Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states - Page 30

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 38special I'm not trying to detract from anything. I'm pointing out that "shall not infringe" either means shall not or it doesn't. ...

Page 30 of 36 FirstFirst ... 20262728293031323334 ... LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #436
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    I'm not trying to detract from anything. I'm pointing out that "shall not infringe" either means shall not or it doesn't. Which is it? You're the one claiming there is no room for constitutional interpretation, not me.
    That has not been my claim regarding mandatory training requirements in this thread to my knowlege.
    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)


  2. #437
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    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.
    OK. If we accept that, then we also must accept that a significant number of cc permit holders are responsible enough to get their own training/be safe on their own.

    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).
    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)

  3. #438
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    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.
    Wow! That's quite the leap. I think I need a tinfoil hat.

    The point is WITHOUT evidence, you should NOT enact laws. If there's no proof of justification, it is just an excuse for bigger govt.
    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)

  4. #439
    Member Array skatalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    187
    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."

    Chirp.

    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.

  5. #440
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post

    When people say "wow, I really learned alot", "I didn't know there was so much to think about", "I feel much better about carrying after taking the class", or any other numerous responses that are given when we are done with a 11+ hour day, it isn't about what I feel, it is about what, they, the new CHL holder gains from what the state requires.

    .
    This is it right here in a nutshell ^^^^

    *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.
    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)

  6. #441
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    historicity.
    lol
    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. #442
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by stantheman76 View Post
    I live in Mississippi where training is not required. You have to fill out the paper work and pass a background check. Just because you have no criminal or mental record doesn't mean you don't have a track record of stupidity though. I would not have had any problem with mandatory safety training. I received some training personally because MS does offer an extra endorsement that requires a NRA certified course and allows you to legally carry in most prohibited locations.
    Does MISS have a track record of permit holders harming or even placing the public in danger? Lots, some, a few?

    And if so, how does it compare to the records of other states' permit holders?
    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)

  8. #443
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by FTG-05 View Post
    In other words, the only measurable result of Oregon's training requirement seems to be a chilling effect on the number of people exercising their right to carry a concealed handgun."

    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    And this will mean squat to the people here supporting the mandatory training because what you just said is the intent. It's been the intent all along.
    Sorry to go OT, but I believe that this is exactly why it takes so many states weeks and MONTHS...to send people their permits after they apply. Some states do it in less than a week, even by mail. There is NO reasonable excuse for months. It is obstructionist, pure and simple.
    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. #444
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Not all laws need be based on hard data. Laws based on logic are equally viable. Logic states that training has definable benefits (see the information provided by LA regarding hunter education), logic also indicates that not everyone will get training on their own. Thus to ensure that everyone DOES get training, you mandate it. The problem arises when the law is not applied logically, or ethically.
    Instructors who only want to make a buck & jet instruct enough to pass a test. Issuing agencies who only see the money to be made on issuing permits. Etc plus the laws do dot reflect the luck and/or stupidity factor. Such laws will never eradicate all problems but they can mitigate them. DUI laws are an example, Joe may be fine after 2 beers, Tim is wasted and their BAC is the same, but the law is written to limit EVERYONE as if they are Tim.

    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.
    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)

  10. #445
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    The data exists or every other topic imaginable. Students who are taught proper reading skills early read better. Hunters taught hunting earlier have less accidents. Drivers who receive driver training are safer. Kids who have sex ed and condom availability have less pregnancies. Soldiers kill better when the training was designed to desensitize them to killing. There is no reason to believe firearms training, legal training, and proficiency training wouldn't educate carriers. That, and the data I've already given, is all I have.

    KY has a law regarding the unlicensed transport/sale of mussels (301 KAR 1:085. Mussel shell harvesting.). Have I ever used it. Do mussel issues effect me? Do I understand the purpose? Can I provide stats regarding its usefulness? No to all, but that doesn't mean it's baseless.
    How can you still NOT get this?

    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.
    Aceoky 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)

  11. #446
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Yes, but you should see me and that elephant run the circuit while I bust balloons with my blowgun and spear :)
    @_@

    We're gonna need a bigger arena.
    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)

  12. #447
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,570
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post

    As for your point, it's valid, but you were arguing it as if I presented an argument against it, and I didn't, so I was confused as to why you would even include that in a response to my post.

    If you moved from responding to me specifically to a general discussion, I can understand that . . . just had no idea why you were arguing with me about something we agreed on - weapons = national security.

  13. #448
    Member Array Xlegionnaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    15
    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!
    Ogre likes this.

  14. #449
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by Xlegionnaire View Post
    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!
    Several states have no training requirement at all, Pennsylvania for example. Others, like your state and Florida have a very limited requirement. From there it varies from a few hours of classroom and no competency demonstration to a very long day of classroom, a written test and a show of the ability to handle a firearm.

    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.

    Ken

  15. #450
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,998
    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?
    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

Sponsored 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 training puppies
Click on a term to search for related topics.