Mandatory Training for CCW

Status
Not open for further replies.
The only thing that got fixed was a mindset that is out of touch with the real world!
Click to expand...


Ya' busted me, I'm out of touch with the reality that we need more gun laws; because we obviously don't have enough already.
You win, I hope we can compromise ourselves all the back to throwing spears and hitting bad guys with rocks. Really, you've convinced me that you're right.



What kind of holster do I use for a 2 pound piece of marble?:p
 
NH is the last holdout to join the 21st Century. The State and it's backward views, it's primary, and it's motto is irrelevant in todays world!! Now that we have discounted NH as having any real impact on anything important, let's go back to the OP about mandatory CC training.
Click to expand...

I guess I can sleep better at night knowing you won't be moving here. :p
 
The percentage of "Government licensed drivers" that are killed, per capita is much greater than the gun deaths per capita. Is this some sort of contest?
 
Hmmm ...

Some interesting responses.

Not specifically concerning the right to own and possess firearms which are concealable, but just the lawful ability to carry them concealed in public, right?

Okay. Let me ask a slightly different, but somewhat similar question ...

Does anyone feel it's necessary and appropriate for Law Enforcement officers to receive some basic training in the handling and usage of their firearms, as well as some knowledge regarding when deadly force may be considered justified, before they're allowed to go out and among the general population in an armed capacity?

Or, is the fact that they're considered normal law-abiding citizens when they're hired sufficient to send them out in an armed capacity amongst all of us, without any specific training?

Training, or just hand them a firearm and let them 'act responsibly', based upon their life experience and 'common sense'?

Whad'ya think?

Just curious.
 
Does anyone feel it's necessary and appropriate for Law Enforcement officers to receive some basic training in the handling and usage of their firearms, as well as some knowledge regarding when deadly force may be considered justified, before they're allowed to go out and among the general population in an armed capacity?
Click to expand...

Apple and oranges
LEO is paid to actively engage, he is representing the local/state/federal government.
If a CCW gave you powers of arrest and to actively seek out felons I would agree with you.


Or, is the fact that they're considered normal law-abiding citizens when they're hired sufficient to send them out in an armed capacity amongst all of us, without any specific training?
Click to expand...

Go shoot with a few run of the mill average LEOs and I doubt you would be impressed with the training they have received. I'm not talking about the men who seek out additional training many times out of their own pocket. I mean the average non gun guy cop.


Training, or just hand them a firearm and let them 'act responsibly', based upon their life experience and 'common sense'?
Click to expand...

Once again they are acting as an agent of the government which opens them up to an entirely different set of liabilities.

FWIW Chicago PD issues their officers 50 rounds of ammo a year. They qualify a 30 round course of fire one time per year using 30 of the 50 rounds they were issued the previous year. At the end of qualifying they hand you another box of 50. Sounds like a pretty good govt run training program to me;)
 
Hey guys as fun as this is, we're starting to recycle and I'm sure I'm starting to sound like a broken record. I'm pulling out since it's obvious we're not going to solve the problems of the world in this thread.
It's been fun and thanks to everyone for keeping it civil. Even you Tourister I enjoyed the mind exercise.
 
Agreed....

Might as well put it to rest before it gets stale.

Im glad you all see it my way. No need to clutter up the thread with paens to my genius and praises of thanks for showing you the WAY, pms are acceptable.

And DonR, thanks for the PM with the kind words, I appreciate your addressing me as "Your Enlightening Rotundedness"...*smooch* ;0:D:eek::D

WildgoodthreadguysAlaska TM
 
Apple and oranges
LEO is paid to actively engage, he is representing the local/state/federal government.
If a CCW gave you powers of arrest and to actively seek out felons I would agree with you.
Click to expand...

"All rights are granted by government, there is no such thing as individual rights."
 
Agreed....

Might as well put it to rest before it gets stale.

Im glad you all see it my way. No need to clutter up the thread with paens to my genius and praises of thanks for showing you the WAY, pms are acceptable.
Click to expand...

What about cousin Joe in the wheelchair and grandmaaaaaaa?!?......

Pusillanimous thread conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Has there been a rash of wounded/killed innocents at the hands of untrained permit holders?

There's must be proof of this happening, right? And I don't mean one article from 1988 -- it’s definitely happening at a frequency that should alarm us all, especially on moral/practical grounds?

I want proof before I sign on because this thread advocates placing state mandated requirements in between going from unarmed, to armed, based on (so far)... hyperbole such as this (bolding mine)?

WildAlaska said:
Moral ground? How about an untrained person carrying a gun is a danger equal to the danger that criminals pose.
Click to expand...

…and from a guy who seizes every opportunity to call other’s comments out for the same reason. Tisk tisk.

It makes sense to me that before we allow the state to regulate our ability to exercise a Right (not just those involving the 2A), there better be a pile of evidence to support the State's position that there's a tangible threat to public safety in need of our attention, and that the State’s proposed solution (i.e., mandatory training as in this case) is what will get it taken care of.
 
WildAlaska... I must say when you stir the $hit, You stir it well! Thanks for a good thread. Made everyone think if only a little.
 
How about an untrained person carrying a gun is a danger equal to the danger that criminals pose.
Click to expand...

LOL...ya didnt read it carefully not the context..

But regardless, would ACCIDENTAL shooting stats be relevant?

WildandtheanswerisAlaska ™

WildAlaska... I must say when you stir the $hit, You stir it well! Thanks for a good thread. Made everyone think if only a little.
Click to expand...

PS When I was a young man and a know it all who knew nothing, I would have never even considered the idea of mandatory training...now that I am older and do know it all I believe in it.:D

Mandatory training can turn us from an anit gun culture to the opposite.

And for your gun lovers, the two bastions of gun freedom are Switzerland and Israel. Look how they handle the issue of training
 
The concept is great, but, as so many others have said, the problem lies in the implementation. We would just need to keep it easily accessable, affordable and reasonable in nature.

I would fully support a mandatory training program ( hopefully overseen by or modeled after NRA program ) for all citizens beginning at their teen years. Done properly, it would promote a healthy understanding of firearms and help dispell all the myths out there that the antis keep spouting at truth.

Heck...it might even cut down on accidents.


And....perhaps we could train with military firearms like the Swiss and Israelis!!!!
 
LOL...ya didnt read it carefully not the context..

But regardless, would ACCIDENTAL shooting stats be relevant?
Click to expand...

LOL...ya kill me. Only if included in your report are the accidental shooting caused by people who can legally own a firearm...since we are talking about mandating training to those who seek to own or carry a firearm legally. Accidental shootings by children or criminals would be misleading and just not relevant since they would not be eligible for the training in the first place, right?

I am betting the number of accidental shooting by people who fit those criteria is pretty small compared to the "danger that criminals pose" which you keep wanting to compare. I am sure that number would not justify mandatory training.

Incidentally, just how do intend to quantify that "danger posed by criminals"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top