone that said what ive been trying to say all along.
    Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. It does NOT mention in anyway its ok for the Presidnt SCOTUS or anyone else to change that basic and black and white concept. Its there like it or not and you can twist and worm anyway you like but it wont change one word.

    SCOTUS has no right to rule one way or another about 2a. It does because its been allowed too by the people and will stay that way until the people say enough is enough.

    Mandatory training if its imposed is just another reg that is illegal based on those words in the Constitution. It also wont do anymore to fix anything than any of the rests of the garbage thats been passed.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  3. #183
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    Finally someone that said what ive been trying to say all along.
    Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. It does NOT mention in anyway its ok for the Presidnt SCOTUS or anyone else to change that basic and black and white concept. Its there like it or not and you can twist and worm anyway you like but it wont change one word.

    SCOTUS has no right to rule one way or another about 2a.
    I bet you would think differently if you were somehow in a situation where a confession
    was being beaten out of you and the nice LEO told you SCOTUS had no right to interpret
    the 5th and you can't have no lawyer till you sign some "harmless" papers.

    No offense to LEOs, I'm just trying to make the point that they either get to interpret all of it
    or none of it. Can't have it both ways. And sure as the sun comes up, someone has to do
    the interpreting or the only way to settle disputes would be with a gun.
    Ogre and 9MMare like this.
    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

  4. #184
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    If your a knucklehead with a gun and dont want to train, then your an idiot and thats on you!
    Wrong. It's not on them. It's on you, me, your wife, kids, families, etc. That's the whole point of mandatory training. Carrying a gun in public does not just affect the carrier.
    Hopyard and Ogre like this.

  5. #185
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyKen View Post
    'Requiring training and a permit is not "taking rights away",' But can you make a case, with data to support it, that mandated training has a positive impact on public safety? Eight or ten (I haven't gone back to get an actual count, my apologies for being lazy) States do not require any training at all and some, like Florida (with over a million permits issued), require so little training as to be absurd. Is public safety endangered by the lack of a training requirement in those states? Can we support that contention with statistical evidence? Not so far.
    Ken
    No, I can't. Those numbers don't exist. However, I can tell you that all branches of the United States military provide firearm, marksmanship, and combat training to all personnel. Why would they do this if training doesn't improve proficiency? Police agencies train for several weeks on firearm safety and marksmanship. Why? Will training prevent all stupidity and/or accidents? No. Will it improve everyone's decision making? No. No amount of training will be 100% effective 100% of the time, but it is effective enough be worthwhile.
    Ogre likes this.

  6. #186
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Nobody has ever said training is not important. It is. Should not be mandatory......again....not data comparing non mandatory states vs mandatory states.....that is the topic, not debating about IF training is importantt.
    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

  7. #187
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Nobody has ever said training is not important. It is. Should not be mandatory......again....not data comparing non mandatory states vs mandatory states.....that is the topic, not debating about IF training is importantt.
    Like many have said, those numbers don't exist and would be impossible to obtain. What we can do, however, is equate like subjects. First topic after a google search from the Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife:

    "Why Hunter Education?
    Hunter Education provides a foundation for safe and responsible hunting. Due to hunter education, hunting accidents have dropped significantly. Each year some 18,000 individuals graduate from a hunter education course in Louisiana. The major objectives of the hunter education program are:
    Reduce hunting accidents
    Improve the image of hunting through ethical and responsible conduct
    Promote the shooting sports"

    Hunter Education | Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

  8. #188
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    Like many have said, those numbers don't exist and would be impossible to obtain. What we can do, however, is equate like subjects. First topic after a google search from the Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife:

    "Why Hunter Education?
    Hunter Education provides a foundation for safe and responsible hunting. Due to hunter education, hunting accidents have dropped significantly. Each year some 18,000 individuals graduate from a hunter education course in Louisiana. The major objectives of the hunter education program are:
    Reduce hunting accidents
    Improve the image of hunting through ethical and responsible conduct
    Promote the shooting sports"

    Hunter Education | Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
    Go back to the OP. Your post has zero to do with the topic. Why is there mandatory training for CC?
    Let us use your comparisn and replace hunting with CC and see if it makes sense.

    Reduce CC accidents? Sure, but what is the comparisn to non mandatory training states? THAT IS THE QUESTION
    Improve the image of CC'ing through ethical and responsible conduct- I do not beleive that s why mandatory training is law in some states so therefore no comparisn
    Promote CC'ing? Do you really beleive that is a comparisn? So, the state makes it mandatory to have training to promote CC'ing?

    I do not see the comparisn at all.
    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. #189
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    Wow, two days and no minds have changed. Imagine that?

    Suntzu, since no one is going to be able to gather the data you are looking for and you don't have the data, I have one question.

    Have you ever gone back the the Texas legislature record and looked at the debates and arguments made during 1995 when the CHL bill was on the floor, and what the process was in order to get the actual bill passed. Had the training requirement not been included, would we even have CHL in Texas? Would that be "better".

    Ok that was 3 questions I think.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  10. #190
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Wow, two days and no minds have changed. Imagine that?

    Suntzu, since no one is going to be able to gather the data you are looking for and you don't have the data, I have one question.

    Have you ever gone back the the Texas legislature record and looked at the debates and arguments made during 1995 when the CHL bill was on the floor, and what the process was in order to get the actual bill passed. Had the training requirement not been included, would we even have CHL in Texas? Would that be "better".

    Ok that was 3 questions I think.
    No, and what has what to do with the OP? Nothing. And i have no idea what would have happened back in 1995. Why don;t you start a thread so we can discuss that there?Take this thread as an intellectual exercise if you want. I asked a simple question. And I got answers back like "it is what it is". I will say it like it is ...whether it is law or not I think that you believe that training should be mandatory. If I am wrong just let me know.

    I asked you this before and I do not beleive I got a answer. If I did let me know what post it was. Really simple..a yes or no,

    Do you personally beleive that the state should require mandatory training. Yes or no.

    BTW: I do beleive you had a thread about the hours being reduced for training and folks, including myself, got off topic. I do remember that I apologized for that when I realized what the topic was. Hmmm maybe we can stay on topic now.
    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

  11. #191
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyKen View Post
    'Requiring training and a permit is not "taking rights away",' But can you make a case, with data to support it, that mandated training has a positive impact on public safety? Eight or ten (I haven't gone back to get an actual count, my apologies for being lazy) States do not require any training at all and some, like Florida (with over a million permits issued), require so little training as to be absurd. Is public safety endangered by the lack of a training requirement in those states? Can we support that contention with statistical evidence? Not so far.

    Ken
    True. However it may very well be an infringement on those rights...(training, additional gun restrictions, ec).

    There's a difference between taking something away and taking action to diminish it (infringement). I see mandatory training as an infringement....added barriers to the right to carry...$$, time, being subjected to other people's judgements, etc.

    (I agree with your post, just adding my 2 cents)
    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)

  12. #192
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Str8upguy View Post
    I don't know how many times I've been at the range and had to talk to someone about the proper direction to point their new handgun. We have driver's education, there's nothing wrong with learning how to properly handle a weapon, especially if that person is going carry that weapon in public.
    I dont remember there being forced driver's ed.

    There is a licensing requirement...but driving is a privilege, not a right.

    I think it's sad that 'so many' people believe that 'so many' other people wont be bothered to learn to be responsible with their guns. Goes back to my belief that 'so many' cc permit holders think that they are 'special.'
    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)

  13. #193
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    You can't have an intellectual excercise when the question raised was for data that doesn't exist, or isn't available. You can have opinions, and yes, my thread was severely hijacked., but now we want to stay on topic. Maybe I should start a thread about that.

    Are you changing the topic now to what people think should or shouldn't be required, or are we going to only talk about the data that isn't available?
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  14. #194
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    You can't have an intellectual excercise when the question raised was for data that doesn't exist, or isn't available. You can have opinions, and yes, my thread was severely hijacked., but now we want to stay on topic. Maybe I should start a thread about that.

    Are you changing the topic now to what people think should or shouldn't be required, or are we going to only talk about the data that isn't available?
    Is there some reason you will not answer a simple question? Good grief. State your feelings here....we are all friends.LOL....
    FWIW you can discuss whatever. You seem incapable of answering a simple question.
    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

  15. #195
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    Wrong. It's not on them. It's on you, me, your wife, kids, families, etc. That's the whole point of mandatory training. Carrying a gun in public does not just affect the carrier.
    This thread is ABOUT trying to determine IF mandatory training DOES affect the carrier....and collateral "damage"......according to this thread....we have no idea.

    So....if there is no data to support it, there is no justification for it.
    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)

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.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors