CPL w/o training? i think its crazy

[NineseveN]

I'm very Pro 2nd, AND see the value of knowing the dynamics and responsibility of a handgun/ rifle (and the attendant laws) before carrying concealed or otherwise. It IS 200+ years later and, like it or not, making a dumb mistake because of lack of know how regarding weapons.. sets the Pro 2nd among us back 3 steps for every one we take forward.

And how far back does giving the anti's an easy in for further restricting or denying us those same rights by allowing government to take power over what it should never even have access to set us? Every single bit of control that has been given to or taken by the government when it comes to firearms has been perverted, manipulated and has eroded our 2A rights, why is this requirement any different?

It's not.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

NineseveN

"It's not." (NineseveN)

Ahh, but it is. By it's very nature. Joe Foss told me 15 years ago that the American People have every right to carry firearms (in his case..a beautiful S&W pearl handled .38) with the caveat they "have at least a rudimentary working knowledge of said firearms."

I'm a shameless name dropper..but, what the hey, I've been very fortunate to meet some wonderful people... whose opinions I respect.

We didn't have time to discuss the matter further as he was going on the air for an interview, so I can only Speculate as to what his exact thoughts might have been on a mandatory over-view of handgun safety as a means of legal concealed/open carry..but his words tend to lean in that direction, IMO.

You have very strong opinions on this and, unlike so many, articulate them in a succinct , no BS manner.

It would be interesting to have a full discussion on this among several of the posters here..I believe the end result would reveal more common ground than some might credit us with. Never 100%..but close.

Take Care

 

[Soybomb]

Plenty of states allow concealed carry without training, if its more dangerous, I'm shocked they haven't changed it. If you want to require training for ccw, prove its neccessary, the data is out there. So far no ones sold me though.

 

[NineseveN]

"It's not." (NineseveN)

Ahh, but it is. By it's very nature. Joe Foss told me 15 years ago that the American People have every right to carry firearms (in his case..a beautiful S&W pearl handled .38) with the caveat they "have at least a rudimentary working knowledge of said firearms."

I'm a shameless name dropper..but, what the hey, I've been very fortunate to meet some wonderful people... whose opinions I respect.

We didn't have time to discuss the matter further as he was going on the air for an interview, so I can only Speculate as to what his exact thoughts might have been on a mandatory over-view of handgun safety as a means of legal concealed/open carry..but his words tend to lean in that direction, IMO.

I don't drop names out of respect, but I do converse with many folks you might recognize had I named them here, and I converse with them all at least once per week (through e-mail or written correspondence and an occasional call), but I think I might have a different relationship with these folks than you do with J.F. With all due respect to the honorable Mr. Foss (and make no mistake, I think his institute is about some very wonderful things), he didn't write the Second Amendment, and on that note, his particular opinion on it doesn't amount to a hill of beans when comparing it to that of the founders.

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Notice there is nothing in any of those memorable quotes about training. That is not to say that they would not advocate such training, I think they would be very strong proponents of training, but not at the expense of our liberties and not as a requirement to exercising our right. It is clear from the Federalist Papers that the right to keep and bear arms is paramount to any other notion contained in or derived from the Second Amendment. The guns come first and foremost, as I am sure they would wish for an untrained man to be armed than an unarmed man to be trained.

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

However, there is one quote I could readily find that advances the idea of training specifically:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

However, I do not get the notion that mandatory training as a requirement to exercise the right to keep and bear arms is supported by even this quote. I think Mr. Lee is advocating what I would; everyone gets taught, especially when young before they are in a position to keep and bear their own arms, but that the right to do so without training or education is still preserved as the right itself is valued above all else.

You have very strong opinions on this and, unlike so many, articulate them in a succinct , no BS manner.

It would be interesting to have a full discussion on this among several of the posters here..I believe the end result would reveal more common ground than some might credit us with. Never 100%..but close.

Take Care

I think we do largely agree on many points, and I find no issue in saying that I think our disagreements are based on some misunderstandings of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment and the intent and purpose of those that wrote them. I think in time, enough fingering through history could turn this difference right, but only if all involved were so inclined as to take a look at what history had to offer.

Thank you, and take care as well.


It is nice to see 11 pages of this being mostly civil, let's try to keep it that way and not get this thread locked. Thank you.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Is NRA Pro Gun Control..Looks Like A Resounding "Yes."

With their vested financial interest in CCW training classes..and given the criteria expressed in this thread, the NRA's greed essentially trumps any Pro 2nd stance they profess:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3250

"Wouldn't you have to assume that with 38,000 NRA certified firearm safety instructors in the U.S. that most (if not nearly all) of the people who teach the courses required for CCW permits are among those 38,000? I would.

Now ask yourself this: How many of these NRA certified instructors, whose economic life depends upon a steady stream of course attendees, are likely to support the position that it is illegal and unconstitutional for any level of government to REQUIRE gun permits and gun safety courses?

While you're at it, take a look at the NRA as a national organization. What do they sell and profit from? It is the sponsorship of gun training and gun safety courses and teaching materials. Furthermore, this is what the NRA has been doing for over a hundred years. It is their core business.

Do you REALLY expect them to support the position that gun permits (and the training required by them) are unconstitutional? If you do, I've got a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn I'll sell you cheap."

 

[jtward01]

You want to further restrict and regulate a license to carry which swe have now, yet you don't want that same license and restriction on owning firearms...why is it okay for one and not the other? Explain the difference.

It's a matter of degrees. People who apply for a CWP do so with the expectation of carrying their gun not only at home or in their vehicle, but in public, including densely populated public spaces - shopping malls, sports stadiums, etc. It is simply my opinion that before a person is licensed to carry a firearm in such locations they should be required to demonstrate a basic knowledge of firearms safety, concealed carry and deadly force laws, and a reasonable proficiency with their weapon. Whether that knowledge and proficiency is gained through formal training with an instructor, informal training from a friend or relative or simply by studying and practicing on their own I don't care.

I don't care about the person's age, color, religion, income, social status or whatever. I'm simply concerned with their ability to employ their weapon in a manner that will give them the best chance at fending off an attacker while minimizing the danger to those around them.

 

[smince]

Now ask yourself this: How many of these NRA certified instructors, whose economic life depends upon a steady stream of course attendees, are likely to support the position that it is illegal and unconstitutional for any level of government to REQUIRE gun permits and gun safety courses?

Do you REALLY expect them to support the position that gun permits (and the training required by them) are unconstitutional? If you do, I've got a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn I'll sell you cheap."

Speaking as a former NRA-certified Personal Protection Instructor, I for one believe that it is un-Constitutional.

Former because, In the three years I did it I trained exactly three persons, one of whom as my wife. Alabama has no training requirement, and therefore hardly anyone in my area sought out training. Myself, and a few like-minded instructors advertised, but students were lacking.

As for their economic life depending on a stream of attendee's, I know of no one who has ever did this (at the NRA level) as a full time job. Everyone I knew did it as part-time (after working a 40+hr a week job) to help those who actually did seek out training. The only money I made was to pay for the students training materials. You have to look to the Gunsites and the Clint Smith's of the world to see anyone making a "living" at training.

Sure, I believe in training, but not MANDATORY training on a course approved by some Gov't bureaucrat somewhere. The most dangerous people I've encountered on the range were PD officers with just enough "training" to get by, i.e. 70/100 or 80/100. So you have dangerous officers on the street and dangerous civilians also. You also have highly motivated Officers and civilians who seek out the best training they can get, not because their CCW or job depends on it, but their LIVES.

Status Quo.

 

[Sir Aardvark]

The question asked was:

"but, shouldn't some sort of training be done?"

and the answer is:

"How much is enough training, and, if training is required, then how about other requirements, also?"

Where do I start on this one........

Currently, in Orange County, California, you are required to take a 16 hour approved CCW course, get "Live Scan" fingerprinted, have your CCW guns inspected by an official Sherrif's Dept. armorer, be interviewed in person by a representative of the local sherrif's office, show need of a permit, and pay a bunch of money.

Also, California law can require you to undergo psychiatric testing in addition to all of the above (Orange County's Sherrif does not make you do this, but he could if he wanted too).

So....where does it stop?

You give an inch, and the Government will take a mile.

You say: "I think training is a good idea"; they say: "Well... if a little training is okay, then we'll make them do this, and this, and that, and this other thing too......"

Where does it end?

I think that most of what I had to do was excessive and unnecessay and was just placed there to be a roadblock and add frustration and expense to what should have been a simple matter.

I spent 5 days and hundreds of dollars getting my CCW permit, and do you know what?... I'm certain that there is a politician out there who thinks that what I did is not enough, and wants to add even more hoops to jump through.

So, the point I'm trying to get to is:

The Anti-gun forces are strong.
You can't give an inch!
You must fight everything they try do, no matter how reasonable it sounds in the beginning, because it is just a ploy to further their agenda in step-by-step increments.

(Personally, I think that some sort of training is a really good idea, but I don't get to decide what that training is - some politician will do it - and there's the rub).

 

[Herself]

It's a matter of degrees. People who apply for a CWP do so with the expectation of carrying their gun not only at home or in their vehicle, but in public, including densely populated public spaces - shopping malls, sports stadiums, etc.

The horror! The horror!
Less than 1 percent of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders. (Source: Sherman, Steele, Laufersweiler, Hoffer and Julian, "Stray Bullets and Mushrooms," 1989, Journal of Quantitative Criminology)
Just about everyone -- even the antis -- is aware that hot lumps of dense material moving at a high rate of speed exit the muzzle of a gun. This knowlege prompts them to exercise what they deem sufficient caution in the handling and use of firearms.
By and large, people are not fools. The ones that are fools are a much greater danger to others with any number of more common and more powerful devices or artifacts, like forklifts, automobiles and drugs.

It is simply my opinion that before a person is licensed to carry a firearm in such locations they should be required to demonstrate a basic knowledge of firearms safety, concealed carry and deadly force laws, and a reasonable proficiency with their weapon.

As the police are trained in gun-handling, perhaps?
About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person. About 2% of shootings by civilians (all civilians, permit holders or not!) kill an innocent person. That's on a per-shooting basis; we are not comparing raw numbers, we're comparing the rate of innocents killed per shot. Police are about five and a half times to kill an innocent person when they shoot. (C. Kramer and D. Koppel, "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws," Independence Institute Issue paper, Oct. 17, 1994)

The trend of accidental deaths due handguns, from 1981 - 2001 is steadily downward, as the number of permits issued and number of guns sold to the public has grown!

Whether that knowledge and proficiency is gained through formal training with an instructor, informal training from a friend or relative or simply by studying and practicing on their own I don't care.

But you do care to make such training mandatory for anyone to carry a personal firearm -- and that unfairly limits who may carry. It is a violation of the civil rights of such persons.

If you are so very concerned, get yourself certified as an instructor and offer free classes in the care and handling of handguns! Encourage others to do the same. Put your shoulder to the wheel and be the change you want to see in the world. Demanding others conform to your opinion, wanting that opinion to be made law and enforced at the public expense, is mere armchair quarterbacking.

I don't care about the person's age, color, religion, income, social status or whatever. I'm simply concerned with their ability to employ their weapon in a manner that will give them the best chance at fending off an attacker while minimizing the danger to those around them.

The first thing they need in order to employ their weapon in a manner that will protect them is to have a weapon! That's what your plan will stop them doing -- especially if it were to be made law.

Perhaps you should worry about the much larger danger to the public from a group that on a per-capita basis kills 286 times as many people as do gun-owners. Every year, some 400,000 innocents fall prey to this scourge; one in six of the members of the group in question will be the cause of at least one death, as compared to 1 in 56,666 gun-owners.
What is this blight? The practice of medicine. Your own doctor, statistically speaking, is enormously more a risk to your life than the clumsy newbie you watched stumble though her shooting test. (Medical death stats from Dr. David Lawrence, CEO Kaiser Permanente; gun deaths are CDC 1993 data).
Even the nurses are dangerous: according to the Chicago Tribune (September 10, 2000 article), nurses nationwide kill around six people a day, some 2,000 a year. Yet you ingore the actual carnage to focus on a potential harm from civilians who carry guns, a fear not borne out by the numbers.

An imaginary fear does not trump anyone's civil rights. I really thought that had been settled back in the 1960s. Guess not.

--Herself

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It's a matter of degrees. People who apply for a CWP do so with the expectation of carrying their gun not only at home or in their vehicle, but in public, including densely populated public spaces - shopping malls, sports stadiums, etc. It is simply my opinion that before a person is licensed to carry a firearm in such locations they should be required to demonstrate a basic knowledge of firearms safety, concealed carry and deadly force laws, and a reasonable proficiency with their weapon. Whether that knowledge and proficiency is gained through formal training with an instructor, informal training from a friend or relative or simply by studying and practicing on their own I don't care.

I don't care about the person's age, color, religion, income, social status or whatever. I'm simply concerned with their ability to employ their weapon in a manner that will give them the best chance at fending off an attacker while minimizing the danger to those around them.

Once again, what's the problem you're trying to solve?

Is it that CCW holders cause too many accidents? They don't -- the rate of firearms accidents are going down, not up.

Is it that CCW holders commit crimes, shoot people without justification? They don't -- in fact, CCW holders are less likely to misuse a firearm than police.

What is the problem?

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Good Idea To Know Your Weapon

"In retrospect, would Williams have done anything differently?
Although he practices regularly with his handguns, he feels he should have known the Walther P99 better before carrying it."

http://www.law-disorder.com/topics.asp / scroll down about 1/3rd to date: 3-10-'02

Take Care

 

[1911 guy]

Williams and his P99

Let's run with the scenario that this Williams had all sorts of high speed low drag training. Enough to suit the most ardent backers of mandatory training. He/she then carries a handgun they are not 100 percent with. Are we then to assume that the boobs in our government will let rest this "need" for every CCW holder to "qualify" with EVERY handgun they own because they might carry it? Again, the question is not whether training is or is not a good thing, it's where the line gets drawn when it becomes mandatory. Yet another reason for personal responsibility, not government mandated hoops to jump through.

 

[jtward01]

Less than 1 percent of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders. (Source: Sherman, Steele, Laufersweiler, Hoffer and Julian, "Stray Bullets and Mushrooms," 1989, Journal of Quantitative Criminology)

And how many people does that one percent represent?

About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person. About 2% of shootings by civilians (all civilians, permit holders or not!) kill an innocent person. That's on a per-shooting basis; we are not comparing raw numbers, we're comparing the rate of innocents killed per shot. Police are about five and a half times to kill an innocent person when they shoot. (C. Kramer and D. Koppel, "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws," Independence Institute Issue paper, Oct. 17, 1994)

If these figures are accurate then it's clear that at least some police officers are not receiving adequate training.

But you do care to make such training mandatory for anyone to carry a personal firearm -- and that unfairly limits who may carry. It is a violation of the civil rights of such persons.

--Herself

Why won't you acknowlege that I've changed my position from mandatory training to simply a demonstration of a basic knowledge of firearms safety, concealed carry and deadly force laws, and a reasonable proficiency with their weapon?

 

[Janitor]

a reasonable proficiency with their weapon?

Out of curiosity alone ... who would you have define what is "reasonable proficiency"?

 

[NineseveN]

"In retrospect, would Williams have done anything differently?
Although he practices regularly with his handguns, he feels he should have known the Walther P99 better before carrying it."

http://www.law-disorder.com/topics.asp / scroll down about 1/3rd to date: 3-10-'02

Take Care

And there's a situation of a guy that probably couldn't have passed a proficiency test with his gun, that used it when his life was in danger. Under Jtward01's proposal, he would have been beaten and had no way to defend himself.

I used to carry a Walther P99, after shooting 50 rounds through it, the trigger becomes petty instinctual, even with neutered 10round mags. Still, I'm glad he had it, sans proficiency or not, and I am sure he is glad he had it as well.

 

[NineseveN]

If these figures are accurate then it's clear that at least some police officers are not receiving adequate training.

Or maybe perhaps it shows that training only helps those that want helped. It won't make the lazy work hard, it won't make liars honest, it won
t make stupid smart, it won't make reckless, negligent and unsafe people safe unless they choose to carry themselves that way and with that commitment and mindset from that day forth, day in and day out.

Why won't you acknowlege that I've changed my position from mandatory training to simply a demonstration of a basic knowledge of firearms safety, concealed carry and deadly force laws, and a reasonable proficiency with their weapon?

Define "basic knowledge of firearms safety": Is it just the 4 rules, something else? is there a test. Who decides what is on this test. Is it State or Federal? who pays for the test, CHL holders through increased fees? Higher taxes?


Define basic knowledge of "concealed carry and deadly force laws": what level of legal understanding must there be? Who tests this? Who decides what is on this test. Is it State or Federal? who pays for the test, CHL holders through increased fees? Higher taxes? How well do you honestly know your own laws on the subject? Don't cheat and look them up online, how well do you honestly know them?


Define: "a reasonable proficiency with their weapon": Who tests this? Who decides what is on this test. Is it State or Federal? who pays for the test, CHL holders through increased fees? Higher taxes?


So instead of training, you want just a couple of tests? Did you think we would be okay with this? I'll give you a hint, it's not the training part I personally disagree with. If you want to have all CHL's recive free information about firearms safety, concealed carry and deadly force laws and how to be proficient with a gun, hell, I'll sign up right now...provided it does not raise the cost of the permit or taxes in any way, shape or form and there is no test involved with a pass or fail mechanism that can be used as a vehicle to deny the right to carry a firearm. IMHO, It's the restricitve measures and ability to revoke the right through a test that has us all wth our shorts in a knot, I don't think any of us object to free information that would benefit our fellow citizen and more importantly, our fellow firearms owners.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"In retrospect, would Williams have done anything differently?
Although he practices regularly with his handguns, he feels he should have known the Walther P99 better before carrying it."

http://www.law-disorder.com/topics.asp / scroll down about 1/3rd to date: 3-10-'02

Take Care

Although he practices regularly with his handguns, he feels he should have known the Walther P99 better before carrying it. He also feels that the incident would never have come to a shooting if he had known how to close the window on the Porsche

The problem appears to be training with his car -- the only "problem" he had with his Walther P99 was thinking it had "jammed" because the trigger felt different after he fired (the gun is a DA/SA and was now cocked.)

In any case, what interest does the government have here? As CHL advocates in Texas point out, the law worked just like it was supposed to, and Williams successfully defended himself against his attacker. No one else was hurt, no crimes committed (except by his attacker.)

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Nothing Mandatory Here..Only Common Sense

The man just thinks he should have known his weapon better. I agree! Pure and simple..cut and dried.

One point of the Williams piece, IMO, is to show the importance of knowing the working dynamics of your handgun. This guy jumped through the "hoops" mandated by the CHL system, and still wasn't sure how his weapon operated.

Put a guy out on the street with absolutely no idea which end the bullet comes out of and it's Williams compounded 10 times.

Personal responsibility demands knowing how the gun works "before carrying it." I exercise my right to bear arms..but I made sure I knew what I was doing before I did. Anyone who packs needs a "reasonable proficiency with their weapon."

Not everyone has a family member or friend to mentor them in the use of firearms...we're not born with the ability to pack safely, let alone know the laws...some folks NEED to be taught. Just make it cheaper..or better, free. Have the 38,000 NRA certified trainers volunteer their time to help defray cost..then we wouldn't have to PAY to exercise our RIGHT.

Take Care

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Not everyone has a family member or friend to mentor them in the use of firearms...we're not born with the ability to pack safely, let alone know the laws...some folks NEED to be taught. Just make it cheaper..or better, free. Have the 38,000 NRA certified trainers volunteer their time to help defray cost..then we wouldn't have to PAY to exercise our RIGHT.

But since no one has been able to cite any statistics showing that "untrained" CHL holders cause any problems, make it voluntary, not mandatory.

 

[NineseveN]

Another point to consider:

I don't know how it is in your state, but with every firearm I purchase here in PA, I have receive a firearms safety manual, a manual from the manufacturer describing the operation of the firearm (which also always includes the safety rules as well) and some other information. If the people won't take the time to read these pamphlets, what makes you think they'll do anythign with the mandatory training or proficiency tests? Again, I maintain that I had to take Calculus in High School, I do't remember squat about it, though I passed with an A and graduated with honors. I learned what I knew I had to in order to pass and achieve the desired result (graduation), the same thing nearly anyone does with "required learning and testing".

I alos had to take a Driver's exam, I still speed, roll through some stop signs, I think I ran a red light once and I am sure I don't stop the required amount of feet away from a railraod crossing, nor do I always signal at the proper distance away from my desired exit or turn....just like everyone else.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Much More Involved

In Texas, a CHL ensures permit holders have at least a minimum knowledge of applicable state laws. That, IMO, is worth a little class time. I wasn't aware of the "51% Law" and several others that directly impact me as a concealed handgun carrier.

Laws governing a concealed handgun can carry considerably more serious consequences than those related to driving a car or operating a pop stand.

"Being proficient" transcends knowledge of the weapon..it includes an understanding of the laws associated with CCW. And again, for the record, I don't feel an American citizen should have to pay for the right to carry. If the NRA were serious about the 2nd.. they'd get those 38,000 certified, trained instructors of theirs to Volunteer time so people could learn and exercise their right at No Cost.

Take Care

 

[NineseveN]

In Texas, a CHL ensures permit holders have at least a minimum knowledge of applicable state laws. That, IMO, is worth a little class time. I wasn't aware of the "51% Law" and several others that directly impact me as a concealed handgun carrier.

And you mean to tell me you did not take it upon yourself to learn the applicable laws before you went?

Laws governing a concealed handgun can carry considerably more serious consequences than those related to driving a car or operating a pop stand.

Um, no.

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004). The number of non-fatal firearms injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S.


There were an estimated 6,289,000 car accidents in the US in 1999. There were about 3.4 million injuries and 41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999.

More than half of the firearms deaths were from suicicde, which has no bearing on this discussion. Even including those and the LEO homicide numbers (which don't count, CHL holder don't generally commit homicide), it is still a far cry from the seriousness of operating a motor vehicle.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Made It A Point To Be Aquainted With The Laws..But

..there were so many more I wasn't aware of before going! The Power Of Information, 9-7. Potent. And the difference between a bad experience and going on your way.

Ummm, yes on the second. Not talking count and amount "which has no bearing on this discussion"...more the consequences of not knowing the laws:"Laws governing a concealed handgun can carry considerably more serious consequences than those related to driving a car or operating a pop stand."

Take Care

 

[smince]

they'd get those 38,000 certified, trained instructors of theirs to Volunteer time so people could learn and exercise their right at No Cost.

I can't speak for the other 37,997, but the three I'm familiar with DID volunteer our time (local PD let us their range), and the books/certificate was only like $10-12.00, if that much(it was early 90's when I did this).

But if you give a training class and no one comes, then what? Force them? Let the Gov't pay for it(welfare CCW classes)?

 

[NineseveN]

Ummm, yes on the second. Not talking count and amount "which has no bearing on this discussion"...more the consequences of not knowing the laws:"Laws governing a concealed handgun can carry considerably more serious consequences than those related to driving a car or operating a pop stand."

Take Care

So not knowing when and wear you can carry or when it is permissible to draw and shoot is subject to more serious consequences than not knowing that you must obey the speed limit, signal when turning, obey traffic lights and signs? More serious consequences to whom? Certainly not to the folks that die or are injured in firearms related incidents as compared to those that suffer automobile crashes...or those that perpetrate either of them. Homicide with a car or a gun produces roughly the same penalty, so does manslaughter. Negligent homicide should be about the same as well.

I kinda get your point, but I think you're being too narrow as to suit your thoughts on the matter. Maybe I am reading you wrong?