Should state require training for LTCH?

[Glock19Dude]

I say YES. Any idiot with a gun and a clean record can apply for an LTCH. Once approved said idiot can carry a gun without any training at all. Do you really want an untrained person carrying a gun around? I sure as hell don't want them near me. I'm just saying that if someone wants an LTCH they should have to take a 1 day class and pass a test.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don't think any man has a right to take my property, for any purpose. It's theft, whether a document legalizes it or not. I've read that story a few times, or it's variations at least. The thing that always struck me about it was, as I mentioned above, as long as the theft is authorized by the constitution, the taking is ok.

Consider, however, that especially under a libertarian, or for that matter, even an anarchic society, nothing is free. You have to pay for what you get, one way or another. Maybe you "paid" by making yourself strong enough that you can outfight those you choose to prey on. I don't honestly know how "anarcho-capitalism" works. I would hope that my impression of it (above) is not what you espouse, a system where only the strong survive and take whatever they want by force because there are no laws.
At any rate, though, that if nothing is free and you pay for what you have, you agree by living in that society to help maintain it. Part of your "dues" to do so includes some form of voluntary payment. Let's call it your fair share. Personally, I wouldn't object to some small amount of my income going to cover costs such as roads or infrastructure or a stockpile of ammunition and guns for the people to use, somewhat like the colonists used the powder houses in their communities. It's not theft any more than a restaurant owner is stealing from you when he expects you to pay after eating at his tables or expecting you to pay before you knowingly enter a toll road. In either case, you have the choice of taking a different road, eating elsewhere or not at all, or in the case of a society, living elsewhere.
To do otherwise would put us on a par with the people today who think they are entitled to everything good in our society without working for it.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I say YES. Any idiot with a gun and a clean record can apply for an LTCH. Once approved said idiot can carry a gun without any training at all. Do you really want an untrained person carrying a gun around? I sure as hell don't want them near me. I'm just saying that if someone wants an LTCH they should have to take a 1 day class and pass a test.

And any idiot can spout off and give an opinion without any training... (no, this is not intended personally nor as an insult)
and any idiot can vote without understanding how our country works...
and any idiot can go and buy all kinds of things that can cause harm without understanding them.
Do I want untrained people carrying guns? No, but forcing them to take a class... Ever take Defensive Driving to get out of a speeding ticket? Ever seen the looks on people's faces in there? The point is that they are only there to put in their time, remember as much as they absolutely have to to pass the test and get out, and then forget it all.

Then there's the issue of how tough to make the test. It will never be strict enough for some people, of course, and the issue of incrementalism then rears its head and before you know it, the test is to put 50 shots in a caliber-size hole on a moving target, from a moving shooter, standing, at 100 yards. Obviously, that's an exaggeration, but if you think Mayor Daley of Chicago doesn't want a requirement like that for everyone (except his guards and himself), you're fooling yourself.

The people who want training will seek it. The ones who don't will not and will eventually cull themselves from society.

Further, while I've not researched numbers, if I recall correctly the number of negligence-caused tragedies that occur in states like Indiana that don't have mandatory training are not statistically greater (and IIRC, are lower) than states that have training requirements.

Lastly, do you have your Lifetime LTCH? if so, and such a requirement was passed, would you expect to be exempt from it? If you hold a Lifetime LTCH, it is valid for your lifetime, unless you become "not a proper person" according to state law. If you chose not to take that training, then what you're promoting is the idea that a mandatory training apply to everyone AFTER you've already "grandfathered".

That's like me saying that the draft would be a great thing to bring back: I have no sons and I'm over the age where it would apply to me, but anyone younger than that age is not my concern. It's saying that you want the benefit but not the responsibility.

I strongly support the idea of people being trained. I think it should be encouraged. I just can't agree with making it mandatory.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Eddie]

I say YES. Any idiot with a gun and a clean record can apply for an LTCH. Once approved said idiot can carry a gun without any training at all. Do you really want an untrained person carrying a gun around? I sure as hell don't want them near me. I'm just saying that if someone wants an LTCH they should have to take a 1 day class and pass a test.

Training requirements can be a way to ensure quality but they can also be a way to create a closed shop. I think that in an ideal world the training would be free and avbailable to all who sought it, but in the real world a training requirement could become just another means of restricting our rights. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is bad enough that we have to buy a license to exercise the right, a training requirement would just be a further infringement.

 

[jsgolfman]

Consider, however, that especially under a libertarian, or for that matter, even an anarchic society, nothing is free. You have to pay for what you get, one way or another. Maybe you "paid" by making yourself strong enough that you can outfight those you choose to prey on. I don't honestly know how "anarcho-capitalism" works. I would hope that my impression of it (above) is not what you espouse, a system where only the strong survive and take whatever they want by force because there are no laws.
At any rate, though, that if nothing is free and you pay for what you have, you agree by living in that society to help maintain it. Part of your "dues" to do so includes some form of voluntary payment. Let's call it your fair share. Personally, I wouldn't object to some small amount of my income going to cover costs such as roads or infrastructure or a stockpile of ammunition and guns for the people to use, somewhat like the colonists used the powder houses in their communities. It's not theft any more than a restaurant owner is stealing from you when he expects you to pay after eating at his tables or expecting you to pay before you knowingly enter a toll road. In either case, you have the choice of taking a different road, eating elsewhere or not at all, or in the case of a society, living elsewhere.
To do otherwise would put us on a par with the people today who think they are entitled to everything good in our society without working for it.



Blessings,
Bill

You're right, nothing is free. That doesn't equate to forcing me to pay for it. Your premise though, if I may, is that there is some implied contract between myself and the state. I disagree. Unless a contract is voluntary and entered into willingly by all parties, there is no contract. Whether I abide by the stipulaitons of said contract has nothing to do with whether I agree with it or not, only that I am willing to adhere to certain portions of it that meet my value paradigm.
Also, like any pseudo-political philosophy, there are multiple variations of AC. You can find some that advocate the complete eradication of the state, while others pine for some semblance of the organized chaos we call government. Either way, the misconception of a lawless society is prevalent everywhere. The concept of the removal of the state in no way means the elimination of all laws. However, those laws would definitely be trimmed to the point where they punished only violations of the NAP and enforcement of those laws would not be the monopoly of the state. You could have multiple entities enforcing these laws, equally, for profit. If one fails to provide fair service, it falls the way of all failed businesses.
I also understand you would have those that avail themselves of this service but pay no fee, as you have in any society.
I wouldn't object to paying some of my money to build roads,etc., but not at the point of a gun. The choice to do so resides with me. If you say the state has a right to some of your property, they have a right to all of it. The percentage is just semantics.

 

[eldirector]

Training requirements can be a way to ensure quality but they can also be a way to create a closed shop. I think that in an ideal world the training would be free and avbailable to all who sought it, but in the real world a training requirement could become just another means of restricting our rights. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is bad enough that we have to buy a license to exercise the right, a training requirement would just be a further infringement.

Hear, Hear!

I am vehemently opposed to any requirements imposed to exercise a right. ANY right, and that includes the ones protected by our constitution(s).

There are already MANY cheap/free training opportunities. NRA Safety classes are CHEAP (mine was $25). Some police departments offer cheap/free safety classes as well. There are MANY shooters on just this board who would WELCOME the opportunity to take a new shooter out. I'd guess their "training" would be orders of magnitude BETTER than any government-run training program.

Why are folks so stuck on this anyway? Are firearm accidents common? Some interesting stats (from Gun Control)

* In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year

* In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents,[123] constituting 0.05% of 27.7 million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year

As for the folks "bothered" by untrained gun owners - you'd better just stay indoors. The world is MUCH to dangerous for you.

 

[jbombelli]

I say YES. Any idiot with a gun and a clean record can apply for an LTCH. Once approved said idiot can carry a gun without any training at all. Do you really want an untrained person carrying a gun around? I sure as hell don't want them near me. I'm just saying that if someone wants an LTCH they should have to take a 1 day class and pass a test.

Once the government establishes certain criteria a person has to meet in order to exercise their rights, they are free to change that criteria whenever they want. The requirement to take a course prior to exercising our right to keep and bear arms is no different than being required to take a civics exam prior to voting. Civics exams prior to voting were discarded long ago.

Keeping and bearing arms for defense of yourself and the state is a right, not a privilege.

Personally, I don't care what you want around you. The better solution is simply to keep your eyes open and be aware of your surroundings. Know who is doing what in your vicinity.

Exactly how many infringements on our right to keep and bear arms do you want?

 

[Ramen]

It is really quite simple. You can either have a world where your personal responsibility, sovereignty, and liberty are put first even if it means some irresponsible people will make idiotic choices, or you can have a world where a government authority determines who is fit to defend themselves even if that means no one but those in charge get to have them (California, Japan, UK, etc).

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -Thomas Jefferson

Neither way is perfect, but I would I will take my chances with Liberty. Thanks.

 

[Joe Williams]

I say YES. Any idiot with a gun and a clean record can apply for an LTCH. Once approved said idiot can carry a gun without any training at all. Do you really want an untrained person carrying a gun around? I sure as hell don't want them near me. I'm just saying that if someone wants an LTCH they should have to take a 1 day class and pass a test.

Good points! But... I see they have been letting you exercise your free speech. Can you please show proof of your license to do so? I wouldn't want just any idiot using a keyboard to pursue an un-Constitutional agenda! They could start a war!

 

[jeremy]

The ONLY possible way I would support mandatory training is if you include into the School Curriculum. 1 class hour everyday from 1st grade until 12th grade...

 

[Lucas156]

The ONLY possible way I would support mandatory training is if you include into the School Curriculum. 1 class hour everyday from 1st grade until 12th grade...

hmmm how bout make it a mandatory class in school but not mandatory to be able to carry. I think were on the same wavelength here.

 

[down3green]

I don't remember getting any training to exercise any of my other rights.

 

[JoshuaW]

Is it irresponsible to sell a gun online. I bought a rifle last week from the classified section. Was the guy that sold it to me irresponsible because he didn't train me on gun safety. I think it is my responsibility to know how to use it.

I think its reasonable for the person to know you knew what you were doing, given your active status on this forum and numerous quality posts.

With that said, I still think that anyone making any firearm transaction should at least inquire and make sure the person understands the safe use of the firearm. This is a personal responsibility and a "best practice", in my opinion. It is not mandatory, and no one is a "bad seller" for not doing so (though I might be inclined if said seller was operating a gun business where they would regularly be selling to those who may not have previous experience)

It is like any other sale. Are you a bad car salesman because you didnt explain to the buyer the regular service intervals and made sure they knew how to tell if an air bag was potentially bad (dummy light)? No. Are you a more ethical and responsible car salesman for at least asking if the buyer was aware? Clearly. I think people are going to be more likely to return to the second, but not necessarily deterred by the first. Gun sales are similar, but that much more serious, IMO.

Because I dont condemn sellers for not doing so, and since I think it is the end user's responsibility to know what they are doing, regulation is just red tape. Expensive red tape.

Bonus side rant: You think the lifetime LTCH is expensive enough now, and has a long enough wait? Add in some mandatory training. That will cost YOU more money, and then they will add in some additional administrative costs to compensate for the fact that they have to verify that you did such training.

 

[Hammerhead]

I don't remember getting any training to exercise any of my other rights.

I got training to exercise my third amendment rights. The licensing procedure was a total pain in the keister.

 

[Delmar]

Bonus side rant: You think the lifetime LTCH is expensive enough now, and has a long enough wait? Add in some mandatory training. That will cost YOU more money, and then they will add in some additional administrative costs to compensate for the fact that they have to verify that you did such training.

I actually think that implementing mandatory training would likly do away with the lifetime option. They would have to make sure you have had recent training, wouldn't they?

 

[finity]

You're right, nothing is free. That doesn't equate to forcing me to pay for it. Your premise though, if I may, is that there is some implied contract between myself and the state. I disagree. Unless a contract is voluntary and entered into willingly by all parties, there is no contract. Whether I abide by the stipulaitons of said contract has nothing to do with whether I agree with it or not, only that I am willing to adhere to certain portions of it that meet my value paradigm.

You agree to the implied contract by virtue of the fact that you voluntarily choose to live where you do. If you don't like the rules you are free to move to a state that has rules that you agree with more. If you don't like the federal rules you are free (at least in this country - another "contractual" point) to move to a country more in line with what you feel is best for you.

Also to make another point. It is not a "contract" that you have entered into with "the government". "The government" is a contrived entity. The contract that you have voluntarily entered into is with "society". It could also be called your "community" or your "tribe" or whatever other name you want to give "your" group. If you no longer feel that the agreement with your group is in your best interest then you are free to make an agreement with a different group. Let's not forget also that moving (or aligning with a different group) is not the only option to change that implied contract. If you can get enough people to agree with you that you can change "the rule" that you don't like then that is always an option.

So, to recap

1. You can voluntarily stay within the "group" to reap the benefits imparted to the individuals of the group even though you may not like every aspect of the groups rules.

2. You can realign yourself with another group giving up each & every benefit imparted to that groups members in favor of a different group. You then must abide by that groups rules to receive their benefits.

3. You can try to get the rule you don't like changed by getting a good percentage (or at least the right minority) to agree with you to change the rule.

Also, like any pseudo-political philosophy, there are multiple variations of AC. You can find some that advocate the complete eradication of the state, while others pine for some semblance of the organized chaos we call government. Either way, the misconception of a lawless society is prevalent everywhere. The concept of the removal of the state in no way means the elimination of all laws. However, those laws would definitely be trimmed to the point where they punished only violations of the NAP and enforcement of those laws would not be the monopoly of the state. You could have multiple entities enforcing these laws, equally, for profit. If one fails to provide fair service, it falls the way of all failed businesses.

As I've said before, there ARE legitimate functions of government.

If you put the job of providing police or fire protection into the hands of the private sector on a "for-profit" basis there would be many people - who arguably would need it the most - who would not be able to afford the privelege of that protection. Once those people decide that they can't afford the protection offered to the wealthier people then they will take matters into their own hands & we slowly spiral into true anarchy.

The system we have now may not be perfect but it beats any other system I can think of throughout history.

I say YES. Any idiot with a gun and a clean record can apply for an LTCH. Once approved said idiot can carry a gun without any training at all. Do you really want an untrained person carrying a gun around? I sure as hell don't want them near me. I'm just saying that if someone wants an LTCH they should have to take a 1 day class and pass a test.

Ok, to everyone who thinks the state should require training to allow you your 2A rights, be honest.

How many of you have actually had the training you want everyone to be mandated to have? Come on, list your resumes.

I'll start - US Navy boot camp 1984 - shot a few rounds out of a 1911 & a shotgun.

I guess I'm one of those who all you "mandatory training" people feel shouldn't own or carry a gun?

As was mentioned before, the mandatory training crowd is offering a solution in search of a problem. IN is no more dangerous when it comes to firearms accidents than other places that require training.

http://www.policyinstitute.iu.edu/PubsPDFs/57_02-C06_Cause_of_death.pdf.pdf

A further consideration of the role of firearms in external
death can be illustrated by the following: Of all gun-related deaths
in Central Indiana from 1978-98, 64 percent (4,588) were suicides,
31 percent (2,196) were homicides, and 5 percent (320) were accidents.
In Central Indiana, accidental firearm deaths peaked at a​

rate of .87 in 1995 and have declined since.

here is a random chart for 2002 from the CDCP:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a7.htm

If you look at the bar that portays firearms deaths (20% of all deaths) you will see the "unintentional" part of the chart. See it? No? If you look REALLY close you can see that little black bar at the bottom. Those are the unintentional deaths from firearms. Pretty freakin tiny, huh?

Here is another resource:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=127

From the above website I picked IN & two more states that have a training requirement for firearm licenses - OH & LA. Here are the stats for 2005:

IN - accidental death rate from firearms = 0.5027%
OH - accidental death rate from firearms = 0.5249%
LA - accidental death rate from firearms = 1.2156%

These just provide an example of the statement - training doesn't necessarily prevent accidents. Both states require training but both states accidental firearm death rate compared to overall accidental deaths are higher than in IN.

Even using the accidental firearm death rate compared to overall population the results are similar - .00002% for IN & OH & .000084 for LA.