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; Honestly guys some of us are going to keep up with this Well this would be reasonable and we need this law and that law ...

Page 18 of 36 FirstFirst ... 814151617181920212228 ... LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #256
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,680
    Honestly guys some of us are going to keep up with this Well this would be reasonable and we need this law and that law for gun ownership and carry attitude until the antis are gonna rape us with it. Forget its unconstitutional, pesky little shall not be infringed thing, forget the 00000000000000.1 figures etc etc etc.
    Whenever someone supposedly on our side that carries but does not have some ox of their own to be gored by another tiny little, we really should have this law at least regulation, the antis jump on it like they do school shootings and all the rest.

    SEE SEE even that gun nut thinks we should be able to regulate how, when, why, where, how many rounds, what kind, he can do with his own firearm and his right to carry it!!! they dance around singing joyfully.
    No concessions no mandatory nothing should be the goal even if we never reach it again. Then if a group of us feels its that important we can set up our own non mandatory free safety gun school or something. Like that would happen if theres no money in it for anyone.
    Please stop giving the antis bullets to shoot us with. Trust they will come up with more mandatory illegal unconstitutional stuff like this on their own without our help
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #257
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.
    First part in BOLD: That threw me also. I thought it was rather odd. The only thing I can think of was if a CHL was suspended at the time, not revoked.

    Second Part in BOLD: That was the entire point of the thread...nothing more, nothing less. I thought it was a quite simple question to tell ya the truth
    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. #258
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,768
    It may be that they are carrying a gun of the wrong type. If they have a NSA permit and are carrying a semi auto they are violating the law.
    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

  5. #259
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,694
    Its not really simple, and to tell the truth, quite lopsided. It places the burden of proof on any responder who opines yes, they think it should be mandated training, to produce evidence to support their opinion.

    But of course, regardless of demonstration of training or education working for every other thing, then getting the same results from required training for firearms becomes an anomoly to those who are totally against it.

    But on the other side of the coin, those who are against are required to show nothing.

    But Im willing to bet there is evidence out their for someone who has the time on their hands to dig it up, but the facts wont get in the way of people who are against it.

    And I really dont blame people for standing behind their convictions on the issue, and I wish that firearms education was not necassary, but it is.
    Ogre likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  6. #260
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,819
    Its not really simple, and to tell the truth, quite lopsided. It places the burden of proof on any responder who opines yes, they think it should be mandated training, to produce evidence to support their opinion.
    Exactly! If they state it as an opinion I have zero problems with it....might disagree which i do. But when stated as a fact then yes, the burden of proof is on the person stating it as a fact. That is common sense.

    BTW: There most likely is very little data on it because there quite honestly not a lot of CC'ers to begin with. The ones that actually do CC on a regular basis is even smaller (quite smaller). The fact that CC'ers in general do not get into trouble reduces the numbers even further. And the ones that do get in trouble (usinging the weapon improperly for SD ect) is extremely small.
    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. #261
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,694
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Exactly! If they state it as an opinion I have zero problems with it....might disagree which i do. But when stated as a fact then yes, the burden of proof is on the person stating it as a fact. That is common sense.

    BTW: There most likely is very little data on it because there quite honestly not a lot of CC'ers to begin with. The ones that actually do CC on a regular basis is even smaller (quite smaller). The fact that CC'ers in general do not get into trouble reduces the numbers even further. And the ones that do get in trouble (usinging the weapon improperly cor SD ect) is extremely small.
    I do think for the most part, CCer's are a responsible group of people.

    But opinions can be asked to be support in any discussion, and I think that this is what happened here. However, even opinion stated as fact, and backed up with what one feels is factual will be dismissed by those who do not one to at least be objective.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  8. #262
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,595
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    It may be that they are carrying a gun of the wrong type. If they have a NSA permit and are carrying a semi auto they are violating the law.
    I suppose if you stand the logic sort of sidewise I can see where you'd find 23 people who have the wrong type of license
    being convicted of unlawful carry by a license holder, but listed in the other column because technically they weren't license holders? Duh-- my brain is going into a spasm.

    The 23 people maybe didn't pay attention in class.

    Do we really get many people who test with a revolver?
    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

  9. #263
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,819
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    I do think for the most part, CCer's are a responsible group of people.

    But opinions can be asked to be support in any discussion, and I think that this is what happened here. However, even opinion stated as fact, and backed up with what one feels is factual will be dismissed by those who do not one to at least be objective.
    As far as the rest:I was being objective...I asked for stats which would have to include at least one state where mandatory training was not required. If that was supplied (if available) then of course I would be objective. But nothing was forthcoming to in which to evaluate. It was stated up front tha I was asking a question and did not have any data.

    Anyway....I am sure a thread will be started on this but tha little boy in LAlabama is safe and the BG is dead !!!
    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

  10. #264
    Member Array 3dfxMM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I suppose if you stand the logic sort of sidewise I can see where you'd find 23 people who have the wrong type of license
    being convicted of unlawful carry by a license holder, but listed in the other column because technically they weren't license holders? Duh-- my brain is going into a spasm.

    The 23 people maybe didn't pay attention in class.

    Do we really get many people who test with a revolver?
    Maybe 8 of them were carrying under an out of state license rather than a CHL.

  11. #265
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Do we really get many people who test with a revolver?
    I try not to, and have semi autos they can use for class if they need. However on occasion you have someone because of arthritis can't work the slide. But it is not very common.
    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

  12. #266
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,712
    I understand what you're saying Suntzu, and I agree, laws should not be made based only on opinion. It's the very thing the anti-gunners are trying right now, their "opinion" is that black rifles and large capacity magazines are deadlier than "regular" rifles, and lower capacity magazines, which we all know is idiotic. If the "facts" would support mandatory training, that's a different ballgame altogether.
    suntzu likes this.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Diligentia Vis Celeritas"

    "There is very little new, and the forgotten is constantly being rediscovered."
    ~ Tiger McKee

  13. #267
    Member Array KoolBreeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    MS
    Posts
    68
    Wow! Seems this is a hot topic and hopefully I'll get time to read it all at some point. But in the meantime, here is my $0.02 on it. I come from a long line of outdoorsmen, hunters, riflemen, etc etc. As such I've had the privilege of being around guns my entire life. I also had a lot of great teachers. My father was/is an avid hunter, as was his, and he started teaching me about firearms at a very young age. My stepfather was also an avid hunter, as well as a LEO in one fashion or another for the majority of his life. So, guns have just always been a way of life for me. I know how to handle a gun and have for a long time. As such, I do not feel that I personally need any additional "basic" firearms training nor do I feel I would benefit from any additional basic training.

    But notice I said "basic". The day I stop learning will be the day they put me in the ground. I do feel like I still have a lot to learn and would definitely benefit from more advanced training and range time. But I don't feel it should be necessary to legally conceal carry.

    For those that weren't fortunate enough to have a lot of good mentors in their life to teach them about firearms, they should certainly seek out training and the more the better. The trouble the government faces is that they can not be certain any person not known to them is capable of safely carrying a gun, so they sometimes take the easy way out and require it for everyone in an effort to be safer. I can understand that one size fits all position, even though I may not agree with it.

    One of the benefits of requiring training is that more states are likely to honor another state's carry permits if that state requires training. To me, that alone is enough reason to require the training.
    ”Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.”
    Ben Franklin

  14. #268
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Exactly! If they state it as an opinion I have zero problems with it....might disagree which i do. But when stated as a fact then yes, the burden of proof is on the person stating it as a fact. That is common sense.

    BTW: There most likely is very little data on it because there quite honestly not a lot of CC'ers to begin with. The ones that actually do CC on a regular basis is even smaller (quite smaller). The fact that CC'ers in general do not get into trouble reduces the numbers even further. And the ones that do get in trouble (usinging the weapon improperly for SD ect) is extremely small.
    Correct. I asked Farronwolf why he believed *most* people would not get training without it being mandatory...which he said he did believe...and each of the examples he gave me werent actually about that. So altho he believes they provide anecdotal info to support his belief in "mandatory" training...they dont actually....

    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    I certainly do know how many people in my classes immediately put their fingers on the trigger of the "grey" guns we use in class. I can tell you how many folks load bullets in the mags backwards, or don't know anything about sight picture or trigger control, stance, or whatever.

    I certainly do know how many renewals come through class and have been carrying a gun that doesn't run, or they don't know how to run the gun, or think the sights are off because they aren't hitting where they think it should.

    I do know the number of new shooters that have been through our classes and didn't pass the proficiency portion during the class, yet failed to contact us to requalify so they could submit their paperwork. They certainly weren't interested in learning how to shoot and simply gave up.
    So again, I just wanted him to support his belief with something that DOES reflect it. Not proof....but something directly relevant. Hop did so, Glock10 did so.....I dont necessarily agree but at least they back up their 'belief' with things that apply.


    And he said that many people here....that have had training still dont understand their laws OR demonstrate good shooting judgement.....so how can we expect 'the public at large' to do so. <<< Just one more example of the value of 'training' being a completely moving target.
    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. #269
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    I have a few questions for all of the "required training is an infringement" folks.

    1. You say the government can't infringe, yet there are heavy restrictions on automatic weapons. If it is unconstitutional, as you claim, to require training then how is it constitutional to restrict automatic weapons.

    2. Please define "arms". If you are going to use literal, dictionary definitions to interpret the Constitution, then notice that "fire" is not in front of the word. Therefore, by definition, "we the people" should be able to own any type of armament we wish. This would include, but is not limited to, atomic bombs, cluster bombs, fully loaded F-16s, tanks, automatic weapons, flamethrowers, C-4 lined vests, and any other weapon, past, current, or future, that you can afford or invent. Are you just as comfortable with a Muslim extremist's right to purchase and grenades, C-4, and rocket launchers as you are with unlicensed carry? We are discussing constitutional restrictions afterall.

    3. Why do you continually bastardize the Constitution and it's interpretation? You harp on "shall not infringe", yet you conveniently ignore the intent of regulated militia formation. What militia do you belong to and when was the last time you stood up with said militia in defense of your freedom from the U.S. government? I, for one, know exactly what the Constitution's framers meant when the 2nd Amendment was drafted...and "shall not infringe" was not included to circumvent responsible social practices.

    4. How do you feel about the mentally handicapped or mentally insane owning/carrying guns? What about felons? Violent felons? Children? Are they not citizens? Why do we infringe on their rights? Since you claim firearm carry is a natural/god given right please explain how and why the government can take that right from people via due process.

    That is all for now. I'm sure I'll have more later.

  16. #270
    Member Array boatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NE
    Posts
    171

    Re: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Why do you presume that people go out in public with no idea of what is proper or legal? Why do you presume that people will go out and just start shooting at the wrong time, wrong target, or just plain miss their intended target, shooting you and yours? If you believe that accurately portrays our citizenry, why do you presume that mandatory training will have any impact at all? Based upon your presumptions, shouldn't we just ban all firearms? Isn't this exactly what the Brady bunch is arguing? Don't we need an ever expanding nanny state to deal with these folks on a whole host of other social issues?
    Just go to any range. How many of you have seen irresponsible gun behavior? All the time for me. Most of the time it's not intentional.

    There are 60k people on this forum (people who take this very seriously and responsibly) , and 80m owners.

    I bet a huge % take out their rifles once a year to hunt or have a pistol in their closet for self defense. Maybe they go to the a range once a year, or once every 5 years.

    The salesman showed them how to take it down once 8 years ago. Can they do it themselves now? Doubt it. They have no idea of local laws, repercussions, etc.

    Do you want them carrying in the same restaurant you and your family are eating in, having them reach for their credit card knowing they can't remember if the safety being on is up or down?

    God given right to carry? It's my god given right not to accidentally get shot by someone who is incompetent.
    Ogre likes this.

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.