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

[Tally XD]

This is a very heated and long thread on a local forum that I am a member of.

A member there posted the question:

"Do you think more extensive training shouldbe mandated by the state in order to legally carry a concealed handgun?"

This thread has taken a life of its own and there are a few that commented that "additional training should be mandatory in order for people to carry a concealed handgun".

Basically, they are advocating that citizens should be mandated by the state to pay for additional training courses before they are allowed to carry a hidden handgun. They say the current standards are lousy, which may be correct, but that people are idiots until they are further trained and are not capable of properly defending themselves with a handgun.

What say you?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[mi2az]

Its just another way for the Feds to control. Leave it as is

[Tally XD]

Its just another way for the Feds to control. Leave it as is

Please place a vote. I was posting poll as you answered. Thanks!

[pcon]

I'm all for voluntarily taking more courses and learning as much as I can. However, the 2A doesn't say that we have a right to bear arms so long as we pass some classes...

[varob]

I say no. An NRA certified firearms safety class is good enough for me.

It benefits me and meets most states requirements.

[ranburr]

I am a CHL instructor in TX. The class requirements are a joke. I think the state should drop the shooting requirement and make the classroom portion an online option.

[Bark'n]

Not going into a long diatribe here... Simply that I believe the less government intrusion and mandates, the better for society. Let people be responsible for their actions and come down hard on them if they misuse their gun.

I voted, "not against more training as long as it is not mandatory"

Certainly the more training a person gets, the easier it is for him to be a responsible ccw carrier and less likely to have a tragedy. But the responsibility should all be on the gun owner and not demanded by the government.

[zacii]

I vote no. If we try to persuade people to be responsible, they will seek training without mandate. And more mandates won't stop irresponsibility or crime.

[sfo]

i believe there should be more mandatory training. i've been shooting guns and hunting well before i got my ccw. but if the average person who just got their gun went and took the ccw class i did and had to pass that simple shooting test can get a ccw. well i am worried about the armed citizens walking the streets of nevada. the 8 hour ccw class and the shooting test is not enough for a person to be responsible enough to carry concealed. i'm sure alot of the people in my class haven't gone shooting regularly since they passed the class and got their permit. shooting well is a perishable skill. knowing when to shoot is personal judgement.

[Katana]

We did have a similar discussion on this board as well not too long ago. It is a very heated debate, that's for sure.

Personally, I believe that all training should be voluntary. It's the gun owners responsibility to be, well, responsible with their firearms. No amount of training will change someones habits if they don't want to change anyway.

[obxned]

Before we worry about requiring more training for citizens to exercise their 2A Rights, how about grammer, ethics, and logic training mandated for journalist, economics, history, civics, and ethics for elected officials, and history, logic, and economics for all voters?

[matdicdad]

No. The right to bare arms supersedes a requirement for training. Hopefully those that do carry consider the seriousness of what they do and will take measures to train themselves adequately.

[Cycler]

How about adding gun handling and safety to the public school mandatory curriculum? Then at least most folks would make it out of the system with some exposure and hopefully the realization that they need more training if they want to cary.

Just a nutty idea....flame on.

[retsupt99]

Being responsible with a firearm is important, and I think people should learn to use their 'tools' correctly and efficiently.
That being said, I do not believe that training should be mandatory...we have enough mandates already.
Who decides how much or what kind is enough?

[gunthorp]

Almost everyone has very accurate instinctive pointing skills at defensive distance.
Almost everyone can tell when great bodily harm or death is imminent.

Sometimes training that goes against the grain of instincts for self preservation may not be helpful in the real world. For example, if you train with the weaver stance, controlled breathing, and sight alignment, what will that do to reaction time in a sudden attack?

Mindset training is very important, but if a detailed study of the laws causes you to ponder all the consequences, what will that do to reaction time in a sudden attack?

Do you think the government can tell each individual exactly what kind of training is best?

The best training will both inspire us to go out to the range to have a blast safely and also encourage us to think about what-if scenarios, situational awareness, and a winning attitude. That's just what we have here on this forum.