Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states - Page 21

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 glockman10mm They only thing I can answer to with that one with any degree of honesty, is the CCW people at least ...

Page 21 of 36 FirstFirst ... 1117181920212223242531 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #301
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    They only thing I can answer to with that one with any degree of honesty, is the CCW people at least seem to know how to use proper holsters and belts. Everytime I see someone OC, which is not that often, they are wearing some generic nylon contraption with integral mag pouch, carried on a belt to skinny and thin to be useless.
    I could possibly agree with on that. But then since they are OC ing you are able to see how screwed up they are.
    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


  2. #302
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,912
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I could possibly agree with on that. But then since they are OC ing you are able to see how screwed up they are.
    Would you stop hopping around from the drone forum to this one!!! lol

    You should agree with me on about 99% but you are just being stubborn. And, I really dont think you believe mandentory training is a bad idea, as long as it could be done without imposing any more difficulty to do so.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  3. #303
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    You are kidding right....almost all of those are malicious crimminal activities. Almost all have nothing to do with mandatory trainning. I am talking about stupid things like the idiot that left his gun in a playground and I highly doubt any amount of training would solve that morons problem. Another more valid one is the guy who pbrought the gun on school property.

    You mostly listed crimes by people that simply had a liscense and that no amoount of training would have prevented it. Like the person making terroistic threats. I am sure that is not covered in any CHL class just as do not rob a bank is in any CHL class. These folks aren;t being chraged with a manslaughter charge or something that was a mistake when they drew their firearm.

    They were arrested for attempted homicides and such. The dudes with road rage would have been arrested for something even if they did not have a weapon. And the one guy obviously knew he was wrong because he said he did not have a gun. He must have known the law.

    Come on dude....do you honestly beleive that all but maybe one of those incidents would have been prevented by a CHL course tha they took years before?
    It was in mine. Specifically, if you have a weapon on you, the phrase "I'm going to kill you," uttered out of frustration at times, instantly becomes a credible threat for which you can be arrested. That was the example given.

    The guy at the playground may or may not have known that he couldn't have a weapon there in the first place. A CCW course may very well have helped him there. Also, if you leave your weapon in the room during break, when you come back, it's gone. That's in any of the classes taught at my range, but especially the CCW course. The instructor will take it and allow you to fret and worry for a few minutes before he gives it back. It happened to my wife - and trust me, it REALLY drove the point home (she thought it was fine there since it was a small group and the instructor was still in the room the whole time. Lesson learned for sure!).

    Negligent Discharge in 2001 - that issue was discussed in my class. We went over holsters, the types to use, the problems with using each type, the dangers of using cross-draw holsters, etc. Included in that lecture of course, is the reason WHY we should use a holster (i.e. instead of waistband).

    The class also focused on the mental aspects of carrying concealed, including the fact that you should ALWAYS DE-ESCALATE a situation when you're carrying a gun. That may or may not have helped in these situations, but then again, it just may have. We don't know if any of these people actually thought they were justified in their shooting, or justified in brandishing the weapon. THe guy shoveling the snow may have known the other guy had a CCW as well, and thought he saw something. There's so many elements here that no one can really ever know.

    With that said however, while a CCL class may not have helped in any of these situation, it would not have hurt in any of them. Truth is, I have a feeling it would have helped in three or four, from what I've read here. I'm fully capable of admitting it may not have either.

    BTW - why exactly is CC a 2A issue? If a state allows OC, then whether someone carries concealed or open isn't a matter of bearing arms. It's a matter of how, and that's not part of the 2A. OC without being loaded? Now it's an issue of bearing arms. But IMO, as long as a state allows someone to carry a weapon OC, CC really doesn't fall under this discussion - at least logically. Of course, logic and law diverted the minute SCOTUS assumed Law Review authority in 1794 and the rationale provided for it in Marbury v. Madison.
    38special likes this.

  4. #304
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Would you stop hopping around from the drone forum to this one!!! lol

    You should agree with me on about 99% but you are just being stubborn. And, I really dont think you believe mandentory training is a bad idea, as long as it could be done without imposing any more difficulty to do so.
    That sir, you are dead wrong on. I d not see a compelling need for mandatory training (based on no difference betwen states) and I do not think the founding founders thought you needed a mandatory class to exercise a right.
    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. #305
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,017
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    They only thing I can answer to with that one with any degree of honesty, is the CCW people at least seem to know how to use proper holsters and belts. Everytime I see someone OC, which is not that often, they are wearing some generic nylon contraption with integral mag pouch, carried on a belt to skinny and thin to be useless.

    Look, Im big on style alright? Function follows form.
    LOL ok Ill give you that one lol. But I dont think that points to more ND AD or that they are more dangerous with a firearm. Not as well equipped or fashionable maybe LOL. But not the need to mandate training so we all look our best LOL.

    Ive been known to go hunting in bad weather and use nylon equipment for my sidearm rather than expose my leather to the elements needlessly when I carrying a long gun along with it anyway. Im not any less capable with the firearm in a nylon holster then than I am with it in a leather one with a gun belt though.
    Oh well we can argue this all over the forum. If a person wants to get training by all means go for it. I had to go thru the little course in ky to get my ccl. Should I have had to? No. I honestly believe that having CCL requiring a license and the one day class was just a way to get some fees for the coffers of the state from cc people and fees from the instructors to get licensed to do the class. Could just have easy made it legal without all that as oc was legal anyplace anyway so it wasnt about who carried a firearm or not. But I give up. Some understand Shall not be infringed and some dont.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  6. #306
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    Glockman you and I and a few other LEO that I can see here live in the same state Ky.
    As you know to OC in KY requires nothing. No class no qualifier no video where a cc permit does.
    Training vs non trained in the same state. So I will pose a question to you and the other Ky LEO which I respect highly.
    Can you or the others state with any compelling anecdotal or statistical or any other evidence that Ky OC carriers are having more ND or AD than CC carriers?
    Granted Kys, thank God educational class if pretty basic but it does exist whereas OC requires nothing at all. So if training is something that should be mandatory Ky should be showing a marked contrast between CC and OC carriers.
    Im pretty sure that isnt the case but you and other KY present LEO would i think be in better position to know if it is than I would presently.
    I've only seen two people open carrying in my jurisdiction. They were together in line at Wendy's. They were dressed "tactical" so, making small talk, I asked them what agency they were with. They looked at me like I had a third eyeball and said, "Huh? None." That's the only time I've seen it. I've never had a negative encounter with a licensed carrier and I've had many give me their concealed license during traffic stops. I have, however, had numerous negative encounters with non-concealed carry licensed individuals involving firearms.

  7. #307
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Since everyone else is off topic here...for the instructors our there..how many folks actually can not pass a CHL/CCP test? And a follow up. Does anyone here really honestly beleive that if the CHL/CCP class is the only training someone has been given (BTW:the shooting is not training in most states, just a qual) that they are a better shot during a SD situation than they were before the x amoount of rounds they had to do before the test?

    How effective are they 12 months down the road. Some folks here like 38 Special feel that folks won't do anymore training anyway.
    I answered this question, or similar in an earlier post. If I gave the Texas test prior to class, ie pre test, I am certain that at least 50% or more would fail.

    After the class, my failure rate has been 0%. The worst test scores usually come from renewals.
    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. #308
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    That sir, you are dead wrong on. I d not see a compelling need for mandatory training (based on no difference betwen states) and I do not think the founding founders thought you needed a mandatory class to exercise a right.
    You're right. The founding fathers did not think a mandatory class was required to bear a musket during militia duties. I'm quite sure, however, that the carry of a 1911 in an IWB holster at Walmart didn't cross their minds.

  9. #309
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,017
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    I've only seen two people open carrying in my jurisdiction. They were together in line at Wendy's. They were dressed "tactical" so, making small talk, I asked them what agency they were with. They looked at me like I had a third eyeball and said, "Huh? None." That's the only time I've seen it. I've never had a negative encounter with a licensed carrier and I've had many give me their concealed license during traffic stops. I have, however, had numerous negative encounters with non-concealed carry licensed individuals involving firearms.
    Negative as in likley AD or ND of the firearm or negative personality, compliance and interaction?? Not making a point just curious.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  10. #310
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    You're right. The founding fathers did not think a mandatory class was required to bear a musket during militia duties. I'm quite sure, however, that the carry of a 1911 in an IWB holster at Walmart didn't cross their minds.
    Same rationale the anti;s use to ban hi cap magaizines and "assault" weapons.
    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

  11. #311
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    Negative as in likley AD or ND of the firearm or negative personality, compliance and interaction?? Not making a point just curious.
    Negative as in he pointed an AR15 at me and got shot 5 times.

    I've had several other encounters involving people refusing to put down fireams they were holding. I've had numerous people barricade themselves in rooms with guns and numerous others illegally carrying in their waistbands. I've seen a lot of irresponsible behavior with guns, but none from licensed concealed carriers.

    Actually, the other night I had an armed security guard pull his gun in Waffle House because he misinterpereted a statement made by a drunk thug as some type of armed robbery attempt. No such statement was ever made and no firearm was ever displayed.

    Edit: I've also had a families dog shot because their younger nephew was playing with his new gun. He was demonstrating how the safety prevented the trigger from being pulled. He took it off safe, pointed at the dog, pulled the trigger, and his "unloaded" gun went bang.

  12. #312
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,017
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    Negative as in he pointed an AR15 at me and got shot 5 times.

    I've had several other encounters involving people refusing to put down fireams they were holding. I've had numerous people barricade themselves in rooms with guns and numerous others illegally carrying in their waistbands. I've seen a lot of irresponsible behavior with guns, but none from licensed concealed carriers.

    Actually, the other night I had an armed security guard pull his gun in Waffle House because he misinterpereted a statement made by a drunk thug as some type of armed robbery attempt. No such statement was ever made and no firearm was ever displayed.

    Edit: I've also had a families dog shot because their younger nephew was playing with his new gun. He was demonstrating how the safety prevented the trigger from being pulled. He took it off safe, pointed at the dog, pulled the trigger, and his "unloaded" gun went bang.
    Ok thanks. I said I wasnt trying to make a point by asking and I wont.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  13. #313
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,644
    It doesn't matter what "I" am comfy with (or anyone for that matter) DO you really believe we're any safer today with our enemies having ICBM , jets etc. (and having used jets against us on our soil- 9/11) than our country was in 1776 and so on? I do not, in fact if anything we're in far more danger and it's much easier for any group who wants to attack us and for terrorists to do harm now with our modes of travel and levels of technology and communications .

    During WWII, the USA mainland would have been attacked by Japan , (while our soldiers were fighting overseas) WHAT prevented that (and the sole prevention) was the knowledge that Americans are well armed and know how to use those arms.... Folks seem to forget that bit of truth about our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS.

    As for SCOTUS not agreeing with us, who says they're always right OR have the best interest of the USA or the US Constitution always where it is supposed to be? THE purpose of the BOR is to LIMIT Government power- to remind them they work for and represent US- WE the People ARE the US Government so WE are thus allowed to have any weapons the military possess. Would some abuse that - I'm sure they would, does that undo that other reality not in the least.

    The real truth is They USED the gangs, the murders of POTUS and MLK to start tearing the 2nd down, we the people allowed that, just as we did the last AWB , The "Patriot Act" (which is anything but) and a whole bunch of "Executive Orders" which clearly go beyond the power of the office. They intend to keep taking what is not theirs from us- it's simply a matter of time until something has to "give" and it's likely not going to be pretty. When 2.8 million guns are legally sold and this is known just in Dec 2012, that is not speculation.

    As for "carry at school" I believe the Gun Free School Zones Act should be repealed and teachers with CCW should carry and not have to ask or tell anyone at all. That would make the nuts have to wonder how many they will face and it cannot "leak" because only those who carry know who they are. That IMO would stop 99% at least of the mass shootings at schools. No more "fish in a barrel" shooting sprees risk free for the nuts.

    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    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?

  14. #314
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,912
    Where in the Constitution does it place an age limit on carrying a gun or buying one for that matter? Isn't it an infringement to not allow teenagers to carry in school?
    After all, many that age " beared arms" during the revolution.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  15. #315
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    During WWII, the USA mainland would have been attacked by Japan , (while our soldiers were fighting overseas) WHAT prevented that (and the sole prevention) was the knowledge that Americans are well armed and know how to use those arms.... Folks seem to forget that bit of truth about our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS.
    That is actually at the bottom of the list that most historians have opined on. That theory comes from a statement by Admiral Yamamoto who did not want to invade the US to begin with. The army generals did not give a hoot. Main reason that the Japanese did not invade was the distances involved, the fact Hawaii was still in US hands, and primarily the Battle of Midway which they lost. By losing that part of the ocean it took away any way to stage an invasion of the US.

    Furthermore...the Japanese did not have the number of troops nor the transport craft to carry them to the US. Resupply of ships and protection of the convoys would have been difficult. They were tied up in China and other places and the troops were never avialable.

    So I wld hardly say that is the sole reason.
    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

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