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 DocT65 There is, in fact, data demonstrating the efficacy of firearms training. I can cite a few examples here: Prevention of Handgun ...
Array
That was not even close to being an answer to the OP. Of course training is important and can prevent accidents. Nothing to do with this topic. The topic is how do things compare in mandatory training states vs non mandatory training states vis a vis concealed carry accident and incidents involving concealed carry. CONCEALED CARRY!Originally Posted by DocT65
So far there is none. No data, no laws shouls be made.
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
Array
There's two parts of this. In the first part, you leave out the part that says the government gets to decide what training is required, and most importantly, you leave out the part where the government has the power and authority to deny everyone their most fundamental right unless they get the training according to the whim of the majority. The government just doesn't have any such power. Their power is strictly limited by the Constitution. In the second part, you give a long list of regulated activities that, unlike firearms, are not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights with a shall not be infringed mandate. It's a tired, old, worn out, bad analogy. Give it up!
No, you want something even more fundamental. You want the government to have the power to deny everyone the right to keep and bear firearms. With that power and authority over the people, you want the government to have the power to decide under what terms and conditions anyone is allowed the government's permission to keep and bear arms. In your model of government, the only thing between the government mandating a few hours of training and mandating the confiscation of all firearms is the whim of the majority.What I want to prevent is an 80 year old woman who's never handled a gun before from buying a new .44 Magnum for her purse because her husband just died or a 21 year old kid from strapping a new 1911 to his belt because it's "cool" to open carry at Walmart. I want to prevent irresponsible people from carrying for the wrong reasons. I want people to take self defense seriously and I want them to understand the power and responsibility of carrying a firearm and taking someone's life. I don't expect people to train and shoot like a Navy Seal, but they should at least demonstrate that they understand self defense laws and that they can accurately put a box of ammo on target. If someone wants to own and carry a .50 BMG in their house without training then that's up to them...it may sound cold, but I don't care if they hurt themselves or their families. What I do care about is being in public with irresponsible gun owners who don't take carrying seriously.
Array
I knew it wouldn't be long before our second resident advocate for nanny state mandatory training would show up. Now, Hopyard, before we get started, how about you actually respond to the arguments you evaded over and over and eventually walked away from in our previous discussion? Why mandate training only for the small subset of firearm owners that want to carry a concealed handgun?
Array
Maybe he realized there is no way to have a discussion with people who get so emotionally charged that they become verbally abusive and rude.
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
Array
Personally and btw constitutionally there shouldnt be any restriction on a non violent criminal owning any weapon they wish and carrying it anywhere they darn well please.
But on with the show at hand. LEO please dont take offense to this. Police are trained and qualify at specified periods. Compared to to firearm carrying civilians in shoot situations their ratio of rounds fired to hits made on target is woefully less than untrained civilian accuracy in the same situation. There is also the vido of the LE in a classroom full of kids demonstrating a firearm and as he uttered "IM the only one in this room qualified to handle a firearm" shot himself in the foot.
Mandatory anything concerning firearms is senseless. Accidental discharges are relatively few and far between and national media doesnt jump on them like killings by criminals to demonize us all.
If you want folks to get training then how about spending fraction of the money being tossed around by both sides to fatten politicians wallets and use it to offer free voluntary safety training and shooting courses? Lots would take them if that were the case.
Of course that would kill the tactical training schools that are around so it wont happen.
Bottom line is I nor anyone on this forum nor the government has the right to restrict a law abiding citizens right to own and bear arms, make them train or shoot the first target if they dont want to. As it should be. All the discussions about could we should we there ought to be a law etc etc etc in the end boil down to that and ultimately when enough are sick to death of having their rights stripped away a little at time in the name of whats good for us. will believe it or not hit that brick wall made of paper called the constitution of the United States.
Backed up by an armed populace that out numbers LE Military and federal enforcement officers to the tune of something like 78 to one.
" It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales
Array
And they are careless and negligent as well.
But on with the show at hand. LEO please dont take offense to this. Police are trained and qualify at specified periods. Compared to to firearm carrying civilians in shoot situations their ratio of rounds fired to hits made on target is woefully less than untrained civilian accuracy in the same situation. There is also the vido of the LE in a classroom full of kids demonstrating a firearm and as he uttered "IM the only one in this room qualified to handle a firearm" shot himself in the foot.
.
Like the cop here in Marysville that left 2 kids in a car and an unsecured loaded gun in the glove compartment. Only one kid remains.
Charges were filed, but he got off...hung jury (???) and they decided not to refile. (The county refused to bring charges originally until the public demanded it. The same week of his incident, a Hispanic couple in Yakima left their 3 yr old in a van and he found a gun and killed himself. THEY were both charged imediately and found guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter. County prosecutor's office here told me: 'different jurisdictions handle things differently")
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)
Array
Like it or not, but limits have already been put on the 2nd Amend. And, whether you like it or believe it to not be Constitutional does not change it one bit. And these buying frenzies are further proof that everyone knows it has happened in the past, and will happen again.Personally and btw constitutionally there shouldnt be any restriction on a non violent criminal owning any weapon they wish and carrying it anywhere they darn well please.
But on with the show at hand. LEO please dont take offense to this. Police are trained and qualify at specified periods. Compared to to firearm carrying civilians in shoot situations their ratio of rounds fired to hits made on target is woefully less than untrained civilian accuracy in the same situation. There is also the vido of the LE in a classroom full of kids demonstrating a firearm and as he uttered "IM the only one in this room qualified to handle a firearm" shot himself in the foot.
Mandatory anything concerning firearms is senseless. Accidental discharges are relatively few and far between and national media doesnt jump on them like killings by criminals to demonize us all.
If you want folks to get training then how about spending fraction of the money being tossed around by both sides to fatten politicians wallets and use it to offer free voluntary safety training and shooting courses? Lots would take them if that were the case.
Of course that would kill the tactical training schools that are around so it wont happen.
Bottom line is I nor anyone on this forum nor the government has the right to restrict a law abiding citizens right to own and bear arms, make them train or shoot the first target if they dont want to. As it should be. All the discussions about could we should we there ought to be a law etc etc etc in the end boil down to that and ultimately when enough are sick to death of having their rights stripped away a little at time in the name of whats good for us. will believe it or not hit that brick wall made of paper called the constitution of the United States.
Backed up by an armed populace that out numbers LE Military and federal enforcement officers to the tune of something like 78 to one.
Actually, it happens everyday. Private property owners can determine if you can carry or not. And in many other ways it happens also.
What you call a restriction, others, such as the Supreme Court may decide its not, or a decision balances the need for safety of the public, with the 2A. Even many states do this.
You see, we can cry on here with other choir members all day long bemoaning big goverment, and nanny state ect ect..ad nausem, but it does not change this reality. And reality is the world is changing everyday, and the big fish eat the little fish.
And I am so sick and tired of seeing a civillian SD shooting with respect to hit ratio compared to LE shootings. There is no comparison, and its naieve to think so.
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
Array
And you are correct. But once again, fair or not, they are never going to disarm the police because of a few dummies like that. But, they are watching and recording every single civillian accident to use against you for future reference.
If they pass a hi cap mag ban, I will still have access to them, but you wont. No, its not right, but that is the reality that we are facing.
The citizenry must step up and be part of the problem solvers, and get out of the denial that paremeters cannot be legislatively placed on the 2A.
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
Array
As I stated before, and what everyone conveniently ignores, is that we also have the right to free speech, free press, and free assembly. Those rights can be, and often are, restricted; you cannot verbally threaten people, you cannot print slanderous material, and you cannot assemble and demonstrate without permits. Those are rights specifically guaranteed by the Constitution which are often restricted. Additionally, the Ninth Amendment proclaimes that there are fundamental rights we have which are not specifically named in the Constitution. I would argue that driving, flying, boating, etc. are fundamental rights. I cannot be denied those rights as long as I pass the licensing criteria. I would argue that being nude is a fundamental right and I would argue that jogging is a fundamental right, but nude jogging in public is illegal. The government can, does, and always will regulate rights.
And I do not want the government to deny gun ownership to anyone. I would like to see gun ownership and carry become right of passage, much like obtaining a drivers license. I would like to see a stronger, more open gun culture which focuses on the safe handling of firearms from a young age. Once the carry age is reached I would like to see a written and practical test to obtain a carry permit.
I don't think permits or registration should be required for gun ownership or carry in the home, but I do think it is responsible to require permits for public carry. I want to know that the carrier sitting next to me at the restaurant is competent and can effectively and safely handle their weapon if and when that time comes. I have no problem with someone requiring the same from me. It is about public responsibility.
Array
I'm emotionally charged and verbally abusive and rude? So, your position is that there's no need to respond to my arguments? You can just call me names and criticize me personally?
Array
Yes, and many of those limits were put in place long before the Heller and McDonald cases. There's no reason to believe that we have to tolerate that now.
That's an interesting analogy. Private property owners compared to the government of a free society. I'm not sure I see the equality there.Actually, it happens everyday. Private property owners can determine if you can carry or not. And in many other ways it happens also.
Actually, what you just said there sounds an awful lot like the minority opinion in Heller. It was overruled, and courts like the 7th court of Appeals and their recent ruling on public gun bans in Illinois are bound to do likewise.What you call a restriction, others, such as the Supreme Court may decide its not, or a decision balances the need for safety of the public, with the 2A. Even many states do this.
In truth, because that is what the legislature in its infinite wisdom, conferred by our votes, determined.
Personally, I was opposed to changing the car carry law for precisely the reason that it allowed too many
folks with no training whatsoever to have a gun in their car. While I understand the point that the
car is an extension of your home, it isn't really. You can't get a PI charge for being drunk in your home.
We've had a thread here where an unlicensed individual felt it was just fine to keep a gun on his person
while filling up at the Stop and Rob. He was mistaken as a matter of law, which proves the point that
broader training would be beneficial at least in so far as protecting some of us from ourselves.
My view of our CHL training is that the primary beneficiary is the individual license holder, and secondarily
the state saves money on arrests, prosecutions, jail, stemming from acts of ignorance instead of malice.
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
John Adams. Second President of the United States.
Array
Oh I know and agree there are tons of restrictions on tons of things there should not be. To not believe that I would have to be totally stupid. And Im not in denial that there will be more attempted and more possibly added.
To a point. At some point as much as those who are in some official postion, (and what is really naive may be thinking one is speaking to another that hasnt been there) dont like to think of it there is a line to all this that can be reached, hopefully not in my lifetime where the American public or great majority of will no longer put up with it. Badge, office court orders will mean nothing at that point. I truley hope that its never pushed that far. But im sure one day it will be.
The big fish lay fairly quiet and have for years and years while the little fish run about thinking they own the pond. Hopefully the real big fish dont come to the top and really really surprize the little ones.
And yes I know LE hates to hear the fact that in a given fire situation civilian defenders armed with a third the weponary have consistantly higher hit ratios to rounds fired with less collateral damage Per each comparable situation than LE.
The comparison is rather simple and not fantasy or naieve, one threat, one civilian shoot situation. One cop one threat situation though that seldom happens due to back up etc. But when it does armed civilians by a large per situation number are more efficent with what they have dealing with the threat that much better armed LE. If it makes someone sick to hear it Im sorry but there it is. No insult to LE meant it just the way it is. Maybe because the civilian has one weapon and limited firepower, threat tends to be closer to them I dont know.
Mandating a safety drill for everyone that owns a gun is pie in the sky reg that wont accomplish anymore than the regular training that LE gets in reducing NDs ADs since Le has per person as many or more than civilians now with their superior super skills and training. I dont count the numbers they are just there to look at.
" It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales
Array
Short answer; yes
But what name did I call you?
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
Array
Ah but you see had not the state meddled in the right of the person to have that firearm in their car on their person etc without a license which they shouldnt have to have anyway as long as they arent a criminal, there would be no expense for arrest court etc etc when someone exercises their constitutional right to have and bear a firearm any where they please.
This simple concept will of course escape those who seem to lean toward the notion that as citizens we need someone to protect us from ourselves. If not for laws passed in violation of the constitution we would not have to try to keep up with thousands of laws that even the law makers themselves cannot keep up with and be arrested for breaking one.
" It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales
Posting Permissions
138Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
