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

[Berger.Fan222]

I'm a big fan of training and I've taken many courses and burned thousands of rounds of ammo in formal and informal training.

But, mandatory training sends the message that RKBA is a privilege (like driving) rather than a right (like freedom of religion).

Should there be mandatory training for attending church on Sunday or a Jewish service on Saturday? Should there be mandatory training for publishing a newspaper or an internet blog?

The idea of mandatory training sends the fundamentally flawed message that RKBA is not a fundamental right, but rather a privilege.

 

[HexHead]

I've said it before and I'll say it again....if you're not a prohibited person and can own a gun, you should be able to carry it. Period.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

Not till we get national reciprocity for concealed carry. Then we can talk about it. I would still be against it. That's how politics works right?

 

[Berger.Fan222]

As a practical matter, rights should be able to be exercised immediately.

However, the requirement of formal training puts honest citizens at risk. Suppose a young lady is put at imminent risk by an ugly breakup with an abusive boyfriend or a man is put at imminent risk by witnessing a crime. Without a mandatory requirement for formal training, they need only obtain a firearm and take an informal opportunity to brush up on their skills and familiarize themselves with their new means of self-defense.

The requirement for formal training pushes back their timetable for available self-defense considerably, depending on the schedules of available classes near their location. As a former NRA instructor in courses that meet CWP requirements, at least half of my students over the years already possessed considerable experience and skill with a handgun and were only taking my course to qualify for their CWP.

This skill and experience was gained in various ways, the NRA marksmanship qualification program, law enforcement training, military training, and informal training by friends and relatives. Yet, none of these skill building and training experiences counted for purposes of getting a CWP. A person suddenly finding themselves with the need to exercise their RKBA would be likewise inconvenienced, delayed, and encumbered even of they already had experience, training, and skills with a firearm.

 

[jcwit]

Old Yesterday, 08:44 PM #132
GBExpat
Contributing Member



Join Date: November 5, 2007
Location: Rural, far beyond the beltway, Northern Virginia, USA
Posts: 2,044 Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwit
Those that actually learn to handle a firearm are without a doubt the exception and not the norm.

wow

Taken entirely out of context, refer if you will, I was talking about blind people.

Check out the first sentence.

 

[BSA1]

The legal definition of blind is corrected vision of 20/200 or less or a field of view less than 20 degrees. If someone with vision that impaired can hit a target, more power to them. If they can't then they shouldn't be issued a concealed carry permit.

Yep. Women never get raped, beaten and murdered when they are outside of their home. At what distance does someone that is visually impaired need to be able to hit their target? A rapist on top of his victim only requires sticking the muzzle of the gun into his body and pulling the trigger. With a revolver multiple times. And it is my belief that a woman does not need to be sighted to know when a man is trying to rape her.

What you are proposing is the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Your perceived belief that the general public (the many) are in danger of being shot by a blind person (the few). Therefore based on your theory the blind are actually a unnecessary burden on society, are not entitled to the same rights as sighted people and are subject to be treated as second class citizens.

In the Preamble of the Constitutional it states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

In addition I don't read anything in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that creates a exemption for people with handicaps or disabilities. In fact Congress clearly reinforced their belief that all men are created equal and all men have the same unalienable rights when they passed the 14th Amendment.

Please cited any documentation that you have that proves that visually impaired people (or to use your word "blind") have harmed other uninvolved people when shooting their attacker.

 

[GBExpat]

Taken entirely out of context...

Unintentionally, I assure you. I missed the "blind" reference. My apologies, jcwit!

I read that and thought, "Wow, and here I thought that I had become cynical."

 

[jbrown50]

Requiring mandatory skills training, or even a permit, in order to exercise a basic right? No. Absolutely not.

I'm all for training. Getting the most quality training a person can afford to get is the responsible thing to do. I would advocate for and continue to get training even if it wasn't mandatory. In fact, my level of training greatly exceeds what my permits require.

Although I've met people who had firearms and didn't know how to use them I've never met anyone who wasn't actively seeking training or not willing to accept training. Never. Firearms are dangerous weapons. People have a natural desire to seek training in their proper use. Even criminals will seek and accept training on how to properly handle and use a firearm. The difference is that they plan to use their firearm for evil purposes.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Funny, that argument about blind people.

My wife has a long time friend who has been blind since childhood when he lost both eyes to cancer. He owns at least three firearms that I know of and I most certainly do not begrudge him this.

And he has quite a bit of fun shooting them, as well.

 

[CoRoMo]

Blind people cannot follow the 4 basic rules of gun safety. So yes, I'm against them carrying concealed weapons.

You are eager to deny a man his inherent rights due to the condition of his birth. And that's bigotry.

Kudos.

But look, now you've moved the goal post again. You aren't able to focus on one particular component of a debate, and remain within those boundaries without altering it as you go. Try and do better than that.

Here's what happened in this thread...

You suggested the accuracy test that Mommy and Daddy placed before you, as a standard that you were okay with our government forcing free people to reproduce. That's what brought us to your bigotry of those born without sight. They are born without rights... in your mind.

Accuracy was your line in the sand.

Oh, but now it's the four rules of gun safety. Moving the goal post, you are. Debate failure on your part. Fix that.

This thread is about one half of the 2nd Amendment; bearing arms, carrying them, of course by way of permit and what should be required of a free man to exercise that half of this inherent human right.

Shooting and gun handling/safety is off of the topic that this thread was created to discuss. But now you've decided that even though the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention how/when arms are used, the use and skill level should be a litmus test to allow Americans to have this natural inborn right. It's a ridiculous path of reasoning. It's like allowing a voter to exercise that right, only after they've proven that they can vote in a certain way. Maybe they can only vote, if they vote for your guy.

But I'll bite. The new standard that you want to beset on your fellow man is the four rules of gun safety... I imagine in addition to your Daddy's target test. Fine.

The fact is that a holstered gun passes all four gun safety rules. All the time. And since this thread is about carrying, and since we carry in holsters, a blind man who carries his holstered gun wherever he goes DOES follow the four rules of gun safety. He can pass your new, arbitrary, illogical and unreasonable test. But he cannot pass Daddy's test that you would like him to pass.

This thread isn't about use, but you weren't able to make a logical argument within this discussion's boundaries without inserting use, so now we're talking about use.

The fact is that we all, blind, gay, black, white, amputee, me, you... we all own each bullet that comes out of our gun. Once we let one go, the consequences of that round are on the shooter. No arbitrary shooting test that Momma tells us we are a big boy for passing will matter if the round is fired without care.

So the blind man is back on an even playing field in that regard with perfect folk like you. He'll answer for what he does with that gun, just like you and I.

 

[rbernie]

The fact is that we all, blind, gay, black, white, amputee, me, you... we all own each bullet that comes out of our gun. Once we let one go, the consequences of that round are on the shooter. No arbitrary shooting test that Momma tells us we are a big boy for passing will matter if the round is fired without care.

Word. And thanks for saying it better than I, or most of us, could have.

 

[Red Wind]

Word. And thanks for saying it better than I, or most of us, could have.

Copy that. A post to long remember. Thank you, CoRoMo.

 

[jcwit]

I have a SIL who is Bi Polar, believe me he has no business possessing a firearm, even on a good day.

But the rest of you feel as you wish, doubtful I can change your minds, you sure can't change mine!

If in fact he did, I'd sure fear for the life of my daughter.

 

[jcwit]

YUP, this guy sure has the right to firearms.

To defend himself of course!

http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Double-shooting-investigation-in-Syracuse-292589911.html

Syracuse, Ind. A man is dead and a woman is in critical condition after a shooting in Syracuse Thursday morning.

Police say the 19-year-old man, identified as Joshua Randall Knisley, was found dead in an upstairs bedroom of a home in the 200 block of East Main St.

The woman, 23-year-old Tara Thornburg, was found badly hurt on the first floor. Both victims suffered head wounds.

The 911 call came in just before 12:30 a.m. from Thornburg. Syracuse officers say they were there within 3 minutes.

Officers are looking for 22-year-old Brandon Thomas Woody. He is considered to be armed and dangerous, so he should not be approached. Police believe this is an isolated incident because the victims seemed to know Woody.

Police say Woody has a very long criminal history, dating back to even before he was 16. He’s been arrested for crimes like burglary, dealing drugs and home invasion while armed. Woody is from the Syracuse area.

Knisley's body has been transported to Ft. Wayne for autopsy. Those results are expected to come back Thursday. Thornburg was taken to a Ft. Wayne hospital because of the severity of her injuries. Police have not been able to talk to her about the incident further because she is sedated at this time.

There’s no word yet on if alcohol or drugs are involved in Thursday morning’s shooting. Police remain at the scene investigating. Three people lived in the home, including the 2 victims who were dating, and the homeowner. The homeowner was at work at the time of the crime. The Syracuse Police Chief says he is familiar with the couple because they have responded to domestic calls at that address in the past.

The Syracuse Police Dept., Kosciusko County Sheriff’s Dept. and Indiana State Police are all involved in the investigation.

 

[jrdolall]

I have a friend whose son was born blind and is a country music singer. Three years ago we took him deer hunting and he sat in the "blind" (he liked that) and shot a deer. I had the gun in a tripod and aimed it for him and he pulled the trigger. He was ecstatic!

 

[Robert]

YUP, this guy sure has the right to firearms.

Not really, many of the crimes listed in the article are felonies which would make him a prohibited person. Perhaps we need more gun laws to ensure that these types of things don't happen again.

 

[jcwit]

Not really, many of the crimes listed in the article are felonies which would make him a prohibited person

Very true.

But who is to say that training would not have helped him????

Now before that is answered no one can look into the past and say without a shadow of a doubt that this may not have changed him, or put him in a different direction.

Perhaps we need more gun laws to ensure that these types of things don't happen again.

No, where did I suggest that?

 

[rbernie]

No, where did I suggest that?

You implied it via your straw man argument, that somehow a 'CCW/CHL skills test' was linked to the definition of a prohibited person or the behaviors of a prohibited person.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

YUP, this guy sure has the right to firearms.

To defend himself of course!

http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Double-shooting-investigation-in-Syracuse-292589911.html

Why when something like this happens, the first question some people ask is 'How did he get a gun' or make a statement like 'This is why we need gun control'? Shouldn't the first question be 'Why was this man on the street?"

Police say Woody has a very long criminal history, dating back to even before he was 16. He’s been arrested for crimes like burglary, dealing drugs and home invasion while armed.

The Syracuse Police Chief says he is familiar with the couple because they have responded to domestic calls at that address in the past.

Lets address the real problem of why a know violent criminal is not in jail.

But who is to say that training would not have helped him????

Help a psychopath not be a psychopath?

Now before that is answered no one can look into the past and say without a shadow of a doubt that this may not have changed him, or put him in a different direction.

So could have a lengthy prison term. Or better parents. We could also say that training would have made him a more efficient killer.

 

[kwguy]

It amazes me how some people are willing to give up their responsibility to exercise a right to some government entity, like that will solve any potential problems associated with exercising that right.

It also amazes me how some people are just willing to impose their views and 'requirements' upon others, like they know what's best for everyone else. That conceit is just disgusting. And all for what? Some 'zero defect' fantasy of a perfect world where there are no negligent discharges? Or that it will somehow stop criminals from being criminals? Or idiots from being idiots? It won't! All you will do is erode our unique 2A rights.

People need to stop with the fascist, elitist, conceited attitude that makes them believe that they can solve all the ill's associated with the exercise of our rights by taking away from the ability to exercise that right.

Whatever happened to this:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Now I'm sure someone will miss the 'forest for the trees' and come up with some way to refute that Jefferson actually said that or whatever, but who cares? That's a great line anyway.

I guess some people would rather give up liberty to 'feel good' about themselves, even at the expense of others.

 

[JSH1]

You are eager to deny a man his inherent rights due to the condition of his birth. And that's bigotry.

That is the fundamental difference in opinion between you and I. You believe that carrying a firearm is public is an inherent right that should not be subject to restriction. I do not. We will never agree on a standard for concealed carry.

 

[savanahsdad]

Very true.

But who is to say that training would not have helped him????

so now we are going to train prohibited persons ! that's great .. you're really winning me over with that

 

[DeepSouth]

Perhaps we need more gun laws to ensure that these types of things don't happen again

.
No, where did I suggest that?

Ummmmm
You kind of did!!

You Support Mandatory training, how exactly would you go about making it mandatory without passing a new gun law?

Peoples only problem with mandatory training is the word MANDATORY.
Because the only people that can mandate it into being is the government, so now the question is who trusts the government?
It's not like they ever try to restrict our rights, especially the right to bear arms.

 

[jlr1962]

I think the current CHL requirements in Texas are adequate. I thought that all "CHL" states had their own similar system.

I think we all know some people that own guns that should not have them in their possession. Some of them have CHL permits as well. Heck, some of them have worn a badge. No amount of training, testing, or licensing would change the fact that some people just should not possess guns.

 

[Officers'Wife]

YUP, this guy sure has the right to firearms.

To defend himself of course!

http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Double-shooting-investigation-in-Syracuse-292589911.html

I'm at a loss to understand the point. This person has three(3) count them 3 felonies and would be a prohibited person. How would skills training being a condition for CCW be relevant to a person who's 2nd amendment rights have been suppressed?

Brandon Woody IDOC # 208226

I have to wonder, since I have a CCW in the state of Indiana are you implying I am a felon?