Once again...this topic is about *mandatory* training. How do you know that the careless at the range,those next to you in the restaurant....havent had training? You dont. Not only that, you dont know if the training they had was *mandatory* or they got it of their own free will.
Originally Posted by boatman
(btw, this thread asked for some kind of evidence that you are in more danger in states without mandatory training for cc permit holders. Do you think you are you in more danger? There has been no evidence....info or other....presented here in the thread. If you have it, we'd like to know.)
However the outcome is the same...either safe handling or not. You cannot MAKE someone be responsible. You cannot MAKE them be committed to carrying a weapon.
If they are at the range, they are already in the category of:"They tried to learn to use their weapon" (And some here deny that 'many' people will attempt to do so without being FORCED to do so). The same individual, an instructor (sorry Farronwolf) als admits that even those trained....and those on this forum....often display a grave lack of knowledge of their own state's laws and of general safe gun use.....
So not only do we not know if mandatory gun training makes a difference, apparently *some* training is next to worthless. So....ah...how much training are we supposed to force on people to MAKE them be safe?
How hard is this? Is there anything that shows comprehensively (big picture) that the general public in AK, VT, PA, WA, SD, WY, AL, etc. are less safe from accidental shootings than in states that have mandated training? (And it must relate to the general public because there is no required training for basic gun ownership).
Actually the 5th already had all the protections in what it says so no your argument holds about as much water as a bucket full of holes. But even if it did 5a does not include that pesky little phrase that keeps undoing libs arguments that ANYBODY has authority to "interpret it. Shall not be infringed. Like not changed, messed with, reworded, stepped on, warped or weakened. 2a is the foundation of every other right we have. Without it we cannot protect all the others. It says what it says and it says nobody has the authority to regulate the right to keep and bear arms.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
So no they dont get to interpret either all or nothing. They get to interpret the amendments where it isnt expressly forbidden for them to do so. 2a expressly forbids it in no uncertain terms no matter how you twist it.
Do they, yes because long before I was born and maybe you too up till now Americans got lazy and let it happen. Just because they do it and so far get away with it doesnt make it right any more than any other crime against the American people. Yes I said CRIME. Its done now with our rights being changed by whichever way the panel of judges leans politically at the time something is in front of them. The very reason shall not be infringed was put in.
2a is different than any of the others in its wording and its wording is because of its purpose which is ensure the people the means to hold onto the rest of the freedoms and rights laid out in the Constitution.
Yep sure can have it both ways. That was how it was meant to be.
Thank you for the really clear, well reasoned and well written thoughts on this topic.
Originally Posted by KoolBreeze
You make the case that you would not benefit from most, if not all, of the "mandatory training" required in some states to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Then you go on to support required mandatory training, leaving me a little confused (but I am, admittedly, easily confused).
What you don't do is address the OPs, Suntzu, question.
The question asked was: Can anyone show any data that supports mandatory training by showing that public safety is enhanced by such training in states that require it over states that don't?
p.s.; No one else has actually addressed the question either, making me start to think that, just maybe, there is NO justification as a boon to public safety in requiring training before issuing a permit.
Because all of that has zero to do with the thread. I said that IMO it is an ifringement but that is not the reason why I started the thread nor asked for reasons why mandatory training should be mandatory.
Originally Posted by 38special
When the government imposes a law on us or a mandate I think it should have some rationale behind it (public safety, law and order) and that rationale should be backed up by facts. The question is if mandatory training is NEEDED and so required by law then why don't other states require it? So...you look at data from other states to see if their CC'ers have more oops than stats like Texas.
That sir was the question.
I am not going to address each point you made because it has nothing to do with the OP and you must not have read it or mis understood it.
I will add this: do you need to show proof you don't have your head up your arse to vote? The voting booth has caused more deaths than all of the POW's combined over the years.
Farronwolf and Glockman and I might disagree on this issue but at least they knew what the topic was and did not go off on something totally different. Yoou obviously have not read my personl beleifs on gun ownership have you? They address all of those points and you would be pleasantly surprised.
I do NOT agree the restrictions on "automatic weapons " IS constitutional.....just because laws were passed (and even upheld) due to an agenda doesn't in any way change shall not be infringed. It IS however valid evidence that give them and inch and they will want 20 miles. Once we stepped back and compromised and "bought the BS they were selling" the camel's nose was under the tent..
It is ironic that some feel it's "safe" to release someone from prison back into society but some law to restrict them from owning a gun makes anyone safer, the reality is probably the exact opposite is true. There is little to make them not want to use the weapon if they even think they may be caught with it.
You say 'you know what they meant' but don't seem to understand when they framed the Document, many citizens owned cannons...........the Government wishes to limit as much as possible the very arms (no need to pre with "firearms" ) citizens need to defend their "free state" from ANY entity that would dare to threaten that.
As I already stated, "I" do not want to be in any way responsible for anyone who ends up dead or in terrible shape due to time, $ or any other restrictions on a RIGHT they don't need Government "permission" anyway........
Some wish to punish folks "just in case " they MIGHT commit a crime- IS THAT how the US system works now? I don't think it IS or should be. Just like the gun grabbers "think" the answer is to punish millions of law abiding citizens for the actions of a very few mass murderers who broke many laws besides the mass murders.... criminals do not obey laws, to pretend even more laws will change that reality is laughable IMO
Originally Posted by 38special
One other thought on this topic; while I believe required education should be implemented, I do not think it should be at the added expense of the person seeking a CCL.
The Pittman-Robertson Act, as used in Ky, to promote wildlife conservation is a great example of how to achieve this without finacially placing burden on the people's right to carry.
Basically, it could be funded through funneling a small portion of the taxes already paid on all things outdoor related. From ammo, to guns, to clothing, ect. The money's could be allocated to the local Sherrif to set up classes, free of charge, to help educate the individuals who apply for CCW permits on their weapon of choice.
Familiarization with the fire control mechanics, and proper carry and handling methods should be the focal point of the class.
I for one am tired of seeing people carrying their weapons in floppy, cheap Nylon holsters thinking they are good to go.
I have been observing some of the threads lately asking questions that some here view as common sense, and I can't help but think that, that there is definitely a need based on this.
I think that too many folks fail to realize the entire intent of the BOR is to LIMIT GOVERNMENT Powers over the people. Many do realize this and thus want it weakened and better yet eliminated (Obama and crew fall into the latter group quite obviously) . When you understand the Government is OF the people BY the people , WE The People ARE the governing bodies NOT those we pay to represent us (and they fail to even do so with nice wages and excessive benefits) .
I am without a doubt certain the "leaders" who would gladly attack us would love nothing more than we had "bans on semi auto everything" and were stuck with single shot weapons while they have Class III to use against us-however that is not how it is supposed to be. It is OUR JOB to insure they do not limit OUR GOVERNMENT (US the citizens ) any more than they already have. IMO
There are reasons why the same folks want no voter ID shown to vote for POTUS, and many of these folks will gladly support destruction of our Constitution after all they don't understand it and have no reason to care , the "free stuff" matters more.
Agree I did not answer OP's question. I am not sure that i know of any statistics or have ever seen this statistic. Having a big background in stats myself, I also know that you can pretty much find stats to prove your point on any argument however...
Originally Posted by 9MMare
I was only following the thought path that someone who has more training statistically makes less errors on what they were trained on than someone who has not had training. This does not mean that someone with more training will not make an error. Just less frequently statistically.
Also, it would be odd to figure out what numbers to use. How many shooters are there who shot this month? How many AD/ND where there? Is that one ratio you want? And from those , what percent had training vs. none? Or should you use how many rnds were actually shot (i.e., if there were 1M shooters this month and 999,000 shot 10 rounds, but 1,000 shot 1000 rounds, where did the AD/ND come from?) And of course, if you have large numbers, than you will have accidents just because statistically by by the weak law of large numbers .01% of 100M rounds is a real number. Then the question is, is it an acceptable number? Yes, 1 person a month will die because of an accident, but 100M people get to be allowed to shoot. At what point does the number 1 become an issue, which forces a law to come into effect (the OP question). I think the first question to answer is how many AD/ND are there, and what are the outcomes of them (death, or just a bandage). I have never seen stats on this.
I don't think my questions are unrelated at all. Several participants of this discussion have repeatedly brought up the Second Amendment, concerns surrounding Second Amendment safeguards, and the government's authority to infringe/place restrictions on the citizenry. This discussion has taken many related sidetracks which have, in my opinion, provided healthy, educational debate. If you don't want to answer them then don't answer them, but that doesn't invalidate the questions.
Originally Posted by suntzu
[QUOTE=boatman;2594394]Agree I did not answer OP's question. I am not sure that i know of any statistics or have ever seen this statistic. Having a big background in stats myself, I also know that you can pretty much find stats to prove your point on any argument however...
I was only following the thought path that someone who has more training statistically makes less errors on what they were trained on than someone who has not had training. This does not mean that someone with more training will not make an error. Just less frequently statistically. [QUOTE]
I don't believe anyone has disputed that training does make people more competent with their guns. However many here "seem" to think that a "significant" number would not get basic education & training at all if not forced to by mandatory requirements.
And we've seen no info that indicates that permit holders in states with no requirements are any more of a threat to public safety than permit holders in states with mandatory training requirements.
OK...how about this: the government should have to show a compelling need to make a law. To make a law/requirement that you need training the govenrment should have to provide data as to why that is true. If they can not then there is no compelling reason to make such a requirement.
Originally Posted by 38special
Following that through, it is an infringement because the govenment can not prove their is any gain to society or public safety by putting in such a requirment.
I agree with you regarding my first question...I don't personally believe automatic weapons should have any more restrictions than any other weapon. The Supreme Court, who interprets constitutionality, disagrees with us.
Originally Posted by Aceoky
I also understand, and agree with, private cannon ownership during the time period the Constitution was framed. It was entirely reasonable and practical considering the issues they just faced. It was also necessary for local militias to own those items since the federal government could not protect the country effectively and since the national guard didn't exist.
However, where should our constitutional rights end? That is my question. Are you comfortable with 10 year olds carrying at school? 15 year olds? 17? Confirmed gang members with multiple felonies? Are you comfortable with your neighbor owning chemical or atomic weapons? Are you comfortable with someone with a flame thrower, grenades, and c-4 sitting in the booth next to you at Applebees? Should the government have a say in any of this?
The sad thing is, the lawmakers think they are creating laws because of compelling reasons. At least, they would argue that is the case.
What do "peace time" carry requirements have to do with "war time" combat against our government? If "we the people" have to defend ourselves against our government then all restrictions, licenses, and safety classes go out the window.
Originally Posted by Aceoky