Concealed Handgun Permit Holder Stops Mass Public Shooting In Brownsburg, Indiana

[Mac-7]

Most of the guns on the country; but hardly a lick of will to fight...

Gun owners have been asserting their rights for 100 years

but liberal weenies have been brainwashing students in the public schools for 50 years

 

[2aguy]

A nut with a gun was ready to shoot up a public place and the OP tells us guns are a good thing. WTF?

Americans use their legal guns 1.2 million times a year to save lives.....according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....lives saved from rape, robbery and murder........

Guns are a good thing in the hands of good people...they save lives.

As more Americans own and carry guns in our country...over the last 27 years....

Gun murder down 49%

Gun crime down 75%

Violent crime down 72%

You can't explain that.

 

[August West]

Most of the guns on the country; but hardly a lick of will to fight...

Gun owners have been asserting their rights for 100 years

but liberal weenies have been brainwashing students in the public schools for 50 years

It`s good to have a brain to wash. That could keep a kid from growing up and sending his money to Nation`s Real Assholes.

A nut with a gun was ready to shoot up a public place and the OP tells us guns are a good thing. WTF?

Americans use their legal guns 1.2 million times a year to save lives.....according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....lives saved from rape, robbery and murder........

Guns are a good thing in the hands of good people...they save lives.

As more Americans own and carry guns in our country...over the last 27 years....

Gun murder down 49%

Gun crime down 75%

Violent crime down 72%

You can't explain that.

Violent crime has been dropping globally since the early 90s and it`s not because American chickenshits are squandering their money on guns.

 

[Papageorgio]

A nut with a gun was ready to shoot up a public place and the OP tells us guns are a good thing. WTF?

A man shot two people and was going to shoot a third. What is your solution?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Concealed carry makes the only tactical sense, and over time will prove to be a far better practice than open carry. We've already seen the hazards of open carry in Georgia.

We need to get the laws changed so that you can do either one, without fees, or training requirements in all 50 states.

Open carry is more of a laibility than a benefit. Training is a necessity these days; we're no longer a half rural country where people get their first firearms at 9 or 10 and are taught safety and use early in their lives. A 30 year old buying his first pistol and isn't required to get training to carry is a menace, not an asset. Those people should leave them at home, and most especially not allowed open carry, where they will just be more likely to just be mugged and have it taken from them or shoot themselves.

From a strategic perspective, I would agree that concealed carry is better, but there is something about open carry that keeps most people from acting like assholes.

The conclusion: We need to be permitted to open carry belt-fed machine guns.

Machine Guns or Valhalla!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Most of the guns on the country; but hardly a lick of will to fight...

Gun owners have been asserting their rights for 100 years

but liberal weenies have been brainwashing students in the public schools for 50 years

It`s good to have a brain to wash. That could keep a kid from growing up and sending his money to Nation`s Real Assholes.

A nut with a gun was ready to shoot up a public place and the OP tells us guns are a good thing. WTF?

Americans use their legal guns 1.2 million times a year to save lives.....according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....lives saved from rape, robbery and murder........

Guns are a good thing in the hands of good people...they save lives.

As more Americans own and carry guns in our country...over the last 27 years....

Gun murder down 49%

Gun crime down 75%

Violent crime down 72%

You can't explain that.

Violent crime has been dropping globally since the early 90s and it`s not because American chickenshits are squandering their money on guns.

The only solution to a nut with a gun is a non-nut with a gun.

The solution to shootings is to shoot back.

Now, go **** your gun-grabbing self. We're going for machine guns next. We will have them or die trying.

Machine guns or Valhalla.

 

[Levant]

Concealed carry makes the only tactical sense, and over time will prove to be a far better practice than open carry. We've already seen the hazards of open carry in Georgia.

We need to get the laws changed so that you can do either one, without fees, or training requirements in all 50 states.

Open carry is more of a laibility than a benefit. Training is a necessity these days; we're no longer a half rural country where people get their first firearms at 9 or 10 and are taught safety and use early in their lives. A 30 year old buying his first pistol and isn't required to get training to carry is a menace, not an asset. Those people should leave them at home, and most especially not allowed open carry, where they will just be more likely to just be mugged and have it taken from them or shoot themselves.

Sorry......I disagree.

I think anyone who buys a gun should get all the training they can afford in money and time......

But........

Owning a gun and carrying it is a Right.......any fee, tax or training requirement will be used by the anti-gun extremists to keep people from being able to exercise that Right.

In Europe, they use extreme training requirements to keep normal people from being able to qualify to own the few categories of hunting guns.......so only the rich and the politically connected have the ability to own a gun.....

We have over 18.6 million people in this country today who have legal permits to carry guns....more than that when you count the states where Constitutional Carry is the rule....

Our gun crime rate went down 75%.

Our gun murder rate went down 49%....

Our accidental gun death rate went down as well....people are not mishandling their guns even with greater numbers of people not only owning guns, but carrying them.

Your fear of people owning guns without training is unfounded......and by giving in to a mandatory training requirement, you are infringing on a Right......

More innocent people are killed by cops missing their target than are killed by licensed gun owners missing their target - and not just the total, the rate of hitting an innocent bystander is also higher for cops. That's not an attack on cops; the amount and circumstances of their work is far different from non-police gun owners but it is indicative that gun owners are not the threat the left would like to pretend they are.

 

[Levant]

A nut with a gun was ready to shoot up a public place and the OP tells us guns are a good thing. WTF?

A man shot two people and was going to shoot a third. What is your solution?

Clearly the solution is two disarm the people, disband the police, and call a social worker.

 

[Mac-7]

It`s good to have a brain to wash. That could keep a kid from growing up and sending his money to Nation`s Real Assholes.

no one said sick neurotic young people are brainless

many of the most horrible mass murderers in history were highly intelligent

 

[2aguy]

Most of the guns on the country; but hardly a lick of will to fight...

Gun owners have been asserting their rights for 100 years

but liberal weenies have been brainwashing students in the public schools for 50 years

It`s good to have a brain to wash. That could keep a kid from growing up and sending his money to Nation`s Real Assholes.

A nut with a gun was ready to shoot up a public place and the OP tells us guns are a good thing. WTF?

Americans use their legal guns 1.2 million times a year to save lives.....according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....lives saved from rape, robbery and murder........

Guns are a good thing in the hands of good people...they save lives.

As more Americans own and carry guns in our country...over the last 27 years....

Gun murder down 49%

Gun crime down 75%

Violent crime down 72%

You can't explain that.

Violent crime has been dropping globally since the early 90s and it`s not because American chickenshits are squandering their money on guns.

And you deliberately act like you don't understand the numbers...

As more Americans own and carry guns....over 18.6 million now in the United States can carry guns legally for self defense....

Our gun murder rate went down 49%

Our gun crime rate went down 75%

Our violent crime rate went down 72%


You are the morons who tell us that if more people have more guns we will have more gun murder and more gun crime...

27 years later...with more people with more guns and actually carrying those guns in public....

gun murder down 49%

gun crime down 75%

violent crime down 72%


What that shows, which you know already....is your theory about guns.....is completely wrong.....normal people with guns do not increase the gun crime rate, so your desire for more gun control laws is completely wrong....gun control didn't lower the gun crime rate, gun ownership did not increase the gun crime rate.


What does cause violent crime in our democrat party controlled cities to be higher?

Democrat party policies......where they keep releasing violent, known, gun criminals over and over again, and where they constantly attack the police and get the police to stop doing their jobs in arresting violent criminals...

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.

 

[2aguy]

Most of the guns on the country; but hardly a lick of will to fight...

Gun owners have been asserting their rights for 100 years

but liberal weenies have been brainwashing students in the public schools for 50 years

It`s good to have a brain to wash. That could keep a kid from growing up and sending his money to Nation`s Real Assholes.

A nut with a gun was ready to shoot up a public place and the OP tells us guns are a good thing. WTF?

Americans use their legal guns 1.2 million times a year to save lives.....according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....lives saved from rape, robbery and murder........

Guns are a good thing in the hands of good people...they save lives.

As more Americans own and carry guns in our country...over the last 27 years....

Gun murder down 49%

Gun crime down 75%

Violent crime down 72%

You can't explain that.

Violent crime has been dropping globally since the early 90s and it`s not because American chickenshits are squandering their money on guns.

it`s not because American chickenshits are squandering their money on guns.


You are also wrong on this....actual research shows that armed citizens can help lower the crime rate...

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43
====

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS

Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect.

For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year.

The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

====

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: cemood@wm.edu Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault.

This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem.

Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder.
====
An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates.

Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.

It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Summary and Conclusion

Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime.

However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years

. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime.

Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering.

We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend.

These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted.

The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review


Taking apart ayre and donahue one....


“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.
Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.

The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons

 

[Mac-7]

Most of the guns on the country; but hardly a lick of will to fight...

Gun owners have been asserting their rights for 100 years

but liberal weenies have been brainwashing students in the public schools for 50 years

It`s good to have a brain to wash. That could keep a kid from growing up and sending his money to Nation`s Real Assholes.

A nut with a gun was ready to shoot up a public place and the OP tells us guns are a good thing. WTF?

Americans use their legal guns 1.2 million times a year to save lives.....according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....lives saved from rape, robbery and murder........

Guns are a good thing in the hands of good people...they save lives.

As more Americans own and carry guns in our country...over the last 27 years....

Gun murder down 49%

Gun crime down 75%

Violent crime down 72%

You can't explain that.

Violent crime has been dropping globally since the early 90s and it`s not because American chickenshits are squandering their money on guns.

And you deliberately act like you don't understand the numbers...

As more Americans own and carry guns....over 18.6 million now in the United States can carry guns legally for self defense....

Our gun murder rate went down 49%

Our gun crime rate went down 75%

Our violent crime rate went down 72%


You are the morons who tell us that if more people have more guns we will have more gun murder and more gun crime...

27 years later...with more people with more guns and actually carrying those guns in public....

gun murder down 49%

gun crime down 75%

violent crime down 72%


What that shows, which you know already....is your theory about guns.....is completely wrong.....normal people with guns do not increase the gun crime rate, so your desire for more gun control laws is completely wrong....gun control didn't lower the gun crime rate, gun ownership did not increase the gun crime rate.


What does cause violent crime in our democrat party controlled cities to be higher?

Democrat party policies......where they keep releasing violent, known, gun criminals over and over again, and where they constantly attack the police and get the police to stop doing their jobs in arresting violent criminals...

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.

While at the same time in gun controlled jolly olde England gun violence is increasing

 

[Picaro]

And the vast majority of those statistics involve gun owners that know how to use their weapons. Almost none of those who successfully fire them in public will involve somebody who has never been trained and never fired their weapons before.

Texas has requirements for concealed carry that work just fine.


An eligible person wishing to obtain an LTC (formerly CHL) must take a State-set instruction course taught by a licensed instructor for a minimum of 4 hours and a maximum of 6 hours, covering topics such as applicable laws, conflict resolution, criminal/civil liability, and handgun safety, and pass a practical qualification at a firing range with a handgun.[7] The caliber requirement was repealed on September 1, 2017.[9] Such courses vary in cost, but are typically around $100–$125 for new applicants (usually not including the cost of ammunition and other shooting supplies; the practical qualification requires firing 50 rounds of ammunition). They may then apply, providing a picture, fingerprints, other documentation, and a $40 application fee[10] (as of September 1, 2017; previously $140 and $70 for renewals), – active and discharged military are eligible for discounts – to the DPS, which processes the application, runs a federal background check, and if all is well, issues the permit. Permits are valid for five years, and allow resident holders to carry in 29 other states (nonresidents may carry in all but four of those),[11] due to reciprocity agreements.[12] Discounted LTC fees vary from $0 for active duty military (through one year after discharge), to $25 for military veterans.[13]

As of September 1, 2019, unlicensed concealed or open carry is allowed during an evacuation following the declaration of a state of disaster, or returning after evacuation, for a period of 7 days, which may be further extended by the governor. Carrying in some otherwise prohibited locations that serve as shelters is also allowed with permission of the owner of the premises.[14]

Also, as of September 1, 2019, the offence of a Licensed to Carry holder entering on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship was redacted from Texas Penal Code Sections 46.035(b). A church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship must have 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted to prevent carrying on their premises.[15]Gun laws in Texas - Wikipedia

...

Gun laws in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Requiring training and education in no way hinders the rights of those eligible to carry in public, concealed or open. They are just common sense in modern times. States are free to make their own requirements and regulations. Feel free to leave them at home if you don't like the rules. In Texas, which is hardly a restrictive state, when you read about somebody licensed for carrying legally, concealed or open, preventing a crime or whaterver, you're reading about somebody who had to pass a training and safety course first.

 

[Picaro]

Concealed carry makes the only tactical sense, and over time will prove to be a far better practice than open carry. We've already seen the hazards of open carry in Georgia.

We need to get the laws changed so that you can do either one, without fees, or training requirements in all 50 states.

Open carry is more of a laibility than a benefit. Training is a necessity these days; we're no longer a half rural country where people get their first firearms at 9 or 10 and are taught safety and use early in their lives. A 30 year old buying his first pistol and isn't required to get training to carry is a menace, not an asset. Those people should leave them at home, and most especially not allowed open carry, where they will just be more likely to just be mugged and have it taken from them or shoot themselves.

Sorry......I disagree.

I think anyone who buys a gun should get all the training they can afford in money and time......

But........

Owning a gun and carrying it is a Right.......any fee, tax or training requirement will be used by the anti-gun extremists to keep people from being able to exercise that Right.

In Europe, they use extreme training requirements to keep normal people from being able to qualify to own the few categories of hunting guns.......so only the rich and the politically connected have the ability to own a gun.....

We have over 18.6 million people in this country today who have legal permits to carry guns....more than that when you count the states where Constitutional Carry is the rule....

Our gun crime rate went down 75%.

Our gun murder rate went down 49%....

Our accidental gun death rate went down as well....people are not mishandling their guns even with greater numbers of people not only owning guns, but carrying them.

Your fear of people owning guns without training is unfounded......and by giving in to a mandatory training requirement, you are infringing on a Right......

More innocent people are killed by cops missing their target than are killed by licensed gun owners missing their target - and not just the total, the rate of hitting an innocent bystander is also higher for cops. That's not an attack on cops; the amount and circumstances of their work is far different from non-police gun owners but it is indicative that gun owners are not the threat the left would like to pretend they are.

I never said otherwise. Trained gun owners are fine, more power to them.

Your fear of people owning guns without training is unfounded......and by giving in to a mandatory training requirement, you are infringing on a Right......

Yes, it is an obvious nono to have untrained people running around with guns, and no, there is infringement of any 'Right' for a state to regulate who can carry them in public, always has been. The claim otherwise is just some self-invented rubbish.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And the vast majority of those statistics involve gun owners that know how to use their weapons. Almost none of those who successfully fire them in public will involve somebody who has never been trained and never fired their weapons before.

Texas has requirements for concealed carry that work just fine.


An eligible person wishing to obtain an LTC (formerly CHL) must take a State-set instruction course taught by a licensed instructor for a minimum of 4 hours and a maximum of 6 hours, covering topics such as applicable laws, conflict resolution, criminal/civil liability, and handgun safety, and pass a practical qualification at a firing range with a handgun.[7] The caliber requirement was repealed on September 1, 2017.[9] Such courses vary in cost, but are typically around $100–$125 for new applicants (usually not including the cost of ammunition and other shooting supplies; the practical qualification requires firing 50 rounds of ammunition). They may then apply, providing a picture, fingerprints, other documentation, and a $40 application fee[10] (as of September 1, 2017; previously $140 and $70 for renewals), – active and discharged military are eligible for discounts – to the DPS, which processes the application, runs a federal background check, and if all is well, issues the permit. Permits are valid for five years, and allow resident holders to carry in 29 other states (nonresidents may carry in all but four of those),[11] due to reciprocity agreements.[12] Discounted LTC fees vary from $0 for active duty military (through one year after discharge), to $25 for military veterans.[13]

As of September 1, 2019, unlicensed concealed or open carry is allowed during an evacuation following the declaration of a state of disaster, or returning after evacuation, for a period of 7 days, which may be further extended by the governor. Carrying in some otherwise prohibited locations that serve as shelters is also allowed with permission of the owner of the premises.[14]

Also, as of September 1, 2019, the offence of a Licensed to Carry holder entering on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship was redacted from Texas Penal Code Sections 46.035(b). A church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship must have 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted to prevent carrying on their premises.[15]Gun laws in Texas - Wikipedia

...

Gun laws in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Requiring training and education in no way hinders the rights of those eligible to carry in public, concealed or open. They are just common sense in modern times. States are free to make their own requirements and regulations. Feel free to leave them at home if you don't like the rules. In Texas, which is hardly a restrictive state, when you read about somebody licensed for carrying legally, concealed or open, preventing a crime or whaterver, you're reading about somebody who had to pass a training and safety course first.

And, why can that not apply to heavier weapons, such as M249s and the like?

Most of us DO NOT mind a training requirement.

It's coming.

Texas has been clawing back 1930s bullshit gun laws for decades and we are finally making some serious headway.

 

[2aguy]

And the vast majority of those statistics involve gun owners that know how to use their weapons. Almost none of those who successfully fire them in public will involve somebody who has never been trained and never fired their weapons before.

Texas has requirements for concealed carry that work just fine.


An eligible person wishing to obtain an LTC (formerly CHL) must take a State-set instruction course taught by a licensed instructor for a minimum of 4 hours and a maximum of 6 hours, covering topics such as applicable laws, conflict resolution, criminal/civil liability, and handgun safety, and pass a practical qualification at a firing range with a handgun.[7] The caliber requirement was repealed on September 1, 2017.[9] Such courses vary in cost, but are typically around $100–$125 for new applicants (usually not including the cost of ammunition and other shooting supplies; the practical qualification requires firing 50 rounds of ammunition). They may then apply, providing a picture, fingerprints, other documentation, and a $40 application fee[10] (as of September 1, 2017; previously $140 and $70 for renewals), – active and discharged military are eligible for discounts – to the DPS, which processes the application, runs a federal background check, and if all is well, issues the permit. Permits are valid for five years, and allow resident holders to carry in 29 other states (nonresidents may carry in all but four of those),[11] due to reciprocity agreements.[12] Discounted LTC fees vary from $0 for active duty military (through one year after discharge), to $25 for military veterans.[13]

As of September 1, 2019, unlicensed concealed or open carry is allowed during an evacuation following the declaration of a state of disaster, or returning after evacuation, for a period of 7 days, which may be further extended by the governor. Carrying in some otherwise prohibited locations that serve as shelters is also allowed with permission of the owner of the premises.[14]

Also, as of September 1, 2019, the offence of a Licensed to Carry holder entering on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship was redacted from Texas Penal Code Sections 46.035(b). A church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship must have 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted to prevent carrying on their premises.[15]Gun laws in Texas - Wikipedia

...

Gun laws in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Requiring training and education in no way hinders the rights of those eligible to carry in public, concealed or open. They are just common sense in modern times. States are free to make their own requirements and regulations. Feel free to leave them at home if you don't like the rules. In Texas, which is hardly a restrictive state, when you read about somebody licensed for carrying legally, concealed or open, preventing a crime or whaterver, you're reading about somebody who had to pass a training and safety course first.

Then you would be fine if you weren't allowed to vote without taking a Test before you were allowed to vote...with the fee required to pay for that test...right?

Any fee, tax or Literacy style test on the exercise of a Right is an infringement on the exercise of that Right that can easily become so abusive as to make that Right non-existent.......so sorry...mandatory training needs to be stopped since it is unConstitutional.

 

[2aguy]

And the vast majority of those statistics involve gun owners that know how to use their weapons. Almost none of those who successfully fire them in public will involve somebody who has never been trained and never fired their weapons before.

Texas has requirements for concealed carry that work just fine.


An eligible person wishing to obtain an LTC (formerly CHL) must take a State-set instruction course taught by a licensed instructor for a minimum of 4 hours and a maximum of 6 hours, covering topics such as applicable laws, conflict resolution, criminal/civil liability, and handgun safety, and pass a practical qualification at a firing range with a handgun.[7] The caliber requirement was repealed on September 1, 2017.[9] Such courses vary in cost, but are typically around $100–$125 for new applicants (usually not including the cost of ammunition and other shooting supplies; the practical qualification requires firing 50 rounds of ammunition). They may then apply, providing a picture, fingerprints, other documentation, and a $40 application fee[10] (as of September 1, 2017; previously $140 and $70 for renewals), – active and discharged military are eligible for discounts – to the DPS, which processes the application, runs a federal background check, and if all is well, issues the permit. Permits are valid for five years, and allow resident holders to carry in 29 other states (nonresidents may carry in all but four of those),[11] due to reciprocity agreements.[12] Discounted LTC fees vary from $0 for active duty military (through one year after discharge), to $25 for military veterans.[13]

As of September 1, 2019, unlicensed concealed or open carry is allowed during an evacuation following the declaration of a state of disaster, or returning after evacuation, for a period of 7 days, which may be further extended by the governor. Carrying in some otherwise prohibited locations that serve as shelters is also allowed with permission of the owner of the premises.[14]

Also, as of September 1, 2019, the offence of a Licensed to Carry holder entering on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship was redacted from Texas Penal Code Sections 46.035(b). A church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship must have 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted to prevent carrying on their premises.[15]Gun laws in Texas - Wikipedia

...

Gun laws in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Requiring training and education in no way hinders the rights of those eligible to carry in public, concealed or open. They are just common sense in modern times. States are free to make their own requirements and regulations. Feel free to leave them at home if you don't like the rules. In Texas, which is hardly a restrictive state, when you read about somebody licensed for carrying legally, concealed or open, preventing a crime or whaterver, you're reading about somebody who had to pass a training and safety course first.

Almost none of those who successfully fire them in public will involve somebody who has never been trained and never fired their weapons before.

That is just factually untrue........all of the self defense studies with guns are studies that exclude the police and military. That means they are civilians with guns...and you can't show that the majority of those defensive gun uses involve people who have actually had training to use those guns........

If you don't mind...could you link to the research that supports that claim?

 

[jc456]

NB4:

no gun ever went off without the help of a violent fk.

 

[Picaro]

And the vast majority of those statistics involve gun owners that know how to use their weapons. Almost none of those who successfully fire them in public will involve somebody who has never been trained and never fired their weapons before.

Texas has requirements for concealed carry that work just fine.


An eligible person wishing to obtain an LTC (formerly CHL) must take a State-set instruction course taught by a licensed instructor for a minimum of 4 hours and a maximum of 6 hours, covering topics such as applicable laws, conflict resolution, criminal/civil liability, and handgun safety, and pass a practical qualification at a firing range with a handgun.[7] The caliber requirement was repealed on September 1, 2017.[9] Such courses vary in cost, but are typically around $100–$125 for new applicants (usually not including the cost of ammunition and other shooting supplies; the practical qualification requires firing 50 rounds of ammunition). They may then apply, providing a picture, fingerprints, other documentation, and a $40 application fee[10] (as of September 1, 2017; previously $140 and $70 for renewals), – active and discharged military are eligible for discounts – to the DPS, which processes the application, runs a federal background check, and if all is well, issues the permit. Permits are valid for five years, and allow resident holders to carry in 29 other states (nonresidents may carry in all but four of those),[11] due to reciprocity agreements.[12] Discounted LTC fees vary from $0 for active duty military (through one year after discharge), to $25 for military veterans.[13]

As of September 1, 2019, unlicensed concealed or open carry is allowed during an evacuation following the declaration of a state of disaster, or returning after evacuation, for a period of 7 days, which may be further extended by the governor. Carrying in some otherwise prohibited locations that serve as shelters is also allowed with permission of the owner of the premises.[14]

Also, as of September 1, 2019, the offence of a Licensed to Carry holder entering on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship was redacted from Texas Penal Code Sections 46.035(b). A church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship must have 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted to prevent carrying on their premises.[15]Gun laws in Texas - Wikipedia

...

Gun laws in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Requiring training and education in no way hinders the rights of those eligible to carry in public, concealed or open. They are just common sense in modern times. States are free to make their own requirements and regulations. Feel free to leave them at home if you don't like the rules. In Texas, which is hardly a restrictive state, when you read about somebody licensed for carrying legally, concealed or open, preventing a crime or whaterver, you're reading about somebody who had to pass a training and safety course first.

And, why can that not apply to heavier weapons, such as M249s and the like?

Most of us DO NOT mind a training requirement.

It's coming.

Texas has been clawing back 1930s bullshit gun laws for decades and we are finally making some serious headway.

I don't see a need for somebody to lug that mail order surplus mortar around with them to Wally World and the pizza buffet. I haven't seen a need for it, given how few psychos barricade themselves in the toy aisle and artillery had to be used to get them out.

 

[Picaro]

And the vast majority of those statistics involve gun owners that know how to use their weapons. Almost none of those who successfully fire them in public will involve somebody who has never been trained and never fired their weapons before.

Texas has requirements for concealed carry that work just fine.


An eligible person wishing to obtain an LTC (formerly CHL) must take a State-set instruction course taught by a licensed instructor for a minimum of 4 hours and a maximum of 6 hours, covering topics such as applicable laws, conflict resolution, criminal/civil liability, and handgun safety, and pass a practical qualification at a firing range with a handgun.[7] The caliber requirement was repealed on September 1, 2017.[9] Such courses vary in cost, but are typically around $100–$125 for new applicants (usually not including the cost of ammunition and other shooting supplies; the practical qualification requires firing 50 rounds of ammunition). They may then apply, providing a picture, fingerprints, other documentation, and a $40 application fee[10] (as of September 1, 2017; previously $140 and $70 for renewals), – active and discharged military are eligible for discounts – to the DPS, which processes the application, runs a federal background check, and if all is well, issues the permit. Permits are valid for five years, and allow resident holders to carry in 29 other states (nonresidents may carry in all but four of those),[11] due to reciprocity agreements.[12] Discounted LTC fees vary from $0 for active duty military (through one year after discharge), to $25 for military veterans.[13]

As of September 1, 2019, unlicensed concealed or open carry is allowed during an evacuation following the declaration of a state of disaster, or returning after evacuation, for a period of 7 days, which may be further extended by the governor. Carrying in some otherwise prohibited locations that serve as shelters is also allowed with permission of the owner of the premises.[14]

Also, as of September 1, 2019, the offence of a Licensed to Carry holder entering on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship was redacted from Texas Penal Code Sections 46.035(b). A church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship must have 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted to prevent carrying on their premises.[15]Gun laws in Texas - Wikipedia

...

Gun laws in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Requiring training and education in no way hinders the rights of those eligible to carry in public, concealed or open. They are just common sense in modern times. States are free to make their own requirements and regulations. Feel free to leave them at home if you don't like the rules. In Texas, which is hardly a restrictive state, when you read about somebody licensed for carrying legally, concealed or open, preventing a crime or whaterver, you're reading about somebody who had to pass a training and safety course first.

Almost none of those who successfully fire them in public will involve somebody who has never been trained and never fired their weapons before.

That is just factually untrue........all of the self defense studies with guns are studies that exclude the police and military. That means they are civilians with guns...and you can't show that the majority of those defensive gun uses involve people who have actually had training to use those guns........

If you don't mind...could you link to the research that supports that claim?

Show us the stats for untrained civilians being the Big Heroes Of The Day.