Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states - Page 34

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 glockman10mm Has anyone here ever been around anyone, that makes them feel uncomfortable when that person handles firearms? With your children or ...

Page 34 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2430313233343536 LastLast
Results 496 to 510 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #496
    Member Array Moby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dallas, Don't mess with Texas!
    Posts
    109
    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.
    I tend to agree. In my CHL class here in Texas there were two folks i thought should NOT have received there CHL's and they did. One was too mentally imature, the other so old and incoherent he just didn't have a clue. Of course this was an instructor issue. I train when ever I get a chance. I intend to join IDPA. I think that is great training and a great sport. I also share the same thoughts others have in that I hate to see mandatory anything when it comes to constitutional rights.

    Shhoting is fun, training is always a good idea. Should it be mandated? Tough call.


  2. #497
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I believe the Congress, "our government," has added to and changed the amendments to the Bill of Rights on several occasions--thus the title "amendments."
    First Congress represent US - WE are "The Government" , the USA is a Constitutional Republic NOT a democracy....

    Secondly there is quite a bit more to it than what you have stated..Congress cannot "add to or change" the COTUS , it takes States to confirm

  3. #498
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,644
    No argument from me on this

    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    SCOTUS nor the government grant rights to anyone. They don't have any such power. They only have the power to protect our rights.

    That's what is fundamentally wrong with the mandatory training scheme. First the government has to deny our fundamental right altogether. The government has to usurp that power when the Constitution specifically denies that to both the state and federal governments. Once they do that, we are then slaves to the government. As our master, the government would grant privileges and permissions.

    Here's your card.

  4. #499
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Did post 396 mean nothing to anyone else in this thread? It actually presented some evidence of what suntzu was asking in the OP...I think.

    Even he didnt comment on it, so maybe I dont understand the point of the OP after all.
    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. #500
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Here it is:

    Quote Originally Posted by FTG-05 View Post
    At the risk of getting this thread back on track and answering the OP's original question: I saw this post on Arfcom this morning in a thread that is very similar to this one.

    From John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" book:

    "Training requirements

    Lott examines the effects of training requirements on crime rate and accident rate. He finds that training requirements have very little effect on both crime rates and accident rates."

    More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    In addition, from post #31 from this thread over on the TFL: Went to my CCW Class this past weekend. - The Firing Line Forums Per the post's author, this data is supposed to have come from Lott's MGLC book 3rd edition (emphasis added).

    "Are you, personally and individually, safer and better able to protect yourself if you've had some decent training? Absolutely. The better trained you are, the better able you are to protect yourself and thus the safer you'll be. If you want to carry a pistol and don't get training, you're a fool.

    But are you a threat to people around you without that training? Statistically speaking, the almost certain answer is, "No."

    Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have two states very similar demographically -- Washington and Oregon. Right next door to each other on the edge of the continent, the states feature similar crime rates, similar population sizes, similar geographies, and similar political climates.

    Washington is one of the few states which had shall-issue laws long before the wave of concealed carry reforms swept the country in the late 1980s. Washington's shall-issue law passed in 1961, and the state has never had a training requirement. In Washington, to get a concealed pistol license, you go to the local cop shop, let them take your fingerprints, and give them some money. A few weeks later you get your license in the mail. No class, no test, no demonstration of proficiency or safety.

    Oregon's law is more recent, going back to 1989. Because it's a modern law instead of an old one, Oregon's statute does require that applicants take a class before they may receive a permit to carry. The statute does not specify the length or content of the class, but does require that the instructor be certified by the NRA or a law enforcement agency and that the class must include firearms safety as a component.

    With no training requirement at all in Washington, one would expect that all the untrained concealed carry people surely must cause problems here: more unintentional shootings, more accidents with firearms, more misbehavior. Something, right?

    Not so. There's no statistical difference at all between Oregon's accidental shooting rate and Washington's. None. There's no blood running in the street here.

    There is one measurable difference between the two states, however: measured as a percentage of the adult population who have carry permits, Washington has roughly twice as many permit holders as Oregon does.

    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."
    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. #501
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292
    I find it funny that people would be threatened by sitting for 30 freakin minutes to learn about the safe handling of their firearm prior to walking out the door. How is that denying ANYONE their rights? Good lord people is the need to have a gun RIGHT FLIPPIN NOW so dire that you cant wait 30 minutes?

    As for those who seem to want unfettered access to any and all weapons with no training required. I guess you wouldnt mind living next door to the guy who buys a S&W 500 for home protection. See I kinda worry bout my neighbor...18 yrs old, never fired a gun in his life other than a bb gun, and HAD to show me his new "toy" that he bought. Yes I am a little worried now. Oh ya wanna know how he showed me? Finger on the trigger and shaking it like a kid with a new toy "see what I got!! see what I got". Man I am glad that thing has a horrendous DA trigger pull!
    And ya know what, in this state he can strap that sucker on his hip and walk down the street!!!! No training, no experience, no permit needed. Just more money than common sense.
    Situations like the one I am in now are why I would welcome some mandatory training (at LEAST safety training) on all gun purchases.

  7. #502
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    I find it funny that people would be threatened by sitting for 30 freakin minutes to learn about the safe handling of their firearm prior to walking out the door. How is that denying ANYONE their rights? Good lord people is the need to have a gun RIGHT FLIPPIN NOW so dire that you cant wait 30 minutes?

    As for those who seem to want unfettered access to any and all weapons with no training required. I guess you wouldnt mind living next door to the guy who buys a S&W 500 for home protection. See I kinda worry bout my neighbor...18 yrs old, never fired a gun in his life other than a bb gun, and HAD to show me his new "toy" that he bought. Yes I am a little worried now. Oh ya wanna know how he showed me? Finger on the trigger and shaking it like a kid with a new toy "see what I got!! see what I got". Man I am glad that thing has a horrendous DA trigger pull!
    And ya know what, in this state he can strap that sucker on his hip and walk down the street!!!! No training, no experience, no permit needed. Just more money than common sense.
    Situations like the one I am in now are why I would welcome some mandatory training (at LEAST safety training) on all gun purchases.
    Once again....this assumption comes up: that a significant number of people applying for permits have no training or experience OR have no intention of getting any.

    Why do people assume this? The fact that there's no evidence of a difference in permit holder's safety records in states with and without mandatory training seems to indicate that is a false assumption.

    Personally, I believe that MOST people motivated to get a cc permit will also be interested/motivated enough to learn the basics of running the gun and laws, or that most already do. (Which is all many states demand anyway).
    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. #503
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    I just can't help but go back to the idea that if we truly want the 2nd Amendment followed in spirit as well as in letter of the law, then we'd be headed the exact opposite way . . . with mandated Gov. training of all people on basic weapons. Otherwise, how can the states have a "well regulated Militia" if it's untrained? Isn't it the responsibility of the state and fed. govts. to assure the full 2nd Amendment? Once again, that is why I'd be all for mandatory firearms training for all highschool students.

  9. #504
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Did post 396 mean nothing to anyone else in this thread? It actually presented some evidence of what suntzu was asking in the OP...I think.

    Even he didnt comment on it, so maybe I dont understand the point of the OP after all.
    Just like they are evading everyone else' argument, they are especially not going to touch suntzu's with a ten foot pole. I called it as soon as I saw that post. No one on their side has even acknowledged it. They haven't because they would have to admit that they have no interest, compelling or otherwise, to mandate training.

  10. #505
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    I just can't help but go back to the idea that if we truly want the 2nd Amendment followed in spirit as well as in letter of the law, then we'd be headed the exact opposite way . . . with mandated Gov. training of all people on basic weapons. Otherwise, how can the states have a "well regulated Militia" if it's untrained? Isn't it the responsibility of the state and fed. govts. to assure the full 2nd Amendment? Once again, that is why I'd be all for mandatory firearms training for all highschool students.
    I have no problem with that. I think it's a great idea. Just don't single out gun owners. Just don't give the government the power to deny any fundamental right for such a flimsy reason as this CHL training.

  11. #506
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Deuce, I never said "no card no gun" I said buy a gun get a 30 or so minute training on its safe use. NOWHERE did I prohibit buying a gun.
    I said I don't want your class. Do I get the gun? I knew you would evade answering the question. Why have you evaded answering that question? You're advocating MANDATORY training. The answer is obvious, and it's obvious why you won't answer it. You won't answer it because you know the answer is no. I don't get the gun. No card, no gun, just like I said. No one gets a gun without the card. You want to give the government the power to deny our fundamental right, and you don't even have the courage of conviction to admit it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    I find it funny that people would be threatened by sitting for 30 freakin minutes to learn about the safe handling of their firearm prior to walking out the door. How is that denying ANYONE their rights?
    Because no card, no gun. I have a right to keep and bear firearms. It's a fundamental right that shall not be infringed. You're not just advocating infringing it, you're saying I don't have it. No card, no gun.

    As for those who seem to want unfettered access to any and all weapons with no training required. I guess you wouldnt mind living next door to the guy who buys a S&W 500 for home protection. See I kinda worry bout my neighbor...18 yrs old, never fired a gun in his life other than a bb gun, and HAD to show me his new "toy" that he bought. Yes I am a little worried now. Oh ya wanna know how he showed me? Finger on the trigger and shaking it like a kid with a new toy "see what I got!! see what I got". Man I am glad that thing has a horrendous DA trigger pull!
    And ya know what, in this state he can strap that sucker on his hip and walk down the street!!!! No training, no experience, no permit needed. Just more money than common sense.
    Situations like the one I am in now are why I would welcome some mandatory training (at LEAST safety training) on all gun purchases.
    That's right. It's called freedom. Haven't you heard the famous quote by Ben Franklin? "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    I understand your point, but the solution is not more anti-gun laws. The solution is not to give the government more power. The solution is not to ignore the Constitution and violate everyone's rights.

  12. #507
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    See I kinda worry bout my neighbor...18 yrs old, never fired a gun in his life other than a bb gun, and HAD to show me his new "toy" that he bought. Yes I am a little worried now. Oh ya wanna know how he showed me? Finger on the trigger and shaking it like a kid with a new toy "see what I got!! see what I got".
    Btw, if this is a true story, this was a great opportunity to exercise some plain old civic duty. Did you try and talk some sense into the kid and offer him some of your free training?

  13. #508
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292

    Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

    Yes I did. His answer: too expensive(ammo cost), no range will let him except rifle ranges, oh and although he can walk down the street with it, he cannot have it in his vehicle without a permit which the sheriff will not issue to anyone under 21.


    Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.

  14. #509
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    I find it funny that people would be threatened by sitting for 30 freakin minutes to learn about the safe handling of their firearm prior to walking out the door. How is that denying ANYONE their rights? Good lord people is the need to have a gun RIGHT FLIPPIN NOW so dire that you cant wait 30 minutes?

    As for those who seem to want unfettered access to any and all weapons with no training required. I guess you wouldnt mind living next door to the guy who buys a S&W 500 for home protection. See I kinda worry bout my neighbor...18 yrs old, never fired a gun in his life other than a bb gun, and HAD to show me his new "toy" that he bought. Yes I am a little worried now. Oh ya wanna know how he showed me? Finger on the trigger and shaking it like a kid with a new toy "see what I got!! see what I got". Man I am glad that thing has a horrendous DA trigger pull!
    And ya know what, in this state he can strap that sucker on his hip and walk down the street!!!! No training, no experience, no permit needed. Just more money than common sense.
    Situations like the one I am in now are why I would welcome some mandatory training (at LEAST safety training) on all gun purchases.
    Ogre: the thread is not (at least did not start out) about if it is COnstitutional, a denail of rights. I cannot fathom that as gunowners and for those that want folks to take a class and some a test that simple reading comprehension is a problem. I am now wondering if the tests are fixed so everybody passes. I mean the thread can be answered with a "NO" there is no data to compare or a "YES" I have some data to compare the differences in the states.

    Oh BTW, a simple no did not mean I was right or wrong or anybody was right or wrong. It just means that there is no data to which IMO base laws.

    But no............long ago folks decided that once cofronted with a simple yes or no, and that is what it was, folks had to start going of tangential issues like rights and comparisns with hunter safety course. So fine we are off topic.

    As far as waiting for a 30 minute course. Yeah, I am sure they can do that the instant you walk into a store and want ot buy a gun and they will be ready to give you a course immediately, right then and there. Yeah, and pigs can fly. What about an LGS where folks are buying guns every few minutes? Now you might have to wait for a scheduled class. Know how close the gun store was to my house in NH? You want folks have to schedule buying a product and then possibly coming back to take a "flippin"course?

    And you know what I think about your fear of other people with guns? Tough it out buddy. This is not a safe world. We live with idiots around us. The produce offspring without any classes. They fall a sleep smoking and start fires. They buy booze and walk around in public and cause trouble. People start fires in apartments and end up buring down the building with other folks in it. People own dogs that have no training and their dogs get ut and maul folks.

    None of these require "training". I swear, you sound like an anti and have a fear of guns. The simple fact is gun accidents happen at a frequency that of or less than many other things. So fine, guns are dangerous, let us go back to insurance. If the darn things are so dangerous and causing all of this damage I am very suprorised the federal government has not mandated insurance on it. Yo know, I hate slippery slopes but the faact is when you have folks like yourself that seem to live in fear of any person that owns a gun that has not had a class we are headed down the road where they will require mandatory insurance. And you and others are the best folks to testify before congress to advocate it.

    All they have to do is read this thread and say "golly gee, gun owners think the darn thing is danerous and they want mandatory classes. I am telling ya pal, inusrance is not far off,,,,5-8 years at best.

    Oh, and all of these "accidents" that are happening....they are happening for the most part with people that have had basic firearm training. Look at the amount of folks that have served in the military, hunters with hunter safety classes, CC'ers from mandatory training states (which is the majority) and there are a but load of accidents. You know why?
    Ever been in the military or a trainer of any kind? You try to find ONE expert on training and you qoute them as saying that a 30 minute class given to someone will be effective 1 year, 5 years, 10 years down the road. Find one. Betcha most experts would say no. Might protect the idiot walking out the door but by the time his friends come over to look at his new shiny gun that training will be either adhered to or tossed out the window depending on the maturity of the individual.
    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

  15. #510
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292

    Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

    No card involved, no test to take, just sit and listen to a safety presentation specific to your weapon purchase. You are all about the RIGHTS but not about the RESPONSIBILITIES associated with those rights. How bout if the mfg. required the training or it voided any warranty, sign a waiver accepting full responsibility for ALL damages caused by the use of the weapon..
    I don't want to disarm or ban anything, I want to make sure everyone knows basic gun safety.


    Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.

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.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors