This is a discussion on Too much or not enough training required? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy Jeep I have seen a number of TV stories and newspaper story from reporters that have no idea what the ...
No requirement in Mississippi. Fingerprints, fee, background check and 120 day wait.
To be able to own a gun there needs to be some standards. I think there needs to be at least 400 hours of training, a lengthy background check, mental health check, finger prints and DNA sample, shooting qualification, a substantial fee, proof of insurance or bond, and a waiting/cooling off period.
The training should include at a minimum:
- 40 hours of Mindset
- 40 hours of firearm safety
- 40 hours of legal issues
- 40 hours of de-escalation and avoidance
- 40 hours of physical fitness
- 40 hours of combatives
- 40 hours of weapon retention
- 40 hours of low light shooting
- 40 hours of home and vehicle tactics
- 40 hours of force on force
It's only 400 hours of training. That's only 10 weeks if you do it full time. What's two and a half months when we're talking the responsibility of owning a lethal and dangerous weapon.
This training and should be accompanied by a $10,000 application fee to be sure that applicants are serious and of proper financial standing to be considered for permit approval.
Once you have the training and have paid your application fee the full background check, fingerprint and DNA submission and mental health tests can begin. If you pass those you can schedule your shooting qualification practical. Pistol shooting from 0 to 150 yards. 90% time and accuracy requirement to pass.
Now take and pass the 150 question legal exam covering relevant case law and you're ready for your 90 day waiting period to begin. This is also the point where you need to pay your $1,000,000 bond or provide proof of liability insurance in excess of that amount.
90 days later and CONGRATS! You're a gun owner.
Gun ownership is very serious and needs to have some testing and standards that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are willing to take that responsibility seriously.
Or we could just let citizens own and carry guns like free people in a free society should.
Shay Van Vlymen - Instructor Tactical Response
In the U.S., we're speaking of a Constitutional right of citizens. While I certainly believe that training is a good thing, knowledge of the relevant laws is crucial, and that having people around me with their heads squarely screwed on is far better than hair-triggers who don't know an Uzi from a Colt, I have a hard time seeing how a requirement for huge amounts of training can coexist with the 2A right to carry arms.Too much or not enough training required?
What we have now, essentially, is the recognition that introduction to the basic laws is the critical minimum. Anything beyond that is suggested, but not required. The mere threat of a lifetime of imprisonment for commission of murder is plenty of incentive to get it right, for the average upstanding citizen. I don't believe any further legal steps can both avoid infringement on a right and hope to ensure competency.
Remember, we are not talking about someone who pulls out a gun on a whim and begins firing away, we are talking about someone who is being violently attacked and will die if they do not sucessfully defend themselves.
How can anyone believe that we have a God given right to defend ourselves and also believe that we should put restrictions on allowing us the MEANS to defend ourselves?
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (resolutely in action, gently in manner).
PaulG said it much more eloquently. Ditto on the sentiments.
In order to know whether too much or not enough training is required, we have to ask, "What problem is state-mandated training intended to address?"
The given reason for state-required training is to make society safer. The thinking goes that, if citizens are not trained, there will be blood running in the street, Old West-style shootouts over parking spaces, lots of accidental shootings, and so on.
The facts simply do not bear this out.
Here in Washington, there is no training requirement. We give fingerprints, pass a background check, and pay a fee. That's it. No class is required, no minimal level of shooting ability, and no proof that you even have any idea which end the bullets come out.
Next door in Oregon, the carry laws are very similar to Washington's, but there is a training requirement.
Like WA, OR is a shall-issue state, and the demographics are very similar: both are politically liberal on the wet side of the mountains, politically conservative on the dry side, with strong leanings toward libertarianism across the board. The cultures in both states are roughly similar, with a distinct "Pacific Northwest" feel to both states. Incomes are similar, industries are similar, and gun laws are similar.
Because the states are so similar, the difference in training requirements between the two states should show just how much difference state-required training makes. Answer: none. There is no significant statistical difference in accidental shooting deaths, in homicides, in crime rates, or in any related statistic.
I believe in training. I think anyone who has a carry permit and does not get training is being foolish or negligent.
But state-required training sure appears to be a solution in search of a problem.
My website: Cornered Cat
Pax, I couldn't agree more. It's personal responsibility to get proper training, and it shouldn't be mandated by the state.
Besides mandated training being a solution in search of a problem, no matter what amount of training we have, it's always too little or too much training to those who would disarm us. Either way, we're alll scary people who shouldn't have guns.
"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." - Yoshimi Ishikawa
Good point! Every time anyone talks about any easing of restrictions on owning or carrying guns you can count on a chorus of voices from the hysterics proclaiming that we'll see "blood in the streets" and it'll be "Dodge City on a Saturday night." I've even seen postings like that on THIS forum!Originally Posted by pax
Leaving aside the fact that Dodge City HAD gun control and it didn't work any better then than it does now, the plain fact of the matter is that, despite all of the wailing and doomsday predictions, it never happens. Not once. Not anywhere. Not here. Not there. Not in big cities. Not in small towns. Nowhere. Ever.
You would think that after so many times, over such a long period, of being so consistently WRONG, the hysterics might finally give it up. But they never do.
Surely you're not suggesting that the government should REQUIRE training and licensing before people are allowed to express an unpopular opinion!!??!! After all, that is what we're talking about in regards to self-defense against a lethal attack.Originally Posted by jeep45238
Frankly, if that WAS what you were suggesting (and I know it's not), then you would have just flunked the test!
Wow! Thank you. It's nice to know that you've struck a chord with someone.Originally Posted by LBrombach
People use the driver's license argument all the time. However, there's no Constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and drive Buicks.
All the training requirements tacked onto CCW licensing are just there for political expedience. They're a way to make it more palatable for those who are on the fence. In order to get the provision through the legislature, they can say, "Look, we're only going to let trained people carry guns." Of course, the reality is much different. The CCW classes are hardly rocket science, and the shooting portion can be passed if you don't injure yourself or anyone else. The legal portion of the class I took was interesting, in that the assistant DA who taught it was interesting and had a good take on the issues. But the actual material could have been dispensed in a handout or viewed in an online presentation and conveyed just as well, in a lot less time. But they get to say that "We require 8 full hours of training." Mr./Ms. On-the-Fence Legislator gets to say, "Oh, in that case, I don't have a problem with it."
We've seen the steady trend at the state level for fewer restrictions on carrying firearms for self-defense. Let's continue to use political expedience where necessary, but work incrementally wherever possible to remove barriers to citizens exercising their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Let's not, under any circumstances, take the backwards step of advocating more training, or any additional restrictions, which are the tools of those who want to severely restrict or abolish all private gun ownership.
"We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters
Very good point stated Pax... Thanks again for your wise and level headed wisdom!
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
I think most of you have missed the point of CCW carry as the states see it. Per state, the main point of CCW is that the state(s) make money off those who do carry (renewals) or want to carry (new carry). Along with that they also make money off the one's who shall train you as they must also have a license (renewable of course). Training requirements are usually minimal. Almost none of the states give a flying crap about your constitutional rights. Their main objective is to make money off those who wish to carry or do carry. Basically what the states are doing is making us pay to exercise our God given constitutional rights. They don't give a crap about training, they don't give a crap about our rights, but they do give a crap about ripping the American people off every chance they get. Open your damn eyes people, were getting ripped off by our own government. Now get out there and vote for the next jackass that wants to rip us off.