Should training be mandatory? Answer: No!

[ACIinventor]

I am opposed to mandatory training, Ranger. It could be dangerous if a criminal or mentally ill person decided to start shooting folks at the local grocery store and other folks who had no training pulled out guns and started trying to shoot the shooter, but I will accept that risk. I do not believe government reach into the lives of citizens of the United States needs to be increased. Our rights are guaranteed in our Constitution, but infringement on our rights has been gradually increasing during my lifetime. I think a lot of younger folks accept the way things are because they do not have a frame of reference.

Hopefully, this never happens. But after you end up in a wheelchair or dead, you may have a different risk assessment. This issue is about training that will help prevent such an outcome. If it happens even once, that is too many. No, we'll never be completely safe. But ignoring a problem won't solve it. Most people accept the risk of someone breaking into their homes, thinking it won't happen to them, until it does. Then they take action to prevent the issue. Why not take action initially.

 

[ACIinventor]

You mean like they do for the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 14th amendments ? You realize you are essentially singling gun owners out from the rest of society and explicitly singling out the 2nd amendment from the rest of the BOR ?

I tend to be precise. Gun owners are a growing subcategory of the rest of society. This is a good development. Let's do it in a manner that maintains safety for everyone. Or at least consider the issue. Our right to exercise the 2nd Amendment is always at stake with any gun related issue.

 

[somorris]

As I recall (and my memory isn't all that great anymore -- not that it ever was!), the NRA was started as a result of a large portion of the U.S. population being untrained in the use of firearms. The NRA is still into training, but it seems a HUGE portion of the resources are used up fighting infringments on the 2A. We need the polititians to leave the Bill of Rights alone, and the NRA to get back into encouraging training in a big way. My state required "training" to carry concealed, which I suppose is an infringement, but I did it anyway. There will always be irresponsible people in our midst.

 

[ACIinventor]

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.

With increased Russian and Chinese aggression, strategically speaking, it would be wise to reimplement shooting programs in schools. Much of the USA's strategic thinking, developed after WWII, has diminished. It will be mostly up to us (firearm owners) to determine what is adequate training.

 

[ACIinventor]

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

What does proficeincy mean? Ha! Ha!

 

[C. Sumpin]

As I recall (and my memory isn't all that great anymore -- not that it ever was!), the NRA was started as a result of a large portion of the U.S. population being untrained in the use of firearms. The NRA is still into training, but it seems a HUGE portion of the resources are used up fighting infringments on the 2A. We need the polititians to leave the Bill of Rights alone, and the NRA to get back into encouraging training in a big way. My state required "training" to carry concealed, which I suppose is an infringement, but I did it anyway. There will always be irresponsible people in our midst.

The NRA needs to get back to basics with internal reorganization, such as giving LaPierre the boot, being controlled with a fresh board, and then, yes, training and Political activism. Join GOA!

 

[ACIinventor]

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.

Law, safety, and marksmanship. Amen.

 

[ACIinventor]

I think weapons should replace firearms. num-chuks, knives, battle axes, Self defense should not be
limited to handguns.

View attachment 21714

Are you carrying a concealed battle axe or are you just happy to see me!?!

 

[BobM]

A small percentage applied to a small population, the results will be small. When the population increases in size, that small percentage now produces a larger result. Training can reduce that small percentage thereby reducing the result. You are correct, there will always be dangers associated with such requirements. There is always someone willing to take advantage of things to others detriment. We always have to be vigilant.
When I carry, I'm exercising my right to self defense. I'm also taking on the responsibility to protect the public around me. I do this by choosing to defend someone else from a justifiable threat. And I also do this by carrying and handling my firearm safely. All the above requires training. The assumption that everyone will seek out training on their own, really is a fantasy. Requiring initial training and some level of periodic training should be considered.

ACI, Another thing to be considered and thought about is if society regulates itself, new laws are generally not needed or enacted. A good family life and upbringing usually creates and generates that by itself? New laws or mandates are generally created to solve an issue and sometimes when one is only perceived to be an issue? Good proper education is always the 1st step and is the key. How and why it's created is another matter. Not everyone is a gun nut or vice versa and that's cool or a good thing if it's done by good efficient actions, intentions and methods.

On self regulation? For example, like in the history of the movie industry regulation in a nut shell. There was talk about government regulating the movie industry in it's early years due to different concerns, mostly safety, the government and movie industry agreed to let the movie industry regulate itself. That held true for many years.

Government mandating what? Mandating for all is a bit of confusion that may not really be needed to achieve the best goals? A government mandated and subsidized publicly available elective service is a better choice for all who wish to be involved.

There's an important difference in how or why something is mandated in my thoughts. Government in general seems to have a sad issue with that from what have seen in other educational goals and results from what have seen in the past. Especially in too many public educational systems. The seeds or results are usually evident of or by how society acts and how some are acting now? Why?

The NRA is a civilian organization that used to and did heavily promote such concerns as firearms education and safety in the past. The NRA did miss a few opportunities in smaller towns and areas, but it did a reasonably good job in the past for the most part when it could. Where's the NRA now and what are they doing? Why?

On the why part? Some of what happened in society from my perspective? Too much of societies media has changed and have become overly biased organizations because of how they're generally operated by a selective few overly biased people and organizations. In or for any news organization in my opinion, that's usually a very narrow minded approach and view of the actual truth of the matter. And, is not really good unbiased news worth reporting, printing or reading. Doing so is actually creating a huge disservice to the general public and themselves. Too much may seem to be cheap tabloid thoughts and reporting. Why? Where does that crucial 1st step originate and why is it so important?

 

[Bassbob]

I tend to be precise. Gun owners are a growing subcategory of the rest of society. This is a good development. Let's do it in a manner that maintains safety for everyone. Or at least consider the issue. Our right to exercise the 2nd Amendment is always at stake with any gun related issue.

And you think giving anti gun politicians another club to beat us over the head with will do that? How often do you think the goalposts with regards to what qualifies as acceptable training will be moved? Every time dems take Congress?

 

[C. Sumpin]

"if society regulates itself,"

Tall order. All citizens bearing arms will help...............

"Where's the NRA now and what are they doing? Why?"

Not much, while LaPierre lines his pockets drifting down in a golden parachute, and why he is getting away with it and still there I can't answer.

 

[ACIinventor]

ACI, Another thing to be considered and thought about is if society regulates itself, new laws are generally not needed or enacted. A good family life and upbringing usually creates and generates that by itself? New laws or mandates are generally created to solve an issue and sometimes when one is only perceived to be an issue? Good proper education is always the 1st step and is the key. How and why it's created is another matter. Not everyone is a gun nut or vice versa and that's cool or a good thing if it's done by good efficient actions, intentions and methods.

On self regulation? For example, like in the history of the movie industry regulation in a nut shell. There was talk about government regulating the movie industry in it's early years due to different concerns, mostly safety, the government and movie industry agreed to let the movie industry regulate itself. That held true for many years.

Government mandating what? Mandating for all is a bit of confusion that may not really be needed to achieve the best goals? A government mandated and subsidized publicly available elective service is a better choice for all who wish to be involved.

There's an important difference in how or why something is mandated in my thoughts. Government in general seems to have a sad issue with that from what have seen in other educational goals and results from what have seen in the past. Especially in too many public educational systems. The seeds or results are usually evident of or by how society acts and how some are acting now? Why?

The NRA is a civilian organization that used to and did heavily promote such concerns as firearms education and safety in the past. The NRA did miss a few opportunities in smaller towns and areas, but it did a reasonably good job in the past for the most part when it could. Where's the NRA now and what are they doing? Why?

On the why part? Some of what happened in society from my perspective? Too much of societies media has changed and have become overly biased organizations because of how they're generally operated by a selective few overly biased people and organizations. In or for any news organization in my opinion, that's usually a very narrow minded approach and view of the actual truth of the matter. And, is not really good unbiased news worth reporting, printing or reading. Doing so is actually creating a huge disservice to the general public and themselves. Too much may seem to be cheap tabloid thoughts and reporting. Why? Where does that crucial 1st step originate and why is it so important?

Yes, good proper education is always the 1st step and is the key. I'm really surprised that you would bash media such as Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, etc. I'm the product of an effective public education system with a foundation of good upbringing. It's sad to see the corporatization of our education system today. We should be moving education back to what worked before, instead of trying to regulate it into the realm of conspiracy theories. I'm sure this public education issue was a primary factor why America voted the conspiracy theorist in chief out of office in 2020. And then we all saw those seeds or results blatantly evident on 1/6.

 

[ACIinventor]

And you think giving anti gun politicians another club to beat us over the head with will do that? How often do you think the goalposts with regards to what qualifies as acceptable training will be moved? Every time dems take Congress?

An increased number of accidental discharges by the untrained (for example) is all the club the anti-gun politicians need. We should consider this issue and get out in front of it before they can react. You and I both know the anti-gun politicians will only overreact.

 

[ACIinventor]

"if society regulates itself,"

Tall order. All citizens bearing arms will help...............

"Where's the NRA now and what are they doing? Why?"

Not much, while LaPierre lines his pockets drifting down in a golden parachute, and why he is getting away with it and still there I can't answer.

Yes, the NRA is pretty much FUBAR.

 

[BobM]

"if society regulates itself,"

Tall order. All citizens bearing arms will help...............

"Where's the NRA now and what are they doing? Why?"

Not much, while LaPierre lines his pockets drifting down in a golden parachute, and why he is getting away with it and still there I can't answer.

Can see what you're saying CS, but to me, self regulation of firearms starts with you, me and others who continually teach and show others in appropriate ways and times about safety, good firearms use, practices and the differences.

The NRA's just an organization, a promoter and gathering of sometimes like minded people like you and me. The NRA's only one of several ways, means or outlets too? Possibly using La Pierre as a reason or fault for what by who and where's that going?

Most anyone in leadership positions can stray off the beaten path for different reasons? - Like the persons attacking him and the NRA are? Why, what are their real intentions and the mistakes they may be making against a majority? Who and what does it effect? Members and voters can usually ought or remove the leaders when they make too many mistakes if they band together as one by actually voting, not by proxy, just like in some ways the NRA was partially supposed to do and represent us for us as firearms owners. People are human and we all can make mistakes too? Some are more, some are less, but all are still mistakes? Regardless, all of us as firearm owners need to stick together one way or another for the sake of others, ourselves and other good obvious reasons too.

The NRA may go down the drain or not, would be a terrible shame for us and the country, but the people and reasons who made the organization happen, the individuals, must remain strong, determined and vigilant even if only by themselves, by and in thoughts, deeds, other methods and through other organizations as needed.

 

[BobM]

Yes, good proper education is always the 1st step and is the key. I'm really surprised that you would bash media such as Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, etc. I'm the product of an effective public education system with a foundation of good upbringing. It's sad to see the corporatization of our education system today. We should be moving education back to what worked before, instead of trying to regulate it into the realm of conspiracy theories. I'm sure this public education issue was a primary factor why America voted the conspiracy theorist in chief out of office in 2020. And then we all saw those seeds or results blatantly evident on 1/6.

Slanted or biased news or info is still what it is no matter the source, reporting or using those scenarios w/o all the facts or the wrong ones, basically boils down to simple gossip or bs sometimes? It may appear at times too many things are sometimes twisted out of context for the sake of their own notoriety in the general media?

The thing is, many peoples actions, thoughts and views can be manipulated one way or the other by good, bad or inaccurate news and whether biased or not. The actual facts are considered important, guess the usual embellishment and glitz is for recreational purposes or entertainment value, right?

When the news or knowledge isn't generally accurate, trustworthy or dependable and can be prankish, it throws other things out the window, out of whack and perpetuates the malarkey. Simply and for example, FOX advertised and stated they're not part of the media? Who and what else are they then but part of the media? See the bs, the skewing?

Weird perspectives? Some people may tend to forget the media and news is also a source of continuing education in current matters for many to most people to depend on and it just hasn't hit the history books yet? When and if the important info is bent, inaccurate or skewed, what then? Other peoples lives and activities can be or are then what because of it?

Just fabrications, a little glitz....who and where else does that help, hurt, reflect on or effect and how? It can be like a vicious circle or like a modern day Salem Witch hunt.

 

[Bassbob]

An increased number of accidental discharges by the untrained (for example) is all the club the anti-gun politicians need. We should consider this issue and get out in front of it before they can react. You and I both know the anti-gun politicians will only overreact.

I'm pretty sure the gun community at large, including the NRA and NRA instructors, jumped out in front of it over the course of last summer when millions of Americans became first time gun owners.

Like I asked in the last 4 of these threads, can you show me some stats that show this being a problem ? Irrational fear, or should I say, unfounded fear, is no reason for you to advocate trampling on my rights. Can you point to one single time when 2A supporters compromised with anti-gun advocates and it satisfied them ? Frankly, the constitution says I don't need to compromise with them. And anyone who thinks giving the government another rule or law, particularly one that ONLY AFFECTS LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS, is a good idea, needs their head examined.

 

[BobM]

I'm pretty sure the gun community at large, including the NRA and NRA instructors, jumped out in front of it over the course of last summer when millions of Americans became first time gun owners.

Like I asked in the last 4 of these threads, can you show me some stats that show this being a problem ? Irrational fear, or should I say, unfounded fear, is no reason for you to advocate trampling on my rights. Can you point to one single time when 2A supporters compromised with anti-gun advocates and it satisfied them ? Frankly, the constitution says I don't need to compromise with them. And anyone who thinks giving the government another rule or law, particularly one that ONLY AFFECTS LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS, is a good idea, needs their head examined.

 

[Ranger715]

I tend to be precise. Gun owners are a growing subcategory of the rest of society. This is a good development. Let's do it in a manner that maintains safety for everyone. Or at least consider the issue. Our right to exercise the 2nd Amendment is always at stake with any gun related issue.

The manner that "maintains safety for everyone" is to vigilantly defend against infringements against our right of self defense. We have considered the issue. That's why we reject mandatory training. You are insisting on a solution to a non-existent problem, and an open door to serious infringement. No one is safer for that.

Tell you what...I'll support mandatory training when it is coupled with mandatory gun ownership. Until then, just as I wish to be trusted, I will trust my fellow citizens to self-govern, understanding that some will fail. That is the cost of liberty.

 

[ACIinventor]

Slanted or biased news or info is still what it is no matter the source, reporting or using those scenarios w/o all the facts or the wrong ones, basically boils down to simple gossip or bs sometimes? It may appear at times too many things are sometimes twisted out of context for the sake of their own notoriety in the general media?

The thing is, many peoples actions, thoughts and views can be manipulated one way or the other by good, bad or inaccurate news and whether biased or not. The actual facts are considered important, guess the usual embellishment and glitz is for recreational purposes or entertainment value, right?

When the news or knowledge isn't generally accurate, trustworthy or dependable and can be prankish, it throws other things out the window, out of whack and perpetuates the malarkey. Simply and for example, FOX advertised and stated they're not part of the media? Who and what else are they then but part of the media? See the bs, the skewing?

Weird perspectives? Some people may tend to forget the media and news is also a source of continuing education in current matters for many to most people to depend on and it just hasn't hit the history books yet? When and if the important info is bent, inaccurate or skewed, what then? Other peoples lives and activities can be or are then what because of it?

Just fabrications, a little glitz....who and where else does that help, hurt, reflect on or effect and how? It can be like a vicious circle or like a modern day Salem Witch hunt.

Slanted or biased news, that's what Fox News is infamous for. So if you're depending upon Fox News as a source of continuing education, what you're learning will never be in the history books. Further, and further from the truth you will be led. We're seeing today just how dangerous propaganda really is. If the propaganda is promoted long enough it develops it's own momentum. For example, the QAnon phenomenon. Has anyone seen John F. Kennedy? QAnon said he was supposed to show up, from the dead. Talk about twisting people's minds!