Interstate Concealed Carry permits?

[Cosmodragoon]

Trying something and seeing if it works for a trial period is better than saying "Oh it would never work." If higher standards are implemented then they should be done so for a trial period and analyzed with statistics that are kept during said period in order to see if it's worth keeping. If it is, then Antis will have ammunition to rally support for it and if it isn't the Pros will have the same to rally against.

There are two important points to consider here.

1. Have we really not tried it? Across the nation and in all fifty states we've tried all sorts of gun control, including but not limited to training requirements. I asked before if in any of those cases it actually made a significant and quantifiable contribution to public safety. Well, has it?

Meanwhile, we still have the Vermont example: no permits, no training requirements, and the only requirement for carry is being at least sixteen years of age. Yet it remains the safest in the nation, both overall and per capita.

As I said earlier: "Every time a new gun control law is proposed, some pressing problem is presented to justify it. If the law gets passed, does the problem get solved? No. In fact, that problem just gets presented again the very next time another new gun control law gets proposed."

2. There are some important practical problems with this idea. First, think about how laws get passed and what it takes to repeal them. Lots of bad laws stick around for a reason. Second, think about how that kind of research gets done. There is a very real institutional bias against guns and gun rights in this country. That can be particularly dangerous when it comes to the soft sciences or their accurate reporting. As a supposedly impartial scientist in charge of gun research at the CDC once said: "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes... Now smoking is dirty, deadly and banned."

Of course, research can go both ways. You'd know if you heard about it. Here is a nice article that discusses several of the issues in question here, including the factual bases for political "ammunition":
http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/

I hope that helps.

 

[NateKirk]

The example of the woman shooting at the shoplifters pretty well refutes the entire argument for mandatory training making us safer. She HAD taken a training class to get her permit, or so I understand. The training requirement didn't keep that particular idiot off the street -- why should we believe it might keep some other idiot off the street?

My whole point is that current CPL training requirements are not enough. Here in Michigan one can take the one day, eight hour course and completely tune out everything and still get a license. There is no testing component, no shooting competency test, no mechanism in place to actually show that one learned anything. In theory you could sleep through a CPL course and still get a license. That is wrong.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

My whole point is that current CPL training requirements are not enough. Here in Michigan one can take the one day, eight hour course and completely tune out everything and still get a license. There is no testing component, no shooting competency test, no mechanism in place to actually show that one learned anything. In theory you could sleep through a CPL course and still get a license. That is wrong.

So you're not saying we need training, you're saying we need MORE training. Once you start down that road, where does it stop? Is two days enough? How about a week, with a full day combat shoot as the qualifier? Then somebody will decide that's not enough, and start pushing for a month in the classroom and a week on the firing range. And stupid people will STILL do stupid things.

Texas used to have a 2-day training requirement, with a live fire component that was the equal of most police departments -- was Texas statistically safer than Michigan, with your one-day training requirement? Was Texas statistically safer than Pennsylvania with no training requirement, or Vermont with no permit requirement? The answer, of course, is "No."

If you think a one-day, 8-hour class isn't enough, what's your idea of what IS enough? I can cruise the Internet and find all sorts of videos of people who have had lots of training who still had gun accidents.

• The DEA agent who (literally) shot himself in the foot.
• The cop who shot himself in an elevator.
• "Tex" what's his name who shot himself in the leg at a shooting range.
• The cop who shot his thumb off because neither he nor the gun store clerk who handed him a pistol bothered to check if it was loaded.
• Etc. ...

As I've stated before, I think we all agree that training is good, and good training is better. BUT ... the Constitution does not impose any training prerequisite, so making any training a mandatory requirement is simply against the Constitution and unacceptable. Training has to be voluntary.

Especially since it can be shown that training does not prevent accidents, thereby destroying your cost/benefit analysis.

 

[Salmoneye]

" We all have a right to bear arms, but bearing arms carries with it a great responsibility. Those who cannot meet the responsibility of a right should be restricted in the exercise thereof. That means setting a standard."

"All animals are equal...But some animals are more equal than others..."

What is the responsibility of a right? Who decides? When you set conditions on a right, it is no longer a right!

I'm glad someone gets it...

 

[NateKirk]

If you think a one-day, 8-hour class isn't enough, what's your idea of what IS enough? I can cruise the Internet and find all sorts of videos of people who have had lots of training who still had gun accidents.

I don't know what is enough, I'm not a firearms instructor. Maybe you should ask them. Maybe they would say that it is the level of training required to prevent the accidents you listed above. Qualified people would have to be the ones to determine what that is (NRA approved course instructors, MAG instructors, people from front sight perhaps, IDK). Whatever level of training that will keep you from shooting yourself or the wrong people should be the level that is required

As far as requiring training being unconstitutional.... All rights have their restrictions. The restrictions start when your exercise of a right violates other people's rights. A poorly trained CPL holder who whips out his gun on some shoplifter or someone who said something nasty to them is endangering the public (their right to life)

That's all I have to say. I bid thee adieu

 

[Koda94]

what I want to know is what is the percentage of the problem your trying to solve with "more training"?

at most there is maybe only a handful of news stories of some yahoo trying to shoot out tires or some other bonehead move. The media loves to trash gun owners I would think the news would be full of these stories, but there aren’t.

perhaps the current requirements are enough!

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't know what is enough, I'm not a firearms instructor. Maybe you should ask them.

I don't have to ask them -- I are them. I'm an NRA certified instructor in several different areas, including the Basic Pistol course that many states have as their required training for a carry license/permit. There is no amount of training that will or can prevent stupid people from doing stupid things, hot-headed people from doing hot-headed things, or careful people from having a momentary brain fart.

The fact is, there are laws that make people responsible for their actions, and if a permit holder does something stupid he/she IS responsible. But your solution to what you perceive to be a problem is to take the right away from everyone who hasn't demonstrated some indeterminate level of expertise, which level of expertise demonstrably won't eliminate the problem anyway.

Look at cars and drivers. Automobile accidents kill a lot more people every year than do firearms accidents. I think all states now require mandatory drivers education classes. In my state, the requirement is 30 hours of classroom time and 40 hours of actual supervised road time. That gets a teenager a restricted license, good only for driving in daylight, and not allowed to carry passengers without an adult in the vehicle. Is that "enough" training? Drivers still have accidents, and teenage drivers still have statistically more accidents than most other age groups. Every driver on the road (except the unlicensed illegals) has taken that much training, yet I am in far more danger of being killed by another driver than I am of being accidentally shot by a firearms permit holder. Do you drive? Aren't you terrified every time you're on the road?

Your argument just doesn't make any sense. You seem to want an unrealistic 100 percent ironclad guarantee that permit holders won't ever have an accident, and in the real world that's simply not going to happen.

And you continue to duck the issue of restricting a constitutional right that says right in it "... shall not be infringed."

 

[Bullrock]

As I previously stated, My State (Maine), just dropped ALL concealed carry requirements. If I'm still here in a year or two, maybe we can re-visit this post somehow. I haven't carried in the past 5 years, but have kept my CCP up to date. And, because my State has become constitutionally correct, I'm nervous about that, and I feel the need to carry again.

A few years ago, in my 70's, when I was legally carrying, I was assaulted near my home by a guy half my age & twice my size. I fought back physically. He somehow got hold of my leg, and flipped me backward. When my head hit the pavement my lights went out. (I was later treated at the local hospital) When I got back up, I put my hand on the butt of my carry under my shirt. He saw that, I was armed, ran like hell for his house, and called 911.

When the police came, I was bleeding from my head, and both shoulders. They confiscated my two guns because my attacker told them I had pulled a gun on him. He later obtained a court order against me. 30 days later, a judge, after hearing all of the evidence & photo's of my injuries, threw the case out, and I got my guns back.

My point is, I'm just an average old man. I'm thankful I had presence of mind because of training and experience, to realize he wasn't armed, and not to draw my pistol, unless he continued to BTS out of me. A few years later, I was diagnosed with a life threatening brain tumor. Go figure! Like a few others, I have nothing more to say.

 

[TBT]

We don't have a training requirement in PA and I don't think there are any statistics that point to us needing one. I believe safe gun handling can be learned in about an hour with someone who knows how to do it. Or, worst case, it can be learned watching a few YouTube videos. It isn't rocket science, learning how to not shoot someone. I doubt the people handling firearms dangerously out there are doing so out of ignorance. I think they are doing it because they are overtly stupid or irresponsible. No training will make them smarter or suddenly productive and responsible adults.

Training can help with engaging targets, especially in a public setting. It's an extremely good idea. But in my experience this sort of training isn't going to bear fruit after an hour (or a day, or a week) class. This is something expensive and learned over time.