What good do carry permits accomplish?

[Warp]

That's a straw man argument and actually indicative of nothing. In how many justifiable self defensive shootings was that even a probable event based on the scenario?

It's not a straw man at all.

It's as on topic as it gets.

I'm waiting for the list of examples where this was a problem.

So are you saying that less than 12 hours of training is sufficient for somebody to have the knowledge to responsibly carry a gun? I beg to differ. Yes, there are people, such as myself, who have taken the time to self educate but there are countless who don't.

I'm waiting for the list of examples where this was a problem.

And far too regularly people make foolish decisions with their weapons. Yeah, they do in TX too but educating people on firearm safety and the proper use of force can only help to reduce irresponsible use of firearms. I don't believe anybody will argue that is not the case.

MANY people can, will, and do argue against government mandated training being required prior to exercising their "Right" to keep and bear arms.

Unjustified shootings, unsafe gun handling causing injury or death, escalation of confrontations, etc. These things all happen and as I said, education is the only weapon we have in combatting such events.

Those things all happen in states where training is required.

If your contention is that they happen more frequently in states without training requirements, I'd like to see your evidence supporting this belief.

If not...why should training be required?

 

[smalls]

Those who say the training requirements are good, but then share anecdotes of people showing up with guns they've never shot, and will probably never shoot again- what benefit did that "training" do for them?

All the government did was force them to sit through a class which they probably half slept through, then made them shoot a "qualifier" that some could shoot blind (and some probably do).

Sounds pointless to me.

I sure hope these people DO get further training, for their sake AND mine. The thought of these people armed on the streets scares me.

But that's freedom. Sometimes it's a little scary.

 

[larryh1108]

Let's look at how VT differs from many places. VT has been a "free" state since there's been a VT. As discussed, no permits required yet the state hasn't self imploded. Why? I'm guessing that the citizens of that state are exposed to safe firearm handling from the time they are old enough to walk. It's part of their upbringing. They know the safe handling rules from being around them their entire lives. They are well versed in what firearms are and aren't. There are about 525,000 citizens in VT

Compare it to Chicago, IL. Almost 3 million citizens who are about to be given the right to carry. Previous to this new legislation, most of these people have never seen, touched or were educated in firearm safety of any kind. These folks have the right to protect themselves yet IL has stopped them for as long as they could. Now, imagine if they just were allowed to carry without any permit or instruction (which is their right). They have no idea of the 4 rules of safety, how to load a magazine or to keep their finger off the trigger until ready to fire. They load their guns, with their fingers on the triggers, and walk around showing their friends their new found rights. Muzzle sweeping, no finger control, no practice, just their new gun and their new rights. It is their right to own these guns and I have no problem with them getting them but I'd sure feel safer knowing they had some kind of training before a store clerk handed them their new toy and a box of ammo.

Who (if anyone) is responsible to make sure these new gun owners know safe handling? Is a permit required (with training) to be able to carry? Do we just shrug it off as "oh well, it's their right"? Remember, they haven't had the right to grow up around guns and safe handling taught by parents and peers and family. They are new at this and have no clue. What is their right? Do we have a right to not be shot by an ND from a newbie? Fingers on the triggers, sweeping us, twirling their new guns like the movies around their fingers, pointing at a buddy and saying "bang" because it's cool? Do these new people need to be trained or is it their right to be careless by not knowing better?

 

[Warp]

Let's look at how VT differs from many places. VT has been a "free" state since there's been a VT. As discussed, no permits required yet the state hasn't self imploded. Why? I'm guessing that the citizens of that state are exposed to safe firearm handling from the time they are old enough to walk. It's part of their upbringing. They know the safe handling rules from being around them their entire lives. They are well versed in what firearms are and aren't. There are about 525,000 citizens in VT

Compare it to Chicago, IL. Almost 3 million citizens who are about to be given the right to carry. Previous to this new legislation, most of these people have never seen, touched or were educated in firearm safety of any kind. These folks have the right to protect themselves yet IL has stopped them for as long as they could. Now, imagine if they just were allowed to carry without any permit or instruction (which is their right). They have no idea of the 4 rules of safety, how to load a magazine or to keep their finger off the trigger until ready to fire. They load their guns, with their fingers on the triggers, and walk around showing their friends their new found rights. Muzzle sweeping, no finger control, no practice, just their new gun and their new rights. It is their right to own these guns and I have no problem with them getting them but I'd sure feel safer knowing they had some kind of training before a store clerk handed them their new toy and a box of ammo.

Who (if anyone) is responsible to make sure these new gun owners know safe handling? Is a permit required (with training) to be able to carry? Do we just shrug it off as "oh well, it's their right"? Remember, they haven't had the right to grow up around guns and safe handling taught by parents and peers and family. They are new at this and have no clue. What is their right? Do we have a right to not be shot by an ND from a newbie? Fingers on the triggers, sweeping us, twirling their new guns like the movies around their fingers, pointing at a buddy and saying "bang" because it's cool? Do these new people need to be trained or is it their right to be careless by not knowing better?

Have you worked for the Brady campaign before?

Serious question.


But no, seriously, why don't all of those people shoot themselves in gun shops? At the range? At home? When carrying the gun on their person in public is when people are least likely to handle it.

BTW: Nobody is responsible to make sure they know safe handling. That is their responsibility.

 

[smalls]

Who (if anyone) is responsible to make sure these new gun owners know safe handling?

See, this iswhat everyone is missing. Who is responsible for your safe firearms handling?

Uhhhhhh, YOU are. Everyone is responsible for themselves. Not me, and certainly bot the government.This is what's wrong with the world today. It's always someone else's job, or responsibility, and no one has any accountability for themselves.

 

[Warp]

See, this iswhat everyone is missing. Who is responsible for your safe firearms handling?

Uhhhhhh, YOU are. Everyone is responsible for themselves. Not me, and certainly bot the government.This is what's wrong with the world today. It's always someone else's job, or responsibility, and no one has any accountability for themselves.

Quoted For Truth

 

[NavyLCDR]

I'm going to go ahead a sort of disagree with you on this one.

If poor gun handling and safety only affected the person holding the gun making the mistakes I'd agree with you a billion percent, but it doesn't and stuff like this happens, very close to home, and it makes me think that everyone should be required to pass a safety test before owning a firearm.

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/08/two-injured-reported-gun-accident-norfolk

How ironic. You posted a link to a negligent discharge that happened in a state that requires training to obtain their permit! Now, show me where states that don't require training such as Washington have any higher incidents of negligence with firearms.... I've been waiting for a decade now.

 

[Warp]

How ironic. You posted a link to a negligent discharge that happened in a state that requires training to obtain their permit! Now, show me where states that don't require training such as Washington have any higher incidents of negligence with firearms.... I've been waiting for a decade now.

I love it when that happens. Usually people either post nothing, or post something that happened in a training required state. It's so predictable...

 

[larryh1108]

Have you worked for the Brady campaign before?

Serious question.

ummmm, no. Have you? You must since you have comprehension issues.
I asked open ended questions. I mentioned several times that carrying is their right. I did not say we needed to do anything.

Who (if anyone) is responsible to make sure these new gun owners know safe handling?

See what is in parenthesis? Did I state we have to teach folks anything? Did I say we need to require training to allow someone to carry? No. Now, if I stated that we need to do this or that I could understand your comments but if you actually read what was written, I did not state we had to do anything. It is their right to carry and had been kept from them for way too long.

See, asking open ended questions allows for discussions but I see you read what you want and come to conclusions that are off base... kinda like Brady people.

 

[AKElroy]

The only benefit I see is it allows me to stay bonded. A felony weapons possession charge and my career, and my families livelihood, is gone. If we had a more constitutional government even here in liberty loving Texas, I certainly would not bother.

 

[Warp]

ummmm, no. Have you? You must since you have comprehension issues.
I asked open ended questions. I mentioned several times that carrying is their right. I did not say we needed to do anything.



See what is in parenthesis? Did I state we have to teach folks anything? Did I say we need to require training to allow someone to carry? No. Now, if I stated that we need to do this or that I could understand your comments but if you actually read what was written, I did not state we had to do anything. It is their right to carry and had been kept from them for way too long.

See, asking open ended questions allows for discussions but I see you read what you want and come to conclusions that are off base... kinda like Brady people.

The answer to your question is that they and they alone are responsible. Nobody else is. The government is not. There is no need to require them to take any training courses.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The only reasonable conclusion is that residents of states that don't require permits are of a higher class and capability than the rest...and residents of states that are shall issue and do not require training are likewise of a higher class and capability than the states that require training.

Big Daddy Government is just protecting the poor souls in the incapable states from themselves.


Seriously though,

Dang it. I thought you were being serious!

 

[JohnKSa]

Then think about the 127 voters on this poll who are in favor of gun control.

Oh for pity's sake!

The fact that some people are able to note and state benefits provided by carry permits (I listed a few in an earlier post) doesn't mean they are proponents of gun control.

Would I prefer a system that doesn't require permits? Of course! Does that mean that the current system has no benefits at all? Not at all. What I prefer doesn't change reality, and my ability to properly assess reality doesn't make me a gun control advocate.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Once we've reached the point where we are calling each other proponents of gun control, we're done.