I said no due to the fact that I think that it depends on how experienced the person is.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not just YES but HELL YES!!! Do you know how many gun bearing idiots are out there?? Just because you can Carry a gun doesn't mean you should.
I voted yes so I guess I'll speak up and explain myself.
First off the question was about carrying a weapon for personal defense, not owning a gun. Second the OP said should a person get training, not should it be mandatory.
You have to know something about us first to see where I'm coming from. All of our instructors are former or current LEM and have many years experience getting into situations requiring the use of some sort of weapon. All of us grew up with guns, shooting with family and all of us will tell you that shooting cans with dad no more gets you ready for a gun fight than cutting firewood makes you a lumberjack.
We do standard gun training that includes the folks that have never touched a gun and act like it's some kind of Bio Hazard in the beginning of the class. We also do force on force training that requires a client to think, move, draw and shoot very quickly. These are two very, very different classes. The first class we are helping people get over fears and know how to be safe with a gun. The shoot house/force on force class weeds out the "I'm good enough" crowd from the "I want to learn" crowd in about 30 seconds.
It's one thing to be able to make little groups of holes in a target, but when that target starts moving, talking, yelling and attacking it's a whole different world. If you really think that because you grew up shooting or you are prior service (non combat experience...THANK YOU for your service) or regular LE (non SWAT.....THANK YOU for your service) you are prepared to defend yourself and or family in a gun fight with a carry gun you would be the exception.
We've seen some of the best shooters you can imagine come through the force on force class and miss instructors from less than 15 feet away time after time when their heart gets in high gear and stress takes over. You will never rise to the occasion, you will fall back on the lowest common denominator of training PERIOD. This is not an opinion, it is fact.
It should not be a law to have training, it should be the individual's will to be the best defense for his family and self possible that should require him to seek out training. "I will not be the weak link" attitude should be the norm here.
I'm reminded of an old TV commercial here. Get help......if not here, get help...... somewhere. There are plenty of places to get formal training, I still seek it out myself and I learn something in every class I take. I feel that it's my responsibility to be as trained as possible if I'm going to carry a weapon. If I can't deal with the stress and miss my target, I've accomplished nothing. If I miss my target and hit a bystander I've ruined many lives and if that ever does happen, it will not be because I didn't take carrying a weapon as serious as I should have.
Stay safe, God speed and buy another gun.
Unfortunately, once the masses agree on the first, they don't object to the second. After all, it's "common sense" legislation........."we are already doing it"............and "the few who voted no are idiots who should not be carrying." Slippery slope, look how easy "carry PERMIT" rolls off the tongue with the majority here. Indoctrination at its finest.
The question that should be asked is why people are coming into adulthood having never touched a gun. That's where the anti's are winning. After the fact, you already lost the war.
And a gun owner can safely handle a weapon and use it for self defense without training. I didn't vote because it said "should" (explained why in an earlier post). If the op was looking for consensus, the question could have been "Are you opposed to someone who carries getting formal training?" Or even "Do you think it's a good idea for someone who carries to get formal training?" What do you think the poll results would be then?I think you might read too much into the question asked. The question was only if you thought someone that carried a gun should seek training. Nothing more, nothing less. A house framer should know how to drive a nail, a plumber should know how to sweat pipe, an IT guy should know his way around a computer and so on.
I think you might read too much into the question asked. The question was only if you thought someone that carried a gun should seek training. Nothing more, nothing less. A house framer should know how to drive a nail, a plumber should know how to sweat pipe, an IT guy should know his way around a computer and so on.
This goes without saying. This thread was started because the OP not happy with the responses in another thread, so he re-worded the question to get the answer HE wanted. It all comes down to imposing views onto others, in the name of that one child.
If you voted "NO" and feel that I have somehow called you or anyone else an idiot please read my post again. I would never call someone an idiot for making their own decision. It's a personal choice to seek training if someone feels compelled to do so. As I said before, I do feel that is a better choice to be trained than not trained in any aspect of life.
I didn't vote because the question was loaded and the OP refused to clarify, and instead, he resorted to insults. Scroll back through the thread and you'll see more than one reference to "idiots with guns". It is this type of indoctrination that the anti's use to bolster their agenda. The reference was not directed at you personally.
If so-called 2A supporters spent the same energy towards the repealing of all gun laws as they do trying to invent ways to be more restrictive, the anti's wouldn't have a chance.
And a gun owner can safely handle a weapon and use it for self defense without training. I didn't vote because it said "should" (explained why in an earlier post). If the op was looking for consensus, the question could have been "Are you opposed to someone who carries getting formal training?" Or even "Do you think it's a good idea for someone who carries to get formal training?" What do you think the poll results would be then?
Some people 'should' get training. It's not for anyone else to decide who those people are or what they 'should' do.