How much firearms training should be government mandated?

[ASAdog]

…or, should firearms training even be government mandated?

I believe in training. Training is good, especially if you’re going to be carrying/using for defensive purposes.

I retired with over twenty years of military service. I’ve attended a lot of military firearms training, competed in military pistol competition, and became a military pistol marksmanship instructor trained by the US Army Marksmanship Training Unit (Ft. Benning, GA).

I’ve been a cop for a while know, and have completed four LE academies (that’s right, four of them), with lots of firearms training, and I’m a firearms and use-of-force instructor.

I’ve attended five very good civilian shooting schools.

I’ve personally seen how the misuse of firearms causes horrible results.

Yet I still don’t think I’ve had enough training. But…

Given all the above, I still view the exercising of a right (such the rights to be armed and to self-defense) something that should not be controlled by the government short of when one abuses that right.

I believe that rights come with responsibilities – personal responsibilities – which include the personal responsibility to exercise the right so that other’s own rights (such as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) are not infringed or denied.

I, you, we have the personal responsibility to receive firearms training so that we may keep and bear arms in a responsible manner. Once government dictates that X training is required, then we no longer have a free right. Would it not imply that if one “right” can require a training certificate before use, then other (or all) rights could also be required such? And of course, once the training “standard” is established then government could use that standard (or a modification of it) to effectively infringe or deny that same “right”.

I’d rather require that civics classes be required in our schools; classes that not only teach what our rights are, but also what our personal responsibilities are in exercising those rights. Those that would choose to exercise a right without considering their responsibility would still be non-the-less responsible for the outcome of their poor choice. (Oh, by the way, I also think responsible forearms use training should be required to be taught in our schools as an optional course – a course designed by a broadly recognized private firearms organization noted for its experience in providing firearms safety and marksmanship training, not by some government bureaucracy.)

Your thoughts?

[forHIM]

Amen -- preaching to the choir.

I agree that with rights, comes responsibilities.  I also agree that anything government mandated is ultimately a loss of freedom.

[daddog]

Could not agree more. 

I’d rather require that civics classes be required in our schools; classes that not only teach what our rights are, but also what our personal responsibilities are in exercising those rights.

Civics is a required class in 12th grade here in California. I taught it for 2 years at a local high school before I moved into middle school grades.

[BigRat]

As far as being able to own a gun and protect one's home and family with it.  There shouldn't be any government stipulations concerning this.  Now as far as those that have a concealed/carry permit, I do believe there should be some sort of training here before they are allowed to have that permit.  My reasoning behind this is that someone who has never owned or fired a pistol before is allowed to have one of these permits and is forced to use the firearm, I'd like to hope they hit the fellon rather then me or some other bystander becouse of poor form and or aim.  Of course we can't even get this permit in Illinois, the anti-gun state, or I should say the Chicago State.  Hell my pellet gun is technically illegal in this state (over .177 caliber and over 700 fps), it's .22cal and 800fps.  But I can buy a rifle , that makes a lot of sence.

 
BigRat 

[Ghosth]

Well I was a Firearms Instructor for 15 years in Minnesota, when they were first mandating training before you could get a hunting license.

As it was the course was pretty broad based, and I'd say 90% of those who attended passed it with no real difficulty.  We had a few issues with students who had reading disability's who failed the test. Generally ended up with a half hour session at a later date. Hand them a gun, make them tell us, and show us the basic safety rules etc. Either they knew the material, and understood how to stay safe, in which case they'd get a pass.
Or they didn't, and probably wouldn't ever, in which case they got a fail.

Should that requirement be tied to proving that you know how to handle a weapon safely, keep and store it safely before allowing you to buy that weapon. That part I have some problems with.

For handguns, I'd tend to agree, that you either need a class with hands on time learning the basics before ownership. For High powered rifles, yes, maybe. For simple .22's and shotguns, not so much.

The problem is that everyone wants to do everything by "policy" and by the book.
If we'd done things strictly by the book, there would have been some kids that failed that shouldn't have.
And some that passed that shouldn't have. In fact I know of 2 that passed the test, that failed. Call it the "moral/responsibility" test.

As it is so far for all the time we taught Firearms Safety in that area we have a perfect record of no accidents, or incidents caused by firearm with anyone who took our classes.

So while I'm a firm believer in education, I am not a firm believer in more government regulations.
Too many of those all ready in all to many cases. Too many people forget you can not legislate morals or ethics.

[Kansas2]

For handguns, I'd tend to agree, that you either need a class with hands on time learning the basics before ownership. For High powered rifles, yes, maybe. For simple .22's and shotguns, not so much.

I would bet that .22's are involved in a lot of "pure" accidents. My dad was a Master Hunter Safety Instructor back
in the 70's and he always showed a film called * "Sweet Saturday's gone". It was of two boys about 14 plinking
with a .22 and one accidentally shot and killed the other. I was about 11 when I first saw it and it's stuck with me since.
Just last summer one of my nephews Friends accidentally killed another friend with a pistol. Me and my 3 boys were fishing
at the family ponds in the country and we heard the sirens go by on the dirt road and figured it was a car wreck. Later
when we heard what happened the first thing that popped to mind was it was a Saturday morning.


* I think that was the name of the film

[forHIM]

Kansas -- that's a staple of the MN safety course.  The classes I'm involved in are still using the old Alan Madson productions, but they definitely get the point across.

[Ghosth]

Yep, that was it, watched that film more times than I care to think about.

Don't get me wrong, any gun needs to be handled safely.

I guess my point is that most .22's are not going to be terribly efficient at killing people at long range.
Same for shotguns, handguns can be easily concealed.

I guess its a moderation issue, make it too hard to own a gun (think Canada) you end up with the general population being without guns at all, even for legitimate uses. Although the crooks and gang's will still have them.

Make it too easy, and your going to have more deaths, more accidents. But actual crime numbers will probably drop substantially. Do you really want to risk trying to jack someones car or steal their wallet when you know its a 50-50 chance they are armed? I know I sure wouldn't.

Where that right balance point is is a hard thing to determine.

[Cajun]

I agree that training is invaluable and should be a requirement for obtaining a conceal carry permit.
However, I am of the firm belief that this is a states rights issue to be decided by the states.