Thoughts on people who claim "Only people who are formally trained should be able to own a firearm"?

buck460XVR said:

Training does fix a lot.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. I'd be willing to compromise and say 'training can fix a lot.' But whether it does or not is highly dependent on the individual. An obvious though perhaps overused analogy would be driving. Many people get professional training before attaining a driver's license. Yet we see people failing to adhere to the traffic laws every day. And whilst I don't have evidence that those people did get professional training, it seems likely at least some of them did.

I'm not saying training is bad. I'm not saying professional training is bad. I'm simply saying that training doesn't do anything when people don't follow the training. And that's largely down to human nature. So mandating professional training isn't a fix.

It’s not going away folks, we the people are the government, or so the constitution states. If we aren’t part of the solution we are part of the problem.

792mauser said:

Let's apply that to cars as well.

Freedom means people have to put up with stuff that you do that they don't like and conversely you have to put up with stuff that people do that you don't like.

They've seemingly forgotten that point.

Click to expand...

Apply it to voting as well! There should be a multiple choice test on the candidates and their espoused positions on the issues. Failing score, you don't get the vote!

38-45 Special said:

Title pretty much speaks for itself. This has been something I've heard (and/or some variation of it) for quite a while now and am interested to see what your thoughts are on it. NOTE: This isn't my opinion, just a claim that I've heard people throw around quite a bit and (apparently) one that many people stand by.

Click to expand...

Another variation of this is when people, typically Glock owners, say anyone who prefers their handgun to have a manual safety is unqualified to have a gun. If they were trained they wouldn't need a safety, wouldn't be afraid of guns, etc.

Well then the 2 biggest groups formally trained to handle guns are military and cops so once they realize that they'll shutup about it.

Little old ladies in wheelchairs without a single minute of firearms training have successfully defended their lives against violent attackers using firearms.

That is all that I need to know. One day I might be a frail elderly man in a wheelchair who has not had opportunity to go to the range in years. I intend to continue to exercise my God given right to self-defense, and the invention of Col. Colt and those who have imitated him continues to be the great equalizer.

I think it's a ridiculous claim not at all in line with constitutional reality, and I try to give people who espouse such claims very little of my time.

38-45 Special said:

Title pretty much speaks for itself. This has been something I've heard (and/or some variation of it) for quite a while now and am interested to see what your thoughts are on it. NOTE: This isn't my opinion, just a claim that I've heard people throw around quite a bit and (apparently) one that many people stand by.

Click to expand...

I've always been of the opinion that it's someone trying to make a buck.

Education is a good thing, and that's different than "training".
I spent about 5 yrs as a teen in a local sheriff's program, where we shot .22lr rifles competitively. I became proficient in prone, sitting, kneeling and standing positions, to the point where with iron peep sights I could hit a dime at 25 yds in each position. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I learned a lot about controlled breathing, proper use of a sling, etc.

It "TRAINED" me on single shot bolt action rifles, did little beyond general concepts for other long guns, even more generally on hand guns. In no way would I say it should be "mandatory". It's a great resource to have available, but that shouldn't prevent someone from obtaining a firearm. There are guys I know who never did any formal training, but learned to hunt with their families, that could outshoot me.

Firearms training is something that everyone should seek out on their own. But never mandatory. When you start making something mandatory for ownership, it no longer becomes a right. It becomes something that can be charged away. Stipulations for firearm ownership could easily be enacted by tyrannical governments with their own aims on who should own firearms.

Say a state requires everyone that applies for a carry permit have 1000 hours of firearms training. Now say the state only certifies one person to do the training that they will accept for the permit. And they can only hold one training session a year. Extreme example, but it isn't far off from what states like NJ and NY do to reduce the numbers of legal gun owners.

I know others have shared similar views. But a quick search shows about 38,000 deaths from car accidents in U.S. each year, the accidental gun deaths were 458. Plus about 4.4 million in car accidents required medical assistance. Lets get the car accidents each year down to the accidental gun deaths and we will talk about some training. But last time I took a look the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution didn't say anything about training.

The ability to require formal training is the ability to deny a constitutional right. Do you have to submit a speech for permission to speak it?
The right to own a firearm is NOT the same as applying for a driver's license.
I strongly advise formal training (I'm a Gunsite grad) but to require it is tyranny.

792mauser said:

Let's apply that to cars as well.

Freedom means people have to put up with stuff that you do that they don't like and conversely you have to put up with stuff that people do that you don't like.

They've seemingly forgotten that point.

Click to expand...

Better yet, only those who can pass a high school Civics test can vote; only those who can actually write an grammatically correct essay can have the right to print anything of substance. When you out qualifiers on rights, they stop being rights and start becoming privileges

the starting premise of the thought is A: Government knows best, B: Constitutional rights should not exist, or outside the few countries that have that, basic rights of defense should not exist, C: The problem with gun violence can be isolated down to a group of people without the means of training, and ability to pass whatever class they see fit. (this mentality requires the "I'm smart enough to rule... I mean control... I mean decide who qualifies). Basically, anyone who will commit violent acts is poor, or so completely mentally unfit they literally cannot sit still.

Looking at it this way, you see a certainty that those who hold the opinion either do not believe in defense as a basic human right, believe their own class/experiences make them better than other classes/experienced people, or they just are openly prejudiced against classes (and most of the time race, religion, culture too, though thats just my observation).

Asked to justify their point of view, it usually comes down to "I did (insert some government job)" or "(insert prejudiced class) causes all the crime, we just have to stop them"

benEzra said:

A lot of people making that argument falsely claim that it would be like requiring driver’s ed, a driver’s license, and registration for cars. Those people don’t know what they are talking about.

Click to expand...

That was NOT the argument I was making (and I do know what I'm talking about). I was merely pointing out that training requirements per se (for anything) do not prevent misuse of a device, plain ol' stupidity, complacency, developing bad habits, or influencing of bad outcomes resulting from alcohol or emotion.

Some of the most dangerous gun handling I've seen, was by those formally trained.

Maybe had the best of instruction, but were a poor student.

Possible a great student, that learned the material for the test, or having aced it...........considered themselves an expert in all associated.

Bottom line..........some people are safe, some are not.

Training? Is just training.

My thoughts are to be skeptical of them.

Just start at 30 seconds in and watch for 10 seconds...



Only one professional enough in the room, yet the only one that shot himself...I have my doubts on the honesty of the statement.

I would go so far as saying his “training” and “experience” had sprouted complacency that many of the children in the classroom wouldn’t have had, before hand. Certainly not after their ears stop ringing.

748 said:

Well then the 2 biggest groups formally trained to handle guns are military and cops so once they realize that they'll shutup about it.

Click to expand...

No they won't. "Only the military and police should have guns" used to be one of the main planks of the anti-2A platform.

Outlaw75 said:

No they won't. "Only the military and police should have guns" used to be one of the main planks of the anti-2A platform.

Click to expand...

And the tyrants in places like 1930s Germany

sounds like the words of someone who sells training for a living ....

Let's not apply this to cars. Or any other such.

The RCBA is a RIGHT, and it's NOT a right "granted" by our government.

People who advocate such stupidity as this have no inkling of what constitutes "formal training" outside of some preconceived notion probably centering around law enforcement or military training. If they really knew the average training the majority of such obtain in those vocations, and what it really means in the field when actually used, perhaps they might not push this idea.

What they REALLY mean by such comments is "institute more controls over who can and cannot own firearms". In other words, it's not about "training", it's once again about "control".

Safe (and effective) use of firearms isn't rocket science. People who like to treat it as such (and perhaps honestly believe it) are, in short, morons.

About the Sec. Amendment,
Fine Figure of a Man made a comment which makes me think of this:

How about govt. training to use all aspects of the First Amendment?

The 19th Amendment: should govt. training be required so that women can vote? Katyushas have been launched in this direction.............

AK103K said:

We have a "right" to own firearms, and nothing should hinder that.

That said, along with that right comes "responsibility", and its our responsibility to be proficient and safe with them. You screw up, its all on you, and you have to face up to that.

I feel that way about driver's licenses too. Being forced to get one by the state, makes driving a privilege, just like making you get a permit to carry your gun turns that right into a privilege.

When you allow the state to dictate what you are and are not allowed to do, then you have given up your right to do it, and it becomes a privilege that they can deny at any whim.

Click to expand...

When you screw up it is on you? Unless the screw up kills a innocent person.How does a dead or severely injured person face up to it?
In my state you have to complete a Hunters safety course to hunt. Is that wrong? Not sure what you mean by your comment that the State can just take away your driving privilege at a whim. What does that mean? I have not seen this written anywhere in my states laws etc. The state does require certain procedures to insure safety of others, is that wrong?
To get a CCW you do have the right to get one, provided you are not a criminal and have gone through some sort of safety training. Is that wrong? Some folks feel that there should be no check at all in the competency of driving a vehicle, or firearm carry. I am PRO 2A in every respect and lol NOT a liberal in any sense of the word, but there is a flip side to things as well.
And of course their is a difference in just ownership and use of, in regards to public safety.

38-45 Special said:

Thoughts on people who claim "Only people who are formally trained should be able to own a firearm"?

Click to expand...

I cannot share my immediate thoughts because this is a nice, family-type place.

A "Formal Training" requirement is just another form of Control that will quickly be twisted even more.

The way I see it is this:

People talk about guns being similar to cars. You don't need a license to OWN a car, nor to buy one. (Yes car dealerships require it but that's a personal business regulation.)
If you're going to drive a car on your personal property without a license, you can all you want.
If you want to buy a gun and use it to defend your own home, you should be able to do so without a granted privilege, because this is a right.

Yes I admit, when i see people who know nothing about guns doing stupid things with them, sometimes it makes me question if some sort of safety regulation should be required but overall, the Bill of rights was meant to be a right, not a privilege and i'd rather it not be further regulated by the government. If gun stores want to require you to take their gun safety class before they let you buy a firearm, that's their every right as a business to require so. But I dont agree that it should be a federal regulation.