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
#278 ·
I think that too many folks fail to realize the entire intent of the BOR is to LIMIT GOVERNMENT Powers over the people. Many do realize this and thus want it weakened and better yet eliminated (Obama and crew fall into the latter group quite obviously) . When you understand the Government is OF the people BY the people , WE The People ARE the governing bodies NOT those we pay to represent us (and they fail to even do so with nice wages and excessive benefits) .

I am without a doubt certain the "leaders" who would gladly attack us would love nothing more than we had "bans on semi auto everything" and were stuck with single shot weapons while they have Class III to use against us-however that is not how it is supposed to be. It is OUR JOB to insure they do not limit OUR GOVERNMENT (US the citizens ) any more than they already have. IMO

There are reasons why the same folks want no voter ID shown to vote for POTUS, and many of these folks will gladly support destruction of our Constitution after all they don't understand it and have no reason to care , the "free stuff" matters more.
 
#284 ·
The sad thing is, the lawmakers think they are creating laws because of compelling reasons. At least, they would argue that is the case.
 
#288 ·
Since everyone else is off topic here...for the instructors our there..how many folks actually can not pass a CHL/CCP test? And a follow up. Does anyone here really honestly beleive that if the CHL/CCP class is the only training someone has been given (BTW:the shooting is not training in most states, just a qual) that they are a better shot during a SD situation than they were before the x amoount of rounds they had to do before the test?

How effective are they 12 months down the road. Some folks here like 38 Special feel that folks won't do anymore training anyway.
 
#307 ·
I answered this question, or similar in an earlier post. If I gave the Texas test prior to class, ie pre test, I am certain that at least 50% or more would fail.

After the class, my failure rate has been 0%. The worst test scores usually come from renewals.
 
#289 ·
I wouldn't mind a two-part federal law approach.

1. All CCL and OC participants MUST receive training.

2. Training is a required class for all seniors in high school nationwide.

3. Anyone born before 1997 is exempt from the law.

4. Public classes provided once a quarter by local LEO (for those who did not grow up here, those who skip out of high-school for a plethora of reasons, or home-schooled children). Private classes by certified teachers also accepted (as it is now).

5. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the constitution will be applied to CCLs.

That takes care of both training, and making sure pretty much every citizen has the ability to carry concealed or OC safely once they are old enough to handle a weapon.

And let me comment on the ubiquitous "I don't want the feds involved..." reaction up front. They already are. There's plenty of national laws regarding guns and restrictions already - no new law like the one I'm thinking about would create a precedent. The NICS is basically an approval list already.
 
#290 ·
I disagree with all of it but heck, it is your opinion. I am curious to why folks born before 1997 are exempt?
 
#293 ·
You are kidding right....almost all of those are malicious crimminal activities. Almost all have nothing to do with mandatory trainning. I am talking about stupid things like the idiot that left his gun in a playground and I highly doubt any amount of training would solve that morons problem. Another more valid one is the guy who pbrought the gun on school property.

You mostly listed crimes by people that simply had a liscense and that no amoount of training would have prevented it. Like the person making terroistic threats. I am sure that is not covered in any CHL class just as do not rob a bank is in any CHL class. These folks aren;t being chraged with a manslaughter charge or something that was a mistake when they drew their firearm.

They were arrested for attempted homicides and such. The dudes with road rage would have been arrested for something even if they did not have a weapon. And the one guy obviously knew he was wrong because he said he did not have a gun. He must have known the law.

Come on dude....do you honestly beleive that all but maybe one of those incidents would have been prevented by a CHL course tha they took years before?
 
#295 ·
I believe that training on the responsibilities of carrying a gun and the liability surrounding carry COULD prevent some hotheads from improperly using emir firearm during road rage incidents and/or arguments.

And these could have been prevented with training:

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania • July 13, 2004. Arabo “Raybo” Allen allegedly shot a bystander in the leg with a 9mm pistol during an altercation with another person. Allen was later arraigned on charges of aggravated assault, attempted homicide, and reckless endangerment. The charges were later dropped when a witness failed to appear in court.

Chartiers Valley School District, Pennsylvania • August 29, 2003. Charles Bolden, transportation director of the Chartiers Valley School District, carried a loaded Glock .40-caliber handgun onto school property in one of his motorcycle saddlebags. The School Board later suspended Bolden for four months without pay for incompetency, neglect of duty, unintentionally bringing a loaded firearm onto school property and hindering an investigation.

Chester County, Pennsylvania • November 14, 2001. A gun carried by 32-year-old Cesar Solis accidentally went off in a Chester County tavern, injuring three people including himself – one seriously. Solis was charged with two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of recklessly endangering another person, and one count of discharging a weapon in a building. Police said Solis, who had a license to carry the gun, was at the Birch Inn late Sunday night with his brother when Cesar Solis pulled the gun from his waistband. The gun discharged and hit his brother and Sandra Pierson, who was seated at a nearby table.
 
#294 ·
This was from the OP and I was pretty darn specific:
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)
 
#296 ·
One more thing about the list by 38Special...that is all for a 13 year period? And quite honestly only three look like they would fit into a CHL course. Yeah, you can make the arguement that some states include how to deescalate a situation but i don;t really think road rage is in that category. Inless you truly beleive a 10 hour class will change someones personality.

But thanks for the stats....out of all the permit holders in PA you managed to find 9 cases and of those maybe three would be training related. In thirteen years. Bethca that comes out pretty darn close to oops's made in TX which has mandatory training. What you just told me is that training for CHL holders makes no difference!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9MMare
#299 ·
OK some early stats in:

TX: -Unlawful carrying of a weapon-16 CHL holders
-unlawful carry of handgun lic holder-23 CHL holders
Both these I would assume would be directly related to trainng
And that is for one year. I did not include any malicious criminal things

PA- 38 Special has kindly given us 3 cases in 13 years

hmmmmmmmmmmm


Before anyone gets excited I know that the PA incidents are not stats. But I think it highlites my assumption that any incidents by CHL/CCP holders is so low that it is negligible on the radar screen. And being so low there would not be a difference between the two types of states.
 
#314 ·
Where in the Constitution does it place an age limit on carrying a gun or buying one for that matter? Isn't it an infringement to not allow teenagers to carry in school?
After all, many that age " beared arms" during the revolution.
 
#318 ·
What is your point ? Are you saying "under age" gang members do not carry arms now? How many young folks are killed by gangs NOW?

Seems there are plenty of anti 2nd laws that in reality punish law abiding folks and don't deter criminals in any way at all.

BTW the Constitution does not apply to non citizens- at what age does one become a legal citizen with RIGHTS??? ;)
 
#315 ·
During WWII, the USA mainland would have been attacked by Japan , (while our soldiers were fighting overseas) WHAT prevented that (and the sole prevention) was the knowledge that Americans are well armed and know how to use those arms.... Folks seem to forget that bit of truth about our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS.
That is actually at the bottom of the list that most historians have opined on. That theory comes from a statement by Admiral Yamamoto who did not want to invade the US to begin with. The army generals did not give a hoot. Main reason that the Japanese did not invade was the distances involved, the fact Hawaii was still in US hands, and primarily the Battle of Midway which they lost. By losing that part of the ocean it took away any way to stage an invasion of the US.

Furthermore...the Japanese did not have the number of troops nor the transport craft to carry them to the US. Resupply of ships and protection of the convoys would have been difficult. They were tied up in China and other places and the troops were never avialable.

So I wld hardly say that is the sole reason.
 
#378 ·
Actually, the historicity of this saying is greatly called into question as well. Truth be told, I doubt it was actually ever uttered, and it's pretty sure that Yamamoto never uttered it. It is true though, that Japan removed guns from every land they invaded, and also, when they feared a US invasion, armed their own civilians.
 
#341 ·
All laws that are made that affect us are suppose to be put there for a reason. Forget the Constitution for a momemt and stop the ridiculs discussion and stupid analogies about atomic weapons for a momemt. Laws are made for a purpose. And you would like to think they make sense and there is data to back up such a law. If not, there is no compelling need for the government to make ANY law..

So...where the heck is the data that even suggests that there is a significant differrence in arrest and ooopsies by CC'ers in mandatory and non mandatory states?

The only information we have so far is what TX publishes and what 38Special scrounged up about PA. And so far there is no significant differece if there is a difference at all.

I am willing to lok at any data provided. Folks say that I might not be objective? I am not the one going WAAAY off topic and bringin up Reductio ad absurdum arguemnts or strawman arguements. And yes, bringing up other examples of laws made the restrict gun rights are strawman arguments when it comes to the OP.

Q: What evidence is there that mandatory training states are safer than non mandatory states?

Rebuttal: Should we be allowed to own atomic weapons? F-16s?

Now please, someone here tell me that that is not a perfect example of a strawman arguement.
 
#346 ·
Q: What evidence is there that mandatory training states are safer than non mandatory states?

Rebuttal: Should we be allowed to own atomic weapons? F-16s?

Now please, someone here tell me that that is not a perfect example of a strawman arguement.
Nice try, but that wasn't my rebuttal to that question. My "rebuttal" was in response to the people claiming that the 2nd Amendment was absolute, unquestionable, and unrestrictable and how little sense that view makes.

What stats are available in reference to the initial question? None. They don't exist. That was answered numerous pages ago by numerous people...including several experienced statistical professionals. I then attempted to provide some stats regarding hunting and you thought they were useless. I then produced anecdotal evidence and you said the cases didn't apply and proved nothing. Again, there are no stats that will satisfy you. Lock the thread if you don't want any other discussions or topics related to the issue.
 
#349 ·
I don't think that discussing what can be legislated under the 2A is off topic at all. It is really at the root of the discussion.

I believe responsible citizens should be allowed to own full auto weapons and even explosive weapons. But the reality is, even these are highly regulated. And we can see many examples of regulation regarding all the Constitutional Amendments.

And of course, noone likes it. And we hate Piers Morgan, especially when he makes the argument against so called assault weapons using the logic that since some weapons are banned or highly regulated that why not these?

And we hate that argument. Why? Because we know where it ultimately leads, the rock just keeps on rolling.
So we fight from this standpoint. Our view of it.

And, I am not in favor of mandatory training because I think it will cure all the problems. But I think it will help, and because I think it is certainly within the scope of legislative authority, considering the precedence of parameters already established by law.

And these parameters on the 2A already include restrictions such as age requirements, full auto weapons to the general public without jumping thru hoops, background checks, permit requirements, and so forth. None of these were mentioned in the 2A, but yet they are there.

As to age restrictions. Who determined the cut off, and why that age? Is there anyone here that would argue that teenagers be able to carry or buy firearms? But yet they are able to have all the protections and use of their other constitutional rights.

So any argument based on the assumption that Federal or State mandated training is not Constitutional and an infringement on the 2A is wrong.

Not that I don't empathize with this thinking, but the precedence has long been established.
 
#350 ·
Let me re state this but I do not think folks will get it. The OP is not about if the law is just or Constitutional. I am granting the fact that the courts have already said it is. I am conceding that. (My personal feelings are differnt) Now, with that being said (these types of laws are legal vis a vis training) then I just want to see the justification for making such a law. Laws suppose to pass the COnstituitonal muster which I conceded just for the purposes of this thread.
So, since laws CAN be made. The question is SHOULD they and the data behind that.

I can make this really simple. How about those that think mandatory trainign should be law and required only respond. You obviously think it is COnstitutional so therefore we can forego all of the fluff and off topic debate.

Now, adress the OP for those that are pro mandatory training and cough up some data.

There...simple.
 
#353 ·
"MY " main issue with the training (especially IF it cannot be easily shown to produce the results we all hope for) is that during the waiting time for a class then the permit, how many are in grave danger and cannot legally carry in so many states? Even in open carry states, a small female or older gentleman loses a major advantage of surprise when it is easy to know they are armed (or not armed)......Add to this the expense someone may not be able to afford (NOW when needed) so they should have to "save up the $" and hope they live long enough after that to complete the training and test, then another few months for the permit? I think there are better ways?
 
#352 ·
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.
 
#354 ·
It was opined long ago. Tell me mr LE dude, if places like VT, Alaska, PA, and NH have no training requirements how come you do not see plastered all over the news about a CC'er gunning down folks by accident because they did not recognize a threat properly? Where are all of the stories about ND's in movie theaters and resteraunts? Sure they are there, but at a higher rate than states that require training? I think not.
Would not that also be common sense? I mean if it was such a difference you would see laws being passed in all states requireing training. Wonder if the reason is if they tried they would have nothing to base it on.

So no sir, someone may have answered the question a long time ago, but it certainly is not fact that TX is any safer than NH.
 
#355 ·
And these parameters on the 2A already include restrictions such as age requirements, full auto weapons to the general public without jumping thru hoops, background checks, permit requirements, and so forth. None of these were mentioned in the 2A, but yet they are there.
Agree this has been allowed but explain how it doesn't INFRINGE on our rights? There is NO evidence that it has prevented anything, yet we have allowed it to stand-which is my real point on all of this, they want to TAKE MORE (because they took that much already) WE (as a unified group) Should (IMO) be demanding our full rights be restored, no "jumping through hoops" we should pressure the House, elect the Senate that will pass the laws and keep their oaths of upholding and protecting the Constitution from ALL enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Instead we will watch folks say "that is how it is" (DUH) but it CAN be changed and we should never (IMO) continue to accept we must lose more to appease these anti personal rights stealing folks.

We need to stop having to be on the Defense IOW. WHY we as a group even use "assault weapon" for semi auto much less allow them to do so harms us and helps them. AR-15 in "Civilian form" is not an AW! A hammer CAN be one for that matter, it's the perception that this brings is WHY they like to use it and how many of us do it also?
 
#361 ·
Even the common Minuteman was expected to be proficient with his rifle/musket and to not shoot the man standing next to him. Why would the expectations be any less today when bearing a firearm? Training can enhance skills at any level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ogre and G-man*
#362 ·
I am still looking for the floor debate regarding SB 60 which gave Texas CHL.

If one in actually interested in the changes the bill went through from what was originally submitted to what is passed, you can compare the two.

Original.

74(R) SB 60 Introduced version - Bill Text

Law.

74(R) SB 60 Enrolled version - Bill Text

I know folks aren't going to read and compare the two. But for anyone who really wants to know why there is a requirement for training or not, as I have already said, all you have to do is look at the legislative record and read it to see what was discussed.

I am certain no one will actually take time to compare the two and find the changes that took place during the legislative session.

When/If I find the copy of the record I will post it, but then again, I am certain no one will read it.
 
#368 ·
Why are you so full of yourself thinking that no one really cares and will not look at what you have provided? I will look at everything. That is what I started the thread for. Not to put blinders on but to educate myself and others about how and why laws are passed and if there is evidence that they are needed. Good grief.
 
#364 ·
I think training is a great thing and logic (IMO) dictates a trained person should be a safer person. (IF they follow the training and pay attention at least)
On the "flip side" many folks have been around guns since childhood, were properly taught safety and how to shoot, IMO those folks may not benefit nearly as much as someone who has never held a gun before the class(es) Most folks cannot afford private security (like so many politicians and upper crust "elites" Have now) and if they're in serious and immediate danger there should be (IMO) some exceptions made to let especially ladies and older folks carry (even temp status pending classes) ...... no one should have to risk either their lives or jail when they know they are in serious danger IMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9MMare
#366 ·
Do you really think that NH LE or any state LE for that matter is going to think that they aren't doing things the best way, and offer up, that yes, I think that doing it the way that this other state does would be better for us?

Not going to happen. LE are there to enforce the laws that are put in place by the legislatures. On certain things, when asked, their political arm may give opinions or lobby for something in their interest, but in general, I don't think they go out on a limb to get involved in the political processes at the state level.

BTW, did you ask every Texas LE agency what their experiences or thoughts were on the matter to have the other side represented?
 
  • Like
Reactions: G-man*
#367 ·
Dude, I explained the only way I can figure out which way is better. Becasue of the questions you are asking is the reason for the thread. They are offering their opinions, and you are offering yours. BTW: I did not ask them if they though mandatory training should be required (I have a feeling that they would say yes). I had asked them about problems with folks that have CCP's and basically they don't really arrest them for anything that is CC related. And like folks in other states it appears that they very seldom do get into trouble.

You can feel like you do all day long with out any data but your own feelings on it. I don't really care. I just hope you don;t tell people it is a fact that mandatory training here in TX makes it safer than other states. Of course state it as an opinion.
 
#370 ·
You guys have fun with this. I asked a simple question and all got are opinions. That is cool. Just make sure when you are out and about you do not state stuff as facts.

Farronwold: I will read all documentation and data. Suprise you?

Look, I will be the first to admit I am wrong about this issue if you guys that say it indeed makes a DIFFERNCE between different states actually provides like numbers.

And ..just food for thought: do you think that the reason why TX keeps numbers is because there are many folks telling others that without it TX would turn into the wild west?
 
#374 ·
I do believe (especially when CC was first being considered) things were "hard to guess" what outcomes may happen and folks chose to mostly err on the side of caution, I remember here "the wild west" was mentioned (even though we had open carry ) which I thought was laughable but folks were concerned . Non gun folks have a real fear of guns (even though many will be around them today and never have a clue) I believe part of our "job"(for lack of a better word) is to continue to educate that guns are objects (tools if you will) there are no "good guns or bad guns" there ARE bad people who will use guns, knives, hammers, cars, an axe, etc. etc. etc.
 
#376 ·
As I said in an earlier post, I am not sure what figures you need, and if they are really available. For instance, the airline industry uses incident per mi flown. (crashes, death, etc. for the incident). But maybe it should be per flight. If you were looking at what your chance of going down was, if you looked at a long range carrier vs. short range carrier you might find different ratios as the long range has few flights with lots of miles, vs short range having many flight of very short mi. The mi might not equal, the fact that take off and landings are much more deadly and the shorter range carrier has many more of them etc.

So should you be looking at incidents per number of gun owners? Incidents per number of rounds fired? Incidents per population density? Incidents by geographric region based on income level?

Further, if there aren't enough incidents, then the statistics aren't really based on good numbers. e.g. The mayor of a town of 50,000 claiming, gun violence is up 50% in our town this year. Yes it went from 2 to 3. Statistically insignificant.

Given how statistics are used by both sides to make their arguments, suntzu, i believe if the stats you are asking about were really out there, they WOULD already be in use by both sides!

Personally, I agree with glockman that training 'in general' whether for drivers ed or whatever will teach you. So a class in gun safety and laws for a day would certainly make things safer than no class. It won't prevent EVERY accident, but based on other training statistics that were measured, it will lessen them.

In MA, the requirement for CCW is take a NRA class where you may or may not get a chance to shoot. That gives you the right to ask the local police chief for a license. Depending upon your town and your standing, you hopefully get a license, no restrictions (let's not get into crazy MA law). AT THAT POINT, having never shot or held a gun, you can then go into your local gun store, purchase a gun and holster, and walk out CCW! It's pretty damn scary to me eating dinner at applebees that the guy next to me has a loaded weapon and his entire experience is that he spent a few hours listening to someone and reading a book written at a 6th grade level. Oh wait, the guy at the local gun store when selling him the gun is required to give him a 3 minute presentation on how it works.
 
#383 ·
I think I proved my point. There is no data to say with any certainty that there is a difference in safety and CC related oopsies between states that have mandatory trainin and those that do not.

We also know that when you ask a very simple question it turns into folks being able to own nuclear weapons and the reason why the Japanese did not invade the US.

And, if anything it proves what we all know...incidents are so extremely low for CC'ers that there most likely is not any data. If there were a lot of incidents then logic would dictate that the anti's would be all over it.
 
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