How much training does the average civilian need?

[buckhorn_cortez]

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.

In the 1950's where I grew up, the State Department of Natural Resources would send a representative to a school, upon request by the school, and would give a basic firearms safety presentation.

We used to have them regularly in grade school in the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades. For each grade level, the presentation would be a bit more advanced and by the 6th grade covered rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

 

[Ankeny]

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.

I taught driver education for years. I am now a third party examiner for heavy truck (class B) licenses for the state of Wyoming. I look at this way. A driver's license is a privilege. The second amendment is a right. Old argument as noted previously. FWIW, d2wing is correct, training makes no difference as far those involved in car crashes and those involved in shooting "accidents".

 

[oneounceload]

A driver's license is not a right but merely a privilege. There is no training for practicing free speech, and we have seen in recent events in MO, those that do not practice safely can incite dangerous scenarios, so should there be some mandatory training before being allowed to speak or write something to be published?

 

[JohnKSa]

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.

That's not true everywhere. In my state, for example, one must take a class, pass a background check, pass a shooting proficiency test (admittedly a basic one) and pass a written test (again a pretty basic one). I'd say that in TX, it's significantly harder and much more expensive to get a permit to carry than it is to get a license to drive.

I'm not saying that the amount of training/testing we have in TX is a good idea, just pointing out that it's not true across the board that people can buy a gun and carry it in public without any training/testing. It may be true in some areas, but clearly not everywhere.

Also, lest we confuse the issue, there are no licensing requirements to purchase and use a vehicle on private property, only to use it on the public roadways. Much the same situation as is true of firearms in most places in the U.S. You can buy one to keep and use on private property but there is often at least some basic level of licensing and training required to carry it in public.

 

[guyfromohio]

I think the folks in Missouri may think that there needs to be mandatory training before exercising First Amendment rights as well.

 

[george burns]

I remember how difficult it was to get through the permit phase of getting a carry in NYC, some 40 yrs ago, but all you needed as far as training was a hunters safety course, the same one used for hunting licenses at the time. I had an instructor come to my place of business, and a half dozen of us took the class. That was enough education to obtain my pistol license at that time. So in actuality there really was little pistol training at all back then, I assume that has changed. I know in FL they just took my NRA safety course and a document from the guy who gave me the course in FL, along with a picture he took, and a fingerprint card, "I think I went to the local sheriff's office, and 90 days later I got it in the mail. Not sure if having my NYC license was a factor, it's been a while.
At the time there was a guy who for $50-75 dollars, would come to the house and give you the class, "have gun will travel". He also was an FFL dealer. Kind of a 1 stop shopping deal.
He gave the class took the Pic and sold you a gun, all in 2-3 hours. This was 20 years ago, in Broward. I am sure between everything he made about $150-200 back then, for the customized service, but it beat sitting in a room. He sold me an AMT Backup in 45, which had just come out. He was a retired LEO.

 

[AlexanderA]

Gun training is a good idea. Required gun training is not a good idea, because (depending on how it's administered) it could be a means of arbitarily denying a right. In the Jim Crow era, some states required a literacy test in order to vote. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? After all, how could an illiterate person know the issues well enough to vote intelligently? Yet, the Supreme Court eventually ruled this to be unconstitutional, because of the discriminatory way in which it was administered.

Virginia requires training, and the passing of a test, in order to get a concealed-carry license. But the training can be done online -- no live fire required -- and the test is administered by the same person providing the training. Some people might call this a joke -- but I'm fine with it.

There's no evidence that this system, or even systems where no training at all is required, leads to any more firearm misuse than in states where intensive, hands-on training is required.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Ah the proverbial, "common sense gun laws".

First, training to CC is a State-level requirement. Some States have 'em while others don't. Just ask our friends in Illinois who have pretty darn stringent CC requirements.

IMO, it is up to the individual to obtain the training and regularly practice with their CC weapon. As for ownership, as long as one is not in the prohibited class, I have no issues. Besides, if some nut job really want to kill and maim, there are much better ways than using a gun.

 

[Bobson]

There is no statistical difference in the number of firearms related accidents between states that have a training requirement and states that don’t.

Done, and

Drivers training is only required if you are only under 18.

Done.

Mandatory training requirements serve no purpose other than getting the govt involved in yet another area that it shouldn't have a say in.

 

[Bobson]

Only as much as he decides he needs.

 

[Glockula]

The more training you do the better you will be with the chosen firearm. This includes dry fire and snapping in with you weapon. The more the better although it may be better to dry fire on snap caps.

 

[Ignition Override]

But what is "reasonable" training?
If some of you guys could ask American citizens (now owning multiple guns) who came over from england or Germany what it is like for people (back there) to attend an expensive class, study the theory, then practical aspects back home in order to acquire a license (Jagerzeugnis/schein? etc), more people might realize where we could be headed. I know gun owners from both countries.

Most antis would make this only the first step. Then let's notice how unbelievably difficult it was recently for a lady newspaper reporter
(Washington Times?) to acquire her handgun carry permit in Washington DC....

How's it going in the City of Chicago, even after they lost the court case?
Incidental here, and maybe this is very unique, but months ago I worked with a former Marine from Chicago who does not even believe in the
Second Amendment. His older brother is an Assistant Police Chief in a suburb.

The former Marine told me "When guns become much harder for civilians to get, after about fifty years the criminals won't have access to them".
He now lives south of Atlanta, but it makes no difference.
With a former soldier having that viewpoint, imagine the mass of regular citizens in our larger northern, East and Left Coast cities. And the politicians?

 

[USAF_Vet]

another problem with the car/ drivers license comparison is the fact that it is still completely unenforceable. My car will start regardless of whether or not I have my license on me. It will shift into drive regardless if my license has expired or is still valid. It will do 110 mph despite the fact that my training never covered high speed driving. It will drive with lapsed insurance and no registration. It will do 110 in a 25 mph school zone, without the seat belt being worn, with a drunk driver behind the wheel after it was stolen. You know why it does all this? Because it isn't the responsibility of the car, or the Department of Motor Vehicles who issues licenses, to operate safely. It is the responsibility of the driver.

My gun can do anything a gun is capable of doing, too, with or without the governments say so, because they do not control the weapon. I do.

It is not the responsibility of government to train you. It is your responsibility. Most states that do require some sort of training, like my CPL class, had virtually nothing to do with carrying a gun. Trainers all but guarantee that you will pass the course and whatever shooting requirements there are to get your certified. Any real training beyond that is your personal responsibility.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

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?

OK, this topic has been covered many other times.

Keeping and bearing arms is a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE, and that right is further expressed as something that "shall not be infringed".

The purpose for this is not something related to hunting, sporting, or recreational activities, it's related to protection of oneself not only from individual attack, but from tyrannical governments. The GOVERNMENT has no right to tell it's citizens they cannot keep and bear arms because keeping and bearing arms is part of the citizen's ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

Yes, training is important. It would be stupid to say otherwise. However, for the government to REQUIRE any specific amount of training in order to exercise something that is an uninfringable RIGHT can't be done without INFRINGEMENT. Any time you place conditions on this, it become less a right and more a privilege.

Being able to drive isn't a "right". It's a "privilege". Bad example to use in conjunction with discussing the RKBA.

As for training...ALL firearms require some amount of training to operate, whether self taught or taught by others. This was true in the earliest days of musket rifles/pistols and is true today. The more one trained, the better one becomes with the firearm.

But let's face it...we're not talking rocket science here.

Neither are we talking about everybody being some kind of Agent Zero with firearms.

As for the scenario of Grandpa who has lost his mind to the effects of age...there's nothing wrong with family and friends taking appropriate actions to remove firearms from Grandpa's ready possession. They ain't the government. Nor is it wrong for a government agency to do so under due process based on the specifics of Grandpa's condition/situation. But the government can't make a general law infringing on EVERYBODY'S RKBA by imposing a general restrictions, like requiring ALL Grandpa's to PROVE they're of sound mind and body.

 

[ku4hx]

How much training is needed is a bit like asking how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop. For Mr. Owl the answer was three.

How much gun training a given individual needs depends on many factors; some will need more, some will need less and some few will never progress beyond novice regardless of how much is provided.

The problem as I see it is not determining how much is needed; individualized training courses based on assessed competency can be worked out pretty easily. Getting an individual to do any at all on a consistent basis is the problem I encounter most often.

Most heretofore non shooters I've dealt with just want to pull the trigger. I've been told one too many times words to the effect, "I don't want all that; I just want to shoot my gun." As a former high school science teacher, that's not how I do it.

 

[HexHead]

I could not disagree more with this statement.

Well, you're just wrong then.

How would you feel about training being required before you could post on the Internet?

 

[jrdolall]

I firmly believe that all gun owners should get a minimum amount of training before being able to purchase a firearm.
Just like you need a minimum amount of training to buy a car. Wait! No you don't. You can buy a car in any FTF transaction with no training and no DL. Just fork over the cash and get the bill of sale and title signed over.
Just like you need a minimum amount of training to buy a microwave oven. Or to buy a live Christmas tree. Or to buy a hammer or ladder or any of the other things in our society that routinely kill people.
There should be a lot of training before you are allowed to produce a baby or own a pet because it is very common for people to not handle those things very well.
I think that the training should be handled by the Federal Government.
I am sure that we have many "trainers" here on THR that think we should have to have "professional training" for everyone mandated by Congress. I have trained well over 100 people in my life on the proper use of firearms and none of them have had an accident. In my mind I have been a surrogate father to the people that never learned about guns growing up. Heck, I was in the food business so I think everyone should have some Government mandated training on food safety because I would have been one of the instructors. As it is I did teach food safety to restaurant owners.
All of my kids had to take a hunter safety course at 16 despite the fact that they had all (girl included) been hunting with me from the time they were able to walk. Every one of them had already killed multiple deer, turkey, and assorted other game before they were MANDATED by the government to sit in an 8 hour course and be taught by a Game Warden that probably hasn't been in a deer stand twice in his/her life. Of course it is to protect US from the people that have never been around guns and never hunted so we NEED that training.
My father is over 90 and he just had his DL renewed through the mail. He has never taken a driving course or driver's test in his life because they didn't have them in 1937. Our government at work.
How many accidental deaths or injuries occur each year from actual gun owners shooting themselves or someone else accidentally? I don't mean a 5 year old picking up a gun or a stolen gun but actual, legal gun owners that have an accident with their gun.
Show me some meaningful statistics where a decent percentage of legal gun owners (the ones who will receive this "training") have caused themselves or someone else any accidental harm and then we can discuss whether or not gun ownership is a Constitutional Right that "Shall Not Be Infringed".

 

[CZ223]

I live in Maine

Where all one has to do to get a Concealed Weapons Permit is to attend a 6 hour course and pass a written test. There is no proficiency requirement, which means no shooting requirement. I personally think that anyone carrying a gun should be able to prove that they are at least minimally proficient with it. After all, when my daughter turned 18 I didn't just hand her the keys to the vehicle and say have at it. I trained her to drive safely first, the same way I trained her to handle guns and shoot safely. I know that the drivers licence comparison doesn't usually hold up in discussions like this one but I think there is still a valid comparison to be made. Earlier a poster mentioned the only reason that he took a drivers ed course was for the price break on insurance. We all know that insurance companies are only looking out for their own best interest, why then do they offer those price breaks? The answer is simple, because they have proven that people that take the course are less likely to have a major accident than people who don't. It has nothing to do with public safety, it has everything to do with profit but, in the long run, it benefits public safety. When my daughter wanted to get her concealed weapons permit, she attended a course that required her to not only fire 150 rounds but also draw from concealment. I watched the shooting portion of that class and could tell right away that they had a lot of classroom instruction before ever stepping onto the course of fire. At the same time, I have known many who passed the government mandated minimum course, that I do not want to be around when they have a gun in their hands. My point is, if you are going to mandate taking a course before getting a permit to carry, you might as well make it a course that requires at least minimal proficiency. Think about it this way, how many times has your kid said to you, "don't worry dad, I'm a good driver" to which you respond, "It is not you that I am worried about, it is all the idiots on the road". While I know that my daughter has been properly trained I am sure that others running around with guns on their hips have not.

 

[Deaf Smith]

How much training does the average civilian need?

As much as the person wants. But if they screw up, they go to prison

Interestingly,since the 2nd Amendment DOES have 'A well Regulated Millita', and the word 'Regulated' meant trained, one could make the argument training would be encouraged if not required.

There is no statistical difference in the number of firearms related accidents between states that have a training requirement and states that don’t.

Actually there is.

Hunter Safety Courses have shown to reduce firearms accidents.

http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pdf

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20120326a

Heres an A&M one from 1999.

http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/rakwater/research/Tx-Hntg-finalreport.pdf

It's not a cure all but it definably brings down the number of accidents.

Deaf

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I firmly believe that no requirements to exercise any rights in this country should be restricted by any means except that of being a citizen.

If you want to talk about due process for removing legal rights, fine. But having to EARN a right turns it into a privilege.

Rights are dangerous things, and rightfully so. This is why they come with "responsibilities".

The RKBA is just that...a RIGHT. It is the responsibility of the citizen to exercise that right prudently.

 

[itsa pain]

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?

I always said a lot of gun owners are worse then anti's. The govt cannot be let in just a tiny bit with the training aspect because they will keep piling on money fees and classes to where most would not bother. I really think this carry mania is bad for the 2nd rights being it gives many openings for the antis to exploit. As far as hearing what you have to do in New Mexico a state overrun with illegals I would not bother

 

[onfloat]

Mandatory training requirements serve no purpose other than getting the govt involved in yet another area that it shouldn't have a say in.

+ 1 million


Please stop using operating a car to compare with owning and using a firearm!

(By the way there is no legal requirement for operating a car on private land. )

 

[Hangingrock]

Each month in the America Rifleman (NRA Publication) there is The Armed Citizen column. Apparently the incidents reported show that people manage to muddle thru their experience.

The articles which comprise the column may or may not be a depository of unbiased information as the outcomes coincide with the “NRA Message”.

That said briefness of the articles does not ascertain the expertise/experience/training of the individual participants portrayed just the outcome.

What is apparent is the willingness of the individuals to be combative and the tenacity to prevail and survive the encounter. The willingness to fight and how you’re going to fight is open to interpretation. I don’t know what assumptions were made before hand and what changed afterwards with these individuals.

Misconceptions Under Which I Once Labored would be an interesting topic for those that have been in life and death confrontations such as those instances mentioned in The Armed Citizen column.

The problem with the generic reply of get an instructor is how you ascertain the quality of the instructors, instruction. Outside of name shooting schools or name instructors’ what is the criteria/standards/qualifications that separates the competent from the incompetent instructor?

Just because the instructor has the paramilitary look of kaki cap, khaki trousers, beard, sunglasses, and etcetera is the person authentic?

Resumes can be embellished with false credentials that I’ve witnessed.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by george burns:

The subject line posses the question, "how much training does the average civilian need?" The obvious counter question is, "need to do what".

The post goes on to state,

There is literally no required training for the average Joe, to necessitate the carrying of a deadly weapon, ....

...but as JohnKSa responded, that is by no means true in all jurisdictions.

I am in no way stating that no training is needed, just the opposite, but our current system doesn't address this at all.

At this point, that is a straw man---it is not true I'm many locations.

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?

Did the poster intend to insert the words "a requirement for" after "be"?

If so, I say no, except for hunter safety training for persons who do not already hunt on their land. I am a strong believer in the advisability of training--firearms training, self defense training, and education in use of force law.

BUT-- I cannot accept the premise that someone who has not yet been able to avail himself or herself of training should be denied the means for exercising the natural right of self preservation.

The automobile license analogy is irrelevant here.

And so is the question of bladder control.

 

[Surly]

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?

The gubmit has no business intervening in my business. If I'm negligent in my responsibilities and obligations, then I have to remedy that...be it a negligent discharge, wrongful death or plowing into a building with my Jeep. All of this at any age is, ultimately, my responsibility.

If I wanted to be told what to do in every aspect of my life, there are plenty of places on this planet that I can relocate to and have that accommodation. Good intentions masked as the safety and security for the good of society, pave the way to tyranny. Kinda like what we have going on right now.