This is a discussion on Do you think additional training should be mandatory to carry concealed? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Very contraversial subject and I can see both sides. While we do have the RKBA there is really no mandatory training. Yes you can drive ...
Yes! I want more mandated training!
No! We have enough mandates already!
I am not against more training as long as it is not mandatory.
I am undecided.
Very contraversial subject and I can see both sides. While we do have the RKBA there is really no mandatory training. Yes you can drive a car, but usually after hours of classroom and actual behind the wheel time. There has been a RUSH to get a CHL after hussein was elected. I will bet that over 70% that just recently applied and got their permit had NO previous gun experience. What many are overlooking is that the majority here have grown up with and many rounds under our belts.
Now to the topic of training, why not let the public school system do it. Years ago we had trap shooting in the schools and you could even bring your shotgun on the bus. The libs/anti-gun bunch will throw a fit, but if they can teach about other crap, why not SAFE gun handling. You could do this as a Senior elective and in one semester have a pretty good gun handler. If you want to get your CHL and are out of school, didn't you have to get driver's education prior to getting your license.
I am still up in the air on my vote and don't believe in "undecided", so I will vote after more thought. I am leaning towards mandatory training as I don't think that an almost open book test and a worthless shooting test, that most should be carrying a gun. Now if you want one at home, I have no problem with your lack of training as I probably won't be breaking into your house.
As far as cost to the less affluent, they are buying a several hundred firearm, you should also be able to put out $300-$400 for some good training.
Colt 1911 New Agent, CTLaser
You do not work for them, they work for you.
No, I am talking about doing everying we can as a society to help people become responsible adults. Training and education is part of that process.I guess, though, that what you're talking about is training people to act responsibly. How much will it take to do that? And do you set up the training to correct people who are really irresponsible, or just the regular mainstream ones who just are kinda irresponsible out of ignorance?I completely support proficiency tests and written examination in lieu of training. The underlying concept is identical.If you're already responsible, could you just take a test and get credit for prior responsibility (sorta like college placement exams), or would you still have to take the responsibility course anyway?
I'm a devout supporter of 2A, but......
I believe if a person wants a CCW permit, they should have training that teaches (at a minimum) - safe gunhandling, basic tactical skills, rules of engagement, and pertinent laws.
How is this any different than the required training to get licensed to drive a car? A car is a deadly object when used carelessly, as evidenced by the 35,000 or so average annual deaths that we tolerate. And all these deaths occur even AFTER the required training (classroom and actual road time).
Let's say some, non-shooting-sports nervous gal buys a gun, and then puts it in her purse for "self protection". Do you want your family to be anywhere in the vicinity when this nervous Nellie sees some sort of "threat"? What's to prevent her from panicking and simply spraying bullets all over the place? I'll tell you what will prevent her from panicking and spraying those bullets - training.
JMHO, of course.
'Be careful, even in small matters' - Miyamoto Musashi
In the first case the victim is the target of criminal acivity. In the latter, the dead person is the victim of someone who is unable to understand the law or correctly utilize a deadly weapon.
Again, penalizing the irresponsible, undertrained gun owner will not placate the dead guy in the slightest.
This basic question just went around about a week ago.
If a person wants and can afford additional training I encourage it. As far as it being mandated to be able to carry no, I'm against that. Why should the poor or elderly living on a fixed income be unable to obtain a permit.
It's a double edged knife your handling.
And for those who equate it to getting a drivers license - Driving is a privilege, not a right. Self Defense is a right, not a privilege. At least not yet
"There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)
Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition
What about the poorer people who cannot afford training? Should the training be free?
Training is great but often then not it's sacraficed by a number of outside forces. I'm a career firefighter and i'm held to a higher standered then a majority of volunteer firefighters in my area. And although i'm held to a higher standered I don't believe that any of the volunteer firefighters should have to meet my "required training". It would be too much for them to handle and quite frankly I don't think they have the time with families, personal lives ect..
When it comes to firearms and conceal carry permits I think the same analagy could be used. I'd love to have more training. I would love to go to an LFI 1 and 2 class or attend one of the major Gun academies in the country. But I don't have the time nor the money to put out for a class like that. And once it becomes the standard it becomes harder for honest, hard working people to achieve that requirement to defend themselves. When I started in the fire service we had a 42 hour course that covered the basics of firefighting. That as 12 years ago and now we are over 100. But we'll ask aloud why we have no volunteers. The same will happen if you raise the standard in CCW training.
The ability to transport oneself via automobile is an opportunity based on consumerism and economics. It's available to those who have money. It's of value to those who wish to trade control of their traveling behavior by those in temporary seats of governance.I believe if a person wants a CCW permit, they should have training that teaches (at a minimum) - safe gunhandling, basic tactical skills, rules of engagement, and pertinent laws.
How is this any different than the required training to get licensed to drive a car?
OTH, self-defense and the ownership/carrying of weapons is a protected right in this country, at least theoretically. It's available all citizens (you know, those with two legs who are still breathing), irrespective of money, of affiliation, of one's friends/contacts or perceived "importance."
To many, it is unobtainium. In most places, it's regulated to a fare-thee-well, or in certain places, at certain times, limited to certain people. That is not right. Not here.
Sure, I want people to appreciate the responsibility, the risk. Sure, I'd prefer the person next to me knew his elbow from his backside, if it were to become necessary that he/she use that weapon in self-defense. But I simply cannot find it in me to disallow his/her right to be armed and able to defend against attack simply because of my preferences. That is not right. Not here.
There is a middle ground. Perhaps: a strong push through PSA's (and similiar) toward obtaining suitable introduction, training and skills related to the safe operation and handling of weapons, possibly via tax credits available to those going after ongoing formal training.
That would disallow nobody, promote better training, reduce risks of blind ignorance of proper handling and usage.
People who have a Drivers license have to have some training. It makes since that everyone on the road should know the basic rules of the road. The same is true for a CCW permit. Basic laws and safe firearm handling should be part of the training.
More advanced training, which would be very useful, should be in my oppinion be voluntary.