Poll: Should the government make more requirements in order to get a CHL?

[Father of four]

These "new gun owners", "CHL permit" owners have every bit a right to protect themselves as someone who knows it all like yourself.

 

[Hawaiian]

Read the first sentence in my post. I said NO to more regulation to our second amendment rights. I simply pointed out my concern over the lack of training some new gun owners and permit holders have taken advantage of and the possible negative effects it could have on the those that have.

And, no, I am not a "know it all", I have a lot more to learn and intend on continuing my training.

 

[Father of four]

I have mixed feelings on this. I will say no to more regulation to our 2nd Amendment rights. However, I am concerned with the huge number of first time gun buyers and first time concealed handgun permits issued. Not out of fear for the general public, but for the new players. I have some neighbors and coworkers who bought their first gun or got their first concealed carry permit after the election. That 3 hour class did not teach them all they need to know to be able to hit what they shoot at or more importantly, when they can use deadly force. I have preached the importance of getting additional training. Not all listen. They just wanted to have a gun and a permit to carry it legally. This scares me. We have a million new gun owners that did not do their homework. If they screw up, the anti's will use it against us all.
So, there is something to be said about required training. Think in the terms of self preservation of rights on this one. Most of us here on this forum, have trained to shoot straight and know the laws that pertain to the use of deadly force. Most of the new players have not a clue to what they are doing. And when they screw up, we will all be painted with the same brush by the anti's.

As you said. "Think in the terms of self preservation of rights on this one."

Right! Those terms of preservation should trump what "you feel" as Homework.

The right for you-us-them is not after we do what someone else says it is.

It is a right.

 

[Father of four]

I dont have to train! I dont feel the need to train!

I do feel the need to protect me-my family-my friends-and my Country.

 

[Father of four]

I am not "Trained" in being a father of four. I am a father of four. I have a right to be a father. I know there can be problems if I do not do it right. But I get my chance. I do not need to go to school first to see how someone else wants me to raise my children.

I have a right to defend myself. I have a right to own and carry a firearm. I am not required to be trained in firearm ethics first to be able to protect myself.

 

[Hawaiian]

Wow, three posts in a row. You win. :winkkiss:

 

[Father of four]

I am not trying to win or cause an argument. I just disagree with your notion that a person needs to be trained in order to protect themselves.

 

[Hawaiian]

OK :winkkiss:

 

[keitha300wsm]

YouTube - Cop accidentally shoots himself
Here's a guy that thinks only trained police can handle guns safely

 

[sprice37]

 

[Zak]

Having lived in VT for a while it took me a long time to get my carry license here in WA. Main reason was overcoming the complete disbelief that I had to get permission to carry, Funny thing is despite all the nuts that live there (probably wouldn't pass your test) )there wasn't problems with shootings, weird!

If the media went crazy every time an idiot started a fire being stupid would you be for matches and lighters to only be sold to licensed / vetted buyers?

I'll let you guess how I voted

 

[el gringo loco]

Whether you believe more requirements should be added to get a CHL or not, I think you would be hard pressed to justify why CHL holders as a whole would not benefit from additional training. I understand the argument against additional regulations and requirements, but I also see the benefit in those additional regulations and requirements. In other words, if you remove the statutory requirement portion of the discussion, I think whether or not CHL holders should have more training than is currently required is a conversation worth having.

It's kind of a hard one for me. In a perfect world everyone would be able to own a fully operational tank (with all of the appropriate ordinance) if they so chose. But, if we lived in a perfect world, I don't think the tank would have ever been invented.

The problems I see with CHL holders is not a lack of good intentions, criminal tendencies, or even too many safety issues. What I see is a lot of CHL holders who do not fully understand the law surrounding the use of deadly force or the threat of the use of deadly force, who do not understand how the police will respond when responding to a scene where deadly force has been used (not how you think they should respond but how they will respond), and don't fully understand the capabilities/weaknesses/operation/ballistics/etc. of their carry weapon or their own skills with regard to using that weapon. What you end up with is someone who doesn't know what they don't know, doesn't care to learn, or blindly insists that they don't need to learn any of that stuff in order to survive a deadly force encounter and its aftermath.

Too many CHL holders have an opinion of the use of deadly force that is based on their own ethics and morals or how they think the use of deadly force should be judged, not based on the laws and case law by which their actions are actually going to be judged. Too few CHL holders realize that when the police arrive (right or wrong), they will probably be, at least initially, treated like a suspect and taken down at gunpoint. They need to plan to respond in certain ways to avoid being shot by responding officers who have no idea who the good guy is and, quite frankly at that moment in time, don't care. And, too few CHL holders have taken the time to learn their weapon thoroughly and study the dynamics of gun battles enough to understand how few shots they will probably hit with, how they are individually responsible for every round that leaves their gun, and what exactly those rounds will do when they hit their target or their backstop.

I say this as someone who carried for several years believing that my military training and DD214 were all I really needed to responsibly carry. As I got older and sought out additional training, I realized how much I had not known and how many misconceptions I had about all of the issues I outlined. As I realized this, I sought out even more training. Had I found myself in certain situations when I was younger, I would probably be in prison because of my misconceptions about the law surrounding self-defense. I was lucky as are most CHL holders. But, rather than hope everyone is lucky enough to never be in a legally precarious situation, I would rather just see everyone well trained

I am not "Trained" in being a father of four. I am a father of four. I have a right to be a father. I know there can be problems if I do not do it right. But I get my chance. I do not need to go to school first to see how someone else wants me to raise my children.

I have a right to defend myself. I have a right to own and carry a firearm. I am not required to be trained in firearm ethics first to be able to protect myself.

You have those rights. The problem is that you might find yourself a father of three if an untrained CHL holder needs to defend himself and is unaware of his backstop. You may be the absentee father of four if you go to prison because you shot someone you were not legally justified to shoot. You might not have a home to raise those four kids in if you are found civilly liable after defending yourself.

 

[Father of four]

I agree. But it is my right to go about it however I like. If I do something stupid I should be accountable for it. I know how to use a gun. I do not need someone telling me that I need to go to class and learn how. I have guns for protection and hunting. I do not plan on placing myself in events to show off my marksman ship. I am not trying out for Law enforcement. I am just a man, who loves his wife, kids and country and believe I have a right to defend them with my own firearm if needed.

 

[el gringo loco]

I am just a man, who loves his wife, kids and county and believe I have a right to defend them with my own firearm if needed.

I hope you meant to say country. Your profile says you live in Portland. No one loves Multnomah county. It's a train wreck. And, yes, I live in Multnomah county.

 

[Father of four]

Yes..oops again.

 

[Partsproduction]

They need to plan to respond in certain ways to avoid being shot by responding officers who have no idea who the good guy is and, quite frankly at that moment in time, don't care.

Then they should find employment that doesn't require the carrying of a weapon. Common sense tells me to identify my target, I didn't need to take some course to know that. To just shoot everyone left standing hints of panic, and people who panic shouldn't have guns.

 

[Correctthought]

What are your thoughts?

I think they should. Too many gun totting idiots ruin this priviledge for us. They think they are hard core just because the gov't gave them permission to carry a gun legally

IMHO:

We should have a literacy test to prove voting qualifications, too many morons running around.

Too many morons running around abusing children, we should have licensing for procreative purposes. Child abusers feel all "hard core" cause they have someone smaller to hurt.

Too many fat b@stard's running around ((I'm just festively plump, btw)) we ought to have a nutritional licensing based on bmi so that we can have the privilege of buying a twinkie.

No, just.... no; a right delayed is a right denied. For every good intentioned person, there's a "genius" who thinks gun licensing schemes like they have in DC or NYC are reasonable and acceptable to enforce.

So back to your observations:

How many is too many... 1, 50, 5000, 5,000,000, 5^5000? Are there any numbers at all?

How many ccw holder's really think they're "Hard Core"?

The state of Vermont has no ccw licensing, is a significant portion of them Hard Core? I guess the proportion of morons running around would be higher because there's less licensing? Chicago must be paradise, it has more requirements than we do?

This can go on ad - infinitum; what I do know, is that I lived in a city and state that grievously restricted rights and constantly looked for more "reasonable restrictions" because gun control advocates are always hungry for more. They always use any gain as a stepping stone to further restrict ownership.

The type of questions you're asking always plays into the gun grabber's hand; it shows a certain lack of conviction in the rightness and justice of firearms ownership.

While acknowledging that the State of Vermont is in line with the founder's intent, I am grateful that I live in a state that at least as far as I can tell, takes my 2nd amendment rights more seriously than other places do.

 

[sprice37]

IMHO:


How many ccw holder's really think they're "Hard Core"?

I am f'ing hardcore!!!!

 

[el gringo loco]

Then they should find employment that doesn't require the carrying of a weapon. Common sense tells me to identify my target, I didn't need to take some course to know that. To just shoot everyone left standing hints of panic, and people who panic shouldn't have guns.

I'll refer you to the other part of my post

...who do not understand how the police will respond when responding to a scene where deadly force has been used (not how you think they should respond but how they will respond)...

I'm referring to people who don't think that they should be disarmed, don't think they should have to put their hands up, get handcuffed, etc. and want to plea their case right there. The police will arrive with minimal information and will want to disarm all parties, secure the scene, and then find out what happened.

 

[Correctthought]

I am f'ing hardcore!!!!

Ok, 1, do we have 2 hard core gun owners?