[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Gun Training Rule Suspended (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 11/7/2011 9:31:25 AM EDT
|
http://www.channel3000.com/politics/29703342/detail.html
waiting to hear more about this |
|
Will this hurt reciprocity with other states?
I don't like the hard 4 hour rule, but i'd rather have it if it means lots of states will drop off accepting our permits. I don't know enough about how other states determine reciprocity to determine which ones will. |
|
Quoted:
I'm on my phone so I will read more when I get home, but in short this means that as of right now there is no longer a training requirement? There is still a training requirement to receive your permit. Only the 4 hour minimum requirement is gone. Still needs to be face to face, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm on my phone so I will read more when I get home, but in short this means that as of right now there is no longer a training requirement? There is still a training requirement to receive your permit. Only the 4 hour minimum requirement is gone. Still needs to be face to face, etc. The important part, at least to me, is that they removed "h" thus making the $3000 stack of certificates I have on my desk now useful for more than making paper airplanes. |
|
Quoted:
this means my appleseed cert is valid? bout fucking time DOJ. edited to add: looks like it wont, as the appleseed completion forms do not have a address or phone number on it. crossing my fingers i get my form from them soon, so i can file my app with DOJ 
address and phone number are no longer required http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/administrative-rules-20111107.pdf |
|
Quoted: Will this hurt reciprocity with other states? I don't like the hard 4 hour rule, but i'd rather have it if it means lots of states will drop off accepting our permits. I don't know enough about how other states determine reciprocity to determine which ones will. Personally I think this will destroy reciprocity (more than it already has). I don't think the DOJ is asking for enough training. I have completed the 4 hour DOJ course, and it was good. I took it along with my wife, so she could become eligible. But I did enjoy it. The guy who gave the course even remarked that the class was a good place to start your training. More training (including shooting) should be sought after in the future. And I couldn't agree more. I think our training requirements in this state are a farce. No other states will even look at reciprocity because of our poor standards. Looks like a lot of folks got what they wanted.  |
|
Quoted:
More training (including shooting) should be sought after in the future. And I couldn't agree more. Training is great! I believe the Rock County sheriff is offering an eight hour course with live fire for only $100, I think that should be a great place to start. I also don't think there should be any mandatory training either. I think our training requirements in this state are a farce. No other states will even look at reciprocity because of our poor standards.
Looks like a lot of folks got what they wanted.
Good thing we can get a Utah for cheap and carry in most of the states that permit out of state licenses! Add an Arizona and your pretty much set. If you don't mind longer training requirements which will ultimately cost more then having to obtain a few extra permits won't be that big a deal. Is there someplace you would like to carry that the three way combination won't allow and a higher standard of training in WI would? Maybe I can look up and see if there is another solution. By having less requirements we have an easier road to eliminating them all together in the future like most states are slowly moving toward. I'd rather make it easy for people to get permits (Like your wife) and then they can take as much training as they feel necessary for them. When you set a standard like drivers licenses, most people will meet that standard and never surpass that. How many people do you know have taken advance driving classes? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: More training (including shooting) should be sought after in the future. And I couldn't agree more. Training is great! I believe the Rock County sheriff is offering an eight hour course with live fire for only $100, I think that should be a great place to start. I also don't think there should be any mandatory training either. I think our training requirements in this state are a farce. No other states will even look at reciprocity because of our poor standards. Looks like a lot of folks got what they wanted. Good thing we can get a Utah for cheap and carry in most of the states that permit out of state licenses! Add an Arizona and your pretty much set. If you don't mind longer training requirements which will ultimately cost more then having to obtain a few extra permits won't be that big a deal. By having less requirements we have an easier road to eliminating them all together in the future like most states are slowly moving toward. I'd rather make it easy for people to get permits (Like your wife) and get as much training as they feel necessary for them. She may be able to get her CCW, but she will not be carrying until she gets more training. I can appreciate your thinking, but I can't agree with it. I've been on WAY too many firing lines and shot around folks who shouldn't be allowed to procreate, let alone carry a pistol.  Again, just my opinion. And I am sure plenty of my good friends on here would lynch me for even saying it.  |
| Wisconsin residents and Wisconsin Carry should come first I don't care about reciprocity I want a permit that allows me and every other law abiding citizen a clear way to obtain there permit without hoops and hurdles. If reciprocity is the goal why not have the toughest most rigorous training in the country and try for 49 state reciprocity? |
|
Quoted: Wisconsin residents and Wisconsin Carry should come first I don't care about reciprocity I want a permit that allows me and every other law abiding citizen a clear way to obtain there permit without hoops and hurdles. If reciprocity is the goal why not have the toughest most rigorous training in the country and try for 49 state reciprocity? Perfect idea.  |
|
Quoted:
Again, just my opinion. And I am sure plenty of my good friends on here would lynch me for even saying it.
Your opinion sucks and is totally wrong, morally and intellectually. No need to get a rope, though. 
Reciprocity: About half the states that offer reciprocity do so regardless of training requirements. Some recognize regardless (IN and MI, for instance), and some recognize as long as the originating state recognizes theirs. In reality, there are only a few states that require substantially similar training by statute (OH off the top of my head), and some states (NY/NJ/CA) will never offer reciprocity. While I agree wholly that training is a good thing and we all need more, forbidding your wife to carry just because she doesn't have "enough" training is bullshit. How will you react if she is accosted between now and then? You'd never forgive yourself. C'mon brother, think it through. Look, we're talking about a right here. The very idea of requiring training is wrong. Do we require "training" in order to buy a book or go to church? How about before we are protected from unlawful search and seizure? Trial by jury? Of course not. Relaxing the training requirement for CCW is a good thing. By all means, we should all get trained and keep training, but requiring it for someone to exercise a natural right is a wrong idea at its core. |
|
Quoted:
Again, just my opinion. I understand where your coming from, not that long ago I shared the same opinion as you. 
Also on reciprocity there is H.R. 822 - National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act that could gain traction and alleviate many worries. Of course just to be difficult I appose that too .
|
|
Quoted: She took ten minutes to find a four inch knife in her purse today. It would have been used on her by the time she found it. Same with a pistol. Quoted: Again, just my opinion. And I am sure plenty of my good friends on here would lynch me for even saying it. Your opinion sucks and is totally wrong, morally and intellectually. No need to get a rope, though. Reciprocity: About half the states that offer reciprocity do so regardless of training requirements. Some recognize regardless (IN and MI, for instance), and some recognize as long as the originating state recognizes theirs. In reality, there are only a few states that require substantially similar training by statute (OH off the top of my head), and some states (NY/NJ/CA) will never offer reciprocity. While I agree wholly that training is a good thing and we all need more, forbidding your wife to carry just because she doesn't have "enough" training is bullshit. How will you react if she is accosted between now and then? You'd never forgive yourself. C'mon brother, think it through. Look, we're talking about a right here. The very idea of requiring training is wrong. Do we require "training" in order to buy a book or go to church? How about before we are protected from unlawful search and seizure? Trial by jury? Of course not. Relaxing the training requirement for CCW is a good thing. By all means, we should all get trained and keep training, but requiring it for someone to exercise a natural right is a wrong idea at its core. You and I talked about "situational awareness" she has none. I love her dearly, but she has SO much to learn. She needs to learn a LOT before I think she would do herself any good to carry. Otherwise, she will, WILL be arming someone else.  How would I feel if she were shot with my 19 in her purse? Pretty shitty. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The point. You missed it. Not at all, I sidestepped it.  ETA: Actually, re-reading your response, I think you missed it.
I could say the very same thing. But I chose not to.
I addressed each of your previous points in my post. In some ways I think every swingin' dick should be able to carry. More targets.
Now that's the attitude we should all have!
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
More training (including shooting) should be sought after in the future. And I couldn't agree more. Training is great! I believe the Rock County sheriff is offering an eight hour course with live fire for only $100, I think that should be a great place to start. I also don't think there should be any mandatory training either. I think our training requirements in this state are a farce. No other states will even look at reciprocity because of our poor standards.
Looks like a lot of folks got what they wanted.
Good thing we can get a Utah for cheap and carry in most of the states that permit out of state licenses! Add an Arizona and your pretty much set. If you don't mind longer training requirements which will ultimately cost more then having to obtain a few extra permits won't be that big a deal. By having less requirements we have an easier road to eliminating them all together in the future like most states are slowly moving toward. I'd rather make it easy for people to get permits (Like your wife) and get as much training as they feel necessary for them. She may be able to get her CCW, but she will not be carrying until she gets more training. I can appreciate your thinking, but I can't agree with it. I've been on WAY too many firing lines and shot around folks who shouldn't be allowed to procreate, let alone carry a pistol.
Again, just my opinion. And I am sure plenty of my good friends on here would lynch me for even saying it.
most self defense situations do not require the finesse& speed to draw and shoot two assailants who have the drop on you. having a weapon in a womans purse might be enough to give her enough confidence that she can project to avoid a confrontation all together. some people look like victims, others can give you the "im not one to be messed with look" just by locking eyes with them. that said, no one can be over trained. however most are under trained. the lack of substance required for the classes to acquire a CCW in wi is pathetic, as a hunter safety cert is sufficient. they do not cover much in terms of firearm handling in that course, what little they do cover is obscured by the massive amount of DNR regulations and rules. if the DOJ had half a brain they would require completion of a online or printed out test on general firearm safety. if you pass that test you get the permit. have it be a 8.5X11 paper that can be read by a scan tron machine, or a online form that gives you a instant approval that you print out and mail in with your application. this would ensure each CCW licensee at least looked over safe firearm handling rules, and some substance on good shoot/bad shoot situations in WI, as well as use of deadly force laws. etc... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
She took ten minutes to find a four inch knife in her purse today. It would have been used on her by the time she found it. Same with a pistol.
Quoted:
Again, just my opinion. And I am sure plenty of my good friends on here would lynch me for even saying it.
Your opinion sucks and is totally wrong, morally and intellectually. No need to get a rope, though.
Reciprocity: About half the states that offer reciprocity do so regardless of training requirements. Some recognize regardless (IN and MI, for instance), and some recognize as long as the originating state recognizes theirs. In reality, there are only a few states that require substantially similar training by statute (OH off the top of my head), and some states (NY/NJ/CA) will never offer reciprocity. While I agree wholly that training is a good thing and we all need more, forbidding your wife to carry just because she doesn't have "enough" training is bullshit. How will you react if she is accosted between now and then? You'd never forgive yourself. C'mon brother, think it through. Look, we're talking about a right here. The very idea of requiring training is wrong. Do we require "training" in order to buy a book or go to church? How about before we are protected from unlawful search and seizure? Trial by jury? Of course not. Relaxing the training requirement for CCW is a good thing. By all means, we should all get trained and keep training, but requiring it for someone to exercise a natural right is a wrong idea at its core. You and I talked about "situational awareness" she has none. I love her dearly, but she has SO much to learn. She needs to learn a LOT before I think she would do herself any good to carry. Otherwise, she will, WILL be arming someone else.
How would I feel if she were shot with my 19 in her purse? Pretty shitty. you would feel even worse if something happened, say another state fair riot, and you had told her she is not professional enough to carry a weapon yet.... if she is comfortable with a weapon in her purse, i say let her carry. so long as she obeys the basic safety rules, and is not one who looses her purse |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The point. You missed it. Not at all, I sidestepped it. I could say the very same thing. But I chose not to. In some ways I think every swingin' dick should be able to carry. More targets.
The bottom line is that it's a fundamental right and there should be no training required. 99% of American's don't understand the 4th amendment, but that doesn't mean they should not be able to exercise that right. It's the same concept. I don't need training to protect myself with a handgun. My girlfriend does NOT need training to protect herself with a handgun, it's a fundamental right. Would I encourage her to get training, of course... but it's HER RIGHT to carry a handgun, regardless of training :) |
|
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted: <SNIP> if the DOJ had half a brain they would require completion of a online or printed out test on general firearm safety. if you pass that test you get the permit. have it be a 8.5X11 paper that can be read by a scan tron machine, or a online form that gives you a instant approval that you print out and mail in with your application.
this would ensure each CCW licensee at least looked over safe firearm handling rules, and some substance on good shoot/bad shoot situations in WI, as well as use of deadly force laws. etc... Or it would been taken for someone else that didn't feel like sitting through it. There is no way to verify the person testing, vs face to face like Hunter's Safety, etc... I see what you're saying, and I myself like the convenience of online learning. Some things I don't think we can do that with. I don't see the DMV allowing the Driver's Exam to be done online, a very similar concept to yours, for the same reasons. |
|
There is not a shred of objective data anywhere in any State that supports the "feeling" that any training at all improves the safety of the public or the person carrying, In fact, there are a significant number of States that require -0- training (just pay $$), and of those that do require some training, more than half have no range requirment at all.
The idea that more training...even any training...makes the carryer or public safer just is not true. Yet, it is nearly impossible to change the "feeling" that it should be so. I agree that it "feels" like it should make a difference, but there is -0- none nada zilch data to support that feeling. |
|
Quoted:
There is not a shred of objective data anywhere in any State that supports the "feeling" that any training at all improves the safety of the public or the person carrying, In fact, there are a significant number of States that require -0- training (just pay $$), and of those that do require some training, more than half have no range requirment at all. The idea that more training...even any training...makes the carryer or public safer just is not true. Yet, it is nearly impossible to change the "feeling" that it should be so. I agree that it "feels" like it should make a difference, but there is -0- none nada zilch data to support that feeling. Well, Hunters Safety has lowered the occurances of firearms accidents...that is safety training, and it is a statistic that is out there. |
|
Quoted:
There is not a shred of objective data anywhere in any State that supports the "feeling" that any training at all improves the safety of the public or the person carrying, In fact, there are a significant number of States that require -0- training (just pay $$), and of those that do require some training, more than half have no range requirment at all. The idea that more training...even any training...makes the carryer or public safer just is not true. Yet, it is nearly impossible to change the "feeling" that it should be so. I agree that it "feels" like it should make a difference, but there is -0- none nada zilch data to support that feeling. I am not going to argue that every one does not have the God given right to self preservation but your statement that training in no way improves the safety of the public fails the test of common sense. A person that has absolutely no firearms experience may have the right to protect themselves but that does not mean they have the ability. I have worked behind the counter and had to try to convince a woman (unsuccessfully) that "target" ammunition is lethal. She did not want to "hurt" anyone just "scare them off." Her conviction that target ammunition would not hurt someone reinforces my "feeling" that this woman could be a danger to the public. Or how about the old man that rationalized that bird shot would just sting a bit and he could "scare" off an intruder with a couple shots from a double barrel 12g? Would you not agree that these individuals and the public would be better served if these people were better educated in the use and repercussions there of,in the employment of a firearm for self defense? So your notion that training will not make anyone safer has no "statistical"( by your own omission) basis in reality. Next time you want to say no statistical evidence exists to support one side of an argument please cite some supporting your opposing side of the argument that you claim exists. Since 73.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot I will instead resort to the employment of common sense for purposes of this discussion. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is not a shred of objective data anywhere in any State that supports the "feeling" that any training at all improves the safety of the public or the person carrying, In fact, there are a significant number of States that require -0- training (just pay $$), and of those that do require some training, more than half have no range requirment at all. The idea that more training...even any training...makes the carryer or public safer just is not true. Yet, it is nearly impossible to change the "feeling" that it should be so. I agree that it "feels" like it should make a difference, but there is -0- none nada zilch data to support that feeling. I am not going to argue that every one does not have the God given right to self preservation but your statement that training in no way improves the safety of the public fails the test of common sense. A person that has absolutely no firearms experience may have the right to protect themselves but that does not mean they have the ability. I have worked behind the counter and had to try to convince a woman (unsuccessfully) that "target" ammunition is lethal. She did not want to "hurt" anyone just "scare them off." Her conviction that target ammunition would not hurt someone reinforces my "feeling" that this woman could be a danger to the public. Or how about the old man that rationalized that bird shot would just sting a bit and he could "scare" off an intruder with a couple shots from a double barrel 12g? Would you not agree that these individuals and the public would be better served if these people were better educated in the use and repercussions there of,in the employment of a firearm for self defense? So your notion that training will not make anyone safer has no "statistical"( by your own omission) basis in reality. Next time you want to say no statistical evidence exists to support one side of an argument please cite some supporting your opposing side of the argument that you claim exists. Since 73.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot I will instead resort to the employment of common sense for purposes of this discussion. Who gives a shit if they have the ability? They have the fundamental right to defend themselves, you do not need training for that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is not a shred of objective data anywhere in any State that supports the "feeling" that any training at all improves the safety of the public or the person carrying, In fact, there are a significant number of States that require -0- training (just pay $$), and of those that do require some training, more than half have no range requirment at all. The idea that more training...even any training...makes the carryer or public safer just is not true. Yet, it is nearly impossible to change the "feeling" that it should be so. I agree that it "feels" like it should make a difference, but there is -0- none nada zilch data to support that feeling. I am not going to argue that every one does not have the God given right to self preservation but your statement that training in no way improves the safety of the public fails the test of common sense. A person that has absolutely no firearms experience may have the right to protect themselves but that does not mean they have the ability. I have worked behind the counter and had to try to convince a woman (unsuccessfully) that "target" ammunition is lethal. She did not want to "hurt" anyone just "scare them off." Her conviction that target ammunition would not hurt someone reinforces my "feeling" that this woman could be a danger to the public. Or how about the old man that rationalized that bird shot would just sting a bit and he could "scare" off an intruder with a couple shots from a double barrel 12g? Would you not agree that these individuals and the public would be better served if these people were better educated in the use and repercussions there of,in the employment of a firearm for self defense? So your notion that training will not make anyone safer has no "statistical"( by your own omission) basis in reality. Next time you want to say no statistical evidence exists to support one side of an argument please cite some supporting your opposing side of the argument that you claim exists. Since 73.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot I will instead resort to the employment of common sense for purposes of this discussion. Who gives a shit if they have the ability? They have the fundamental right to defend themselves, you do not need training for that. I guess I care.People that exercise the right and make a mistake tend to open the door for legislation taking away that right. Remember what we went through with the AWB in 1994, all because of appearances? Even as an LEO it was a PITA for me trying t get magazines and rifles with collapsing and folding stocks, flash hiders, etc... You know that the media is just waiting for an incident involving a CCW permit holder that they can twst to show that the public shouldn't have CCW. So while yes, it is a right, I am very supportive of training in how best to exercise that right responsibly. |
|
Quoted:
Does this change the language of the training certificates? Do I need to take a CCW class still, or do prior training certificates count now? You need to show that you have received some sort of firearms safety training. Removed was the requirement that it has to be a minimum of 4 hrs long, as well as some of the requirements for the Instructors contact information and such be present on the certificate. If you have prior certificates, they are processing them for as long as the rule is suspended. If you don't have a certificate or training and can get someone to do it in 1 hour, that's on you. Depends on if you will find an instructor that honestly will assume that sort of liability. I still have to follow the DOJ format, so anything I do may still be around 4 hours just for the time to cover it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
More training (including shooting) should be sought after in the future. And I couldn't agree more. Training is great! I believe the Rock County sheriff is offering an eight hour course with live fire for only $100, I think that should be a great place to start. I also don't think there should be any mandatory training either. I think our training requirements in this state are a farce. No other states will even look at reciprocity because of our poor standards.
Looks like a lot of folks got what they wanted.
Good thing we can get a Utah for cheap and carry in most of the states that permit out of state licenses! Add an Arizona and your pretty much set. If you don't mind longer training requirements which will ultimately cost more then having to obtain a few extra permits won't be that big a deal. By having less requirements we have an easier road to eliminating them all together in the future like most states are slowly moving toward. I'd rather make it easy for people to get permits (Like your wife) and get as much training as they feel necessary for them. She may be able to get her CCW, but she will not be carrying until she gets more training. I can appreciate your thinking, but I can't agree with it. I've been on WAY too many firing lines and shot around folks who shouldn't be allowed to procreate, let alone carry a pistol.
Again, just my opinion. And I am sure plenty of my good friends on here would lynch me for even saying it.
Since I'm told dog piling is ok..... D, if your wife is an adult over the age of 21, legally allowed to own a handgun, has a legal permit to carry concealed, who are you to stop her? It is her choice and not yours to decide IF and WHEN she carries. I know you love her, but it's still her choice. Now before you respond, be advised that I know you might be butt hurt, have sand in your vagina, or need to procure a box of tampons and a bottle Pamprin. So choose your words carefully. lol 
|
|
Quoted:
Now before you respond, be advised that I know you might be butt hurt, have sand in your vagina, or need to procure a box of tampons and a bottle Pamprin. So choose your words carefully. lol Nothing that can't be solved over a nice, romantic, candle lit fondue.
|
|
It was stated: "I am not going to argue that every one does not have the God given right to self preservation but your statement that training in no way improves the safety of the public fails the test of common sense."
Which, of course, is absolutely true. It does fail the "feeling" and "common sense" test. But, it does not fail the test of every objective study ever done to determine if the training for a permit to carry has made any change, positive or negative, in the safety or the permit holder or others. There is no data to support the common sense belief. I do not disagree that training is a good idea. I think that knowledge and skill set improvement, is a good thing. I think that knowing the law on the use of force, how to interact with law enforcement, how police use the Reid technique against you, is all worthwhile. But, there is no change in the statistics of accidental shootings or wrongful shootings in any State that mandates training. It just makes no difference except, of course, in the "common sense" equation. The problem with instituting common sense gun control is who determines what that is? Me? "You" ? Nancy Pelosi? Justice Stevens? Who? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is not a shred of objective data anywhere in any State that supports the "feeling" that any training at all improves the safety of the public or the person carrying, In fact, there are a significant number of States that require -0- training (just pay $$), and of those that do require some training, more than half have no range requirment at all. The idea that more training...even any training...makes the carryer or public safer just is not true. Yet, it is nearly impossible to change the "feeling" that it should be so. I agree that it "feels" like it should make a difference, but there is -0- none nada zilch data to support that feeling. I am not going to argue that every one does not have the God given right to self preservation but your statement that training in no way improves the safety of the public fails the test of common sense. A person that has absolutely no firearms experience may have the right to protect themselves but that does not mean they have the ability. I have worked behind the counter and had to try to convince a woman (unsuccessfully) that "target" ammunition is lethal. She did not want to "hurt" anyone just "scare them off." Her conviction that target ammunition would not hurt someone reinforces my "feeling" that this woman could be a danger to the public. Or how about the old man that rationalized that bird shot would just sting a bit and he could "scare" off an intruder with a couple shots from a double barrel 12g? Would you not agree that these individuals and the public would be better served if these people were better educated in the use and repercussions there of,in the employment of a firearm for self defense? So your notion that training will not make anyone safer has no "statistical"( by your own omission) basis in reality. Next time you want to say no statistical evidence exists to support one side of an argument please cite some supporting your opposing side of the argument that you claim exists. Since 73.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot I will instead resort to the employment of common sense for purposes of this discussion. Who gives a shit if they have the ability? They have the fundamental right to defend themselves, you do not need training for that. David. I give a shit. If I did not I would have sold the crazy lady a gun and ammo. I would have sold the old guy a box AA #8's. If you had read my opening statement clearly should have noted that I believe everyone has the fundamental right to self preservation. I even subscribe to the 2 men 1 life preserver argument as being justifiable homicide. Riddle me this. I am in a parking lot with my child. I witness an altercation between a man and a woman in which the man initiates an attack with a gun. Women acting upon her God given right to defend herself counterattacks. Woman has no training in the use of a firearm. She the proceeds to start firing wildly at her attacker. Subsequently I witness several innocent bystanders get struck by her errant shots as she continues to fire "at" her attacker. At what point is the woman firing erratically posing enough threat to me and mine that I now am forced into the position of using lethal force to defend myself and family? As far fetched as you make think this scenario sounds it is very possible. It is even possible with individuals who have extensive training such as in cases of "contagious fire" in LE shootings. Would training have prevented this. Maybe. Maybe not. But it sure would not have complicated matters any. So while I would love to have the "who gives a shit" I find myself unable to simply brush away the responsibility that also come with the use of a firearm for someone's "God given right of self preservation." Maybe the courses I have taken on the use of deadly force and its repercussions have taken away my ability to simply "not give a shit?" If so then I think it was time and money well spent. |
|
Quoted:
Do you have a source that says there are no changes in statistics of accidental shootings or wrongful shootings in any State that mandates training? What is your basis for this?
It was stated: "I am not going to argue that every one does not have the God given right to self preservation but your statement that training in no way improves the safety of the public fails the test of common sense." Which, of course, is absolutely true. It does fail the "feeling" and "common sense" test. But, it does not fail the test of every objective study ever done to determine if the training for a permit to carry has made any change, positive or negative, in the safety or the permit holder or others. There is no data to support the common sense belief. I do not disagree that training is a good idea. I think that knowledge and skill set improvement, is a good thing. I think that knowing the law on the use of force, how to interact with law enforcement, how police use the Reid technique against you, is all worthwhile. But, there is no change in the statistics of accidental shootings or wrongful shootings in any State that mandates training. It just makes no difference except, of course, in the "common sense" equation. The problem with instituting common sense gun control is who determines what that is? Me? "You" ? Nancy Pelosi? Justice Stevens? Who? |
|
Quoted:
It was stated: "I am not going to argue that every one does not have the God given right to self preservation but your statement that training in no way improves the safety of the public fails the test of common sense." Which, of course, is absolutely true. It does fail the "feeling" and "common sense" test. But, it does not fail the test of every objective study ever done to determine if the training for a permit to carry has made any change, positive or negative, in the safety or the permit holder or others. There is no data to support the common sense belief. I do not disagree that training is a good idea. I think that knowledge and skill set improvement, is a good thing. I think that knowing the law on the use of force, how to interact with law enforcement, how police use the Reid technique against you, is all worthwhile. But, there is no change in the statistics of accidental shootings or wrongful shootings in any State that mandates training. It just makes no difference except, of course, in the "common sense" equation. The problem with instituting common sense gun control is who determines what that is? Me? "You" ? Nancy Pelosi? Justice Stevens? Who? So you are saying that you will choose to ignore common sense until someone does a statistical analysis supporting it's outcome? I am not aware of any statistics that demonstrate that is I call my wife a fat, smelly, disgusting useless troll I will not get any action but common sense tells me it is not a good idea if I want keep getting laid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you have a source that says there are no changes in statistics of accidental shootings or wrongful shootings in any State that mandates training? What is your basis for this?
It was stated: "I am not going to argue that every one does not have the God given right to self preservation but your statement that training in no way improves the safety of the public fails the test of common sense." Which, of course, is absolutely true. It does fail the "feeling" and "common sense" test. But, it does not fail the test of every objective study ever done to determine if the training for a permit to carry has made any change, positive or negative, in the safety or the permit holder or others. There is no data to support the common sense belief. I do not disagree that training is a good idea. I think that knowledge and skill set improvement, is a good thing. I think that knowing the law on the use of force, how to interact with law enforcement, how police use the Reid technique against you, is all worthwhile. But, there is no change in the statistics of accidental shootings or wrongful shootings in any State that mandates training. It just makes no difference except, of course, in the "common sense" equation. The problem with instituting common sense gun control is who determines what that is? Me? "You" ? Nancy Pelosi? Justice Stevens? Who? The collective work of John Lott and the FBI Crime stats and stats re death/injury by firearms. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was stated: "I am not going to argue that every one does not have the God given right to self preservation but your statement that training in no way improves the safety of the public fails the test of common sense." Which, of course, is absolutely true. It does fail the "feeling" and "common sense" test. But, it does not fail the test of every objective study ever done to determine if the training for a permit to carry has made any change, positive or negative, in the safety or the permit holder or others. There is no data to support the common sense belief. I do not disagree that training is a good idea. I think that knowledge and skill set improvement, is a good thing. I think that knowing the law on the use of force, how to interact with law enforcement, how police use the Reid technique against you, is all worthwhile. But, there is no change in the statistics of accidental shootings or wrongful shootings in any State that mandates training. It just makes no difference except, of course, in the "common sense" equation. The problem with instituting common sense gun control is who determines what that is? Me? "You" ? Nancy Pelosi? Justice Stevens? Who? So you are saying that you will choose to ignore common sense until someone does a statistical analysis supporting it's outcome? I am not aware of any statistics that demonstrate that is I call my wife a fat, smelly, disgusting useless troll I will not get any action but common sense tells me it is not a good idea if I want keep getting laid. That is an absurd argument. But, to play along....I would say that if legislation is going to be introduced to remove and diminish both a God-given human right, as well as that written in the Second Amendment, that there be a basis for so doing other than "common sense". As I noted earlier, who determines common sense? Clearly, you do not want me to make such a value judgment, and I likewise would not want you determining what are "common sense" gun regulations. So, who then is qualified to make such a decision? Again, please do not misunderstand. I am not suggesting that training is not a good, even desirable thing. I am suggesting that the evidence that is out there...much of it analyzed by John Lott, does not show that training has made any difference in public or personal safety, notwithstanding the feeling that it should. I also noted earlier that it is impossible to argue feelings as it is an unwinnable argument for either side. So, I am done commenting on this thread. I would end my participation by noting that I commend the ptb's that have ordered a rescinding of a portion of the emergency rules. If a person is not happy with that, then do what all of us need to do in such cases....elect different people. I do applaud the poster that argues for more training. I do understand the feeling. I do think it is a good thing. I just do not think it should be mandated, common sense or not. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you have a source that says there are no changes in statistics of accidental shootings or wrongful shootings in any State that mandates training? What is your basis for this?
It was stated: "I am not going to argue that every one does not have the God given right to self preservation but your statement that training in no way improves the safety of the public fails the test of common sense." Which, of course, is absolutely true. It does fail the "feeling" and "common sense" test. But, it does not fail the test of every objective study ever done to determine if the training for a permit to carry has made any change, positive or negative, in the safety or the permit holder or others. There is no data to support the common sense belief. I do not disagree that training is a good idea. I think that knowledge and skill set improvement, is a good thing. I think that knowing the law on the use of force, how to interact with law enforcement, how police use the Reid technique against you, is all worthwhile. But, there is no change in the statistics of accidental shootings or wrongful shootings in any State that mandates training. It just makes no difference except, of course, in the "common sense" equation. The problem with instituting common sense gun control is who determines what that is? Me? "You" ? Nancy Pelosi? Justice Stevens? Who? The collective work of John Lott and the FBI Crime stats and stats re death/injury by firearms. Ahhh, the FBI CRIME Statistics. Please show where they indicate accidental shootings and safety training variables? FBI Crime Statistics Can you cite John Lott's work where he says that? If you're going to make claims like you are, you better be ready to back them up with the numbers you're claiming. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: More training (including shooting) should be sought after in the future. And I couldn't agree more. Training is great! I believe the Rock County sheriff is offering an eight hour course with live fire for only $100, I think that should be a great place to start. I also don't think there should be any mandatory training either. I think our training requirements in this state are a farce. No other states will even look at reciprocity because of our poor standards. Looks like a lot of folks got what they wanted. Good thing we can get a Utah for cheap and carry in most of the states that permit out of state licenses! Add an Arizona and your pretty much set. If you don't mind longer training requirements which will ultimately cost more then having to obtain a few extra permits won't be that big a deal. By having less requirements we have an easier road to eliminating them all together in the future like most states are slowly moving toward. I'd rather make it easy for people to get permits (Like your wife) and get as much training as they feel necessary for them. She may be able to get her CCW, but she will not be carrying until she gets more training. I can appreciate your thinking, but I can't agree with it. I've been on WAY too many firing lines and shot around folks who shouldn't be allowed to procreate, let alone carry a pistol. Again, just my opinion. And I am sure plenty of my good friends on here would lynch me for even saying it. Since I'm told dog piling is ok..... D, if your wife is an adult over the age of 21, legally allowed to own a handgun, has a legal permit to carry concealed, who are you to stop her? It is her choice and not yours to decide IF and WHEN she carries. I know you love her, but it's still her choice. Now before you respond, be advised that I know you might be butt hurt, have sand in your vagina, or need to procure a box of tampons and a bottle Pamprin. So choose your words carefully. lol I thought about it over night. My stepson is only 16 but feels he should be able to carry also. After thinking about it, I agreed. He has no training (who cares), he has low knowledge of firearms (other than video games, which he is GREAT at!), he's only 16, but I thought to myself, who cares, it IS his God given right to bear arms. I don't think it says anything in the Second Amendment about having to be 21. He's now concealing a G19 at school. I feel safer. Here he is at 14, with one of the finest weapons ever built. A Grail (angels singing in the background). This is his warface!! He is taller now. I feel good. Thanks Todd for pointing this out to me.  |
|
I won't argue either way in the case of training being a requirement for receiving a permit, but to say that evidence is needed to prove that training will indeed provide for a safer environment is absurd. The Founders (well, the philosophers before them) never would have conceived of the concept or rights if they were limited to statistics surrounding that which existed in practice.
Which makes more sense to a rational person: More training equals safer CCW holders, or more training equals less-safe CCW holders? You can argue that the benefit is negligible, but it certainly favors the side of being safer. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was stated: "I am not going to argue that every one does not have the God given right to self preservation but your statement that training in no way improves the safety of the public fails the test of common sense." Which, of course, is absolutely true. It does fail the "feeling" and "common sense" test. But, it does not fail the test of every objective study ever done to determine if the training for a permit to carry has made any change, positive or negative, in the safety or the permit holder or others. There is no data to support the common sense belief. I do not disagree that training is a good idea. I think that knowledge and skill set improvement, is a good thing. I think that knowing the law on the use of force, how to interact with law enforcement, how police use the Reid technique against you, is all worthwhile. But, there is no change in the statistics of accidental shootings or wrongful shootings in any State that mandates training. It just makes no difference except, of course, in the "common sense" equation. The problem with instituting common sense gun control is who determines what that is? Me? "You" ? Nancy Pelosi? Justice Stevens? Who? So you are saying that you will choose to ignore common sense until someone does a statistical analysis supporting it's outcome? I am not aware of any statistics that demonstrate that is I call my wife a fat, smelly, disgusting useless troll I will not get any action but common sense tells me it is not a good idea if I want keep getting laid. What i do not understand is by your own admission you say that you think training is a"good thing" but you continually say there is no benefit to it according to the evidence. Why would you be in favor of something that you believe is irrelevant? That is an absurd argument. But, to play along....I would say that if legislation is going to be introduced to remove and diminish both a God-given human right, as well as that written in the Second Amendment, that there be a basis for so doing other than "common sense". As I noted earlier, who determines common sense? Clearly, you do not want me to make such a value judgment, and I likewise would not want you determining what are "common sense" gun regulations. So, who then is qualified to make such a decision? Again, please do not misunderstand. I am not suggesting that training is not a good, even desirable thing. I am suggesting that the evidence that is out there...much of it analyzed by John Lott, does not show that training has made any difference in public or personal safety, notwithstanding the feeling that it should. I also noted earlier that it is impossible to argue feelings as it is an unwinnable argument for either side. So, I am done commenting on this thread. I would end my participation by noting that I commend the ptb's that have ordered a rescinding of a portion of the emergency rules. If a person is not happy with that, then do what all of us need to do in such cases....elect different people. I do applaud the poster that argues for more training. I do understand the feeling. I do think it is a good thing. I just do not think it should be mandated, common sense or not. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was stated: "I am not going to argue that every one does not have the God given right to self preservation but your statement that training in no way improves the safety of the public fails the test of common sense." Which, of course, is absolutely true. It does fail the "feeling" and "common sense" test. But, it does not fail the test of every objective study ever done to determine if the training for a permit to carry has made any change, positive or negative, in the safety or the permit holder or others. There is no data to support the common sense belief. I do not disagree that training is a good idea. I think that knowledge and skill set improvement, is a good thing. I think that knowing the law on the use of force, how to interact with law enforcement, how police use the Reid technique against you, is all worthwhile. But, there is no change in the statistics of accidental shootings or wrongful shootings in any State that mandates training. It just makes no difference except, of course, in the "common sense" equation. The problem with instituting common sense gun control is who determines what that is? Me? "You" ? Nancy Pelosi? Justice Stevens? Who? So you are saying that you will choose to ignore common sense until someone does a statistical analysis supporting it's outcome? I am not aware of any statistics that demonstrate that is I call my wife a fat, smelly, disgusting useless troll I will not get any action but common sense tells me it is not a good idea if I want keep getting laid. What i do not understand is by your own admission you say that you think training is a"good thing" but you continually say there is no benefit to it according to the evidence. Why would you be in favor of something that you believe is irrelevant? That is an absurd argument. But, to play along....I would say that if legislation is going to be introduced to remove and diminish both a God-given human right, as well as that written in the Second Amendment, that there be a basis for so doing other than "common sense". As I noted earlier, who determines common sense? Clearly, you do not want me to make such a value judgment, and I likewise would not want you determining what are "common sense" gun regulations. So, who then is qualified to make such a decision? Again, please do not misunderstand. I am not suggesting that training is not a good, even desirable thing. I am suggesting that the evidence that is out there...much of it analyzed by John Lott, does not show that training has made any difference in public or personal safety, notwithstanding the feeling that it should. I also noted earlier that it is impossible to argue feelings as it is an unwinnable argument for either side. So, I am done commenting on this thread. I would end my participation by noting that I commend the ptb's that have ordered a rescinding of a portion of the emergency rules. If a person is not happy with that, then do what all of us need to do in such cases....elect different people. I do applaud the poster that argues for more training. I do understand the feeling. I do think it is a good thing. I just do not think it should be mandated, common sense or not. So you are saying that you will choose to ignore common sense until someone does a statistical analysis supporting it's outcome? I am not aware of any statistics that demonstrate that is I call my wife a fat, smelly, disgusting useless troll I will not get any action but common sense tells me it is not a good idea if I want keep getting laid. What i do not understand is by your own admission you say that you think training is a"good thing" but you continually say there is no benefit to it according to the evidence. Why would you be in favor of something that you believe is irrelevant? Also if training has no added benefits than why does the FBI waste its time training its field agents to handle firearms? Seems a waste of resources if one were to follow your logic. As absurd as you believe my argument to be I saw you made no attempt at rebuttal. No one person can determine what is common sense for the rest of society any more than one person can make a determination as to what constitutes pornography. |
|
The "firearms" training shouldn't be required in any state but what training should be is the legal side of carrying, ie good/bad shoot rules regulations of that state etc. to meet my states training requirements I did a "home study class" took about a week to get my certificate, not sure if it would satisfy WI though. Here's a link to the class http://highlandsranchfirearms.com/ |