How much training does the average civilian need?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are words for people who know they know what other people should do. Some such words are liberal, nazi, dogooder and certian kinds of holes.

I was trying to dress up my comment in more polite language, but the succinctness of your phrasing has a lot to recommend it.

I am very tired of people who claim to be pro-RKBA, and then immediately start trying to limit who can actually exercise that "right".

It is always for a good cause, we have to limit free speech because of campaign finance reform, or people might find your opinions offensive so we have campus "speech codes".

Now we have the Federal Government attempting to dictate health care, school lunch programs, and exploring ways to gain control of what is said on the internet.
This is in addition to already dictating our choices in light bulbs, water faucets shower heads and toilets.

Now increasingly Liberals are trying to impose gun control by mandatory testing and training procedures.

All in the name of safety.

For our own good.



"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C. S. Lewis
 
Why not teach firearms training in public schools? That was everyone would know the fundamentals, and maybe some advanced techniques as well.

You think you might be giving some free tactical advice to a subset of folks who go on to be criminals?

40% of criminals using firearms are reported to have some training. Let's make it 100%.

If you separate out the Constitutional issue, I think it is a moral responsibility to know something about the instrument of lethal force that you choose to carry.

In a similar vein, I regard it a moral issue to know something about the issues and candidates when you vote.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyraythomason View Post
It comes down to, do you believe gun ownership is a right or not? If it is indeed a right then mandatory training would be an infringement.

I could not disagree more with this statement.

And I could not disagree more with his disagreement.

There is literally no required training for the average Joe, to necessitate the carrying of a deadly weapon, which makes little to no sense to me, when you need training to pass a drivers test, which is as dangerous as a gun if you come right down to it.

Driving is a privilege not a right. The OP seems to be mixing carry and ownership. Some states do require training to carry some don't. I'm not convinced that the mandatory training makes much of a difference statistically. Philosophically I am opposed to making it mandatory. The OP later mentioned mandatory training as a prerequisite for ownership which is much worse.

Mandatory training in order to exercise a right is a dangerous slippery slope that would make possible all kinds of abuses and restrictions. Simply put, mandatory training in order to own a gun is one of the worst ideas that I have ever heard put forth on here. Why not have mandatory training in order to vote while you are at it. Imagine the possibilities.

That being said, we do have training requirements for hunting licenses in a lot of places including my home state of Texas.

Hunting is not a "right", gun ownership is..
 
Last edited:
I understand the motivation behind training requirements, but I think in practice, there will always be a segment of the population that is dumber than a box of rocks. No amount of training will change that.
 
Zero government mandated training. Period. End of story.

The average civilian needs as much training as they choose to take. Now, I would strongly encourage as much training as possible, but in the end the decision is theirs and theirs alone.
 
Mandatory training in order to exercise a right is a dangerous slippery slope that would make possible all kinds of abuses and restrictions. Simply put, mandatory training in order to own a gun is one of the worst ideas that I have ever heard put forth on here. Why not have mandatory training in order to vote while you are at it. Imagine the possibilities.

Or speak your opinion, practice your religion; it's a path to destroy the Bill of Rights and the freedom that we have espoused to keep.
 
There are probably a few people who began shooting fifty years ago, and have been carrying concealed for thirty years or so, who would not be pleased if they were told that it was now time to pay someone to teach them how to handle and shoot their pistol.
 
As I've stated elsewhere on this particular subject, we're not talking about rocket science here. A gun, whatever make/model, is still a gun. It's not some kind of complicated instrumentation and control system for nuclear reactor control. It doesn't require years of study, lab work, and operational training to master the basics of safe operation.

It's a gun. Put bullets in it, pull the trigger, and it goes "BANG!" All one really needs to know to safely handle a firearm is a modicum of common sense and the ability to remember and understand the Four Rules:

- Treat the firearm as if it's always loaded.
- Don't point the gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy.
- Keep your fingers off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.
- Be sure of your target and what's behind it.

That's it. Four rules that any child old enough to count to four has the capacity to remember and any child capable of understanding cause and effect can understand.

Understanding the basic mechanical aspects of how any particular gun works and why it's designed that way requires a little more study and effort. Likewise, understanding what deadly force is and when it may be used requires a little more study and effort. But again, this isn't rocket science and it doesn't require a 1911Tuner or Frank Ettin to master.

Likewise, civilian gun ownership does not require a person to be some kind of combat trained special forces operative, nor an Agent Zero.


Gun ownership, and bearing of the same, is a RIGHT. Everything else that people are so concerned with in regards to some kind of "training" just isn't a significant factor, and most certainly NOT something that requires mandating in order to "allow" a citizen to exercise his Constitutional RKBA.


Maintain the proper perspective on the real issues behind the Second Amendment. Focus on the important things and don't allow oneself to be dragged into muddy waters over shallow issues that do nothing except obscure the reality of what this right is and what it means.
 
The "average" citizen needs whatever training they feel necessary for themselves - for some that is 1,000s of rounds per week with trainers and competition using timers; for others it means firing a few rounds and then sticking it in a sock drawer for a decade or more. What works for someone else may not agree with YOUR idea, but who are you to tell them otherwise?
 
I don't want the gubmint telling me a damn thing. And every day I resent it more.
 
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyraythomason View Post
It comes down to, do you believe gun ownership is a right or not? If it is indeed a right then mandatory training would be an infringement.
Quote:
I could not disagree more with this statement.
And I could not disagree more with his disagreement.

Quote:
There is literally no required training for the average Joe, to necessitate the carrying of a deadly weapon, which makes little to no sense to me, when you need training to pass a drivers test, which is as dangerous as a gun if you come right down to it.
Driving is a privilege not a right. The OP seems to be mixing carry and ownership. Some states do require training to carry some don't. I'm not convinced that the mandatory training makes much of a difference statistically. Philosophically I am opposed to making it mandatory. The OP later mentioned mandatory training as a prerequisite for ownership which is much worse.

Mandatory training in order to exercise a right is a dangerous slippery slope that would make possible all kinds of abuses and restrictions. Simply put, mandatory training in order to own a gun is one of the worst ideas that I have ever heard put forth on here. Why not have mandatory training in order to vote while you are at it. Imagine the possibilities.

Quote:
That being said, we do have training requirements for hunting licenses in a lot of places including my home state of Texas.
Hunting is not a "right", gun ownership is..
I argued this on another thread and got absolutely nowhere, but I cannot stand this uninformed idea that any rules, regulations, and even restrictions on an amendment in the Bill Of Rights is somehow unconstitutional. I know a lot of you believe that. Understand though that the founders didn't believe what you believe. Madison certainly didn't either. Neither does the Supreme Court. But if you are willing to call the founders and the authors of the constitution wrong than have at it.

A rule or regulation on the second amendment is not, by itself, an infringement on the right no matter what the NRA tells you. Neither is one on the 1st, 4th, or any other.

That being said, and to the OP, I don't think it should be a requirement for gun ownership.
 
I argued this on another thread and got absolutely nowhere, but I cannot stand this uninformed idea that any rules, regulations, and even restrictions on an amendment in the Bill Of Rights is somehow unconstitutional. I know a lot of you believe that. Understand though that the founders didn't believe what you believe. Madison certainly didn't either. Neither does the Supreme Court. But if you are willing to call the founders and the authors of the constitution wrong than have at it.

A rule or regulation on the second amendment is not, by itself, an infringement on the right no matter what the NRA tells you. Neither is one on the 1st, 4th, or any other.

That being said, and to the OP, I don't think it should be a requirement for gun ownership.

Can you show me where the Second Amendment allows "reasonable" infringement on the RKBA?

No?

Then stop comparing it to the 4th.
 
Can you show me where the Second Amendment allows "reasonable" infringement on the RKBA?

No?

Then stop comparing it to the 4th.
Thats a laughable argument.

Im going to go ahead and check out of this one, like I did the last, and let you guys continue to believe something that the founders did not. Have at it.




Edit-Just to be clear, I do not believe training or a proficiency test or whatever should be required to own a firearm. There are way too many problems with that, including constitutional problems.
 
A rule or regulation on the second amendment is not, by itself, an infringement on the right

Yes it is. People in certain states are prohibited from owning a certain gun. Because they are not allowed to own this "certain gun" their right to own a firearm is limited or otherwise INFRINGED.
 
I don't ever say that anyone must have it, only that if you plan on walking around with a gun, it may be a good idea to get some kind of training just to keep the rest of us safe from some guy who starts shooting and doesn't understand what and where his lead is going to end up.
If they are only keeping a gun in the house I really am not concerned with them that much, but if they are out on the street, I would feel better knowing the guy isn't going to mistakenly hit me because he got excited an just started popping off rounds.
 
I would feel better knowing the guy isn't going to mistakenly hit me because he got excited an just started popping off rounds.
I really don't think a basic course in firearms training is any quarantee that the trainee (for lack of a better term) won't screw up and cause some collateral damage.
 
I don't ever say that anyone must have it, only that if you plan on walking around with a gun, it may be a good idea to get some kind of training just to keep the rest of us safe from some guy who starts shooting and doesn't understand what and where his lead is going to end up.
If they are only keeping a gun in the house I really am not concerned with them that much, but if they are out on the street, I would feel better knowing the guy isn't going to mistakenly hit me because he got excited an just started popping off rounds.

I suppose you have a list of incidents where somebody who was carrying lawfully, in a state that does not require training, who had not received training, injured an innocent bystander? And, furthermore, that it is reasonable to believe said injury would not have happened if the lawful carrier had received rudimentary training similar to what other states require before carrying?

Basically what you profess to worry about is not a problem.


What state do you live in and what states have you lived in?
 
Can you show me where the Second Amendment allows "reasonable" infringement on the RKBA?
The courts, including the Supreme Court, have explicitly ruled that a right (including the right to keep and bear arms) can be regulated to one extent or another without it actually being infringed.

Whether we agree or not, whether we like it or not, under our current system, the Constitution says what the courts say it says. Arguing otherwise is pointless. Even if you're right, it doesn't change the current official interpretation.
 
If they are only keeping a gun in the house I really am not concerned with them that much, but if they are out on the street, I would feel better knowing the guy isn't going to mistakenly hit me because he got excited an just started popping off rounds.

Err...just to be clear here, I don't think someone who gets "excited and just started popping off rounds" is a training issue.
 
That manual that comes with all new guns isn't wrapping paper.

It goes over safety, operations, troubleshooting, disassembly, re-assembly, cleaning, lubing, usually an exploded diagram, warranty page and target aquisition.

If somebody never used or handled a firearm before, that manual will go over the very basics. Comprehension of English and 10 minutes worth of reading will put you on the right track.
 
George Burns now writes:

I don't ever say that anyone must have it, only that if you plan on walking around with a gun, it may be a good idea to get some kind of training just to keep the rest of us safe from some guy who starts shooting and doesn't understand what and where his lead is going to end up.

Now you're amending your opening post. In that one, you were arguing that mandatory training and/or testing should be required.

From it:

Other than it being our right under the Constitution, should there be some sort of proper training or periodic testing, to make sure that people are still in control of their faculty's? [sic]
(should be "faculties.")

In the new one (above), you're conceding to the idea that maybe it should just be considered "a good idea."

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is practically a non-issue with law-abiding carriers. The frequency of incidents among them is so rare as to be almost immeasurable, and the vast majority of them is due to stupidity, not ignorance. The latter can be corrected with training; the former, never.
 
How much training does the average civilian need?

Who is the average civilian? The average civilian doesn't carry a gun. Only something around 1/4-1/3 of the average civilians even own one.

However, there are some highly disputed numbers which indicate that somewhere between some hundred thousand and several million folks use a gun to ward off or stop violent criminals each year, successfully.

There are some several thousand accidental gun fatalities each year. There are some several thousand or tens of thousands of "questionable" quasi-defensive shootings (ranging from legitimate defensive shootings judged poorly to murders attempted to be passed off as justifiable) which end up with the shooter in serious legal trouble.

But on the whole, the percentages of positive uses seem to far outweigh the negative outcomes by several orders of magnitude.

So I'd say, mathematically speaking, the average civilian gets as much training as he or she needs.

Individually that is often not the case, and might very well might not be true for you or I or any of us, but on average we're strongly net positive.
 
To require training would be a very slippery slope. It would not be very long before people would be denied the right to own a firearm because they could not afford all the expensive training now required by law. Because that is one way the antis work. They love to put forth legislation that will reduce ownership.

A person can buy a tractor, go out and run themselves over, and no one cares, but let one moron buy a gun, go home and accidentally shoot themselves, OMG, it's the end of the world. :rolleyes:

There is no training required to drive a car. All you have to do is pass a very easy driving test. One I could have passed at 12 years old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top