Is STATE MANDATED safety training really necessary?

Smoke

Smoke

US Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
6,261
Reaction score
9,378
Location
Colorado
Right now six states do not require their citizens to obtain a permit of any kind before exercising their Right to carry a concealed firearm. Three other states have introduced legislation to do away with their permit system as well.

Although I will concede that Colorado's Bill isn't going anywhere as long as Hickenlooper is the Governor, it looks like permitless carry is the coming trend. At least twenty other states issue permits without any training requirement at all.

So in over half of the states in this country no mandatory training is required to carry a concealed handgun but we don't seem to be seeing any growth in firearms related accidents so I have to ask is STATE MANDATED firearms safety training really necessary?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for training I just really don't think the State needs to be getting involved. It's been my experience that those who would benefit from basic safety training or advanced training seek it out and those who wouldn't don't pay any attention when it's forced on them anyway.

ETA I did some checking and so far I've found the following states have no training requirement Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire Pennsylvania, South Dakota Vermont, Washington State and Wyoming. I'm sure there are others and I will continue to add them to the list (14 states total)
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Pef said:
No state requires training to exercise the first amendment rights.

No state should require training to exercise second amendment rights.
Click to expand...

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)
 
jakebrake said:
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)
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
I lived in Alaska for 23 years, no permit or training required. I don't ever remember hearing about problems or incidents because of it.

I'm going on 2 years living here in Wyoming, and have not heard of any problems or incidents here either...

I do travel to neighboring states that DO require permits, and have reciprocity with Wyoming. So my wife & I both have Wyoming permits.

While the class was informative regarding specific state laws, it was very basic. If you attended & paid the fees, you were going to pass. Any test question missed by anybody, was discussed openly until everybody understood better.

I feel it was a good class for somebody brand new to guns. But having been a gun owner for over 20 years... I would compare it to sitting thru a 5th graders math class... If you catch my drift.

I don't think requiring these classes is necessary for safety of the general public. It seems to be more about the money generated for the state.

With all of the new gun owners purchasing their first firearm, I would rather see the gun manufacturers offering to sponsor gun handling & safety clinics. I'd bet that the NRA would get involved, and local gun clubs as well. I think that a good percentage of new gun owners would take advantage of it, and gun clubs memberships would grow, as would the NRA.
 
Smoke, add Virginia to your list. I got my CHP by taking a hunter safety course & mrs. mstem got hers by taking an online class.

I have never understood why I have to get anyone's permission to exercise my Second Amendment right. If I have to pay $50.00 to exercise my SA right everyone should have to pay $50.00 to vote also.

GypsmJim, operating a boat is a privilege, not a right. Two different things entirely.

307-niner, you are a winner! It's all about states making money! In other words, another tax!
 
Last edited:
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."
 
JohnSW said:
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:
Click to expand...

OK back up your hypothesis.

Do theses states Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, South Dakota Vermont, Washington State and Wyoming.

Have higher per capita instances of fire arms related accidents than states that require training?

What measurable benefit comes from State mandated training?

What other Constitutionally enumerated Rights would you put a training requirement on?
 
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.
 
JohnSW said:
With rights, comes responsibilities.

No, untrained / untested gun owners do not have the unconditional right to endanger the public, through their carrying.
Click to expand...

Again I offer the invitation

Smoke said:
OK back up your hypothesis.

Do theses states Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, South Dakota Vermont, Washington State and Wyoming.

Have higher per capita instances of fire arms related accidents than states that require training?

What measurable benefit comes from State mandated training?

What other Constitutionally enumerated Rights would you put a training requirement on?
Click to expand...

JohnSW said:
untested gun owners do not have the unconditional right to endanger the public, through their carrying.
Click to expand...

Can you demonstrate that this is the case?
 
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.
 
Mandated and necessary are two different things. :)

If it's mandated, it's not like it's open for immediate discussion (barring a change in any laws involved, via legislative or court action).

Necessary?

Well, let's just say that I've seen a very dismaying number of people who were shockingly and unimaginably unsafe in their handling and shooting of firearms. :eek:

They were adamant in the whole "It's my right" mantra, of course, and didn't see anything wrong with their handling and use of their guns.

People make mistakes, or use sloppy, slip-shod and unsafe methods even using simple tools like hammers and screwdrivers. Or any other mechanical equipment.

The thing is, making such mistakes, and/or handling practices involving casual indifference to the safety of the general public around them, can create some tragic consequences, and do so very quickly, often negating the safety of 'distance' when it involves motor vehicles & firearms ... and even bows & arrows, airguns and slingshots.

FWIW, I've listened to a number of folks who have always been ardent supporters of RTKBA, and who went on to become firearms instructors, who, after increasing exposure to enough people in classes, opined that some people just shouldn't own or possess firearms.

Sure, this could be said of any number of pursuits and activities in which people are involved. (Including owning pets and raising children.)

I've seen a sad number of people who apparently can't be trusted to safely operate a shopping cart, for that matter.

At some point, the society which discovers it's becoming endangered by reckless, uninformed, unknowledgeable and negligent ownership and usage of something (including firearms), is going to express the desire for the risk to be mitigated and minimized, or at least dealt with harshly.

The trick will be for that perceived risk to be addressed in a manner that also conforms to the manner in which that society has already chosen for itself to be governed and protected within its laws. A tricky & slippery slope, to be sure.

I suspect that further case law decisions will continue to clarify the 2nd and how it relates to carrying firearms outside the owner's dwelling & private property. Guess we'll see what course the idea of "training" takes as this evolves.

Considering that some of the reciprocity disagreements among states has involved the nature and extent of "training", I'd not be at all surprised to see any expanding concept of 'national reciprocity' address this subject.

Look what they did with LEOSA and annual qual requirements, and that's for peace officers (active & retired) who have already arguably received more "basic" firearms training than is required of most private citizens.

People can really complicate just about anything they touch. ;)
 
Last edited:
I agree LoboGunLeather.

In fact, Hunter safety is required in 9th grade PE class here in the public schools. I have always thought that was a great idea.

I don't remember reading in the second ammendment anything about requireing training.

Wingmaster
 
I have seen people that have no idea how to responsibly handle a gun, go and buy one for self defense, and go home. No practice, no idea of how the laws work, and no real idea of how to use the gun effectively. There are A LOT of people that decide to get one, having little to no experience with them. Some ( or probably most of us here ) grew up with guns and have common sense pertaining to them, as well as a second nature sense of safety with them. But for someone who hasn't ever handled one, and had no experience with them..I think a training course is a MUST HAVE.
 
In lieu of some test to separate the gun-savvy from the complete imbeciles, some form of rudimentary training isn't a bad idea. When I lived in New York, a days training in firearms safety was a pre-requisite to getting a hunting license. In Alaska, a 1 hour film is must-view for anyone desiring to use the indoor range, operated by the Department of Fish & Game.

Even a know-it-all, like myself, benefits whenever I'm forced to re-think safety issues. The government is the logical choice for a provider of such training. A private entity cannot be easily indemnified from liability, when a mishap can be traced to a flaw in the training curriculum, in the way a government agency can.
 
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?
 
LoboGunLeather said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fastbolt said:
As long as it's an elective, why not?
Click to expand...

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
 
JohnSW said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Smoke said:
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?
Click to expand...

"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. ;)
 
Last edited:
Pef said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
GypsmJim said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
Humans Do It

Smoke said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
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. :eek:
  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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gary Slider
AR, MI, OH, WY Updates!
Replies
1
Views
660
lihpster
lihpster
Gary Slider
Minnesota and Handgunlaw.us Updates
Replies
0
Views
384
Gary Slider
Gary Slider
Gary Slider
LA, NM and SD Updates
Replies
2
Views
484
biku324
biku324
D
S&W 6906, Glocks and P320's for Carry
Replies
26
Views
1K
WRscott
W
Gary Slider
ID, LA, NM, OK and WA Updates
Replies
1
Views
637
GregVS
G

Latest posts

Back
Top