Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

[wingit]

I do not know if you would consider this facts but it is what makes me think it is a good idea to have training.

1 - while having a discussion with a gun owner on this subject I gave him a scenerio. Basically wake up, leave room, BG standing here, do you shoot or not. They said ABSOLUTELY! At that point I said in the direction of your shot you have a seven yr old sleeping (literally a straight line). There response "I never thought of that"

2 - someone has been carrying for almost a year. When I went to visit I had to show him how to take down and clean his gun. If this person was in the same store when a BG came in would you really want someone like that to have a weapon?


Most people on this site a class would probably be a waste of time and money. But laws have to envelope everyone to protect everyone. And because of that decisions must be made for the person who might in one day decide I want a gun, buy one, and walk out with one on their hip.

I believe in the 2nd amendment. I also believe in laws to make the public safe as a whole. I do not want someone to drive 100 mph in front of my house. You need to take a test to drive a car. That right can be taken away. Why would guns be any different?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[suntzu]

I do not know if you would consider this facts but it is what makes me think it is a good idea to have training.

1 - while having a discussion with a gun owner on this subject I gave him a scenerio. Basically wake up, leave room, BG standing here, do you shoot or not. They said ABSOLUTELY! At that point I said in the direction of your shot you have a seven yr old sleeping (literally a straight line). There response "I never thought of that"

2 - someone has been carrying for almost a year. When I went to visit I had to show him how to take down and clean his gun. If this person was in the same store when a BG came in would you really want someone like that to have a weapon?


Most people on this site a class would probably be a waste of time and money. But laws have to envelope everyone to protect everyone. And because of that decisions must be made for the person who might in one day decide I want a gun, buy one, and walk out with one on their hip.

I believe in the 2nd amendment. I also believe in laws to make the public safe as a whole. I do not want someone to drive 100 mph in front of my house. You need to take a test to drive a car. That right can be taken away. Why would guns be any different?

And what does that have to do with mandatory training to get a CHL or CCP? Nothing at all. You don't need a CHP or CCL for your house.
But since you brought it up most CHL and CCP training might not prevent this. This is a man waking up and being reactionary to a threat.

And again, nobody is not saying training is not important...just should not be mandated by the government to exercise a right.

BTW: If wanted me to set a standard for those that shuld carry or own a gun (which I am opposed to) most would never pass. Simply becasue most do not train regularly and out of those that do have never had a job where making critical decisions on when to fire is part of that job.

[suntzu]

2 - someone has been carrying for almost a year. When I went to visit I had to show him how to take down and clean his gun. If this person was in the same store when a BG came in would you really want someone like that to have a weapon?

It is not my decision if the person should carry a gun and neither is it yours. It does not matter if you or I do not like the persons level of training. LEO's and others train all the time and they make poor decisions. You do not know how well one will react. And please, even I think Farronwolf will agree with me on this one. 10-14 hours of training for a CHL is not going to make someone able to react under stress. Yeah, they might know the laws and the book knowledge, but under stress the CHL class is not going to help.

[farronwolf]

Your calculator seriously gives you a zero when you divde by zero? You need a new calculator. You can't divide by zero. Anyhoo, since we now know where the math rpblem stems from (your defectvie calculator LOL). Anyway, now find the stats for the other states. Ya see, that is not my job. My stance is mandatory training does not significanlty lower all of the things I have stated before. You sir are the one that want to mandate said training so I would like to think you can prove it. To do so it goes back to the fundamental question? Which states are better?

If you are dividing the instances by the population, the instances are the numerator, and the population is the denominator. So yes, you get zero% if you divide 0 instances of X crime by 518,625 CHL holders in Texas.

How in the world would you divide by zero? That would mean there weren't any CHL holders. I certainly hope you weren't a math major.

Lets use your math. There were 2 convictions for deadly conduct discharge of firearm out of 518,625 CHL holders. 518,625/2. Yep, 259,312.5% conviction rate for CHL holders on this offense. I know it is monday morning, but really.

I am not going to try to do your homework for you. Ever take a debate class? If you want to argue a position you need to have data to back up that argument. I have provided it for this side, now you do the same for your argument, or admit that you don't have any data to stand by and you are simply guessing for the sake of arguing.

[suntzu]

I'll help you with the math. The reason you get an error is because it is zero percentage. And my calculator give an answer of 0, not error. Maybe you should get a new calculator.

I will also give you the percentages for Texas CHL convictions in 2011 for the following, which is part of what you asked for in your original post, and were readily available to you from the DPS website.

Deadly Conduct Discharge of firearm - 0.00000385635%

Unlicensed Carry - 0.00002892263%

Unlicensed carry of weapon - 0.0000308508%

Aggrivated assault w/deadly weapon - 0.00000578452%

Texas doesn't list the criminal trespass numbers, so I can't give you them. Now the numbers are there for this side of the argument on your question. Please post the numbers for your side of the argument for rates of states which don't require mandatory training. Once you gather that information, we can either have a discussion or put all this nonsense to rest because the numbers should speak for themselves.

Also, if you look over the entire list of convictions that Texas lists, your calculator would give you a whole bunch of "errors". Not because it can't be computed, but simply because they didn't happen, so there was 0% of it occuring.

Unlicensed Carry of a Weapon- .7498 %
Manslaughter - 2.678 %
Murder -.65 %
Deadly Conduct - .665 %
Deadly COnduct Discharge Firearm - .819%
Capitol Murder of Multiple Persons - 5.5%
Unl Carry Hangun Lic Holder - 65 %

That is what I saw listed here:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL...Report2011.pdf

What were you doing with your numbers? Dividing the percentage or convictions by the entire population of Texas? You only include people that are CHL holders, not folks that are not.

Anyway, the numbers given are for convicion rates of CHL holders vs total convictions. So it still is not apllicable. You need to compare the stats between states and only use the stats for CHL/CCP holder. In other words, you need to compare conviction rates fo CHL holders in TX and other mandatory states with the conviction rates for CHL/CCP holders from non mandatory training states.

I posted this just to clarify where you got your information.

[farronwolf]

Umm, no, I gave you the percentage rate of convictions for CHL holders per offense. No, I didn't include the entire population of Texas. Give me a little more credit than that.

I explained it in my last post, of course I used your fuzzy/backwards math so the answer didn't come out right. 2 convictions of CHL holders in 2011 for deadly conduct discharge of firearms. There are 518,625 CHL holders in Texas. That is 2/518625 or 0.00000385635%. See the numerator is the number of instances, the denominator is the population which gives you the percentage.

This is exactly what you asked for. I gave you the rates for a mandatory training state. Now back up your position with numbers from a non mandatory training state.

[glockman10mm]

^^^^Farronwolf, I'd call that^^^^ a check.. And possible Mate.

[suntzu]

^^^^Farronwolf, I'd call that^^^^ a check.. And possible Mate.

What? First of all the thing about dividing by zero was a joke. There was data. Good grief. And as far as the percentages he did not state them correctly. I did as posted verbatim from the DPS website which he providesd.

Second. As I stated before since I do not advoacte making a law based on non data I do not need t provide any. What ever data there is for TX you need to compare that with other states. Hence "Mandatory vs non mandatory states. Not CHL vs non CHL in Texas.

[suntzu]

Umm, no, I gave you the percentage rate of convictions for CHL holders per offense. No, I didn't include the entire population of Texas. Give me a little more credit than that.

I explained it in my last post, of course I used your fuzzy/backwards math so the answer didn't come out right. 2 convictions of CHL holders in 2011 for deadly conduct discharge of firearms. There are 518,625 CHL holders in Texas. That is 2/518625 or 0.00000385635%. See the numerator is the number of instances, the denominator is the population which gives you the percentage.

This is exactly what you asked for. I gave you the rates for a mandatory training state. Now back up your position with numbers from a non mandatory training state.

Again...you have to compare that other states. We all know that CHL/CCP holders in all states have a very low incident of crime (which is not the topic anyway). The topic is what is the difference. The difference.The difference. The difference. The difference. The difference. The difference. The difference. The difference.
You kepp talking about CHL rates in TX...that is a given.

This ended up like I thought it would. Their is no evidence. You only supplied one set of data in which there needs to be more for a comparisn.

[farronwolf]

Really what didnt' I state correctly?

You provided the percentages of convictions for certain offenses of CHL holders vs non CHL holders. That isn't what you asked for, and certainly isn't what I gave you for figures.

You chose to use the data on the DPS website, instead of taking that data and using it to figure what you asked for. I did the calcuations for you, and did them correctly.

Go back, look at the data on the DPS website. Look in the column for convictions for CHL holder by offense. Take deadly conduct discharge of firearm. There were 2 for chl holders in 2011. There are 518,625 CHL holders in 2011. Do the math. BTW, the 2 goes on top, not bottom.

Now if you want to compare that to the rate of convictions for all of Texas, you would use the 244, that would be all convictions including CHL holders in Texas, and divide that by 25,884,000. Remember the 244 goes on top.

So the difference in conviction rates for CHL holders vs total population is.

0.00000385635 for CHL holders vs 0.00000942667 for the total population or approximately 60% lower conviction rate for CHL holders. But again, that isn't what you asked for, but it does give you the occurances and percentages of CHL holders commiting offenses of that nature for a state that requires mandatory training. Which is one side of what you are looking for.

We are still waiting for you to provide the data for what you are arguing for, that non mandatory states do just as well.

BTW, if you can't follow the math I have laid out, I can get my 4th grader who is doing fractions and percentages now to assist you.

[suntzu]

That is OK because you are missing the point. You state it is necessary and makes a difference. You only show stats for one state. It has to be compared to other states. If there is no data available you sir are just making an assumption which is fine. But IMO not good enough to base laws on. And I never intended on finding out other stats. I said that from the beginning...I am not the one wanting laws made. You are.

In fact, correct me if I am wrong but hasn't TX always been a mandatory training state? If not it would be interesting to compare what it looked like before and after. But alas, if it has always been mandatory you can't even compare TX to itself. (i.e CHL holder made more boo boo's before training was mandatory).

Dude, I respect your opinion. In fact that is the entire point of the thread. It is your opinion and nothingmore. Nothing proven. I don't like when laws are made like that.

[farronwolf]

Yes, Texas has always been a mandatory training state. And the current law, which only was put in place with the mandatory training is what we have. Before that, there was NO carry of handguns period.

As I have stated previously. If you want to know how the law came into effect, look at the legislative record and the arguments for and against CHL and the arguments for and against the requirements that were put in place to enact the law.

You may not like it, but in every state, that is the way legislatures work.

Without mandatory training, there wouldn't be any CHL. Which would you rather have, mandatory training and CHL or no CHL at all? Oh, and "I would rather have CHL with no mandatory training" isn't a valid answer in Texas. Like it or not, that is the point you and many others fail to comprehend.

[suntzu]

Yes, Texas has always been a mandatory training state. And the current law, which only was put in place with the mandatory training is what we have. Before that, there was NO carry of handguns period.

As I have stated previously. If you want to know how the law came into effect, look at the legislative record and the arguments for and against CHL and the arguments for and against the requirements that were put in place to enact the law.

You may not like it, but in every state, that is the way legislatures work.

Without mandatory training, there wouldn't be any CHL. Which would you rather have, mandatory training and CHL or no CHL at all? Oh, and "I would rather have CHL with no mandatory training" isn't a valid answer in Texas. Like it or not, that is the point you and many others fail to comprehend.

We do comprhened that. But that was not the topic of this thread. Quite frankly I don't like to hear folks state things as fact when there is no data for it (data from both types of states, not just one).

You have been focused on "how would you like it...." instead of just answering the question. We all agree that CHL/CCP holders commit less crime. That is based on many factors one of which a felon cannot possess a CHL. I agree there we might not be able to have CHL's unless traing was written into the legislation. But again, that was not the question nor the topic of this thread.

Sorry, but when folks like yourself (an Instructor) profess that it is necessary then I think it would be nice to see if that is indeed true when compared to the rest of the nation. There is not enough or no data on other states so there is no evidence either way. Stats for TX alone do not support anything by themself because you can;t compare that to a Texas that had CHL's with no training.

All I want is for folks to think before the speak, recognize what is a fact and what is an opinion, and to state it as such.

Also, it really bothers me that folks like to pass laws, of which the one we are talking about, you support with no data. You, and correct me if I am wrong, support the law for two reasons; you honestly beleive it should be law for folks to be trained before exercising a right, and also tha we would not have CHL's without said law.

Trust me Farronwolf....I completey have comprehended the second part of your reasoning.

As far as saying "I would rather have CHL with no mandatory training". Tha was not an answer to any question I asked or part of the OP. That was you changing the subject (a polite way of saying thread hijacking LOL...j/k there big fella).

I can just tell you from talking to two Sherrifs, a COP, and many other LE in NH there is almost zero crime for CCP holders in NH and almost zero violations. How do I know thes folks? I worked for a company when I retired that had me dealing with close to 90 percent of State police, town, city police, and County Sherrif's.

If the data exist for NH and other states it is IMO that they would be equivalant to TX. Note I said opinion, not a fact. Never would I support any law based on mere guesswork and the fact "it is the only way to get what I want".

[OldVet]

I'm on the fence on requiring training. I never shot myself before I was trained, and I haven't shot myself since. The jury is still out.

[Hopyard]

This line on the TXDPS data confuses me:

"Unl carry handgun lic holder 23 15 65%"

The crime appears to be unlawful carrying of a handgun by a license holder. I don't see how there could be
any number for the general population that is not licensed. No clue for me as to what that 23 represents.


Now, as to training: 15 people out of 518000 license holders were caught, tried and convicted of this offense.
That is a very tiny % of the license holding population.

One way to answer Suntzu's original question would be to find out what the conviction rate for similar offenses are
in other states where training isn't required. I don't think the data exist, and so probably there is no answer.

Now, one can also ask--- how many of those 518000 license holder might have been convicted of unlawful carry
by a license holder if there were no training which explained what such offenses are.

Thing is, there is a list of such offenses in the CHL handbook, and my hunch is that the
conviction rate would be much higher if folks were not educated throughmandatory training as to where and when
it is unlawful for a license holder to carry. Apparently, even with training, some don't get the message.

Without comparable numbers from other non-training states, we are left only to guess. Common sense
suggests the training must accomplish something.

And btw, if my present experience getting mine renewed is typical (which I think it is not) I'm for doing away
with it all yesterday. Something is wrong but all I get from DPS is automated answers that say nothing, and
phone recordings that say only they are really busy before they cut you off.