Is STATE MANDATED safety training really necessary?

[Smoke]

Ok maybe "necessary" isn't the right word.

Maybe a better question would be does State mandated training offer a measurable benefit?

Is there a noticeable difference in terms of firearms related accidents between states that require training and those who don't?

 

[Smoke]

Assuming for a moment that a certain level of firearms training is accepted as being in the best interest of public safety, my argument would be that such training should be included in public school education.

Not a bad idea, in my opinion.

As long as it's an elective, why not?

Would participation in the class be a requirement for future issuance of a concealed handgun permit?

If such a class is truly beneficial to the public as a whole why should it be an elective? I'm far more likely to encounter a firearm in the real world than need calculus

 

[NYlakesider]

If you don't know about gun safety, can't hit a target, and don't know about your state's deadly force laws, you shouldn't be allowed to carry. Here is part of Minnesota's law:

"(2) completion of a firearms safety or training course providing basic training in the safe use of a pistol and conducted by a certified instructor.

(b) Basic training must include:

(1) instruction in the fundamentals of pistol use;

(2) successful completion of an actual shooting qualification exercise; and

(3) instruction in the fundamental legal aspects of pistol possession, carry, and use, including self-defense and the restrictions on the use of deadly force."

Bolded will not fly in the people's republic of NY.

Full disclosure I was one of the first NRA certified pistol instructors authorized by our county judge to instruct in the pre issue pistol permit safety class (circa mid 70s) He insisted on that before he would sign a CCWP. The courses was all lectures and demonstrations by the teacher/s of safe gun handling with different types of pistols, much common sense things you will encounter and in layman's terms a overview of our draconian gun laws. Since I taught they have made the course much MUCH longer , more expensive.

A very strict reading of NY laws it's impossible to let a student even handle your guns let alone shoot them. (Considering this is NY a prudent person will very strictly follow gun laws)

A conundrum in our laws depending on which of our many counties you live in forces some people to buy a pistol before they can get a permit, but without a permit there is no way you can possess a pistol (that means even in your own house, no permit you cannot own/possesses). You buy the gun from a dealer and he keeps it secured in his shop till you come up with the necessary paperwork (that could be many months)

Other counties you can take the course and then after you get your CCWP you can go buy a pistol. The way our CCWP laws are set up the state has some wide perimeters and the counties can draft their own rules as long as they stay inside those parameters. Some counties are relatively easy to get a permit (mostly rural counties )while the more urban ones will make you jump through anything they can figure out to make it more difficult more time consuming and expensive.

 

[Fastbolt]

Ok maybe "necessary" isn't the right word.

Maybe a better question would be does State mandated training offer a measurable benefit?

Is there a noticeable difference in terms of firearms related accidents between states that require training and those who don't?

"Accidents" can happen even when training has been required.

Doctors, who receive years of training, can still make mistakes. How many medical boards have decided that since mistakes are likely to still happen, regardless of training, it's not a problem to lower training requirements for doctors?

Licensed drivers still get in accidents. How many states have deliberately lowered their requirements for driver education and training, though, just because drivers who have received training can still become involved in accidents?

"Pilot error" is still found to be involved in tragic incidents involving aircraft being operated by licensed pilots. How many airlines (or major nation militaries) think pilots require less training?

In a perfect world, everybody would be reasonable, responsible, willing to learn, cautious in their activities and always consider the potential consequences of their actions as it relates to others. In that world, we'd not need laws, rules, standards or courts, would we? Nor would we have needed the Ten Commandments, or any other religious or spiritual doctrines, to tell us right from wrong, moral from immoral, etc, etc.

This isn't a black & white question ... because it involves people who have to live alongside each other in the same society, and folks have a knack for thinking differently than their fellows in even the simplest of things.

 

[Horn]

Yup.

While I believe a STATE should not be able to require training, I do think it wise for an individual to get some training. But the choice should be left to the individual, and not the state.

I see a lot of really bad car drivers. Yet, most of them had to pass
a written and then a driving test. I'm against any intrusion of the
citizen's right to carry. The constitution not only says "Keep" but
is says "bear" arms. The founding fathers made it clear and intended it so.

 

[Bat Guano]

Count me among those who thought that Wyoming's going to constitutional (no permit required) CCW would bring problems. None of consequence that I know of yet.

Contrast that with 40 or so years of required hunter safety training; just about everybody out there now has completed it, and yet we still have "accidents" every year.

Obviously some training is a good thing, but its presence or absence doesn't seem to guarantee much of anything. Campaigns to discourage smoking and encourage seat belt usage have been going on just about as long, with very mixed results.

Obviously mandating things has its limits. Sometimes less might be more.

 

[Horn]

There should be no database that collects names of individuals that own firearms. There should be no registration of firearms, nor should there be a record of who purchases ammo or how much.

However, I firmly believe that anyone that uses a firearm should be required to have a reasonable amount of safety training. I say that based on observations of "hunters" and target shooters that I come across at my club or out in the field.

Since I'm on a rant here, I think it should be extended to people that operate a boat. That's my other hobby. Every time out we see complete idiots driving crafts capable of 60 mph that are only an inch away from tradgedy.

Not to be argumentative but__you really are talking about the state controlling these things.
Regardless of rules and statutes, there will be those that violate.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell

 

[Harkrader]

To me the issue is whether mandatory training has made any difference in the safe and effective use of a firearm for self- defense.

I have no statistics. I do note how often, as reported in the press, a person has successfully used a firearm for defense, but has had no training, and in some cases stated that the defensive shooting was the first time they ever fired a gun.

I certainly echo everyone who says people ought to get training. AND, practice regularly. I also know many people simply will not. Sometimes, I think, it is because they know they lack proficiency but don't want others to see it. Some don't like to spend the money. For some, just having a gun is an ego trip. They don't really want to be proficient. They just want what they perceive as the aura or aegis of owning a gun.

I also know people who were taught in the military, sometimes a long time ago. They seem to think that's all they need. On the rare occasion I have asked to see a gun they own, I sometimes note poor safety handling. Military training does not necessarily translate to civilian gun operations. One of our sons is professional military with four tours in the desert. He has been shooting since he was five and his stories of unsafe gun handling he has seen among our troops should curl your hair.

I agree with the sentiment of those who note there is no training requirement for exercising First Amendment freedoms.

I think those of us who know the dangers of poor gun handling are obligated to point out bad and unsafe handling when we see it or hear of it. I stopped using a public shooting range in SE Wisconsin due to the seriously dangerous gun handling I saw, and the completely incompetent behaviour of range officers. In these cases I know of no way to make such people change their ways. Pointing out to them what they are doing often only makes them mad, and denial is common. Tolerating them, even through inaction, is and will cause us a lot of trouble from the fear mongers. Frankly, they scare me.

I don't want firearms ownership by the general public to be monitored by government. I do believe government at all levels will say they have an obligation to protect the public by requiring some demonstrated attention to safety by people who carry in public. I know of no hunters who advocate for an end to hunter safety training.

To me, the obvious place to start training is in schools. THAT will be a steeply uphill fight, unfortunately. Not only will the frightened "antis" oppose it, many in "our" camp will fight it because it is not how they want to see it done. I think we are our own enemies in this.

 

[Horn]

Humans Do It

Ok maybe "necessary" isn't the right word.

Maybe a better question would be does State mandated training offer a measurable benefit?

Is there a noticeable difference in terms of firearms related accidents between states that require training and those who don't?

I see your EMS emblem. So__how many vehicular accidents have you seen where all parties were licensed by a state? The one thing about the human animal___we screw up sometimes regardless. There's few people killed by firearms of every description and for whatever cause considering we're a nation of over three hundred million people. Far more die from falls.
( Old Crimes Against Persons Detective)

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell

 

[AR_Black]

Illinois requires 16 hours of training.
But 8-hours can be waived for military background. Either 4 or 8 waived for out of state training.
Still require 8-hours minimum, no matter how much training you have had elsewhere.

Things covered in training:

1. This is the end where the bullet comes out from.
2. Difference between revolver and pistol.
3. Only use ammunition that fits your gun.
4. Prohibited areas for concealed carry (was actually informative).

Then shoot 10 rounds @ 5-yards, 7-yards, and 10-yards. Hit the black. Score 70% or better in the black and you pass.

It is pretty much geared towards those who have absolutely NO firearms experience. Made the lawmakers feel good, I guess.

-----

Back on topic: Should it be mandatory? I'm undecided. There will be knuckleheads out there that won't know squat about gun handling. Here I agree they should get some type of safety training. Perhaps some training that is not mandated by the state should quality, such as the NRA basic pistol course.

I was in the Army Infantry, got 8-hours credit for that. BUT that was the most UNSAFE firearms handling I have ever seen. A bunch of testosterone fueled punks with weapons! No wonder they never handed out ammo freely.

 

[Smoke]

I see your EMS emblem. So__how many vehicular accidents have you seen where all parties were licensed by a state? The one thing about the human animal___we screw up sometimes regardless. There's few people killed by firearms of every description and for whatever cause considering we're a nation of over three hundred million people. Far more die from falls.
( Old Crimes Against Persons Detective)

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell

Just so we're clear I am not an active EMT I haven't worked in the medical field for several years.

 

[kbm6893]

In a perfect world, mandated training would not be necessary. People choosing to own a gun would take it seriously, and eagerly spend a few bucks to learn how to properly handle, shoot, and clean their weapon.

But this is not a perfect world, and too many "adults" don't know a thing about gun handling. I have left gun ranges and even gun shops when I see these clowns. Some of them were taught by people who clearly didn't know anything about guns.

When you screw up with a gun, people (sometimes innocents) die. So YES, I believe there should be a compulsory training class for all new gun owners. I have ZERO problem with this "intrusion".

And those who fight so vigorously against it just alienate the public.

 

[mstem]

Smoke, there was absolutely nothing in the hunter safety class that had anything to do with a CHP. Just a state requirement. In fact the guy ask how many were there for that reason, just my daughter & myself raised our hands. But I have to say I enjoyed going through the 8 hour class. So did my daughter, she was there also for her CHP.

LoboGunLeather, that's a fantastic idea! It should be made mandatory for every student in the school!

 

[italiansport]

Watching some of the idiots I see at the public ranges, YES, before they hurt themselves or someone innocent bystander. My favorite is the ones who arrive right after purchase of a handgun and can't figure out how to load a semi-auto..yes I have seen this with my own eyes.

I agree : I put in several years as an RSO and I'm really amazed there aren't more Accidential Discharges with firearms. Some of the people that would come out on the range were truly clueless regarding safe firearms operation.
How about trying to load a magazine with the bullet facing towards the back? This is just one example as to how clueless some of these people are
Arizona had a training requirement for a concealed carry permit at one time and I think they were shortsighted in eliminating it.
Jim

 

[Smoke]

Why I don't support MANDATED training

While I do believe that training is good I don't believe there's any lasting value in forcing people who have no interest in training to train. I base that on my experiences in the Army and at the CHP class I took with my wife.

In the Army they didn't teach us firearms safety they taught us rules, Always keep your weapon up and down range, never touch your weapon while anyone is forward of the firing line, Never take your weapon into the latrine ( I think that was a suicide thing) and never leave your weapon unattended.

When you came onto the firing line someone else lubed your weapon so it wouldn't jam and when you came off the line someone else inspected your breach and bore. And in my entire career I don't remember a single block of instruction that actually dealt with safety or why we followed "the Rules".

At my CHP class there were 15 people (we were promised a class of 9 people tops) in a 500 square foot room and the instructor simply read various laws to us for 6 hours then took us all to the range. My wife was having problems with her sight picture and when I asked an instructor to help her out He told her "I can't do anything with you" and left her literally crying on the line while he went to help a much younger woman in much tighter jeans.

Luckily there was an instructor there who was an EPCSO Deputy and female who I asked to help my wife and she stayed with her for the rest of the class. Most of the folks in the class paid no attention and passed.

Long story short a "certificate" from that worthless class was enough to meet the training requirement from El Paso County.

 

[Camster]

as much as I agree, I go to a public range.

I've seen a lot of new shooters that really need to be shown the ropes.

(I don't mind helping, and the r.s.o.s never do either, I just wonder if / hope all of us are being diligent regarding helping the newbs)

I've seen a lot of old shooters that should know much better.

 

[Smoke]

Just a state requirement.

A state requirement is a state requirement. You had to get training to get your permit

 

[Smoke]

Arizona had a training requirement for a concealed carry permit at one time and I think they were shortsighted in eliminating it.
Jim

Can you point to a statistical jump in firearms related accidents since they did?

 

[schgsd]

I would love to see what Lobogunleather suggests, take the whole thing away from the states, all of them, and to go even further have the pool of instructors come from NRA certified teachers and the local gun clubs. Mandatory class as a senior in HS, and that's where the certificate gets issued. That keeps it within the realm of no one being able to sue anyone down the road, because it was rolled into the public education system.

Adult education held at the public schools could take care of those who missed out. The Adult Ed class fee goes to instructors, NRA, Gun Clubs, whatever. But never the state.

I have a freshman senator in my state who has just introduced legislation to repeal our states CCP regulations. I think I'll drop him a line. Gun safety education on such a scale could only be a huge win for all.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Just my two cents. No need for a training requirement, but I would ramp up the criminal/civil penalties available for those who commit a crime or civil tort (bad shoot, negligent shoot, etc.) for those who haven't had any training. Kind of like my motorcycle helmet/seat belt theory. Don't care if you wear them or not, but if you say you're not going to, you go in a different insurance pool. If you say you're going to and end up in my pool, and then don't wear them and get hurt, you don't get paid.

Follow the money. Solves most issues.