No Firearms Training = No God Given Rights in Wisconsin

[Titanium_Frost]

I think the general consensus of the crazy right wingers is that training is GREAT! But don't force it as part of our exercizing our rights.

Personally I know many more people that are very safe with guns and I enjoy shooting with them that have had NO formal training apart from a good upbringing and there own good sense. I have taken as much training in as diverse realms of firearms as I can afford. I train regularly and I compete at least monthly to test my skills. that is my hobby and I enjoy it but I do not believe that is the minimum standard to hold everyone to.

I agree with Bill, make training a benefit. Hell the liberals want to protect people and spend money on public safety? Mandate firearm training to EVERY CITIZEN. Hows that for a government program we could get behind?

 

[dyerwatcher]

Wow!! This type of discussion is why I am proud to be a member. People can disagree in principle, however conduct and intelligent, professional dialogue. If only the idiots we (Collectively) voted for were anywhere near the caliber of Ingo members, we would not even be having this exchange. I guess I compromised a bit in securing my Utah permit.......but now I can carry in Ohio and I think WI in another week.

Hopefully Illinois will wake up!

 

[finity]

As I said, it would be an interesting discussion, if not prohibited.

I think you missed my point.

I wasn't discussing the ULTIMATE origins of the Rights in the BOR ("god" given or natural).

The emphasis should have been that the Constitution doesn't GIVE any Rights, it just (supposedly) protects Rights we already had.

Wherever they come from, it's NOT the Constitution.

Well, I kind of equate it this way. In order to drive an automobile, you must get a license to drive. That means that you have to pass a written test and a driving test. This is going to require some sort of education and training. That is to make sure that you REALLY DO know how to drive and just don't go out and injure or kill either yourself or anyone on or near the roadways that you will be driving on.

And yes, I understand that driving a car is NOT a constitutional right, however both examples benefit us all. IMHO

Do you know what the biggest cause of accidental death is? Car accidents.

From the CDC website for 2009 (the latest year of available statistics) the accident rate for auto accidents is 11.8%.

That compares to the rate of death by:

accidental discharge of firearms of - .2%
homicide by firearm - 3.7%
suicide by firearm - 6.1%
death by firearm by undertermined intent - .1%

(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_04.pdf - starting on page 19)

If you add all of those up, the total deaths by firearm (accidental or otherwise) is 10.1% --- 1.7% LESS than the death rate from auto accidents.

So how is that MANDATORY drivers training & testing working out for us?

Mandatory firearm training is a solution in search of a problem.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

I think you missed my point.

I wasn't discussing the ULTIMATE origins of the Rights in the BOR ("god" given or natural).

The emphasis should have been that the Constitution doesn't GIVE any Rights, it just (supposedly) protects Rights we already had.

Wherever they come from, it's NOT the Constitution.



Do you know what the biggest cause of accidental death is? Car accidents.

From the CDC website for 2009 (the latest year of available statistics) the accident rate for auto accidents is 11.8%.

That compares to the rate of death by:

accidental discharge of firearms of - .2%
homicide by firearm - 3.7%
suicide by firearm - 6.1%
death by firearm by undertermined intent - .1%

(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_04.pdf - starting on page 19)

If you add all of those up, the total deaths by firearm (accidental or otherwise) is 10.1% --- 1.7% LESS than the death rate from auto accidents.

So how is that MANDATORY drivers training & testing working out for us?

Mandatory firearm training is a solution in search of a problem.

While those numbers are probably correct, the average person spends so much more time driving than shooting. It would stand to reason that more people die from cars.

Its really a bogus comparison.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ah, but if people spend more time driving, are they not "training" behind the wheel? Thus, if the same people spent more time shooting, wouldn't that constitute "training" as well? And it's not mandatory if they do it solely because they want to.

Finity is correct. Mandatory firearm training is a solution in search of a problem.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Wwwildthing]

From what I read of this on USA Carry, Wisconsin's requirements appear to be almost identical to Arizona's.

What's the beef?

 

[Bill of Rights]

From what I read of this on USA Carry, Wisconsin's requirements appear to be almost identical to Arizona's.

What's the beef?

Maybe the fact that AZ doesn't require a license, permit, or other permission slip. Wisconsin still does. When the rest of the country comes around to that way of thinking and also removes the Criminal Protection Zones, then the only beef will be on our grills.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[KG1]

Maybe the fact that AZ doesn't require a license, permit, or other permission slip. Wisconsin still does. When the rest of the country comes around to that way of thinking and also removes the Criminal Protection Zones, then the only beef will be on our grills.

Blessings,
Bill

Damn that looks tasty.

 

[led4thehed2]

It would be great if there were simple answers for complex problems. Do we want people to be able to buy weapons? Yes. Do we want EVERYONE to be able to? No, probably not. Do we want people to be able to safely and responsible operate and carry their firearm? Of course. Should it be required you pass some sort of course or class before you can aply for a LTCH? Maybe.

In the end, all I can do is control what I do with my guns.

 

[Wwwildthing]

Maybe the fact that AZ doesn't require a license, permit, or other permission slip. Wisconsin still does. When the rest of the country comes around to that way of thinking and also removes the Criminal Protection Zones, then the only beef will be on our grills.

Arizona still issues a permit, it's required if you want to carry out of state. I have one and I live there 6 months out of the year. What your referring to is called 'constitutional or permit-less carry' and is only legal within the state. They still have CPZ's... and it's likely they always will.

No-one in Wisconsin was expecting it to be that easy... no-one expected constitutional carry straight out of the gate... and if you look at it with a knowledgeable eye, you'll see that they went from being almost California-like to 'pre-2010' Arizona with the flick of a pen.

Seems to me like you just want to b***h about something that was never gonna happen... simply because you can.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Arizona still issues a permit, it's required if you want to carry out of state. I have one and I live there 6 months out of the year. What your referring to is called 'constitutional or permit-less carry' and is only legal within the state. They still have CPZ's... and it's likely they always will.

No-one in Wisconsin was expecting it to be that easy... no-one expected constitutional carry straight out of the gate... and if you look at it with a knowledgeable eye, you'll see that they went from being almost California-like to 'pre-2010' Arizona with the flick of a pen.

Seems to me like you just want to b***h about something that was never gonna happen... simply because you can.

I didn't say that the AZ permit was not required anywhere, I said that AZ doesn't require it. I know about Constitutional Carry, and it's legal in four states, presently, up from one a mere nine years ago. I know they have CPZs, but for the life of me, I can't understand why, other than to pacify the sheeple.

Wisconsin came very close to going Constitutional Carry this year. There was a bill introduced to do it, and it got a fair amount of consideration. Yes, they took a giant step forward this year and I'm not at all minimizing that.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but you should know that I'm not one to "just b***h" about something... When I raise an issue, it's because it's something I perceive as a wrong that needs righted. Quixotic, perhaps, but if enough of us take up a viewpoint, it has a better chance of being heard and something being done to rectify the problem.

If no one did that, the following graphic would still be mostly yellow and red.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Wwwildthing]

Open carry has been legal in Arizona since 1913... they didn't start issuing Concealed Weapon Permits until the late 1970's... and it took another (roughly) 40 years to pass Constitutional/Permit-Less Carry.

Point to (almost) any state on a map... and you'll see that 'open carry' is a right, while 'concealed carry' is a privilege they grant those who jump thru the hoops.

Indiana is actually far more restrictive than most people admit... you can't carry in any form whatsoever, if you don't have a permit. If you want to b***h about something that you can have some effect on... b***h about that.

Unless you have plans to move to Wisconsin... this thread is pointless.

 

[ATM]

Indiana is actually far more restrictive than most people admit... you can't carry in any form whatsoever, if you don't have a permit.

Those who don't recognize that fact are corrected frequently around here.
I rarely see anyone here that doesn't get that fact once it's explained to them.

If you want to b***h about something that you can have some effect on... b***h about that.

So we should only point out or discuss the infringements upon the liberty of those with whom we share a voting district? Nonsense.
Our words and thoughts have the potential for far greater and wider reaching effects than our individual votes.

Unless you have plans to move to Wisconsin... this thread is pointless.

How much more pointless was it for you to jump in here and attempt to quench the discussion?
Your motive for doing so has me curious.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Okay, I read the article but not all the posts yet. I just have to get this off my chest first. I don't see a problem with the training requirement. Granted, it is NOT the way things are supposed to be, but until we have basic handgun classes in public schools it is a good thing. In MN when I got my permit to carry I had to take an 8 hour class, it consisted of a bunch of classroom time going over the basics of the firearm law and how to handle a defensive shoot if you should ever have to....then an hour or two on the range followed by a skills test. It was a PITA because we were forced to do it (if we want a permit), but generally speaking I think it does instil a greater sense of responsibility and accountability in the permit holder as well as educating the guy with a gun what the law is about his gun!

ETA now I'll go read and get back with more.

 

[Wwwildthing]

If my last post didn't clear it up for you, then I doubt any further explanation will.

 

[ATM]

If my last post didn't clear it up for you, then I doubt any further explanation will.

Your last post was just some statements of fairly common knowledge followed by two non sequitur personal suggestions.

I wouldn't call it an explanation or even an attempt to clear anything up.

Were you really trying to?

 

[KG1]

Your last post was just some statements of fairly common knowledge followed by two non sequitur personal suggestions.

I wouldn't call it an explanation or even an attempt to clear anything up.

Were you really trying to?

I could be wrong but I think basically he's saying everybody should mind their own business and not venture out of their little cubical in life. After all, Wisconsin laws could'nt possibly have any effect on people from out of state because as we all know nobody in their right mind would have a plausible reason to visit there.

 

[ryknoll3]

Okay, I read the article but not all the posts yet. I just have to get this off my chest first. I don't see a problem with the training requirement. Granted, it is NOT the way things are supposed to be, but until we have basic handgun classes in public schools it is a good thing. In MN when I got my permit to carry I had to take an 8 hour class, it consisted of a bunch of classroom time going over the basics of the firearm law and how to handle a defensive shoot if you should ever have to....then an hour or two on the range followed by a skills test. It was a PITA because we were forced to do it (if we want a permit), but generally speaking I think it does instil a greater sense of responsibility and accountability in the permit holder as well as educating the guy with a gun what the law is about his gun!

ETA now I'll go read and get back with more.

I'd like someone who is in favor of mandatory firearms education/qualification before being allowed to carry to please demonstrate how this increases safety. If the training truly has all of the benefits that you claim, there must be a clear distinction between the states like MN who requires an 8 hour class (one of the longest in the nation, IIRC) and retraining/requal. every time you go to renew and states like Indiana which has NO training requirement. Please cite the examples and statistics that say that those with CCW's in training states are more responsible than CCW'ers in training-free states.

Fact of the matter is, there's no correlation. It's bad enough when rights are infringed upon when it can actually be demonstrated that it makes things safer. It's worse when those who actually support those rights propose that they be infringed upon despite no provable benefit.

To me, that's no worse than Pat Quinn, the governor of Illinois saying that Illinois should not have concealed carry because, "If there was concealed carry, and you run into someone in the grocery store, they might pull a gun."

If there is going to be ANY restriction or impediment to the exercise of our rights (which I don't think there should be. Liberty has some risks, whose benefits far outweigh the negatives), there should absolutely be a PROVABLE, distinct public interest, which no one who advocates training can cite.

 

[aikidoka]

Well, as a relative newbie, I'd like to express my worth. I happened to be a firm believer in training and education. I'm sure that many people who apply for their license/permit to carry will also be newbies and in many cases have never even handled a gun. Shouldn't they at least learn the basic issues of carrying, shooting, the law in their locale and foremost GUN SAFETY!

IMHO, I think that all states should have some prerequisite for gun ownership. Don't forget that all of these "registered" owners represent the entire gun community, and their lack of ability will only hurt this community's ability to prove that we are RESPONSIBLE AND LAW ABIDING PEOPLE and not crazy, paranoid people who want to carry a gun. Enough said.

Training costs money, at times too much for some to be able to exercise their right under such mandates.

 

[patandhisruger]

here's a question...when i made my pistol purchases i had to pass the criminal check which right there should be enough for also attaining a carry lic...if my record is fine and the gov't says its ok for me to own a firearm, why do i have to go back and go thru all the same red tape just to get a permit?