bhayles
Member
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment says a well regulated militia is necessary and that is all it says about said militia...that it is necessary. It confers no rights on the militia, it confers a right on the people...
Is STATE MANDATED safety training really necessary?
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment says a well regulated militia is necessary and that is all it says about said militia...that it is necessary. It confers no rights on the militia, it confers a right on the people...
Rastoff
US Veteran
Yes. Why would any parent want less? We actually had a firing range in the basement of my high school. Even if you don't want to shoot, knowledge of how to safely handle a gun is valuable.
No, I don't think it should be elective. Everyone needs this knowledge.
The OP asks an interesting question. Well, I have a unique perspective. You see, I am a certified concealed carry instructor. The gun handling and shooting ability (should be lack of) I see in every class is...well...surprising.
Students with little or no shooting experience are a joy to teach. Students with military experience or LEO backgrounds are more challenging. It matters not what training they've had previously, including my own class, what they've learned and practiced shows on the target.
The shooting qualification in my class is astoundingly easy:
4 shots from 3 yards
6 shots from 5 yards
6 shots from 7 yards
4 shots from 10 yards
To pass, all shots must be within the silhouette of a B-27E target. It looks like this:
It is 23" x 35" which is enormous!
All shots are taken slow fire and at the shooter's own pace. If they took one shot every 5 seconds, that would be fine with me. Alas, no one does that. With these simple requirements, every shooter should be able to keep all 20 shots within the 9 ring. Shooters with the experience that some claim, should be able to keep all shots in the 10 ring. Based on what some of the students have told me about their qualifications, they should be able to keep it in the orange X.
Alas, I've only had one student so far that was able to keep it in the 10 ring and he only had one shot out of the orange X. What was interesting about that is he requested further training. Hmmm, do you think it's an attitude issue?
The biggest problem is not training; PEOPLE DON'T PRACTICE!
I'm from Michigan and I think the training course I had was valuable. Of course everybody thinks they are an expert walking in but if nothing else the 2 hour lecture from the lawyer was worth the price of admission. Watching people's jaws drop when he said "handguns are weak, ineffective weapons", what with everybody thinking they were going to be carrying a magic death ray, lol.
USAF385
US Veteran
If you use the "well regulated militia" line as a way to require training, it gives credence to the view that the 2nd Amendment applies only to a militia.
Therefore, not only is training required to have arms, but membership in a militia as well. Or, as a lot of antis see it today, the Reserve or Guard. I'm in the Reserve, so I guess I'm good..... How about everyone else?
Therefore, not only is training required to have arms, but membership in a militia as well. Or, as a lot of antis see it today, the Reserve or Guard. I'm in the Reserve, so I guess I'm good..... How about everyone else?
Last edited:
BB57, apparently you have never traveled to Alaska and witnessed the city dwellers in & around the Anchorage area. 
Don't buy into the stereotypes that certain states' citizens are inherently safer & more knowledgable with guns. It's just not true.
Don't buy into the stereotypes that certain states' citizens are inherently safer & more knowledgable with guns. It's just not true.
kbm6893
Member
Sounds like a great idea, until you come across and obnoxious moron with a gun who doesn't want you getting in his business. In a world where manners are taught early and followed throughout your life, that would work.
About two years ago, the last time I shot at a public range, I had enough. Literally EVERYTIME I was there, there were unsafe idiots. Guys pointing barrels everywhere. Loading mags and touching guns while a ceasefire was on to change targets. One time, a family of 4 showed up. Mom, Dad, and two kids, I'd guess 10 and 12. Mom looked annoyed and texted the whole time. Two kids fought over whose turn it was to shoot the .45. Literally FOUGHT over the gun. Dad trying to figure out how to load the mag of his Desert Eagle! Next time, two young guys show up. The "teacher" is showing his "student" how to handle a gun. Loads the magazine on his Glock 22 and then chambers a round. Turns the gun to the right (directly pointing at me) to show his "student" that the trigger is forward and gun cocked. Should I start an argument with some idiot holding a loaded gun?
So I join a private range. Not much. No range officer or anything. But even then, I come across idiots all the time. Now I'm at the point I only shoot on weekdays and during the week when I'm off. I'd rather shoot in 2 feet of snow than shoot with strangers.
Compulsory training? I'm all for it. Idiots with guns should have their hands cut off so they can never touch one again. I tried to take my nephew shooting for the first time 2 years ago. 12 at the time and my brother is not a gun guy so I stepped up. Started with a 10/22 with 2 rounds in the mag to teach sight alignment and trigger control, plus how to properly change mags. He started complaining immediately. Wanted to shoot my AR like he "does in Call of Duty". Didn't want to shoot a "baby gun". Asked me when he could shoot my pistol. No respect and no patience. The session lasted 20 minutes. And we haven't been back. Maybe one day when he grows up a bit.
Last edited:
State mandated training before exercising any Right guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a bad idea.
Look at the history of literacy tests in the south and how they were used to deny black people their right to vote.
Keep in mind that the very basis of gun control was to keep black people and other disfavored minorities from being able to protect themselves from criminals. Said criminals being employed by the states in many cases.
Not just in the south, either. Gun control in Chicago and New York City was designed by corrupt politicians to make their gangster overlords safer.
That's not to say that training isn't a good idea. I heartily endorse it. I just don't endorse the state sticking it's nose into the process.
Remember what Ronald Reagan said about "help" from the government.
Look at the history of literacy tests in the south and how they were used to deny black people their right to vote.
Keep in mind that the very basis of gun control was to keep black people and other disfavored minorities from being able to protect themselves from criminals. Said criminals being employed by the states in many cases.
Not just in the south, either. Gun control in Chicago and New York City was designed by corrupt politicians to make their gangster overlords safer.
That's not to say that training isn't a good idea. I heartily endorse it. I just don't endorse the state sticking it's nose into the process.
Remember what Ronald Reagan said about "help" from the government.
kbm6893
Member
Even IF mandated training was passed, how do we know the level of skill the "teacher" has? And are we gonna think the paying students aren't gonna automatically pass?
On another forum I belong to, there was this tool who was deriding those who choose a weapon with a manual safety. Said his instructor at his advanced weapons course told him that safeties are dangerous and can get you killed. So he says he carries his Beretta PX4 with one in the chamber and hammer back in single action mode. Says it's no different than a Glock. Didn't know the difference between a hammer fired and striker fired weapon. And this is AFTER taking several pistol courses!
This idiot is a walking time bomb. We can only hope he only shoots himself and not some innocent. Look at the recent cases of negligent discharges. How often does the owner of the gun really get charged? At best, they go easy on him because of the suffering he has already endured. I say screw that. Throw the book at him. Make an example. Maybe the next fool will think twice.
On another forum I belong to, there was this tool who was deriding those who choose a weapon with a manual safety. Said his instructor at his advanced weapons course told him that safeties are dangerous and can get you killed. So he says he carries his Beretta PX4 with one in the chamber and hammer back in single action mode. Says it's no different than a Glock. Didn't know the difference between a hammer fired and striker fired weapon. And this is AFTER taking several pistol courses!
This idiot is a walking time bomb. We can only hope he only shoots himself and not some innocent. Look at the recent cases of negligent discharges. How often does the owner of the gun really get charged? At best, they go easy on him because of the suffering he has already endured. I say screw that. Throw the book at him. Make an example. Maybe the next fool will think twice.
Sounds a little extreme. But not actually excessive.
I've seen this as well. I've also seen misuse and dangerous use of firearms by persons not trained in the proper use and safety precautions. It scares me to see this.
wheelgunguy
Member
I personally am against mandated training for a few reasons.
When it comes to exercising a Constitutional right I find having to ask permission from the state appalling. When you look at the events (namely the American Revolution) that led to the formation of this country and what it took to get there. I don't know how anyone could argue that the public being armed didn't play a huge role in the wining of the war. Imagine if they weren't. To think our fore fathers didn't want the threat of another revolution to influence the actions of our future government is not paying attention to history. Think about that any time you consider government approval needed for anything to do with firearms. I believe our fore fathers would be equally appalled with many of the licensing requirements we see today. Does anyone actually believe the Bill of Rights would have been ratified if there was a provision calling for the citizens to pass a mandated class and get government permission to carry a firearm? I think this speaks volumes to what was their original intent.
Here is another reason I disagree. While in theory the mandated class would make it safer for the public at large (I am not so sure it does. More on that in a minute). This by itself is not enough in and of it's self to mandate it. It would be safer for the public if we had no speed limits above 50mph, disallowed swimming pools, etc. I think you get my point. These are just a couple of many thousands of things that would make us safer and we don't do them. So calling for mandated classes that there has been no evidence that I have seen that makes us safer, makes absolutely no sense to me. It is not always the government's role to make us as safe as possible anyway. That would call for totalitarianism and liberty matters.
Here's one last thing to consider. When the state issues a license for anything that requires training. It implies a level of competency, not perfection but competency. If it didn't then there would be no need for the training. I fear there are a larger number than anyone wants to admit that has their CC permit and because of it feel their competency level is much higher than it truly is. This does not add to the safety of the public.
If the government wants to get involved with making the public safer as far as firearms go. I think a tax credit for training paid to the instructor directly would do a whole lot more than the mandated classes and licenses. It also wouldn't disenfranchise some of the people who need protection the most. I would talk about how to pay for it but that would require political talk. So I'll just say we could find a way if we really want the government this involved in this Constitutional right.
When it comes to exercising a Constitutional right I find having to ask permission from the state appalling. When you look at the events (namely the American Revolution) that led to the formation of this country and what it took to get there. I don't know how anyone could argue that the public being armed didn't play a huge role in the wining of the war. Imagine if they weren't. To think our fore fathers didn't want the threat of another revolution to influence the actions of our future government is not paying attention to history. Think about that any time you consider government approval needed for anything to do with firearms. I believe our fore fathers would be equally appalled with many of the licensing requirements we see today. Does anyone actually believe the Bill of Rights would have been ratified if there was a provision calling for the citizens to pass a mandated class and get government permission to carry a firearm? I think this speaks volumes to what was their original intent.
Here is another reason I disagree. While in theory the mandated class would make it safer for the public at large (I am not so sure it does. More on that in a minute). This by itself is not enough in and of it's self to mandate it. It would be safer for the public if we had no speed limits above 50mph, disallowed swimming pools, etc. I think you get my point. These are just a couple of many thousands of things that would make us safer and we don't do them. So calling for mandated classes that there has been no evidence that I have seen that makes us safer, makes absolutely no sense to me. It is not always the government's role to make us as safe as possible anyway. That would call for totalitarianism and liberty matters.
Here's one last thing to consider. When the state issues a license for anything that requires training. It implies a level of competency, not perfection but competency. If it didn't then there would be no need for the training. I fear there are a larger number than anyone wants to admit that has their CC permit and because of it feel their competency level is much higher than it truly is. This does not add to the safety of the public.
If the government wants to get involved with making the public safer as far as firearms go. I think a tax credit for training paid to the instructor directly would do a whole lot more than the mandated classes and licenses. It also wouldn't disenfranchise some of the people who need protection the most. I would talk about how to pay for it but that would require political talk. So I'll just say we could find a way if we really want the government this involved in this Constitutional right.
For North Carolina, eight (long) hours of classroom general training, and a very easy range shooting test.
kbm6893
Member
Oh I know. While I despise idiots handling guns, I'm not QUITE at that point yet. But I'm close.
There is power in numbers. Over the years I have meet a lot of people that told me they didn't like guns and became at least more tolerant and quite a few that ended up purchasing after experiencing a plinkin trip/range trip. Training in schools might get an increase in the ranks and if not at least a more rounded look at firearms, not to mention the safety factor.
Johnmuratore
Member
Muss
What is a destination range? I never heard that before.
What is a destination range? I never heard that before.
There is, and should not be, a training requirement to purchase, possess, or carry a firearm openly. If one wants to carry a firearm concealed, some training could apply, if the state wishes, because concealed firearms have always been an item of concern, and I think they should be regulated. I equate it to the right to travel peaceably between the various states. If you do it on foot, no issues. If you use a motor vehicle, you are subject to additional evidence of training/competency.
Just my thoughts . . .
Just my thoughts . . .
Last edited:
JohnHancock
Member
Interesting thread! Personally, it's simple. If you are in charge of protecting yourself/family, no training required. If you are in charge of protecting any segment of the general population (i.e. law enforcement, security, neighborhood watch, schools, etc.), yes some degree of training should be required. Of course the real question is what should that training consist of?
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Yep, there you go. Just buy a gun and hope for the best. Don't read the manual, and don't even consider learning about sight picture, grip, stance, overall safety, and all those other little unimportant details. That'll work for sure.
JohnHancock
Member
I never said it shouldn't be encouraged for everyone! These days I try to avoid public ranges during busy periods for just that reason.
