Thoughts on Training Requirements for concealed carry

[MJAtl]

Wanted to know the community's thoughts on state requirements for training to obtain a firearms license/CCW/CCP?

Coming from a state without the requirement I appreciate the ease of the process for obtaining a permit - basically if you have a clean record you qualify. Now, the drawback is that South Carolina won't accept a GA permit due to the lack of training and given that my father lives there I visit often. I don't qualify for a SC non-resident permit as I am not a property owner there.

Thoughts on training requirements?

[rwilson452]

Required training should be zero, none, nada. Suggested training should be all you can afford.

[Brian Pfleuger]

None. I would suggest that a copy of the relevent laws be dispensed when a person makes a purchase. That would be all the training you need.

[MemphisJim]

Tennessee has a training course requirement. Mississippi does not. I elected to take a couple of courses (at a Memphis range) because I did not have a lot of pistol experience (except for carrying one sometimes during 14 months in Vietnam 40+ years ago) and wanted to increase my personal comfort level with one before going concealed carry. Intellectually, I'm in agreement with rwilson452 but sometimes it even scares me to see how some Bozos handle their "carry" pieces.

[Kreyzhorse]

Zero required training in my opinion however I can't argue too much with Kentucky's required training course.

The course was an 8 hour class room course followed by a simple range test. The course covered basic CCW laws in Kentucky, the legal aspects of CCW and basic gun safety.

The range test was pretty easy. Demonstrate safe handling and the ability to score 15 out of 20 at 7 yards.

All and all I found the course easy (which it should be) and informative.

[sundog]

I can understand a hands-on proficiency test as part of the licensing process such as many states require. As far as requiring "training", it's not needed if the applicant for CCW passes the hands-on proficiency test.

[green-grizzly]

The vast majority of encounters are resolved with mere brandishing. I don't see how training helps with that.

Police in general have a pretty awful record of putting bullets where they need to in real-life shootings. Police firearms training may not be all we would want it to be (although it certainly varies by jurisdiction), but it seems a little much that we demand citizens do even more training than that - especially considering how very unlikely it is that they will ever fire their weapon in anger.

I don't know if armed citizens are any more or less likely to shoot accurately in defensive shooting than cops, but they are less likely to shoot the wrong person. Citizens may not have the training, but they do have better information about what is going on and the victim of a crime is certainly going to beat the cops to the scene. It seems like the biggest concern with training should be making sure that shooters don't shoot the wrong person. We don't really care that much if they miss the bad guy, or just wing him - that will probably scare the bad guy off, or at least not leave the citizen in a worse position. Citizens are already pretty good at shooting the right peson, better than cops anyway, and it has nothing to do with training - it is just that they have more information about the situation and are closer to it.

Testing whether a trainee can shoot a small group at the range may have very little impact on their ability to use a firearms effectively in an encounter. Your ability to handle your weapon under pressure, coolness under fire and mindset probably have a greater impact. A lot of training can help with those things for most people, but it takes so much training - and retraining - that most people would lose the RKBA if we demanded it.

My state's "training" consists of instruction about the laws relating to firearms and self-defense, as well as basic gun safety. Basically all you need if you are never going to shoot your gun. The fact is that most of them never will, except at the range.

IMHO guns have more of a deterrent effect than anything else. Crime is reduced because criminals know people have guns and occassionally have a gun waived in their face. The number of criminals who are deterred by guns in this way is vastly greater than the number who are actually shot.

I have relatives who are cops and none of them have ever shot anybody. They have received a lot of training about how to put bullets on targets under stress, but they have never had to use it. That does not mean that their guns have been totally worthless in their jobs though. The guns were a deterrent, and a very successful one.

[Sevens]

Sometimes I'm so damn UNDECIDED that it's downright embarrassing. This is one of those times.

On one hand, I'm a free man, 100% law abiding and I can't stand the idea of any governmental entity mucking up the free will of good people. (and tacking on their FEES and red tape, too) On that thought, I believe concealed carry should follow the Vermont and Alaska model. Not only no training, but no licensing either.

On the other hand, I've been to my share of gun shows and some public ranges, too. And while the "norm" is thoughtful, mature, and careful adults... it's not the entire picture of reality.

There's some real live morons out there handling firearms. YouTube will show you hundreds of them if you have an hour to waste watching them. And easy to find because each idiot video links directly to the next one.

It's not even that I fear one of these guys shooting his left testicle off and hitting me with a ricochet...
It's simply that the next Billybob (or NFL player) that puts a slug in to his thigh is going to get covered by every major and minor media outlet and spread the idea that you or I shouldn't be allowed to carry a Glock.

I know how the masses and the media work and I don't like it, so a little training is something I can handle no matter how much I distaste the idea of being forced into it. (my ccw class was so basic, I could have slept through it)

In my concealed carry course I didn't personally witness any handling that made me pucker, but MANY of the questions that were posed by the group made me GLAD that there was some training going on. And like many of us active here at TFL, I could likely have helped a WHOLE LOT of people in the class on the intricacies of shooting, handling, cleaning and choosing firearms.

The other "side benefit" of being in a training state is that a lot of good people are making a living spreading the knowledge of gun handling, even if citizens are forced to take and pay for that training. The net result is more training (basic although it is) and even ADVERTISING for training, which puts more and more "guns, handguns and firearms in the hands of normal people" out in to the face of society that may or may not realize that this is normal activity for good people and not tools for mayhem used only by bad guys.

That benefit can't be easily discounted!

[Frank Ettin]

I have no trouble with a State requiring that someone wishing to lawfully carry a loaded firearm in public, where I, a loved one or a friend of mine might be his backstop if he needs to use it, demonstrate basic competence with his gun and a knowledge of applicable law relating to the use of lethal force. I see too much abysmal marksmanship and atrocious gun handling, and run into too many gun owners seriously ignorant of the law of self defense.

I also think that most state training requirements are too lax.

Yes, I know all the arguments about the 2nd Amendment not saying anything about training and everyone having a God given right to self defense. But I also don't think that the 2nd Amendment was intended to be a license, nor is there a God given right, to endanger the innocent. And until a court says so, training requirements aren't unconstitutional.

What you might do on your property is one thing, but if you're going to carry a loaded gun in public you owe it to the rest of us to know what you are doing and to be more competent than a lot of the folks I see at ranges.

FWIW, I have a fair amount of training myself and have had no trouble qualifying for Arizona and Nevada permits.

In any case, I agree with Jeff Cooper when he said, "It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully."

[Brian Pfleuger]

Yes, I know all the arguments about the 2nd Amendment not saying anything about training and everyone having a God given right to self defense. But I also don't think that the 2nd Amendment was intended to be a license, nor is there a God given right, to endanger the innocent. And until a court says so, training requirements aren't unconstitutional.

First:

The courts don't "make" something unconstitutional. They RECOGNIZE that it is in fact unconstitutional.

Slavery is a good example. The court held for a long time that slavery was not unconstitutional. Does that mean that it wasn't?





Back the point of the thread:

There is not and has not ever been a problem with armed citizens killing other innocents during defensive situations. Could there be? Yes, there could be, but it's not like it's a new idea and we're thinking "Oh man, this could be bad." People have been carrying weapons for SD for literally centuries and it's not been any problem to the unsuspecting public.

Why make a law for a "potential" threat when the "potential" has long been possible and has never reared it's ugly head?

[johnwilliamson062]

What about people who already have extensive training but not the specific class the state wants? Maybe you worked in some private security firm like Blackwater and are way over qualified concerning state standards, but they require the state course. What a load of BS. What if you have such a person willing to give you one on one instruction once a week for an hour? Not good enough b/c it doesn't meet the state requirements.

I was looking at someones CCW piece last week and when we locked the slide back there were dust bunnies in there. I was appalled. They weren't even black from carbon build up or anything.. He obviously never shoots or cleans it. Terribly irresponsible, but it was the first time he noted it and I gave him a little crap in a polite way and I think he at least cleaned the thing afterwords.

No state mandated training.

[Wagonman]

No state mandated instruction!!!!!

However, it would be irresponsible IMHO to not have some formal instruction. I think it would be a positive in a SD shooting aftermath to have had some kind of training

[TenmaNeko]

I don't have a problem with there being some sort of testing requirement. There are a lot of idiots out there, and I'd like to know that there's some sort of basic coverage of the law, safety and maintenance.

When I worked for the license bureau, I saw some people that managed to fail the written portion of the test. And I'm glad they did, because a lot of them seemed barely smart enough to tie their own shoes. Or they berated the testing officer for having a test that "wasn't fair".

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just recently - SWAT - our beloved site magazine sponsor - had an interesting article of levels of training and action. Just a reference.

[azredhawk44]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the freedom of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well regulated

versus

shall not be infringed.

Training is a form of regulating. Not in the sense of ordinances or laws or restrictions... but in the sense of "regulation" as a means of obtaining consistent, predictable results from a well tuned piece of machinery.

One might have a logical argument stating that perhaps owning arms should be unrestricted, but the wearing of them on a daily basis should require regulation.

Then, we have that whole pesky "keep and bear arms" phrase.

Keep and bear are held together, right next to "shall not be infringed."

Some days I wish that regulation was mandatory as I see complete morons, but ultimately I'm glad that "keep and bear" are right there next to "shall not be infringed."

You shouldn't have to be an Operator (©, ®, TM, all rights reserved) to carry a gun for protection.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While we can debate if the Constitution is absolute on the 2nd - Heller suggests it is not. Freedom of the press has limits too despite the 1st. So dead horse time.

The reasonable discussion, IMHO - is whether training restrictions have utility. We have some data that training states don't differ in gun booboo rates from nontraining states. But that might change with time - who knows.

The issue might be success in the gun fight for yourself. If you choose not to train and you get hurt - tough. Should the state mandate you become a warrior for your own good?

However, should the state mandate training to protect others from you. We do have some small number of cases of CCW types going awry. Too lazy to search but we had the intevening CHL who got drawn on by another intervening CHL who thought he was the BG recently.

We have the Pharmacist From Hell thread. Don't know if he had a permit or if it was needed for a business but maybe training would have altered his behavior.

I've been 'shot' in the inner thigh by a CHL in training who hadn't figured out the game yet and was Mr. Savior in a bar fight (which he wasn't part of).

But most CCWs don't get into trouble. If permits are shall issue, then I'm not against at least a run through of the law and common sense being mandated. Sue me for not being a purist.

I do also think if you talk the talk about intervening in rampages, etc. - then you need to walk the walk and train. Whether you should intervene or flee is another of our famous debates.

[THEZACHARIAS]

Anyone who has carried a weapon every day for the duration of a military deployment should have a free ride as far as CCW is concerned (maybe throw in a state laws and regulations pamphlet to cover the legal end). If you can spend upwards of a year in a warzone with a pistol on your hip or a rifle on your shoulder without incident, Id say you have all the training you need to carry a concealed weapon in the states.

[Jim March]

I think the only part of the training that makes any sense at all is the discussion on legal use of deadly force.

I think there's a completely different way to handle it: permit applicants go on a "ride along" with an experienced cop, and they discuss it one on one. It wouldn't cost anything, it would be a couple of interesting hours, it would help cement relations between police and permitholders and in the rare case that a permit applicant was...well, nuts, in a couple of hours an experienced cop could tell.

I'd want a video/audio recording made available to the applicant to be used to challenge any such "determination". And the cop's word wouldn't be final, it would perhaps be a reason to have a shrink check.

Now remember, I proposed this in California where agencies can right now have a shrink do a check on applicants. This would strip that down to "have 'em see a shrink only if there's probable cause to do so", which would be an improvement over what they have now.

Another possibility, and I think it's one I'm going to actually propose in Arizona, is a system whereby a "graduation certificate" from a private training course IS your "CCW" permit. In other words, it's a switch to a system whereby the state doesn't know who's packing, and is OK with them packing so long as they're not a criminal (Vermont/Alaska style) and have the training certificate. If they don't have the cert, it's a "fix-it ticket" forcing them into training.

It would be better than the permit process we have now, but perhaps a bit more palatable for the more gun-shy legislators. This "Vermont with training" variant to CCW has not been tried anywhere so far, but in AZ a proposal to go "full Vermont" failed, leaving the door open to this concept next year.

[Frank Ettin]

There have certainly recently been what appear to be stunning lapses of judgment by private citizens with guns. There was the incident with an armed pharmacist alluded to by Glenn. Then there was this little incident in Boise --
http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-jul1709-citizen_arrest.4e0b1fd0.html. And this disgrace in Utah -- http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=7252008. Training is in part about judgment.

In any case, those States with training requirements are unlikely to abandon them. And the States without training requirements reduce the likelihood of nationwide recognition of CCWs, either by voluntary State action or by federal legislation. For example, the OP's Georgia permit isn't honored in South Carolina because Georgia has no training requirement. And Nevada just dropped Utah from it's list of State CCWs it honors because Utah doesn't require a demonstration of actual shooting proficiency (which is why 10 days ago I was in Reno taking the class, qualifying and applying for my non-resident CCW). Some may object, but it's still a fact of life.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Training is in part about judgment.

See, I'm not so sure about that. Judgement comes from common sense, at least to a very large degree, and common sense can not be trained. The majority of people who are aware enough to discuss these issues are people who, in actual fact, don't even really need a law to tell them when or if they should be shooting someone. It's just something that we "know". Anyone who does not, for the most part, simply "know" when, where and if to use a gun is probably not going to get any better through training.

Another part of the issue is that the only "real" problem that one could attribute to CCW holders is when they rampage, like Wong in NY or the dude in ?Alabama? was it? No amount of training is going to make someone NOT go crazy. In fact, it may makes things worse if they DO go crazy.

[Frank Ettin]

...Judgement comes from common sense, at least to a very large degree, and common sense can not be trained....Balderdash! The world is full of people stumbling through life, doing dumb things and making bad decisions, all guided by what they believe is "common sense." Training and education help people to make better decisions and avoid doing at least some dumb things.

Sometimes one's instinctive, or common sense, reaction is not the correct response. In fact, it seems that one element of training and practice is to overcome instinctive reaction and to learn to automatically do instead what is appropriate.

For example, when driving a car, one's common sense reaction in the event of a skid is to apply the brakes. We know that is the wrong thing to do; and so, if one is lucky enough to get some training in high speed driving, one learns to stay off the brake, turn into the skid and, under some circumstances, even gently apply some throttle.

I remember my first time driving a Formula Ford through Turn 8 at Laguna Seca -- a left-right downhill "S" turn. When hitting the apex of the first half of the turn, you can't see the track. My "common sense" said to back off the throttle. But of course, backing off the throttle under side loading while going downhill is a good way to lose the back end.

...The majority of people who are aware enough to discuss these issues are people who, in actual fact, don't even really need a law to tell them when or if they should be shooting someone. It's just something that we "know"....Don't be silly. We've seen plenty of illustrations here, in these Forums, that many folks have some very fanciful notions, or who are looking for hard and fast rules, about when or how to use lethal force in self defense.

...Anyone who doesn't, for the most part, simply "know" when, where and if to use a gun is probably not going to get any better through training....This is also not true. Certainly in my experience, having provided basic training to many people, I've seen people go from "not knowing and not understanding" to a higher level of knowledge and understanding. People do, in fact, learn things. If you don't know and understand more now, today, than you knew and understood 5 years ago, you have not been paying attention.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Training and education help people to make better decisions and avoid doing at least some dumb things.

The world is full of trained people who do stupid things every day too. Bus, ferry and train drivers sending text messages, police officers shooting themselves with their own gun, airline pilots with hundreds, even thousands, of hours training crashing planes by reacting wrongly.

So far as education, well, some of the people with the LEAST common sense that I have ever experienced have had letters after their names.


Sometimes one's instinctive, or common sense, reaction is not the correct response.

Instinct is not synonymous with common sense. It is, in fact, quite often the opposite.


We've seen plenty of illustrations here, in these Forums, that many folks have some very fanciful notions, or who are looking for hard and fast rules, about when or how to use lethal force in self defense.

You confuse people who ARE discussing these things with people who are aware enough to BE discussing these things.


Certainly in my experience, having provided basic training to many people,...

What sort of "basic training"? I've seen people who have taken many hours of training that they WANTED to take, which they PAID to take and which did them no good whatsoever. How much good is 1 or 2 or even 3 "required" courses constituting at most a few hours going to do?

If you don't know and understand more now, today, than you knew and understood 5 years ago, you have not been paying attention.

Indeed, and yet "knowing" does not directly equate to "doing". "Doing" what you know does not come from knowing more, it comes from being sensible.

[Dragon55]

I've read many other threads that start where this one did or wind up here.

Almost always the consensus goes something like:

'Training should not be required but you'd be a dangerous fool not too.'

Well folks given that---- how can we disagree on our 'protectors' requiring some very basic training before they allow folks to walk around the grocery store with the rest of us with 3 guns hidden on their person??

We've all read the posts from members here who have a primary, a backup, and even a 'last ditch' firearm on them so it is a real possibility.

Just yesterday when it was 90+ and 90%++ humidity I saw a dude in produce wearing a long jacket something like Columbo used to wear. I really wondered about him and made sure I knew where he was until I could get my stuff and get he heck out.

Anyway.....

[Doc Intrepid]

people's opinions often express their own perspectives...and most of the participants on this forum are reasonably well-informed firearms owners.

It isn't surprising that many respondents on this forum feel that State-required training is either an onerous burden or an intrusion on personal freedoms.

The difficulty is that the greater U.S. population includes people who are literally clueless when it comes to firearms. We're talking ignorant, not merely uneducated.

As a firearms instructor, I've had students who could not figure out how to load their handgun. It was a revolver. One memorable young man got his finger stuck fast in the barrel of a handgun. Don't ask how.

These people want CCW permits.

Peetzkilla argues that since we have not historically seen reports of widespread bozonity among the civilian populace, this suggests there is no particular need for a training requirement for would-be CCW applicants.

I suspect that the truth is more that few reports of widespread bozonity among clueless firearms owners make it to the Associated Press; and that the lack of press coverage does not mean that the bozonity is not out there.

I'll certainly admit that the vast majority of those on this forum likely don't need basic firearms familiarization; and that its an intrusion on many well-informed applicants.

But my opinion is that for that small percentage of CCW applicants who would otherwise have a permit and still lack even basic familiarization with the rules of safe gun handling, having a basic training requirement makes sense and possibly prevents tragedy. I've had people walk into my class who owned and carried a gun in their purse or vehicle, that was either given to them or that they purchased and had someone else load for them, that they had never once fired nor knew anything at all about. Having met those people, I realize who the laws are aimed at.

YMMV.

[green-grizzly]

fiddletown said:
And this disgrace in Utah -- http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=7252008. Training is in part about judgment.
I don't know about the other incidents you mention, but the shooter in this case did not have a permit. The victim did.

[Frank Ettin]

The world is full of trained people who do stupid things every day too. Bus, ferry and train drivers sending text messages, police officers shooting themselves with their own gun, airline pilots with hundreds, even thousands, of hours training crashing planes by reacting wrongly....Trained people mess up. Sometimes by not acting as they've been trained. And sometimes because the training needs to be improved or because they needed more. But trained people overall do difficult things better than people who have no training to do those things.

The next time you fly, would you rather have a trained and qualified pilot or someone with no training but with self proclaimed common sense flying the plane?

So far as education, well, some of the people with the LEAST common sense that I have ever experienced have had letters after their names....But I still want my doctor, my lawyer and my accountant to have the education, the letters after their names and the licenses.

Instinct is not synonymous with common sense. It is, in fact, quite often the opposite.Really? Then where does common sense come from?

If, as you've asserted, it can't be trained, it must be something one is born with. But if it's something one is born with, it must be innate or instinctual.

If common sense is not innate or instinctual, it must be something that is learned. If it can be learned, it can be trained, or improved by training.

You confuse people who ARE discussing these things with people who are aware enough to BE discussing these things.A distinction without a difference. Many of the participants in those discussions have no idea what they are talking about.

What sort of "basic training"? I've seen people who have taken many hours of training that they WANTED to take, which they PAID to take and which did them no good whatsoever. How much good is 1 or 2 or even 3 "required" courses constituting at most a few hours going to do?I don't know what you've seen and I'm not responsible for what you've seen. I do know that the people who take the 10 hour Basic Handgun class that I and several colleagues teach leave far better able to manage a handgun than they were when they came in.

I do agree that a class of only a few hours is insufficient for someone without a solid foundation already. The point is not that training isn't important. The point is that what now tends to pass for training is grossly insufficient and that in many classes the students aren't held accountable with enough rigor for having mastered the material.

[Frank Ettin]

I don't know about the other incidents you mention, but the shooter in this case did not have a permit....True enough, but notice that I didn't say he had a permit. I referred to "...lapses of judgment by private citizens with guns..."(emphasis added)

[Ian0351]

To get a permit where I live, I paid the county sheriff $55, passed a background check, and got my CWP in the mail 5 weeks later. Unfortunately, the laxness of this process means that there are very few states who honor my permit with reciprocity, and none which border my state:(.
I am not opposed to a classroom and written exam, and would attend a practical proficiency exam if it would enable me to carry me in other jurisdictions.
I am glad that the COTUS recently did not vote into law a blanket reciprocity law for CCW, as this would be disenfranchising to states such as Texas, which allows residents to obtain a CCW but has common sense requirements to obtaining one. Gun laws are a states' rights issue and the federal gov't has no business telling states who can and cannot carry within their borders.
I feel that military service and qualification with a pistol should waiver an individual from state licensing requirements, but this may cause a conflict with my federal/state argument.
I am contemplating getting a permit in Florida next time I visit my parents (if legal and possible on a 10 day vacation) as their permits have much better reciprocity than Washington's.

[Ian0351]

That I believe that open-carry should never require a permit.

A co-worker and I, discussing the recent reciprocity legislation, got into an argument about what exactly "bear" means in 2A. My position is that it means the right to use arms in your defense against violence. He maintains that it means to use a gun for any purpose, at any time, without reservation. This may or may not be relevant to this discussion, and I am certainly not trying to instigate a semantic argument on the topic (I've already had that conversation this week) but I feel that carrying concealed, 24/7, and carrying a gun openly on your hip when you believe that you may need one are very different.

I do not carry concealed very often, I got the permit so I could keep a loaded gun in my car when I travel overnight or to 'sketchy' areas. Most of my carrying is done in the great outdoors, and is rather brazen.

[Frank Ettin]

...I am contemplating getting a permit in Florida next time I visit my parents (if legal and possible on a 10 day vacation) as their permits have much better reciprocity than Washington's....You can get a Florida permit by mail. You would need to supply proof of training (that you've already had or that you take before you apply) that satisfies the Florida proficiency requirement. See http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html .

[Brian Pfleuger]

Really? Then where does common sense come from?

Common sense may INCLUDE instinct, it is NOT synonymous with instinct and it may be the OPPOSITE of instinct.

Here's an example of no common sense and being unteachable:
I own a pizza shop. It takes about 15 minutes, start of preparation to customers hands, to make chicken wings.
If an employee has been taught that it takes 12 minutes to COOK the wings, and they have been taught that they have to sauce the wings and put them in a container, then should it really be necessary to specify that 5 or 6 minutes before those wings are expected does NOT leave enough time to get them done?
No, it should not. "Common sense" would tell you that you need more time than that, yet, there are those who can't quite seem to get it.
Teach them again.... sit down with them and ask why the wings are late, again.... ask them if they understand that it takes 15 minutes to get wings ready... "Yes, I understand.".... tomorrow, 8 minutes from due, no wings cooking....


I do agree that a class of only a few hours is insufficient for someone without a solid foundation already. The point is not that training isn't important. The point is that what now tends to pass for training is grossly insufficient and that in many classes the students aren't held accountable with enough rigor for having mastered the material.

How much training do you think the average person is going to take "on demand"?

When I took the hunters safety course, a government required class for hunters, there were 3 people out of a class of 25 or so that scored 100 on the test. 2 people FAILED the test. This is not Linear Algebra. These are questions about which direction is safe to point a gun, AFTER it has been taught mere hours before and AFTER we have gone over the EXACT same test word for word, minutes before. People FAILED!
The class was pointless. Anyone who failed that test learned nothing that day. Anyone who passed could have EASILY passed the same test WITHOUT the class.

When I took the required class to get a CCW permit in my county, they taught us almost the identical information from the hunters safety course with about 15 minutes added on regarding how we should not really feel the need to carry all the time and the ADA telling us that our area is so safe that we don't need a gun but they support our right to have one, but we don't need to carry it. All this, followed by 20 minutes or so of legal speak, and 10 (yes, 10) rounds fired from a Glock.


So, if a "few hours is grossly insufficient" and "what now passes for training is grossly insufficient" (two points on which we agree, BTW) how exactly do you contend that the average man could be reasonably expected to acquire enough training that it will actually matter?

I do agree that a very basic course should be required for firearms ownership unless a person can demonstrate competence without the course. People buying guns that have never even touched a gun are dangerous people. Beyond that, I do not believe that there is any reasonable amount of training that could be required.


Another thing:

How many people in America actually carry a gun? It's small percentage of people, tiny tiny percentage. THOSE people we have to get trained?..... but.....

yet, virtually everybody in America drives a car. What is the required training? NOTHING, in most places. The "test" to get a license is 15 minutes long and hasn't changed (in NY state) since 1937. Are cars dangerous? Well, yeah, but guess what? We let people wreck cars, destroy property, demonstrate that they are dangerous and sometimes even KILL other people with a car and then we let them drive again, STILL WITH NO TRAINING!

But we're worried about guns....

[green-grizzly]

fiddletown:

I know that, but I don't think you are arguing that non-permit holders should be required to have training. Right? Your anecdote does not really address the issue we are discussing. I was just pointing that out.

I could point to lots of instances where cops, even FBI agents with loads of training, used deadly force incorrectly. Does that prove that training does not do any good? The anecdotes do not really prove anything, other than that people sometimes screw up. Even those with training.

Even with Utah's minimal training requirement, which involves no live fire, the permit holder knew that this situation was not one to be resolved with deadly force.

Either that, or he was a slow draw.;)

[Tom Servo]

The vast majority of encounters are resolved with mere brandishing.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here, but what if yours isn't?

I've been hearing that a lot more lately, along with the argument that shooting well doesn't matter because "most crimes occur within 10/6/2 feet, anyway."

I've talked to people who got the permit, bought the gun and are now carrying it. They've never received training. Their entire experience shooting consists of one or two trips to the range. In one case, the person is carrying a gun and has never shot.

Maybe I'm getting old, but this isn't the way I grew up. Carrying a firearm is a humbling responsibility. It requires a number of hard decisions. It requires knowing whether or not you're willing to end another human life, how you'll actually react (if at all) when being attacked, and whether you can accept the consequences when you see a broken human being at your feet.

You'll have to know when it's appropriate to run, and when you should stand and fight. You'll have to know how to draw the weapon, prioritize threats, ascertain backgrounds, and seek cover. You'll have to do all of this in mere seconds.

There are no second chances in this.

Part of me is utterly opposed to the idea that training should be required to exert the right to self-defense. But that part of me grew up shooting, around people who understood all of the above.

Now we've got folks like I mentioned above, who don't have that. What happens if they misjudge a situation and escalate it to tragedy? It's rare so far, but we have a whole new group of people entering the arena who have had no experience with firearms prior to last week/month/year, and they're living under the dangerous assumption that the simple presence of a gun represents a magic talisman against danger.

At the very least, I'd like to see a brief, inexpensive qualification, if nothing else, to make sure the person can safely handle the weapon.

Is this an infringement? In theory it is, but as Glenn pointed out, the Courts have not established the 2A as being absolute. There is virtually no jurisprudence establishing a "right to carry." In practice, concealed carry is a privilege, and can thus be regulated.

I'm not saying it's right. That's just the way it currently is.

The last thing I want is Mr. I Won't Ever Have To Shoot Past Ten Feet getting into a situation where he has to make a somewhat precise shot at twenty feet and hits the wrong person.

[Frank Ettin]

...Here's an example of no common sense and being unteachable: I own a pizza shop. It takes about 15 minutes, start of preparation to customers hands, to make chicken wings....I wouldn't say that's about a lack of common sense or, necessarily, being unteachable. It sounds like you're talking about a fairly lazy, unmotivated person without any great interest in excelling at his job. Why? Who knows. Maybe he's just not too bright. Or maybe he's gotten away with slacking off so long, he has no interest in bothering to do things right. Maybe he needs some motivation, like knowing he's going to get fired unless he does these sorts of things correctly. Or maybe he's brighter than we think, and he has you trained to accept sub-par performance.

So called common sense can get people into a whole lot of trouble, especially when dealing with technical matters. I've seen many people take perfectly logical, common sense approaches to legal or tax problems and get themselves into expensive muddles.

I've also seen skilled business people successfully apply what they have called "common sense" approaches to complex matters. But when their background is explored, one finds that they have long experience in the field and that what they characterize as mere "common sense" is really judgment forged by that experience.

And of course there are people who just can't learn some things. If you're unteachable, maybe you don't get to become a doctor or a lawyer or an airline pilot. And if you're really super unteachable, maybe you don't get to work in a pizzeria.

...How much training do you think the average person is going to take "on demand"?...I don't know, but that's not really the question. How skillful and knowledgeable should people who want to carry a loaded gun in public be? I'm not sure I have an answer to that either; but it's something more than a few hours of class work and hitting a big target close in with 10 rounds, and less than expected of a member of a SWAT team. And it's also closer to the former than the latter.

If a standard is set, it will be up to those who want to carry a loaded gun in public to take the class and meet the standard. If it poses a financial burden on some people, let's rally local RKBA organizations to raise money to help; and let's rally qualified instructors to donate time. (Neither I, nor the people I teach with, receive any compensation. Class fees just cover expenses, range fees, ammunition we supply, etc.)

I also think that any standard should not be set by the usual crowd of political hacks or persons antagonistic to private citizens carrying guns in public. Standards should be set by shooting instructors, trainers and shooting organizations.

How many people in America actually carry a gun? It's small percentage of people, tiny tiny percentage. THOSE people we have to get trained.Yes I agree. Those people need to be trained.

...virtually everybody in America drives a car. What is the required training? NOTHING, in most places...I also think we need to set much higher standards for the issuance of drivers licenses.

...I could point to lots of instances where cops, even FBI agents with loads of training, used deadly force incorrectly....And all that means is that training isn't perfect. But how would things have worked out without their training. Mistakes by trained people are usually analyzed for the purposes of finding ways to improve training, not to justify discarding training.

[Ian0351]

Maybe he's just not too bright. Or maybe he's gotten away with
slacking off so long, he has no interest in bothering to do things right.

Where I live this guy can spend <$250 and have a Hi-Point, a CWP and 50 rounds of .45ACP... does that sound safe to you?

[Frank Ettin]

Where I live this guy can spend <$250 and have a Hi-Point, a CWP and 50 rounds of .45ACP... does that sound safe to you? It doesn't to me.

[Tophe]

MI requires you take a course. I didnt like paying the 150 bucks for the class, but I think it was beneficial. I liked hearing about the laws and what not and having the forum to ask questions and know youre getting the right answer.

Its definatly good for someone who hasnt ever had gun experience, but decides to go buy and and want to carry it.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I do not believe in legislating away peoples freedom when the problem being legislated is more imaginary than real.

It's that simple. There is not and has not been a problem from untrained concealed weapon holders. There is no reason, except fear and paranoia, to believe that there is suddenly going to be a problem.

Like I said before, if carrying concealed weapons was a new thing, with no history to base a judgement on, I'd say, "Yeah, this could be dangerous, we need to mandate some training." Fact is, I'd be wrong because it's not a new thing and there isn't a problem and my assumption that there might be a problem would be incorrect.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

An added point - the legal literature (Fiddle can chime in) has attorneys suggesting that training is a useful adjunct in your defense. It enables you to justify an action in an situation that looks ambiguous to a jury - if the point is made that training makes you deliberate (not a commando).

[OldMarksman]

Fact is, I'd be wrong [in saying "this could be dangerous, we need to mandate some training"] because it's not a new thing and there isn't a problem and my assumption that there might be a problem would be incorrect.

Technically true that it isn't a "new" thing, but in practice, it is rather new in most states. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of permit holders who have started carrying in the last few years. I'm one of them.

And there's a great deal of anecdotal evidence, much of it demonstrated in posts on this and similar fora, that a large number of people (who may or may not actually have guns, and who have undoubtedly not received training) have claimed to believe that they can lawfully shoot to protect property, shoot someone who attempts to flee, shoot someone who refuses their "command" to "get on the ground," etc. There are people who have claimed to believe the best thing to do in the event of an incident of self defense is to ensure that a person is dead and cannot testify. There are people who who have claimed to believe that it's advisable to shoot through opaque barriers at what they think to be perps they believe to be threatening them. There are people who have claimed to believe it's OK to point a gun at people for a variety of reasons other than immediate defense against imminent danger, and even to shoot people who seem threatening to them in some way.

"Might" there be a problem? Well, there's no central database, and you cannot "Google" for the facts.

And---should enough issues ultimately manifest themselves, one likely result is the abridgment of our rights.

We do know about the couple in Texas who fired at and hit innocent people driving on a nearby levee. We know about the guy in Oregon who killed the man his wife found on the couch. We know about the man who went out and shot the youth who was breaking into cars in New York State and who has been charged with manslaughter. We know about the guys who recently tried to stop someone from making off with someone else's bag and got into a mess. We know about the guy in Texas who has just been charged with murder for shooting a person running from his house. We know about the guy who armed himself and went outside to "investigate" a noise and ended up losing an arm and his livelihood. And I know about someone who just went out with a rifle.... How many others have there been?

Do you think these folks would like to have had some training?

Do I favor mandatory "training"? I favor results, and if that means mandatory education, so be it.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Do you think these folks would like to have had some training?

Apparently not. It's available and they didn't take it.



Shall we start listing fatal car accidents that occurred from lack of training?

Because something "happens" doesn't make it a problem. There are 300 million people in this country. 4 or 5 or 100 incidents do not make an epidemic that needs fixing. The more people you have the more stupid things will happen, education or no.

I wonder how many people a year drown in bathtubs? Maybe we should have mandatory training before taking a bath?
How many kids are hurt or killed every year due to the negligence of their parents? Mandatory parenting classes, anyone?

[OldMarksman]

Shall we start listing fatal car accidents that occurred from lack of training?We do have mandatory examinations for drivers, and we have licenses. Is that what we need for CCW? Some people think so.

Because something "happens" doesn't make it a problem.

???

The more people you have the more stupid things will happen, education or no.

True, but that's not a valid argument against education.

I wonder how many people a year drown in bathtubs? Maybe we should have mandatory training before taking a bath?

They do not endanger me and their misdeeds do not threaten my rights.

How many kids are hurt or killed every year due to the negligence of their parents? Mandatory parenting classes, anyone?

Shhhh! I'll bet the idea is in th works.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Quote:
Because something "happens" doesn't make it a problem.
???

If you have an island with 50 people and you have 10 murders in a year then you have a problem. If you have 300 million people and you have 10 or 20 or 50 incidents a year then you do NOT have a problem. The more people you have the more incidents you will have, in direct proportion. Unless the probability of an incident increases disproportionately to the population then there is no serious cause for concern.


True, but that's not a valid argument against education.

Sometimes it is. There have been any number of things that have always happened throughout our entire history, not the USA, mankind. Does anyone seriously believe that there weren't unjustified and illegal killings when everybody carried swords? Now we carry guns and stupid people continue to do stupid things.

The question is, does it happen in numbers that are unacceptably disproportionate to the population? The answer is no.

Another point, DWI used to be a TRUE epidemic. We instituted all kinds of advertising, terrible legal and monetary consequences, severe jail time and guess what, it went down. Did it go away? No, not even close. Every single person that drives drunk is fully aware of the legal and other consequences of their actions. Does it stop them?
Why was the money and time spent on DWI worth it? It was worth it because it was near epidemic proportions.
Shootings by otherwise law abiding citizens are most certainly NOT anywhere even remotely approaching "epidemic" levels. The problem is almost entirely isolated to that same sort of small population of people who continue to drive drunk despite the education and consequences.


On top of all that, we have the cost of such mandated training. If it would have cost me another $500 to be able to get my handgun permit then I would have almost certainly not done it. If I had needed that kind of money to buy guns of any kind then I probably wouldn't have them at all. That would be a serious breach of my rights. Making the price of a right outside the means of the people is no different than denying the right.

[Frank Ettin]

...There are 300 million people in this country. 4 or 5 or 100 incidents do not make an epidemic that needs fixing....Actually, politically it can. We've seen examples of one or two "bad event" generating awful legislation, especially when it involves guns in states in which a significant portion of the population is not "gun savvy."

And in any case, as mentioned earlier, a lack of state training requirements is a barrier to wide spread reciprocity.

...And---should enough issues ultimately manifest themselves, one likely result is the abridgment of our rights....In many states we're dealing with a significant portion of the voting public that is fundamentally uncomfortable with guns. Do ambitious politicians, playing to that portion of the electorate, blow incidents out of proportion and feeds the fires of fear to fuel their political ambitions. Of course they do. Just look at New York.

We need to remember that there are a bunch of people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There are also a lot of people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. Some think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. These people vote. Enough of the fence sitters may be willing to go along with laws letting people carry loaded guns concealed in public as long as the state issues a license and sets some qualifications, but they wouldn't vote for any legislator who supported a law to let folks carry without qualifying.

We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they also vote.

...attorneys suggesting that training is a useful adjunct in your defense. It enables you to justify an action in an situation that looks ambiguous to a jury - if the point is made that training makes you deliberate (not a commando)...That is the case, on many levels. Among other things, it can help establish you as someone who has taken the time and trouble to know what you are doing. It can also help you establish a reasonable basis for your actions.

[Brian Pfleuger]

And in any case, as mentioned earlier, a lack of state training requirements is a barrier to wide spread reciprocity.

On the flip side, the unreasonable requirements of state with mandatory training is a barrier to reciprocity.


Actually, politically it can.

Unfortunately, you're certainly correct about that. However, what "is" does not equal what "should be".

Originally Posted by peetzakilla
...And---should enough issues ultimately manifest themselves, one likely result is the abridgment of our rights....

That wasn't the Peetzakilla who said that.... too many fancy words.;):D

[bob.a]

Certainly demonstrating competence and possessing knowledge of the legalities of using deadly force is not too much to ask of someone who wishes to carry a deadly weapon in public.

We require motorists to demonstrate the ability to control an automobile before they're licensed to drive solo. As I recall, they also have to know the rules of the road.

Ex-military or ex-LEO should be considered competent based on their experience. and training.

There are a lot of folks I've seen who give me pause when I consider letting them out in public at all, to say nothing of their being in command of a 2000 pound vehicle or a pistol. For my own well-being and that of my loved ones, I'd like to know that they have at least heard a few basic firearm safety rules, and that they know what the long pedal does.

[OldMarksman]

There are 300 million people in this country. 4 or 5 or 100 incidents do not make an epidemic that needs fixing....

Fiddletown adressed that, but let me add--we had one high profile political murder in late 1963, one shooting spree in Texas in 1966, and two high profile assassinations in the summer of 1968--not one of which would have been prevented by gun laws. Four or five or one hundred? That's four in the course of four and a half years. The result was the enactment of a far-reaching and onerous Federal law that significantly restricted the importation, sale, transfer, and ownership of firearms and ammunition in this country.

Every now and then someone starts publicizing stats on CCW-related crimes, sometimes even adding in the failure of permit holders to pay child support timely. I agree with you--they do not make a compelling argument for additional restriction by any stretch--but that's just not the political reality.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I agree with you--they do not make a compelling argument for additional restriction by any stretch--but that's just not the political reality.

I know it's not political reality. Part of our disconnect here might be that I'm talking about what SHOULD BE not what IS.

i.e.- Should there be training requirements? No.
Will there eventually be enough pressure that there will be requirements? Probably Yes.

[Frank Ettin]

On the flip side, the unreasonable requirements of state with mandatory training is a barrier to reciprocity.You may wish to see it that way, but states with training requirements aren't going to abandon them.

...what "is" does not equal what "should be".What "should be" is immaterial unless it's politically achievable, and you've agreed that it is not. We need to deal with reality, not fantasy.

That wasn't the Peetzakilla who said that....Sorry. I edit my post.

...If you have 300 million people and you have 10 or 20 or 50 incidents a year then you do NOT have a problem. ...Unless the probability of an incident increases disproportionately to the population then there is no serious cause for concern....Really? Who appointed you to make that decision for the entire population? In some places, the body politic has a very low threshold for disproportionality, especially where guns are concerned.

For practical purposes, whether something is a cause for concern or whether the frequency of negative events is disproportional to the population will be a political decision made by that population.

...Does anyone seriously believe that there weren't unjustified and illegal killings when everybody carried swords? Now we carry guns and stupid people continue to do stupid things....Perhaps, but in any case the public tolerance for such stupid things seems to have decreased considerably.

...Another point, DWI used to be a TRUE epidemic. We instituted all kinds of advertising, terrible legal and monetary consequences, severe jail time and guess what, it went down. Did it go away? No, not even close. Every single person that drives drunk is fully aware of the legal and other consequences of their actions. Does it stop them?...Well good luck finding political support to ease the DWI laws. Good luck.

On top of all that, we have the cost of such mandated training...Then let's all pull together and rally the RKBA organizations and instructors to help ease the cost for people who legitimately can't afford it. As it is, I and the people I teach with, receive no compensation. Our class fees are set to just cover our expenses -- range fees, materials, ammunition we supply, etc.

[Frank Ettin]

...Will there eventually be enough pressure that there will be requirements? Probably Yes. And recognizing that, it's important that we be a part of the process and maneuver ourselves into a position to influence what the requirements and standards will be. If we get ourselves sidetracked into an alternate universe, we'll find standards imposed on us by political hacks fundamentally antagonistic to private citizens carrying guns in public.

[Brian Pfleuger]

What "should be" is immaterial unless it's politically achievable, and you've agreed that it is not. We need to deal with reality, not fantasy.

In this thread "Thoughts on mandatory training" it is not reality or fantasy. It is "thoughts". My thoughts are that mandatory training is unnecessary and overly burdensome.

The reality is that the "majority" believes no such thing about training. I'd be willing to wager that it never crosses the minds of most until it is spoon fed to them by someone with an agenda. Usually, that "someone" is a relative of someone involved in one of the few incidents and is now convince that we have an epidemic. (i.e.- Sarah Brady)

Additionally, just because the political tide is against us does not mean that we should turn and go with the tide.

And recognizing that, it's important that we be a part of the process and maneuver ourselves into a position to influence what the requirements and standards will be. If we get ourselves sidetracked into an alternate universe, we'll find standards imposed on us by political hacks fundamentally antagonistic to private citizens carrying guns in public.

First point, I agree. Second point, seems like giving up the fight to me. Just because we may see it as politically inevitable doesn't mean that we do not continue to fight it. For one thing, it may not be as inevitable as we think and secondly, even if it is we should fight unnecessary restrictions, regardless.

[rzach]

State-required training is just a way to keep some free people from being arm
my 4 year old knows that if you pull the trigger on any gun it will shot. training is about who's being trained.not the actual training .when i go to the range to shoot people assume that because i have dark black skin that i must not know how to use my guns.from Vietnam to Iraq i have carried and used ever type of gun. restriction and cost is all training is :rolleyes:

[Brian Pfleuger]

Duplicate

[Frank Ettin]

My thoughts are that mandatory training is unnecessary and overly burdensome....And my thought is that if it's too much trouble for you to bother learning how to manage your gun safely and skillfully, getting educated on the laws of self defense and the use of lethal force, and demonstrating that you have these skills and know these things, then you shouldn't be carrying a loaded gun in public.

my 4 year old knows that if you pull the trigger on any gun it will shot. training is about who's being trained.not the actual training ....restriction and cost is all training isIf you really believe that, it demonstrates why training, especially significant training in the laws applicable to the use of lethal force in a civilian context, should be required.

[Brian Pfleuger]

my thought is that if it's too much trouble for you to bother learning how to manage your gun safely and skillfully, getting educated on the laws of self defense and the use of lethal force, and demonstrating that you have these skills and know these things, then you shouldn't be carrying a loaded gun in public.

Really? Who appointed you to make that decision for the entire population?
;)

[Frank Ettin]

I never said I was making the decision for the entire population. I expressly identified it as my thought.

So if we put the question to a general vote, which do you think the voters of the United States would choose?

[1] Allowing the carrying of loaded guns in public with only a background check but without any required training or qualifications; or

[2] Allowing the carrying of loaded guns in public with a background check and only after qualifying by demonstrating competence with a gun and an acceptable knowledge of applicable law relating to the use of lethal force.

[Brian Pfleuger]

The opinion of the population is not indicative of right and wrong. It most certainly is not indicative of my opinion and it most certainly will not sway my opinion one way or the other. Unlike the vast majority of the population, I try to base my opinions on facts and logic, a concept which, by it's very nature, lends those opinions to being resistant to change.

One could word a poll question to get any answer one desires, just like the pollsters do every day and just like you have suggested above.

How about this:

1)The right to defend oneself is a fundamental right and should be available to every person.

2)The ability of a person to defend themselves should be controlled and dictated in it's availability, means and cost by the government.

Which do you think people would choose?

[rzach]

you do not need a gun to use lethal force :D

[OldMarksman]

Should there be training requirements? No.

Will there eventually be enough pressure that there will be requirements? Probably Yes.

The real problem, I think, is that the pressure will be to limit CCW authorizations, infringe on shall-issue requirements, back off on state pre-emption, and add ridiculous storage requirments. The antis don't want training requirements; they want "gun control."

If we have sufficient legal compliance, safe and responsible behavior, and a paucity of citations of incidents to support the antis' arguments, we may preserve our rights.

I agree that education is no guarantee, but I think is likely a worthwhile investment.

Our state law calls for an eight hour training course. Mostly classroom, about four hours on the law. no written exam, three targets at 21 yards with rimfire handguns, and a requirement to get 15 out of 20 on the page of a torso target. Wouldn't have passed over the governor's veto without it.

I have friends who think the course should be more stringent.

We still have editorials and letters to editors roundly criticizing our CCW law, and to my knowledge no one has given anyone reason to believe it's not a good ldea since it was enacted. But again, there's no central database....

[Frank Ettin]

How about this:...That's not really the question presented in this thread, but go ahead and commission an established polling company to conduct a properly designed poll asking that question and let's see how it turns out.

[Brian Pfleuger]

That's not really the question presented in this thread,...

That is the foundation of the question presented in this thread!

Do we have the right to defend ourselves without government interference?

Unless it becomes a significant public safety hazard the answer is YES.

It is not and has not been a significant hazard, despite the fears and fear mongering of any number of groups and individuals. As such, there is no reason for *further* restrictions.

[Frank Ettin]

That is the foundation of the question presented in this thread!..No it is not. A very specific question relating to carrying a concealed gun has been raised in this thread, and you have framed your questions in a fundamentally deceptive and misleading manner to obfuscate the fact that the issue under discussion is carrying concealed firearms in public. In another words you are framing your question is a manner that omits what many potential responders would consider vital and material information about the background of the question in order to effectively "sucker punch" anyone answering.

...there is no reason for *further* restrictions. It seems that you think so. I and others do not.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Historically, training and similar requirements have been used to deny the use of firearms at all - particularly if any of the requirements require subjective judgments such as "moral fitness" or similar determinations. If gunowners aren't already personally familiar with these problems, a quick look at history will show them.

Also historically, the number of accidental firearms deaths in the United States has ranged from a high of 826 in 1999 (at it's time, this was also a historical low for accidental firearms deaths in the U.S. since we started recording data) to 642 in 2006 (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html) (the most recent year for which data is available).

From 2001-2007, non-fatal accidental firearm injuries have ranged from a high of 18,941 in 2003 to 14,678 in 2006 (same source).

For comparison - accidental motor vehicle deaths were 43,664 in 2006 alone. Accidental poisoning deaths were 27,531 in 2006. Deaths from accidental falls accounted for 20,823 in 2006.

Now I certainly agree that training is a good thing and that more people should seek training, even if their state already requires it. However, I think the argument that government mandated training provides more benefits to society than the risk it presents to Second Amendment rights is dubious at best. There just that aren't many deaths/injuries to be prevented by training in the first place; but the history of abusing those laws to deny gun owners their rights is very real and still ongoing in several states.

If the issue is really about "saving lives/preventing injuries" we would have more luck requiring mandatory training to use Raid or a stepladder than we would from requiring training from CCW holders (who are only a tiny subset of the firearms community to begin with).

[TenmaNeko]

Everyone here is in favor of some kind of restrictions on who can carry a concealed weapon.

There just seems to be disagreement on where that line is drawn.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

An informational lecture on the local laws and common sense implications - with a brief test - seems a fine compromise to me.

Shooting tests - most are so simple as to be not a predictor of tactical excellence.

I wonder what state by state failure rates are on this? Knowledge test failures vs. shooting failures.

[Brian Pfleuger]

No it is not.

Are you saying that "training requirements for concealed carry" is fundamentally different from "government restrictions on method and means of self defense"?

Requirements would come from the government.
Restriction would be placed.
Self defense with a firearm would not be available outside those restrictions.


It seems that you think so. I and others do not.

and that goes both ways.

Accidental poisoning deaths were 27,531 in 2006

Fascinating numbers!

So, Fiddletown, even if those "poisons" are in 4 times as many households as are firearms it would still suggest that that common household chemicals are nearly 11 times more dangerous in the hands of the "untrained" than are firearms....
Surely we need people to be trained before they can buy Clorox?

Now I certainly agree that training is a good thing and that more people should seek training, even if their state already requires it. However, I think the argument that government mandated training provides more benefits to society than the risk it presents to Second Amendment rights is dubious at best. There just that aren't many deaths/injuries to be prevented by training in the first place; but the history of abusing those laws to deny gun owners their rights is very real and still ongoing in several states.

Bingo.

[OldMarksman]

Historically, training and similar requirements have been used to deny the use of firearms at all


Not familiar with that--help me.

- particularly if any of the requirements require subjective judgments such as "moral fitness" or similar determinations.


Can't see how "moral fitness" has anything to do with training.

If gunowners aren't already personally familiar with these problems, a quick look at history will show them.

"History" is long, broad and deep. Point out the specifics.

I favor "shall issue" laws, and I've opposed gun registration since I first read about it in the 1944 Gun Digest in 1954.

However, I really do not like the idea of having a person who is under the mistaken impression that he can and should fire at a departing vehicle in a Walmart lot because someone has shouted "stop thief" carrying a gun and thinking that his right to do so makes him some kind of a "sheepdog"--and they are out there. That's too dangerous to me, to my wife, to other innocents, and to the continued existence of the right to carry concealed.

An objective way of providing education can be devised and implemented. We have something in Missouri.

And for anyone who believes that it would constitute an infringement of rights, just wait until one or two well publicized tragedies caused by ignorant people start the ball rolling to eliminate the right to carry concealed or to even have a loaded gun unlocked in the house.

[Yankee Traveler]

I have no opposition to training. Training is knowledge, knowledge is power.
Plain and simple.
Required training...? I grew up in the good state of Vermont that has the carry laws the rest of the country wishes for. I never once witnessed an incident, accident, close call or near miss. Yes, we carried 30-30's and 308's to school when we were 12 during deer season, and 12 or 20's during bird season. None of the kids I knew carried a pistol until later but never with a problem.
Now I live in Tennessee (another fine state, of course) that requires training. I have lived in many other states (6) up and down the east coast and some also required training. I was amazed at the injuries and accidents that I heard about. Maybe it was just the particular areas that I was working/living in (cities), and there not the same culture as I grew up in (very rural) that leads to an unawareness on gun control (controlling your gun vs. having your gun controlled...) but in that regard, I am not opposed to some formal training being required before being allowed to carry.
Lets face it, If a day of training in TN lets me carry in 30+ states, WHY NOT??? That Vermont carry permit I got lets me carry only in Vermont...(and Alaska?) If 4 days at Frontsite or Rattlesnake Ridge or wherever would allow me carry nation wide...SIGN ME UP!!!

[OldMarksman]

There just that aren't many deaths/injuries to be prevented by training in the first place

But it doesn't take many to result in having guns outlawed.

Just this week, people were using a whopping total of 44 murder "charges" by permit holders (many involving two people) over a couple of years to justify opposing national CCW legislation. Make any sense? No. Does that matter? NO!

[Frank Ettin]

Are you saying that "training requirements for concealed carry" is fundamentally different from "government restrictions on method and means of self defense"?...What I said is there for all to see and read, including you.

...Surely we need people to be trained before they can buy Clorox?If you wish to encourage further restrictions on the possession and use of household chemicals, that is your right. The political situation with guns is what it is.

....However, I think the argument that government mandated training provides more benefits to society than the risk it presents to Second Amendment rights is dubious at best. ....That's really neither here nor there. The reality is that we have training requirements in a number of states, and the lack of comparable training requirements in some other states prevents CCWs from those other states from being honored in certain states with training requirements. The states with training requirements aren't going to abandon them, nor is it likely that the political and demographic circumstances in those states would support recognition of CCWs from states without training requirements. It fully appears that in many cases a training requirement is the political trade off for a "shall issue" CCW arrangement and/or reciprocal recognition of CCWs.

...we would have more luck requiring mandatory training to use Raid or a stepladder...Fine, join with peetzakilla and encourage regulation of household activities.

...just wait until one or two well publicized tragedies caused by ignorant people start the ball rolling to eliminate the right to carry concealed...The requirement in California that effective 1 January 2007 a semi-automatic pistol needs both a magazine disconnect and a loaded chamber indicator to be added to the list of handguns approved for sale came about as a result of a single, well publicized incident.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Not familiar with that--help me

Here is an old Brady Campaign hit piece on CCW (http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/concealedcarry/). Note that they refer to "Lax training requirements" and then the footnote cites Utah having 16 hours of training and no range requirement.

Both of those are objective requirements; but it starts getting real easy to list enough objective requirements to deny somebody a permit. How about just lengthening training to 24 hours? Now we've eliminated everybody who can't afford to take a day off work for the class (or pay the instructor extra for his time).

How about asking people to pass the Air Marshal qualification course before they carry a firearm in public? It is an objective requirement - you either meet it or you don't; but it sure leaves a lot of people who won't be able to avail themselves of a firearm for self-defense.

Make any sense? No. Does that matter? NO!

Yes, it does matter. If we are just going to surrender the idea that legislation should make sense or have some relation to its stated purpose; then we might as well give them all of the guns now; because that is what they ultimately want and once we accept the notion that it is more important how people feel than whether those feelings make any practical sense, we are all hosed.

Mandatory CCW training requirements are only one step above totally useless. Statistically, you cannot prove that they do anything to reduce accidental firearms deaths - the only question is whether that is because there just aren't enough accidental firearms deaths involving CCW holders to make a statistically valid sample or whether it is because the programs themselves flat do not help.

[alloy]

Thoughts on training requirements?

Sure...offer firearm safety in high school.

[Frank Ettin]

...it starts getting real easy to list enough objective requirements to deny somebody a permit. How about just lengthening training to 24 hours? Now we've eliminated everybody who can't afford to take a day off work for the class (or pay the instructor extra for his time)....If achieving something is important enough to someone, he'll find a way to do what is necessary. Many of us had to put up with significant inconveniences to accomplish things we wanted to accomplish. And we in the shooting community should also be willing to assist folks who may have difficulties. As I mentioned before, I and my colleagues receive no compensation for our teaching. Instructors could be encouraged to offer classes in the evenings and in short blocks over a period of time to better accommodate people with tight schedules. And RKBA organizations could held subsidize classes for people of limited means.

But I have a lot of trouble with this "I won't get my permit if it's too inconvenient" argument. Carrying a gun in public is a significant responsibility. One should take it seriously enough to be willing to put up with some bother and inconvenience to qualify. And if they aren't willing to put up with the trouble, are they really taking the responsibility seriously enough?

...If we are just going to surrender the idea that legislation should make sense or have some relation to its stated purpose; then we might as well give them all of the guns now; because that is what they ultimately want and once we accept the notion that it is more important how people feel than whether those feelings make any practical sense, we are all hosed.

Mandatory CCW training requirements are only one step above totally useless....Nonetheless, they are a fact of life and may well become more common. So if you really object, do something about it. Go to your legislatures.Go to the courts. See how far you get. There's your recourse. But you won't change anything here.

[Tom Servo]

Sure...offer firearm safety in high school.
You would not believe the firestorm of anger I received when I once suggested that very thing.

[alloy]

You would not believe the firestorm of anger I received when I once suggested that very thing.

I can imagine, especially depending on specific location, where I am it used to be routine to get a short week or two in high school of basic firearm safety. If the priviledge(or right) is there to be utilized by any significant numbers, then basics should start early.

[green-grizzly]

Where is the empirical data to show that people from states with less stringent training requirements are less safe than people from states with more stringent training requirements?

If you are going to put restrictions on a person right to bear arms, it seems you should be able to point to more than theory. It is really not clear to me what reasonable amount of training would prepare a person for armed self defense. I suspect so much training would be required to make a measurable difference that virtually no one would get a permit. Certainly a little live fire like Nevada requires does nothing substantial.

Liberal concealed carry has been shown to have a deterrent effect on crime. If you have fewer guns in the hands of citizens, you will have more crime. So let’s see some empirical data showing that the increase in crime (because fewer citizens carry) would be worth the relatively trivial problem of permit members misusing their guns.

Given that there are like three million permit holders and the VPC could only come up with 51 who misused their weapons and were charged with homicide in a two year period, we seem to be arguing about a problem that really does not exist. While I am of course obligated to say that even one death is too many, 51 out of 6 million is trivial. Check out this article, which nicely puts the VPC's study in perspective: http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d21-Lies-damn-lies-and-VPC-statistics?cid=exrss-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner

Some people seem to have the instinct that we should appease the gun haters by burdening ourselves with cumbersome rules. This is a road to nowhere. The gun haters hate guns. The only thing that will make them happy is if all gun owners are made felons. All restrictions do is reduce the number of people who exercise their right to bear arms, and therefore the number who are willing to vote to protect the right.

Too many hunters have the same problem. They think if we place tons of rules on hunting, and eliminate the 'bad' types of hunting like baiting or hunting with hounds, the anti-hunters will be appeased. All it does is diminish the number of hunters, reducing our voting clout, and the anti-hunters can never be appeased because they want to eliminate all hunting. They may say they want only reasonable restrictions, but when you ask them what individual restrictions they favor, they favor all of them. The same goes for the 'reasonable gun control' crowd.

Does anyone really find it surprising that the rise in public support for gun rights has happened at the same time that concealed carry was liberalized? They are trends that reinforce each other; as the number of people packing increased, those people would of course want to protect their rights. And their acquaintances would be comfortable with people packing, and maybe think about packing themselves. It has been a viscous cycle for the gun haters (if a virtuous cycle for the Republic).

If an onerous training regimen is required, only the gun nuts will pack. And our cause will be broken. We are only going to protect our rights in the long run if packing and having guns is something normal people do.

Of course stringent training requirements will also impact those most heavily who are busy and poor. Yes, it will disproportionately deter women and minorities from getting permits. It will just be the white male gun nuts packing, a part of the citizenry with diminishing political clout.

Most people who get a permit will never use it. A small percentage of people with permits will brandish their guns. An even small number will actually fire their weapons. A very small number of them, a statistically trivial number, will misuse their weapon, regardless of how much training they are required to have. The VPC will of course trumpet these few cases.

But amost all of the people who have permits will vote in support of the right to bear arms. And all of them are deterring crime.

The experiment in liberalizing concealed carry laws has been an astounding success. The lesson is that law abiding citizens can be trusted to act responsibly. In my state (Utah), famed for its lax training requirements, thousands of citizens can carry their guns to work, church (except the Mormon ones), grade schools, high schools, the state capitol, bars, restaurants, sporting events, college classes and public parks. Given the large number of permits, the number of problems we have had has been shockingly low. The VPC can trumpet the small number of incidents that have occurred, but regardless of what amount of training occurs there will always be incidents to blow out of proportion. Meanwhile, the number of permit holders keeps increasing and the state legislature keeps liberalizing the state’s gun laws. Liberal concealed carry leads to liberalized gun laws.:cool:

That is exactly why Shumer and company are terrified by national concealed carry. The virtuous cycle will begin in California, New York and other places where concealed carry has been restricted.

[Frank Ettin]

Where is the empirical data to show that people from states with less stringent training requirements are less safe than people from states with more stringent training requirements?...You miss the point. It doesn't matter. This is a political issue, and perception is important. Try selling your analysis to the legislature or a court and let us know how far you get.

To repeat myself: ...The reality is that we have training requirements in a number of states, and the lack of comparable training requirements in some other states prevents CCWs from those other states from being honored in certain states with training requirements. The states with training requirements aren't going to abandon them, nor is it likely that the political and demographic circumstances in those states would support recognition of CCWs from states without training requirements. It fully appears that in many cases a training requirement is the political trade off for a "shall issue" CCW arrangement and/or reciprocal recognition of CCWs.
If you think you can change things, have at it.

I frequently hear (or see in print) someone saying something like, "The politicians don't trust me with guns" or "The government won't trust us with gun."

Actually, I doubt that the politicians really care. They live lives so removed from the rest of us, our guns aren't really much of a factor for them personally. What they care about is getting and keeping their jobs.

So what it comes down to is that enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our community, enough of the people in our town, enough of the people in our county, enough of the people in our state, and enough of the people in our country don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, that politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle for our gun rights needs to be waged with our fiends and neighbors in our communities. So if we need to convince our skeptical neighbors that it's okay for us to be carrying loaded guns in public by showing that we are trained and know what we are doing, that may be be political price of "shall issue."

Check out this article, which nicely puts the VPC's study in perspective: http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minne...ights-Examiner..It only puts the VPC's study "nicely in perspective" if it is accepted by skeptical, non-gun folks. The fact that we may like it is meaningless. We're biased.

...We are only going to protect our rights in the long run if packing and having guns is something normal people do....Nonsense. I'm normal. The people in my classes at Gunsite have been normal. There are many normal people who also take the need for training and being a responsible gun owner seriously.

Of course stringent training requirements will also impact those most heavily who are busy and poor...If people are serious about it, they will find a way. If they're not serious about it, should they be carrying a loaded weapon around in public?

...VPC can trumpet the small number of incidents that have occurred,...As som of us have pointed out, it can only take a few to change things for the worse for us. In many states the body politic has little tolerance for incidents involving guns.

...state legislature keeps liberalizing the state’s gun laws....Where and how. In a few state, perhaps. But there sure hasn't been any recent great rush to liberalize gun laws in the majority of states. How have the gun laws been liberalized in Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts or New York recently?

[Brian Pfleuger]

You still fail to explain why having untrained people carrying guns is a problem. Theory doesn't count. Sounding scary doesn't count. Public perception is just that, perception. It's an unquestionable fact that untrained people carrying guns causes far less problems than do any number of items which are "percieved" as non-issues.

You've done a thorough job of explaining your own perception of the general publics perception but have completely failed to explain WHY this mandatory trained should be required. "because people think it should be required" is irrelevent.

Making rules to keep your job may be what politicians do but it has no bearing on WHY such a rule SHOULD be made. In fact, it's a perfect example of why a rule should NOT be made.

[Frank Ettin]

...Sounding scary doesn't count. Public perception is just that, perception....Yes it does, because people vote on such bases.

..."because people think it should be required" is irrelevent.No it's not irrelevant, because people vote on such a basis. We live in a pluralistic society, and people think many things. What people think will affect the laws that we will have to live under. And people thinking training should be required is a large part of the reason that CCWs from "no training" states aren't recognized by "required training" states.

Making rules to keep your job may be what politicians do but it has no bearing on WHY such a rule SHOULD be made....Why you think a rule should or should not be made will frequently have no bearing on whether or not the rule gets made. If enough voters support the making of a rule, for whatever reason seems good and sufficient to them, and whether or not you think the rule is proper or their reasons are valid, the rule will be made. And if supporting a rule will help a politician keep his job, he will support it, whether or not you think that's a proper reason to do so.

[Brian Pfleuger]

All right. I understand. Public perception rules. Logic and reality have no bearing. Our task is too assess the desires of the public at large and make every effort to comply and capitulate, regardless of the reasoning or rationale behind those sentiments.

I think I've gone around this circle enough times...

[Frank Ettin]

...I understand. Public perception rules. Logic and reality have no bearing. Our task is too assess the desires of the public at large and make every effort to comply and capitulate, regardless of the reasoning or rationale behind those sentiments....Welcome to the wonderful world of politics. This is why Bismark said, "Anyone who likes law or sausage should watch neither being made."

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You miss the point. It doesn't matter.

It does matter because facts are one thing that can be used to change public perception. If people had a more realistic view of the actual dangers they would realize that buckling their seatbelt every day does more to make them safer than either CCW or requiring training for it.


But I have a lot of trouble with this "I won't get my permit if it's too inconvenient" argument. Carrying a gun in public is a significant responsibility. One should take it seriously enough to be willing to put up with some bother and inconvenience to qualify. And if they aren't willing to put up with the trouble, are they really taking the responsibility seriously enough?

I think everybody here agrees that training is desirable. It is the government mandated training that makes people nervous; because the state governments have a long history of setting CCW requirements so that only a select few are given that right. Objective shall-issue laws have eliminated that problem in many states; but the fact remains that mandatory training laws do nothing to increase safety but still provide an obvious place to restrict the fundamental rights of self-defense to a smaller and smaller crowd.

Realistically, the chance you will be accidentally (or intentionally) shot by a CCW holder is almost zero. What is the chance that a state government will use mandatory training requirements to deny someone their right to self-defense? Common sense says you evaluate the risks and take the one with the best cost/benefit.

[rzach]

Seems to me that the un-lawful carries gun in public all the time and they use them very well with little or no training so they must have more intelligence them the rust of us that follow the law

government mandated training will be for the select :mad:

[RDak]

I'm torn on this one but, in the end, I don't have a problem with some training. I learned alot about the legal part of concealed carry and got some real world advice.

I didn't need it much for shooting, loading, safe handling, etc., but for legal stuff I was pretty deficient.

So, I guess I fall into the "yes" camp. But I remain torn on this one. :confused:

ETA: FWIW, I had "one-on-one" training and after the instructor saw how I handled guns, etc., he devoted the VAST majority of his instruction towards legal facts and issues. I'm glad we had that discussion and training. I personally needed it IMHO.

Also, he was a very good shot, so I got some good pointers on how to practice, etc. Overall it was a pleasant experience for me. I'm glad I took his class with only him and I attending.

(He said something at the very end of the class when I brought him home after going to the range: "I want you to be confident in the fact that you are a competent shot and will hit what you are aiming at". Man, that made me feel good and gave me confidence for the future of my concealed carry. I needed an instructor to judge whether I was a good enough shot to protect myself, family, etc. My head got about as big as a basketball when he said that. But, of course, he said, in so many words, "now don't get a big head over what I just told you about your shooting ability". :D I ain't a great shot but you guys get what I mean about the "confidence builder" from a pro.)

So, even though I have a problem with "forced" training, the experience was a good one IMHO. I learned legal stuff and the instructor gave me confidence in my ability to shoot after all these years. (I'm sounding kind of wishy washy aren't I. :o)

[OldMarksman]

Where is the empirical data to show that people from states with less stringent training requirements are less safe than people from states with more stringent training requirements?

Ignoring the fact that the argument is not necessarily about the concept of being "less safe," you need to realize that in any analysis involving a paucity of actual data (there are relatively few guns carried concealed, and far fewer are ever drawn), one must use analytical and decision analysis methods other than data regression.

Case in point: there was never any empirical data indicating that the absence of the application of thermal properties specifications to the interface seals on the STS SRB (Space Transportation System Solid Rocket Booster) might well result in a catastrophic mission loss and an extremely damaging program hiatus. However, an adequate failure mode and effect analysis (one starts with assessing "what if" the seal should become brittle at low temperatures) that would have cost thousands might well have saved many billions. One cannot rely on actual data unless there is enough of it to analyze, but that does not alter the severity of the risk.

Apply the same thing to gun ownership. "What if" a gun owner is (unlike Peetzakilla and many others) innocently unaware that shooting at a fleeing burglar (or worse, at a thief) is far from a lawful heroic act, and does just that, committing a felony and perhaps severely injuring innocent people? The consequences can be horrendous, to say the least.

What is the probability that that, or any of the myriad of other possible tragic acts, might happen? For any one gun owner, somewhere between remote and less than remote, I'll agree. What is the significance of the potential consequences? On the very high end of "extremely severe", I think.

One needs to take into account likelihood, potential consequences, and the feasibility of mitigation. Kinda like deciding whether it's a good idea to have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen.

So the question becomes whether to accept the risk or to try to mitigate it. What would the cost of a reasonable mitigation plan be? Well, in Missouri, state audits showed the cost of putting someone through an eight hour training course to be about $100.

Compare that to the potential consequences. At the low end, legal costs on the high end of five figures. At the high end, loss employment, loss of personal freedom, and the loss of all assets in expenses and in a civil judgment.

What kind of probability would one need to show before concluding that the investment would be a very, very good one? One need not be a professional underwriter to realize that for those not already very knowledgeable, not making the investment would be foolhardy, even with a success rate of, say, less than two thirds.

Should it be mandatory? Well, most states do mandate the carrying of auto liability insurance for drivers. Is that an abridgment of personal freedom?

And when one applies the analysis to the aggregate of the gun owning population and understands that an extremely low incidence of tragic events would be required to change public sentiment materially, that brings up the already much discussed risk to the continued right of gun ownership.

Some people seem to have the instinct that we should appease the gun haters by burdening ourselves with cumbersome rules. This is a road to nowhere.

I do not believe that a $100, one day investment in something that might undo the harmful effects of one's having watched too much television constitutes a "cumbersome rule", nor do I think it has anything to do with appeasing the gun haters. It's just good sense--and intelligent risk management.

The gun haters hate guns. The only thing that will make them happy is if all gun owners are made felons. All restrictions do is reduce the number of people who exercise their right to bear arms, and therefore the number who are willing to vote to protect the right.

You nailed it. Let's try to give them less ammo, OK?

[OldMarksman]

government mandated training will be for the select

Well, lawful gun ownership is in fact for the "select". Too select, in my view.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Should it be mandatory? Well, most states do mandate the carrying of auto liability insurance for drivers. Is that an abridgment of personal freedom?

Let's ask that same question in CCW terms - should CCW holders be required to carry liability insurance for accidental shootings? After all, it is an objective requirement. Is that an abridgement of your personal freedom?

[Frank Ettin]

It does matter because facts are one thing that can be used to change public perception. If people had a more realistic view of the actual dangers they would realize that buckling their seatbelt every day does more to make them safer.....What facts? In any case, go an change public perception, and have fun. Look at how many people are still complaining about seat belts.

I think everybody here agrees that training is desirable.....Actually, I don't think so. We've seen many threads, here and on other gun boards, with lengthy diatribes by the "We don't need no stinkin' training" crowd. Hoards of gun owners seem not to know what they don't know.

...the chance you will be accidentally (or intentionally) shot by a CCW holder is almost zero. What is the chance that a state government will use mandatory training requirements to deny someone their right to self-defense?...The chance that you will need your gun for self defense are almost zero as well. But unlikely events occur. And while the risk is small, the possible cost is substantial (there's part of your risk benefit analysis).

...government mandated training will be for the select...No, training is available to all. For some, it may mean some inconvenience or financial sacrifice, But if it's important enough to someone, he will find a way. Being willing to do so is part of taking the responsibility of walking around in public with a loaded weapon seriously.

...- should CCW holders be required to carry liability insurance for accidental shootings?...In some "may issue" states it can in fact be required.

...Is that an abridgement of your personal freedom? Living in an organized society amongst other humans is one abridgment of personal freedom after another.

[green-grizzly]

I'll leave aside the argument that politics is irrational, as it therefore becomes idiotic to argue about it. It is an awfully convenient way to avoid having to support your argument with any empirical data. It seems to me that if you are going to argue for restricting a basic constitutional right, you need to have some pretty hard data to support that. Clearly the data does not exist. When you can't support your argument with facts, I guess we are left with battling with perceptions. And of course perceptions differ, and they are immune to being disproved with facts.

Here is my perception, FWIW. I got a permit. When people find out I have a permit, they don't think it is as weird to have a permit because I am only a little weird. My wife has a permit. She would not have gotten the permit if there was a bunch of training required. She rarely carries. I worked hard to get her a gun that is simple to use, because clearly she was not going to spend a lot of time training. Now my wife is not weird at all. It totally changes people's attitude towards concealed carry when they find out she has a permit. They think it is for normal people, not freaks like you guys. ;)

And, most importantly, when my wife travels alone she can carry a gun. I don't know for sure how effective she would be fighting off an attacker, but I'm sure she would not be any less effective. That is pretty important to me, more important than the public's perception or politics.

I really don't get the 'people are too stupid to make the right decisions' school of political thought, where perception is more important than facts. It seems to have a pretty strong following in conservative circles. I suppose doom, gloom, skepticism and futility comes naturally to the conservative mind, as well as the belief that the people can't be fully trusted. That is not all bad. But as gun owners, I think we generally want to trust people to do the right things with guns. The evidence shows that they can be trusted, even with pro forma training like Utah requires. I'm tempted to make the same arguments again on this, but I'll wait for some hard data which shows that more training leads to a statistically significant decrease in firearms misuse. I expect I'll be waiting for a while.

And I am again tempted to go over the argument again that appeasing gun haters does not do any good, but I will wait for examples of when this has ever worked.

I think it is very telling that when I say that my state keeps liberalizing our gun laws, fiddletown says:
Where and how. In a few state, perhaps. But there sure hasn't been any recent great rush to liberalize gun laws in the majority of states.
Perhaps fiddletown has never seen the map showing the astounding expansion of shall issue CCW. Perhaps he has not read about the great gun rights victories we have made in those states. Two-thirds of the state's attorney generals support the incorporation of the second amendment. That is the first time a majority of states have supported a restriction of their own power. Just look at the legislative actions from states where there is shall issue CCW; the direction is almost always in favor of gun rights. We have even had major victories at the federal level: the gun industry was protected from frivolous lawsuits and we will be able to carry in National Parks for the first time since the Roosevelt administration.

Gun ownership was headed for extinction before liberal shall issue concealed carry came along. Polls show that there have been major shifts in public opinion in favor of the right to bear arms, and that shift happened as liberal shall issue concealed carry spread. Support for gun rights has increased most rapidly in those areas with liberal permit process. Check out Pew's polling data. It used to be that twice as many people who thought controlling guns was more important than gun rights; now the numbers are about the even. And we of course have more power because we have more dedicated fanatics than they do. We have had a real turnaround on the public's attitude towards guns in the last 20-30 years, and I think there is a pretty clear relationship with the timing of that and liberal concealed carry.

To the extent there is a perception about liberal CCW in states that have it, the perception seems to be it works great.

Even fiddletown agrees about the efficacy of liberal CCW laws in protecting gun rights when he says that:
How have the gun laws been liberalized in Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts or New York recently?
Of course they have not been liberalized in those states fiddletown. What do those states have in common? Concealed permits are hard (or impossible) to get. Those states that issue permits all require lots of training. How is support for gun rights going in those states? You prove my case. The harder we make it to carry, the less support there will be for gun rights. Your "perception"/appeasement argument is not supported by the facts.

[rzach]

Those states that issue permits all require lots of training. How is support for gun rights going in those states? You prove my case. The harder we make it to carry, the less support there will be for gun rights. Your "perception"/appeasement argument is not supported by the facts.
__________________

green-grizzly

I agree 100% :p

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Texas has a fairly substantial training requirement with an all day course and shooting test of 50 rounds. That's not a true tactical experience but it is more than most and we are pretty good on gun rights.

Except for parking lot and work laws - where the property rights (oh, liability) hounds howl in the night. Flame on - :D

As far as I can see there is no evidence that training states have a better safety record. However, that is totally confounded by the demographics of the CCW/CHL population - usually responsible and older.

Extreme training and fees - which we don't have, is proposed as a way to keep down the permit numbers. As is the use of extensive property and location bans.

We do have some cases of CCW holders doing tactically stupid things but these are small numbers. Should they drive the conversation?

Gun laws are on an upturn of liberalization (how about dat for a word?) but some horror show can turn that around. Conservative politicians aren't necessarily friends of the SD and AR crowd - or of civil liberties (here comes the Army to arrest you - Yoo, Yoo! - clever pun here).

Thus, we can't really tell if the requirements help. I know from research that most TX CHLs and heavily trained folks are not blood in the street vigilantes.

My bottom line - is that - a course on laws and common sense are OK. The shooting test - iffy on that. I've researched a bit and found that the failure rate on the shooting test and written test in TX is pretty low - about 1% - and reshoots with a little help from the teacher get most through.

If reasonable measures, like TX, get a CCW law passed in the remaining 10 states - go for it. The GOA absolutist position on such is real world counterproductive.

I also reiterate my position that getting training is a good thing and you should if you talk the talk. While it may be the case that most incidents are resolved by waving the gun and the BG fleeing - I postulate that one might worry about the Black Swan case - rare but intense. It is clear from the training lit that emergency actions don't come automatically to all and training does help.

[Frank Ettin]

green-grizzly

I agree 100%And I disagree. Time will tell.

In any case we still have training requirements in a number of states, and the lack of comparable training requirements in some other states prevents CCWs from those other states from being honored in certain states with training requirements. The states with training requirements aren't going to abandon them, nor is it likely that the political and demographic circumstances in those states would support recognition of CCWs from states without training requirements. Also, while national reciprocity legislation has been kicking around Congress for a bunch of years, it still hasn't gotten anywhere.

...I postulate that one might worry about the Black Swan case - rare but intense....A good point. We need to remember the limited predictive value of the so called "empirical evidence" of the past. As they say in the sale of investments, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." And much economic, political and social history has been shaped by random events inconsistent with things that have happened previously.

[OldMarksman]

Let's ask that same question in CCW terms - should CCW holders be required to carry liability insurance for accidental shootings? After all, it is an objective requirement. Is that an abridgement of your personal freedom?

Excellent question, worthy of reasoned discussion.

First, let's consider the advisability of having umbrella coverage from the standpoint of the gun owner (many people do have it).

Same thing as before--the likelihood of ever needing it is remote, but the consequence of needing it and not having it would be extremely severe. You stand to lose everything. This is probably not unlike a situation involving just about anything else you are insured for. In my view, not having it in today's litigious society would be foolhardy. Kinda like driving without insurance. By the way, it ain't costly.

So--should it be mandatory? Well, should the unlikely happen and you and/or your loved one be struck by a bullet, lawn dart, arrow, child from a trampoline, or golf ball, the consequences could be extremely severe. Suppose that you are not killed or permanently impaired--you could still require extensive cosmetic reconstructive surgery that would not be covered by your medical plan, and the covered expenses could consume most or all of your lifetime benefit limit. That's assuming you have health coverage to start with. And then there's loss of income.

But not to worry. The shooter (golfer, etc.) is liable.

But that won't do you a whit of good unless he is insured or has very deep pockets.

So--would it be a good idea from your point of view for him to have insurance? You betcha!

Again, good question, worth pondering.

By the way, a quick review of state laws will show that states that do require some classroom instruction, some proficiency training, and/or some evidence of safety instruction or proficiency instruction for granting CCW permits outnumber those that do not--handily.

I suggest that reasonable steps toward greater uniformity could lead to greater reciprocity.

[srt 10 jimbo]

I'm glad they do have a training class here in Florida. Since Obama has been elected , every yahoo and their sister has applied for a ccw permit. I cant Imagine turning all these people loose on the streets with out at least the basic fundamentals of firearms training. Think I would stay inside and lock the doors.:eek:

[MJAtl]

I'm glad they do have a training class here in Florida. Since Obama has been elected , every yahoo and their sister has applied for a ccw permit. I cant Imagine turning all these people loose on the streets with out at least the basic fundamentals of firearms training. Think I would stay inside and lock the doors.

I do have to say that I'm against a legal requirement but I think its only responsible for those that are new to firearms to take a course or get some instruction from a willing and knowledgeable friend. I had safety and the legalities built into me by a former Marine who was a lawyer and consider myself lucky to have gotten such instruction at an early age. I think its up to all of us to "pay it forward" and educate others about safety (and the fun of shooting).

I must say that I didn't expect as much of a response to this question. Its an intriguing question since there are bills in the GA legislature to require training and the only reason I'd think about supporting them would be to have SC recognize a Georgia permit.

[44 AMP]

And, who decides that? I am decidedly against state mandated training. I am strongly in favor of training, but I do not feel that it needs to be formal.

Certainly demonstrating competence and possessing knowledge of the legalities of using deadly force is not too much to ask of someone who wishes to carry a deadly weapon in public.



Here he come to one of the cruxes of the issue. Your (the public's) desire to feel safe, versus the individual's burden of proving such to (supposedly) impartial authority.

You want me to prove my competence to you? Fine. Test me. I'll pass any test within sane standards. I don't have formal" training for ccw, but I have had gun safety, and have been handling firearms for over 40 years, and I know the applicable laws. Plus I did serve in the Army. Now, tell me that I have to attend X number of hours of mandatory training, before you will approve me, and we will have words on that!

The problem is also one of the slippery slope. About 35 years ago, NYS decided that some "formal" training was needed to obtain a pistol license (not ccw). The state (bureaucrats) decided that 8 hrs (classroom type) was needed. They did not fund it. NO state employees gave it, or were involved. The training was given by NRA certified volunteers. But with out it, no permits would be approved. A few years later, the state decided that 24 hrs was needed. And, predictably, as more requirements were added, the number of volunteers giving the courses declined. That was over 30 years ago, I don't know what is needed today.

Other states (at least one in the midwest) passed regs requiring "safety classes", and over time did all that they could to make the classes difficult/impossible for people to get into, thus denying them the opportunity to even apply for permits, without "denying them their rights".

Take a look at the issue of arming airline pilots after 9/11/01! Already licensed, medical examined, psychiatrically evaluated, and trusted with hundreds of passenger's lives every time they take off, the pilots were then required to jump through an extensive (and rediculous) set of hoops in order to be "approved" to be armed! So much so, that many simply didn't bother.

It matters not what the state sets for its training requirements, in the beginning they might be quite reasonable. But they are not fixed, not set in stone. They can, and have been, changed at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, state mandated training is a hugely BAD IDEA! A slippery slope, greased with the "good intentions" of the anti gunners.

So what you wind up with, as the "training requirements" get more and more restrictive, or the opportunities to take the training become reduced, are people who fall into the following classes.
1) People who are serious enough to make what ever sacrifices are necessary, and pay the cost (in time and money) to follow the letter of the laws.
2) People who find compliance too difficult, and do not carry
3) People who find compiance too difficult, and do carry anyway, risking punishment under the law.

And because those who find compliance too difficult are often those in the bottom levels of lawful society, I find the whole concept biased and predjudicial against them. I dislike the situation being applied to them, and especially dislike it being applied to me!

Knowing what you ar doing is good. It is essential to safety. But formal training, while good and useful, is not essential. People can, and do learn important things without being "schooled". I do not object to the idea of a compentency test, but again, beware the slippery slope!

[wally626]

Although i can see the point of States like Indiana that require no training, VA is not too bad. Former military just have to show a discharge paper, free hunter safety courses, required for a hunting license qualify. I took a three hour course tonight that did include a little live fire, it qualifies, if you can convince the Clerk of the Court you are safe with a gun, by history of hunting or whatever, no formal training is required. As our instructor said, he tries his best but had a student come back the day after a course and shoot a hole in his shop's wall. I took my wife for just safety issues since we now have a gun and I wanted her to have a little formal training, but she can take the certificate down to the Court and file for the CPP if she wants. She liked shooting a Glock 19 (compact 9mm), I had a Glock 22 (0.40 S&W). Her first shot was right in the bulls-eye, inner ring. First time with a handgun, the rest were also better than mine.

[srt 10 jimbo]

Same in Florida, former Military just has to show discharge papers too:)

[bikerbill]

I've seen this issue raised before and am a bit torn.

One one hand, owning and using a firearm should be none of the government's business ...

On the other hand, when I originally got my CHL, there was a woman in my class who brought a brand-new snubbie to class, it had NEVER even been fired and she had never shot a gun ... on the first shooting portion of the class, she flunked badly ... but rather than tell her to head for the range and practice, then come back, the instructor basically walked her through a retest of that portion and she passed, barely ... my point is that I hate the idea of that woman wandering around the street with a loaded gun in her purse ... I'm sure she's never fired another shot and still has no idea what she's doing ...

I don't object to testing and I don't object to requiring training for concealed carry for that reason. A gun is like a car; you need training and practice to operate it properly ... of course, JMHO..