Therefore there should be mandatory training and psychological screening
before you are allowed to vote and buy newspapers
This is where my thoughts go when I think of mandated training required before you're licensed to carry concealed. I think that's what we're still talking about anyway: mandated training before a license to carry concealed is issued.
This thread seems to be arguing about whether or not a person, without training, should be licensed to operate a firearm in self defense, NOT whether or not they can carry a concealed weapon. What about the times that a license isn't required, for instance carrying concealed in your own home? Should I have to complete training to make that legal? Should I require training to open carry where it's allowed without a license? Should self defense courses be required by hunters, since they will operate firearms in the public arena?
Feel that incline getting a little steeper?
I can absolutely see why a CHL instructor (this is not directed at you TC-TX) would think that training should be a mandatory government requirement. It makes it easier to get business, as long as it's not government funded training. Now if it the training part was turned into a state job, with benefits and all that, complete with the eye exam and waiting in line after you've taken an number, etc etc.
Teaching people to operate automobiles and testing them to prove competency before we issue a license: has this prevented road rage or irresponsible behavior? Please don't tell me that's a weak argument, since the gun ban vs car ban argument is brought up on this forum about once every three threads.
I think I can understand why M2 Carbine feels like he does. M2, if I mix your meaning up, please correct me. If someone is going to handle and perhaps use a firearm around you in a heated, unpredictable self-defense situation, you want them to be trained. You don't want them to just be competent, You want them to be highly competent.
Go back to the first thing in my post. If someone is going to exercise a responsibility that affects others in the public arena, we want them to be competent. We would prefer that they were highly competent to use these, wossname, things, forgot the name . . .
Oh yeah: rights. Do you believe you have a right to act in self defense (with or without training) or don't you?
We allow (even encourage) the illiterate to vote. I'm literate and I still don't understand some of the legalese on the ballot initiatives of my state without resorting to a dictionary. We have banned the sale and importation of alcohol in this country by Constitutional amendment, and then thirteen years later undid it with another amendment, wasting lives and untold tax revenue enforcing the legislation. We, the people, and our competent elected representatives, did this with our vote. We did not trust ourselves to operate a beverage responsibly.
I see mandated training turned into another bureaucracy. I see mandated self-defense insurance to carry a firearm in any capacity, including hunting. I see that either the costs for carrying a concealed weapon would skyrocket, depending on the competency level required by the government, or that the training could be rather useless.
I see that a person who achieves this high level of competence will murder someone with the firearm they were licensed to carry.
Honestly, I have mixed feelings about mandated training. I know my statements lean against it, but there are times when I would feel better (subjective) knowing the person next to me had received a level of training before they started packing heat.
jm
