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 suntzu Q: What evidence is there that mandatory training states are safer than non mandatory states? Rebuttal: Should we be allowed to ...

Page 24 of 36 FirstFirst ... 1420212223242526272834 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 532
Like Tree138Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #346
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Q: What evidence is there that mandatory training states are safer than non mandatory states?

    Rebuttal: Should we be allowed to own atomic weapons? F-16s?

    Now please, someone here tell me that that is not a perfect example of a strawman arguement.
    Nice try, but that wasn't my rebuttal to that question. My "rebuttal" was in response to the people claiming that the 2nd Amendment was absolute, unquestionable, and unrestrictable and how little sense that view makes.

    What stats are available in reference to the initial question? None. They don't exist. That was answered numerous pages ago by numerous people...including several experienced statistical professionals. I then attempted to provide some stats regarding hunting and you thought they were useless. I then produced anecdotal evidence and you said the cases didn't apply and proved nothing. Again, there are no stats that will satisfy you. Lock the thread if you don't want any other discussions or topics related to the issue.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #347
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,813
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    Nice try, but that wasn't my rebuttal to that question. My "rebuttal" was in response to the people claiming that the 2nd Amendment was absolute, unquestionable, and unrestrictable and how little sense that view makes.

    What stats are available in reference to the initial question? None. They don't exist. That was answered numerous pages ago by numerous people...including several experienced statistical professionals. I then attempted to provide some stats regarding hunting and you thought they were useless. I then produced anecdotal evidence and you said the cases didn't apply and proved nothing. Again, there are no stats that will satisfy you. Lock the thread if you don't want any other discussions or topics related to the issue.
    You seem to think this thread is focused on the Constitution and infringement because others brought it up. You have done everything yo could to keep it on that topic. It is unrelated to the OP because the OP was asking a question unrelated to infringement.
    And I did not discount your "stats" In fact, we agreed on the three wthat would pertain to this discussion. So I was pleased to see someon produce something..which BTW either proves nothing or shines a light that their is no difference between states.

    The stats for hunting have zero to do with the discussion. Hunter safety classes do not discuss descalation, laws about CC'ing. proper use of a firearm in sef defense. The only common thing they have is general gun safety.

    There are no topics related to this issue. If the OP went somethng like this:
    Is there any evidence that mandatory training states are better than non mandatory training states and why do you think tha training should be required at all since it is an infringment on our rights?
    But ya see, not once do I mention the COnstitution, the 2A, infringement in the OP. Not once. The question was pretty darn straight forward. Anything abuot infringement and the 2A are not related. I did not want this to go down that road. Knew it would LOL. I was just curious to the rationale that folks had that supported laws like we have here in TX strictly from a safety point of view and if the state had a compelling need to make this law (or any law for that matter).

    And no, I am not going to ask to have the thread closed. Why don't you do this: go start yourself a thread about the Constitution?

    Bottom line is after a few days and jabbering back and forth their is no data. Any anecdotal information just either draws a blank or leans toward the idea that the numbers are so low in all states that there is no real difference between the states. And that is my opinion. To state otherwise is of course an opinion. I think most can agree that no one can state as a fact that mandatory states are better than the others which was my intent the whole time.
    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. #348
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,813
    BTW: This is not "My Thread". It is up to the mods to decide what to do with it.
    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. #349
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,669
    I don't think that discussing what can be legislated under the 2A is off topic at all. It is really at the root of the discussion.

    I believe responsible citizens should be allowed to own full auto weapons and even explosive weapons. But the reality is, even these are highly regulated. And we can see many examples of regulation regarding all the Constitutional Amendments.

    And of course, noone likes it. And we hate Piers Morgan, especially when he makes the argument against so called assault weapons using the logic that since some weapons are banned or highly regulated that why not these?

    And we hate that argument. Why? Because we know where it ultimately leads, the rock just keeps on rolling.
    So we fight from this standpoint. Our view of it.

    And, I am not in favor of mandatory training because I think it will cure all the problems. But I think it will help, and because I think it is certainly within the scope of legislative authority, considering the precedence of parameters already established by law.

    And these parameters on the 2A already include restrictions such as age requirements, full auto weapons to the general public without jumping thru hoops, background checks, permit requirements, and so forth. None of these were mentioned in the 2A, but yet they are there.

    As to age restrictions. Who determined the cut off, and why that age? Is there anyone here that would argue that teenagers be able to carry or buy firearms? But yet they are able to have all the protections and use of their other constitutional rights.

    So any argument based on the assumption that Federal or State mandated training is not Constitutional and an infringement on the 2A is wrong.

    Not that I don't empathize with this thinking, but the precedence has long been established.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  6. #350
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,813
    Let me re state this but I do not think folks will get it. The OP is not about if the law is just or Constitutional. I am granting the fact that the courts have already said it is. I am conceding that. (My personal feelings are differnt) Now, with that being said (these types of laws are legal vis a vis training) then I just want to see the justification for making such a law. Laws suppose to pass the COnstituitonal muster which I conceded just for the purposes of this thread.
    So, since laws CAN be made. The question is SHOULD they and the data behind that.

    I can make this really simple. How about those that think mandatory trainign should be law and required only respond. You obviously think it is COnstitutional so therefore we can forego all of the fluff and off topic debate.

    Now, adress the OP for those that are pro mandatory training and cough up some data.

    There...simple.
    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. #351
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,479
    There is a huge amount of court precedents that prove you do not have full protection of the constitution as a minor child and you lose rights as a convicted felon . Which was why I asked at what point do you gain full rights under it (at adulthood) minors cannot even vote......illegal aliens ARE voting but that is off topic... (and a travesty IMO)

    BTW I am sure that I didn't avoid the question so "you're the only one trying to answer " is neither true nor valid. Since (as I stated) the people ARE the US Government we don't need anyone's permission to own any weapons including fully auto arms same as the military as a means to keep them at bay as a LAST RESORT as Thomas Jefferson made quite clear IMO- period that is spelled out clearly in The Document and the 2nd in particular. It is those who want to limit OUR power while they seek more power that have started changing that, and that cannot and should not be allowed to continue in any form. In fact we are strong enough to take back what has been taken IF we'd focus and work toward that as a unified unit demanding our rights.

    Even IF allowed, most cannot afford jets, tanks etc. so that is pretty much a moot point IMO, I find it highly unlikely our military would roll down main St America and do air strikes in cities on the Citizens anyway, after "being the human rights police of the world" the PR outrage alone makes this highly unlikely IMO.

    The gun grabbers do not want safety or "to protect the children" , they're using the knee jerk reactions of folks emotions in the hopes of reducing our power while they continue to increase their own. That is the simple reality of things. They KNOW that accurate rifles and high capacity mags make it much tougher for them to rule us with an "iron fist" thus they are looking for an excuse to try to remove those from OUR hands while they have fully automatic weapons at all times .

    The Fast and Furious plan was "to prove the USA was where these weapons came from and how many murders happened as a direct result"- they got caught with their pants down- then Sandy Hook- where the FBI and police spokesman stated on National TV the same day (but after hours of investigation) that two 9mm Handguns (A Glock and Sig Sauer) were the weapons used- Later on those handguns "magically transformed" into an Ar-15 complete with testimony from the ME........they're not above using children's deaths and outright lies to achieve and push their taking of our rights and freedoms agenda.......


    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    I would disagree. Children and felons still have the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc. According to some on here, "shall not infringe" is cut and dry and includes infringements of any kind to any citizen.

    I think the second part is worthy of serious discussion and that's why I repeatedly bring it up. You're the only one who has even half attempted to address my questions. I would argue that an "arm" refers to any armament; otherwise the Constitution would specifically grant the right to bear firearms. Some are on here harping about Second Amendment this, Second Amendment that, shall not infringe this, shall not infringe that, but nobody will explain why atomic bombs, tanks, grenades, etc. don't apply. How does anyone expect to "protect ourselves from a tyrannical government" if we cannot own those things? Do you all really think you can fight the U.S. military with .45s and AR15s. And how does concealed and open carry even fit in to that discussion?

  8. #352
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,669
    That was answered long ago. How can it be that training requirements for virtually everything with some sort of regulation be effective, and firearms training be considered not effective?
    That in itself defies logic.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  9. #353
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,479
    "MY " main issue with the training (especially IF it cannot be easily shown to produce the results we all hope for) is that during the waiting time for a class then the permit, how many are in grave danger and cannot legally carry in so many states? Even in open carry states, a small female or older gentleman loses a major advantage of surprise when it is easy to know they are armed (or not armed)......Add to this the expense someone may not be able to afford (NOW when needed) so they should have to "save up the $" and hope they live long enough after that to complete the training and test, then another few months for the permit? I think there are better ways?

    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Let me re state this but I do not think folks will get it. The OP is not about if the law is just or Constitutional. I am granting the fact that the courts have already said it is. I am conceding that. (My personal feelings are differnt) Now, with that being said (these types of laws are legal vis a vis training) then I just want to see the justification for making such a law. Laws suppose to pass the COnstituitonal muster which I conceded just for the purposes of this thread.
    So, since laws CAN be made. The question is SHOULD they and the data behind that.

    I can make this really simple. How about those that think mandatory trainign should be law and required only respond. You obviously think it is COnstitutional so therefore we can forego all of the fluff and off topic debate.

    Now, adress the OP for those that are pro mandatory training and cough up some data.

    There...simple.

  10. #354
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,813
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    That was answered long ago. How can it be that training requirements for virtually everything with some sort of regulation be effective, and firearms training be considered not effective?
    That in itself defies logic.
    It was opined long ago. Tell me mr LE dude, if places like VT, Alaska, PA, and NH have no training requirements how come you do not see plastered all over the news about a CC'er gunning down folks by accident because they did not recognize a threat properly? Where are all of the stories about ND's in movie theaters and resteraunts? Sure they are there, but at a higher rate than states that require training? I think not.
    Would not that also be common sense? I mean if it was such a difference you would see laws being passed in all states requireing training. Wonder if the reason is if they tried they would have nothing to base it on.

    So no sir, someone may have answered the question a long time ago, but it certainly is not fact that TX is any safer than NH.
    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. #355
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,479
    And these parameters on the 2A already include restrictions such as age requirements, full auto weapons to the general public without jumping thru hoops, background checks, permit requirements, and so forth. None of these were mentioned in the 2A, but yet they are there.
    Agree this has been allowed but explain how it doesn't INFRINGE on our rights? There is NO evidence that it has prevented anything, yet we have allowed it to stand-which is my real point on all of this, they want to TAKE MORE (because they took that much already) WE (as a unified group) Should (IMO) be demanding our full rights be restored, no "jumping through hoops" we should pressure the House, elect the Senate that will pass the laws and keep their oaths of upholding and protecting the Constitution from ALL enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Instead we will watch folks say "that is how it is" (DUH) but it CAN be changed and we should never (IMO) continue to accept we must lose more to appease these anti personal rights stealing folks.

    We need to stop having to be on the Defense IOW. WHY we as a group even use "assault weapon" for semi auto much less allow them to do so harms us and helps them. AR-15 in "Civilian form" is not an AW! A hammer CAN be one for that matter, it's the perception that this brings is WHY they like to use it and how many of us do it also?

  12. #356
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    "MY " main issue with the training (especially IF it cannot be easily shown to produce the results we all hope for) is that during the waiting time for a class then the permit, how many are in grave danger and cannot legally carry in so many states? Even in open carry states, a small female or older gentleman loses a major advantage of surprise when it is easy to know they are armed (or not armed)......Add to this the expense someone may not be able to afford (NOW when needed) so they should have to "save up the $" and hope they live long enough after that to complete the training and test, then another few months for the permit? I think there are better ways?
    Point taken. And in response to that concern, which is a reality, I suggested earlier that if one has a court order such as a restraint order, DVO/EPO, that the training requirement could be waived at the time of permit application.

    As to fees, the educational training should be cost free to the individual.

    There are ways to help insure a more educated firearms community with respect to public carry without further infringement that balances out public safety with personal safety.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  13. #357
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,768
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    So no sir, someone may have answered the question a long time ago, but it certainly is not fact that TX is any safer than NH.
    How do you know it isn't a fact. Just because you don't have the data to support your side of the argument, doesn't mean the facts are on your side. Lack of evidence doesn't mean you are right.

    Did you ever think that the states that don't require training don't want to keep up with the occurances of CHL holders violating the law so that the lack of training can't be used against them?

    I wonder why Texas keeps a detail of all violations of CHL holders? Probably so there is data to back up the argument that CHL holders are not out doing stupid things.
    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

  14. #358
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,813
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    How do you know it isn't a fact. Just because you don't have the data to support your side of the argument, doesn't mean the facts are on your side. Lack of evidence doesn't mean you are right.

    Did you ever think that the states that don't require training don't want to keep up with the occurances of CHL holders violating the law so that the lack of training can't be used against them?

    I wonder why Texas keeps a detail of all violations of CHL holders? Probably so there is data to back up the argument that CHL holders are not out doing stupid things.
    For the last time: I have never said either way was better. I offered an opinion that there is no significant difference. My beef is with folks that state either way that one way or the other is better as a fact.

    If there are no facts then there should be no laws. All we have are anecdotel information from other states. I don't care if you or others go out with T-shirts proclaiming they "beleive" that it should be a law for mandatory training. Just don;t want you telling your students how much safer TX is compared to NH because of the laws in place in TX.

    And I do honsetly believe that any errors made by CC'ers are so small tha there is no statistical difference even if detailed records were kept by all states. Again..opinion based on experience from talking to about every LE agency in NH and reading the news and observing this forum.
    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

  15. #359
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,669
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    It was opined long ago. Tell me mr LE dude, if places like VT, Alaska, PA, and NH have no training requirements how come you do not see plastered all over the news about a CC'er gunning down folks by accident because they did not recognize a threat properly? Where are all of the stories about ND's in movie theaters and resteraunts? Sure they are there, but at a higher rate than states that require training? I think not.
    Would not that also be common sense? I mean if it was such a difference you would see laws being passed in all states requireing training. Wonder if the reason is if they tried they would have nothing to base it on.

    So no sir, someone may have answered the question a long time ago, but it certainly is not fact that TX is any safer than NH.
    Fact? On this issue there are none either way.

    However, it's a fact that motorcycle safety courses produce more educated riders.
    It's a fact that Drivers Ed better prepares a student driver.
    It's a fact that higher education produces more rounded individuals.
    It's a fact that hunter safety courses enhance safety and awareness.
    It's a fact that any education is beneficial to society at large.

    Now, what you are trying to do is pose a question to get a response you desire to hear, while discounting all the evidence that proper training and education is relevant to everything but firearms.

    It's a typical " is darkness the absence of light, or is it really dark?" type question.

    So then, the only facts there are at this time, in the absence of any real sanctioned study, is to fall back on common sense and what we know from other experiences.
    And that, is the only fact in this entire discussion.
    Ogre likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  16. #360
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,479
    I honestly believe this should be how it is done, but it isn't at this time, I figure many who would like to get it don't have the income and those who really need to carry now cannot do so legally in many states (as you know we in Ky do not have that particular issue- many states are not that way sadly) .

    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Point taken. And in response to that concern, which is a reality, I suggested earlier that if one has a court order such as a restraint order, DVO/EPO, that the training requirement could be waived at the time of permit application.

    As to fees, the educational training should be cost free to the individual.

    There are ways to help insure a more educated firearms community with respect to public carry without further infringement that balances out public safety with personal safety.

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 area of
,

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
Click on a term to search for related topics.