Is STATE MANDATED safety training really necessary?

[Hang-Fire Hank]

It is clearly and demonstrably because all that government mandated training does NOT have any appreciable positive result in terms of safety or anything else.
Ken

That's not correct, Ken. The training I gave people when it was mandated by our AZ state very definitely DID have positive results in safety awareness. I've had many people say they felt they learned a lot & felt much more safe handling & shooting their guns.
Hank

 

[Biggfoot44]

And as noted in the first page, in an indeterminate number of states , the accepted training is open ended enough to be essentially none.

And between all three catagories the rates of accidental and mistaken shootings are equally near zero. And it's not as if LE and Mil don't have slip ups.

I'm a firm believer in knokledge and useful skills. My personal belief is what a reasonable and competant person should know and be capable is quite high. But even if mandatory training were Constitutionally viable , there is no statiscal need.

Many Gov'ts primarily seek as many roadblocks as possable to discourage people from carrying. ( Even if the actual training is basic there is the hassle of getting a training slot from an Offical State Certified Instructor , fitting into one's schedule , traveling to their location , and of course the $ ). And among a certain % of Official State Certified Instructors, they will be in favor of having a captive audience for their services.

Yes , many of the Instructors are good people , and can even teach useful skills. Such Instructor should have no trouble having clients who volentarily wish to train with them.

 

[WCCPHD]

Did going through a mandatory training class make these officers safer?

Absolutely, it did. It was the ones who had no training that were not safe. Now this was not universal. Many had military training. Many were shooters who trained on their own time and took the responsibility to practice and were taught by others. The time between the first mandatory LE training and the addition of the safety classes was decades.

I'm not trying to argue with you. You asked for opinions and I gave mine.

 

[ClayCow]

Smoke,
You can't take comments out of context. I do agree that kids in school should be taught how to handle guns safely. That's not the same as government mandated training to carry a gun.

Oh yea. Same as sex ed. You get taught about your consequences bringing someone into the world, you should get taught about gun safety

 

[bhayles]

Do you agree that a citizen can be disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights?

Of course, just as they can disqualify themselves from the right to vote by becoming a felon.

However, in the case of carrying a gun I don't think it should be ALL felons, just violent ones. While a bank robber or someone convicted of aggravated assault should be banned, an embezzler shouldn't. Once a non-violent felon has served their sentence, paid their debt to society, they should be allowed to defend themself just like the rest of us.

 

[bhayles]

In answer to your question, yes. She has demonstrate a willingness to ignore the law for her personal gain. Who am I to decide that her willingness is innocent?

With that (il)logic, anyone who has ever gotten a speeding ticket should be banned from carrying...after all, they have shown a willingness to ignore the law for their personal gain (save time, get there quicker, not be late for a meeting, etc.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The ironic thing about all this is that after 12 years of government mandatory training, some people believe the government should require training and licensing to exercize a Constitutional right....

 

[MrJT]

So many points many people have touched upon.

I'm in the "no mandated training" camp.

Just look at drivers. There's mandated training for young drivers in PA. They need so many hours of training with their permit and then have to pass a state mandated test.

How many kids do you think end up speeding or texting or trying to take a "selfie" of themself behind the wheel on their first solo road trip?

How many experienced drivers do you see driving while texting or applying makeup or eating a Big Mac with one hand while holding a milkshake in the other. How often do you see blatant disregard for driving laws?

My point: just because you had training, doesn't mean you're trained.

 

[MrJT]

Another point:

We just had a story in the local news about an area cop assigned to a school. He was in an office with a faculty member and decided to show him his gun, demonstrate how to clean it...

Guess what?

Yep... the gun "went off" as they say on the news.

Now, do you supporters of mandated training propose MORE training is required than what this cop has had? He obviously wasn't TRAINED enough since he made such a dumb mistake.

 

[WCCPHD]

With that (il)logic, anyone who has ever gotten a speeding ticket should be banned from carrying...after all, they have shown a willingness to ignore the law for their personal gain (save time, get there quicker, not be late for a meeting, etc.

In most states speeding is a strict liability offense where no mental intent is required. Felonies require mental intent. A person has to think through committing a felony, unless its felony murder and then the underlying felony requires intent.

Not arguing, just clarifying.

 

[WCCPHD]

Another point:

We just had a story in the local news about an area cop assigned to a school. He was in an office with a faculty member and decided to show him his gun, demonstrate how to clean it...

Guess what?

Yep... the gun "went off" as they say on the news.

Now, do you supporters of mandated training propose MORE training is required than what this cop has had? He obviously wasn't TRAINED enough since he made such a dumb mistake.

Training is just that. Its not always learning. Most LE agencies have a policy against such actions. This person not only was reckless but most probably in violation of policy.

There are numerous examples of people who have been trained having negligent discharges. Training does not idiot proof an idiot.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I think Ladder13 and GaryS makes good points in regard to range and other observatiions.

We've got a good membership at the Club, but of course not perfect. It's usually the guys my age (mid 50s) and older with decades of experience and practice that screw up. Inattention, mind wandering and a bit of carelessness are the driving factors, not lack of goverment mandatory training.

 

[GaryS]

In Martha Stewart's case, the government alleged that she lied. Her defense was that she had a memory lapse. Unfortunately, when dealing with the federal government, there is no such thing, it's all intent.

If you doubt me, look at what happens when the government alleges Medicaid or Medicare fraud by providers. A coding error, is not considered a mistake. Rather, from the outset the position of the investigators is that there was intent. The problem being that it turns the legal process upside down and the burden is now on the defendant.

The problem is that too many things are now felonies, especially at the federal level.

In most states speeding is a strict liability offense where no mental intent is required. Felonies require mental intent. A person has to think through committing a felony, unless its felony murder and then the underlying felony requires intent.

Not arguing, just clarifying.

 

[GaryS]

People who ignore the law to the degree that they acquire a felony conviction don't get guns. It demonstrates a lack of regard for the consequences of your actions.

So, you're saying I shouldn't cut off mattress tags or copy VHS tapes if I want to keep my 2A rights?

The problem would seem to be that you think that all of the laws on the books are fair and just and that the people who enforce them are also fair and just.

Prosecutorial misconduct.

That was just one, high profile, case.

To say your thought process is faulty is charitable on my part. If I expressed my true opinion, I'd rightfully be banned.

Suffice it to say that your opinion on this and any other topic will receive the due regard it deserves.

 

[WCCPHD]

Perhaps a better way to handle this would be a requirement to demonstrate proficiency in the safe/proper handing of a firearm. If a person can demonstrate they can safely handle a firearm, show knowledge of the restrictions on the use of force and can meet some qualification requirement then additional training would not be necessary. Proficiency could also be shown by completing a safety/legal issues course.

In NC a current or retired law enforcement officer is exempted from the safety/legal course when applying for a concealed weapons permit IF he/she can show proof of prior completion of a LE firearms safety course.

Keep in mind this is only for the issuance of a concealed carry permit.

Also in NC under state law/administrative rules enacted to afford retired officers the authority to carry a concealed weapon under federal law the retired officer must complete a firearms safety class/firearms qualification ANNUALLY and must qualify with every weapon he/she intends to carry. This requirement requires day and night qualification and is essentially the same as for a current LEO.

While carrying under LEOSA is less restrictive than having a CCW, it requires annual day/night qualification and does not allow one to purchase a handgun without a pistol permit issued by the Sheriff. This is why most officers just get a CCW when they retire. I actually do all three, I have a CCW, qualify as a retired officer and qualify as a current officer.

 

[Smoke]

The ironic thing about all this is that after 12 years of government mandatory training, some people believe the government should require training and licensing to exercize a Constitutional right....

I see what you did there

 

[Smoke]

Training does not idiot proof an idiot.

Do you realize you just made my case for me?

I have to ask again what are you going to do when your state goes permitless?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Perhaps a better way to handle this would be a requirement to demonstrate proficiency in the safe/proper handing of a firearm. If a person can demonstrate they can safely handle a firearm, show knowledge of the restrictions on the use of force and can meet some qualification requirement then additional training would not be necessary. Proficiency could also be shown by completing a safety/legal issues course.

No thanks.

It's a Constitutional right. The only real requirement is for government not to infringe upon it.

Putting that minor issue aside, I am unaware of any evidence that government mandatory training is of any measurable benefit to public safety as some want to make believe. Georgia is a border state with Tenn. They have no mandatory training and seem to be doing just fine compared to us trained Tenneseeans.

How about we trust gun owners with their rights? Sounds like a better plan to me. Seems to work when it's tried, despite hysterical claims of blood will run in the streets every time gun owners exercise more freedom. The hysterical handwringers are proved wrong every time.

 

[FLSTFI]

I am in the camp that believes training is very good and needed by anyone who wants to own, use or carry a gun, but I do not believe it should be mandated.

There is a lot of argument in this thread that you cannot force a person to learn if they do not want to and there will still be people that do not handle a gun safely even if forced to take a class. However, I will concede that a large percentage will indeed learn something and come away from the class better off than they were originally.

My issue with mandating the training is that the government then gets to decide what that mandated training consists of and what proficiency you must have to obtain your liscense/permit.

Once they get to set the rules they can then begin making those rules harder to pass and thereby ultimately restricting the exercise of a right we are all granted in the constitution.

Some states will take a common sense approach while others; California, Maryland, New York, Illinois or New Jersey to name a few, will make it almost impossible to pass their tests and thereby get to deny this right to many of their citizens.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[WCCPHD]

Do you realize you just made my case for me?

I have to ask again what are you going to do when your state goes permitless?

You asked for opinions/comments. I gave them. I'm done.

 

[Shootbrownelk]

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.

I've seen supposedly "Trained" LEO's ignoring the fundamental rules of gun safety. So IMO "Trained" is a relative term. There are a lot of folks on here that don't seem to mind losing our rights. And "Keep and bear arms" means what it says, unless of course you're a liberal.

 

[Shootbrownelk]

Training is just that. Its not always learning. Most LE agencies have a policy against such actions. This person not only was reckless but most probably in violation of policy.

There are numerous examples of people who have been trained having negligent discharges. Training does not idiot proof an idiot.

There's that word again, "Training". Our Senators and Representatives are "Trained"....how's that working out for us?

 

[mltndw3]

I am retired military and didn't need to take a course for a CC permit in the state of VA--just present my DD214 with my application. However, the fact that I hadn't qualified with a pistol for 20 years, didn't know the state law, or range safety and etiquette, I elected to take both a basic handgun safety course and the CC course at my local range. Both were valuable and got me ready to "solo" at the range and CC. It wasn't required, but for me it was the smart thing to do. As a former Navy pilot, I had to show proficiency before they gave me an airplane by myself to help ensure I had a good chance of not killing myself or others. I also had to undergo yearly training and tests to ensure that my skills and knowledge hadn't eroded. I am a big "training is important" guy and don't have a problem with making sure people have some basic safety training and have demonstrated their ability to safely CC. However, there is an argument to be made about this being a right and we aren't required to be tested on any other right so why should we for the 2nd amendment? I too fear it may become harder and harder to own and carry a firearm, with the way things are going, and once we start down the slippery slope of regulations, it may be a quick trip to the bottom.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Of course, just as they can disqualify themselves from the right to vote by becoming a felon.

However, in the case of carrying a gun I don't think it should be ALL felons, just violent ones. While a bank robber or someone convicted of aggravated assault should be banned, an embezzler shouldn't. Once a non-violent felon has served their sentence, paid their debt to society, they should be allowed to defend themself just like the rest of us.

I would point out that embezzlers and fraud perpetrators have potentially ruined more innocent lives than any bank robber . . .

 

[ladder13]

How do grandma, grandpa, and others who live in rural America, possibly 100's of miles away from a range or facility get "trained"?
I visited S. Dakota and Eastern Wyoming just this past summer. You can go for quite some time and see a single house here and there. Should they be denied self protection?

 

[k22fan]

How does a young single mother who's struggling to keep her child housed and fed plus pay a baby sitter while she works get trained? Many have to come and go from long term care facilities, restaurants and other service jobs at night in bad neighborhoods. Often those who have the greatest need for a concealed pistol have the hardest time affording one. Suppose grandpa gives her an old model 36 or 10 and takes her to the range. (sound familiar?) In Washington she can get a 5 year CPL for about $50 with only a visit to her local PD. You can effectively take away her rights by making them unaffordable.

 

[wheelgunguy]

How does a young single mother who's struggling to keep her child housed and fed plus pay a baby sitter while she works get trained? Many have to come and go from long term care facilities, restaurants and other service jobs at night in bad neighborhoods. Often those who have the greatest need for a concealed pistol have the hardest time affording one. Suppose grandpa gives her an old model 36 or 10 and takes her to the range. (sound familiar?) In Washington she can get a 5 year CPL for about $50 with only a visit to her local PD. You can effectively take away her rights by making them unaffordable.

Unfortunately, affecting the ability of someone to attain a firearm by making it to expensive is nothing new. The $200 NFA tax stamp doesn't seem like much but when it was enacted in 1934 it was roughly the equivalent of $3500 today. In the middle of the Great Depression it for all intents and purposes banned them except for the wealthy.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are people today that would be perfectly ok with using the same tactics.

 

[ClayCow]

Should an overworked person who does not know how to handle a gun really be swinging one around? Yes constitutionally she has that right. Is it safe? Depends on her knowledge and upbringing. She could potentially use it and be charged with a crime because it wasnt legally justified. At that point a few bucks and time for training would be worth it.

Just providing a counterpoint

 

[wheelgunguy]

Should an overworked person who does not know how to handle a gun really be swinging one around?

If you don't know how to handle a gun you shouldn't handle one, overworked or not.

If you do know how to handle a gun, you know not to swing one around.

I am not sure what point you are countering. I would think we are all in agreement on this.

 

[kbm6893]

How does a young single mother who's struggling to keep her child housed and fed plus pay a baby sitter while she works get trained? Many have to come and go from long term care facilities, restaurants and other service jobs at night in bad neighborhoods. Often those who have the greatest need for a concealed pistol have the hardest time affording one. Suppose grandpa gives her an old model 36 or 10 and takes her to the range. (sound familiar?) In Washington she can get a 5 year CPL for about $50 with only a visit to her local PD. You can effectively take away her rights by making them unaffordable.

She had the money to buy the gun and ammo. She has a child in the house. There is no better candidate for basic proficiency training.

Those who say "I'm all for training but I don't think it should be mandatory" are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Sure, in some imaginary world, everybody would get the training. But that doesn't happen. I have literally seen HUNDREDS of people with no clue handling a weapon.

If not a state mandates course, maybe offer some rebate paid for by the gun companies to the purchaser who can show proof of completion of a course. I'm sure Gaston can spare a few bucks. Or make it a tax deduction. Do something to eat the cost.

But I'm still calling BS on the "maybe people can't afford it". They buy a gun, ammo, holster. They can't come up with another 50 bucks? And if they are THAT dead broke, how are they gonna get some private range time and ammo?