Mandatory Training? - Page 4
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Training & Safety > Mandatory Training?

View Poll Results: Do you support mandatory training for carry licensure?
Yes 31 35.63%
No 56 64.37%
Voters: 87. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-10-2011, 08:19 PM   #31
FAA licensed bugsmasher
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ScottA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Davenport,IA
Posts: 6,990
Liked 2337 Times on 1258 Posts
Likes Given: 844

Default

I am vehemently opposed to government mandated training to exercise a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

However, anyone who does not seek out training in one form or the other is a fool.

__________________

Scott

Quote:
If you're not representing Jesus in a way that makes people want to hang out with you, you're doing it wrong.
Quote:
Those who refuse to participate in politics shall be governed by their inferiors. -Plato
Join the NRA
ScottA is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2011, 08:59 PM   #32
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
doctherock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rainy sh!thole,Oregon
Posts: 5,149
Liked 11 Times on 10 Posts

Default

Heres my 2 cents. You want mandatory training serve your country and get it. I walked in to my local sheriff, showed my DD214, paid the fee and got the fingerprinting and boom had my license. As far as mandatory, hell no. This country is founded on freedom and this would be one more step towards slavery.

__________________

DON'T BUY DELL!!!!!

BEWARE!!! The toes you step on today may be connected to the ass you kiss tomorrow.

PM Tango about his upcoming SHARTFOO courses.

doctherock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 12:36 AM   #33
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Daoust_Nat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando,Florida
Posts: 2,165
Liked 1294 Times on 629 Posts
Likes Given: 78

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
All that said, I believe training should be mandated by PARENTS, not the government. Parents should be teaching their kids firearm safety AND marksmanship. Of course, that means the PARENTS should already know because they should've been taught by THEIR parents.
My parents would have nothing to do with any kind of firearm. I got all of my training from neighbors. That does not make my parents bad parents, it just puts them into the non firearm corner of the world. My Dad would object to me bringing a gun to his house. I would just leave it locked in the car. He came out of WWII without an appreciation of firearms.

You cannot just lay it on parents, or the state. However, some level of ongoing training is not a bad thing. Look at all the knuckleheads at the public ranges that are sweeping people on the line. Not good.

As I say that, I don't have an offering that can keep us from being pointed out as "those guys with guns" or potentially put on the internet as people with carry permits.

It is kind of a dicey thing. Training would be good, but notoriety for it would could be bad.
__________________
Daoust_Nat is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 03:20 AM   #34
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
shadamai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 652
Liked 103 Times on 63 Posts
Likes Given: 39

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locnload View Post
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
I guess there is also a lot of variation by state. I recently took the CCP class in North Carolina. The class here included a lot of time on safety, state carry laws, state laws for use of deadly force, etc. The instructor also had us practice (dry shooting, each gun safety checked first) drawing the handgun from the holster safely and quickly, aiming, retreating, etc. before we went into the range. The class was invaluable to me as a newbie.

With that said, I have mixed feelings concerning the training requirement. I do understand where people are coming from about right infringement; and history has shown how easy it is for leaders to abuse their power and take more and more away from the people. I also understand (if there was not a legal requirement) how foolish it would be for people to carry if they aren't properly educated and trained about using a firearm and following their state's laws.

I would have taken a course even if it wasn't mandated by the state. In an ideal world, everyone who doesn't already have training or education would do the same.
__________________
shadamai is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 06:05 AM   #35
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Thadeuce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Savannah,GA
Posts: 254
Default

So let me get this straight: training with firearms is pretty much agreed upon as something everyone who handles a firearm SHOULD have but forcing someone to get what is agreed upon as vital is not ok? You have to show you can drive to get a driver's license right? Yet it's not logical to show you know how to use a gun before getting a license to use/carry it? A gun is made for killing. Plain and simple. You want non-lethal, get an Airsoft gun. But to use something that was made to take a life, mandatory training is frowned upon, but taking a driving test to get a driver's license is ok? Either I'm missing the point or there's some really funny double-talk going on...

__________________

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 – 2005

Thadeuce is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 07:57 AM   #36
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 3,100
Liked 2780 Times on 1252 Posts
Likes Given: 2665

Default

Driving is not a right. A drivers license is not training it's a tax. All fees, permits, levy's and licenses are taxes they just call it something else so we won't think we are being taxed. There's nothing in the constitution about infringing my driving privileges.

If you think we are getting adequate drivers training you should take a look at the traffic death statistics. We lose nearly as many people on the highway every year as we did with 10 years of fighting in Viet Nam. Far more people die in traffic accidents than by guns. Yet I don't hear any politicians wanting to ban cars.

__________________
rjd3282 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 08:26 AM   #37
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
doctherock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rainy sh!thole,Oregon
Posts: 5,149
Liked 11 Times on 10 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thadeuce View Post
So let me get this straight: training with firearms is pretty much agreed upon as something everyone who handles a firearm SHOULD have but forcing someone to get what is agreed upon as vital is not ok? You have to show you can drive to get a driver's license right? Yet it's not logical to show you know how to use a gun before getting a license to use/carry it? A gun is made for killing. Plain and simple. You want non-lethal, get an Airsoft gun. But to use something that was made to take a life, mandatory training is frowned upon, but taking a driving test to get a driver's license is ok? Either I'm missing the point or there's some really funny double-talk going on...
In my state you have to prove you know how to handle a weapon or take a ccw course. I'm saying it shouldn't be a government based and a government taught class. There are enough czars already.
__________________

DON'T BUY DELL!!!!!

BEWARE!!! The toes you step on today may be connected to the ass you kiss tomorrow.

PM Tango about his upcoming SHARTFOO courses.

doctherock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 01:30 PM   #38
FAA licensed bugsmasher
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ScottA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Davenport,IA
Posts: 6,990
Liked 2337 Times on 1258 Posts
Likes Given: 844

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thadeuce View Post
So let me get this straight: training with firearms is pretty much agreed upon as something everyone who handles a firearm SHOULD have but forcing someone to get what is agreed upon as vital is not ok? You have to show you can drive to get a driver's license right? Yet it's not logical to show you know how to use a gun before getting a license to use/carry it? A gun is made for killing. Plain and simple. You want non-lethal, get an Airsoft gun. But to use something that was made to take a life, mandatory training is frowned upon, but taking a driving test to get a driver's license is ok? Either I'm missing the point or there's some really funny double-talk going on...
It's all about government mandates, not the training.
__________________

Scott

Quote:
If you're not representing Jesus in a way that makes people want to hang out with you, you're doing it wrong.
Quote:
Those who refuse to participate in politics shall be governed by their inferiors. -Plato
Join the NRA
ScottA is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 03:13 PM   #39
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,900
Liked 2058 Times on 827 Posts
Likes Given: 2706

Default

Drivers license has nothing to do with guns. one does not have a right to drive. Driver license's are state controled which is their right to do sense it is not a right. No where sense the founding of our nation has any American citizen been required to train with a firearm before being allowed to own, carry, and/or use it.

Now who is to deside what training I should have before I can have or carry a gun? Who and what are this mythical experts that can determen my leavel of training needed? If we make mandentory training for CCWP why not for any legal carrying concealed or not? Because it is concealed does not make it more deadly then open carry.

Subjecting ones self to any promission to exercise a right is just subjecting ones self to slavery under government control nothing more? Another form of gun-control another form of subservance to a usurped government athority.

If we can subject a persons right to guns then we can do the same for any rights granted by the Bill of Rights and you don't got **** to say about it.

opaww

__________________
opaww is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 03:23 PM   #40
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 18,098
Liked 6033 Times on 3163 Posts
Likes Given: 432

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thadeuce View Post
So let me get this straight: training with firearms is pretty much agreed upon as something everyone who handles a firearm SHOULD have but forcing someone to get what is agreed upon as vital is not ok? You have to show you can drive to get a driver's license right? Yet it's not logical to show you know how to use a gun before getting a license to use/carry it? A gun is made for killing. Plain and simple. You want non-lethal, get an Airsoft gun. But to use something that was made to take a life, mandatory training is frowned upon, but taking a driving test to get a driver's license is ok? Either I'm missing the point or there's some really funny double-talk going on...

You are missing the point. Driving isnt a right its a privilege. You dont need mandatory state approved training to speak about your opinion to other people, nor walk from one state to another, or breathe air to live. Keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. Driving a car is not.
__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Mandatory Grad Student Health Insurance! mesinge2 Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 04-25-2011 04:57 PM
New York: Mandatory long-gun registration? bkt Legal and Activism 7 03-03-2011 03:29 AM
Mandatory Arabic Classes Coming to Mansfield Bigcountry02 Politics, Religion and Controversy 7 02-09-2011 07:55 PM
California Democrat proposes mandatory gun registration opaww Legal and Activism 11 04-09-2010 05:22 PM