CoalTrain49
Member
What! No one has written a post opposing this?
I oppose it.
I think I see a lot of dead livestock resulting from negligent discharges.
What! No one has written a post opposing this?
You think the 8 hour class with 1-2 Hours on a range is going to change how they handle a gun within a month? B.S. Sir. they will forget about every safe thing you taught them by the time they get the license if they are just not interested in shooting. But most of them would not carry the gun either way, its just a fad right now to have a CC permit. I know lots of people that take it and never carry a gun. I have helped teach a few classes as a range helper and i know lots of those people are flat out dangerous with a gun, but I sure as hell didn't teach them or have enough time to teach them what they need to know to use a gun correctly. So for those of use that do carry and know how to use it we shouldn't have to pay an arm and leg to carry.As a firearms instructor from a completely different state who has no dog in the fight in Kansas.. Having seen waves and waves of completely unqualified, ignorant about firearms and flat out dangerous people who come to the CHL class expecting to walk out the other side licensed to carry a firearm in public.. I completely support at least a minimal skills demonstration required for carry in public.
And before someone chimes in about how it's my job as an instructor to blah blah blah.. Our states course is by law not a skills development course. It is a lecture on the law, ethics etc. etc. and a skills test on the range.
Of course, there's no reason why a handgun license should cost more than a drivers license...
Before I was an instructor, I strongly believed in constitutional carry.. now that I deal in large numbers with people looking to carry in public.. Aww hell no. Nothing gets me more tense on a range than a CHL class.
You think the 8 hour class with 1-2 Hours on a range is going to change how they handle a gun within a month? B.S.
BigBore45 said:You think the 8 hour class with 1-2 Hours on a range is going to change how they handle a gun within a month?
BigBore45 said:B.S. Sir.
BigBore45 said:...we shouldn't have to pay an arm and leg to carry.
CoalTrain49 said:But a CC permit is nothing more than a cash cow for so called trainers and instructors in most states.
Sam1911 said:ClickClickD'oh and KSCCHTrainer CANNOT do is show any correlation between higher rates of accident or lawlessness among lawful gun carriers in states with no training requirements and those with heavy training requirements. None exists.
Sam1911 said:So while it sure sounds like truth to say required training makes people safer..
Sam1911 said:So maybe the problem, as CllickClickD'oh has suggested, is that the training isn't good enough, long enough ("give me a month to work with a student and I dang'd well will change how they handle the firearm") or teaching the right things.
Sam1911 said:So maybe for "truthy" to become "true" we just need to make the mandatory training much longer and more thorough.
ClickClickD'oh said:It seems to me that the discussions around constitutional carry often cant's seem to distinguish anything in between overly expensive, complicated and restrictive licensing schemes and nothing at all. And if you aren't for nothing at all, you must be in favor of overly expensive, complicated and restrictive licensing measures.
In Kansas the application fee is $132.50.
BSA1 said:ClickClickD'oh wants to require arbitrary firearms training and skill level that meets his personal standard.
ME said:Our states course is by law not a skills development course.
ME said:No I don't think any basic CHL class is going to change how people handle their firearms, and you won't find anywhere I suggested such.
ME said:I have no illusion that a basic CHL course will do anything to improve fireams skills, mostly because, at least where I teach, it's against the law to use the CHL class to do so. The class is a lecture on the law and non violent dispute resolution and 50 rounds down range. And I'm fine with that. I don't think it's the states responsibility to train people in the finer points of using a firearm, only to make sure they are moderately safe in doing so in public.
BSA1 said:He mentions a month of training in Post 31.
Well, there you are We Are Not Amused, ask and ye shall receive.
Always going to be those who think we need saving from ourselves and that it's going to be by way of governments hand.
That isn't a strawman. That is the only compelling argument one could possibly make to impose a mandatory requirement on a basic civil right.Nice strawman.
Never said this was for public safety? C'mon, I'm not to believe you have some OTHER motive for wanting mandatory testing/courses that the safety of the public, am I? I'd be shocked.Never said any such thing.
Aside from the glaringly obvious fact that the quote you quoted contains within it a quote IN YOUR OWN WORDS, yeah, you did say the testing is generally extremely limited and "scoffingly(?)" easy. And that it wouldn't improve their handgun skills. If you still find it valuable...oh. Well, ah...Never said that either.So maybe the problem, as CllickClickD'oh has suggested, is that the training isn't good enough, long enough ("give me a month to work with a student and I dang'd well will change how they handle the firearm") or teaching the right things.
Without the benefit of proof (or even a strong argument) that they help any state's population carry guns without endangering anyone.What I did say is: "I completely support at least a minimal skills demonstration required for carry in public." Any notion that I support anything else is a fabrication not supported by any statement I've ever made.
And there we are. My psychic powers at work. An assertion that it's a good idea on the states part to make someone put a box of ammunition into a target at a laughably short distance has been conflated into "So maybe for "truthy" to become "true" we just need to make the mandatory training much longer and more thorough. Like maybe how your highschool driver's ed course took about a semester of regular attendance... Sounds good, eh?" And by a moderator no less. Good show Highroad, good show.
Field Tester said:So what did you actually say then Click?
Field Tester said:Seems like you admit the classes would have little affect on people, yet you want them to still be mandatory?
Field Tester said:Yes, it's everyone against you Click. Everyone is Strawmaning you. Everyone is misreading your posts and putting words in your mouth. It's everyone else that's wrong except you Click, isn't it?
Sam1911 said:That isn't a strawman.
Sam1911 said:So, if you aren't saying you're in favor of mandatory "skills tests" for public safety
Sam1911 said:Never said this was for public safety? C'mon, I'm not to believe you have some OTHER motive for wanting mandatory testing/courses that the safety of the public, am I? I'd be shocked.
Okay, two things here:Sam1911 said:Aside from the glaringly obvious fact that the quote you quoted contains within it a quote IN YOUR OWN WORDS, yeah, you did say the testing is generally extremely limited and "scoffingly(?)" easy.
Sam1911 said:YOU pointed out how lousy the training is...
Sam1911 said:...and how you use the required course to get students into your class so you can sell them more expensive training.
Sam1911 said:That you think this pathetic "run a box of ammo through the gun" show proves anything or teaches anything or makes anyone safer?
Sam1911 said:In case I haven't pointed this out before, THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN STATES THAT REQUIRE NO TRAINING AND HIGHER LEVELS OF ACCIDENT OR LAWLESSNESS. That's pretty important.
Hang on there speedy. You tried to pull a fast one. You guys keep interchangeably using "training" and "basic skills test" and they aren't the same thing. Don't try to lump them together to misrepresent my position. I adamantly oppose mandatory training. I support a basic skills test.
That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. And MANY states have demonstrated for decades (at least) that there is NO PUBLIC BENEFIT.If you want, we can get out the legal scholars and argue until we are blue in the face that requiring a basic skills test is/is not an undue burden on the exercise of a right, as long as it kept free from overly expensive, complicated and restrictive measures. That basic test as I've stated is putting a box of ammunition into a b-27 at three yards. You can tell me that there is no compelling public safety interest in being able to accomplish this task to be able to carry a gun in public, but try telling that to the judges who would eventually have to decide if that interest exists.
The test here isn't "oh, can you imagine what horrible things someone COULD do if they don't first pass our test?" The test here is, "what actually HAPPENS?"Imagine yourself standing just the other side of the bench from the judges and saying, "you honors, I see no reason why a person who can't hit this big 'ol sheet of paper from this far away shouldn't be carrying a gun in public. I see no possible harm in that."
I am not misrepresenting my statements.Don't misrepresent your own statement, it's beneath you. You said, "..while it sure sounds like truth to say required training makes people safer."Never said this was for public safety? C'mon, I'm not to believe you have some OTHER motive for wanting mandatory testing/courses that the safety of the public, am I? I'd be shocked.
I didn't mean to shame you. My apologies.A little different when you include the full quote, isn't it? It should be absolutely obvious to anyone that when the second half is included I am not actually suggesting a month long CHL, or even any inclusion in the CHL at all. That you've doubled down on misrepresenting this is shameful.
Yes. I understand the difference.2: Tell me honestly, do you not understand the difference between these two sentences:
1) The training (CHL) is not sufficient to develop skills with a firearm
-and-
2) I support mandatory training
Because honestly, I get the impression you don't.
Of course it's just fine! That's business, right?What, so now it's wrong to offer education to people who feel their skills are inadequate?...and how you use the required course to get students into your class so you can sell them more expensive training.
So what? That has proved to be NO SOCIAL BENEFIT to the public.It does prove something. It proves that the person doing the shooting can hit the proverbial broad side of a barn.That you think this pathetic "run a box of ammo through the gun" show proves anything or teaches anything or makes anyone safer?
In case I haven't belabored this point enough, I don't care. I've never supported required training. I'm not about to start now. Good job tilting at that windmill. You really got it. I'm sure it won't be supporting required training ever again.. if it ever did. Poor windmill.In case I haven't pointed this out before, THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN STATES THAT REQUIRE NO TRAINING AND HIGHER LEVELS OF ACCIDENT OR LAWLESSNESS. That's pretty important.
Of course it's just fine! That's business, right?What, so now it's wrong to offer education to people who feel their skills are inadequate?...and how you use the required course to get students into your class so you can sell them more expensive training.
But don't say you offer the course because it gets students into your class so you can offer them more expensive/thorough training (marketing) and then say you have no financial interest in keeping mandatory courses required.
You do. Getting customers in the door so you can up-sell them your more revenue-producing products is basic salesmanship. It is an investment (call it a loss leader if you want) intended to make you money.
In Kansas the application fee is $132.50.
I wonder what the cost to administer the state's concealed carry permit program is year to year?
My guess is that in Kansas, where the economy is going down the toilet at a pretty brisk pace, the ability to lay off some office staff will be a net gain unless a huge number of people are paying that $132.50 fee each year