Do you think additional training should be mandatory to carry concealed? - Page 5

Do you think additional training should be mandatory to carry concealed?

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 ...

View Poll Results: Should states mandate additional training in order to allow handgun carry?

Voters
315. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes! I want more mandated training!

    49 15.56%
  • No! We have enough mandates already!

    88 27.94%
  • I am not against more training as long as it is not mandatory.

    172 54.60%
  • I am undecided.

    6 1.90%
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 142

Thread: Do you think additional training should be mandatory to carry concealed?

  1. #61
    Member Array bigdogtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    485
    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.

    JMHO YMMV


  2. #62
    Senior Member Array InspectorGadget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Just curious, but don't you think it might be a bit too late for the victim? I don't think the dead guy cares much about legal retribution after the fact. This is not an issue of accountability but rather it is an issue of responsibility.
    This is essentially the same argument for/against the death penalty. If you mishandle you get punished, this is not just for the perpetrators sake but also for the sake of others to learn the lesson. If used properly this is a deterrent, if used too sparingly with revolving door justice it is irrelevant. It is not a matter of having more laws on the books; it is a matter of actually enforcing the laws. Training should not be mandatory, it works well in Alaska. If you want to take more classes(and can afford it) it should be your choice. But you should not be denied the right to defend yourself and your family just because you are going through hard times. I would argue that the people living in the “Low Rent” districts are in far more danger than those of us living in the nice suburbs. The very idea of mandatory training denies the young father of two that can barely afford his rent and has to walk to the local Wal-Mart and back, the ability to defend himself. Here in Florida we do not have open carry so that is not an option.
    Colt 1911 New Agent, CTLaser

    You do not work for them, they work for you.
    Senators http://senate.gov/general/contact_in...nators_cfm.cfm
    Congressmen http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

  3. #63
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by rodc13 View Post
    Maybe we should make it a law that people have to act responsibly? That way, we wouldn't have so many dead guys who were killed by irresponsible people who were carrying concealed.
    We can't do that but we can mitigate irresponsible and unsafe behavior be requiring training.

    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?
    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.

    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 completely support proficiency tests and written examination in lieu of training. The underlying concept is identical.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Array Chevy-SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    926
    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

  5. #65
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by InspectorGadget View Post
    This is essentially the same argument for/against the death penalty. If you mishandle you get punished, this is not just for the perpetrators sake but also for the sake of others to learn the lesson.
    No, it is not the same. The death penalty involves a criminal who intentionally kills another human being. This is a discussion of a citizen who, because of a lack of training and education, accidentally kills someone.

    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.

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I completely support proficiency tests and written examination in lieu of training. The underlying concept is identical.
    Okay, so we can handle it just like a driver's license, then. There's no training requirement for anyone 18 or over (in Texas). Just pass the test. Everyone can get training on their own.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  7. #67
    Ex Member Array Oldskoolfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In a secured zone.
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by gottabkiddin View Post
    Going a little overboard there arn't ya.
    No I believe in God, freedom, and the American way. This is how the founders intended it. Do you hate freedom?

  8. #68
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    22,389
    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.

  9. #69
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    No, it is not the same. The death penalty involves a criminal who intentionally kills another human being. This is a discussion of a citizen who, because of a lack of training and education, accidentally kills someone.

    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.
    And how do you justify the dead victim who didn't have his/her firearm on them because they didn't have the MANDATED training?

    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

  10. #70
    Ex Member Array Oldskoolfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In a secured zone.
    Posts
    464
    What about the poorer people who cannot afford training? Should the training be free?

  11. #71
    Member Array moggie6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hyde Park NY
    Posts
    94
    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.

  12. #72
    Senior Member Array rhinokrk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by moggie6 View Post
    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.
    Excellent post. +1
    Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
    Get the U.S. out of the U.N.

  13. #73
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,387

    Exclamation

    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?
    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.

    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.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #74
    Member Array LM2024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    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.

    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.
    With that logic, then there's no difference between a law abiding qualified citizen and some trigger happy moron or a banger carrying a firearm. Even those people have an inherent right to self defense.

  15. #75
    Member Array tdd78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    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.

    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.
    Maybe i'm confused, but having a CCW permit is a privlege granted by whichever state we reside in, much like a drivers license, and not every state allows it's citizens the privilege of having it. A privlege is somthing that can be taken away, and both a drivers license and a CCW permit can be taken away. If it was a right to carry concealed, we wouldn't have to mess with getting a permit. Owning a fire arm is a right, one which the state/federal gov. can not take away from me (Well, unless your a fellon then they can).
    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.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Nebraska Concealed Carry Training Classes
    By cmzneb in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 10th, 2009, 08:45 PM
  2. Richmond, Va. firearms/concealed carry training & Utah class - March/April dates
    By ProShooter in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 28th, 2009, 02:15 PM
  3. Concealed carry training STL, MO
    By bradcat in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 18th, 2009, 12:55 PM
  4. How Many have taken additional training?
    By Sheldon J in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: August 14th, 2008, 10:04 AM
  5. Beginning shooter ... .22 mandatory????
    By Interloper in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 18th, 2007, 03:23 PM