[c3shooter]

I voted no. If I were so inclined, I could create a test for the government that not ONE person on this forum (self included) would pass.

While training is an EXCELLENT idea, and I DO practice, I would offer up, as an example- my stepmother. A very independent lady in her 80's, from back in the mountains of SW Virginia. Has used a rifle, shotgun, and handgun since she was big enough to lift one. Has she had formal training? No. Has she passed a government mandated test? No. Does she have a CCW? Yep- and a S&W Mdl 37 revolver.

If someone decides to beat the little old lady, take her purse and her car, she is better able to defend herself with that Model 37 than trying to scratch him with her car keys. She will not be an IPSC competitor, but at 2 meters, she can dump 5 rounds into a 12 inch circle (I go over now and again, have her shoot with me, and clean her revolver for her)

But hey, it's just a LITTLE chain. You'll hardly feel it. Except when you try to move. Or breathe. PS- The US already has more than 20,000 Federal, State, City and County gun laws on the books. They only affect people that obey laws. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.

What I WOULD support is the creation of public shooting ranges, where any citizen could go, practice, and improve their profficency. Would not be averse to having coaches available to help coach shooters. Expect that THIS will happen right after I am elected Pope.

[hydrashok]

Originally Posted by Dillinger

On the contrary, it's always been a given.

You can't mandate training, because you have to then have selection criteria that you, I, Cane, Robo, HYDRASHOK, or God help us, Shihan, mind not find relevant to HOW they carry, WHAT they carry, WHERE they carry and the all important WHY THEY CARRY.

I can't support a mandatory on training because I have been personally instructed in both good, and less than good, practices with all sorts of weapons.

I feel that being able to carry, and doing so are COMPLETELY different issues. As we have discussed ad nauseum around here.

Some fit the mental, physical and psychological aspects of being able to carry, and some WANT to carry.

HUGE difference.

JD

Laws are created by lawyers, anyhow...

[Yunus]

I don't want the government regulating like they do. I also don't want a free for all with no regulation. It's a fine line that is easily crossed and many argue that there should be no line and anyone who wants to can and should carry. I want the impossible, where there is just enough regulation/training to discourage those who would carry irresponsibly while allowing those who are responsible.

I always look to the worst case scenario. Should the blind be aloud to carry a weapon that is aimed 99.999% by sight?

[wmille01]

I think that mandatory training to get your ccl is good, it doesn't have to be a guy from the government as long as it meets certain criteria it all good. The guy who led the class I took hates the government think there all just a bunch of dumb basses in suites. Best teacher I've had, the only problem I have with mandatory classes to just get a gun. If you where going to go big game hunting in Africa I'd be cool with taking a class on that considering I've never been to Africa to hunt.

[c3shooter]

Should the blind be aloud to carry a weapon that is aimed 99.999% by sight?

Can think of few people that are more defenseless than a blind person. However, a 357 in your ribs goes a long way to leveling THAT playing field.

[armsmaster270]

Its no worse than mandatory hunter safty classes for minors. I sincerely believe they have saved many lives from accidental/negligent shootings. Cops have to be trained and qualify before they are allowed to carry. Why not the public?

[hydrashok]

Originally Posted by armsmaster270

Its no worse than mandatory hunter safty classes for minors. I sincerely believe they have saved many lives from accidental/negligent shootings.

I disagree. I'm a hunter's ed instructor, and very little of the class is about "gun safety"... it's more about being an ethical hunter and obeying the hunting laws. Not saying there's NO "gun safety", but it's not enough of what *I* would consider to be sufficient to truly teach people to truly be safe with guns.

Originally Posted by armsmaster270

Cops have to be trained and qualify before they are allowed to carry. Why not the public?

Law enforcement is a profession of arms. Soldiers, also, receive mandatory firearms training because they are professionals. Both are PAID to take up arms.

...also, with the list of credentials you have listed in your sig line, you should know better than most anybody here that the PRIMARY reason cops are required to receive firearms training is for LIABILITY reasons. The majority of agencies with less than 25 officers only provide the minimum man hours and ammo. It's only the larger agencies that will fork out a LITTLE extra for their officers. For example, in the last SOP I read from El Paso County S.O. only allows 50 rounds a month for their deputies to practice with on the range.

It's time the government stopped trying to "protect us from ourselves". If an individual wants to take on the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY of carrying, then he/she should take on the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to get proper training. If something bad happens because they were negligent, then punish them. Don't force the rest of us to PAY for our rights. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee us the right to bear arms if we pay the proper fees and take the required training... it simply guarantees us the right. Period.

[rjd3282]

Just what we need, another government program that will be mismanaged and bankrupted. Our government has been trying to disarm us for the last 100 years and now you want them to manage our firearms training. Really???? I suggest some of you guys get a dictionary and look up the word infringement.

[spittinfire]

I believe that everyone has the right to carry and the government doesn't have the right to take that away. While I greatly encourage anyone who wants to own a firearm to learn how to properly use it and care for it(I do the same thing for a car) the level at which they choose to take that training is up to them.
Individual responsibilty is something this country has lost and really needs to get back.

[locnload]

I voted no, and here is why. I am a certified NRA basic Pistol instructor. This class meets the requirements to appy for a CCW in my State, and many others. While it does a good job of bringing the inexperienced shooter into the shooting world, it does liitle or nothing to address the particulars of carrying and using a firearm in a defensive manner. Many instructors will teach the basic class then add some serious defensive use training to boot, but it is not a requirement. So I could teach an 8 hour class, sign the certificates, and send people out into the world ready to apply for their concealed handgun permit, with not a clue about the local laws regarding concealment, use of force issues, the legal aftermath, or how to avoid shooting yourself in the leg while trying to pull your $700 gun out of your $13 holster. The point is Government mandated training does not make people good level headed decision makers with regards to lethal force, it simply makes them trained, licensed, and invincible