Indiana Senator introduces bill for training requirements

[Sean]

So, leaving aside the 2A debate, we have more gun deaths per year in Indiana than vehicular deaths (according to a 2009 study that I read today). It would seem that training might help reduce those deaths.

I'm sorry, but I see nothing here that would change my mind in that regard.
Adieu.

So the thugs that are killing people whom can't legally have guns in the first place are going to head off to training and change their ways? Who do you think is responsible for those gun deaths in Indiana? People that don't practice firearm safety or those that ignore the law. You don't honestly think individuals that carry stolen firearms without a license are going to stop shooting people because of training classes do you? Do you think they will take the class? You surely don't think more people are killed by negligent handling than car accidents.... I hope.

 

[actaeon277]

So, people that desire mandatory training....
What should happen to people that never deemed it necessary to learn about guns, and then had credible threats to their life.
Should they then lay down and die?
I know several women I taught firearm safety, with a little bout law and such.
One of those women went on to use that firearm immediately.
There was no time for professional training.
In some instances, not a lot of money.
Such training was recommended. But time ran out.
I guess her life wasn't important.

 

[actaeon277]

Even if responsibilities are left unsaid, they are there in common law and antiquity. You have a right to bear arms, but you do not have a right to use said weapon to murder your neighbor or rob a bank. Those acts are not in the constitution but are understood among the common man of the time. Let's please not parse that which is common sense.

Another false dichotomy. The prohibited acts to which you refer are prohibited precisely because the immediate and direct consequence of them is the violation of another man's rights. Who is being harmed by not requiring training of all LTCH holders? No law should exist that does not prevent a behavior that directly harms another, with few allowable exceptions.

I'm on my cell phone, so in depth research is limited.
But there are two legal terms, in Latin
Illegal because the act itself is wrong
And illegal because it is against the law.

 

[ATM]

Well, 88GT already answered this one rather well, so I'll just act shocked that you even attempted this line of "reasoning".

Even if responsibilities are left unsaid, they are there in common law and antiquity. You have a right to bear arms, but you do not have a right to use said weapon to murder your neighbor or rob a bank.

Really? With every response, you seem to be straying even further from any coherent argument. What on earth are you attempting to refute with the absurdly obvious statement above? Nobody thinks that the right to keep and bear arms somehow includes or extends to the bearer a right to murder or rob. Nobody.

Those acts are not in the constitution but are understood among the common man of the time. Let's please not parse that which is common sense.

Those acts are not in the constitution because the government wass not empowered to murder my neighbor or rob banks. Since, as you already stated for some unknown reason, there is also no right for individuals to murder and rob (regardless of any tools they may or may not have a right to keep and bear), there is also no reason for such non-rights to be protected via the constitution.

I'm actually not sure what point you were even attempting to make here, but I suspect it has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with failed logic.

 

[actaeon277]

So the thugs that are killing people whom can't legally have guns in the first place are going to head off to training and change their ways? Who do you think is responsible for those gun deaths in Indiana? People that don't practice firearm safety or those that ignore the law. You don't honestly think individuals that carry stolen firearms without a license are going to stop shooting people because of training classes do you? Do you think they will take the class? You surely don't think more people are killed by negligent handling than car accidents.... I hope.

Good argument

 

[actaeon277]

People die every year from fire, where is the call for fire safety training?

 

[88GT]

I suppose we just have a different view of things. You trust your fellow man to carry a firearm but do not trust your fellow man to develop a training program that would do anyone any good. I take the opposite view.

It is not my fellow man that I distrust. It is the government. I have seen the results of other endeavors taken by the government that were formerly performed by the private sector. Very few examples of shining success on that track record. But you completely misunderstand where the real opposition lies. It is not the content of the course that I feel would be insufficient. It is the desire of the individual required to sit there against his will that will be insufficient. One has to want to be trained, to want to learn, to want to improve. The best trainers and training in the world won't overcome apathy and arrogance.

I have friends who teach the Utah course up in Warsaw and they get very good reviews from new owners and those who have owned firearms for many years.

Completely irrelevant. It is not the individual who wants and seeks training in spite of not being required to do so that you should use are your standard.

I fail to see that the training is a detriment.

That depends on what we're discussing. If you are limiting your discussion to the outcomes of simply carrying a firearm, it's possible your statement is valid. I suppose a worst-case-scenario would be no benefit, no harm. It is clear, though, that you are ignoring the harm to the individual at having one more set of chains laid upon his wrists.

I have friends in Ohio that teach their mandatory course. I hear similar things.

What similar things? That the training was highly regarded? That doesn't translate into results in the real world. My profession is required to be licensed and acquire 8 hours of professional education (our version of training) every year. Do you know how many licensees are still unethical, ill-informed, and just plain incompetent? And yet the providers of these educational courses are always given high marks for quality and content of the courses.
Completely irrelevant.

So, leaving aside the 2A debate, we have more gun deaths per year in Indiana than vehicular deaths (according to a 2009 study that I read today). It would seem that training might help reduce those deaths.

THIS ARTICLE??????

Putting aside for the moment that it is originating from a virulently anti-gun organization, and lumps intentional homicide with accidental/negligent deaths and with suicides, (both of which render it rather worthless), I am curious how you came to find an article posted more than 18 months ago on a non-news site. I suspect you were looking for evidence to support your position.

I'm sorry, but I see nothing here that would change my mind in that regard.

Of those 735 firearms deaths, how many were criminal acts? Of the 735 firearms deaths, how many were self-inflicted? Of the 735 deaths, how many were at the hands of a person in possession of a valid LTCH? None of that gives you pause about the effectiveness of training people who won't be subject to training requirements?

As to the meeting on the 14th, I'm not free. But, I've let one of my relatives who lives near there know about the meeting and he has said that he would try to make it.

It's the 12th. But somehow I doubt it matters.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Hi there. In case you're wondering why you can't post, take a peek at post #211 in this thread.

I don't care if it's still a smiley here. The warning was placed. I wasn't kidding.

If you'd like to discuss this, you may PM me in three days, when you come back.

If you want to argue this, feel free to contact Fenway.

I gave fair warning. It saddens me that you didn't pay attention.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[88GT]

Hi there. In case you're wondering why you can't post, take a peek at post #211 in this thread.

I don't care if it's still a smiley here. The warning was placed. I wasn't kidding.

If you'd like to discuss this, you may PM me in three days, when you come back.

If you want to argue this, feel free to contact Fenway.

I gave fair warning. It saddens me that you didn't pay attention.

Blessings,
Bill

That's harsh.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I would rep you ATM and 88GT, but it says I need to spread it around. Very valid statements.

 

[AndersonIN]

Who says you have to have a drivers license to own a car? How about to drive it on your personal property where you arent endangering others' lives?

I dont see training requirements for the ability to CARRY as all that bad. Now to be able to POSSESS or BUY a gun? Thats a different story. If they try that sh** I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you.

I just dont see how being properly trained and educated to use a deadly weapon is all that evil.

MAYBE....................I repeat I MIGHT just think about it (then forget it) if they have required training sessions and then require a license on how to vote!

 

[SteveM4A1]

How about requiring training before practicing religion

 

[KS1956]

88GT: I is a gross statistic and hasn't been sorted for nuance. Criminal behavior by owners or drivers (such as DUI which represents a very large portion of vehicular homicides in any state) isn't factored in. To me, it was a surprising number. I know that Indianapolis has around 100 or so firearm homicides per year…but the gross number was very surprising. Nevertheless, even eliminating thugs killing thugs and suicides, the number is sobering.

ATM: Your syllogisms appear credible at some points and not at others. Your determination of what is logical seems meaningful to you but I tell you that view is not held by me. At some other place, it might be worthy to discuss consitutional proscriptions and individual rights, but it seems less fruitfull when 6 or 7 other members are adding to the complexity of this thread.

I will re-iterate and then watch the last season of Treme on HBO: There is no credible evidence that the founders believed that a firearms owner would not be in a position to effectively wield their firearms, to the extent of their ability. While the prefatory clause of 2A does not imbue the government with a requirement for a standing militia, it does speak to the general belief that each citizen equipped with a firearm has adequate competence (through training) to wield such weapon in common defense.

Since I see that everyone else disagrees, I will stop here.

 

[ATM]

I think my credibility is rather incredible.

 

[SteveM4A1]

There is no credible evidence that the founders believed that a firearms owner would not be in a position to effectively wield their firearms, to the extent of their ability. While the prefatory clause of 2A does not imbue the government with a requirement for a standing militia, it does speak to the general belief that each citizen equipped with a firearm has adequate competence (through training) to wield such weapon in common defense.

Since I see that everyone else disagrees, I will stop here.

I think there is credible evidence in that Indiana's Constitution states nothing of training. I believe it was easily understood by the ratifiers of our state's constitution as to what the founders were stating back then.

 

[88GT]

88GT: I is a gross statistic and hasn't been sorted for nuance. Criminal behavior by owners or drivers (such as DUI which represents a very large portion of vehicular homicides in any state) isn't factored in. To me, it was a surprising number. I know that Indianapolis has around 100 or so firearm homicides per year…but the gross number was very surprising. Nevertheless, even eliminating thugs killing thugs and suicides, the number is sobering.

It's also misleading when you are attempting to use it to justify the "need" for mandated training. I would offer that's it's misleading to the point of being fraudulent.

I will re-iterate and then watch the last season of Treme on HBO: There is no credible evidence that the founders believed that a firearms owner would not be in a position to effectively wield their firearms, to the extent of their ability. While the prefatory clause of 2A does not imbue the government with a requirement for a standing militia, it does speak to the general belief that each citizen equipped with a firearm has adequate competence (through training) to wield such weapon in common defense.

And there is no credible evidence that the founders would have believed that such knowledge (training as you use it here is not synonymous with the training as it is being used in the proposed law) should be mandated by the government nor administered by it. You are creating a correlation where none exists. The training was voluntary. And you have nothing on which to defend your position that such training, no matter how valued or prudent, should be mandated by the state, nor that such training will have any meaningful consequence.

They also believed that the citizens of our republic be educated and moral. But they didn't institute state-schools or state-churches, did they?

Since I see that everyone else disagrees, I will stop here.

So does this mean you will not answer my questions? Not even one of them?

 

[2A_Tom]

I find it interesting that somebody with eighteen posts can dress down people that have been site for years.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No. I am an advocate for training, period. And firearms are only one of many potentially fatal tools that fall under that general belief.

No, you are not advocating training. You are advocating mandatory training which serves to demote a constitutional right to a conditional privilege.

And in counterpoint I would think that many of the comments by the "usual suspects" serve to undermine gun rights by providing fodder for the anti-gunners.

You are suggesting that we can appease people who are categorically hostile to the private ownership of firearms by surrendering to having our right demoted to a conditional privilege? Where has accepting capitulation billed as 'compromise' in which we lose while gaining nothing taken us?

While I am not familiar with what LEO departments require in Indiana, I would suspect that they require instruction, training and practice with the firearm(s) they carry on a daily basis. Why is it less so for the civilian? As I stated earlier, I believe the 2A implies (at the very least) that a person who bears arms knows how to use them. It is only on forums such as this that some feel that they have a God-given right to do as they please. Bluster. And BS.

Don't give us this nonsense. If you have a problem with the Constitution, you should deliver criticism to is authors and those who voted to ratify it, and then propose amendments rather than proposing that we simply accept the bastardization of clearly written text.

The prefatory clause is in the 2A because it is necessary. The writers did not include unnecessary phrasing.

Their goal was clearly to encourage (not mandate) the same level of diligence applied by the men of their time who successfully fought the most powerful army in the world.

I leave this thread because it is useless to debate with those who feel they know what is in the mind of others and particularly what the founders meant.

Did it occur to you that perhaps they meant exactly what they wrote in the Constitution and other contemporaneous documents?

Scalia said, as to the prefatory clause of 2A

Even if responsibilities are left unsaid, they are there in common law and antiquity. You have a right to bear arms, but you do not have a right to use said weapon to murder your neighbor or rob a bank. Those acts are not in the constitution but are understood among the common man of the time. Let's please not parse that which is common sense.

Really? You believe in laws that are not written but should be 'understood' to exist? And then you build on this by using illegal activities which are felonies without consideration of the use/non-use of guns? Really? No, the Constitution does not address common crime which under the Tenth Amendment, is reserved to the states and the people. That is entirely different from criminalizing constitutional rights or demoting them to conditional privileges.

I suppose we just have a different view of things. You trust your fellow man to carry a firearm but do not trust your fellow man to develop a training program that would do anyone any good. I take the opposite view.

What is this nonsense? Trusting fellow man #1 with a gun and trusting fellow man #2 with the power to set training requirements which could very easily be set so high as to disallow most anyone are two entirely different things. If you really believe that government is filled with people who are motivated with your well-being, you must have flunked history.

I have friends who teach the Utah course up in Warsaw and they get very good reviews from new owners and those who have owned firearms for many years. I fail to see that the training is a detriment. I have friends in Ohio that teach their mandatory course. I hear similar things.

Quality training is good. Happy customers are good. There is nothing detrimental about training in itself. REQUIRING training which can, as previously addressed, be used as a backdoor system of prohibition is EXTREMELY detrimental in addition to having the net effect of demoting a right to a conditional privelege.

So, leaving aside the 2A debate, we have more gun deaths per year in Indiana than vehicular deaths (according to a 2009 study that I read today). It would seem that training might help reduce those deaths.

One of our lawmen recently posted numbers on this. It seems that the majority of shooting deaths are caused by people with criminal histories who are categorically prohibited from possessing weapons, and most of the victims are also criminals. Now, seriously, do you expect these people to go to the safety training required for the license they cannot receive and have an epiphany about their criminal behavior?

I'm sorry, but I see nothing here that would change my mind in that regard.

Unswerving cluelessness does have its rewards, like not having to address patently clear facts.

As to the meeting on the 14th, I'm not free. But, I've let one of my relatives who lives near there know about the meeting and he has said that he would try to make it.

Adieu.

Given that you support the demotion of constitutional rights to conditional privileges and believe that benevolent government would not devise a training system which would be detrimental to us, I am forced to conclude that if you are not already a statist, you are an excellent candidate.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I find it interesting that somebody with eighteen posts can dress down people that have been site for years.

That is quite an entrance, isn't it? I wonder if she is the same way in person (but not enough to want to learn from experience).

 

[John Galt]

If nothing else, the Senator's proposed bill has instigated some of the most thoughtful and educational replies that I recall in my years here on INGO.
I will willingly cede that I am not as eloquent as many of the posters on this thread, but this is my two cents:
Self defense is a Natural Right. Period. No training required, only personal responsibility. If I need "training" for the First Law of Nature, what else do I need "training" for? What is adequate "training" that will guarantee perfection? Who determines this "training"?
A Natural Right is not something that is to be regulated by a government. Period.
The abuse of a Natural Right is one of the very limited roles of government to reconcile.
"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." - Frederic Bastiat