Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states - Page 14

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 suntzu Is there some reason you will not answer a simple question? Good grief. State your feelings here....we are all friends.LOL.... FWIW ...

Page 14 of 36 FirstFirst ... 410111213141516171824 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #196
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    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.
    Nor can you answer the simple question on whether or not you are changing the topic of the thread.

    BTW, I answered your question in post #56. You might not have liked the answer, but it was there.
    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


  2. #197
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,883
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Nor can you answer the simple question on whether or not you are changing the topic of the thread.
    Good grief dude. Get a pair LOL (that is a joke and not an insult...I am in a good mood). I don;t give a hoot what you want to discuss like I said in my previous post. Just go ahead, talk about the waether, hockey, (Bruins just beat Toronto). It don;t really matter because you won't answer a simple question. That is your right. It won;t cost me any sleep.

    This is just almost comical. You would think I was asking for your secret bank code or if you were having an affair. I am just curious how you will deflect the question this time. Why don;t you just say it is none of my business? I am curuous because you are an instructor and it would be interesting to know your personal views on this.

    Go ahead...chat it up
    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

  3. #198
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    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.
    I should not try to speak for Farronwolf, but what I think he was saying is that without the inclusion of mandatory training in
    the mid-1990s legislative product, a bill to allow for CC would not have passed. Therefore, mandatory training indeed
    fulfilled the 3rd mentioned goal-- it promoted CC, as without that having been included in the law there would be no CC in
    TX and things would be as they were the first 20 years I lived here. And that, btw, was not good at all. Not quite IL or
    Hawaii, but pretty darn close.
    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. #199
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I should not try to speak for Farronwolf, but what I think he was saying is that without the inclusion of mandatory training in
    the mid-1990s legislative product, a bill to allow for CC would not have passed. Therefore, mandatory training indeed
    fulfilled the 3rd mentioned goal-- it promoted CC, as without that having been included in the law there would be no CC in
    TX and things would be as they were the first 20 years I lived here. And that, btw, was not good at all. Not quite IL or
    Hawaii, but pretty darn close.
    Hop, the state was not promoting CC'ing by making it mandatory you have training. Whatever,, look, this has nothing to do with your and Farronwolfs stated position on mandatory training which is is makes folks safe from themselves and others. Why don;t you guys just stick with that. Now, in the abscence of data you are trying to find other reasons.

    Yeah, I am sure the state legislatur said "to promote CC'ing what is better? Pass it with training or pass it without?" Come on, it was a compormise to get something passed. It had zero to do with anyones intention of promoting CC'ing.

    BTWL you can speak for him if you want. Do you know what is psotiosn is on if he thinks it should be mandatory? He sure is keeping that a family secret
    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

  5. #200
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    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?
    If you make a decision on what you think is required, you should have a reason for believing that. Whichever you believe, what are you basing that decision on?

    If there is no data to support your position, why advocate it? Just as 'feel good' legislation? Makes no real difference but sounds good?

    If there was a significant difference *I believe* there would be data to support it. It would have arisen to the level of public attention. Just IMO.
    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)

  6. #201
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    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.
    The absence of data does not indicate that such laws have no benefit. Frankly there are too many variables in this question for there to be any data-or at least any data that the OP would accept.

    Absence of "accidents" is hard to prove with data. Just as it is hard to provide data on how many crimes are deterred by open carry. Logic would dictate that, in the case of the situation posed in this thread, any training is better than no training therefore requiring it would be a good thing. Logic would also dictate that criminals would rather not risk their lives by attacking someone who is obviously capable of defending themselves with violence upto and including deadly force.

    If there are no accidents, why? Was it the official training mandated, or was it simply because of luck? Was it because of unofficial training received from a parent that carried over or pehaps because the weapons carrier/owner just had some good common sense? Did the accidents in the "no Training States" occur because there was no training or because the carrier was an idiot who would not have followed his training no matter what?

    No training will not eliminate ALL threats, but it (Logically) will prevent some, any accident prevented is possibly a life saved. Isn't saving lives worth at least some inconvenience? I would not support mandatory training to own a firearm, I would not support mandatory TACTICAL training for carry, I do however support mandatory SAFETY training before public carry.

    I have stated that I believe (opinion of course) that the word "regulated" in the 2A allows for some regulations on keeping and bearing arms. We regulate who can carry (no felons or mentally unstable persons); where a weapon can be carried is also regulated (federal buildings, jails, schools in some areas, court rooms etc); what can be carried (no fully automatic weapons); and how carried (at least by States-permit required to CC, and in some states Permit required to OC, and some no permit at all). Per the Supreme Court of the US in the Heller case the freedoms granted by the Second Ammendment are NOT limitless, prudent regulation is acceptable. Again according to Heller-outright across the board BANS are unconstitutional, however regulations are not because some regulation IS prudent and needed for the good of the public at large.
    Hopyard likes this.

  7. #202
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    You asked for it, so it is going to be long.

    And Hopyard is correct. I have lived in Texas for 40 years give or take if you count my time while in the Army when I was still a resident here, not my entire life, but most of it. Without the training requirements in the 1995 bill, we would not have any form of legal carry for handguns in this state. That is a fact, not the data you asked for but certainly a fact.

    Now, as to my opinion as to whether or not training should be a requirement. I think it should. Not because I am an instructor and make a little money off of it, because it certainly isn't full time job, but because of what I have experienced.

    Take a look around this site and see how many people with permits already from states that require training, and see how much bad information is being passed around. The other day I got a private message from a Texas member quoting statute that said carry in church was prohibited because he saw what I posted in the church carry thread. I can only assume that they have their permit already, and had a very crappy instructor or didn't pay attention in class, and certainly didn't read the rest of the statute to see that the following legislative session the 30.06 requirement was put in place to prohibit carry in hospitals, churches, governmental meetings and ammusement parks. One simple example.

    Next take what I experience in my classes. I get brand new shooters who come to class with a gun they have never shot. They know nothing about gun safety, or shooting for that matter, don't know which way to put the bullets in the magazine sometimes. I get lots of stuff like my grandpa said if you shoot someone while they are breaking in your home you should drag them into the house, or questions of can I shoot someone for tresspassing. Many people think they know what the laws are, but in reality they only know what someone is telling them that heard it from someone else third hand.

    Heck I have even had to appoligize for other instructors who told their first time students that the proficiency requirements on the initial class were only good for 6 months, when clearly the administrative rules say that you have 2 years to submit paperwork and application to the state. The people wasted thier money because after 6 months they thought they had to take another class because they waited too long.

    So, yes, I think that people should be required to know the laws of the state if they choose to extend their castle outside their home, vehicle or place of business and into the public in general and have a handgun as a means of defense. I think people need to think about less lethal means of self defense, which prior to the class, many don't even consider.

    When I get class evaluations after spending 11-13 hours with a group in one day, and they all basically say they had a great time and learned alot, and would recommend and encourage people to get their permits, I don't think they feel imposed upon by the state requirement that they attend the required training.

    Sorry to be off topic for so long.
    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

  8. #203
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    The absence of data does not indicate that such laws have no benefit. Frankly there are too many variables in this question for there to be any data-or at least any data that the OP would accept.

    Absence of "accidents" is hard to prove with data. Just as it is hard to provide data on how many crimes are deterred by open carry. Logic would dictate that, in the case of the situation posed in this thread, any training is better than no training therefore requiring it would be a good thing. Logic would also dictate that criminals would rather not risk their lives by attacking someone who is obviously capable of defending themselves with violence upto and including deadly force.

    If there are no accidents, why? Was it the official training mandated, or was it simply because of luck? Was it because of unofficial training received from a parent that carried over or pehaps because the weapons carrier/owner just had some good common sense? Did the accidents in the "no Training States" occur because there was no training or because the carrier was an idiot who would not have followed his training no matter what?

    No training will not eliminate ALL threats, but it (Logically) will prevent some, any accident prevented is possibly a life saved. Isn't saving lives worth at least some inconvenience? I would not support mandatory training to own a firearm, I would not support mandatory TACTICAL training for carry, I do however support mandatory SAFETY training before public carry.

    I have stated that I believe (opinion of course) that the word "regulated" in the 2A allows for some regulations on keeping and bearing arms. We regulate who can carry (no felons or mentally unstable persons); where a weapon can be carried is also regulated (federal buildings, jails, schools in some areas, court rooms etc); what can be carried (no fully automatic weapons); and how carried (at least by States-permit required to CC, and in some states Permit required to OC, and some no permit at all). Per the Supreme Court of the US in the Heller case the freedoms granted by the Second Ammendment are NOT limitless, prudent regulation is acceptable. Again according to Heller-outright across the board BANS are unconstitutional, however regulations are not because some regulation IS prudent and needed for the good of the public at large.
    Bottom line...you *believe* in mandatory training because you want to, not because you have any justification for it.

    "It sounds good." "It gives me peace of mind" (kind of a fantasy since it's not based on any real data).

    We all agree that training is good. NO ONE can quantify 'how much' training is worthwhile...so again....NO DATA.

    We've already established that accidents happen....even to cops...so again....the cases we've posted show some are trained, some arent, and some are professionals. Again....where's any data that proves *mandatory* training will prevent accidents?

    And again, I find it insulting that so many people believe that the average person will just not bother getting (whatever basic requirement) training if they intent do carry a firearm. That's just ego on the parts of others, IMO.

    To have the govt FORCE training that no one can prove makes a difference (since hey! most people already do get some!) just hands over more of our rights to create a bigger govt. And oops....I'm the Democrat and I disagree with that!
    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)

  9. #204
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Take a look around this site and see how many people with permits already from states that require training, and see how much bad information is being passed around.
    More than from people from states with no requirement? (you dont know, I'm sure. Which is the point)

    And if what you write is true...again...WUT? What is the point if it's so ineffective?
    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)

  10. #205
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    I don't know, I haven't gotten any messages from folks from states without training requirements trying to correct my valid information. I am sure it happens.

    And who said it was ineffective. I can assure you if I gave the Texas test before class and after class, the results would be drastically different, but I am not allowed to do so. I did say they either had crappy instructors, didn't pay attention in class, or didn't read the rest of the statutes before trying to correct me.

    Heck I have been through the CHL 16 booklet countless times, and I don't know 100% of it. There is a lot of material in it, and it is only about half of what we cover in class.
    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

  11. #206
    Senior Member Array DocT65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    595
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu;2588843

    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
    I have more firearms training than most of the population[/I] and I still learn things from working as a consultant with DOD. So please sir, support your assertion or drop it.
    If so many feel training is indeed appropriate, of value, hunky-dory or even necessary, why is this even an issue with you and the naysayers? It defies logic and really makes your thread a non-issue to anyone approaching this in a logical or safety-minded fashion. Take a safety course, meet the background check requirements then get a permit and carry to your little heart's content. Hopefully those receiving permits with a training requirement will see the value of safety and training and make it a regular habit. It's really not too much to ask before allowing someone to carry a loaded weapon amongst the public. I know you and others will continue to disagree, but if you don't want a debate, don't post a confrontational challenge in a thread you admit you knew would erupt into controversy. BTW, the italicized part of your comment is quite arrogant, IMO. Point made, thank you.
    "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

    Flight Surgeon, USAF
    Law Enforcement Tactical Surgeon

    NRA Patron Member

  12. #207
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    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.
    I think it is a fantastic comparison. Mandatory hunting safety courses and hunting permits significantly reduce hunting accidents...seems logical to me. I'm sure Louisiana could provide you with those statistics.

    I believe concealed carry courses would:

    1. Provide a foundation for safe and responsible carry
    2. Reduce firearm related accidents
    3. Improve the image of firearm ownership and carry to reduce friction with the anti-gun crown (which apparently I'm now a part of)
    4. Educate new shooters and carriers, along with experienced shooters and carriers, about new laws, regulations, and concerns of carry and self defense
    5. Ensure that carriers are capable of proficiently hitting a target with reasonable accuracy and demonstrate what center mass shooting means
    6. Ensure that carriers can maintain their firearm, clear malfunctions, and use appropriate safety gear (such as locks, safes, holsters, proper belts, etc)

    Not everyone who wants to carry grew up shooting on pappy's farm as children. Not everyone was shown proper firearm safety or proper shooting technique. Not everyone knows which situations are legally defensible for self defense shootings. These are valid, public concerns and, like it or not, the government has a stake in them.

    What training hopefully prevents is a kid waking up on his 21st birthday, going to his local gun store, and buying his first cool, tactical, zombie killing, custom, chrome 1911, carrying it down the road to Walmart, and taking shots at a shoplifter because he thinks he's a pseudo cop and he wants to play Rambo. It prevents idiots from firing "warning shots". It prevents and 80 year old woman from carrying a gun that she's never handled or shot in her purse and then doing a pray and spray when she gets spooked in the Bingo lot late one night.

    When I got my driving permit I was required to take a written test. I was the required to drive with a licensed driver for 6 months. I was then required to take a driving safety class. I was then required to pass another written and practical driving test to demonstrate my skills. Was it hard? No? Did it make me learn the driving laws, demonstrate safe driving habits, and act responsibly? Yes. I had to do those things to prove to the public, and the government, that I could be trusted to operate a 4000 pound missile on crowded roads. The same should apply to public firearm carry.

  13. #208
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    38Special...did you compare the statistics of states with mandatory hunting training against those without mandatory training to see if there was a difference in accidents? We all know training is good. What we dont know is if it makes a difference in actual accidents and public safety...because there seems to be an assumption that if not FORCED, most people will not get trained. (I disagree with this premise)

    As for all the tests you took for driving....aside from the important point that driving is a privilege not a right......were you FORCED to take outside training?

    For more perspective, people USE their cars every day...cc'ers do not use their firearms everyday...they may never use them in 'real life.'

    So again.....what is the justification for forcing training on people if there is no data indicating it makes a difference? (And please see bold above for a reminder)
    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)

  14. #209
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    So as this thread has evolved, I see one particular thought pop up in my mind....it seems there are alot of people who think that if gun owners are not forced to take training to carry a firearm, they do not already have experience/'training' or will not bother to get 'training'. I put training in quotes because no one has nor can define what consitutes 'enough' training. But people grow up with guns, grow up shooting, get into competitive shooting, self-defense training, etc, so there's a lot out there available.

    Do I need to start a new thread? Suntzu?

    Do people on this forum believe that *many* people buy guns for self-protection and get no training or education on how to handle that firearm? Do you believe that number is significant? (Sorry, I cant define that).
    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)

  15. #210
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    I don't know, I haven't gotten any messages from folks from states without training requirements trying to correct my valid information. I am sure it happens.

    And who said it was ineffective. I can assure you if I gave the Texas test before class and after class, the results would be drastically different, but I am not allowed to do so. I did say they either had crappy instructors, didn't pay attention in class, or didn't read the rest of the statutes before trying to correct me.

    Heck I have been through the CHL 16 booklet countless times, and I don't know 100% of it. There is a lot of material in it, and it is only about half of what we cover in class.
    No one said your's is ineffective but how do you know that the training other people get without being mandated is less effective? You are just assuming they dont get ANY.

    And you are the one claiming that people WHO HAD TO TAKE COURSES are still unprepared. So again...to me, that seems ineffective. Or pointless. Or most certainly, no better than the people who go out and get their own training by choice.
    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