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 boatman Just go to any range. How many of you have seen irresponsible gun behavior? All the time for me. Most of ...

Page 19 of 36 FirstFirst ... 915161718192021222329 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #271
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by boatman View Post
    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.
    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.

    (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?
    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)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #272
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    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).
    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)

  4. #273
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  5. #274
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by KoolBreeze View Post
    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.
    Thank you for the really clear, well reasoned and well written thoughts on this topic.

    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?

    Ken

    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.

  6. #275
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,835
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.

    BTW: caffeine?
    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. #276
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,582
    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


    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    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.

  8. #277
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,801
    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.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  9. #278
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,582
    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.

  10. #279
    Member Array boatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NE
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    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.

    (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?
    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.

    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.

  11. #280
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    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.

    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.

    BTW: caffeine?
    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.

  12. #281
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    [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.
    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. #282
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,835
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    9MMare likes this.
    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

  14. #283
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    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
    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.

    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?

  15. #284
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,149
    The sad thing is, the lawmakers think they are creating laws because of compelling reasons. At least, they would argue that is the case.

  16. #285
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    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.
    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.

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.