Should Mandatory Skills Training Be Part of the Curriculum of Receiving a CWP?

[JamieC]

I'm conflicted about this, a right shouldn't be infringed. That being said, we all have the right to walk into a Home Depot, do you have any idea some of the things they sell there? Chain saws, electric circular saws, table saws, hammers, ladders. We all know people who shouldn't touch any of those things yet they have the right to possess them. Anyone who has spent any time at gun ranges know certain people shouldn't have guns.

 

[CZ223]

I voted yes

If you need a permit to carry a gun shouldn't that at least mean you know how to use it safely. I'm all for idiots taking themselves out of the gene pool but, unfortunately, they sometimes take others with them. Flame on Johnny.

 

[CajunBass]

I don't think there should be a permit required at all. But as long as we gotta have one, I sure don't want to see a test.

I notice that people who want a test, always set the bar just below where they are on the scale. It's always that other guy we need to keep out.

 

[Thermactor]

I'm against regulation and rules by principle but in this case I think its necessary because of the big proportion of new gun owners who don't know anything about
1) guns
2) applied physics including statics and dynamics in real life situations (read: they are terrible drivers too and can't handle driving in the snow either)
3) shot placement
4) clearing malfunctions

these low-information people who buy guns as magical talismans to ward off evil need to be encouraged to be well-trained before they carry them in public.
They can be encouraged to be trained if they can be reached out to, to train in the first place.
You'll be amazed how many middle aged women say 'I've got a gun' but don't know how to operate it, don't train with it, yet support bans on the rights of others to own guns that they have been led to believe are bad.
That lady's the kind of person whos gun is likely to be stolen from her purse, from her home, from her car, and then be used in a crime. Or when she needs it, the gun is taken from her.

 

[45_auto]

I'm against regulation and rules by principle but in this case I think its necessary because of the big proportion of new gun owners who don't know anything about
1) guns
2) applied physics including statics and dynamics in real life situations (read: they are terrible drivers too and can't handle driving in the snow either)
3) shot placement
4) clearing malfunctions

I'm also against regulation and rules by principle but in the case of the internet I think its necessary because of the big proportion of gun forum posters who don't know anything about

1) computers
2) applied mathematics and english, including calculus and prepositional phrases in real life situations (read: they are terrible debaters too and can't handle discussions in person either)
3) internet protocols
4) network malfunctions

Why should anyone be able to exercise their First Amendment rights if they don't know anything about the theory and mechanisms behind them?

 

[Nom de Forum]

I agree with 45_auto. Something must be done to train people to prevent all those negligent discharges on the Internet.

 

[AlexanderA]

My baseline is that no permit at all should be required ("constitutional carry"). If we're going to have a permit system, the fewer restrictions, the better. This is not to say that people shouldn't voluntarily receive training.

My specific objections to mandatory skills training are the following:

1. It's subject to abuse regarding the training standards to be set. It's quite likely that the failure to achieve a certain shooting score would disqualify a lot of people.
2. It would increase the total cost of obtaining a license, and thus discriminate against those who are not well-off.
3. It would discriminate against handicapped people, who perhaps have the greatest need for self-protection.
4. It would create a vested interest for instructors and training schools to support a stringent permit system, since their livelihoods would be based on it.

 

[joem1945]

When I did my CCW training the last part was a practical firing test. It required a person to hit the target with 10 rounds with a pistol and 10 rounds with a automatic. If you were not able to do that you had to practice until you could or not pass the course.

 

[Thermactor]

I'm also against regulation and rules by principle but in the case of the internet I think its necessary because of the big proportion of gun forum posters who don't know anything about

1) computers
2) applied mathematics and english, including calculus and prepositional phrases in real life situations (read: they are terrible debaters too and can't handle discussions in person either)
3) internet protocols
4) network malfunctions

Why should anyone be able to exercise their First Amendment rights if they don't know anything about the theory and mechanisms behind them?

I must have described you to a tee. Sorry.

 

[kayak-man]

I also voted no, as I feel like mandating training would be an infringement, as it would be denying the right to carry from:
-people who can't make it to the training when it is offered due to work schedules or family commitment (single moms, anyone?)
-people who can't afford it
- people who may be aplying for an out of state non resident permit. ( I know a lot of them require training, but I don't agree with it 100%)

Personally, and this might be a little socialist, but I think that there should be free safety training offered at every Sherrifs office in the country. When I was a resident at the fire department, we would have people come in all the time and ask for a station tour: it took maybe 20 minutes.

I'm not saying it would be easy, but I think it would be doable to have a deputy tare 10 or 15 minutes to go over some BASIC firearms safety.

I also would like to see something like Appleseed (I know there is pistol seed) but with a little bit more of a defensive/practical lean to it. I know, I know... If I feel that way, I should probably start such a program... Well, I'll reconsider it after I'm finished with paramedic school.

This might be a little bit of thread drift, but, do you think there would be a market for free online firearms training? Nothing tacticool or practical, so much as just you set up an appointment and then Skype with someone who uses a blue gun/SIRT/unloaded pistol to go over firearms safety and give the new shooter an opurtunity to get firearms questions answered?

USAF-Vet, it's my understanding that well regulated had to do with the militia being properly equipped, not trained. I may be wrong though, just thought I'd through that out there.

 

[BSA1]

Conceal Carry Class in not firearms training class

Here we go again.

Conceal Carry licensing fees and courses discriminate against the four groups of people that are most at risk to being a victim of violent crime; the poor, the elderly, single mothers and the disabled.

In Kansas the application fee is $132.50. The course fee is between $75.00 to $100.00. So the applicant is out over $200.00 cash money before they can get the permit. However the applicant must provide their own transportation, time off work (the course is 8 hours), child care if a parent along with a handgun and ammunition.

All of this is on top of buying a handgun, ammo and a holster. A good quality handgun is probably going to cost $300.00 +. More for a top quality gun like the Ruger. Since a gun is only as good as the ammo you feed it you add in cost of high quality self-defense ammo. Of course practice makes perfect add in cost of ammo for practice. Then there is the holster to carry the gun.

So we are easily at $600.00 so far. Now add in the cost for arbitrary firearms training and skill level that meets the Government's standard. People progress at different learning paces so some students will need more time than others. This means more time and expense off work, for transportation, for child care, for ammunition. This greatly narrows the number of poor, elderly, single parents and disabled from ever being able to get a conceal carry permit.

Most importantly who will set the minimum qualification standard? At my last agency I use to shoot within one or two points of a perfect score. Our distances was from 3 - 25 yards. Since I can do it why shouldn't everyone else?

In Kansas the Conceal Class is not for teaching firearm skills. It teaches the legal aspects of Kansas law.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

I am concerned that without some check on safe handling will be a recipe for disaster and a sharp rise in accidents and unintentional discharges.

Has there been a sharp rise in states that don't have any training requirement?

I guess I am an odd ball but I voted yes. Frankly I think the more training one can have the better. Basic gun handling and safety should absolutely be part of the skill set and also should be able to show minimum proficiency.

I don't think many people will disagree that more training the better and that basic gun handling and safety should be a part of everyone's skill set (even non gun owners), but that needs to be the responsibility of the individual, not the government and should not be a requirement to exercise your rights.

On the other, I've seen and heard terrifying things at the range coming from people who are practicing to qualify for permits

I've seen and heard terrifying things at the range coming from people who have had plenty of training. Having been properly instructed on the safe handling of firearms in no way translates to those instructions being implemented/followed. A vast majority of people that I know or seen that have not had formal training handle their firearms very responsibly.

Anyone who has spent any time at gun ranges know certain people shouldn't have guns.

They same is true for voting, driving, speaking...
That aside, would mandatory skills training change that? Does passing a test make a person more responsible? Does it make them follow all the safety rules once they're on their own?

If you need a permit to carry a gun shouldn't that at least mean you know how to use it safely.

There's a problem right there. You shouldn't need a permit to begin with. When I use my table saw, I should know how to use it safely but that's on me, not Home Depot or the government. When individuals are charged with the responsibility of their own training and safety, they are more likely to learn from it. When the government takes on the duty, the individual becomes complacent with what is given to them.

 

[GBExpat]

No

Ab-so-lute-ly not.

 

[CoRoMo]

Wow, I'm so torn inside by this question.

I feel the insatiable need to vote to control the lives of my fellow man. It just seems appropriate to force another human to do the things I or someone else decides he should be forced to do. Writing a never ending list of rules to beset upon my countrymen in an attempt to conform them to some arbitrary thing... feels right and makes me think I've done something to change the world. Boy, this is tempting.

Don't know what to do here, so I'll just stare blankly at my bright red signature line there.

 

[jcwit]

There's a problem right there. You shouldn't need a permit to begin with. When I use my table saw, I should know how to use it safely but that's on me, not Home Depot or the government. When individuals are charged with the responsibility of their own training and safety, they are more likely to learn from it. When the government takes on the duty, the individual becomes complacent with what is given to them.

Using a table saw you likely hurt yourself, untrained using a firearm your likely to hurt or kill someone else.

Parents used to teach their children in many things, this was one reason I was trusted with my own .22 at age 8 and went hunting by myself. Today, not so much, someone, something must fill the gap.

 

[jcwit]

They same is true for voting, driving, speaking...
That aside, would mandatory skills training change that? Does passing a test make a person more responsible? Does it make them follow all the safety rules once they're on their own?

Might help in some cases.

Is that a bad thing????????????????????

 

[wally]

Not unless they also accept requiring a multiple choice test to identify the candidates and their positions on the issues before allowing a vote to count!

 

[CoalTrain49]

Some states have figured out what the tax payers and voters are willing to put up with and some haven't. This is just one small issue but important and an indication of how states manage their business. Some states like CA like to tax people to generate revenue. CA has 443 B worth of debt and their economy is going in the toilet. As was pointed out in the other thread (KS) mandatory testing hasn't been shown to be effective. If something has no value to the public why would the public want to pay for it? Looks like a revenue generating sham to me.

 

[jcwit]

I'm also against regulation and rules by principle but in the case of the internet I think its necessary because of the big proportion of gun forum posters who don't know anything about

1) computers
2) applied mathematics and english, including calculus and prepositional phrases in real life situations (read: they are terrible debaters too and can't handle discussions in person either)
3) internet protocols
4) network malfunctions

Why should anyone be able to exercise their First Amendment rights if they don't know anything about the theory and mechanisms behind them?

None of those will land you or anyone else in the ER.

 

[JSH1]

If you need a permit to carry a gun shouldn't that at least mean you know how to use it safely. I'm all for idiots taking themselves out of the gene pool but, unfortunately, they sometimes take others with them. Flame on Johnny.

I agree. CCW permits should have mandatory training and a live fire requirement. The accuracy standard that my parents used before I was allowed to hunt should be suitable: 5 shots within a 6" paper plate.

I don't expect my opinion to be popular here.

 

[Officers'Wife]

I agree. CCW permits should have mandatory training and a live fire requirement. The accuracy standard that my parents used before I was allowed to hunt should be suitable: 5 shots within a 6" paper plate.

I don't expect my opinion to be popular here.

Perhaps then the better standard would be for society to insist parents set reasonable standards of competence and safety for their children rather than have the state take over the responsibility. I was a foster child in the care of the State of Illinois before my Dad adopted me, I can tell you from personal experience the state is an extremely poor parent.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

Using a table saw you likely hurt yourself, untrained using a firearm your likely to hurt or kill someone else.

Millions of 'untrained' people use firearms. I don't think it's likely at all that those people will hurt or kill someone else.

Parents used to teach their children in many things, this was one reason I was trusted with my own .22 at age 8 and went hunting by myself. Today, not so much, someone, something must fill the gap.

The gap exists BECAUSE the government has gotten involved. Like I've been saying, when the government mandates training people become complacent and rely on the government to tell them what they should know and how they should do things. By time we realize that the training is lacking (and that the government doesn't have our best interests at heart), we've lost the structure to do it ourselves.

 

[psyopspec]

No. Massachusetts is already heavily restrictive and may-issue. This makes obtaining a permit difficult for those without the time and money to undergo the classroom training and pay the licensing fees. Requiring a range trip in a state where facilities are expensive and not always nearby would make the right even more restrictive for those on lower income brackets who might need the means for SD most.

 

[JSH1]

The gap exists BECAUSE the government has gotten involved. Like I've been saying, when the government mandates training people become complacent and rely on the government to tell them what they should know and how they should do things. By time we realize that the training is lacking (and that the government doesn't have our best interests at heart), we've lost the structure to do it ourselves.

My state required mandatory hunter safety to get a hunting license. That didn't keep my parents from teaching me to hunt safely and ethically before and after I took that class.

Likewise my state required mandatory driver's education before I could get my learner's permit. That didn't keep my father from taking me out when I was 12 and teaching me to drive. It didn't keep him from taking me to a empty parking lot after it had snowed and teaching me to properly pump the brakes and control skids.

Some parent take a more active role in their kids lives than others. That doesn't mean that the state shouldn't set a minimum level of competency for some things.

 

[GBExpat]

Perhaps a slight bit OT, perhaps not ...

For decades I have thought that all folks who choose to own/use/carry firearms should have available for viewing a non-mandatory film/video of the damage that firearms can cause to the human body.

In the Internet Age, this would be even easier to make available.

Those of us who hunt or have time in certain environments (combat, big city ER, etc) know. I think that there are many who do not.

I started thinking about this as a kid. The cowboys movies & TV shows were so incredibly unrealistic about such things (the Good Guy gets shot in the shoulder with a .45LC and then proceeds to get in a fistfight with a Bad Guy ... that he subsequently wins) that I thought it would be good to have a something that shows the real world effects of gunshot wounds available so everybody would have a better chance of treating this aspect with the respect that it deserves.

I remember that while I was taking the mandatory Drivers Ed classes (taught by the gym teachers in the '60s), they showed us 2 films that displayed some of the fatal results of bad decisions while driving. Very graphic. I thought that it was an excellent teaching tool for a bunch of teenagers, most of whom had no real sense of their own mortality.