Would you support Required Testing?

[dburkhead]

So you can find a few instances of innocent people having been injured, even killed, in tragic accidents related to defense of self and others. Do you have any idea how many people were not hurt or killed precisely because an armed individual stopped a violent criminal before he could do further harm, or even better because a criminal decided to go into either a less "confrontational" line of crime or even get an honest job rather than risk running into that armed citizen? No? Neither do I, to be honest, but those issues do not make news stories. Without that information, a short list such as you provided is of no value for setting public policy. It's no more than "waving the bloody shirt."

Now how many times have the police accidentally shot an innocent bystander, you cite one, but how often does it happen in reality? (Hint: check on the stats for the number of times the police shoot the wrong person--as a percentage of shootings, with the number of times armed citizens acting in defense of self or others have shot the wrong person and be prepared for a surprise). The actual facts on the ground call into question just how much "training" is actually helpful in preventing accidents. It comes down mostly to matters of temperament. Those with appropriate temperament will get the training without need to be forced into it. Those who lack the temperament won't benefit much, if any, from any mandated training anyway, not without making the training a lot longer and a lot more intensive than anything that you couldn't even pretend wasn't an effort to restrict license availability. It would need to be training to affect the temperament itself and that's a lot harder than acquiring a few skills.

Perfection is an unachievable goal. Nobody has suggested that having an armed citizenry leads to a perfect world and it's only the anti's who use the lack of perfection as "evidence" that "something must be done."

What we may owe "to ourselves" is between ourselves and whatever powers, if any, we believe in. It is not society's place to tell me that because I haven't jumped through this hoop or that one that I cannot have the tools to protect me and mine against violence.

As for "that guy's skill level" first off, how often does it happen that two people, both armed, decide to double team some violent crime in progress? Second, regardless of how much "training" either of you have, if you're going to work together, you'll have to make some kind of plan. If you have any kind of skill level, you'll be able to assess right off whether that person's "training" consists of "watching the movie SWAT 20 times" and plan accordingly. But even if so, how many cases can you really find where that's been a problem in a defense of self or others situation? And do you really think that something like 4 hours in a class and 4 hours on a range is going to make much difference to someone who thought that "watching the movie SWAT 20 times" was adequate training?

People like to bring up the car analogy, but does a nice, sedate drive around the neighborhood (as every driving test I've ever taken or witnessed has been) tell you anything about a person's ability to handle an emergency--brakes failing, skidding on slick roads, a sudden obstacle moving into ones path, etc.), anything at all? To be frank, automobile licensing, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding, has essentially nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue. It's a gussied up driving tax, no more.

 

[Fletch]

I don't and wouldn't support testing. I could live with it though, if the standards were objective and the government had to leave you alone once you passed.

 

[dburkhead]

I don't and wouldn't support testing. I could live with it though, if the standards were objective and the government had to leave you alone once you passed.

And if government agents (law enforcment, etc.) had to meet, at a minimum, the same standards, take the same classes available to you and me, use the same ranges available to you and me (for any "practical" tests), etc., without exception or waiver.

If I have to meet this standard and jump through those hoops to be permitted to carry a gun then that person on the government payroll had better meet the same standards and have to go through the same hoops for the privilege to not only do so but to be paid to do so using my tax dollars.

 

[usafshark]

You dismiss the car analogy out of hand a little to easily I think. We give at 16 year old the ability to drive a 5000 pound truck at 90 on the interstate and watch as over 5000 16-20 years olds are fatalities each year since 1994 according to the NHTSA. FARS Encyclopedia: Trends - Occupants And we only have them perform a "nice, sedate drive around the neighborhood" to prove that they can do it. Similarly we allow anyone that turns 21 and has a clean record to carry a tool that is designed to kill someone without regard to their level of training. We allow 18 year olds the ability to own a rifle or shotgun without regard to their skill level. It sounds by your last paragraph that you would desire for the driving test to be toughened (if not plz correct me) as would I, but at the same time you desire no toughened training requirements to own a handgun.

 

[munky_3434]

allright......here's one
WHAT IF worms had machine guns?
see below

 

[munky_3434]

Birds would'nt fu** with them

we can what if all day long

we can what if all day long. bottom line yes it is a right, but who draws the line on where your rights infringe on another mans. yes the constitution should be our ltc. and no we should'nt have to test for competency to carry, but all the if we did politicians would regulate crap is a moot point. we know they would or at least would try.they try to get their hands in everything they can.

we should'nt have to test for our rights, but the constitution was written when we had a far lower idiot per capita ratio.we all on here are competent, no biggie. but several people(outside this site) are'nt, that's scary. should they be afforded the ability to carry....YES. but a little education can go a long way

 

[INrange]

I think we need mandatory classes on the constitution.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am not posting this so we can argue wether or not these shootings were in self-defense, but to illustrate the point that those that use weapons in response to an unprovoked attack do not always hit their target and can hit innocent people who had nothing to with the the attack. Don't we owe it to ourselves to make sure we have the training needed to repel an attack without injuring those not involved and don't other armed citizens owe it to us to be as well trained as possible so we don't have to worry about our loved ones being injured by someone just trying to defend themself? If we don't require the training, how can we be sure that those who carry can defend themselves without posing a larger threat to innocent bystanders than to the criminal?

OK, I'll play:
Quoted from GunFacts (Gun Facts - Your guide for debunking gun control myth)

11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. (page 16-original reference:
Cramer C and Kopel D. "Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws." Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994 )

We know the training level of police.

Seems to me that the above stat points to non-police firearm use as being safer.



Blessings,
B

 

[slacker]

^

High school civics? Oh wait... that's usually taught by liberal hippies that are too busy seeing how far up their asses their head will fit to actually understand what they are teaching.
</rant>

 

[melensdad]

Let's be honest about testing and licensing schemes, they are nothing more than a 'barrier' to prevent, or at least discourage, honest citizens from doing something. Most of our gun laws are racist in their roots and were put in place to prevent the freed slaves in 'their place' and prevent them from attaining any real equality. Modern licensing and testing is nothing more than an updated version of the same tired old racist schemes, but now they are being used as barriers against all citizens. Just listen to Chicago Mayor Richard Daily about what is reasonable to impose on gun owners.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You dismiss the car analogy out of hand a little to easily I think. We give at 16 year old the ability to drive a 5000 pound truck at 90 on the interstate and watch as over 5000 16-20 years olds are fatalities each year since 1994 according to the NHTSA. FARS Encyclopedia: Trends - Occupants And we only have them perform a "nice, sedate drive around the neighborhood" to prove that they can do it. Similarly we allow anyone that turns 21 and has a clean record to carry a tool that is designed to kill someone without regard to their level of training. We allow 18 year olds the ability to own a rifle or shotgun without regard to their skill level. It sounds by your last paragraph that you would desire for the driving test to be toughened (if not plz correct me) as would I, but at the same time you desire no toughened training requirements to own a handgun.

No. A firearm is a tool designed to propel a projectile at high speed when used. It can be used to kill someone. It can be used to cut a playing card in half sideways. It can also be used as a showpiece, never firing a single round. Intent, not item needs to be "tested". You're falling for the antis argument that the tool is at fault. It's the user. What level of training he/she has is moot. For that matter, what level of training did the guy have in the tower at the University of Texas in 1966? What level of training did Kennedy's assassin have? Weren't they both military-trained?

All of this disregards the fact that we don't need to "certify" how much training someone has-this is not a proper governmental function. If someone is a criminal or is insane and is incarcerated, that person needs to not be armed. Other than that, the responsibility for safety, whether auto, fire, firearm, or chainsaw, falls to the individual. That means that if a parent judges his/her child to be responsible enough to carry and is willing to assume the liability for that decision, it's not for you or me or anyone else to say otherwise.

Any time you sit down to negotiate what you already have, you've already lost. (I don't know who said that originally. It wasn't me.)

Blessings,
B

 

[dburkhead]

You dismiss the car analogy out of hand a little to easily I think. We give at 16 year old the ability to drive a 5000 pound truck at 90 on the interstate and watch as over 5000 16-20 years olds are fatalities each year since 1994 according to the NHTSA. FARS Encyclopedia: Trends - Occupants And we only have them perform a "nice, sedate drive around the neighborhood" to prove that they can do it. Similarly we allow anyone that turns 21 and has a clean record to carry a tool that is designed to kill someone without regard to their level of training. We allow 18 year olds the ability to own a rifle or shotgun without regard to their skill level. It sounds by your last paragraph that you would desire for the driving test to be toughened (if not plz correct me) as would I, but at the same time you desire no toughened training requirements to own a handgun.

And yet we have hundreds of thousands of people who carry that "tool that is designed to kill someone" (which must mean that all of my firearms are defective because they haven't killed anyone yet) exactly how many licensed gun owners have been involved in a criminal or accidental shooting?

Even leaving aside the Constitutional issue, unless you can show that there is an actual problem, a "compelling societal interest" then there is no reason to add further restrictions to gun possession or carrying. And make no mistake, that's exactly what a "training" requirement amounts to. The simple fact that Indiana has gone for years without a training requirement and done so without significant problems demonstrates that there isn't any compelling government interest to justify it.

As far as automobile licensing, there are several key differences:
- automobiles, are far more dangerous, in actual practice, than handguns owned by law abiding citizens, in that you are more likely to die from some stupid, irresponsible, or downright hostile driver's actions than to be accidentally shot by a law abiding citizen. If the level of danger posed by automobiles isn't enough to generate that "compelling government interest" for heightened training requirements, then the lesser threat posed by law abiding citizens certainly does not.
- there is no large, organized, group trying to ban personal automobiles and using "registration," "licensing," and "training" to make automobiles progressively more difficult to obtain and use. There is, however, for guns.
- Nowhere in the Constitution does it say, "the right of the people to keep and use vehicles shall not be infringed."

There simply is not justification for requiring training for either firearms ownership or the carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens. There are lots of predictions of imminent disaster if we don't do it, but the facts in evidence tell a different story.

Accidents happen, and they're tragic. But more restrictions simply mean less chance of a law abiding citizen being on the scene of the next Luby's Diner, or LIRR shooting, or Columbine, or Virginia Tech, or... Well, you get the idea. And less chance of one being on the scene means more chance of them happening and more chance of higher body counts when they do happen. And additional hoops, no matter how "common sense" (what an oxymoron) one claims they are, are more restrictions.

 

[NateIU10]

You dismiss the car analogy out of hand a little to easily I think. We give at 16 year old the ability to drive a 5000 pound truck at 90 on the interstate and watch as over 5000 16-20 years olds are fatalities each year since 1994 according to the NHTSA. FARS Encyclopedia: Trends - Occupants And we only have them perform a "nice, sedate drive around the neighborhood" to prove that they can do it. Similarly we allow anyone that turns 21 and has a clean record to carry a tool that is designed to kill someone without regard to their level of training. We allow 18 year olds the ability to own a rifle or shotgun without regard to their skill level. It sounds by your last paragraph that you would desire for the driving test to be toughened (if not plz correct me) as would I, but at the same time you desire no toughened training requirements to own a handgun.

Actually, we allow anyone 18 or older that "has a clean record to carry a tool that is designed to kill someone without regard to their level of training." Your arguments seem to be getting more and more anti-gun. How is it that I am less capable or deserving of protecting myself based solely on the fact that I'm under 21? No training. No restrictions. No government interference.

 

[G McBride]

WOW!!!

What a bunch of deep thinkers and supporters of 2A we are here, good for you.

I am scheduling a class so that I can apply for the Utah permit. Even if Indiana would ever think about training and certificate of training, I think we have proven here that we do not intend to let anyone add more restrictions to our Indiana Laws.

 

[Annie Oakley]

NO!

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free speech.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free religion.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to a free press.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to vote.

Why should I need a test to exercise my right to keep and bear arms?

What he said!!!!

 

[Annie Oakley]

It does, and always has bothered me that I have to apply and pay for a LTCH. I am no more responsible having that piece of paper than I am without it. Now, possibly it weeds out some folks who aren't supposed to have a weapon but it sure isn't many because as most of us know truly crazy people and felons don't apply. If we have to have a license then it should be good anywhere we go since the Constitution is supposed to apply in all states, some seem to have forgotten that but that is a different topic.....

 

[usafshark]

OK, I'll play:
Quoted from GunFacts (Gun Facts - Your guide for debunking gun control myth)

11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. (page 16-original reference:
Cramer C and Kopel D. "Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws." Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994 )

We know the training level of police.

Seems to me that the above stat points to non-police firearm use as being safer.



Blessings,
B

The discrepancy between those two stats are likely due to the nature of your typical police shooting (on the street with bystanders readily available) and you typical civilian shooting (in ones residence without bystanders available).

 

[usafshark]

I think we need mandatory classes on the constitution.

The second amendment makes no reference to restriction of weapons onwership based on having a criminal record, yet I think everyone on this board would agree that felony shouldn't own firerams.

Mandatory constitution classes used to be taught in high school. I remember it as Government class in my senior year, but now I think the text books are written by the ultra-liberals and are probrably useless by now.

 

[singlestacksig]

Robbery victim accidentally shot bystander while firing in self defense
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=275

Two cases where a victim of crime, while using a firearm in self-defense, shot an innocent bystander.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3478360

People vs Hernandez...the investigation found that the officer that was killed was accidentally and unfortunately killed by another officer, meaning that even with adequate training we could not completely eradicate the possibility of not hitting the target while firing in self-defense
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3478360

You cite cases that did not happen in Indiana, the OP was should Indiana have a requirment for 'training' before LTCH.
Some of the posted examples were from states that already have stricter requirments for gun ownership & carry.

I think to many people jump to the wrong 'cause' when they think they see a problem.
Yes guns in the wrong hands can cause problems. BUt we can not over look human history & the fact that we have a human right for self defense.
One could push for more gun safety & training with out infringing on that right..
Very few people would aurgue that reproduction is not a human right. So in order to reduce the problems with that we teach sex education & basic biology in schools.
Why do we not teach Gun safety in all schools ??

Indiana has fewer examples of bystanders getting injured even though we have a higher number of people carring guns, because we are not 'afraid' of guns.. We still have a strong youth education program in this state, We have 4-H & boy scouts. WE have a very active hunter population & hunter ED classes..

We teach not just those who seek out a LTCH but as many people as we can... With out forcing it upon them...

 

[usafshark]

Except in special cases (expensive competition guns, etc.) a firearm IS designed to kill. Just because yours hasen't means nothing more than you are lucky. We kill paper or watermelons or cans because luckily we don't need to kill but still enjoy shooting, but to use the argument we use with anti's here about the gun being a tool that doesn't kill is silly. I don't understand the resistance to making sure that firearm owners have the basic training to safely use them. I'm not trying to make everyone pay to go to a Blackwater course, jusy trying to ensure we all know all gun owners have a basic level of skill to safely oprate their weapons. Why is there little outrage when cops shoot an innocent bystander? Because they have a level of training to fall back on. If IN citizens do not, then when a tragedy happens the possibility exists of training being mandated then. And we won't have the ability of having the upper hand or even having input to what those restrictions will be. If IN citizens can't say "but I took the required state approved training prior to owning my firearms" then the anti's get to make the rules and we won't be invited to the part. They might even have enough ammo to make more "gun free" crminal zones. Why not beat them to the punch and have the ability to make the rules instead of watching from outside as it happens?