Opinion: Should states have mandatory training to receive CCW license?

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Who the **** is the “state” to approve personal defense?

'The State' is the modern day religion. Tons of smart, liberated parishioners who have dedicated their lives to putting an end to the old ways of worship. Tithing is a breeze too. Your employer and local businesses do it for you, automatically, so you don't even have to think about it.

The modern church.

 

[XSmojo]

I think so, with exemptions for LE and military since they have received some level of training.
Don't get twisted about it. This is specifically for carry or CCWL. It does not have ANY implication for "control" or ownership.
It's simply a matter of improving the probability a person can handle the weapon they are carrying in public.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I prefer that carriers be trained. The difference is this - in 1787 most people carried a gun, hunted, and were familiar with the business end of a gun. Today, we hunt at the grocery store and 80% of people above the mason dixon line have never held a gun before. They're idiots and their ability to carry a firearm with their finger on the trigger (because of movies) and one in the chamber (because of innernets) is a recipe for trouble.

I'm all for Alaska, Utah, Georgia (ex Atlanta), Texas, and Texas having constitutional carry. Most folks there can point the right direction. But most other states are chock-full of people that need to be trained first in gun safety and firing, then allowed to experience the joys of shooting.

I'm not against them having guns at home, mind you. Just carrying on their person away from home without training.

I want your call for training to be based in real life, empirical data. Please show me actual crime data where states that require training have lower firearms accident rates than states that do not require training. I don't want public policy based on mere anecdotes and hypothetical scenarios. We need fact-based evidence with real, police and medical data in order to make laws grounded in reality, not emotion.

 

[geerod]

hell no !

 

[GrumpyGus]

You're very definitely in the minority, but if you read the thread I did offer a solution that would allay your fears. Check out post # 100

You're 100% right. I could get behind that requirement without hesitation.

I want your call for training to be based in real life, empirical data. Please show me actual crime data where states that require training have lower firearms accident rates than states that do not require training. I don't want public policy based on mere anecdotes and hypothetical scenarios. We need fact-based evidence with real, police and medical data in order to make laws grounded in reality, not emotion.

Studies are fine, but they're easily manipulated. My reasoning comes from knowing both idiots that don't know which end the lead comes out of, to knowing Cleet instructors that measure their dinners by the caliber.

Imagine some 19 year old girl, NO father in the picture, NO training in gun safety, cleaning, or marksmanship, innocent as the morning dew...Now imagine her with a 1911 she got because some guy gave it to her for protection. She's likely to blow her own head off, or worse yet she may stick it in a drawer out of fear and lose it to her attacker.

No, I want her to have all the experience and training she can get. For my safety as her potential neighbor, and for herself and her family (children?). Bullets don't see walls, color, or ownership.

 

[sheep dog]

 

[Radar363]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I prefer that carriers be trained. The difference is this - in 1787 most people carried a gun, hunted, and were familiar with the business end of a gun. Today, we hunt at the grocery store and 80% of people above the mason dixon line have never held a gun before. They're idiots and their ability to carry a firearm with their finger on the trigger (because of movies) and one in the chamber (because of innernets) is a recipe for trouble.

I'm all for Alaska, Utah, Georgia (ex Atlanta), Texas, and Texas having constitutional carry. Most folks there can point the right direction. But most other states are chock-full of people that need to be trained first in gun safety and firing, then allowed to experience the joys of shooting.

I'm not against them having guns at home, mind you. Just carrying on their person away from home without training.

I lived in PA for 12 years and we raised our kids in a Bible-teaching Christian church that was started by former Mennonites; at least 80% of the men and a lot of the women owned guns, hunted every year, and most of the guys belonged to one of the local ranges or clubs and shot regularly.
I'd trust any one of them with a carry gun before I'd trust some Hipster from Austin simply because it's in Texas...

Maybe there also needs to be a certain level of training to vote, or travel or express an opinion on the Internet?

 

[Alaskan]

In Ohio it was mandatory when I got my carry permit, I was a little upset about it and didn't like it at all. That being said there was a few people who had never shot a firearm in the class! Who really needed some instruction ~ I don't like the idea of a mandatory class, but I can see why a state wants the requirement. For the love of GOD learn to shoot before you carry!

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Studies are fine, but they're easily manipulated. My reasoning comes from knowing both idiots that don't know which end the lead comes out of, to knowing Cleet instructors that measure their dinners by the caliber.

Imagine some 19 year old girl, NO father in the picture, NO training in gun safety, cleaning, or marksmanship, innocent as the morning dew...Now imagine her with a 1911 she got because some guy gave it to her for protection. She's likely to blow her own head off, or worse yet she may stick it in a drawer out of fear and lose it to her attacker.

No, I want her to have all the experience and training she can get. For my safety as her potential neighbor, and for herself and her family (children?). Bullets don't see walls, color, or ownership.

Again, we are venturing into the realm of hypotheticals and anecdotes. I am looking for hard facts upon which to base any potential legislation and encumbering mandates, not the land of imagination. The national FBI crime stats are a good start and a fairly unbiased source of information for this kind of data. Show me hard data where training states are safer and non training states are more dangerous. If a safety improvement in states that require training is not demonstratable with real life data to back it up, then we have no business creating laws mandating that people jump through hoops in order to exercise their rights.

 

[Clarke123]

My position is that there are a number of things that are part of the necessities of life:

1) Swimming Lessons should be provided in Elementary School; passing a swimming test a requirement to enter middle school.
2) Gun Safety and Training should be a required course for High School Graduation.
3) High School Graduation should also require knowledge of a basic skill necessary to support someone's independence: Barber, Plumber, Auto Mechanic, Electrician, Painter, Carpenter, Computer Repair, etc.
We should not allow anyone to be foisted upon the public as an automatic burden upon society!
Yes, there will be those who are physically or mentally unable to do this ... but they are a very small percentage of our population!
4) How to run a household, including basic child care knowledge. (Yes, guys and gals too)

Initially, the above could be quickly achieved by re-institution of compulsory service of all who either graduate or drop out of school (Yeas, guys and gals too). You must complete 4 years of public service either before or after college. Military, Job Corps, Public Health ... etc