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; As I said in an earlier post, I am not sure what figures you need, and if they are really available. For instance, the airline ...

Page 26 of 36 FirstFirst ... 16222324252627282930 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 390 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #376
    Member Array boatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NE
    Posts
    171
    As I said in an earlier post, I am not sure what figures you need, and if they are really available. For instance, the airline industry uses incident per mi flown. (crashes, death, etc. for the incident). But maybe it should be per flight. If you were looking at what your chance of going down was, if you looked at a long range carrier vs. short range carrier you might find different ratios as the long range has few flights with lots of miles, vs short range having many flight of very short mi. The mi might not equal, the fact that take off and landings are much more deadly and the shorter range carrier has many more of them etc.

    So should you be looking at incidents per number of gun owners? Incidents per number of rounds fired? Incidents per population density? Incidents by geographric region based on income level?

    Further, if there aren't enough incidents, then the statistics aren't really based on good numbers. e.g. The mayor of a town of 50,000 claiming, gun violence is up 50% in our town this year. Yes it went from 2 to 3. Statistically insignificant.

    Given how statistics are used by both sides to make their arguments, suntzu, i believe if the stats you are asking about were really out there, they WOULD already be in use by both sides!

    Personally, I agree with glockman that training 'in general' whether for drivers ed or whatever will teach you. So a class in gun safety and laws for a day would certainly make things safer than no class. It won't prevent EVERY accident, but based on other training statistics that were measured, it will lessen them.

    In MA, the requirement for CCW is take a NRA class where you may or may not get a chance to shoot. That gives you the right to ask the local police chief for a license. Depending upon your town and your standing, you hopefully get a license, no restrictions (let's not get into crazy MA law). AT THAT POINT, having never shot or held a gun, you can then go into your local gun store, purchase a gun and holster, and walk out CCW! It's pretty damn scary to me eating dinner at applebees that the guy next to me has a loaded weapon and his entire experience is that he spent a few hours listening to someone and reading a book written at a 6th grade level. Oh wait, the guy at the local gun store when selling him the gun is required to give him a 3 minute presentation on how it works.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #377
    Member Array boatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NE
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post

    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.
    With my apologies to taking this OT, Isn't this the exact argument that 2A people are making for needing weapons? To prevent a tyrannical govt?

    There are many people who can afford older fighter jets, tanks, howitzers, rpgs. Take a look at the number of people worth 100M. Quite a few. They could purchase a jet for 15M. Or lots of howizters, rpgs, fully auto machine guns, etc.

    How about this idea:

    You can have any weapon you want and can afford, and you can carry it un fettered anywhere in the US. You just have to pass a background check, and training class. Categories can include, revolvers, semi pistols, shotguns, semi auto rifles, bazookas, artillery, missiles, etc. Truly the rkba. Just prove you are not a looney and you can work the item without causing harm to those around you.

  4. #378
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    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.
    Actually, the historicity of this saying is greatly called into question as well. Truth be told, I doubt it was actually ever uttered, and it's pretty sure that Yamamoto never uttered it. It is true though, that Japan removed guns from every land they invaded, and also, when they feared a US invasion, armed their own civilians.

  5. #379
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,751
    Ya had enough, Suntzu?
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Diligentia Vis Celeritas"

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

  6. #380
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,481
    THE problem (or at least some of them ) WHOM decides what "looney is" , it's ironic many do not seem to realize the real reason "mental health" is a major point for the gun grabbers is , they want "ANY" mental condition to DQ folks (often for life) so your dad passes you get depressed - you lose your rights.. as only one example ......Bogus BS

    EVERY thing they get they know they will abuse it, not use it like we expect, hence they want "something passed", on the surface NO one want real nuts having weapons, the issue is defining nut and WHOM gets to make that decision and IF that someone making it has an anti gun agenda in the first place....

    Anyone worth $100 million + is more than likely not going to protect themselves they will hire real pros to do that.....IMO at least (I'm sure I would , when you're worth that much $ you are a target and you can afford experts with decades of training which most of us don't have) not saying I wouldn't carry also , but I doubt most folks who can afford them would buy tanks or jets (though I would support their right to do so)

    It is much more "than just to prevent a tyrannical Government" it also serves to protect us from invasion by others FWIW

    Quote Originally Posted by boatman View Post
    With my apologies to taking this OT, Isn't this the exact argument that 2A people are making for needing weapons? To prevent a tyrannical govt?

    There are many people who can afford older fighter jets, tanks, howitzers, rpgs. Take a look at the number of people worth 100M. Quite a few. They could purchase a jet for 15M. Or lots of howizters, rpgs, fully auto machine guns, etc.

    How about this idea:

    You can have any weapon you want and can afford, and you can carry it un fettered anywhere in the US. You just have to pass a background check, and training class. Categories can include, revolvers, semi pistols, shotguns, semi auto rifles, bazookas, artillery, missiles, etc. Truly the rkba. Just prove you are not a looney and you can work the item without causing harm to those around you.

  7. #381
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,481
    TO believe that the USA having an armed group of citizens with > 300 million arms hasn't kept us from invasion seems to be a huge stretch at least to me. I bet the Jihad folks are hoping we end up disarmed at this very moment in fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    Actually, the historicity of this saying is greatly called into question as well. Truth be told, I doubt it was actually ever uttered, and it's pretty sure that Yamamoto never uttered it. It is true though, that Japan removed guns from every land they invaded, and also, when they feared a US invasion, armed their own civilians.

  8. #382
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,980
    This thread has gone off in more tangents than my eight-grade geometry exam.
    farronwolf and glockman10mm like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  9. #383
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,822
    Quote Originally Posted by OD* View Post
    Ya had enough, Suntzu?
    I think I proved my point. There is no data to say with any certainty that there is a difference in safety and CC related oopsies between states that have mandatory trainin and those that do not.

    We also know that when you ask a very simple question it turns into folks being able to own nuclear weapons and the reason why the Japanese did not invade the US.

    And, if anything it proves what we all know...incidents are so extremely low for CC'ers that there most likely is not any data. If there were a lot of incidents then logic would dictate that the anti's would be all over 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

  10. #384
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,481
    It seems some believe it has "gone off" , others (like myself) feel all of these things are intertwined and quite important especially in these times with the NY debacle of restrictions just being forced on them during the middle of the night no less. It would be pretty hard to not mention and discuss the 2nd when that is the real point it seems of the OP

    IOW since there doesn't seem to be evidence that mandatory training does what was hoped WHY would it continue when it seems to violate the 2nd amendment . That would appear to be the "meat" of the original question???

    Which realistically brings up other questions such as those who may Need a permit NOW not sometime much later on for their own chance of life etc. etc. etc.

  11. #385
    Member Array boatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NE
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    THE problem (or at least some of them )

    EVERY thing they get they know they will abuse it, not use it like we expect, hence they want "something passed", on the surface NO one want real nuts having weapons, the issue is defining nut and WHOM gets to make that decision and IF that someone making it has an anti gun agenda in the first place....
    I am not buying into that. The govt knows so much about me already and does nothing.. They know my height and wt, they can track my cc purchases at the store (gotta get that cash back or ff miles;-). Nobody is calling me up and saying, 'Hey, don't you think you ought to be cutting back on those cookie purchases and drop 10lb?' Now if the govt is going to sell that data to companies that will call me up and hound me, THAT I am worried about.

    Hey, that is a great way to bring money in without raising our taxes. Gotta get on the phone to the prez...

  12. #386
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,481
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I think I proved my point. .
    I personally think you did much more than just that, you managed to get several of us thinking about the impact that can happen when restrictions based on revenue (in reality) are imposed on folks for simply exercising their rights .
    9MMare likes this.

  13. #387
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,481
    I won't lose any sleep what you choose to believe, IF you think they are pushing "mental health" suddenly (after neglecting it and funding for it ) for so long that is your choice as a Free American. Enjoy it for as long as that lasts ....

    Obama signed an EO to make it more clear that Obamacare DOES NOT keep a DR. from asking about owning guns (which is politic speak for ask them and report to us) ....... this is not a typical POTUS this is a regime at this point, our rights and freedoms that interfere with his agenda are going to be changed by force if need be. I really don't think that is very hard to grasp. It's not like he is even trying to hide it. He is "on the campaign trail now " pushing for "gun control" already disregarding the oath he just took to uphold the Constitution (not just "the parts he likes")

    As for the "dropping ten pounds" tell us all that once Obamacare really and fully "kicks in" .....

    Quote Originally Posted by boatman View Post
    I am not buying into that. The govt knows so much about me already and does nothing.. They know my height and wt, they can track my cc purchases at the store (gotta get that cash back or ff miles;-). Nobody is calling me up and saying, 'Hey, don't you think you ought to be cutting back on those cookie purchases and drop 10lb?' Now if the govt is going to sell that data to companies that will call me up and hound me, THAT I am worried about.

    Hey, that is a great way to bring money in without raising our taxes. Gotta get on the phone to the prez...

  14. #388
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    I haven't been able to keep up with this thread. I'm sure it's been interesting, but we did just go through this whole thing just a couple of weeks ago. However, I can't help but think of this thread with every news item of new gun control laws popping up all over the country.
    Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley presses lawmakers for handgun licenses for residents - Washington Times

    "Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley will urge state lawmakers on Wednesday to pass legislation requiring residents to obtain a license before purchasing a handgun, but Second Amendment advocates hope to drown out his message.

    Mr. O'Malley, a Democrat, will testify before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in favor of his bill, which would also ban assault weapons, limit magazine capacities to 10 rounds and require prospective gun buyers to complete a safety course and pay a $100 application fee."

    Let's pretend this bill doesn't include the assault weapons ban and magazine limits. You know, these folks don't really want to take away our guns. They're the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment we have. They skeet shoot and everything! Surely all of our common sense gun safety advocates here will support this bill too. Hey, it's got licensing, a mandatory safety class, and only a modest $100 application fee. Surely we can all agree on this common sense measure.

    This will fill the loopholes of these CHL laws nicely. If you do still end up owning an AR-15 after these folks are done, you'll have to get the training. If you're in Texas and you carry your long gun openly, you'll have to get the training. If you're in Texas without a CHL and you want to carry in your car, you'll have to get the training. Who says that 30-06 rifle or .50 cal BMG rifle is safe in the home and that there aren't public safety considerations? Every gun owner will have to get mandatory training. You guys support that right? Plus just look at the good company you'll be keeping with this conscientious group of legislators that are bringing this model bill to a state near you!

  15. #389
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,768
    I am calling BS on your flying purple elephant scenario.

    The MD gov. doesn't have a thing to do with Texas law for one.

    Secondly, have you even looked at the proposed legislation or introduced bills for Texas this year regarding firearms or concealed handguns?

    Jumping from what the knuckleheads are doing in D.C. to what the Texas legislature is doing is beyond the tin foil hat realm, and into the whacky weed scenarios.
    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

  16. #390
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    It seems some believe it has "gone off" , others (like myself) feel all of these things are intertwined and quite important especially in these times with the NY debacle of restrictions just being forced on them during the middle of the night no less. It would be pretty hard to not mention and discuss the 2nd when that is the real point it seems of the OP

    IOW since there doesn't seem to be evidence that mandatory training does what was hoped WHY would it continue when it seems to violate the 2nd amendment . That would appear to be the "meat" of the original question???

    Which realistically brings up other questions such as those who may Need a permit NOW not sometime much later on for their own chance of life etc. etc. etc.
    Mandatory training doesn't violate the 2A because it is being restricted at the state level, not the federal level. Additionally, if you have read through the various recent SCOTUS cases, they make it very clear that the 2A is not an unlimited right, just like the 1A isn't an unlimited right. They specifically stated that relating the to wearing of concealed firearms in the opinions.

    I would love for folks to get a better grasp on what the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2A actually is all about.
    suntzu likes this.
    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

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.