How much training does the average civilian need?

Status
Not open for further replies.

george burns

Member
Joined
May 26, 2014
Messages
1,849
Location
Sebastion
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.
So what message are we sending when anyone who has no criminal record, and is a citizen, can get a gun with no training, doesn't that send the false message that no training is necessary to operate a weapon, and anyone can do it? I am in no way stating that no training is needed, just the opposite, but our current system doesn't address this at all. Then they wonder what happened when an incident goes haywire and people get killed because they just didn't know the basics, like when does the gun come out?
just hesitation or acting too fast can get you sent away for the rest of your life and just talking about it is a lot different than actually having something happen and getting shot because you didn't respond properly.
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?
I am a believer in retesting drivers at 70 or 75 years old instead of seeing them plow into convenience stores with their Cadillac's, "like in Florida", on a daily basis. I recently saw a man tie himself up trying to get his little dog into his Caddy, and "wet himself" before getting help and achieving his goal of starting the car. Soon after that his keys were taken away by his kids, but he easily could have killed several people and not even realized it.
What if he also had a weapon?
 
There is no statistical difference in the number of firearms related accidents between states that have a training requirement and states that don’t.
 
While there is no mandatory requirement for training before purchasing a firearm, being a responsible firearm owner mandates you train and practice.

The topic of mandatory training is always a heated one on gun forums and generally ends up with those that oppose mandatory training calling those that would like to see any type of mandatory gun training "antis". I assume this thread will finish similar.
 
Drivers training is only required if you are only under 18. I thought the driver's training was so minors could get their license. In any event when I was 16 drivers training was not required. I did it for the insurance break and the training was nice but it was for the insurance discount. Are you suggesting you can carry if you are 16 if you pass a training course.
 
Last edited:
While there is no mandatory requirement for training before purchasing a firearm, being a responsible firearm owner mandates you train and practice.

The topic of mandatory training is always a heated one on gun forums and generally ends up with those that oppose mandatory training calling those that would like to see any type of mandatory gun training "antis". I assume this thread will finish similar.
Yep. Which is nonsense. But that's exactly what will happen. Its the same people that believe you cant put any rules around an amendment because it is not written into an amendment. Ignorant nonsense.

That being said, we do have training requirements for hunting licenses in a lot of places including my home state of Texas. BUt there is one real problem with trying to require training for general ownership.

1. There is too much distrust. The real antis, as in those that are actually against gun ownership, are two vocal, have too much power, and cannot be trusted enough for the people to come up with rules that would work. They would see it as a chance, or an avenue, to restrict ownership.
 
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.
 
When it comes down to it, freedom and safety are not fully compatible. If you want to be safe be prepared to give up a bunch of freedom to a pencil pusher who wants to run your life for you.
 
It seems to me that in the pre-GCA 68 era, mechanical parts of training were assumed to be given by parents, elder brothers, maybe even peers, and "training" by state mandate was not considered necessary.

As states became more urbanized and fewer folks ventured afield, the opportunity to "learn how to shoot" decreased. So, for example, actual firing line training and testing is not required (last I looked) here in this still-agrarian State, for permission to carry a concealed weapon.

The State does require legalistic (as opposed to "mechanical") training for a CCW permit in the laws and pitfalls of carrying a concealed weapon, but most instructors do require live fire testing on their own in order for them to sign a certificate anyway.

(I know, don't let our jackass legislators know this. :) )

Times have changed, though, and the proportion of folks who learned from Pop or Uncle Joe is decreasing, so formal training is probably desirable for the average urbanite in any aspect of firearms use.

Yes, a Hunter Safety Course is required here to get a hunting license, at least for those born after a certain date, which once again shows the shift in urbanization.

It's as if the former less jackassery legislature recognized that if you're so-and-so many years old, it can be assumed that you've had some form of at least informal training some time in the past and have been "called out" already by your buddies for waving your gun around.

Terry
 
Last edited:
All valid points. But Trunk Monkey can you really compare percentages when one state may have 10 times the amount of people as another. At some point the spread changes. And it really isn't accidents I was eluding to, rather the lack of knowledge and procedures. Along with when, one needs to take action and what that action is and how it's carried out.
 
If you want to talk about lethal / fatal accidents, then guns are much farther down the list than most people think.

Cars kill more people than EVERYTHING ELSE COMBINED. Thats a fact that has held true for years now.

Number two lethal accident are slips and falls - bathtubs, stairs, ect.

Then further down the list comes YOUR DOCTOR, puting you on the wrong meds or some other kind of malpractice.

THEN further down the list comes firearms accidents.

But Trunk Monkey can you really compare percentages when one state may have 10 times the amount of people as another.

... YES ... That's why they are using percentages, and not total numbers.
 
it's hard to argue with the statistics. the VAST majority of "defensive gun uses" are successful despite minimal training and zero practice. in fact, nearly 75% of DGU don't involve firing the weapon, according to kleck, so marksmanship isn't even a factor.

so any attempt to claim training is necessary for success against violent criminals seems ridiculous

on the other hand, people seem to run afoul of the arbitrary and unintuitive laws regularly and there are also far too many accidents.

seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to make an argument for safety and legal training, though the details of recommendations for both those topics would be highly controversial.
 
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.
 
it's hard to argue with the statistics. the VAST majority of "defensive gun uses" are successful despite minimal training and zero practice. in fact, nearly 75% of DGU don't involve firing the weapon, according to kleck, so marksmanship isn't even a factor.

Not to mention the tiny number of people who actually use a gun in self defense. Which would suggest that the average person needs no training at all. In fact most of us won't even need a pointy stick.
 
While I wish more people would get professional training I am not a fan of it being a government mandate. That could be a slippery slope. A rouge politician or political party could make the mandatory training difficult and expensive. Enforcing it would more or less create a gun registry system.

As it is right now, it is very hard in some areas to set up a personal range, let alone a commercial range. What type of credentials would be required of the instructors? How much would it cost to obtain an instructor's license? Would their ranges be subjected to EPA inspection and other government mandates? Can you not see how easy it would be for a politician sympathetic to Bloomberg to shut down the whole training process? As it is right now, DC passed their Carry License law but there aren't any certified trainers or classes scheduled. Do we want that to be a widespread reality?

And the big deal breaker for me is once again you create a law that only affects the law abiding gun owner. The criminals won't get trained but will still own and carry.
 
I'm not one of those who believes that, just because something "could be, in theory, dangerous", the government should be swift to regulate it. The phrase "Nanny State" comes to mind.

We're not required to take classes on nutrition, parenting, alcohol consumption, infectious diseases, or the use of electricity, either.

And it is indeed true that, while a test is required in some states for a DL, few actually require training to pass that test or receive that DL. (This is in reference to DLs for those old enough to carry a firearm for defense.) Funny, many that do are also those that most infringe on the 2A (at least one doesn't even trust you to pump your own gas!)

While I am in favor of cultivating a culture in which those carrying guns would train/practice with them, I am not in favor of it being a legal requirement. Perhaps if society stopped demonizing the law-abiding gun owner, more would feel more open to patronize (or even develop!) more weapons classes, ranges, and other related venues.

So few incidents of accidental injury involving lawful-carry of defensive firearms occur that this is almost a non-issue as far as the government should be concerned. The vast majority of those incidents that do occur would not have been avoided by a "class", as they are usually due to stupidity, not ignorance.
 
Last edited:
If you can show me a group of politicians of any stripe with the honesty and integrety to approach the subject only with the intent to make sure a person understands basic safety, use of force laws, and generaly how to be a responsible gun owner without undo expense or delay then we will talk, but I wont hold my breath. Someone will always do everything they can to make it difficult, costly, or make sure a certain business stands to make lots of money from it.
As for drivers ed and testing for a license, I can give you countless examples of people passing the state drivers license examination and withing days, even hours, going out and killing themselves and several friends. You can't fix stupid. You either have a sense of responsibility and a little common sense or not. Frankly there are people I wouldn't trust with matches, but somehow they will always get matches. Don't require a degree in Fire Science to buy a fire extinquisher to protect yourself from them. :eek:
 
What message are we sending? That RIGHTS are not qualified with training standards. If we say it is ok for the government to impose an arbitrary set of standards on carry permits, they can easily raise the bar so high no one can attain it.

We are sending the message that my 90 year-old grandmother has a right to self-defense, even if she can't handle a week at Thunder Ranch.
 
There is literally no required training for the average Joe, to necessitate the carrying of a deadly weapon.

That includes baseball bats, knives, scissors, etc., but you've just chosen to apply it to guns.

In the State of New Mexico, you have to take a 15 hour course from an instructor approved by the Department of Public Safety, with a curriculum that meets their minimum standards - AND the instructor has to have the course and its materials approved by the DPS before they are approved by the State to conduct the course. Then there is a shooting test for the largest caliber you're going to carry - including a separate shooting test for a revolver and semi-auto for a concealed carry license.

You have to requalify every two years (shooting test), and go through a "refresher" training course every 4 years with the shooting test + a reapplication to the State with fingerprint cards, birth certificate, etc.

So, your statement is in error and cannot be applied ubiquitously as you'd like.

Of course, I can legally open carry without a license or training...
 
Last edited:
If requiring an ID to vote is a violation of someone's rights because they might not be able o afford it then what is requiring a training course?
 
I don't like where this is going.

The gun vs car debate is old.

The second is a right, a right to own a firearm as you see fit, if you don't value training then who am I to mandate training.
 
"He who gives up.liberty for safety has neither", Thomas Jefferson. Having a license is the same as registration. I am a certified trainer, and also a certified gun safety instructor, I would like people to have training from someone like me. But once you make it mandatory someone will keep track. Besides.
There is no need for it for the safety standpoint. The reason being that accidents are caused by people that ignore safety regardless of training. Statistics bear this out. I think the kind of person that likes this idea has serious issues understanding self reliance and responsibility. Something the liberals are trying and succeeding to destroy.
 
Last edited:
Why not teach firearms training in public schools? That was everyone would know the fundamentals, and maybe some advanced techniques as well.
 
I always thought a one semester firearms safety and use to include marksmanship and instruction on how to setup a decent home defense should be a mandatory course for obtaining a high school diploma, but should have nothing to do with owning or using friearms.

After all given how many guns we have in this country it just makes sense to teach our citizens how to use them safely and effectively. I remember going to a yard sale being held by a New Yorker liberal transplant that took great pride in knowing nothing about guns. The sale included items from several households that the New Yorker was selling. One of the households had included some cheap pistols. I asked the lady from NY about them and she told me how she knew nothing of firearms and did not want to know. She was a little alarmed when I unloaded the weapon in front of her, handed her the ammo, and suggested she at least learn about safe handling and how to load/unload one since they are common in the South.
 
Ok it's a healthy discussion, with valid points being made. I am not sure either way, and have been arbitrarily on the fence for years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top