Because as is the main topic of this thread (I think), no one has any evidence that states without training requirements are less safe from permit holders than states with training requirements.
Ergo....cc permit holders would get *enough* education/training/grew up with guns without mandatory requirements. (And no, no one seems to know what 'enough' is either).
Yes to training.
I like it when anti-gun folks say the 2nd Amendment is for hunting and sport shooting, because the conversation kind of goes like this:
"The Second Amendment was talking about hunting!"
"Everyone hunted back then. If you wanted to eat, you hunted."
"Well, the Second Amendment was talking about sport shooting!"
"Very few people shot for sport back then because lead and powder didn't come cheap."
The point is: When the Constitution was written, it was talking about free men being able to take up arms to defend themselves. But it was also written at a time when most every man knew how to shoot and clean a gun. They were often taught from a very early age what a gun is used for, why it's used for such things and how to respect it.
These days, people don't need to hunt in order to feed themselves. They've grown soft in their thinking of governments as acting tyrannical. They've grown soft in their thinking they're protected by their suburban, gated communities. So if they buy a gun, they may not have the knowledge necessary to keep themselves and others safe.
I can't cite statistics one way or another on the topic, but it's just my personal feeling. To be a gun owner is be responsible, and responsibility begins by learning a thing or two.
*How do you know they would not have gone on and gotten training and/learn more ON THEIR OWN??*
You do not.
They HAVE to come to you/instructors. Of course you hear that stuff. They sound into it, and into their guns...what makes you think they'd just go off, load their guns, and never touch them again, just strapping them on each day, taking them off at nite? Really? Does that sound like reasonable actions for *most* people?
The lack of significant differences or evidence between states with mandatory training and those without indicates that they'd do so. "Indicates," doesnt 'prove.' A real study would be nice.
According to at least 2 posters in this thread, hunter safety education does have data to back up its success.
And because there is no data (except what was posted in post 396 which DISPROVES your premise), you cant logically assume that people will not get training on there own. If there was a significant difference, it would probably show up. So it seems MOST people are...or the difference is statistically insignificant.
No one questions the fact that training is beneficial. Not one person in this thread.
The question is if MANDATORY training is necessary. Because except for post 396, no one can show any data at all that there is a significant difference in accidents and threats to public safety from permit holders in states with mandatory training and those in states without.
Which indicates that making it MANDATORY isnt necessary...people must grow up with it or learn on their own/get training....on their OWN. Thus making *more* laws (obstacles) for cc permits unjustified. Laws shouldnt exist if their is no data to support them.
And post 396 showed that there is zero difference and the state with no training requirements has twice as many permit holders.
To be clear no I was not "even trying" to "even appear" to be doing that at all. I did however expound on my points < and your as well> (not for your benefit but for those who may not "get it" still) I apologize that you seem to have misunderstood my intent (or maybe tone) without facial expressions etc. it's very easy to take a post totally out of context/intent.
I am just curious here but does a "no training" ccw state mean that absolutely nothing is needed to acquire a ccw? In MT. You need a handgun safety course a hunters safety course of just a copy of your dd214. So I consider this no or very limited training if you have a dd214. Now people will say BUT the dd214 means you were military so in essence you have had training. It does not !!!!! I am proof that not every marine is a rifle man first! I never touched a weapon in the USMC after boot camp and I never touched a handgun in the USMC ! Yet with just the paperwork that says I was there I have a ccw! I go to a lot of outdoor ranges that have no range officers or even an employee there and I have seen some people shooting that are so careless with a gun that I kept one eye on them all the time!
It may not be you or me that needs training but some people do! So I have no problem with mandatory training as long as it isn't turned into money racket! There is just no way to know what knowledge someone has or doesn't have and some people do need it!
We all agree that most of us benefit from training, but the question was do the states that require training show a better safety record, among permit holders, then those that don't so as to justify the requirement. So far no one has delivered any empirical support for required training.
Just a thought here. We need CHL's and CCP's and so say some on this forum. We need background checks, we need mandatory training in which to attian said liscense. The rationale behind this if for public safety. Well, let me ask you this: doesn;t this sound more and more like being able to drive a car, fly an airplane, operate ceertain equipment in public? To drive a car in most states you also are required to carry insurance.
If you guys are supporting mandatory training and testing because the darn thing is so dangerous and folks need to be liscensed why aren;t you also advocating you need liability insurance?
Folks are making this more and more like driving a car....so why not go the whole way....oh...would insurance by an infringement?