|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 30, 2009, 11:55 AM | #51 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
The reality is that the "majority" believes no such thing about training. I'd be willing to wager that it never crosses the minds of most until it is spoon fed to them by someone with an agenda. Usually, that "someone" is a relative of someone involved in one of the few incidents and is now convince that we have an epidemic. (i.e.- Sarah Brady) Additionally, just because the political tide is against us does not mean that we should turn and go with the tide. Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; July 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM. |
||
July 30, 2009, 12:09 PM | #52 |
Member
Join Date: March 18, 2008
Location: Jacksonville fl
Posts: 57
|
State-required training is just a way to keep some free people from being arm
my 4 year old knows that if you pull the trigger on any gun it will shot. training is about who's being trained.not the actual training .when i go to the range to shoot people assume that because i have dark black skin that i must not know how to use my guns.from Vietnam to Iraq i have carried and used ever type of gun. restriction and cost is all training is |
July 30, 2009, 12:13 PM | #53 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Duplicate
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
July 30, 2009, 12:22 PM | #54 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 30, 2009, 12:59 PM | #55 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
||
July 30, 2009, 01:13 PM | #56 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
I never said I was making the decision for the entire population. I expressly identified it as my thought.
So if we put the question to a general vote, which do you think the voters of the United States would choose? [1] Allowing the carrying of loaded guns in public with only a background check but without any required training or qualifications; or [2] Allowing the carrying of loaded guns in public with a background check and only after qualifying by demonstrating competence with a gun and an acceptable knowledge of applicable law relating to the use of lethal force. |
July 30, 2009, 01:36 PM | #57 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
The opinion of the population is not indicative of right and wrong. It most certainly is not indicative of my opinion and it most certainly will not sway my opinion one way or the other. Unlike the vast majority of the population, I try to base my opinions on facts and logic, a concept which, by it's very nature, lends those opinions to being resistant to change.
One could word a poll question to get any answer one desires, just like the pollsters do every day and just like you have suggested above. How about this: 1)The right to defend oneself is a fundamental right and should be available to every person. 2)The ability of a person to defend themselves should be controlled and dictated in it's availability, means and cost by the government. Which do you think people would choose?
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
July 30, 2009, 01:40 PM | #58 |
Member
Join Date: March 18, 2008
Location: Jacksonville fl
Posts: 57
|
you do not need a gun to use lethal force
|
July 30, 2009, 01:45 PM | #59 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
If we have sufficient legal compliance, safe and responsible behavior, and a paucity of citations of incidents to support the antis' arguments, we may preserve our rights. I agree that education is no guarantee, but I think is likely a worthwhile investment. Our state law calls for an eight hour training course. Mostly classroom, about four hours on the law. no written exam, three targets at 21 yards with rimfire handguns, and a requirement to get 15 out of 20 on the page of a torso target. Wouldn't have passed over the governor's veto without it. I have friends who think the course should be more stringent. We still have editorials and letters to editors roundly criticizing our CCW law, and to my knowledge no one has given anyone reason to believe it's not a good ldea since it was enacted. But again, there's no central database.... |
|
July 30, 2009, 01:49 PM | #60 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
July 30, 2009, 02:06 PM | #61 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Do we have the right to defend ourselves without government interference? Unless it becomes a significant public safety hazard the answer is YES. It is not and has not been a significant hazard, despite the fears and fear mongering of any number of groups and individuals. As such, there is no reason for *further* restrictions.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 30, 2009, 02:20 PM | #62 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 30, 2009, 02:45 PM | #63 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Historically, training and similar requirements have been used to deny the use of firearms at all - particularly if any of the requirements require subjective judgments such as "moral fitness" or similar determinations. If gunowners aren't already personally familiar with these problems, a quick look at history will show them.
Also historically, the number of accidental firearms deaths in the United States has ranged from a high of 826 in 1999 (at it's time, this was also a historical low for accidental firearms deaths in the U.S. since we started recording data) to 642 in 2006 (the most recent year for which data is available). From 2001-2007, non-fatal accidental firearm injuries have ranged from a high of 18,941 in 2003 to 14,678 in 2006 (same source). For comparison - accidental motor vehicle deaths were 43,664 in 2006 alone. Accidental poisoning deaths were 27,531 in 2006. Deaths from accidental falls accounted for 20,823 in 2006. Now I certainly agree that training is a good thing and that more people should seek training, even if their state already requires it. However, I think the argument that government mandated training provides more benefits to society than the risk it presents to Second Amendment rights is dubious at best. There just that aren't many deaths/injuries to be prevented by training in the first place; but the history of abusing those laws to deny gun owners their rights is very real and still ongoing in several states. If the issue is really about "saving lives/preventing injuries" we would have more luck requiring mandatory training to use Raid or a stepladder than we would from requiring training from CCW holders (who are only a tiny subset of the firearms community to begin with). |
July 30, 2009, 02:59 PM | #64 |
Member
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 62
|
Everyone here is in favor of some kind of restrictions on who can carry a concealed weapon.
There just seems to be disagreement on where that line is drawn. |
July 30, 2009, 03:04 PM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
An informational lecture on the local laws and common sense implications - with a brief test - seems a fine compromise to me.
Shooting tests - most are so simple as to be not a predictor of tactical excellence. I wonder what state by state failure rates are on this? Knowledge test failures vs. shooting failures.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 30, 2009, 03:22 PM | #66 | ||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Requirements would come from the government. Restriction would be placed. Self defense with a firearm would not be available outside those restrictions. Quote:
Quote:
So, Fiddletown, even if those "poisons" are in 4 times as many households as are firearms it would still suggest that that common household chemicals are nearly 11 times more dangerous in the hands of the "untrained" than are firearms.... Surely we need people to be trained before they can buy Clorox? Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
||||
July 30, 2009, 04:26 PM | #67 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I favor "shall issue" laws, and I've opposed gun registration since I first read about it in the 1944 Gun Digest in 1954. However, I really do not like the idea of having a person who is under the mistaken impression that he can and should fire at a departing vehicle in a Walmart lot because someone has shouted "stop thief" carrying a gun and thinking that his right to do so makes him some kind of a "sheepdog"--and they are out there. That's too dangerous to me, to my wife, to other innocents, and to the continued existence of the right to carry concealed. An objective way of providing education can be devised and implemented. We have something in Missouri. And for anyone who believes that it would constitute an infringement of rights, just wait until one or two well publicized tragedies caused by ignorant people start the ball rolling to eliminate the right to carry concealed or to even have a loaded gun unlocked in the house. |
|||
July 30, 2009, 04:26 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 17, 2008
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 265
|
I have no opposition to training. Training is knowledge, knowledge is power.
Plain and simple. Required training...? I grew up in the good state of Vermont that has the carry laws the rest of the country wishes for. I never once witnessed an incident, accident, close call or near miss. Yes, we carried 30-30's and 308's to school when we were 12 during deer season, and 12 or 20's during bird season. None of the kids I knew carried a pistol until later but never with a problem. Now I live in Tennessee (another fine state, of course) that requires training. I have lived in many other states (6) up and down the east coast and some also required training. I was amazed at the injuries and accidents that I heard about. Maybe it was just the particular areas that I was working/living in (cities), and there not the same culture as I grew up in (very rural) that leads to an unawareness on gun control (controlling your gun vs. having your gun controlled...) but in that regard, I am not opposed to some formal training being required before being allowed to carry. Lets face it, If a day of training in TN lets me carry in 30+ states, WHY NOT??? That Vermont carry permit I got lets me carry only in Vermont...(and Alaska?) If 4 days at Frontsite or Rattlesnake Ridge or wherever would allow me carry nation wide...SIGN ME UP!!! |
July 30, 2009, 04:31 PM | #69 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Just this week, people were using a whopping total of 44 murder "charges" by permit holders (many involving two people) over a couple of years to justify opposing national CCW legislation. Make any sense? No. Does that matter? NO! |
|
July 30, 2009, 06:19 PM | #70 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
July 30, 2009, 06:29 PM | #71 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Both of those are objective requirements; but it starts getting real easy to list enough objective requirements to deny somebody a permit. How about just lengthening training to 24 hours? Now we've eliminated everybody who can't afford to take a day off work for the class (or pay the instructor extra for his time). How about asking people to pass the Air Marshal qualification course before they carry a firearm in public? It is an objective requirement - you either meet it or you don't; but it sure leaves a lot of people who won't be able to avail themselves of a firearm for self-defense. Quote:
Mandatory CCW training requirements are only one step above totally useless. Statistically, you cannot prove that they do anything to reduce accidental firearms deaths - the only question is whether that is because there just aren't enough accidental firearms deaths involving CCW holders to make a statistically valid sample or whether it is because the programs themselves flat do not help. |
||
July 30, 2009, 06:53 PM | #72 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
||
July 30, 2009, 08:14 PM | #73 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
But I have a lot of trouble with this "I won't get my permit if it's too inconvenient" argument. Carrying a gun in public is a significant responsibility. One should take it seriously enough to be willing to put up with some bother and inconvenience to qualify. And if they aren't willing to put up with the trouble, are they really taking the responsibility seriously enough? Quote:
|
||
July 30, 2009, 09:30 PM | #74 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 30, 2009, 10:08 PM | #75 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|