• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Should people seek training if they are going to carry a handgun?

Should people seek training if they are going to carry a handgun?


  • Total voters
    148
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.

While I share a lot of your views this statement is not one of them. Just because you are a gun owner does not mean you can defend yourself with a gun, not even close.

I would fall under the "It's a great idea for someone who carries to get formal training." You can be a safe, responsible gun owner and still not know how to use it (hit your target) under stress.

I'll tell a short story about this. A family that wanted home defense "force on force" training came to see us. All of the members were good shooters and had a range on their own property. These were responsible, safe gun owners. We set up the scenario and went to town and within minutes the dad shot the mom in the back while moving down the hallway with their son. The second round the mom shot her son four times while his hands were up yell "MOM, it's me. don't shoot". We took guns away from all members while they walked through the house, their tunnel vision was so bad they didn't see the instructors standing behind plants or at corners. We leave part of our body exposed to the "home owner", it is not our job to shoot clients but to teach them.
Four hours latter we were able to help them get the adrenaline under control and themselves control the situation. They came back for another class with their second son and it started all over, just not as bad. If they continue to learn they will be one family that should be left alone.
All four of the family members are very safety minded and I feel very safe on the range with them, but when we went in the shoot house it got real and they didn't do so well.

I just can't get behind the "I got a gun so I'm good" attitude. I find that the more training someone gets the more they feel this way as well. It's a, you don't know what you don't know thing I guess.

Other than this you're pretty much a mirror of my thoughts most of the time, but then again, every Coonass I've ever met was.:boink:............am I right?
 
Last edited:
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.


I agree. And the fact is when you get 90% of the "pro-2nd community" saying so in polls, every single politician now has the big go-ahead to "mandate it". That's the danger. The slippery slope is not some imaginably thing, and anyone that thinks it is not, would be an idiot.


ETA: I voted "Yes" because I took the poll literally even though I thought the OP had other motives. Especially obvious when he asked the folks that voted no if they wondered why LE and private guards had mandated training. (nothing but business liability...not a constitutional issue).
 
Last edited:
I'd hope anyone that has a desire to purchase a firearm also has a desire to receive so instruction to it's use.
 
I agree. And the fact is when you get 90% of the "pro-2nd community" saying so in polls, every single politician now has the big go-ahead to "mandate it". That's the danger. The slippery slope is not some imaginably thing, and anyone that thinks it is not, would be an idiot.

You GET it!!! Thank you!
 
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.




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.

:tea:

I missed the other thread that caused this one. I wouldn't try to impose my views on anyone because I don't have to answer for anyone else. There are plenty of idiots out there, but that doesn't mean we should require any training or repatriation or anything.

Glad you didn't think I called you an idiot, I looked back through the thread thinking to myself, "You dumba$$, why would you call someone an idiot online?"
 
I voted no because it is not my place to tell someone they need training. While I would recommend training to anyone planning to carry a firearm I also think there are many people that have been around firearms their whole life and some who have never had formal training in their life but are very proficient with a firearm. I also think that threads like this give the anti gunners ammunition to further restrict legal gun owners while doing nothing to address the fact that most crimes are committed by people who are not in legal possession of the firearm to begin with.
 
I voted no because it is not my place to tell someone they need training. While I would recommend training to anyone planning to carry a firearm I also think there are many people that have been around firearms their whole life and some who have never had formal training in their life but are very proficient with a firearm. I also think that threads like this give the anti gunners ammunition to further restrict legal gun owners while doing nothing to address the fact that most crimes are committed by people who are not in legal possession of the firearm to begin with.

The question had nothing to do with whether or not you should "tell" someone to get training.
 
I voted no because it is not my place to tell someone they need training. While I would recommend training to anyone planning to carry a firearm I also think there are many people that have been around firearms their whole life and some who have never had formal training in their life but are very proficient with a firearm. I also think that threads like this give the anti gunners ammunition to further restrict legal gun owners while doing nothing to address the fact that most crimes are committed by people who are not in legal possession of the firearm to begin with.

Another one who gets it. Where were guys at yesterday? LOL!!!
 
I missed the other thread that caused this one. I wouldn't try to impose my views on anyone because I don't have to answer for anyone else. There are plenty of idiots out there, but that doesn't mean we should require any training or repatriation or anything.

Glad you didn't think I called you an idiot, I looked back through the thread thinking to myself, "You dumba$$, why would you call someone an idiot online?"


Never thought that at all. Context is everything. :thumb:
 
Back
Top Bottom