Kansas gets it right.

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

As for those videos, should be no problem giving us a link.

I've given up on posting video links for you as in the past you have been dismissive of any video that did not support you view point. And the reasons you gave showed you were so set in your belief that no amount of evidence would change you. Your hatred of so much has poisoned you an unable to accept other views.

[Jackie S]

I have been shooting firearms my entire life. If this was not a SHMB, I could say some of the activities I am involved in that include shooting.

Let's just say I shoot thousands of rounds through the year.

I get to see a lot of regular people shoot, whether I am at my local Gun Club, or at another
range.

The fact is, the vast majority of the Public does not have a clue how difficult it is to actually hit a target with a handgun. Any of you who have ever taken a Concealed Carry Course knows that the shooting portion is an absolute joke. You could take Helen Keller, point her in the right direction, and she could pass it.
Of corse, I am being facetious, but I am just trying to point out that most of those that pass that course have a false sense that they can actually shoot a handgun with enough proficiency to hit what they wish to hit, and not spray rounds all over the area.

The 2d Amendment does not take into account that owning, and shooting, a firearm is deadly serious business. Far too many people have an unrealistic expectation as to the consequences of aiming, and discharging a firearm in the direction of other people.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

[

Rather obvious don't you think. I mentioned statistics. Of course you now admit that you don't really know but you are hopeful that the stats will bear you out.

The older you get the more ridiculous you get. I'll ask again. The average person in the U.S. will never need a handgun for protection. Again, do you disagree or agree? Simple question.

So that leaves open to discussion my second statement about accidental killings/injuries by guns.

From http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-a...es-statistics/

"In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.
From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings."

From http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

"In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600."

"The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S."

From http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Accidental-Shootings-NYAGV.pdf

Guns in the home increase risk: Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts
.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self
-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.


So please, get on your soapbox again and tell us once more how you believe it is important that everyone should have firearms training.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The 2d Amendment does not take into account that owning, and shooting, a firearm is deadly serious business. Far too many people have an unrealistic expectation as to the consequences of aiming, and discharging a firearm in the direction of other people.

Thank you for that statement. So doesn't it make sense that people who are allowed to carry handguns outside their homes be made to demonstrate a minimum level of competence in firing the handgun? If the e concealed carry courses are a waste of time then maybe the requirements should be changed.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So doesn't it make sense that people who are allowed to carry handguns outside their homes be made to demonstrate a minimum level of competence in firing the handgun?

This statement reflects the fundamental difference of opinion, you say that the person is allowed to carry, as if its its not a right. Are you "allowed" to speak, or is it a guaranteed right. People are allowed to drive, but they have no right to drive. As for training, sure people should be trained and they should practice but should anyone have to pay money for something that they have the right to do anyway. When it comes to comes the left cry out everytime there is a change, each change is going to result in bodies lining the streets. When concealed carry started in this country the left said that it was going to result in shootouts in the streets, mass passion shootings, and innocents being killed in record number, none of which happened. In five years were going to find the same thing in this case, nothing is going to happen.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

This statement reflects the fundamental difference of opinion, you say that the person is allowed to carry, as if its its not a right. Are you "allowed" to speak, or is it a guaranteed right. People are allowed to drive, but they have no right to drive. As for training, sure people should be trained and they should practice but should anyone have to pay money for something that they have the right to do anyway. When it comes to comes the left cry out everytime there is a change, each change is going to result in bodies lining the streets. When concealed carry started in this country the left said that it was going to result in shootouts in the streets, mass passion shootings, and innocents being killed in record number, none of which happened. In five years were going to find the same thing in this case, nothing is going to happen.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) determines what is and is not a guaranteed right when the interpretation of such rights come into question. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the states have the right to enact CHL requirements as they deem necessary. So there is no "right" to carry a concealed handgun per SCOTUS rulings. In states such as Wyoming no CHL is required to carry a concealed handgun. In other states, a CHL is required but no classroom education is required. In N.Y. and other states, a CHL is required and obtaining a CHL is very difficult. And SCOTUS has ruled that the N.Y. CHL requirements are legal

I am not against concealed carry at all. But I do believe that if a law-abiding citizen is on the streets with a handgun that they should have a basic knowledge of how to effectively use the handgun and when they can legally use that handgun. But I also support a state's right to what laws, if any, should be enacted for concealed carry.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

I've given up on posting video links for you as in the past you have been dismissive of any video that did not support you view point. And the reasons you gave showed you were so set in your belief that no amount of evidence would change you. Your hatred of so much has poisoned you an unable to accept other views.

So that's a NO right? You know that even if you had found one or maybe two videos out of a possible 200 million gun owners you wouldn't have proven anything. Anymore that if I had found an anti gun person willing to really give up their life rather than fight back demonstrates the real resolve of the anti gun person. But you couldn't even come up with a few which is odd if they're so common. Once again, you just want to bellyache Louise.

[JD Barleycorn]

We're going to start arguing semantics in a second. What is self defense, what is reasonable, what is use period. Yes, people die every year (but most survive being shot) from handguns but millions more (according to the FBI statistics) defend them selves with a gun. Most of the time that defense does not require a weapon to be fired or anyone to be shot. Sometimes a weapon is fired in warning and that is enough to save a life. You'll want to argue each and every case so lets just say that more people protect themselves every year than are killed by guns. It's true.

Your statistics include criminal acts thrown into the mix and police shootings which brings me to my real point;

Our police get training on a periodic basis and they are expected to maintain their proficiency throughout their time wearing a badge. Okay, how many times do we hear of the police shooting the wrong person, a defenseless animal, or do we see a video of an officer accidentally shooting themselves in the classroom? Training and uniform is NO guarantee of legal, honest, or competent handling of a weapon. You're out there demanding zero percent defect and it doesn't exist anywhere. On a humorous note, how many criminals accidently shoot themselves or one of their crew? Nobody keeps those statistics. Does that mean it never happens?

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your statement:

"I would also advance the argument that every boy and girl, man and woman should have firearms training in some form." To me this is more than opinion.

Exactly which of my statements was incorrect??? The ONLY statement that I made that could be statistically incorrect is that "The average person will never need a gun for protection in his/her lifetime." True or false in your opinion? Or maybe it was the statement " I'm sure you know how many people are killed/injured each year by the reckless handling of handguns." Do you have a problem with that statement? The answer is probably in the thousands, if not the tens of thousands.

No idea what your last paragraph added to the discussion.

By the way, I have not been elected to any office so I don't know how I can force my opinioni on anyone. Does this mean that you are elected to some office (dogs watch your backs).

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

This statement reflects the fundamental difference of opinion, you say that the person is allowed to carry, as if its its not a right. Are you "allowed" to speak, or is it a guaranteed right. People are allowed to drive, but they have no right to drive. As for training, sure people should be trained and they should practice but should anyone have to pay money for something that they have the right to do anyway. When it comes to comes the left cry out everytime there is a change, each change is going to result in bodies lining the streets. When concealed carry started in this country the left said that it was going to result in shootouts in the streets, mass passion shootings, and innocents being killed in record number, none of which happened. In five years were going to find the same thing in this case, nothing is going to happen.

We pay for many of our rights, including the right to drive. You said that driving is a privilege, not a right, but actually the Supreme Court has ruled that driving is a right. They were wrong in my opinion, but that is neither here nor there. Just because you have a right to drive according to the USSC, does not mean that society does not have a right to expect you to know the basic rules of the road. And it also means that it costs you money to be able to drive - license fees, registration, property tax on your vehicle.

You also have a right to work, but you pay for that right in the form of income taxes.

You have a right to free speech, but you pay for that right in the form of taxes on your cell phone, landline phone, and internet usage.

Having the right to do something does not mean the gov't can't and won't take its cut. We can have a discussion about how much the gov't loves to dip into our pockets on another thread if you like. For the purposes of this discussion though, the argument that it is wrong, or a curtailment of our rights to have to pay to exercise those rights does not work. You pay to exercise your rights in 100 different ways every day.

Some arguments are simply self evident to the point of needing no support. Better training will always result in better results. This is true in any endeavor. Regardless of whether it is job training we are talking about, or hand gun training, you will always get better results, better safety, better performance through practice and training. And when we are talking about allowing people to carry a deadly weapon in public, it is not unreasonable for the public to expect that person to have a minimum proficiency in handling that weapon. After all, we also have the right to expect a reasonable amount of safety out in public.

One other point that has not been made in this debate is that requiring a CC permit also makes things much easier and safer for law enforcement. Do you want to be the law enforcement officer talking to someone on the side of the road, who sees a hand gun casually sitting there in arm's reach of the person you just stopped? In a no permit state, the officer now has to use their best judgement to decide if you are a lunatic or not. In a CC permit state, the motorist who says "Yes officer, I have a permit for my hand gun" and shows it to him makes it a whole lot easier for law enforcement to determine that the hand gun does not present a threat to him. Being a police officer is dangerous enough. Anything that makes their job safer and easier is fine by me.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

By the way, I have not been elected to any office so I don't know how I can force my opinioni on anyone. Does this mean that you are elected to some office (dogs watch your backs).

When you start off a sentence with the words "I think" or "I believe", it is obvious that anything that follows is an opinion. When you make the statement

I would also advance the argument that every boy and girl, man and woman should have firearms training in some form.

it comes off to me as more than an opinion. If I state "I believe that every state should require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun" it is an opinion. If I state "Every state should require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun" it is, to me, more than an opinion, even though I can do nothing to bring it about.

No big deal. If you want us to consider your statement 100% opinion, consider it done.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) determines what is and is not a guaranteed right when the interpretation of such rights come into question. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the states have the right to enact CHL requirements as they deem necessary. So there is no "right" to carry a concealed handgun per SCOTUS rulings. In states such as Wyoming no CHL is required to carry a concealed handgun. In other states, a CHL is required but no classroom education is required. In N.Y. and other states, a CHL is required and obtaining a CHL is very difficult. And SCOTUS has ruled that the N.Y. CHL requirements are legal

I am not against concealed carry at all. But I do believe that if a law-abiding citizen is on the streets with a handgun that they should have a basic knowledge of how to effectively use the handgun and when they can legally use that handgun. But I also support a state's right to what laws, if any, should be enacted for concealed carry.

Actually, SCOTUS does determine what rights we have. If rights are unalienable, then they exist without any other authority. What SCOTUS does is let us know what rights the power elite will allow us to exercise.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Actually, SCOTUS does determine what rights we have. If rights are unalienable, then they exist without any other authority. What SCOTUS does is let us know what rights the power elite will allow us to exercise.

True.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) determines what is and is not a guaranteed right when the interpretation of such rights come into question. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the states have the right to enact CHL requirements as they deem necessary. So there is no "right" to carry a concealed handgun per SCOTUS rulings. In states such as Wyoming no CHL is required to carry a concealed handgun. In other states, a CHL is required but no classroom education is required. In N.Y. and other states, a CHL is required and obtaining a CHL is very difficult. And SCOTUS has ruled that the N.Y. CHL requirements are legal

I am not against concealed carry at all. But I do believe that if a law-abiding citizen is on the streets with a handgun that they should have a basic knowledge of how to effectively use the handgun and when they can legally use that handgun. But I also support a state's right to what laws, if any, should be enacted for concealed carry.

I can support this statement. I am not against training, I shoot at least a thousand rounds a month, more if I am not working, I just don't think in the long run we will see any difference.

[JD Barleycorn]

Shooting a weapon competently is a skill, just like balancing a check book, changing a tire, reading, math, or shooting a bow (guess which one they do teach?). There is never anything wrong with acquiring a new skill.