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

George P said:

And yet half of them do and go out of their way to prevent concealed carry. take your rose-colored glasses off and realize ANY restriction like this will only get tighter. Stop trying to legislate other peoples' behavior.

Click to expand...

Sorry man, I feel that lots of people currently carrying concealed firearms, have little business doing so. They are not well disciplined and trained (that whole well-regulated thing) in the safe carry and use of firearms.
Police officers get what I would consider a bare minimum of acceptable training with their weapons.
Other people's behavior is what ends up getting legislated, but it ends up being bad behavior. So my take is that we demonstrate actual competence. Other regulatory schemes could be seriously more extensive and still fall inside the law. This shows a willingness to meet halfway AND make better shooters.

Robert said:

Comparing driving to owning a fire arm is not a good comparison. One is a privilege, the other is a right. There is no right to drive.

Click to expand...

We're not comparing driving to owning a firearm. We're noting the the concept of government-mandated training requirements to operate mechanical devices and tools -- and its utter lack of effectiveness in preventing incompetent operation (regardless of training received), criminal negligence, criminal stupidity, operating under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, and in general, irresponsible operation.

Once again, as I stated: no amount of laws will eliminate the above, nor force more persons to become law-abiding. There will always be those who chose to live a criminal lifestyle, breaking laws they do not wish to obey, and there is not legislating into being responsibility, integrity and morality on the part of all citizens.

Perhaps we should mandate training next for citizens in order to exercise their 1st Amendment rights? After all, the right to assembly and free speech is being so peacefully and effectively displayed every night with the current protest movement...

Clean97GTI said:

Sorry man, I feel that lots of people currently carrying concealed firearms, have little business doing so. They are not well disciplined and trained (that whole well-regulated thing) in the safe carry and use of firearms.
Police officers get what I would consider a bare minimum of acceptable training with their weapons.

Click to expand...

Gosh, this must be why the streets of the cities in every shall-issue state are running red with the blood of innocent victims of duly-licensed concealed carriers.

I do agree that the greater gun-owning community (and gun-carrying community) owns its share of knuckleheads -- but typically, if they end up doing stupid things, they can be held accountable under existing laws. And frankly, the gun community is horrible about policing its own. All you have to do is peruse threads in this forum to note 90% of respondents state they will not, or do not, confront other gun owners they witness doing stupid things (MYOB). We're scared to "front off" our own. YET -- as noted -- this is a right, and we do not want the government stepping in with further laws. New law spawns more new law, and as we've seen in New York, Hawaii, Maryland, rights get legislated out of existence.

I live in the (formerly) great state of Washington, which has never had training requirements to obtain a CPL. Wanna know the statistics of CPL-holders who get charged for doing stupid things with firearms? Miniscule, compared to the rates of those who've already entered the justice system, carry without a license as prohibited persons and commit crimes while carrying/using firearms.

Old Dog said:

Gosh, this must be why the streets of the cities in every shall-issue state are running red with the blood of innocent victims of duly-licensed concealed carriers.

I do agree that the greater gun-owning community (and gun-carrying community) owns its share of knuckleheads -- but typically, if they end up doing stupid things, they can be held accountable under existing laws. And frankly, the gun community is horrible about policing its own. All you have to do is peruse threads in this forum to note 90% of respondents state they will not, or do not, confront other gun owners they witness doing stupid things (MYOB). We're scared to "front off" our own.

I live in the (formerly) great state of Washington, which has never had training requirements to obtain a CPL. Wanna know the statistics of CPL-holders who get charged for doing stupid things with firearms? Miniscule, compared to the rates of those who've already entered the justice system, carry without a license as prohibited persons and commit crimes while carrying/using firearms.

Click to expand...

I would argue that the lack of crime worthy of an armed response is why we don't see more incidence of armed citizens messing up. In the years I carried, I never had need to deploy my firearm. My grandfather went his entire career with the LAPD never having fired a shot in anger.I allowed my CCW to lapse because I had no need of it.

But then we see idiots like Michael Drejka who is now serving 20 years because he decided to kill an unarmed man in a parking lot after being pushed down onto his ass for an angry exchange with the dead man's GF.
Had he maintained his composure, he'd likely be free today. But he decided to shoot someone after instigating the conflict. Could a defensive pistol course have helped?
I would say yes as learning to think under stress is a critical part of these courses. It's why drill instructors scream at you and try to get you worked up, to make you think under stress.

Clean97GTI said:

Sorry man, I feel that lots of people currently carrying concealed firearms, have little business doing so. They are not well disciplined and trained (that whole well-regulated thing) in the safe carry and use of firearms

Click to expand...

I know some people you've described. These are the same people I won't get in a vehicle with, loan anything I care about to, and avoid spending any amount of time with if at all possible. Stupidity, carelessness, negligent, inconsiderate...whatever it is that makes them the way they are, a firearm in their possession is no more dangerous than the 4000lb. bowling ball in their driveway. Expecting those people to suddenly grasp the gravity of their actions is a pipe dream. Denying those people the ability to have the means to defend themselves without extensive training is class warfare.

Howland937 said:

I know some people you've described. These are the same people I won't get in a vehicle with, loan anything I care about to, and avoid spending any amount of time with if at all possible. Stupidity, carelessness, negligent, inconsiderate...whatever it is that makes them the way they are, a firearm in their possession is no more dangerous than the 4000lb. bowling ball in their driveway. Expecting those people to suddenly grasp the gravity of their actions is a pipe dream. Denying those people the ability to have the means to defend themselves without extensive training is class warfare.

Click to expand...

Rights without responsibility is not freedom, it's adolescence. But more to the point, it assumes that your average adult is incapable of understanding the rules of the community in which they live, and that just isn't the case. Any person can be trained to use a firearm safely and responsibly.

It's class warfare if you deny these people training on the basis of cost. If you insist they don't need training, you're denying a simple fact that our various military forces have proven for centuries: you do not rise to the occasion, you fall back on your training.

Luckily, there are those of us in the SRA who are happy to help with such things. Mutual aid is a wonderful thing! You do for the community, and the community does for you.

Clean97GTI said:

Sorry man, I feel that lots of people currently carrying concealed firearms, have little business doing so. They are not well disciplined and trained (that whole well-regulated thing) in the safe carry and use of firearms.
Police officers get what I would consider a bare minimum of acceptable training with their weapons.
Other people's behavior is what ends up getting legislated, but it ends up being bad behavior. So my take is that we demonstrate actual competence. Other regulatory schemes could be seriously more extensive and still fall inside the law. This shows a willingness to meet halfway AND make better shooters.

Click to expand...

Except the Left will NEVER meet halfway -0 like I said, take off your rose colored glasses; we the progun folks have been giving in inch by inch for decades and there has never been a quid pro quo compromise from the antis. Going down your road would lead to no carry at all. I do not care what other folks do (that's my Libertarian in me), nor do I care what training you get. There should be NO qualifiers to exercise a RIGHT

At this point, all I have to add is that I do not believe that this country was founded on the principles that citizens require laws made by government in order to comport themselves responsibly. Rather, it would seem that our Founding Fathers attributed common sense and decency to the average citizen, while clarifying safeguards for average citizens against those who would violate the social contract.

To insist that citizens must undergo some type of government mandated training in order to exercise a natural right -- self-defense, defense of home, family and others -- is not something I've come across in anything written by those who founded our form of government. Our rights were enumerated, not granted, and the form of government was laid out. Pretty much everything in the way of laws since then (other than amendments clarifying the entitlement of all to the various civil rights, falls into the category of revenue gathering and feel-good legislation which solves no problems, only creates additional ones.

George P said:

Except the Left will NEVER meet halfway -0 like I said, take off your rose colored glasses; we the progun folks have been giving in inch by inch for decades and there has never been a quid pro quo compromise from the antis. Going down your road would lead to no carry at all. I do not care what other folks do (that's my Libertarian in me), nor do I care what training you get. There should be NO qualifiers to exercise a RIGHT

Click to expand...

Whatever you say dude. All or nothing has a 50/50 chance of becoming nothing.
Dig your own grave if you like, but don't take us down with you.

Seriously dude.............don't go trying to pass laws that infringe on the rights of others then.

Old Dog said:

At this point, all I have to add is that I do not believe that this country was founded on the principles that citizens require laws made by government in order to comport themselves responsibly. Rather, it would seem that our Founding Fathers attributed common sense and decency to the average citizen, while clarifying safeguards for average citizens against those who would violate the social contract.

To insist that citizens must undergo some type of government mandated training in order to exercise a natural right -- self-defense, defense of home, family and others -- is not something I've come across in anything written by those who founded our form of government. Our rights were enumerated, not granted, and the form of government was laid out. Pretty much everything in the way of laws since then (other than amendments clarifying the entitlement of all to the various civil rights, falls into the category of revenue gathering and feel-good legislation which solves no problems, only creates additional ones.

Click to expand...

and you don't consider the misuse of firearms to be a violation of the social contract? Because that is what happens when those who are undisciplined and untrained (you know, that whole well-regulated thing) walk around with weapons they haven't the foggiest idea how to use.

So what would you have the people do when dipshits with guns make idiots of themselves like that Rittenhouse kid in Kenosha. All 'muh rights!!!' and not enough brains or discipline to realize he shouldn't have been marching alone through a riot with an AR15. It's asking for trouble and not allowing for any compromise.
If you refuse to compromise, you end up with your rights being taken from you. Rights without responsibility is not freedom, its adolescence.

George P said:

Seriously dude.............don't go trying to pass laws that infringe on the rights of others then.

Click to expand...

What right do you feel is being infringed upon?

Clean97GTI said:

and you don't consider the misuse of firearms to be a violation of the social contract? Because that is what happens when those who are undisciplined and untrained (you know, that whole well-regulated thing) walk around with weapons they haven't the foggiest idea how to use.

Click to expand...

Please do not tell me that you are not aware of the myriad of laws already on the books in every city, county, state and U.S. Code that pertain to misuse of firearms? Do you believe that there are no sanctions in existence for those who would out of criminal intent or negligence misuse firearms?

Clean97GTI said:

Rights without responsibility is not freedom, its adolescence.

Click to expand...

Pithy, but rather like a sound byte from the DNC platform.

Old Dog said:

Please do not tell me that you are not aware of the myriad of laws already on the books in every city, county, state and U.S. Code that pertain to misuse of firearms? Do you believe that there are no sanctions in existence for those who would out of criminal intent or negligence misuse firearms?

Click to expand...

Teaching a person how to safely use and handle firearms is very different from laws telling them what not to do.

Not getting it. We do not tell people how to behave. We expect them to behave in accordance with social norms. This is what freedom means. We reserve the right to sanction those who would break the social contract, but we should not forcibly mandate any form or level of education. Especially if that entails a cost.

Clean97GTI said:

I would argue that the lack of crime worthy of an armed response is why we don't see more incidence of armed citizens messing up.

Click to expand...

Umm, you do understand, that statement goes against what you're selling?

People who have no business carrying (as you put it) would not understand what an appropriate response would be. If people carry and "don't mess up", it sounds like they're doing just fine.

Look, you're welcome to seek out more training if you want it. God knows I see guys advertising courses. If Joe Shmo owns a gun and doesn't misuse it, that's completely fine. He doesn't have to take a state-sponsored "welcome to firearm ownership" class, nor does he need to enroll in Captain Randy's Tactical Response For Operators course.

If I buy a gun, I'm paying the seller for it. I'm not giving you (or any other 3rd party) money, too. And if I want to learn something about it, I will do the proper research myself, whether it be cleaning tips, effective use and limitations, proper storage and maintenance, etc. If you don't like that, well,... tough. It's not your decision what others get to do. And I say that without malice or hostility, but I do say it quite firmly.

And let's be clear about something- "required training" would be a mess. It would have to be either watered down to "this is a dangerous device, don't point this end at someone", which is listed on manuals (and often on guns) and useless (other than to take money away from someone); or it would be hopelessly convoluted and complex. Manual of arms on a Glock handgun does nothing to teach a person about an AR, for example. A course on operating a pump shotgun would be useless for a 1911, and both would be irrelevant for a double-action revolver. If you want to "train", you would need specifics for the device involved. Something as simple as "safely clearing the chamber" can specifically be a whole lot of different things. You might say "I don't mean that"... but then, why not? If you're going to train, then that should be step #1. Because if it's mandatory, and NOT covered, you become liable. So what happens then, is you get specific "training courses" (all at a fee, of course), for bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, semiauto, pump... and handguns- revolvers, DA, SA, DA/SA, DAO, striker, hammer, different design features (Sig layout vs frame-mounted, slide mounted safeties; guns without safeties, etc). Hey, I'd like to pick up a Derringer, I guess I need to enroll in the Derringer Training course... what do you mean it's not offered this month? And why do I need a course on DAK triggers simply because there's less controls and a different trigger than a standard P226? Because you need to get extra cash for Christmas shopping?

Just way too much mess to go into, that people have overwhelmingly been fine without.

lsudave said:

Umm, you do understand, that statement goes against what you're selling?

People who have no business carrying (as you put it) would not understand what an appropriate response would be. If people carry and "don't mess up", it sounds like they're doing just fine.

Look, you're welcome to seek out more training if you want it. God knows I see guys advertising courses. If Joe Shmo owns a gun and doesn't misuse it, that's completely fine. He doesn't have to take a state-sponsored "welcome to firearm ownership" class, nor does he need to enroll in Captain Randy's Tactical Response For Operators course.

If I buy a gun, I'm paying the seller for it. I'm not giving you (or any other 3rd party) money, too. And if I want to learn something about it, I will do the proper research myself, whether it be cleaning tips, effective use and limitations, proper storage and maintenance, etc. If you don't like that, well,... tough. It's not your decision what others get to do. And I say that without malice or hostility, but I do say it quite firmly.

And let's be clear about something- "required training" would be a mess. It would have to be either watered down to "this is a dangerous device, don't point this end at someone", which is listed on manuals (and often on guns) and useless (other than to take money away from someone); or it would be hopelessly convoluted and complex. Manual of arms on a Glock handgun does nothing to teach a person about an AR, for example. A course on operating a pump shotgun would be useless for a 1911, and both would be irrelevant for a double-action revolver. If you want to "train", you would need specifics for the device involved. Something as simple as "safely clearing the chamber" can specifically be a whole lot of different things. You might say "I don't mean that"... but then, why not? If you're going to train, then that should be step #1. Because if it's mandatory, and NOT covered, you become liable. So what happens then, is you get specific "training courses" (all at a fee, of course), for bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, semiauto, pump... and handguns- revolvers, DA, SA, DA/SA, DAO, striker, hammer, different design features (Sig layout vs frame-mounted, slide mounted safeties; guns without safeties, etc). Hey, I'd like to pick up a Derringer, I guess I need to enroll in the Derringer Training course... what do you mean it's not offered this month? And why do I need a course on DAK triggers simply because there's less controls and a different trigger than a standard P226? Because you need to get extra cash for Christmas shopping?

Just way too much mess to go into, that people have overwhelmingly been fine without.

Click to expand...

Oh, it wouldn't be that complicated. Because everyone would probably be limited to a double barrel shotgun...

Clean97GTI said:

Sorry man, I feel that lots of people currently carrying concealed firearms, have little business doing so. They are not well disciplined and trained (that whole well-regulated thing) in the safe carry and use of firearms.
Police officers get what I would consider a bare minimum of acceptable training with their weapons.
Other people's behavior is what ends up getting legislated, but it ends up being bad behavior. So my take is that we demonstrate actual competence. Other regulatory schemes could be seriously more extensive and still fall inside the law. This shows a willingness to meet halfway AND make better shooters.

Click to expand...

What goals, in the form of a measurable social impact, would you have for such training requirements? If the training requirements did not reach those goals, what would be your response?

Clean97GTI said:

It's class warfare if you deny these people training on the basis of cost

Click to expand...

Based on the fact that nothing in this world is free, that's exactly what would happen. The person (I've been there) that has to scratch and save to come up with a couple hundred bucks to buy a gun and a few rounds probably can't afford additional costs. Whether intended or not, it limits poor people's ability to exercise their guaranteed rights.

If this was true I likely never would have owned a gun. There were no ranges or instructors in my are up until a few years ago. So what, my constitutional rights don't count then?

It's everyone's right to own firearms, until they do something to get that right taken from them.

Old Dog said:

Not getting it. We do not tell people how to behave. We expect them to behave in accordance with social norms. This is what freedom means. We reserve the right to sanction those who would break the social contract, but we should not forcibly mandate any form or level of education. Especially if that entails a cost.

Click to expand...

What planet are you living on?
We tell everyone how to behave. I have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, but I still have to mow my lawn and shovel my sidewalk. Lots of things out there that would make me happy, but I can't do them because it's against the law. I'd like to hunt turkeys year round, but guess what? I'd like to shoot my bow in my backyard in town, but guess what? K-12 is mandatory education...are you against that too? Like I said before....folks need to get real. Again, I am not in favor for folks to need training to buy own a gun. But to operate that gun during hunting or CWC, I believe it is important and should be required.

Howland937 said:

Based on the fact that nothing in this world is free, that's exactly what would happen. The person (I've been there) that has to scratch and save to come up with a couple hundred bucks to buy a gun and a few rounds probably can't afford additional costs. Whether intended or not, it limits poor people's ability to exercise their guaranteed rights.

Click to expand...

My opinion has always been(and as I said before, I have taught Hunters Ed for over 3 decades) that any such training could certainly come out of the funds created by the Pittman-Robertson act. The re

Old Dog said:

Not getting it. We do not tell people how to behave. We expect them to behave in accordance with social norms. This is what freedom means. We reserve the right to sanction those who would break the social contract, but we should not forcibly mandate any form or level of education. Especially if that entails a cost.

Click to expand...

What planet are you living on? We all live by mandatory rules and laws. Some would ask, what are drug laws other than infringements on the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. Age of consent, hunting laws, right down to telling folks they need to mow their lawn and shovel their sidewalk. Now I'm not saying we need any more gun laws or folks need required training to own a gun. I'm just being realistic. I do feel tho, that when folks are out among others either hunting or CWCing, they should be required to have some form of training.

Howland937 said:

Based on the fact that nothing in this world is free, that's exactly what would happen. The person (I've been there) that has to scratch and save to come up with a couple hundred bucks to buy a gun and a few rounds probably can't afford additional costs. Whether intended or not, it limits poor people's ability to exercise their guaranteed rights.

Click to expand...

My opinion has always been that this kind of training could be funded by the Pittman-Robertson act. The required one time training(could be used for both like in Wisconsin) would have minimal impact of the funds and a maximum impact on gun handling safety. This is a fee anyone purchasing ammo or guns has already paid and would not increase the price at all.

When they require training to exercise the right to free speech or to vote, MAYBE I'll consider some form of training to exercise the 2nd.

buck460XVR said:

What planet are you living on? We all live by mandatory rules and laws. Some would ask, what are drug laws other than infringements on the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. Age of consent, hunting laws, right down to telling folks they need to mow their lawn and shovel their sidewalk. Now I'm not saying we need any more gun laws or folks need required training to own a gun. I'm just being realistic. I do feel tho, that when folks are out among others either hunting or CWCing, they should be required to have some form of training.

Click to expand...

Wow. Let me take a look ... oh, right -- Planet Earth. Terra. Soooo -- never read any philosophy, eh, Buck? Guessing you also weren't a history major.

By the by, I know a fair bit about laws; I spent a fair amount of my adult life enforcing laws (many senseless and unnecessary, to be sure), but enough time to realize that we have crafted a crazy amount of useless, unenforceable, stupid law.

Anyway, we're talking specifically about creating laws to force everyone to attain some level (who decides?) of mandatory training before they can even buy a firearm. If you're onboard with that, good on you, you clearly do not understand the concept of a right to keep and bear arms.

Thanks for the opening insult, by the way. Really makes a difference when you're trying to communicate a message. 'TIs a pity so many members of this fine forum seem to believe that it's possible to legislate common sense as well as to make laws that will actually make people behave and do the right thing ...