The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 8, 2013, 01:56 PM   #26
Ronbert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2009
Location: Ft. Collins, CO.
Posts: 398
Just a thought about the mandatory training thing.

I'm in favor of training but am afraid that when govt makes it mandatory there will be no classes. (I understand that's how Delaware is, or used to be.)

In the ham radio world, the govt used to administer written and audio (morse code) tests to people applying for licenses.

Now there are "volunteer examiner" organizations who administer the tests for a very low fee and are freely available to take rather than having to go to some govt office somewhere far away (like I did when I was 14!).

If the antis were bargaining in good faith (BIG IF - or rather, they aren't) such training administered by volunteer organizations would accomplish the goal.
Like a driver's license.
Like a hunting license.
Like a ham radio license.

But because the antis aren't interested in safety they can't be trusted. So this idea has to be set aside.

And children will die. Thanks to the gun banners.
Ronbert is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 02:01 PM   #27
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Even if training were provided, gratis, by well-meaning types (I would volunteer; have the NRA certificate, so why not?), how would the single mother who works two jobs find the time?

That is the problem with requiring training. The people who might have the most need would have the hardest time affording either the cost or the expenditure of time.

Mandatory training requirements favor the "haves."
MLeake is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 02:39 PM   #28
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
I'm not against mandatory training. Heck, I'm even in favor of training people to vote. Not this party or that party, but more in the form of this is how both parties are leading you around by the nose. These are the attack ad tactics. This is how you put words in someone's mouth.

If she has time to go buy her gun, she has time to train. The Hunter Education course is a prime example of how to best accomplish that. An interactive online course, with a test at he end of each section. When you pass the section you move on. When you pass the online course, you go to a field day. The same principle could be applied.

As for people who point out it would be a waste of time... for you maybe. For others sure. For many, not. I aced my Hunter's Ed course. Between my boy scout's first aid merit badge, incalculable hours bombarded with the safe rules of gun handling on placards at ranges everywhere, among other sources, very little actually applicable to safe hunting was new to me. I'm not counting the stuff in the course that wasn't really applicable to hunter safety, but still had some value. I.e. The Pittman-Robertson Act.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 02:46 PM   #29
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
JimDandy, you assume that:

A. Everybody has internet access;

and

B. Everybody has time.

So I assume you do not know any single parents whose day consists of:

Get up, feed kids and send them to school.
Go to work day shift cooking in school cafetaria.
Finish work, take kids to grandma's house.
Go work evening shift at convenience store.
Get kids, go home (or pass out at grandma's).
Repeat.

I have known one or two like that.

Meanwhile, please prove a correlation between mandatory training and reductions in accidents by gun owners, or between mandatory training and successful defensive gun uses.

If you can't, then how can you possibly justify infringing on the rights of others because you just think you should?
MLeake is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 02:50 PM   #30
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
When is she going to buy her gun if she's that busy?
The internet is available at the library.

You want me to provide a correlation between something that does not exist, and something that is not effectively tracked?
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 02:53 PM   #31
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
JimDandy, it has been tracked, as this has come up before. There has been no such correlation. Accident rates are no higher, and successful defense rates no lower, in constitutional carry states.

If you can't prove otherwise, then you are arguing for feel-good, do-nothing red tape.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 03:41 PM   #32
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
I dispute it has been tracked.

We cannot on the one hand say that we don't know how often good guys save t day with guns, because they aren't always reported, while on the other hand saying it's been tracked that training has no effect on that.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 03:46 PM   #33
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Take it up with the mods. Several of them have posted on the topic.

Thing is, since you are arguing for an intrusive change in the status quo, the rules of debate require you to prove your case.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 05:40 PM   #34
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
Take what up with the mods? We as a community continually dispute the claim that "good guys" with guns don't save lives because it's rarely reported to the police if no shots are fired, etc. It's certainly under-reported. You are essentially asking me to prove a negative.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 06:14 PM   #35
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Again, you are the one suggesting creation of hurdles for the exercise of a Constitutional right. That places the onus squarely upon you to prove that it would have any benefit at all, let alone such a degree of benefit that it would justify creation of said hurdles.

If that means proving a negative, that's too bad.

The relative accident rate would not require proving a negative; it would require you to look up and compare per capita accident rates in, say, Vermont (constitutional carry) and neighboring New York, or some other state that has training requirements and has had them for some period of time.

Again, you want the change, you prove the benefit.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 12:05 PM   #36
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
I did not suggest it. Someone else did. I said I wasn't against it.

A number of constitutional rights have been limited in the past for good or bad without a study of their affect before the fact. Sometimes the infringement has been upheld, sometimes it's been overturned. Law is a living and fluid thing.

And finally, preventing accidents is hardly the only benefit to training, thus limiting the studied benefit just to accident prevention is narrow minded.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 12:07 PM   #37
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
You support an added requirement or restriction, so it is on you to justify it; that is not done by vaguely alluding to unspecified, unquantified benefits.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 09:36 AM   #38
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
No, no it's not. Several states enacted legislation abridging 1A rights while driving. There were no studies that banning texting while driving would actually reduce traffic accidents. There was evidence that texting while driving did contribute to traffic accidents of course, but nothing proving banning same would lead to fewer. Because there were no bans.

I would imagine there are no studies showing a nationwide education program- in high school for example- covering the basic firearm safety rules from every gun is loaded, don't point it at anything you aren't wiling to destroy, etc. would educate the coming generations and prevent any(but obviously not all) accidental discharges- however logic certainly suggests it would prevent some.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 10:46 AM   #39
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
The problem with your example is that studies have shown that texting and driving results in similar and sometimes worse results than intoxicated driving.

There are no such studies showing accident rates among constitutional carriers, or licensed carriers in states such as Georgia (no training requirement) having higher accident rates than carriers in states that have training requirements.

Carriers, not just owners...

Also, given that depending on whose numbers yoou believe, when guns are drawn for self defense, they do not even have to be fired between 70 and 90 % of the time.

Do I like training? Sure. I have had quite a bit, much of it voluntary. Do I recommend training? Of course.

Do I think requiring training is reasonable? No. And I will not, until you can justify it with concrete fact, and not just logic.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 11:01 AM   #40
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
Why not? You just used logic to connect a ban on texting and driving to DUI, and thus justified a ban on texting and driving.

Your stronger argument is that driving is not enumerated as an inalienable right, thus not afforded the same protections as RKBA.

However, if it's not permissible to restrict an entire class of weapons in the general use, it seems likely it would be permissible to require education and training also in the general use.

Even voting has some theoretically required training for its general use. Every state's curriculum has some form of civics classes. Immigrants who miss these classes being out of the country at the time they WOULD have taken them have civics requirements in their citizenship process.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 03:53 PM   #41
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
No, you missed my point entirely.

There are empirical studies showing that texting and driving have a quantifiable impact on safety, as in people who text and drive are many times more likely to have an accident than people who do not text and drive.

The measured percentage increase in risk is equal to or greater than the increase in risk with BAC over .08.

Your idea does not have any such studies to back it, and there are no actual numbers to prove any impact.

This is not a hard concept. You need hard evidence, and you do not have it.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 04:14 PM   #42
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
From NCWildlife.org - Due to hunter education, hunting accidents have decreased by over 50% during the last twenty years making hunting one of the safest recreational activities.

Edit: Oklahma Wildlife says that number is 70% in the past 30 years.

I'm assuming since there wasn't a study reporting on the effectiveness of a ban on texting while driving before there WAS a ban on texting while driving, I hope you will concede that hunter education is a fair comparison to an introductory firearms ownership course.

If using the Hunter Ed course as a roadmap, changing out the hunting specific curriculum for home defense- say Tree Stands for lethal force permissibly. bow hunting for firearms storage and so on, we would have a fairly similar idea of a syllabus for the course.

Last edited by JimDandy; January 10, 2013 at 04:25 PM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 06:06 PM   #43
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Hunting accidents typically fall into one of two categories:

1 - carrying a weapon in a less than safe condition, such as climbing a fence with a hunting long gun with chambered round; or

2 - failing to properly identify target or backstop.

So those tend to be the focus of hunter safety training.

People keeping firearms in the home or on their perso s I. Holsters do not typically run afoul of the first; people forced to use firearms in self defense are, unlike hunters, always under pressure with regard to the second.

So, again, your example fails.

Seriously, we have had carry in constitutional carry or no-training-required carry states for years - decades, even. If you wanted to find it, you could find statistical data that is directly on point and supports (or refutes) your idea. You obviously do not want the bother.

I, on the other hand, do not want the bother of allowing further governmental infringement of a right that shall not be infringed. The onus is on you.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 06:30 PM   #44
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
Likewise, you could easily link to it. Easier than I could in fact, as you seem to feel its out there and know where to look for it.

Meanwhile could you tell me how carrying a weapon in a less than safe condition while hunting is prevented by the basic rules of gun handling, but the carrying of a weapon in home defense isn't? They're universal rules fora reason aren't they?
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 06:43 PM   #45
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Many hunting arm safety devices are trigger blocks. They are often not drop safe. Hunters routinely navigate terrain that is much more treacherous than sidewalks.

Additionally, the right to hunt is not guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to keep and bear is.

And, though you don't like it, the rules of formal debate put the requirement for proof on the proponent of an idea, much like the burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal case. You are advocating for the new idea, and additional restriction, so yours is the burden.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 28, 2013, 09:21 PM   #46
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
BTT, for those that did not have the chance to read this essay.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 29, 2013, 02:42 PM   #47
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,044
Here's another good article from the same blogger:

Dear Gun Control Democrats: 6 Ways to Make a Better Argument
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 29, 2013, 03:39 PM   #48
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,320
Too logical and on-point. It'll never fly.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12051 seconds with 9 queries