Why 2nd Amendment supporters who support mandatory training are wrong….

[2aguy]

in your

But your flights of fancy aside. The idea of requiring training does not impact your fantasized heroes but might save a few thousand lives.

And forcing blacks to pass a Literacy Test before voting works for you too?

 

[Blues Man]

Propose the legislation and you'll get 95% of Democrats.

This would be a small step in the direction of sanity and that small step would be a big deal.

No you won't.

But you go ahead and do that if you want and let me know what happens.

The latest legislation democrats are floating is a 1000% excise tax on guns and ammo because they don't want people to learn how to handle guns safely they want to make it impossible for people to own them.

37 House Democrats roll out a bill to hit AR-15-style weapons with a 1,000% tax that could pass Congress without Republican support

"Congress must take action to stem the flood of weapons of war into American communities," Rep. Don Beyer said in a press release.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Unkotare]

I still doubt that our Founding Fathers had "... Expensive and inconvenient, but doable" in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

Concerning the OP, I strongly support the idea of being well trained and being honest with yourself before walking around armed.

On the other hand, conditions are not imposed on other Rights and perhaps reading too much Orwellian literature has made me mistrust big government so I could not support mandatory training requirements.

Thanks,

Do you think it's reasonable to require training and a license to drive a car?

 

[Grau]

Do you think it's reasonable to require training and a license to drive a car?

Yes, if the training is not excessive and the tests not designed for most people to fail.

My concerns, like other people who have written, are the possibilities of abuse by people who don't like guns,

Like many other things. Some people have a natural ability to both drive and handle a firearm and others are hopeless under any circumstances.

Anyway, I would have to be against mandatory training and licensing because it would be too easily abused by the anti gun politicians.

At the same time, I'll continue to teach gun safety and discourage the hopeless from owning one.

Thanks,

 

[Dante Reawakened]

There are several 2nd Amendment supporters here on U.S.message board who support the mandatory training to own and/or carry a gun. They smugly state they don’t mind the democrat tactic because they can pass the test so everyone should pass the test or be denied their Constitutional Right. They refuse to understand

It's not a Democratic party thing.. Many Democrats own guns.

case closed

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Do you think it's reasonable to require training and a license to drive a car?

To be fair, driving a car is a privilege not a right.

But we the people should be able to demand rues and regulations in our own societies.

 

[2aguy]

It's not a Democratic party thing.. Many Democrats own guns.

case closed

National socialists owned guns too....they took guns away from the people they planned on murdering.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

National socialists owned guns too....they took guns away from the people they planned on murdering.

The British Colonial American Rebels did that too. You did know that, right?

My own family was on Ling Island/NY when troops fro Connecticut went there to take away the guns of other colonists. This was before July 1776

 

[Dante Reawakened]

National socialists owned guns too....they took guns away from the people they planned on murdering.

Imbecile Alert!

 

[2aguy]

The British Colonial American Rebels did that too. You did know that, right?

My own family was on Ling Island/NY when troops fro Connecticut went there to take away the guns of other colonists. This was before July 1776

As did the democrats in the South....

Yes.....the government will take guns away from the very people they want to control or murder....

That is why we have the 2nd Amendment....

 

[Blues Man]

Yes, if the training is not excessive and the tests not designed for most people to fail.

My concerns, like other people who have written, are the possibilities of abuse by people who don't like guns,

Like many other things. Some people have a natural ability to both drive and handle a firearm and others are hopeless under any circumstances.

Anyway, I would have to be against mandatory training and licensing because it would be too easily abused by the anti gun politicians.

At the same time, I'll continue to teach gun safety and discourage the hopeless from owning one.

Thanks,

Except you do not have a right to operate a car on publicly owned roads. That little inconvenient fact is often ignored.

Driving on publicly owned roads is a privilege granted by the state and that privilege can be revoked at any time for just about any reason.

 

[2aguy]

Except you do not have a right to operate a car on publicly owned roads. That little inconvenient fact is often ignored.

Driving on publicly owned roads is a privilege granted by the state and that privilege can be revoked at any time for just about any reason.

Actually, I don't like to use that argument because the idiot gun grabbers will state that carrying a gun in public meets the same level as driving a car on a public road.

I think a better point would be if the democrats told black Americans they can only drive a car if they pass a special test....that no one else has to pass.

 

[Blues Man]

Actually, I don't like to use that argument because the idiot gun grabbers will state that carrying a gun in public meets the same level as driving a car on a public road.

I think a better point would be if the democrats told black Americans they can only drive a car if they pass a special test....that no one else has to pass.

But it doesn't because carrying a gun is NOT using a gun.

The 2nd does not give anyone the right to fire a weapon anytime and anywhere they want to.

 

[2aguy]

in your

But your flights of fancy aside. The idea of requiring training does not impact your fantasized heroes but might save a few thousand lives.

No...according to actual research....

Lives saved....based on research? By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct



that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—

==============

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)


2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey

Clinton's study by the DOJ....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.



n the third column of Table 6.2, we apply the Kleck and Gertz (1995) criteria for "genuine" DGUs (type A), leaving us with just 19 respondents. They represent 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known Kleck and Gertz estimate of 2.5 million, shown in the last

While ours is smaller, it is staistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. to the when we include the multiple DGUs victim. defensive reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 milli

While ours is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference petrator; in most cases (69 percent), the is due to sampling error. Note that when we include the multiple DGUs reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 million DGUs.
----

As shown in Table 6.6, the defender fired his or her gun in 27 percent of these incidents (combined "fire warning shots" and "fire at perpetrator" percentages, though some respondents reported firing both warning shots and airning at the perpetrator). Forty percent of these were "warning shots," and about a third were aimed at the perpetrator but missed. The perpetrator was wounded by the crime victim in eight percent of all DGUs. In nine percent of DGUs the victim captured and held the perpetrator at gunpoint until the police could arrive.

Obama's study...

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press

 

[Grau]

Except you do not have a right to operate a car on publicly owned roads. That little inconvenient fact is often ignored.

Driving on publicly owned roads is a privilege granted by the state and that privilege can be revoked at any time for just about any reason.

I agree completely and

 

[Grau]

I agree completely and

.... should have mentioned the difference between a right and a privilege.

Thanks,

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Do you think it's reasonable to require training and a license to drive a car?

Driving is not a Constitutional right, is it?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Imbecile Alert!

Thanks for the warning, but we already know you are an imbecile!

 

[Dadoalex]

No you won't.

But you go ahead and do that if you want and let me know what happens.

The latest legislation democrats are floating is a 1000% excise tax on guns and ammo because they don't want people to learn how to handle guns safely they want to make it impossible for people to own them.

37 House Democrats roll out a bill to hit AR-15-style weapons with a 1,000% tax that could pass Congress without Republican support

"Congress must take action to stem the flood of weapons of war into American communities," Rep. Don Beyer said in a press release.

www.businessinsider.com

Be unreasonable but be sure not to complain when you get unreasonable in return.

 

[Dadoalex]

No...according to actual research....

Lives saved....based on research? By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct



that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—

==============

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)


2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey

Clinton's study by the DOJ....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.



n the third column of Table 6.2, we apply the Kleck and Gertz (1995) criteria for "genuine" DGUs (type A), leaving us with just 19 respondents. They represent 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known Kleck and Gertz estimate of 2.5 million, shown in the last

While ours is smaller, it is staistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. to the when we include the multiple DGUs victim. defensive reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 milli

While ours is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference petrator; in most cases (69 percent), the is due to sampling error. Note that when we include the multiple DGUs reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 million DGUs.
----

As shown in Table 6.6, the defender fired his or her gun in 27 percent of these incidents (combined "fire warning shots" and "fire at perpetrator" percentages, though some respondents reported firing both warning shots and airning at the perpetrator). Forty percent of these were "warning shots," and about a third were aimed at the perpetrator but missed. The perpetrator was wounded by the crime victim in eight percent of all DGUs. In nine percent of DGUs the victim captured and held the perpetrator at gunpoint until the police could arrive.

Obama's study...

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press

Impressive outhouse pile.

BUT

Does not change the fact that requiring training would save lives.

Your fantasies aside, you know like the guy who stopped a home invasion by shooting a 12 yo girl who knocked on the wrong door, training is a good idea.

You would truly have to be so stupidly immersed in NRA propaganda to think otherwise. BTW...If training is so horrible why does the NRA offer it?