[FortyFive]

No to test and pass! Yes to Training! An concealed carry applicant should have classroom instruction on the statelaw, tactical scenario discussions and firearms instruction. The firearms instruction should be towards safety in drawing and positioning the body for safe shooting. There should not be a pass/fail but the instructing group should be able to weed out unsafe shooters.
In my opinion everyone should be on the same level playing ground as to safety! Their shooting ability is up them to improve.

 

[KC135]

No.

 

[Bumper]

Yes, I do believe training and passing a test should be required to obtain a CCW permit. For those that don\'t believe training and passing a test should be required, I guess I would have to ask if you believe someone that did everything wrong at the range (we have all seen them) and could not safely hit the target consistantly should have one. IMHO, I don\'t. :rat:

 

[F350]

YEA....training, testing, retraining, retesting every 6 months, I mean without it just look at all the accidents and mayhem, blood in the streets etc in Alaska, Vermont and Indiana. In Vermont for decades and now Alaska there is no permitting required and Indiana only requires a background check, if it were a problem the national news would be on it like stink on s***.

 

[DNM]

Originally posted by FortyFive
No to test and pass! Yes to Training! An concealed carry applicant should have classroom instruction on the statelaw, tactical scenario discussions and firearms instruction. The firearms instruction should be towards safety in drawing and positioning the body for safe shooting. There should not be a pass/fail but the instructing group should be able to weed out unsafe shooters.
In my opinion everyone should be on the same level playing ground as to safety! Their shooting ability is up them to improve.

I second.

 

[SGeringer]

I\'m divided, but I lean no. While I think training is profoundly important for any shooter, I am not convinced nor is there demonstrable evidence that training requirements improve safety and/or lessen errors, NDs, etc. As another member noted, many states including my home state of WA, VT, AK, IN, etc, do not have training requirements and have not seen any negative trends that would suggest that legislative action is required.

Good concealed carriers are going to be good regardless, and bad ones are going to be bad regardless. And think about it this way....not even the most passionate advocate of training suggests a course near the length of a police academy, yet they (the police) have all sorts of problems ranging from NDs, leaving unattended weapons places, shooting the wrong person, missing their target, neglecting their weapons, etc.

 

[FortyFive]

Sigh, what to do;what to do! Why should the government check my background?? That doesn\'t seem fair! OK...body leaning a little more toward the right here. Our Constitution is our most important document, we all swear to defend it at some point in our lives. Need a few more input from the group to topple completly to the right and join the no group. I hear everyone but it don\'t showup on the news when a cop shoots himself in the foot with his glock and I would bet it don\'t show up when daisy mae shoots herself in the foot. So I thought you know people do have to know presentation from the holster so they don\'t hurt themselves. Man there are some good points here.

 

[Scott]

Recently a local deputy shot his wife through the wall of their house with an \"unloaded\" pistol. Another guy blew his foot off after blowing away his cat with an \"unloaded\" pistol. In my area those stories do make the papers. There are fewer idiots with guns than there are idiots with cars.

IMO training and background checks are just discrimination in action. What if all the classes are on weekends and I work weekends. In Missouri the classes seem to be about $125. What if I cannot afford it? So because I work hard and cannot afford the fee for the course I should be denied the right of self defense? That\'s wrong.

The Constitution doesn\'t say anything about the right to bear arms after you pass a government approved safety class and background check. What happens when government decides they don\'t want to issue permits anymore. Say the gvt. only approves one class per year and it can hold 5 students at $5000 per student. Or they make the \"passing score\" unattainable.

If you don\'t want former criminals getting guns, then stop letting them out of prison. If they are a threat to the public, keep them in prison. If they are not a threat, then by all means let them out, and let them be a citizen.

The Constitution says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is a whole lot of infringing going on IMO.

 

[Euclidean]

You either view your fellow Americans as assets or liabilities.

I choose to believe that if my fellow Americans could all carry guns freely, we\'d all enjoy the low crime rates Vermont has.

The fact is, people who do not feel confident carrying a gun, will not carry one. I do not chastise or think less of anyone who says carrying a gun is not for them.

I myself have decided I want to carry. It has done me a world of good and given me a focus. I was worried about the proficiency exam so much and now I realize I\'m up to snuff. But I also realize the minimum isn\'t good enough for me. I want to get better. I want to feel more of the confidence I have inspired in myself.

I think you either take it seriously or you don\'t do it at all as a matter of course. I\'m not particularly wealthy either and I still find a way to learn more and acquire better tools.

We don\'t need any government making our personal decisions for us. Self defense is a basic human right. If carrying a gun makes for self defense is something I think is necessary I should be able to.

Am I not responsible? Do I not supervise 30 children at a time en loco parentis? Am I not allowed to buy things far more dangerous than guns and carry them on my person? I can carry a pack of cigarettes everywhere I want to but that doesn\'t mean I\'m going to smoke them in a nursery.

I feel like a hypocrite at times because seeking a permit defies my personal beliefs. I have the divine moral right to carry a firearm without any permission from anyone.

But I also wish to be lawful for I am an individual who wishes to contribute to the social fabric. It\'s a good thing all those gun control laws are in place to protect us all from people like me.

At any rate, I want it at least to enjoy a little bit of legitimacy among hoplophobes. \"Oh he has a permit. FROM THE GOVERNMENT. That makes him not a crazy.\"

 

[rfurtkamp]

Originally posted by Cliff
Do you personally believe that a individual should take & pass formalized basic handgun training before being issued a CCW permit?

No. I\'ve seen it all too often in my native born state of Illinois where they will use training, paperwork, or whatever to keep people from exercising their rights - they\'ll \"lose\" the paperwork or nitpick on something or not make classes available etc.

I would rather my fellow citizens at least practice from time to time, but their rights supercede my wishes.

 

[ExSniper]

While I believe every citizen has a right to "keep and bear arms," and that many of the state requirements are excessive, I recognize we all need some training before carrying a firearm. In the language of our founding fathers, a "well-regulated militia" meant every able bodied, adult male was required to come to the aid of his community, to bring his own gun and ammo, AND to demonstrate the skill at arms necessary to use them in defense of the community.
So, now the argument is how do we demonstrate skill at arms necessary to carry those arms in our society? What level of training is enough? An NRA basic course? Gunsite? TR? LFI? Military training? Training equal to major law enforcement agencies?
I teach CCW and marksmanship couses. I hope every shooter will get as much and as diverse training as possible. Beyond that I am willing to accept a few inept carriers (most who don't practice get tired of carrying very quickly) in exchange for each of us being allowed to lawfully exercise our right without license, investigation, or registration.

 

[PaulG]

I agree with everyone that training is important but as for requiring training let me pose this question:

If you were in the VT classroom on that tragic day, and we can freeze time when the shooter entered that classroom and you could decide at that moment to keep everyone unarmed or to have one of the students who has never fired a gun to suddenly have a gun in their hand, which would you choose?

Remember, we have VERY strict laws against shooting that are already on the books. With very limited exceptions, you are not allowed to shoot someone. If you do, you have committed homicide. Then you have to show that it was justified.

So what we are talking about is whether to require training simply to CARRY a gun.

If I am walking down the street and a couple of punks jump me and one pulls a gun and I disarm him, shouldn't I be allowed to use his gun to shoot him in my defense whether I'm trained or not? If so, what's the difference between grabbing his gun and having my own available?

Anytime you let the government set the rules for an activity, you have just implied that they have the RIGHT to set rules, including the right to effectly ban that activity. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Rob99VMI04]

I agree with everyone that training is important but as for requiring training let me pose this question:

If you were in the VT classroom on that tragic day, and we can freeze time when the shooter entered that classroom and you could decide at that moment to keep everyone unarmed or to have one of the students who has never fired a gun to suddenly have a gun in their hand, which would you choose?.

Hind sight is 20/20 and its hard to say. But the point is plenty of people who are not trained with a firearm stop violent crimes from happening every year and day for that matter.

To answer your question, if you could freeze time and go back I would say "Put the gun in his Untrained hand"

33 dead people vs ___<-insert # here.

Maybe the individual would have got a lucky shot and killed Cho
Maybe the individual would have shot himself in the hand
Maybe Cho would have shot him first and the same thing would have happened.
Maybe just by producing it Cho would have gone " O Crap somebody is actually Fighting back I need to NOT go into this classroom, because I plan on murdering as many as I can and this guy in the class is somewhat disrupting my plan"
Maybe Cho would have shot him and maybe that Corp of Keydets freshman who maybe knew how to shoot would have picked up the gun and shot CHO.
Maybe the indivual would have shot another student do to his lack of training.
Maybe the individual would have shot ___ <--insert number of classmates here due to his lack of training.

Maybe Maybe the Maybe's some of them are positive outcomes for the good guys and some are negatives for the good guys.

fact: CHO SLAUGHTER that class BECAUSE they were unable to defend themselves.
fact: the students in that class had no MEANS to determine the end or for that matter their own destiny.

I think its the lesser of two evils, but at least you have a CHOICE to Die STANDING UP.

Remember, we have VERY strict laws against shooting that are already on the books. With very limited exceptions, you are not allowed to shoot someone. If you do, you have committed homicide. Then you have to show that it was justified.

I like what the guy in in Black Hawk Down said. "Its just WAR
Politics, and Laws go right out the window, as soon as that first shot snaps over your head"-or something like that.

When dealing with this situation.

If I was in that class unarmed. I would hope (cause Nobody can predict what your going to due in that situation) that I would be screaming as loud as I could throwing pencils, erasers, books, tampons, chapsticks, purses, apples, wallets, keys, desks, paper up in the air( try to hit a siloute when somebody throws a stack of paper in the air and your running around screaming) , running around screaming like a wild chicken that just had its head chopped off." I'm not a racist but I would try and scream every deragatory thing at the guy. JUST DOING SOMETHING. At this point I dont' care If i'm going to ethics class for my actions or going to jail for yelling public obscenities in a college classroom, or Flinging poo at the guy. I just care about the current situations.

I don't understand why some situations have code words to rally the troops. If there is a FIRE. "HELP FIRE."

Somebody's hurt and the situation just needs EMS. "Somebody DIAL 911"

Flight 93-"LETS ROLE" Rallied a whole plane of strangers who knew they were headed for the deaths.

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!

So what we are talking about is whether to require training simply to CARRY a gun.

If I am walking down the street and a couple of punks jump me and one pulls a gun and I disarm him, shouldn't I be allowed to use his gun to shoot him in my defense whether I'm trained or not? If so, what's the difference between grabbing his gun and having my own available?

Anytime you let the government set the rules for an activity, you have just implied that they have the RIGHT to set rules, including the right to effectly ban that activity. You can't have it both ways.

 

[me]

Training is important, I wish there were state specific courses available for every state, law specific, but do not believe training should be required.

 

[Shadowsbane]

First of all no, there should not be testing, if the government wants to make some hoops for me to jump though they really should be the ones footing the bill. After all they are not buying my guns or my ammo. perhaps a free safety course with some paperwork on what the law says would be fine but then no more.

That way people do have the option to learn/follow the law if they wish, but also will pay the punishment if they do not. As with all things, you are not going to instill some great level of security/responsibility into somebody who does not want to listen to it, so why waste the time/money attempting to do so?

IMO training and background checks are just discrimination in action. What if all the classes are on weekends and I work weekends. In Missouri the classes seem to be about $125. What if I cannot afford it? So because I work hard and cannot afford the fee for the course I should be denied the right of self defense? That\'s wrong.

The Constitution doesn\'t say anything about the right to bear arms after you pass a government approved safety class and background check. What happens when government decides they don\'t want to issue permits anymore. Say the gvt. only approves one class per year and it can hold 5 students at $5000 per student. Or they make the \"passing score\" unattainable.


The Constitution says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is a whole lot of infringing going on IMO.

What you state here Scott is my biggest issue. I work all weekend, and my wife is in college so money does not really float around waiting to be spent. Luckily for myself, my family/friends are helping foot the bill for the training/permits for my wife and I. But others are not so lucky. How many college kids are both low on cash but still want to protect themselves? Especially in light of recent events. Do the poor have less of a right to defend themselves, simply because they can not pay the fees that some places charge?

 

[Randy]

Do you personally believe that a individual should take & pass formalized basic handgun training before being issued a CCW permit?

No. No legal or state requirement.

That said, someone who is going to carry a handgun for self defense should take it upon themselves to get some kind of training. You don't know what you don't know and there's a great deal you simply have no way of knowing until you attend a class or receive training in some other fashion.

Randy

 

[RETSUPT99]

Except For Felons...

Arm them ALL...

OMO

An armed society...is a poliet society! Yes, there will always be a few dim-wits or idiots...they will suffer the consequences...

Stay armed...stay safe!

ret

 

[PatrioticRick]

You don't need formal training to buy a gun, so why should it be required to have a CCW? Training is a good idea, but you could have been taught by your father or husband or friend, etc. and it could have been as good or better than formal training. Formal training means governments involved and when government gets involved things get screwed up.