Quote:
They are simply based on your perception of your reality and what is good for you and your job.
I would have to say that this would include me, change “job” to “world”.
Getting back to facts…it is a fact that a very small % of people actually carry full time after taking a permit class.
I’m going to have to look for some statistics.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jan06/385648.asp
Conceal-carry bill back to governor
By STEVEN WALTERS
[email protected]
Posted: Jan. 17, 2006
Madison – The Legislature for the second time on Tuesday sent Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle a bill that would legalize the carrying of concealed weapons, but the governor promised to again veto the measure.
By passing the bill (SB 403) on a 28-5 vote, however, the Senate has far more than the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. How a veto override would fare in the 99-member Assembly remains uncertain.
On Dec. 14, the Assembly passed the measure 64-32, or two votes shy of the 66 needed for a veto override. Republicans say they hope to have the 66 votes necessary to override Doyle’s expected veto, because two GOP legislators were not present to vote on that day.
But Democrats say they remain optimistic that Doyle’s veto would withstand the override attempt, hinting that one of several Democrats who voted for the bill in mid-December may change course and support the governor the next time.
Two years ago, the Senate voted to override Doyle’s first veto of a measure legalizing concealed weapons, but the Assembly fell one vote short of doing so.
Wisconsin is one of four states that do not allow the carrying of concealed weapons. The others are Kansas, Nebraska and Illinois.
Sponsors said their bill would deter crime and allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families and their property.
“Never has this law been repealed in any other state that has it,” said Sen. Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire), the chief Senate advocate of the bill.
But Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar) said: “There is absolutely no evidence that this bill will reduce crime. . . . It doesn’t make us safer. It creates more problems.”
“Police officers are against the bill, because it is anti-law enforcement,” said Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison), who noted that the law would not allow officers responding to domestic disputes to know whether someone in the home has a concealed weapons permit.
Some compromises
In a late compromise added by the Assembly on Dec. 13, however, police officers could learn whether drivers they stop in traffic cases have a concealed weapons permit.
That same compromise also required renewal of concealed weapons permits every five years and lowered – from 0.08 to 0.02 – the maximum blood-alcohol content for someone legally carrying a weapon. It also enacted a 100-foot, weapons-free zone around school property and made it a felony to falsely apply for a permit.
The bill would prohibit concealed weapons in police stations and sheriff’s departments, in prisons and in jails, and in taverns or restaurants, if food makes up less than 50% of their gross annual sales.
The measure would require retailers and other businesses to post signs warning customers that concealed weapons are not allowed in those businesses. Employers could prohibit concealed weapons in their buildings but could not ban them from the private vehicles of employees.
The bill would not make public the names of people issued concealed-weapons permits. Government watchdog groups insist such disclosure is needed as a check to make sure that permits are issued appropriately and to determine whether the measure increases or decreases public safety.
Five senators who voted against the bill in December backed the Assembly compromise on Tuesday. Those five are: Republican Sen. Luther Olsen of Ripon; and Democratic Sens. Tim Carpenter of Milwaukee, Judy Robson of Beloit, Jon Erpenbach of Middleton and Dave Hansen of Green Bay.
Five other Democratic senators stood by their earlier votes against the bill. They were Spencer Coggs and Lena Taylor, both of Milwaukee; Mark Miller of Madison; and Jauch and Risser.
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimated that up to 37,000 Wisconsin residents would apply for permits in the first year, if the measure becomes law. That is less than 1% of all Wisconsin residents older than 21, according to state demographers.
Those applying for a Wisconsin permit would pay $75 – a $52 application fee; $15 shooting range fee for required firearms training; and $8 background check fee.
Doyle has repeatedly said that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons would make Wisconsin less safe, and he will “absolutely” veto the bill again, according to aide Melanie Fonder.
The vote underscored the rift between Doyle and Republicans, who control the Legislature. The vote came only hours before the governor’s annual “state of the state” speech – the last one before his re-election bid this fall.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jan06/385648.asp
Conceal-carry bill back to governor
By STEVEN WALTERS
[email protected]
Posted: Jan. 17, 2006
Madison – The Legislature for the second time on Tuesday sent Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle a bill that would legalize the carrying of concealed weapons, but the governor promised to again veto the measure.
By passing the bill (SB 403) on a 28-5 vote, however, the Senate has far more than the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. How a veto override would fare in the 99-member Assembly remains uncertain.
On Dec. 14, the Assembly passed the measure 64-32, or two votes shy of the 66 needed for a veto override. Republicans say they hope to have the 66 votes necessary to override Doyle’s expected veto, because two GOP legislators were not present to vote on that day.
But Democrats say they remain optimistic that Doyle’s veto would withstand the override attempt, hinting that one of several Democrats who voted for the bill in mid-December may change course and support the governor the next time.
Two years ago, the Senate voted to override Doyle’s first veto of a measure legalizing concealed weapons, but the Assembly fell one vote short of doing so.
Wisconsin is one of four states that do not allow the carrying of concealed weapons. The others are Kansas, Nebraska and Illinois.
Sponsors said their bill would deter crime and allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families and their property.
“Never has this law been repealed in any other state that has it,” said Sen. Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire), the chief Senate advocate of the bill.
But Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar) said: “There is absolutely no evidence that this bill will reduce crime. . . . It doesn’t make us safer. It creates more problems.”
“Police officers are against the bill, because it is anti-law enforcement,” said Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison), who noted that the law would not allow officers responding to domestic disputes to know whether someone in the home has a concealed weapons permit.
Some compromises
In a late compromise added by the Assembly on Dec. 13, however, police officers could learn whether drivers they stop in traffic cases have a concealed weapons permit.
That same compromise also required renewal of concealed weapons permits every five years and lowered – from 0.08 to 0.02 – the maximum blood-alcohol content for someone legally carrying a weapon. It also enacted a 100-foot, weapons-free zone around school property and made it a felony to falsely apply for a permit.
The bill would prohibit concealed weapons in police stations and sheriff’s departments, in prisons and in jails, and in taverns or restaurants, if food makes up less than 50% of their gross annual sales.
The measure would require retailers and other businesses to post signs warning customers that concealed weapons are not allowed in those businesses. Employers could prohibit concealed weapons in their buildings but could not ban them from the private vehicles of employees.
The bill would not make public the names of people issued concealed-weapons permits. Government watchdog groups insist such disclosure is needed as a check to make sure that permits are issued appropriately and to determine whether the measure increases or decreases public safety.
Five senators who voted against the bill in December backed the Assembly compromise on Tuesday. Those five are: Republican Sen. Luther Olsen of Ripon; and Democratic Sens. Tim Carpenter of Milwaukee, Judy Robson of Beloit, Jon Erpenbach of Middleton and Dave Hansen of Green Bay.
Five other Democratic senators stood by their earlier votes against the bill. They were Spencer Coggs and Lena Taylor, both of Milwaukee; Mark Miller of Madison; and Jauch and Risser.
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimated that up to 37,000 Wisconsin residents would apply for permits in the first year, if the measure becomes law. That is less than 1% of all Wisconsin residents older than 21, according to state demographers.
Those applying for a Wisconsin permit would pay $75 – a $52 application fee; $15 shooting range fee for required firearms training; and $8 background check fee.
Doyle has repeatedly said that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons would make Wisconsin less safe, and he will “absolutely” veto the bill again, according to aide Melanie Fonder.
The vote underscored the rift between Doyle and Republicans, who control the Legislature. The vote came only hours before the governor’s annual “state of the state” speech – the last one before his re-election bid this fall.
John, What I want to know is the question you just asked. How many crack houses and meth labs are in your neighborhood…I would bet none. That is because you “choose” to live in a safe neighborhood.
I may live in Chippewa Falls, but I work in a county on the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin. We have tons of meth labs…It is because we have a lot of remote areas in our county that we have such a problem with meth labs. Don’t talk to me about how bad it is in your town. Trust me I’m sure you live pretty well…If you don’t it is because you choose to live where you do. I live where I do because it is safe and for that reason I don’t need to think about carrying a weapon. Apparently you think that living in a big city is worse than living in rural America and I’m here to tell you it isn’t. The reason I don’t have free range pit bulls is because my city doesn’t allow you to own one. It is against city ordinance…We don’t have run down nasty places in our town…because the city doesn’t allow it.
Seeing as you want to go this way about meth labs. There are more meth labs in Iowa in the rural counties than are in your whole city.
I have never ONCE tryed to impose my thougths or feelings onto you….EVER, my perception as you call it is my reality. I live in one of the safest cities in the US. SO IT IS REALITY!!!! I’m sorry if I don’t have a ton of time to pull out statistics and baffle your mind with numbers. I don’t see any numbers from you either???? It is one thing to become informed…and it is another to become ignorant…. 
John, What I want to know is the question you just asked. How many crack houses and meth labs are in your neighborhood…I would bet none. That is because you “choose” to live in a safe neighborhood.
I may live in Chippewa Falls, but I work in a county on the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin. We have tons of meth labs…It is because we have a lot of remote areas in our county that we have such a problem with meth labs. Don’t talk to me about how bad it is in your town. Trust me I’m sure you live pretty well…If you don’t it is because you choose to live where you do. I live where I do because it is safe and for that reason I don’t need to think about carrying a weapon. Apparently you think that living in a big city is worse than living in rural America and I’m here to tell you it isn’t. The reason I don’t have free range pit bulls is because my city doesn’t allow you to own one. It is against city ordinance…We don’t have run down nasty places in our town…because the city doesn’t allow it.
Seeing as you want to go this way about meth labs. There are more meth labs in Iowa in the rural counties than are in your whole city.
I have never ONCE tryed to impose my thougths or feelings onto you….EVER, my perception as you call it is my reality. I live in one of the safest cities in the US. SO IT IS REALITY!!!! I’m sorry if I don’t have a ton of time to pull out statistics and baffle your mind with numbers. I don’t see any numbers from you either???? It is one thing to become informed…and it is another to become ignorant….
Quote:
I have never ONCE tryed to impose my thougths or feelings onto you….EVER, my perception as you call it is my reality. I live in one of the safest cities in the US. SO IT IS REALITY!!!! I’m sorry if I don’t have a ton of time to pull out statistics and baffle your mind with numbers. I don’t see any numbers from you either???? It is one thing to become informed…and it is another to become ignorant….
I am not trying to single you out Krisko. I commend you and your profession. Not everyone would choose to do it. You are a sheepdog to many sheep.
But your reply to Jon shows how you can use your right to free speech to get your point across. The State of Minnesota gave me the right to carry a concealed firearm. I pick and choose the reasons why I want to carry. You pick and choose the words you want to use to defend your position. I think the two points have a lot in common.
Another thing, how would your brothers in arms feel about your statements about living and working in St. Paul or MPLS? Would they feel better knowing that law abiding people are carrying in these cities where you yourself said are crime ridden? I’m not calling you out, merely wondering out loud.
I get out to Chip Falls quite a bit, I would love to have lunch with you sometime and talk fishing! 
Tuck
Quote:
I have never ONCE tryed to impose my thougths or feelings onto you….EVER, my perception as you call it is my reality. I live in one of the safest cities in the US. SO IT IS REALITY!!!! I’m sorry if I don’t have a ton of time to pull out statistics and baffle your mind with numbers. I don’t see any numbers from you either???? It is one thing to become informed…and it is another to become ignorant….
I am not trying to single you out Krisko. I commend you and your profession. Not everyone would choose to do it. You are a sheepdog to many sheep.
But your reply to Jon shows how you can use your right to free speech to get your point across. The State of Minnesota gave me the right to carry a concealed firearm. I pick and choose the reasons why I want to carry. You pick and choose the words you want to use to defend your position. I think the two points have a lot in common.
Another thing, how would your brothers in arms feel about your statements about living and working in St. Paul or MPLS? Would they feel better knowing that law abiding people are carrying in these cities where you yourself said are crime ridden? I’m not calling you out, merely wondering out loud.
I get out to Chip Falls quite a bit, I would love to have lunch with you sometime and talk fishing!
Tuck
Seems almost everyone here is for the right to carry!
Here is my ?
Anyone who has there permit…No i mean ANYONE..
In your life time have you ever needed a gun with you yet?(besides hunting)
My guess is 99% say no, So why put them out there for an accident to happen?
Seems almost everyone here is for the right to carry!
Here is my ?
Anyone who has there permit…No i mean ANYONE..
In your life time have you ever needed a gun with you yet?(besides hunting)
My guess is 99% say no, So why put them out there for an accident to happen?
Not to be a smart 
B…but since very few could carry in MN up to a few years ago…the ones that would have said yes…are dead.
My anti hunting anti gun sister once said “a person with a gun is more dangerous than a person with out.”
For a second, I though she was pro gun.
PS…I still love my sister. 
Not to be a smart B…but since very few could carry in MN up to a few years ago…the ones that would have said yes…are dead.
My anti hunting anti gun sister once said “a person with a gun is more dangerous than a person with out.”
For a second, I though she was pro gun.
PS…I still love my sister.
Good answer! Maybe I should say how many have shot someone? That way it work in there benifit!
Your sis is right! Who ever has the weapon is more dangerous.
The more you pump the right to carry guns the more people there will be carring guns, I just dont think thats a good idea! I agree with atleast there going threw training but the more is not marrier! More guns more death.
This being a fishing and hunting site I cant believe there are not more people saying guns belong in the woods not in the public! It Baffles me..
Good answer! Maybe I should say how many have shot someone? That way it work in there benifit!
Your sis is right! Who ever has the weapon is more dangerous.
The more you pump the right to carry guns the more people there will be carring guns, I just dont think thats a good idea! I agree with atleast there going threw training but the more is not marrier! More guns more death.
This being a fishing and hunting site I cant believe there are not more people saying guns belong in the woods not in the public! It Baffles me..
B I respect your views because it’s your right to choose as it’s mine.
Yes, my sister is right…no doubt about it…and I want to be just as dangerous as the criminal…towards the criminal that has one…that’s what is so good about CC! While meeting me on the street no one will ever know that I AM just as dangerous towards the criminal…because I am not the guy trying to take a life for whatever reason.
The more guns more death statement may or may not be true. If you read the other thread, it appears that the death rate is down in the states that have cc…
If there is evedence that more guns equal more death, I really hope it’s the bad guy dying more often.
One thing that baffles me is when St Paul or any city or State increases the head count of law enforcement, why the death rate doesn’t climb. These are armed people that likely have more than one gun. Maybe, it’s because they are good citizens that respect the lives of others? I hope so!
Opps, skipped the first question.
Quote:
Maybe I should say how many have shot someone? That way it work in there benifit!
Again the law is about 2 years old. If anyone would answer yes, likely they would have been carrying ilegally and would have been shooting at someone for other reasons than protecting there lives. This would make them a criminal, someone I want to be just as dangerous towards as they are to me.
I think that the City of Chicago has been telling it’s residents that guns belong in the woods for years.
B I respect your views because it’s your right to choose as it’s mine.
Yes, my sister is right…no doubt about it…and I want to be just as dangerous as the criminal…towards the criminal that has one…that’s what is so good about CC! While meeting me on the street no one will ever know that I AM just as dangerous towards the criminal…because I am not the guy trying to take a life for whatever reason.
The more guns more death statement may or may not be true. If you read the other thread, it appears that the death rate is down in the states that have cc…
If there is evedence that more guns equal more death, I really hope it’s the bad guy dying more often.
One thing that baffles me is when St Paul or any city or State increases the head count of law enforcement, why the death rate doesn’t climb. These are armed people that likely have more than one gun. Maybe, it’s because they are good citizens that respect the lives of others? I hope so!
Opps, skipped the first question.
Quote:
Maybe I should say how many have shot someone? That way it work in there benifit!
Again the law is about 2 years old. If anyone would answer yes, likely they would have been carrying ilegally and would have been shooting at someone for other reasons than protecting there lives. This would make them a criminal, someone I want to be just as dangerous towards as they are to me.
I think that the City of Chicago has been telling it’s residents that guns belong in the woods for years.
Krisko,
I just googled up “Crime in St Paul, Mn” and “Meth in the Twin Cities” Way too many links to post here. Believe me, it is a reality here.
Let me define “My Neighborhood” . I like to think of it as anyplace I go during the course of a normal day. Ok? I work 4 miles from my house. Yes, nice house, nice neighbors. But, I’m not exaggerating when I say I have “The Projects” less than 4 blocks from my house. Gun fire heard popping in the night air is not terribly unusual.
While I personally am not aware of any meth labs near my house, I can only assume they exist as 80% of all meth in Minn funnels through the twin cities. (You can google that number) Where there is meth, there are the scumbags that deal this crap.
Other interesting numbers you will find. Check out the number of murders, rapes, robberies.
Anyway, I think we are getting a little off track as to my main concern. Why police don’t want an armed citizenry. The day the police and/or government are the only ones with guns is the day America turns into another Nazi Germany. The argument police have “It will make our jobs harder or more dangerous…..” is as about as good as “If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, then just move…..” I suggest that the cops figure out a new way to do the job and I’ll keep living where I’m at…..guns loaded thank you!
-J.
Krisko,
I just googled up “Crime in St Paul, Mn” and “Meth in the Twin Cities” Way too many links to post here. Believe me, it is a reality here.
Let me define “My Neighborhood” . I like to think of it as anyplace I go during the course of a normal day. Ok? I work 4 miles from my house. Yes, nice house, nice neighbors. But, I’m not exaggerating when I say I have “The Projects” less than 4 blocks from my house. Gun fire heard popping in the night air is not terribly unusual.
While I personally am not aware of any meth labs near my house, I can only assume they exist as 80% of all meth in Minn funnels through the twin cities. (You can google that number) Where there is meth, there are the scumbags that deal this crap.
Other interesting numbers you will find. Check out the number of murders, rapes, robberies.
Anyway, I think we are getting a little off track as to my main concern. Why police don’t want an armed citizenry. The day the police and/or government are the only ones with guns is the day America turns into another Nazi Germany. The argument police have “It will make our jobs harder or more dangerous…..” is as about as good as “If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, then just move…..” I suggest that the cops figure out a new way to do the job and I’ll keep living where I’m at…..guns loaded thank you!
-J.
You know that you and Brian brought up the fact about police doing their job and how adding police hasn’t done anything. I of course can’t speak for Minnesota, but Wisconsin has lost hundreds of officer’s and deputies due to cutbacks. Wisconsin law enforcement has seen a 15% decrease in officer’s since 2002, amazing as it is that is when our wonderful President Bush was elected. Plus it also has to do with some major changes in Wisconsin’s budget. I’m assuming Minnisota is the same way. So instead of complaining that the police aren’t doing their job, maybe you should jump on your politcal badwagon and lobby for more officer’s. I’m sure most of your officers are just eating dognuts anyway at the local Crispy Cream… 
atleast I know that’s where I would be 
I belive James has the right track of what I’ve been trying to say in his post….I think John that you are a little too narrow minded sometime and refuse to look at things from the other side of the fence. Trust me I’m that way too sometimes, especially when I’m passoinate about something. 
You know that you and Brian brought up the fact about police doing their job and how adding police hasn’t done anything. I of course can’t speak for Minnesota, but Wisconsin has lost hundreds of officer’s and deputies due to cutbacks. Wisconsin law enforcement has seen a 15% decrease in officer’s since 2002, amazing as it is that is when our wonderful President Bush was elected. Plus it also has to do with some major changes in Wisconsin’s budget. I’m assuming Minnisota is the same way. So instead of complaining that the police aren’t doing their job, maybe you should jump on your politcal badwagon and lobby for more officer’s. I’m sure most of your officers are just eating dognuts anyway at the local Crispy Cream… atleast I know that’s where I would be I belive James has the right track of what I’ve been trying to say in his post….I think John that you are a little too narrow minded sometime and refuse to look at things from the other side of the fence. Trust me I’m that way too sometimes, especially when I’m passoinate about something.
Quote:
you and Brian brought up the fact about police doing their job and how adding police hasn’t done anything
Woooaaahhhaaa! Hold on! Break time!
I’m going to have to go back and look! I hope I didn’t say that! Our Washington Co Deputies do an outstanding job for as stretched as they are!
I did make referance to the shooting rate should go up in proportion to offices added…which last I heard we were (adding officers)…but if the WI county that you live in is cutting officers (and guns) then shooting should go down.
The point of the above is that good citizens aren’t afraid of the police having guns, but the criminals are. What is the differance between a good cop and a good citizen having a gun on them? I would like the criminal to be afraid of all good citizens, whether they are carrying or not…because they don’t know who is and whom is not.
Please, I support all law enforcement…up to and encluding the commom citizen that carries to protect there own life. 
Quote:
you and Brian brought up the fact about police doing their job and how adding police hasn’t done anything
Woooaaahhhaaa! Hold on! Break time!
I’m going to have to go back and look! I hope I didn’t say that! Our Washington Co Deputies do an outstanding job for as stretched as they are!
I did make referance to the shooting rate should go up in proportion to offices added…which last I heard we were (adding officers)…but if the WI county that you live in is cutting officers (and guns) then shooting should go down.
The point of the above is that good citizens aren’t afraid of the police having guns, but the criminals are. What is the differance between a good cop and a good citizen having a gun on them? I would like the criminal to be afraid of all good citizens, whether they are carrying or not…because they don’t know who is and whom is not.
Please, I support all law enforcement…up to and encluding the commom citizen that carries to protect there own life.
Brian forgive me my wording on there wasn’t the best. I was distracted during writing this. This is what you wrote below. I guess I sort of misunderstood what you had written at first. First I can speak only for Wisconsin, but we have had a 15% decrease in number of law enforcement officers since 2000. There aren’t as many officers on the steet. The budget problems in WI has limited how many can be hired my many cities, counties and the state.
Also, violent crime in the US has been on a decline in the past few years anyway. Was this because of C/C???? Maybe but why does it happen in states that don’t have it??
Do I trust people outside of law enforcement? Yes some I do. Most I don’t.
This was another pont brought up. What is the difference in trained law enforcement and trained citizen in C/C.
The difference in trained law enforcement and trained citizen is a huge difference.
Most of us go thought at least a minimum of 2yrs of college, most are 4yrs. This is just the beginning. We then have to go through 600 hours of training on more on the job stuff, such as firearms training, defense and arrest tactics, traffic procedures, domestic procedures, and many other things.. Once you get that all done you have to get hired. That is, if you made the training. My “recruit class had 8 people out of 25 that were dropped because they counldn’t make it. They now have realized they just spent 2-4yrs in school and can’t become an officer. Some then have other options such as corrections, counselors, probabation/parole officers…the list goes on to security guards. Then to get hired you have to pass psychological exams and interviews. Then after all of that most departments give you a gun then do an in house training of some up to 1 year. Then after all of that you have to have a minimum of 24hrs of training a year in school to keep certified.
Conceal and carry people get how many days of class room? I see some are offering several days to one day courses to get your certificate to carry? I’m not sure on the classes, I’ve seen different instructors and different organizations offering different ammouts of time for class work and range time.
You want numbers, most at minimum have 3yrs invested into training and schooling to be able to carry that weapon weather on duty or off as a law enforcement officer in WI.
To carry a concealed weapon…you have to take a class of at the most 1 week and a few hours of weapons handling and shooting. Don’t get me wrong, the classes are awesome. I was able to sit in on one. They put a lot into the class. So you ask what is the differance? Oh only about 2yrs and 51 weeks for training and experience
“One thing that baffles me is when St Paul or any city or
State increases the head count of law enforcement, why the death rate doesn’t climb. These are armed people that likely have more than one gun. Maybe, it’s because they are good citizens that respect the lives of others? I hope so!”
Brian forgive me my wording on there wasn’t the best. I was distracted during writing this. This is what you wrote below. I guess I sort of misunderstood what you had written at first. First I can speak only for Wisconsin, but we have had a 15% decrease in number of law enforcement officers since 2000. There aren’t as many officers on the steet. The budget problems in WI has limited how many can be hired my many cities, counties and the state.
Also, violent crime in the US has been on a decline in the past few years anyway. Was this because of C/C???? Maybe but why does it happen in states that don’t have it??
Do I trust people outside of law enforcement? Yes some I do. Most I don’t.
This was another pont brought up. What is the difference in trained law enforcement and trained citizen in C/C.
The difference in trained law enforcement and trained citizen is a huge difference.
Most of us go thought at least a minimum of 2yrs of college, most are 4yrs. This is just the beginning. We then have to go through 600 hours of training on more on the job stuff, such as firearms training, defense and arrest tactics, traffic procedures, domestic procedures, and many other things.. Once you get that all done you have to get hired. That is, if you made the training. My “recruit class had 8 people out of 25 that were dropped because they counldn’t make it. They now have realized they just spent 2-4yrs in school and can’t become an officer. Some then have other options such as corrections, counselors, probabation/parole officers…the list goes on to security guards. Then to get hired you have to pass psychological exams and interviews. Then after all of that most departments give you a gun then do an in house training of some up to 1 year. Then after all of that you have to have a minimum of 24hrs of training a year in school to keep certified.
Conceal and carry people get how many days of class room? I see some are offering several days to one day courses to get your certificate to carry? I’m not sure on the classes, I’ve seen different instructors and different organizations offering different ammouts of time for class work and range time.
You want numbers, most at minimum have 3yrs invested into training and schooling to be able to carry that weapon weather on duty or off as a law enforcement officer in WI.
To carry a concealed weapon…you have to take a class of at the most 1 week and a few hours of weapons handling and shooting. Don’t get me wrong, the classes are awesome. I was able to sit in on one. They put a lot into the class. So you ask what is the differance? Oh only about 2yrs and 51 weeks for training and experience
“One thing that baffles me is when St Paul or any city or
State increases the head count of law enforcement, why the death rate doesn’t climb. These are armed people that likely have more than one gun. Maybe, it’s because they are good citizens that respect the lives of others? I hope so!”
Training for personal protection should not be held to the same standard as training for police. Kinda like a truck driver saying everyone who drives a car should know everything about 18 wheelers! Again, an argument that don’t hold any water in my book.
Training for personal protection should not be held to the same standard as training for police. Kinda like a truck driver saying everyone who drives a car should know everything about 18 wheelers! Again, an argument that don’t hold any water in my book.
Way off base and of course side stepping the point.
A gun is a gun is a gun. A semi, is a semi, is a semi. Your boat must be full of holes and about ready to be sunk. Why shouldn’t they be trained to use it and properly. That would be like my brother, who doesn’t use guns or like to be around them, giving him several hours of instruction and letting him go on his way. If he uses it, is he aware of what is going on and the consequences? Is he able to hit a target with accuracy? Is he going to be proficient with it? Probably not.
Way off base and of course side stepping the point.
A gun is a gun is a gun. A semi, is a semi, is a semi. Your boat must be full of holes and about ready to be sunk. Why shouldn’t they be trained to use it and properly. That would be like my brother, who doesn’t use guns or like to be around them, giving him several hours of instruction and letting him go on his way. If he uses it, is he aware of what is going on and the consequences? Is he able to hit a target with accuracy? Is he going to be proficient with it? Probably not.
Id say the gun training part of the deal should be close to the same or cc should get to carry a pellet gun. (semi to car)
There was proof on the news idiots can pass the test to cc!
Id say the gun training part of the deal should be close to the same or cc should get to carry a pellet gun. (semi to car)
There was proof on the news idiots can pass the test to cc!
And I did read the other post! He went back and got the gun…I know that! But he was taught the corrrect thing to do right!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
