straydoglogic
Elite
Strange. I was replying to C. Sumpin as you can see in the second half of the post. Definitely didn't mean to include your post in there, my apologies.
Should training be mandatory? Answer: No!
- Thread starter Ranger715
- Start date
No reason to apologize I was just a bit confused.
Rude and arrogant seems to be his general setting. I don't understand why some people seem to get off on such behavior. Very juvenile.Would you like me to include the myriad of sites that aren't official government sites? Just take the L; you couldn't be more wrong here. I was respectful in my approach to you as I'm new here, but you seem to be an arrogant and snarky individual, as evidenced by your response to me and another individual. It's okay to be wrong. 3 parts to the Declaration of Independence; the first being the preamble, as in, introduction.
The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center
Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.constitutioncenter.org
Terms to Know
Each of the Terms to Know relates to concepts found in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. Click on the term listed below...www.civiced.org
Ranger715
Elite
Sorry. I'm fairly new and haven't read a lot on this topic here. Not trying to flog a dead horse. Just responding to some things I saw, and hoping to be pursuasive. Feel free to ignore.
BreakingWind
Master Class
Alrighty then, seems this topic has touched a few raw nerves.
I've taken mandatory, optional, and just because courses in all manner related to firearms throughout my long years and have actually learned a few things. But that was by my choice. Here is my thinking. Training to own a firearm kept on private property, absolutely not. To own and possess a firearm in public is a different animal IMHO.
Sure, some that do not require training will be "inconvenienced" by attending but the issue is not them, it is the public safety of the innocents around newbies (youth and first time owners). It should be mandatory and not overly expensive as a detriment to attending. In the least it will hopefully include weapon familiarity to perhaps prevent any accidental discharges and the laws of the jurisdiction that they are carrying in so that they won't do a "He told me he was gonna whoop my ass so I shot him to prevent him causing me great bodily injury". Let me give you just 2 examples of people that definitely require some type of training before allowing them to arm themselves. (Warning: the morons depicted are the exception not the norm).
The first is a young man that was posting on a 1911 forum that I was a member of. His state had just gone to constitutional carry and he being unfamiliar with guns, gun culture, and gun laws asked the ambiguous question of what is the best pistol to carry concealed? As the thread continued on he made the statement, "I can't wait till I get to shoot my first person", wtf? Yeah, he got thoroughly hammered by everyone on the forum but still to even think that shows that the consequences of having to defend your life by taking another is not a trivial ma.tter, this is not the wild, wild, west.
The last one requires a little setup. I was living in Panama (the country, not the city in Fl) and there all you need to do to carry concealed is fill out a form and surrender any firearm you plan on carrying to the local authorities with 5 rounds of ammo for each. They keep them for ten days and fire them and then keep the bullets for bullet matching forensics in any future crimes. You then get your carry card. I was in the military and the civilian husband of a young lady that worked for me asked if I knew where he could buy a handgun. I had a good friend that dabbled a little in buying and selling and gave him his name and he bought a 9mm Glock off of him. Filled out the forms and got his card, OK, so now this dude is armed and dangerous. Anyhow, in Panama City there are certain areas of the city (the barrios) that you do not go to alone or after dark. Better still is to avoid them all together. Myself, and two others had to go through there one day and encountered a group of 3 strong arm thieves that stopped us to rob us with BFKs (that would be Big F&*@^%$ Knifes). I was carrying mid-back, right over my wallet and put my hand back to get my wallet and came back with my 9mm. That was enough to convince them that they may want to wait for some easier targets and quickly skittled away. Somehow her hubby heard of this and was all questions about it with his eyes all aglow. Fearing the worst we repeatedly told him to stay out of that area. But alas, 2 nights later I get a call from his wife that he is in the hospital. The story goes, he, thinking he is Dirty Harry, arms himself, gets dressed all tourist like and goes to the barrios by himself. Of course he get accosted and he drew and emptied his clip on 2 street robbers. They were all of 4' away and he missed with every shot. He took out a few shop and car windows, but luckily no robbers nor innocents. Long story short, they took his empty glock from him and beat the living hell out him. He lost his weapon, his money, his jewelry, and his dignity. Panamanian authorities immediately jailed him for 6 months after a 15 minute trial in a Panamanian Prison and then deported him back to US upon release.
I agree that this moron needs more than just training but I digress. Yes, some mandatory training if you possess a firearm in public.
I've taken mandatory, optional, and just because courses in all manner related to firearms throughout my long years and have actually learned a few things. But that was by my choice. Here is my thinking. Training to own a firearm kept on private property, absolutely not. To own and possess a firearm in public is a different animal IMHO.
Sure, some that do not require training will be "inconvenienced" by attending but the issue is not them, it is the public safety of the innocents around newbies (youth and first time owners). It should be mandatory and not overly expensive as a detriment to attending. In the least it will hopefully include weapon familiarity to perhaps prevent any accidental discharges and the laws of the jurisdiction that they are carrying in so that they won't do a "He told me he was gonna whoop my ass so I shot him to prevent him causing me great bodily injury". Let me give you just 2 examples of people that definitely require some type of training before allowing them to arm themselves. (Warning: the morons depicted are the exception not the norm).
The first is a young man that was posting on a 1911 forum that I was a member of. His state had just gone to constitutional carry and he being unfamiliar with guns, gun culture, and gun laws asked the ambiguous question of what is the best pistol to carry concealed? As the thread continued on he made the statement, "I can't wait till I get to shoot my first person", wtf? Yeah, he got thoroughly hammered by everyone on the forum but still to even think that shows that the consequences of having to defend your life by taking another is not a trivial ma.tter, this is not the wild, wild, west.
The last one requires a little setup. I was living in Panama (the country, not the city in Fl) and there all you need to do to carry concealed is fill out a form and surrender any firearm you plan on carrying to the local authorities with 5 rounds of ammo for each. They keep them for ten days and fire them and then keep the bullets for bullet matching forensics in any future crimes. You then get your carry card. I was in the military and the civilian husband of a young lady that worked for me asked if I knew where he could buy a handgun. I had a good friend that dabbled a little in buying and selling and gave him his name and he bought a 9mm Glock off of him. Filled out the forms and got his card, OK, so now this dude is armed and dangerous. Anyhow, in Panama City there are certain areas of the city (the barrios) that you do not go to alone or after dark. Better still is to avoid them all together. Myself, and two others had to go through there one day and encountered a group of 3 strong arm thieves that stopped us to rob us with BFKs (that would be Big F&*@^%$ Knifes). I was carrying mid-back, right over my wallet and put my hand back to get my wallet and came back with my 9mm. That was enough to convince them that they may want to wait for some easier targets and quickly skittled away. Somehow her hubby heard of this and was all questions about it with his eyes all aglow. Fearing the worst we repeatedly told him to stay out of that area. But alas, 2 nights later I get a call from his wife that he is in the hospital. The story goes, he, thinking he is Dirty Harry, arms himself, gets dressed all tourist like and goes to the barrios by himself. Of course he get accosted and he drew and emptied his clip on 2 street robbers. They were all of 4' away and he missed with every shot. He took out a few shop and car windows, but luckily no robbers nor innocents. Long story short, they took his empty glock from him and beat the living hell out him. He lost his weapon, his money, his jewelry, and his dignity. Panamanian authorities immediately jailed him for 6 months after a 15 minute trial in a Panamanian Prison and then deported him back to US upon release.
I agree that this moron needs more than just training but I digress. Yes, some mandatory training if you possess a firearm in public.
C. Sumpin
Custom
Again, thank you for your compliments Cur......ur......Straydog. I'm proud to be racking them up lately.
I'm no graduate of the school of the Queens Manners, and you'll have to get a lot better at insults to offend me, if you could at all. A hypersensitive nature may not serve so well as there are often different perspectives on nearly every topic and very few take offense at it. Welcome aboard and keep learning,
Gentleman Sumpin
C. Sumpin
Custom
And thank you for your compliments too. I claim all of them.
My thinking is along the lines of @Ranger715 's.
I encourage anyone and everyone who is thinking about training to get training - and I both have and will continue to help these individuals to accomplish their training goals in any way I can.
Similarly, those who know me also know how much I like training and how much I value self-driven practice. I've made no effort to hide the fact that I sought-out professional instruction when I purchased my first firearm, specifically because I lacked any type of formal training. I wanted to get higher on the power curve, faster: and getting good instruction was the best way I could see towards accomplishing this goal.
That said, I am loath to suggest that training be mandated, in any way, shape, or form.
While I have my philosophical reasons, it's what's been reported in the news that cements this viewpoint for me, in real-life. In real-life is where, in more than a few instances, the ones who most need this equalizer to face evil are also so often caught-out by circumstances beyond their control - circumstances which denies them the ability (for whatever reason), to undertake such training. The lone shut-in grandmother who scares off an armed burglar. A single father who takes on two jobs to make ends meet for his brood, only to come upon an armed robber on his way home in the wee hours of the morning from his second-shift job. A teen defender who manages protect his younger siblings from home invaders. These are all stories ripped directly from the headlines. Stories of people who are "untrained," yet managed to successfully utilize a firearm for their own self-defense or in-defense of their loved-ones.
Similarly, what is "sufficient" training? I submit that this is itself an untenable concept, and that we each will have different takes on this variable alone. To-wit, as a law-abiding civilian, I have completed hundreds of hours of defensive firearms as well as other related training (legal, medical, etc.). I admit to having had more training than most, but at the same time, I personally know (i.e. have been classmates of) of other ordinary citizens just like me who have had -and I kid y'all not- training that exceed mine by orders of MAGNITUDE. In their eyes -rightfully so- I may as well be a totally inept Fudd. Dunning-Kruger, anyone?
Yes, there have been -and will be- tragic and unfortunate instances where innocents have been hurt, maimed, or even killed due to mistakes that could have been mitigated or even eliminated by appropriate training. But the fact of the matter is that there are many more instances of successful defensive use of firearms than such accidents and acts of negligence. While we typically only see the former in popular mass-media, tales of the latter are well documented in pro-2A sources (and are often, if not always, confirmed by buried leads in that same media). Occasionally, though, this scenario does prove hard to hide:
www.thearmorylife.com
With so many instances of defensive firearm use, a question that I'd beg is how many of these were by individuals who have had "training?"
Furthermore, wouldn't it make sense that if training was necessary to prevent the bloodshed of innocents, that since guns came out with such high frequency (according to the FBI, no less), that we'd be hearing about a shocking number of those folks either shooting themselves or the innocents around them?
Don't we, every time that a(nother) pro-gun law is passed, also hear the same laments from the anti crowd, that there'll be (more) blood in the streets?
I am comfortable saying that empirically, no, training is not necessary.
But by the same empirical evidence, I also cannot deny the fact that training does help. Look at Mr. Jack Wilson, the hero of the White Settlement, TX, West Freeway Church of Christ shooting. His story and others like it also offer definitive proof -along with the tales of "bad outcomes" for those who are less trained or have never received any training- that training undeniably helps.
I encourage anyone and everyone who is thinking about training to get training - and I both have and will continue to help these individuals to accomplish their training goals in any way I can.
Similarly, those who know me also know how much I like training and how much I value self-driven practice. I've made no effort to hide the fact that I sought-out professional instruction when I purchased my first firearm, specifically because I lacked any type of formal training. I wanted to get higher on the power curve, faster: and getting good instruction was the best way I could see towards accomplishing this goal.
That said, I am loath to suggest that training be mandated, in any way, shape, or form.
While I have my philosophical reasons, it's what's been reported in the news that cements this viewpoint for me, in real-life. In real-life is where, in more than a few instances, the ones who most need this equalizer to face evil are also so often caught-out by circumstances beyond their control - circumstances which denies them the ability (for whatever reason), to undertake such training. The lone shut-in grandmother who scares off an armed burglar. A single father who takes on two jobs to make ends meet for his brood, only to come upon an armed robber on his way home in the wee hours of the morning from his second-shift job. A teen defender who manages protect his younger siblings from home invaders. These are all stories ripped directly from the headlines. Stories of people who are "untrained," yet managed to successfully utilize a firearm for their own self-defense or in-defense of their loved-ones.
Similarly, what is "sufficient" training? I submit that this is itself an untenable concept, and that we each will have different takes on this variable alone. To-wit, as a law-abiding civilian, I have completed hundreds of hours of defensive firearms as well as other related training (legal, medical, etc.). I admit to having had more training than most, but at the same time, I personally know (i.e. have been classmates of) of other ordinary citizens just like me who have had -and I kid y'all not- training that exceed mine by orders of MAGNITUDE. In their eyes -rightfully so- I may as well be a totally inept Fudd. Dunning-Kruger, anyone?
Yes, there have been -and will be- tragic and unfortunate instances where innocents have been hurt, maimed, or even killed due to mistakes that could have been mitigated or even eliminated by appropriate training. But the fact of the matter is that there are many more instances of successful defensive use of firearms than such accidents and acts of negligence. While we typically only see the former in popular mass-media, tales of the latter are well documented in pro-2A sources (and are often, if not always, confirmed by buried leads in that same media). Occasionally, though, this scenario does prove hard to hide:
FBI Proves that Armed Self-Defense Happens
The mainstream media and multiple "commonsense gun safety" organizations have spent years telling people that armed self-defense by civilians is a myth. FBI data now proves that armed citizens used deadly force to defend themselves from felonies almost every day last year (343 times). By...
www.thearmorylife.com
With so many instances of defensive firearm use, a question that I'd beg is how many of these were by individuals who have had "training?"
Furthermore, wouldn't it make sense that if training was necessary to prevent the bloodshed of innocents, that since guns came out with such high frequency (according to the FBI, no less), that we'd be hearing about a shocking number of those folks either shooting themselves or the innocents around them?
Don't we, every time that a(nother) pro-gun law is passed, also hear the same laments from the anti crowd, that there'll be (more) blood in the streets?
I am comfortable saying that empirically, no, training is not necessary.
But by the same empirical evidence, I also cannot deny the fact that training does help. Look at Mr. Jack Wilson, the hero of the White Settlement, TX, West Freeway Church of Christ shooting. His story and others like it also offer definitive proof -along with the tales of "bad outcomes" for those who are less trained or have never received any training- that training undeniably helps.
Last edited:
Classified
Professional
I think it should be mandatory, for all elementary and middle school curriculums, maybe even bring back high-school shooting teams.
* I think the problem with the argument is ones definition of training. One should have a rudimentary level of training. Anything beyond that is strictly up to one's discretion. If we as a society can establish norms that encourage proper behavior then the stigma currently associated with such issues would not exist.
* I think the problem with the argument is ones definition of training. One should have a rudimentary level of training. Anything beyond that is strictly up to one's discretion. If we as a society can establish norms that encourage proper behavior then the stigma currently associated with such issues would not exist.
Wannabewoodsman
Custom
I think it should and shouldn't. Allow me to explain.
First some context: I'm a constitutional originalist. I believe there should be no restrictions on ANYONE being able to buy any firearm, including machine guns out of a vending machine. Yes, that includes criminals. My basic political philosophy is "I want married homosexual couples to be able to protect their marijuana fields with machine guns". In other words, pure freedom.
"But Woodsman, you just said 'no restrictions' and you also said there should be mandatory training! Are you drunk?!"
First of all, no. Haven't had enough whiskey yet. What I mean is we as a culture should demand it of ourselves that each of us is properly trained but the government needs to stay out of it. Just this ole boy's thoughts
First some context: I'm a constitutional originalist. I believe there should be no restrictions on ANYONE being able to buy any firearm, including machine guns out of a vending machine. Yes, that includes criminals. My basic political philosophy is "I want married homosexual couples to be able to protect their marijuana fields with machine guns". In other words, pure freedom.
"But Woodsman, you just said 'no restrictions' and you also said there should be mandatory training! Are you drunk?!"
First of all, no. Haven't had enough whiskey yet. What I mean is we as a culture should demand it of ourselves that each of us is properly trained but the government needs to stay out of it. Just this ole boy's thoughts
Classified
Professional
Could not have said it better.
^ 100% agreed.
If they really cared about "gun deaths," then "gun safety" should be mandatory - just like "sex ed."
And by this, I think it's obvious that my definition of "training" is different from what some others think, too, just as you wrote.
I'll close by asking myself the question of what I think "sex training" should be, then.
Bassbob
Emissary
Is it that time of the month? Mark 28 days from now
Not really. It's just that we have already had at least 2 or 3 threads where every single member of this forum ( at least the regulars) have posited their opinions on this subject. And this is a subject ( and there are a few) where "Gun guys" actually split and part paths. Some of us take the constitution at it's word and see no reason to compromise on our rights in the name of " Public safety". Particularly when we know what kind of BS has been rammed down our throats already in the name of " Public safety". Some people seem to be unable to come to grips with the fact that assuming what we think are common sense safety measures will be the only concessions forced on us by our government is delusional, short sighted and foolish.
Anyway, I see no reason to continue this line of conversation here. Obviously others do. Have at it.
KillerFord1977
SAINT
I will say this.
“Common Sense” is a bad term to use by folks. Politicians alike.
Here is why. I quote the Dept of Ed.
“According to the U.S. Department of Education in 2020, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
That’s a shocking number for several reasons, and its dollars and cents implications are enormous because literacy is correlated with several important outcomes such as personal income, employment levels, health, and overall economic growth.”
So, I rest my case our honor
“Common Sense” is a bad term to use by folks. Politicians alike.
Here is why. I quote the Dept of Ed.
“According to the U.S. Department of Education in 2020, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
That’s a shocking number for several reasons, and its dollars and cents implications are enormous because literacy is correlated with several important outcomes such as personal income, employment levels, health, and overall economic growth.”
So, I rest my case our honor
BreakingWind
Master Class
I had stated that no training should be required to own a firearm for home defense that stays at home and 2 of 3 examples is exactly that. I have always had a home defense weapon and I have always taught my wife how to work whatever was the weapon at the time. When my kids were old enough they were taught as well. All well and good, BUT if you possess a firearm in public I feel that a minimum training session consisting of firearms familiarity and the laws in your jurisdiction concerning use should be mandatory. I have on occasion had conversations with my grandchildren and friends of my adult children who don't carry and you would not believe how many of them think that if you catch someone trying to steal your car for example that it is legal to threaten and/or shoot them. That if someone threatens them, that it is legal to pull your weapon to warn them off. Those 2 actions in my state (NE) are not legal. I will concede that MOST of the people who choose the responsibility to carry will know their weapons and when you can and can't use them. But there is that portion of the public that will not get any training other than what they learn on FB. They are a threat to themselves and the public at large.
Here is my thinking of why it should be mandatory. I had been hunting rabbits and squirrels since I was 12 on private lands. When I was 14 I had a trap route where I used to trap muskrat. My dog and I used to check the trap route nearly every day him running and me on either dirt bike or snowmobile. Right across the street from the end of my route was a 1500 acre state hunting preserve with the front 500 acres stocked with Pheasant and Quail. My dog was bird trained and wanted to run that area so bad. Well, with me being 14 years old, I could only hunt it if I had a hunting license. I could get a small game/bird hunting license but had to take a hunter safety course to do it. I took it, and learned a bunch and would like to think was a lot safer because of it. If it had not been mandatory, I would not have taken it. Now of course those were different times. I lived in a small rural town and would drive down the back roads on an unlicensed dirt bike with 16GA shotgun strapped to my back and my dog running along side and never raise an eyebrow.
That's my opinion, YMMV.
C. Sumpin
Custom
The Constitutional right as relates to firearms is silent on training. But of course in that time most everyone grew up trained as a gun was as necessary as a vehicle or computer is today.
Maturity/Mental health is in the equation. Banning/restricting/altering the 2nd A (or requiring training) does not address the mental health of mass murderers or anyone else.
The only mandatory training that might promote safety/exercise of the 2nd A is compulsory education/instruction/participation in the schools.
Ultimately though, personal safety is every individuals responsibility and when that responsibility is transferred to Government to try (and fail) to keep safe those that will not do it for themselves is the pry bar that opens the door to restrictions on the rights of the rest of us.
Maturity/Mental health is in the equation. Banning/restricting/altering the 2nd A (or requiring training) does not address the mental health of mass murderers or anyone else.
The only mandatory training that might promote safety/exercise of the 2nd A is compulsory education/instruction/participation in the schools.
Ultimately though, personal safety is every individuals responsibility and when that responsibility is transferred to Government to try (and fail) to keep safe those that will not do it for themselves is the pry bar that opens the door to restrictions on the rights of the rest of us.
Simply put, very good points. With the possible exception of mandated firearms education in schools. An elective would likely be better if done at all. Like drivers training may be available in some schools, but is not mandatory. (Yes, I saw the might in the sentence, but sometimes words can get abused, twisted or confused by others?)
HayesGreener
Ronin
Florida's concealed weapons and firearms license law only requires that some firearms safety training be in evidence at some point in your life. A DD214, a hunter safety course, an NRA or police safety course, etc, is sufficient. You could have received a DD214 50 years ago and never fired a handgun, and it still meets the safety training requirement. The authors of the legislation 30 years ago were adamant that no qualification course or other barriers be put into that law that would allow bureaucrats the opportunity to control your ability to carry a firearm. Florida's legislation is 2A driven, however, the political reality is the CWFL law would never have passed 30 years ago if there were no safety training and background investigation requirement. I note that the liberals on the East Coast of Florida come back every year with bills that would place additional restrictions on gun ownership and carrying. Thus far those bills have died in committee, but I fear the liberals will ultimately outnumber us as they flee the communist states to Florida.
As a trainer, I see three fundamental aspects of training that are important for the prudent person who is going to carry a firearm. First is the law. I am astounded at the misconceptions of what the law allows and prohibits where the use of force is concerned. Failure to understand the law of the use of force is a recipe for serious legal trouble. Second is gun safety. And third is marksmanship. Now, whether any of those trainings should be required for a carry license is a matter for your state legislature. Likewise, whether a license is required at all is a matter for your state legislature. But, even if there were NO licensing requirements or training required, carrying a gun without some education and competence on those three fundamental areas is done at the peril of you and those around you.
As a trainer, I see three fundamental aspects of training that are important for the prudent person who is going to carry a firearm. First is the law. I am astounded at the misconceptions of what the law allows and prohibits where the use of force is concerned. Failure to understand the law of the use of force is a recipe for serious legal trouble. Second is gun safety. And third is marksmanship. Now, whether any of those trainings should be required for a carry license is a matter for your state legislature. Likewise, whether a license is required at all is a matter for your state legislature. But, even if there were NO licensing requirements or training required, carrying a gun without some education and competence on those three fundamental areas is done at the peril of you and those around you.
Last edited:
