HR38 passes house.

[Arkady]

[QUOTE="Arkady, post: 2014298, member: 9327"If it were my call, I'd require a rigorous training program on par with what we normally see with driver's ed. Say, for example, ten hours of training, focused on gun safety, gun laws, non-violent conflict resolution, and marksmanship, followed by both a written and shooting test. The difficulty wouldn't be set very high -- low enough that any normal person putting in a normal level of effort in the process could pass easily. There could also be abbreviated courses or waivers for people who were otherwise able to demonstrate capacity (e.g., automatic concealed carry permits for veteran law enforcement members, and only the written portion for military vets, and possibly waiver for those who have long held concealed carry permits without any incidents.)


Well, what we usually see in terms of drivers' ed is nothing. Schools have dropped it in the face of high insurance costs. Setting that aside, how do you certify all this training? I'm a veteran. I've don the NRA instructor's certification course, without taking the final test for certification, though. (I didn't have the money at the time). Which raises another problem -- such training isn't free.


Well, "must-issue" concealed carry laws have become more common over the last 30 years, and despite all the dire predictions, we don't live in free fire zones and accidental shootings are not on the rise. Benefit of the doubt has to go to the gun carrier in those circumstances.

Waaay off topic, but it's fascinating the way this forum responds to the topics being discussed. All of a sudden the ads on the sidebar are trying to sell me guns and holsters.

 

[trapdoor]

I'm not sure how certification would be set up, in terms of specifics. But there could be a train-the-trainer approach, where to become a certified trainer you'd need to take a more rigorous class yourself, including shadowing an already-certified instructor, as an an assistant, similar to the way teachers get trained. Then, once certified, the person would be able to train others and get them certification. It doesn't strike me as a particularly difficult problem since we do something similar with all sorts of professions already. To become a licensed attorney, I had to finish three years of school at a certified law school and then pass a rigorous two-day test (as well as a background check). I'm not looking for anything that demanding here, but I would like to see meaningful standards.



It could be, though.... at least to the individual. It could be funded by taxes.

Currently the trainers all come from the NRA. Naturally, you want a government funded program. Big surprise.

True and true. But, the studies do suggest that concealed carry is associated with more wrongful shootings. I think we could get the benefits of concealed carry (if any) without as much of the downside if we just tightened up the rules to weed out those who aren't taking it seriously.

Whatever studies "suggest" neither violent crime nor accidental shootings have showed any increase in the actual statistics the government uses to track such things. Apparently, we're not experiencing much in the way of downside, right now.

 

[Arkady]

Currently the trainers all come from the NRA. Naturally, you want a government funded program. Big surprise.


Whatever studies "suggest" neither violent crime nor accidental shootings have showed any increase in the actual statistics the government uses to track such things. Apparently, we're not experiencing much in the way of downside, right now.

As I'm sure you can see, it's possible for two things to be happening at once -- for example, an overall decline in violent crime associated with decreased lead poisoning and an aging population, and also an increase in shootings attributable to concealed carry. Statistics can test for that by checking within sub-groups. For example, picture if violent crime was down 25% in the nation overall, but only 10% in the ten states where concealed carry increased the most. That would be suggestive.

 

[Spamature]

There's that projection...
Right away you assume that conservatives would do physical harm to their political opposition, because you would if you weren't such a bunch of cowards and thought you could get away with it.


Every time you post something like this, it shows us all what kind of person you really are.

If they didn't intend to do us harm, they wouldn't have pushed to arm themselves. The only kind of peace they want to make comes off a Colt assembly line.

 

[Dawg]

If they didn't intend to do us harm, they wouldn't have pushed to arm themselves. The only kind of peace they want to make comes off a Colt assembly line.

They didn't arm themselves to harm those as you call 'us' they armed themselves to ensure they aren't harmed by those you refer to as "us".............you're post frey replied to proves that "us" are the haters.

Colt/Glock/S&W is PEACE

 

[freyasman]

If they didn't intend to do us harm, they wouldn't have pushed to arm themselves. The only kind of peace they want to make comes off a Colt assembly line.

See? You're projecting your own murderous impulses. People like you don't want folks to be armed because you know that you, yourself are not fit to be armed.... you lack the self-control and the judgement necessary, and you assume that everyone else is equally as unfit.
Guess what? Most all of us are perfectly capable of doing that which you are not.
You're the loser here; accept it and get on with your life and quit trying to control everybody else's.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

I'd love to hear them invoke the 10th amendment after they spent decades trampling and abusing it. Get the popcorn!

The perfect response would be to make constitutional carry nation wide just like the 13th banned slavery nationwide and the 14th forced anchor babies nationwide. Pick your poison, Progs!

And they used it for same-sex marriage. They can't use the 10th amendment because a lot of states didn't want to recognize same-sex marriage 14 th and the 10th amendments are off the table for them.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

I'd prefer a federal concealed carry permit, with decent standards, rather than effectively making the federal rule whatever the lowest common denominator rule in any state is.

I somewhat agree with this. With rights come responsibilities. If you are a gun owner you should have set standard of training with that firearm you carry

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

I took the classes needed to get the concealed carry permit, and I've been practicing at the range, using instructions from YouTube and from two books I bought (one by Grant Cunningham, who I think might be someone you recommended):

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ESIVE5A/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I haven't had in-person training, though.

Talk with your local sheriff they will or should be able to assist you.

 

[freyasman]

I somewhat agree with this. With rights come responsibilities. If you are a gun owner you should have set standard of training with that firearm you carry

I don't, the control freaks will get involved and start trying to fvck with the standards.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

I don't, the control freaks will get involved and start trying to fvck with the standards.

You have a point Standards set by the GOA or the NRA

 

[freyasman]

You have a point Standards set by the GOA or the NRA

I say nothing; no set standards at all.... encourage the hell out of training and education, but you can't make it mandatory. Carry what you want, anywhere you want; fvck up, even on accident, and you get hammered.
We don't place those sort of restrictions on any of our other rights, and we shouldn't on this one.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

I say nothing; no set standards at all.... encourage the hell out of training and education, but you can't make it mandatory. Carry what you want, anywhere you want; fvck up, even on accident, and you get hammered.
We don't place those sort of restrictions on any of our other rights, and we shouldn't on this one.

I'm a big advocate of training. I'll have to disagree because with gun accidents can't be taken back.

 

[freyasman]

I'm a big advocate of training. I'll have to disagree because with gun accidents can't be taken back.

I'd rather be free. I'll take my chances with the accidents.
I'm a lot more likely to get hurt by some feral little shitbag whose momma didn't want him and whose daddy doesn't even know exists.... but I'm not going to argue for mandatory parenting classes either.

 

[Arkady]

I somewhat agree with this. With rights come responsibilities. If you are a gun owner you should have set standard of training with that firearm you carry

I think that's also consisted with the "well regulated militia" language in the Second Amendment. In colonial times, militia members were subjected to rigorous training -- regular musters where they kept their skills sharp. If you regard the modern-day "militia" as being anyone with a gun, and you want it to be "well-regulated," you should require training and education. In the end, that's a service not only to the society, but to the gun-owners themselves, since if they're well-trained they'll be a lot less likely to accidentally kill themselves, or a loved one, or to involve themselves in an unjustified shooting that could ruin their lives (or even a legally defensible shooting in an incident they could have avoided/defused with better training, which could be a heavy burden on their conscience).

Conservatives often point to Switzerland as evidence of a society where there are a fair number of guns and yet not a lot of wrongful shootings. Well, one thing the Swiss do differently is the mandatory military service, which gets everyone trained.

 

[Hmmmm]

I'd rather be free. I'll take my chances with the accidents.

You would rather be free and let someone else (usually not the gun owner) take chances with accidents because it isn't you who isn't trained.

 

[freyasman]

You would rather be free and let someone else (usually not the gun owner) take chances with accidents because it isn't you who isn't trained.

At this point in time, it easier to find quality firearms training, and more accessible to the general public, than it has ever been in the history of our nation. The information is there; I can't (and won't) force people to avail themselves of it.

 

[Tor-Pete-O]

See? You're projecting your own murderous impulses. People like you don't want folks to be armed because you know that you, yourself are not fit to be armed.... you lack the self-control and the judgement necessary, and you assume that everyone else is equally as unfit.
Guess what? Most all of us are perfectly capable of doing that which you are not.
You're the loser here; accept it and get on with your life and quit trying to control everybody else's.

Post of the day!

Perfectly stated.