Mandatory firearms training

[BerettaCougar]

So some of us are strong pushers for "Mandatory training" for firearms owners.

I kind of agree, but maybe not in the same way. My opinion is that firearm training should be done while people are in their most receptive state, and obviously that point is when we are children.

Putting a shooting range in schools or atleast demonstrating gun safety in Highschool would be a good thing.

However, mandating training would also mean mandating assesments, and once that happens, if the wrong people get control the system would be abused.

Types of abuse you ask?

1) Over pricing the training

2) Centralizing the training to inconvinient locations or time frames (like most Govt. offices.)

3) Rising the minimum requirement to goals that seniors or anyone out of shape can't reach.

4) Restricting people with disabilities, such as being in a wheelchair. I can see the threads on TFL now. OMG I GOT TURNED DOWN BECAUSE I COULDNT USE MY WHEELCHAIR IN THE TACTICAL COURSE!

What do you people think?

 

[V4Vendetta]

I think instead of telling folks they have to get training before being able to exercise their right to self-defense is a major bad idea.

What if they price the training like they do full-auto guns? Or made it to where in order to get the training, you had to travel to a certain course in your state but it's several hours away & only open on Tuesday but then it's booked up?

Instead, give incentives that make people want to get training. Ammunition discounts, gift cards, etc.

 

[Taxidermist]

I think we have too much government in our lives as it is. I don't need another government rule telling me what I can do OR how to do it.

John

 

[Majic]

How do you mandate training to someone who has been shooting for 40 to 50 years? Why should there be a requirement on physical conditioning?

 

[predator86]

its a good idea but it will never work...i mean communism is a great idea but it never has worked because of human nature....

 

[JWT]

We have too many mandatory 'things' imposed on us already. Good idea for new shooters to have training, but mandatory is not the way to go.

Many states require a firearms course before allowing a person to get a hunting license; also before issuing a concealed carry permit. That's fine but it's also enough government intervention (and perhaps too much).

 

[fisherman66]

How do you mandate training to someone who has been shooting for 40 to 50 years?

A CLEP test! If you have Clepmidia you pass.

 

[pax]

I am strongly against mandatory training. I am against it because (not in spite of) I strongly believe that responsible citizens should be responsibly trained when they choose to carry arms in public.

The purpose of state-mandated training is not to train people how to protect themselves. It is not to teach them how to shoot well. It is not to teach them how to make efficient and intelligent decisions under stress, and it is not to maximize the chances of any individual citizen saving his or her own life with a firearm. That's not the purpose of these classes.

The purpose of state-mandated training courses is simply to make sure that everyone who carries a gun 1) knows what the laws are, and 2) meets a very low, usually a very minimal, standard of safe gun handling so they won't accidentally shoot someone. State-mandated training is simply not designed for the good of the student, but to assure the safety of other people around him.

That's all.

Don't get me wrong, here: This is not an indictment of instructors who offer state-mandated courses. For the most part, these are competent and responsible folks doing absolutely the best they can within the limitations they're given. A lot of them do manage to bootleg some real instruction to their students despite the huge amount of teaching time that is swallowed up by state requirements which do nothing to assure the students' well-being.

The problem comes when someone takes one of these classes, and then believes they've been "trained" to protect themselves with their firearm. For the most part, they have not been trained in any meaningful way. They are only slightly less dangerous to others than they were before they took the class, but have not really become any more capable of protecting themselves than they were when they walked in the door.

So these essentially untrained students walk out the door of the classroom less likely to seek out real training for themselves. The state told them that this minimal, dumbed-down course was enough, and they believe it. And some of them are going to get killed because they believed it.

The OP has a good point: the entire system is indeed open to abuses. But that's not the main reason I'm against it. The main reason I'm against it is because I hate to see good and otherwise responsible people fooling themselves about whether or not they've been trained to an acceptable level.

pax

 

[9mmHP]

I do like the idea of public schools having to give marksmanship courses to all students as a requirement of graduation. It would promote the concept of a universal militia, add a counter-weight to the feminization of schools, and promote the gun culture. I just wonder how they would screw it up.

 

[The Tourist]

I like the idea of a marksmanship course better than the idea of mandatory training. I'd like to explain.

In Wisconsin, there are instructors who are certified for this type of training. And I have one her cards in my wallet.

If you pass this certified training, you do not need to wait or pass a test for a CCW license when Wisconsin passes the leglislation. I'd enjoy the class, and who cares if it fools the leftists.

Additionally as I have stated, it sure would be nice to have my attorney be able to respond to this record should I need to defend myself. As a very liberal state, it's a sad possibility.

As for training locales and pricing, that's also a sad fact.

We have a local law enforcement range about three miles from my home where hunters can sight in their rifles. You need a rural setting for large amounts of gun fire. We don't have many indoor EPA approved facilities in my area.

As for cost, well, it costs what it costs. There's the trainer, a certified syllabus of training, whatever ammo costs, registration (like a car license) and upkeep of the facility.

Constitutional arguments aside (if that's even possible), don't we also have to admit that a safety issue exists?

After all, The Second does say "well regulated." And frankly, the number of poorly trained younger drivers clearly exists--both in skills and temperment.

Anecdotal evidence shows that licensed CCW citizens hardly ever commit crimes. I don't want to upset that applecart. People are getting training from somewhere, most likely a older family member who also schools them on responsibility.

This "responsibility and schooling" is where my debate is heading, not a paper validation with a government stamp. But in the end, how do we show that?

 

[Abndoc]

Firearms training in California high schools will not happen and will never happen. If you could prove that murder would be reduced by 50%, it wouldn't happen. If it would turn rainbows to candy and make money fall from the sky, it wouldn't happen.

OK, if it made money fall from the sky, it might get considered, but other than that, it's not going to happen.

 

[The Tourist]

Abndoc, I live under the same conditions here in The Peoples' Republik of Madison. (They even wanted to rename a street after Ho Chi Minh.)

Firearms training isn't going to happen here either.

Do you have an idea? I'm sorry, I don't.

 

[JWT]

Tourist, do you really believe Wisconsin will ever pass a CCW law that the governor will not veto??

The Wisconsin that I grew up in no longer exists. It once was a gun friendly and quite consrvative state. The liberals in Madison have changed all of that.

 

[The Tourist]

Tourist, do you really believe Wisconsin will ever pass a CCW law that the governor will not veto??

No, not under Doyle unless we get a veto override.

You must remember that he ticked off a lot of Democratic state employees with lay-offs and under-funded projects.

His own people are the real issue to his continued employment.

 

[9mmHP]

How about something like this: "Pursuant to Congress' power to train the militia, all school funding to states is contingent on instituting a course of instruction in the proficient use of arms." It'll never happen, but it's interesting to ponder.

OK, if it made money fall from the sky, it might get considered, but other than that, it's not going to happen.

 

[Rifleman 173]

I'm a firearms instructor for both police and civilians. I am totally AGAINST any mandatory training requirements. I have seen the abuse politicians heap on people in the form of mandated training and the mandate follow up paperwork. It is just atrocious what ludicrous ideas that politicians have about what is right, wrong or needed. Abuse is ALWAYS rampant when something is mandated. The abuse, for the most part, comes from people dictating what kind of training is needed and so on. Imagine living in Illinois where Chicago and that socialist sawed-off punk named Daly would dictate all sorts of crap to make sure that their assinine goals are met. Without a doubt, if Daly could do it, he would mandate so much garbage and complicate things so much that NOBODY anywhere in Illinois would ever be able to qualify to own, possess or shoot guns at all. Count yourself lucky in that you live in an area where you don't have to worry about scumbags making so many laws or rules that you can't get the right kind of or afford the right type of training for being able to own a gun. That's exactly what these socialists will do to eliminate guns.

 

[Wildalaska]

I think folks should be trained to a basic level of competancy prior to the 18th birthdays in order to purchase a gun, this can be done in high school.. I think a bit higher level should be required to CCW. I think a law that mandates this could be crafted to forestall any objection to it, including costs, consideration of prior experience, taking of hunter safety courses, military, etcconstituionality, etc.

WildsothatiamonrecordAlaska TM

 

[Yellowfin]

Tourist, do you really believe Wisconsin will ever pass a CCW law that the governor will not veto??

The Wisconsin that I grew up in no longer exists. It once was a gun friendly and quite consrvative state. The liberals in Madison have changed all of that.

Well what did you people do to let them get there??? Isn't anyone guarding the gate?

 

[44 AMP]

Mandatory requirements vs mandatory training

Many states have for decades required a Hunter Safety course (of some type, usually NRA approved/sponsered) before a child can get a hunting license for the first time. Some states require the same of adults. This is not a bad thing.

30+ years ago the state of New York (or at least the county I lived in) issued a requirement for "safety training" as part of the process for obtaining a pistol permit (posession and open carry, only). The original requirement was for 2-3 hours (I no longer remember clearly), and was given by NRA certified instructors, at their own expense. The state neither provided any funds, nor collected any fees, they just required the course.

As I left the state soon after (for good), I don't have any first hand info about what has happened since, but I am given to understand that, over time, the number of instructors dropped, due to fewer people being willing to both donate their time, and put up with the increasing paperwork, and, the state increased the minimum time requirements for the course. I heard it went up to 8 hours, and later to 24hours. This may not be accurate (any current NYS residents out there? what is required today?), but it falls easily into the kind of thing the bureaucrats do when ever they have authority over a public safety course that concerns firearms.

I understand that there is(was?) some state near the middle of the country that required "training" for handgun permits, or renewal of permits, and then over time reduced the available training (instructors/locations) until there was a months/years wait to get in to one of the "approved" classes.

Look what the Feds did to the program to allow (not require) pilots to be armed? Even though passed through Congress, and considered a good idea by the majority of citizens (according to all the polls), the course was consistantly narrowed and restricted, with extensive "psycological screening" (much more than needed to fly the planes, or posess arms throughout the rest of the nation), and the only "approved" location to take the "training" was remote for the bulk of potential applicants, AND they would be required to pay their own way, AND take time off from work, AND the time needed to take the trianing was quite unreasonable by most of our standards. Net result? even though fairly large numbers of pilots expressed interest, very, very few were able to jump through the bureaucrats hoops in order to be "approved".

While (good) training is beneficial to many, there are also many who do not need such training, and a small percentage who will not heed the training, even if taken. The state has a valid argument in requiring some kind of proof of compentcy for CCW holders, but not for simple ownership.

Any govt requirement for "training" must be watched closely, as it is a huge slippery slope. Considering govt's track record for having people with little or no real knowledge or experience about the subject making rules which carry the force of law, it bears careful scrutiny indeed.

 

[Abndoc]

California politicians do not want anyone to be competent with any kind of firearms. They would really rather pass a law to have them thrown into the sea (after proper degreasing) as a reef habitat for fish.

About all you can do is support your local gunclub and encourage their youth program. If you don't have a youth program, well, you've got some work to do.

Any state mandated "safety" program will be meant as an impediment to gun ownership and will simply milk more money out of us.