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; It's hard to test common sense......

Page 3 of 36 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #31
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,695
    It's hard to test common sense...
    suntzu and Hopyard like this.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    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.
    You're not going to get any evidence because the underlying premise behind the nanny state mandate is that people are irresponsible, stupid, immoral, incompetent morons. You take a group of several hundred thousand people, who by definition have not committed a crime for years or even so much as had an outstanding student loan. Now, you let them put a gun in their pocket and go about their lives. The premise behind the mandate is that now, all of the sudden, because of the gun, you're going to have a big crime problem that nanny state needs to fix. It's just not true. Never was true. Even if there are a few idiot morons, nanny state isn't going to fix them with this silly mandated training.

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post


    Do you really want your kids or wife in the same store, let alone the same isle as some of these morons? I don't.
    They already are, all the time, in many states. I'm fine with it based on what I've seen here in my state and read about elsewhere.

    The point of the thread is to prove your belief correct or incorrect.
    suntzu likes this.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  5. #34
    Ex Member Array pir8fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Mooresville, NC
    Posts
    373
    I for one, disagree with the entire notion of there being a difference between concealed carry and open carry. I can not find anywhere in the Constitution where there is language to support any type of restriction, training or registration on either.
    Aceoky likes this.

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotus222 View Post
    Given the way statistics are calculated, I'm not sure that this is quantifiable enough to form a correlation. You're going to have to find out all of this information on a state by state breakdown, then find out all crimes committed by legal firearm owners/ccp holders where a gun was involved. Then you will have to quantify the population percentage in regards to the crime for each state.

    You will need to know all of these statistics PLUS the number of permit holders who committed the offense.
    1) murder
    2) assault
    3) reported AD/ND (discharges)
    4) criminal trespass with a firearm
    5) Robbery with firearm
    6) Home invasion with firearm
    7) Domestic disputes with firearm
    8) Kidnapping with firearm
    etc
    etc
    etc

    Then, you will have to find a way to correlate the data to legal permit holders. Because the number of permit holders who commit offenses is so low, it is possible... It's just way too much data to rummage through and calculate. Plus, I don't know if it is recorded accurately enough to truly make a connection.

    Link to FBI crime statistics. Good luck.
    FBI ? Offenses Known to Law Enforcement
    First, I would remove all the intentional crimes from that list...because training has absolutely nothing to do with the intent to commit a crime.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  7. #36
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Has anyone here ever been around anyone, that makes them feel uncomfortable when that person handles firearms? With your children or spouse around?

    In my opinion, mandatory training should be required to carry among the public. I have seen too many clueless idiots carrying guns because it's " the thing" right now.

    We have all read about them right here on this forum, and occasionally, we talk to them on this forum.

    Do you really want your kids or wife in the same store, let alone the same isle as some of these morons? I don't.
    Let's swap out all the gun words in the above for driving words. Then let's amplify your concern 10,000 fold considering the number of idiots that drive. Now let's see how the nanny state did with all this mandated training. Oh! That's right! All these folks got all that nanny state mandated training, in fact way way more than the CHL holders. They're still driving and they're still a menace to you and your family.
    9MMare and GunsAndViolince like this.

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougb View Post
    You get evidence for the need for training every deer season. Look at the damage a bullet does. I don't care if you have no training and keep your weapon at home. The only casualties there are you and yours, but when you go out in public with no idea of what is proper or legal, then it becomes my problem. I believe in personal responsibility, but that doesn't help if you start shooting at the wrong time, wrong target, or just plain miss your intended target and hit me or mine.
    Well that's certainly the way I feel about a large number of drivers on the road...training is required but the responsibility level is often lacking. As is good judgement. There's nothing to 'save' me from that and I'm in much more danger every single day.

    And yes...another 'car' analogy. Sorry but it does add relevant perspective.

    And I dont see or hear people trying to limit cars or drivers or discussing alot of fear when venturing out on the roads. Despite the accidents & deaths we see and hear about every day.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,862
    I try to stay away from the driving analogies but since it was brought up:how many states require you to do a drivers test or any other test when you have to renew your liscense? How many states now or in the future want you to "re-qualify" when you have to renew your CHL/CCP...
    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. #39
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,158
    Yeah, I agree that since there is no statistical evidence to back up the reasoning behind a required course to carry a gun, it shouldn't be law. Then again, I think it's up to the state to decide whether they want their citizens formally educated in weaponry. ...So long as it doesn't infringe on the 2A. ...And now we're back to full circle on what constitutes infringing on the second amendment.

    IMO, I'd like to see nation-wide constitutional carry. If the state wants to educate, they should educate everyone.

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,862
    I am sitting here picturing Hopyard feverishly googling away looking for stats to support mandatory training
    j/k Hop......join the fun
    ksholder 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

  12. #41
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,158
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    First, I would remove all the intentional crimes from that list...because training has absolutely nothing to do with the intent to commit a crime.
    I thought that, at first. But then, how do you differentiate? Did the intent to commit the crime commence because the individual wasn't educated with his/her firearm? For example: detaining someone at gun point. Was the person a threat who was committing a criminal act? How do you know when you are justified by holding someone at gun point? Are you ever? Could a gun course teach you this, or are you just learning the basics? Same for shooting someone in the back. Was it incidental? Unlawful? Justified? Was the person educated with a weapons course? Would they really have been taught what to do in this situation in the classroom? Now, how was this data recorded? Probably, the person would be grouped with every other criminal who commits a similar offense - like manslaughter with a firearm or possible murder charges. This is why permitted carriers would have to be studied in many criminal offenses. Even ones with "intent".

    I suppose we could scratch a couple off of the list, but I just wanted to point out some complexities in figuring this all out. I'd be all for it if there was a way to do it.

  13. #42
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by WarMachine View Post
    Carrying/owning a gun(s) is a HUGE responsibility so with that in mind the individual should take it upon him/herself to properly train to use that gun(s).

    Think of it this way if I was in a store/restaurant, etc that allowed CC and there was a person carrying that just recently bought a gun but never really learned how to operate that gun safely and he went to adjust the gun to sit down, bend down, etc and he accidentally pulled the trigger and shot himself or the floor. What would people say/think? I know I would be upset at him because it seems he doesn't know how to safely operate his gun.

    Us as responsible gun owners should take it upon ourselves whether required or not to properly learn how to safely operate/shoot/carry our guns that way we aren't at risk of hurting ourselves or anyone around us.
    What does this have to do with mandatory training? Do you think they actually give adequate basic gun safety training for CHLs? This brings to mind the viral video of the joe pro cop gun trainer who shot himself in the foot while giving a lecture on gun safety. No amount of training is going to fix stupid. The point in the OP is what impact is the training having? What evidence is there to demonstrate that this training is necessary and that it is solving the problem nanny state is trying to fix?

  14. #43
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,931
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Has anyone here ever been around anyone, that makes them feel uncomfortable when that person handles firearms? With your children or spouse around?

    In my opinion, mandatory training should be required to carry among the public. I have seen too many clueless idiots carrying guns because it's " the thing" right now.

    We have all read about them right here on this forum, and occasionally, we talk to them on this forum.

    Do you really want your kids or wife in the same store, let alone the same isle as some of these morons? I don't.
    Glockman - I hear where you are coming from. Unfortunately it is a bit like the guy and gal discussing having sex. The guy asks the girl if she would have sex with him. She says no. He asks if he were to pay $1 million to her, would she have sex, she answers yes. At that point all they have left is to haggle over the final price.

    If we do not interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean what it says, it will shortly mean absolutely nothing. Once the barrier is broken, it is simply up to the government to define where the barrier is.

    As for your example, I would hope my wife and kids (my kids are adults) have enough SA to realize the danger the doofus is and remove themselves from the situation. If I am there, I will remove them myself, but they should be able to assess the situation and do it themselves.

    I think training is invaluable. I pay for a lot of it each year. I do not, however, believe that the government should redefine the 2A (I know it already has) to say something it does not say. Just my $0.02, YMMV.

    ETA - Alternatively, if training does become manditory, make it a manditory class in high school without which you cannot graduate. :)
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  15. #44
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotus222 View Post
    Yeah, I agree that since there is no statistical evidence to back up the reasoning behind a required course to carry a gun, it shouldn't be law. Then again, I think it's up to the state to decide whether they want their citizens formally educated in weaponry. ...So long as it doesn't infringe on the 2A. ...And now we're back to full circle on what constitutes infringing on the second amendment.

    IMO, I'd like to see nation-wide constitutional carry. If the state wants to educate, they should educate everyone.
    I like it. Mandatory marksmanship and gun safety starting in grade school. I couldn't think of any better way to get more liberal heads to explode.

  16. #45
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougb View Post
    You get evidence for the need for training every deer season. Look at the damage a bullet does. I don't care if you have no training and keep your weapon at home. The only casualties there are you and yours, but when you go out in public with no idea of what is proper or legal, then it becomes my problem. I believe in personal responsibility, but that doesn't help if you start shooting at the wrong time, wrong target, or just plain miss your intended target and hit me or mine.
    Why do you presume that people go out in public with no idea of what is proper or legal? Why do you presume that people will go out and just start shooting at the wrong time, wrong target, or just plain miss their intended target, shooting you and yours? If you believe that accurately portrays our citizenry, why do you presume that mandatory training will have any impact at all? Based upon your presumptions, shouldn't we just ban all firearms? Isn't this exactly what the Brady bunch is arguing? Don't we need an ever expanding nanny state to deal with these folks on a whole host of other social issues?

Page 3 of 36 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

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.