'Loosening' of KY gun law I'm not sure I support

[notaglockfanboy]

When the extent of experience some of these people who are carrying guns include watching cops on TV and buying a gun shooting it 4 times in a year and calling themselves experts, I think they need some training. So Dogmush if you feel they are qualified by watching a TV show and firing exactly 4 rounds in a year and a half makes them qualified to carry a gun and make the decision to shoot someone, I would love to see your definition of someone who isn't qualified to carry a deadly weapon. Maybe we should let 14 year olds carry them because they watched their uncle shoot one once.

 

[Leader]

When the extent of experience some of these people who are carrying guns include watching cops on TV and buying a gun shooting it 4 times in a year and calling themselves experts, I think they need some training. So Dogmush if you feel they are qualified by watching a TV show and firing exactly 4 rounds in a year and a half makes them qualified to carry a gun and make the decision to shoot someone, I would love to see your definition of someone who isn't qualified to carry a deadly weapon. Maybe we should let 14 year olds carry them because they watched their uncle shoot one once.

If in fact these people are so dangerous why don't we have statistics from NH, AK, AZ, and all the other states that don't require the level of training you think should apply that show it?

 

[Sam1911]

When the extent of experience some of these people who are carrying guns include watching cops on TV and buying a gun shooting it 4 times in a year and calling themselves experts, I think they need some training. So Dogmush if you feel they are qualified by watching a TV show and firing exactly 4 rounds in a year and a half makes them qualified to carry a gun and make the decision to shoot someone, I would love to see your definition of someone who isn't qualified to carry a deadly weapon. Maybe we should let 14 year olds carry them because they watched their uncle shoot one once.

You're missing the point(s). They are:
1) The second amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If a government agency says, "you may not bear arms if you don't x,y,z" that's an infringement. Some government agency's theory about how much training you need, or how much you must pay for it, or what level of proficiency you must prove, or under what conditions should NOT be levied against a citizen in order for them to exercise a right that the framers said belonged to everyone and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

2) The experience of many other states proves the fallacy of your implication about all those "experts" you're saying we "let" carry arms. In states where NO training is required -- in fact in states where NO licencing or permitting is required -- there is not one (not one bit of evidence that lawful gun carriers commit more negligent or criminal acts with their weapons than in states which require hundreds or thousands of dollars to get a special permit to carry.


So, while your innate elitism tells you all "those people" can't be trusted to bear arms, you really don't have anything you can point to as proof of a concrete risk posed by that. And our Constitution says you shall not infringe the right, even if it WAS especially dangerous.

 

[Sam1911]

Oh...and lest we forget the other incredibly poignant argument made earlier, notaglockfanboy:

Most state don't regulate Open Carry of firearms at all. Even states with very stringent requirements for Concealed Carry. So... what is it about draping the hem of one's shirt over a gun that makes someone so dangerous to the public? When clearly they aren't out endangering society when they open carry without a permit?

 

[Tony k]

Would I support classes given in school? Say starting in 1st grade? YES!!

How much training is required to exercise other parts of the Bill of Rights?

Free expression of ideas has already destroyed entire nations.

To me these points get to the heart of the matter.

Why don't we teach the practical and responsible application of all elements of the Bill of Rights? Make it a basic requirement in public schools. While we're at it, teach kids their state laws pertaining to self defense and the use of deadly force, among other things related to basic human rights enshrined in the BOR.

Horace Mann wanted the American education system to emphasize teaching kids to be decent, upstanding, productive citizens. Knowing the BOR from a practical perspective would go a long way toward doing that. Sadly, I imagine this would be controversial in contemporary America.

Plus, for the intent of this discussion, it would address the concerns of people who want everyone to have special training to exercise their 2A rights because everyone would be expected to have basic practical training it the 2A, as well as an element in the BOR that enshrines an even more individually empowering right: The Right to Free Speech.

 

[DT Guy]

As soon as you let the government legislate training requirements, you're agreeing to CONTROL of your right. The next question on this slippery slope becomes 'how much training' will be required.

So, notaglockfanboy, I've amassed some several hundred hours of formal handgun instruction. I personally think it takes about a hundred hours to be a reliably good pistol shot. If you don't have a hundred hours of documented, formal training, I don't think you should be carrying a weapon.

See how that works?

An additional consideration is the time and cost of whatever training you're mandating. Here in Illinoize, they mandated 16 hours of training, including a live-fire qualification (which several friends have passed with their eyes shut, BTW. ) Along with the $250 application fee, this training makes the cost of applying for a CHL right around $500, and that's before the weapon, holster, ammo, etc.

I personally know several folks, one a combat veteran, who haven't gotten their CHL just because of the expense of the training and application. THAT'S what your support for a training requirement really amounts to-you've restricted the ability of low-income or underemployed folks to protect themselves. Happy?


Larry

 

[CajunBass]

I'm continually amazed at the human propensity to decide that others shouldn't be allowed to do things.

So, notaglockfanboy, I've amassed some several hundred hours of formal handgun instruction. I personally think it takes about a hundred hours to be a reliably good pistol shot. If you don't have a hundred hours of documented, formal training, I don't think you should be carrying a weapon.

See how that works?

Amen these.

You ever notice they always want to set the bar just below where they are? I have never heard anyone say they should set it higher. It's always those other people we have to keep out. Not me.

 

[tcoz]

I feel that sometimes common sense just has to rule. I certainly wouldn't give the keys to my car to someone who has never been behind the wheel before and I feel the same about firearms. I DO however feel that we have a Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. I don't think these have to be mutually exclusive.

As to concealed carry permit training itself, the course I took here in South Carolina was at that time mandated to be eight hours. We spent over half that time discussing state law, what you can and cannot do, scenarios and differences in county prosecutions. It was the best part of the training, especially since I was already pretty experienced.

 

[smalls]

I feel that sometimes common sense just has to rule. I certainly wouldn't give the keys to my car to someone who has never been behind the wheel before and I feel the same about firearms.

And when they add "the right of the people to drive vehicles on public roads" to the constitution, come back.

 

[Leader]

I feel that sometimes common sense just has to rule. I certainly wouldn't give the keys to my car to someone who has never been behind the wheel before and I feel the same about firearms. I DO however feel that we have a Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. I don't think these have to be mutually exclusive.

As to concealed carry permit training itself, the course I took here in South Carolina was at that time mandated to be eight hours. We spent over half that time discussing state law, what you can and cannot do, scenarios and differences in county prosecutions. It was the best part of the training, especially since I was already pretty experienced.

Are you saying that you had never been behind the wheel before you took drivers training?
If the law didn't require it would your parents have allowed you to drive at some point in your life?
Are you allowed to swim? Did you take swimming classes & get a license?

 

[tcoz]

In spite of what I might have implied in my earlier post, I've recently begun to change my mind about Constitutional Carry, open carry and training requirements. I was also completely unaware that states allow open carry without any training but require it for concealed carry. Makes no sense whatsoever. I DO support Constitutional Carry, but I also believe that everybody should receive some sort of training before they strap on a gun..it just doesn't need to be mandated. I don't like open carry from a purely tactical standpoint, and I also know that many people are intimidated and frightened by the sight of a gun being openly carried. We continually fight to keep our rights every single day and I think alienating people just doesn't do our cause any good.

I think discussions on this subject really bring up good points on both sides of the argument and these discussions are what have led me to change my mind.