Serious Dialogue. Why are you against.....

whistlersmother said:

uh, driver's ed. is required in Maryland...

Which shows even with training, people do stupid things.

Click to expand...

I'll give you an opportunity to qualify that broad claim.

So what about speech? You in support of training to open your mouth or post in a forum? Spoken word and writing has lead to the deaths of countless millions.

When a portion of society starts to remove guns from our lives , school shooting clubs , gun racks from pick up trucks and the other things to remove guns from young people we have a whole class of young people told guns are bad .

I grew up with guns and my dad taught me the right way to handle guns , it was a passage for a young man to get a rifle . Education is the one thing that will equalize the situation . I know here there are many here that teach their sons & daughters about guns and the use of them . We are the exception and not the rule .

Boom Boom said:

I'll give you an opportunity to qualify that broad claim.

So what about speech? You in support of training to open your mouth or post in a forum? Spoken word and writing has lead to the deaths of countless millions.

Click to expand...

What? Yes, posters should have training to open their mouth. Why don't you get some training in reading comprehension and logic?

You said driving does not require training. That is not correct. Maryland requires training to get a driver's license. Is that right or wrong? I'm not debating that, just stating the current state of affairs.

Now, even with the current state, people do stupid things behind the wheel. Thus, training does not prevent stupid stuff.

The poster said he was on the fence about people needing training for gun ownershio and I'm saying it doesn't matter, tbey would still do stupid things.

I squarely fall on the "no training" required side of the fence. It's a personal responsibilty thing.

Does that satisfy you, your highness?


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

WeaponsCollector said:

I won't be happy until there is nationwide constitutional carry and our right to keep and bear arms is truly not infringed.

Click to expand...

This echos my view as well. I also support campus carry.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

Re: training

I had to get training to get my Utah CCW permit.
Virginia permit also required evidence of training.
New Hampshire - no training needed.
13 (??) states are now constitutional carry.
I was exempt from Maryland HQL training. Prior to the HQL i had the Maryland required powerpoint training.

Is there any evidence that there is a difference in gun accident rates between constitutional carry states and states like Maryland that require training before a handgun is even purchased? I don't think so. If i remember correctly John Lott reports that CCW training requirements make for fewer people with permits which correlates with higher crime rates.

Note that i'm 100% for getting training. However if you can't prove accident rates go up with CCW carriers i'd argue that REQUIRING training before purchase is not only an illegal infringement but it provides no benefit.

IronEye said:

Re: training

I had to get training to get my Utah CCW permit.
Virginia permit also required evidence of training.
New Hampshire - no training needed.
13 (??) states are now constitutional carry.
I was exempt from Maryland HQL training. Prior to the HQL i had the Maryland required powerpoint training.

Is there any evidence that there is a difference in gun accident rates between constitutional carry states and states like Maryland that require training before a handgun is even purchased? I don't think so. If i remember correctly John Lott reports that CCW training requirements make for fewer people with permits which correlates with higher crime rates.

Note that i'm 100% for getting training. However if you can't prove accident rates go up with CCW carriers i'd argue that REQUIRING training before purchase is not only an illegal infringement but it provides no benefit.

Click to expand...

Not to nit pick, but that is not an exemption in state law, you were perhaps exempt because you owned a regulated firearm?

You are correct. I was documenting Maryland requiring training - old and new - not trying to say that the old safety video exempted me from the HQL training. I was exempted by owning restricted firearms.

My unclear point was - if there is no documented difference in accident rates for those carrying concealed based on state required training how can it be justified to require training before purchase?

montoya32 said:

....or deeply concerned with allowing Marylanders to own and carry firearms?

It's no secret that this forum is home to some members who do not see the Second Amendment as others do.

I am honestly interested in hearing some explanations as to why you developed this perspective. What information has led you to this mindset and how do you see the level of crime attributed to firearm laws, or the lack of laws.

PLEASE KEEP THIS CIVIL AND RESPECTFUL.

Click to expand...

Few believe that firearms should be banned in Md. General public support for carrying concealed pistols is far different. I just don't see the laws changing in Md, CT, RI and NJ for starters. The courts? Fed legislation? Don't see it...

You cant get the votes in Md. Move to WVA or Vermont and put that 45 on your hip!!

IronEye said:

You are correct. I was documenting Maryland requiring training - old and new - not trying to say that the old safety video exempted me from the HQL training. I was exempted by owning restricted firearms.

My unclear point was - if there is no documented difference in accident rates for those carrying concealed based on state required training how can it be justified to require training before purchase?

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

Meanwhile, my feeble understanding for years has been that training requirements provide no statistically discernible benefit.

The percentage of Americans who don't know much about gun safety and lack experience with guns has gone up over the years. And there are a lot of idiots. The mandatory training thing kind of starts to make a bit of sense at first glance but really thinking about it is is much to dangerous to make you go through a mandatory government program to access a constitutional right. Even if it starts out relatively tame that could always change and be priced and scheduled to be prohibitive. It might be a very good idea however to greatly expand optional training programs. While police budgets are way to tight to make this happen it would be great if local police stations (since they are everywhere across the nation and could serve lots of people) had free or low cost OPTIONAL safety training. Schedule it as frequently as you can so that not to many people won't miss it due to work obligations. In theory that could help people get to know their local officers and reduce accidental discharges. But I can't tell you where the money would come from so that may be a pipe dream. Expanded training could help a lot if people are not priced out. Give everyone access to safety training but I can't swallow mandating it.


I cannot support putting a barrier like that in front of a constitutional right. Imagine if that was done to any other right? Just because some people hate the second amendment does not mean that it is legally less protected than anything else in the Bill of Rights. I see some countries like France trying to put a government office in charge of fining social media platforms and search engines for leaving "fake news" up. You think that will never be abused? Now imagine if you had to get government mandated reporter training and they could take down your damning piece on corruption for being fake. If you don't care about guns you might laugh and call that an absurd comparison but can you tell me what would be legally different? If they can do one than why not the other as the protections for these rights in the Constitution are the same? Look at how much the corporate left news media has been screaming about Russian Facebook advertisements being the sole cause of Trump's victory. It would not be too much of a stretch for someone else to make a passionate plea about needing a government office of truth to save us.

I'm sure most that have read my replies to open carry question, know that I'm not in favor of it. With that said I believe we would a much better, civil, and respectful Maryland if we were Shall issue concealed carry. The right to defend oneself is natural and should not be hindered by anyone including the state. If the "bad" guys didn't know who was carrying they just might think twice. Chris

1841DNG said:

The percentage of Americans who don't know much about gun safety and lack experience with guns has gone up over the years. And there are a lot of idiots. The mandatory training thing kind of starts to make a bit of sense at first glance but really thinking about it is is much to dangerous to make you go through a mandatory government program to access a constitutional right. Even if it starts out relatively tame that could always change and be priced and scheduled to be prohibitive. It might be a very good idea however to greatly expand optional training programs. While police budgets are way to tight to make this happen it would be great if local police stations (since they are everywhere across the nation and could serve lots of people) had free or low cost OPTIONAL safety training. Schedule it as frequently as you can so that not to many people won't miss it due to work obligations. In theory that could help people get to know their local officers and reduce accidental discharges. But I can't tell you where the money would come from so that may be a pipe dream. Expanded training could help a lot if people are not priced out. Give everyone access to safety training but I can't swallow mandating it.


I cannot support putting a barrier like that in front of a constitutional right. Imagine if that was done to any other right? Just because some people hate the second amendment does not mean that it is legally less protected than anything else in the Bill of Rights. I see some countries like France trying to put a government office in charge of fining social media platforms and search engines for leaving "fake news" up. You think that will never be abused? Now imagine if you had to get government mandated reporter training and they could take down your damning piece on corruption for being fake. If you don't care about guns you might laugh and call that an absurd comparison but can you tell me what would be legally different? If they can do one than why not the other as the protections for these rights in the Constitution are the same? Look at how much the corporate left news media has been screaming about Russian Facebook advertisements being the sole cause of Trump's victory. It would not be too much of a stretch for someone else to make a passionate plea about needing a government office of truth to save us.

Click to expand...

Universal safety training for everyone as a part of the normal education curriculum not tied to the firearm ownership process. All children should be taught basic firearms safety just like "Duck and cover" during the cold war or having lock-down drills and fire drills today. You never know when a child or adult may come across a firearm so they should all be trained in basic safety issues like muzzle in a safe direction, finger off the trigger, action open, etc.

Of course firearms owners should be encouraged to have more advanced training but it should not be required to exercise a civil right unless they, the left, want to propose similar requirements for all civil rights i.e. speech, religion, assembly, etc.