Kansas goes constitutional carry.

[SMS]

So let me get this straight. If I think that people should be educated in order to carry a weapon in public, that makes me a gun-grabbing liberal?

Do you feel that people should be able to hunt without a hunter education card?

Yes and yes, if your position is that said training should be mandated by the government.

I grew up hunting and didn't get a hunter's Ed card until I was 30 when I moved to Maryland and it was required...

It's amazing I never killed anyone before I got that magic card in my wallet!!!

 

[HiredHand]

I don't foresee training and educational opportunities disappearing if Oklahoma becomes a constitutional carry state, I actually believe there will be more demand for firearms education and training.

 

[colb]

I didn't know the government was supposed to be my nanny.

Assuming you have a clean record, you can walk into a store, purchase a handgun, and walk out in 30 minutes or less (varies from store to store). But in order to use it for protection, you suddenly must be trained (actually, someone reads the law to you for 7 hours), pass the same background checks you just finished, pay a bunch of money, and wait until the state sends you a card (30-60 days). Only then, can you defend your own life.

Let's face it, the "training" class in Oklahoma is basically an SDA law overview, with some laid back range time at the end. There is no qualification with your weapon. Has anyone ever failed the class? Is it even possible? Why do I need to spend an extra $60 and 8 hours of my time, when I could just be offered an SDA book at time of firearm purchase (or just print it out at home)?

I'm still waiting on my license for declining unwarranted search and seizures.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I didn't know the government was supposed to be my nanny.

Assuming you have a clean record, you can walk into a store, purchase a handgun, and walk out in 30 minutes or less (varies from store to store). But in order to use it for protection, you suddenly must be trained (actually, someone reads the law to you for 7 hours), pass the same background checks you just finished, pay a bunch of money, and wait until the state sends you a card (30-60 days). Only then, can you defend your own life.

Let's face it, the "training" class in Oklahoma is basically an SDA law overview, with some laid back range time at the end. There is no qualification with your weapon. Has anyone ever failed the class? Is it even possible? Why do I need to spend an extra $60 and 8 hours of my time, when I could just be offered an SDA book at time of firearm purchase (or just print it out at home)?

I'm still waiting on my license for declining unwarranted search and seizures.

I agree 100% with what you said. All the licensing is about to me is money. It hAs nothing to do with making us better equipped to carry a pistol. Most people when they leave the class never even study the handbook and forget the laws. So there is no point in even taking the class. We should be able to protect ourselves without a stupid license. It's 100% political. Has not one thing to do with safety either.

 

[Surveyor1653]

Do you feel that people should be able to hunt without a hunter education card?

Yes. You going to stump for Civics, Government, Citizenship and Literacy exams for voting?

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Do you feel that people should be able to hunt without a hunter education card?

I do and have for 47 years.

 

[Dave70968]

So let me get this straight. If I think that people should be educated in order to carry a weapon in public, that makes me a gun-grabbing liberal?

Actually, I was referring to your "if it saves just one life" line of reasoning, which is literally, word-for-word, a common refrain among the "gun-grabbing liberal." But I'll sign on with SMS's comment as well: no, I'm not opposed to education, but rather to the requirement to get a permission slip from Nanny Government to exercise my natural rights.

I daresay my own education on use of force law exceeds yours...and probably did even before I went to law school...and I didn't need the State to make me do it. We all do potentially hazardous things every day, but we don't have a training course and permit required for everything we do.

In point of fact, there was a study done--which I don't have time to look for now, as I'm preparing several cases for hearing for my boss--that showed police shoot the wrong person approximately four times as often as private citizens--this, despite their greater training. A comment on why was to the effect of "self defense situations are typically not rife with subtlety; it's easy to figure out who is attacking you." I suspect that a look at the statistics of people charged with murder who asserted self-defense would show the same: people can generally (not always, but generally) tell when lethal force is called for. I further posit that those who get it wrong would probably have gotten it wrong even if you had run them through a couple of hours of legal theory.

Edit: I found the study. I remembered the author of the article, and it was easy from there:

Other evidence also suggests that armed citizens are very responsible in using guns to defend themselves. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high.

It is simply not possible to square the numbers above and the experience of Florida with the notions that honest, law-abiding gun owners are borderline psychopaths itching for an excuse to shoot someone, vigilantes eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless, or incompetent fools incapable of determining when it is proper to use lethal force in defense of their lives. Nor upon reflection should these results seem surprising. Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher.

http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/cowards.html

 

[POKE1911]

Yes. You going to stump for Civics, Government, Citizenship and Literacy exams for voting?

Only for women

 

[dennishoddy]

I do and have for 47 years.

I have for a lot longer, but I'd better not put up an exact date. Never shot myself or another while hunting.

Ok, I'll help out poke a little here. He is young and this is what he has been taught, which is indicative of what gubberment education is in this day in time.

We have to have a license to drive, license to marry, and the story goes on. Recently the gov has said we need a license to hunt or shoot.

The debates go on which is right or wrong.

Should we be allowed to have unfettered hunting of any game we want to? No limits?

Or, are the limits imposed by government agency's beneficial to the overall population?

 

[RollingRock]

That's it, heading to Dodge City, sure that there will be blood in those streets very soon!!/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk