Defensive Carry banner

Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

35K views 531 replies 59 participants last post by  Aceoky 
#1 · (Edited)
OK,

I see a lot of folks saying that mandatory training and mandatory qualification is needed and should be required for a CHL. They state that it is for the protection of the public at large and for the protection of the person carrying the gun.

Please, somebody show me stats, hard evidence, that mandatory training states are better than non mandatory training states as far as
1. The wrongful use of a firearm by CHL/CCP holder
2. Inicidents of arrests for trespassing by CHL/CCP holders
3. Errant shots fired by CHL/CCP holders
4. Illegel use of a fireamr by CHL/CCP holders EDIT:such as brandishing, bad shoots, ects....NOT crimes committed malichievously)

Feel free to throw in other data.

I understand that it may be the opinion of folks that training should be mandatory or not. But...if that is your opinion and you think it should be law then I would hope that you guys have the data to prove it. I for oone do not like laws neing made with anecdotal evidence or one or two spectacular events. That is like pushing through the AWB because of very isolted cases of misues of madman using those weapons.

Laws should be made to protect the public and their should be data to back it up.

OK...ball is in your court.
 
See less See more
#151 ·
That's because they don't exist. That they don't exist doesn't make the OP's premise valid.
 
#152 ·
Thanks 9Mmare, I think.

I do have a point to make, regarding the 2A. Everyone quotes the last part, and ignores the first "A well REGULATED militia". Now if we can agree that militia in this case means, and the courts have agreed, all citizens (18 years old and up), then WHO regulates them? All mandatory SAFETY training would fall under such language.


Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
 
#159 ·
It has long been known that in the context/usage here "REGULATED" means EQUIPPED/Outfitted .....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear as well ;)
 
#153 ·
Well after a nights rest "I still wish I had some valium or something" Im back maybe clearer headed.
Ky you must shoot a target that a monkey could hit blindfolded and break down what weapon you bring plus some class room to get CC permit. Its not horrible its rather easy though for some of us it was a tad expensive which is why I think they put the cc permit in in the first place. Instead of just making it law you could cc, they needed fees out of it for the state. Follow the monney. But Ky is a good state cc wise and oc wise. One of the best ones.
That said and perhaps im making a point that others see as impossible I just dont happen too based on history and a lot of other things.
Mandatory training is yet another infringement on top of the other infringements. Hopefully we at least here agree that though this stuff is legislated it shouldnt be???? That most if not all the regs imposed are unconstitutional even though some courts say they arent depening on what flavor of judge happens to be looking at the issue. Do they happen? Obviously. Doesnt make it right.
My point is this. Hopefully more clearly this time. Mandatory training wont accomplish anything. It only leaves another layer of regs to go through for a person to do what they should be able to do with no regs at all.
Life is not perfect and we cannot legislate it to be so. Accidents happen regularly with highly trained LE and Military with firearms. They will happen regardless. Thats life. Thinking legislating will change that is a dangerous path to go down.
My right to carry ends when I stick a gun in someones face and commit a crime with it.

Debating here on what courts have done or will do is sort of useless. I would venture that though some here think they know what all that legalize means they probably dont

I still think if Glockman10mm has opportunity to pull me over Im in deep doo doo. LOL:tongue: :blink::smile::smile:
 
#160 ·
Another point that could matter is even where open carry is 100% legal (as in Ky.) should a female really not be allowed to have a weapon in her purse(etc.) in the case where an EPO is not being exactly followed? (that is but one example) right now the waiting list is about 60 days in my area to get into a ccw class and then another 90 days or so to get the ccw permit itself. While under some circumstances that is fine, however in others it doesn't seem to me to abide by the 2nd at all. The Right to self defense (even with deadly force ) should not be dependent on time and/or $ IMO

Open carry reveals to the would be attacker he/she is armed, not seeing a weapon means odds are they're an easy target, much more so in the above example
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost1958
#162 ·
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

The second part is clearly because of the first part? To put it another way, WHY would the Right of the people to keep and bear arms be "necessary" to the security of ? IF it doesn't mean that? Because it clearly does in this case. Regulated in this context IS talking about being armed "the people" means US......as SCOUTS confirmed

You can't "focus" on "regulated" and not see "security of a free state" nor ignore the arms part- they're intertwined in this usage.

"Regulated" as some are trying to use it here and "Shall NOT be infringed" go against each other... and make zero sense in any other context thus cannot be as some are claiming
 
#166 ·
I'm not sure it is possible to "have a winner or loser" on such a debate, it is impossible to really know how much (if any ) training and/or what type(s) of training make any difference much less the best difference. People make mistakes, accidents happen man made stuff "fails" in critical ways often at bad times.

I am not against training at all, I do have to question it being "Required" along with time and $ having a possible adverse affect on someone's lives or even if they live or not. I also think if someone has had background checks recently at work etc. they shouldn't have to wait 90 days or so (especially when you have had extensive FBI background checks done) but it doesn't seem much of this was given much consideration other than "how much revenue" can we produce while "allowing folks to exercise their own rights- which we don't grant anyway"

When the Government starts trying to restrict Rights, that in and of itself is not a good thing IMO, when they keep lower income folks out of the process that is no doubt wrong and should not be allowed IMHO. Lower income folks live in more crime prone areas to begin with (by and large) so it seems to me to be a "double edged sword" if you will.

Sure I want 100% safety for everyone who carries and everyone around those who carry, it is the question of is that even possible and if it were how would one go about that, it's not done on the streets and highways of any place I'm aware of, life has risks and "deadly weapons" involve much more than firearms . When a nut kills several people with any gun, it's big news, when some drunk kills a van full of people on the road, it's "normal" , seems the media "hype" is another big issue. Why should their 1st Amendment rights "trump" anyone's second?

There must be a better and more fair way to go about this, beginning with not charging for the exercise of one's rights. IF you want to carry and IF training /testing/ permits are going to be required, the citizen should not be charged and long waits should not be the"norm" IMHO
 
#175 ·
I find it interesting that in HELLER, SCOTUS stated that their ruling applied to firearms ownership and use in the home.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
They further stated that their ruling ONLY applied to laws which for all intents & purposes BANNED citizens from owning/using firearms for legal purposes. Laws which limit firearms carry/ownership still remain constitutional as long as those limits do not outright ban firearms.
Laws requiring licensing to carry are not unconstitutional, licensing laws which are tantamount to banning are. Requiring safety certification is not unconstitutional, provided the requirements are not arbitrary and are equally applied.


Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
 
#178 ·
You, for some reason, can't seperate the right own guns and the right to publicly carry guns
With all due respect..

"THE RIGHT" is to both keep AND Bear arms , carrying in public is covered and a guaranteed RIGHT "which shall NOT be infringed" hence it's "not" the right to own arms, but to keep AND bear them (carry them anywhere and everywhere by any legal citizen in fact)

What has happened over time (and should not have IMO) is we the people have allowed others to "decide" there CAN be limits placed on things that clearly are not allowed. Infringe , encroach mean what they mean
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost1958
#182 ·
Finally someone that said what ive been trying to say all along.
Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. It does NOT mention in anyway its ok for the Presidnt SCOTUS or anyone else to change that basic and black and white concept. Its there like it or not and you can twist and worm anyway you like but it wont change one word.

SCOTUS has no right to rule one way or another about 2a. It does because its been allowed too by the people and will stay that way until the people say enough is enough.

Mandatory training if its imposed is just another reg that is illegal based on those words in the Constitution. It also wont do anymore to fix anything than any of the rests of the garbage thats been passed.
 
#179 ·
I don't know how many times I've been at the range and had to talk to someone about the proper direction to point their new handgun. We have driver's education, there's nothing wrong with learning how to properly handle a weapon, especially if that person is going carry that weapon in public.
 
#192 ·
I dont remember there being forced driver's ed.

There is a licensing requirement...but driving is a privilege, not a right.

I think it's sad that 'so many' people believe that 'so many' other people wont be bothered to learn to be responsible with their guns. Goes back to my belief that 'so many' cc permit holders think that they are 'special.'
 
#181 ·
Some data "we" do have is that CC reduces crime rates especially violent crimes.

With that in mind, WHY isn't CC paid for by the authorities who want it (training etc. ) Clearly the amount being spent on trials, prisons , jails etc. would be greatly reduced by more and more folks legally carrying. The places that are "gun free zones' (Chicago DC etc.) have huge numbers of gun related crimes compared to other places who welcome CC. Rather than look at it as "additional costs" isn't it much more likely that long term it would greatly reduce costs and save lives a win-win....
 
#195 ·
This thread is ABOUT trying to determine IF mandatory training DOES affect the carrier....and collateral "damage"......according to this thread....we have no idea.

So....if there is no data to support it, there is no justification for it.
 
#186 ·
Nobody has ever said training is not important. It is. Should not be mandatory......again....not data comparing non mandatory states vs mandatory states.....that is the topic, not debating about IF training is importantt.
 
#187 ·
Like many have said, those numbers don't exist and would be impossible to obtain. What we can do, however, is equate like subjects. First topic after a google search from the Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife:

"Why Hunter Education?
Hunter Education provides a foundation for safe and responsible hunting. Due to hunter education, hunting accidents have dropped significantly. Each year some 18,000 individuals graduate from a hunter education course in Louisiana. The major objectives of the hunter education program are:
Reduce hunting accidents
Improve the image of hunting through ethical and responsible conduct
Promote the shooting sports"

Hunter Education | Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
 
#189 ·
Wow, two days and no minds have changed. Imagine that? :smile:

Suntzu, since no one is going to be able to gather the data you are looking for and you don't have the data, I have one question.

Have you ever gone back the the Texas legislature record and looked at the debates and arguments made during 1995 when the CHL bill was on the floor, and what the process was in order to get the actual bill passed. Had the training requirement not been included, would we even have CHL in Texas? Would that be "better".

Ok that was 3 questions I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hopyard
#190 ·
No, and what has what to do with the OP? Nothing. And i have no idea what would have happened back in 1995. Why don;t you start a thread so we can discuss that there?Take this thread as an intellectual exercise if you want. I asked a simple question. And I got answers back like "it is what it is". I will say it like it is ...whether it is law or not I think that you believe that training should be mandatory. If I am wrong just let me know.

I asked you this before and I do not beleive I got a answer. If I did let me know what post it was. Really simple..a yes or no,

Do you personally beleive that the state should require mandatory training. Yes or no.

BTW: I do beleive you had a thread about the hours being reduced for training and folks, including myself, got off topic. I do remember that I apologized for that when I realized what the topic was. Hmmm maybe we can stay on topic now.
 
#193 ·
You can't have an intellectual excercise when the question raised was for data that doesn't exist, or isn't available. You can have opinions, and yes, my thread was severely hijacked., but now we want to stay on topic. Maybe I should start a thread about that.

Are you changing the topic now to what people think should or shouldn't be required, or are we going to only talk about the data that isn't available?
 
#194 ·
Is there some reason you will not answer a simple question? Good grief. State your feelings here....we are all friends.LOL....
FWIW you can discuss whatever. You seem incapable of answering a simple question.
 
#202 ·
You asked for it, so it is going to be long.

And Hopyard is correct. I have lived in Texas for 40 years give or take if you count my time while in the Army when I was still a resident here, not my entire life, but most of it. Without the training requirements in the 1995 bill, we would not have any form of legal carry for handguns in this state. That is a fact, not the data you asked for but certainly a fact.

Now, as to my opinion as to whether or not training should be a requirement. I think it should. Not because I am an instructor and make a little money off of it, because it certainly isn't full time job, but because of what I have experienced.

Take a look around this site and see how many people with permits already from states that require training, and see how much bad information is being passed around. The other day I got a private message from a Texas member quoting statute that said carry in church was prohibited because he saw what I posted in the church carry thread. I can only assume that they have their permit already, and had a very crappy instructor or didn't pay attention in class, and certainly didn't read the rest of the statute to see that the following legislative session the 30.06 requirement was put in place to prohibit carry in hospitals, churches, governmental meetings and ammusement parks. One simple example.

Next take what I experience in my classes. I get brand new shooters who come to class with a gun they have never shot. They know nothing about gun safety, or shooting for that matter, don't know which way to put the bullets in the magazine sometimes. I get lots of stuff like my grandpa said if you shoot someone while they are breaking in your home you should drag them into the house, or questions of can I shoot someone for tresspassing. Many people think they know what the laws are, but in reality they only know what someone is telling them that heard it from someone else third hand.

Heck I have even had to appoligize for other instructors who told their first time students that the proficiency requirements on the initial class were only good for 6 months, when clearly the administrative rules say that you have 2 years to submit paperwork and application to the state. The people wasted thier money because after 6 months they thought they had to take another class because they waited too long.

So, yes, I think that people should be required to know the laws of the state if they choose to extend their castle outside their home, vehicle or place of business and into the public in general and have a handgun as a means of defense. I think people need to think about less lethal means of self defense, which prior to the class, many don't even consider.

When I get class evaluations after spending 11-13 hours with a group in one day, and they all basically say they had a great time and learned alot, and would recommend and encourage people to get their permits, I don't think they feel imposed upon by the state requirement that they attend the required training.

Sorry to be off topic for so long. :blink:
 
#204 ·
Take a look around this site and see how many people with permits already from states that require training, and see how much bad information is being passed around.
More than from people from states with no requirement? (you dont know, I'm sure. Which is the point)

And if what you write is true...again...WUT? What is the point if it's so ineffective?
 
#205 ·
I don't know, I haven't gotten any messages from folks from states without training requirements trying to correct my valid information. I am sure it happens.

And who said it was ineffective. I can assure you if I gave the Texas test before class and after class, the results would be drastically different, but I am not allowed to do so. I did say they either had crappy instructors, didn't pay attention in class, or didn't read the rest of the statutes before trying to correct me.

Heck I have been through the CHL 16 booklet countless times, and I don't know 100% of it. There is a lot of material in it, and it is only about half of what we cover in class.
 
#210 ·
No one said your's is ineffective but how do you know that the training other people get without being mandated is less effective? You are just assuming they dont get ANY.

And you are the one claiming that people WHO HAD TO TAKE COURSES are still unprepared. So again...to me, that seems ineffective. Or pointless. Or most certainly, no better than the people who go out and get their own training by choice.
 
#206 ·
suntzu;2588843 Now said:
I have more firearms training than most of the population[/I] and I still learn things from working as a consultant with DOD. So please sir, support your assertion or drop it.
If so many feel training is indeed appropriate, of value, hunky-dory or even necessary, why is this even an issue with you and the naysayers? It defies logic and really makes your thread a non-issue to anyone approaching this in a logical or safety-minded fashion. Take a safety course, meet the background check requirements then get a permit and carry to your little heart's content. Hopefully those receiving permits with a training requirement will see the value of safety and training and make it a regular habit. It's really not too much to ask before allowing someone to carry a loaded weapon amongst the public. I know you and others will continue to disagree, but if you don't want a debate, don't post a confrontational challenge in a thread you admit you knew would erupt into controversy. BTW, the italicized part of your comment is quite arrogant, IMO. Point made, thank you.
 
#208 ·
38Special...did you compare the statistics of states with mandatory hunting training against those without mandatory training to see if there was a difference in accidents? We all know training is good. What we dont know is if it makes a difference in actual accidents and public safety...because there seems to be an assumption that if not FORCED, most people will not get trained. (I disagree with this premise)

As for all the tests you took for driving....aside from the important point that driving is a privilege not a right......were you FORCED to take outside training?

For more perspective, people USE their cars every day...cc'ers do not use their firearms everyday...they may never use them in 'real life.'

So again.....what is the justification for forcing training on people if there is no data indicating it makes a difference? (And please see bold above for a reminder)
 
#213 ·
I don't need to compare the statistics...Louisiana stated that hunting accidents were reduced once mandatory training was implemented. I have no reason to question their stats and I have no reason to believe the results would be any different in other states.

Driving is not a privilege. It is a right granted by the 9th Amendment. The state cannot refuse to issue me a license if I pass all required licensing processes. And I was forced to take outside training or I would not have been issued my license.

Yes, people use their cars everyday. Firearm carriers may also carry their guns everyday. The potential for use always exists. I carry a firearm on duty everyday at work...I don't use it everyday, but I am still required to train and qualify with it.

I think there is data indicating training makes a difference. It makes a difference in hunting and driving and it makes a difference in military and police applications.
 
#209 ·
So as this thread has evolved, I see one particular thought pop up in my mind....it seems there are alot of people who think that if gun owners are not forced to take training to carry a firearm, they do not already have experience/'training' or will not bother to get 'training'. I put training in quotes because no one has nor can define what consitutes 'enough' training. But people grow up with guns, grow up shooting, get into competitive shooting, self-defense training, etc, so there's a lot out there available.

Do I need to start a new thread? Suntzu?

Do people on this forum believe that *many* people buy guns for self-protection and get no training or education on how to handle that firearm? Do you believe that number is significant? (Sorry, I cant define that).
 
#211 ·
I was then required to take a driving safety class.
IN KY? When and where was this?

Driving is not a Constitutional RIGHT either also what costs were associated with the driving test and what does it cost total to get a CCW in KY?

Like I said training IS a good idea, REQUIRING it even at the risk of the lady who has an EPO (or whatever ) who becomes a victim while waiting for the requirements is not acceptable. (IMO) I believe many of us men figure we can "handle things" most times even IF we can't be armed at all times, even IF that were true, you have to remember there are folks who are not young strong men, who may have had open heart surgery ,(or whatever) or any number of other things making waiting literally risking their lives. I happen to believe there has to be a MUCH better way and system.

I sure wouldn't want to be the one advocating no changes and find out Mr. /Mrs. "X" got killed because they couldn't legally carry and were therefor no longer around- to me that infringes on and totally negates a RIGHT to "keep and bear arms" in every possible sense
 
#212 ·
The training class I had to take, if I remember correctly, was between the time I got my permit and the time I got my license. It was a four hour, mandatory classroom class at the high school one night around 6 pm. I don't remember if I had to pay for it. I'm 28 now and it was when I was 16, so about 12 years ago. Things have changed drastically now with the graduated licensing program, but this is what the transportation cabinet says about the current process:

"Drivers who receive a permit before 18 years of age must complete one of the following New Driver Education Programs before being eligible to apply for a full unrestricted license:
Graduated License Course (Free 4 hour course provided by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet in the drivers home county)
High School Drivers Education Course or a similar course offered by a Kentucky Community College, Vocational School or Job Corps.
Private Driver Training course at a Division of Driver License approved driver training school."

And I would argue that driving is a Constitutional right under the 9th Amendment, just as eating pizza, lifting weights, smoking cigarettes, and having sex are all rights under the 9th Amendment.
 
#214 ·
If anyone is interested, this is the drivers licensing process for the stateof KY:


GDL Steps to Obtaining a License

​Step 1 - Permit Phase

You must be 16 years of age to take the written knowledge test and a vision test (Driving Manuals can be obtained online if you click here).
You will need your social security card, an original or certified birth certificate and proof of residence. Acceptable documents for proof of Kentucky residence, are a utility bill or agreement, mortgage documents, postmarked letter with driver's name and current address, deed or property tax bill, or a rental housing agreement. A PO Box is not acceptable; it must be the physical address.
For persons under 18, a parent or guardian must sign the application, taking financial responsibility for the applicant. A legal guardian must have a certified copy of guardianship papers.​
If under age 18, must present a School Compliance Verification Form issued by their school. (No Pass / No Drive Law -KRS 159.051 effective 8/1/2007)

​If You Pass the Permit Test:

​​An “Under 21” distinctive permit will be issued.
Applicants under the age of 21 must hold the driving permit for a minimum of 180 days. Applicants over the age of 21 must hold the driving permit for a minimum of 30 days.
You may drive only when accompanied in the front passenger seat by a licensed driver who is age 21 or older.
Permit drivers under the age of 18 must complete a minimum of 60 hours of practice driving, 10 of which must occur at night. (Practice Driving Log and Verification Form).​
Permit holders under the age of 18 are not allowed to drive between the hours of 12 midnight and 6:00 am, unless the driver can demonstrate a good cause for driving such as emergencies, school or work related activities.
Permit holders under the age of 18 receiving a moving traffic violation conviction under KRS 186, 189, 189A. will have to restart the 180 Permit License waiting period.
Permit holders under 18 shall not operate a motor vehicle at any time with more than 1 unrelated person under 20 years of age in the vehicle.
Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is prohibited. All drivers under the age of 21 are subject to “Zero Alcohol Tolerance” (Defined as .02 Blood Alcohol Concentration).
Drivers who receive a permit before 18 years of age must complete one of the following New Driver Education Programs before being eligible to apply for a full unrestricted license:
Graduated License Course (Free 4 hour course provided by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet in the drivers home county)
High School Drivers Education Course or a similar course offered by a Kentucky Community College, Vocational School or Job Corps.
Private Driver Training course at a Division of Driver License approved driver training school.
All drivers are subject to Kentucky’s point system. A driver under the age of 18 who accumulates more than 6 points, or a driver age 18 and over who accumulates 12 points may have their driving privilege suspended.
No serious moving violations for those under the age of 18.
Buckle Up, it’s the Law! Everyone in the vehicle must wear a seatbelt at all times.
If You Do Not Pass the Permit Test:
​You may try again the next available testing day.
Applicants can take the written test a total of six (6) times. If you fail the written test six (6) times, you must wait six (6) months before trying again.

Step*2 -*Intermediate License Phase

​After holding the permit for 180 days you may apply for an Intermediate License and take the driving skills test.
Testing times and locations are available from the Circuit Clerk’s Office in your county of residence. An appointment may be necessary.
The motor vehicle you use for testing must be properly registered and proof of liability insurance is required.
The driver’s Parent/Guardian must certify the driver has completed 60 hours of practice driving, 10 of which must occur at night. Practice Driving Log and Verification Form.
If You Pass the Skills Test:*
Permit holders under age 18, after successfully completing the road test the Kentucky State Police driving examiner will place an “Intermediate License” sticker on the drivers permit license.
Permit holders 18 and older, after successfully completing the road test, will be eligible for the full unrestricted license provided the Driver Education Program has been completed.
Intermediate license for a minimum of 180 days.
Intermediate License holders are not allowed to drive between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 a.m. unless the driver can demonstrate a good cause for driving such as emergencies, school or work related activities).
Intermediate License holders receiving a moving traffic conviction under KRS 186, 189, 189A. will have to restart the 180 Intermediate License waiting period.
Intermediate License holders shall not operate a motor vehicle at any time with more than 1 unrelated person under 20 years of age in the vehicle.
Intermediate license holders must complete one of the following New Driver Education Programs before moving to the full unrestricted licensing phase:
Graduated Licensing Course (Free course provided by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet in the drivers home county)
High School Drivers Education Course.
Private Driver Training course at a Division of Driver License approved driver training school.
Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is prohibited. All drivers under the age of 21 are subject to “Zero Alcohol Tolerance” (Defined as .02 Blood Alcohol Concentration).
A driver under the age of 18 who accumulates more than 6 points may have their driving privilege suspended.
No serious moving violations for those under the age of 18.
Buckle Up, it’s the Law! Everyone in the vehicle must wear a seatbelt at all times.
If You Do Not Pass the Skills Test:
You must wait one week before taking the test again.
If you fail the road test six (6) times, you must wait six (6) months before another test will be given. You will then have only two (2) attempts to pass the test.

Step*3 -*Full Unrestricted License Phase

Intermediate license holders under 18 years of age who have completed the new driver education program and held the intermediate license for 180 days may apply for a full unrestricted license.
​Permit or Intermediate license holders 18 or older who have completed the new driver education program and held the permit for 180 days may apply for a full unrestricted license.
An “Under 21” distinctive license will be issued.
Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is prohibited. All drivers under the age of 21 are subject to “Zero Alcohol Tolerance” (Defined as .02 Blood Alcohol Concentration).
All drivers are subject to Kentucky’s point system. A driver under the age of 18 who accumulates more than 6 points, or a driver age 18 and over who accumulates 12 points may have their driving privilege suspended.
Buckle Up, it’s the Law! Everyone in the vehicle must wear a seatbelt at all times.
 
#216 ·
I didnt read that whole KY drivers's licensing thing. But if training is mandatory, I still believe that's wrong...if you come in and can pass the required tests through whatever personal training or studying you did, that should be enough.
 
#217 ·
Ok heres one for you to ponder. I got a ccl which I had to take a one day classroom course watch a video take my weapon apart and shoot a target a blind mind could hit that cost me 75 bucks to take.
Another 65 for the ccl. Always follow the money. At the time I could actually have cc legally anyway but knew I was going to quit soon so I took it anyway.
Now on the other hand BEFORE I got the ccl I could open carry legally any darn place I wanted with no permit licence class or money spent to nest anyones pocket.

Here it is still that way. So I suppose that since OC folks here arent gunning themselves down and others by accident or ignorance of the law having no class at all, and neither are ccl holders that had the class we can maybe take an educated quess that it makes not one whit of difference either way??? HUMMMMMMM.

CC carry open carry when to shoot or not shoot isnt rocket science as much as we seem to over complicate things.
If a person feels their life is in danger likely they will use a gun to defend it if they have one.
If a person is of the personality to try to play Batman, or use a gun in anger because someone ran over their mail box they will. You cant give a class that changes someones personality or basic nature. :blink:
 
#219 ·
Hmmm then the point is settled. There is no acceptable hard data. All the data posted has been proclaimed irrelevant. Anecdotal evidence is not wanted, or deemed "feel good" information. So, OP you have an answer, there is no hard data.

As to the posit that we should NOT have mandatory requirements because we should trust people to do the right thing, why not just trust everyone and not carry at all, after all people will do the right thing.

Just another bit of anecdotal info though. AL is a no training state. A person I know was ecstatic to discover that all he had to do was buy a gun, pay $20 and carry. While a friend of mine was telling him how to LOAD his new Glock he pulls the weapon from his gym bag and proceeds to wave it around. NO weapon knowledge/experience, no safety training and he can now carry anywhere in this and ALL other states (according to him). He has also said "I don't need any training, how hard is it after all? Point and pull this after all. I refuse to be around him any more. His stupidity MAY only affect him, but it CAN affect others and I don't wanna be one of them


Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
 
#222 ·
Hmmm then the point is settled. There is no acceptable hard data. All the data posted has been proclaimed irrelevant. Anecdotal evidence is not wanted, or deemed "feel good" information. So, OP you have an answer, there is no hard data.

As to the posit that we should NOT have mandatory requirements because we should trust people to do the right thing, why not just trust everyone and not carry at all, after all people will do the right thing.

.
So why do people insist on forcing something on people without the data?

And since there's no data re: your second question, that's what many people do. It's a choice, which I think is the point...being responsible for yourself and making those choices.

I still firmly believe in my signatures, the second one listed per this discussion.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top