Concealed permit ,should a gun safety course be mandatory??

[oldbrass]

In 1974 I was 12 and needed to attend a gun safety course to get a hunting license as I feel all youth should..However In washington you do not need a formal training course for concealed carry. I hate government intrusion as much as anyone BUT do you think it would be a good idea for a new shooter and 1st first time CC permit applicant to take a firearms training course?

Read More

 

[SteelyDan]

Good idea to get training, of course. Required? No.

 

[deen_ad]

Good idea to get training, of course. Required? No.

Agreed

 

[fuhr52]

Common sense should tell you to get some training. Keep in mind a car can also be a weapon and we get training before driving it on the road. Carrying a gun as well as driving a car come with considerable responsibility.

 

[Redcap]

Good idea to get training, of course. Required? No.

This.

 

[hermannr]

It has always been "no training REQIRED" in WA for a CPL. Never been a problem....That does not mean you do not need some training, only the government is DICTATING what, if any, you get is unnecessary.

If you want a hunting license in WA you need the hunters safety course...So...Now I will give you a challenge...How many hunting accidents have resulted from misuse of hunting firearms in the last 10 years (just use WA). Then check how many AD's, ND's, and misuse of handguns BY PERMIT HOLDERS in WA in the last 10 years...???? I think you will find that even when you take into account the number of hunters (about 600K) Verse the number of CPL holders (about 350k) you will fine more that 2X hunting "accidents" when compaired to CPL holder misuse accidents...Don't count the accidents and insodents involving police, they have a lot of "training" in firearm use so they don't count. Only CPL holders....

More formal training does not necessarily mean safer use of firearms. There is an old saying in the military that actually deals with enlisted and their Officers friendship/ "familiarity breeds contempt..." works with firearms to...it is called complacency. Think of the problems the LEO community has, easy to find is Washington DC police and their Glocks...and shooting themselves.

Actually, as I think of this, the only CPL ND/AD misuse problems I remember (that come immeadiatly to mind) are all from states that require training,. If I remember somewhere I read over all states the CPL holder's "problem children" work out to 0.05% sorry I can't remember the reference though.

May I add, I think the reason behind teh CPL holders excellent record, is that those that would give holders a black eye generally would not bother with a license, or cannot obtain one because of MH or criminal issues in their past. But those types don't care what the law is anyway.

 

[BillyDa59]

I really don't think it's a good idea for a new shooter to be carrying concealed, TBH.

A first time CC applicant taking a course? As with a lot of things, I think it's a good idea but shouldn't be mandatory... so pretty much exactly what SteelyDan said.

 

[Nwcid]

Since we should not even need a permit to carry "....shall not be INFRINGED....." there should be no requirements for a class.

There is a total lack of personal responsibility in this country. Yes before a person picks up gun or any other tool they should have knowledge "training" in its proper use and handling. By making things mandatory the "state" is saying if you take this class you are good to go. In many cases this take personal responsibility out of it and people now think they are experts because they took a class the state says they have to vs going and getting the training they need.

 

[CharonPDX]

I agree that there shouldn't even be a permit to carry.

BUT, as long as we DO have a permit, might as well use it to stuff common sense into people. Basic safety course is sufficient to me (like what Oregon requires.)

I'll work to remove the silly idea of a permit, but as long as we have it, I say keep the requirement.

 

[Misterbill]

I agree that there shouldn't even be a permit to carry.

BUT, as long as we DO have a permit, might as well use it to stuff common sense into people. Basic safety course is sufficient to me (like what Oregon requires.)

I'll work to remove the silly idea of a permit, but as long as we have it, I say keep the requirement.

I'm familiar with the training requirements for a couple of states and moved a year ago from a required-training state. I also do this for a living, so I think I have some credibility on this subject.

Training requirements have ZERO effect on anything except costing people more money and more delay to get their permits.

Washington has had it's CPL without a training requirement for a long time and I must have missed all the blood in the streets that results.

Finally, as a trainer I ca tell you I have had students in Mass. taking a class because it was required who got virtually nothing from the class and probably forgot about everything covered within hours of leaving.

The types of people who will be a problem will not get the training, or if they do, will ignore everything they are taught. I have seen countless examples of people being unsafe in Mass. which has a training requirement just to OWN a gun. You can't train people out of bloody-minded stupidity. So from a purely practical standpoint, there is no purpose served by training requirements as they exist. they don't keep anyone safer.

From a moral perspective, I find the notion obscene. I'll get behind mandated state approved training as soon as everyone in the country has to get mandated state-approved training to vote, write a letter to the editor, post to an internet forum or have children.

 

[Nwcid]

I agree that there shouldn't even be a permit to carry.

BUT, as long as we DO have a permit, might as well use it to stuff common sense into people. Basic safety course is sufficient to me (like what Oregon requires.)

I'll work to remove the silly idea of a permit, but as long as we have it, I say keep the requirement.

Aaahhhh see and that is where it comes back to either you believe in "gun control" or not. It is an all or nothing situation. ANY form of control IS "gun control" which means someone has to be in charge of it making rules for other people.

Why is it acceptable to require a class for CCW? What if you had to take a class to own a gun? Why not if it is ok to have one for CCW? How about you have to have a class for each kind of firearm you own? What about a class before you open carry since it is no different then CC........ Where does it stop? Why are some ok and others are not?

 

[darkminstrel]

I think a mandatory class in training should not happen. That's going over the line a bit. Conversely I'd say that a required instruction on the laws and responsibilities of a CCW holder is ok. Who cares if you have trained with the gun you want to carry? If you want to shoot better you'll seek out training on your own. Having a grasp of what you can and can not do as far as carry opportunities is the more important aspect.

In brief; the people who won't seek training will also not learn about the laws on their own. That's bad for all of us.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Common sense should tell you to get some training. Keep in mind a car can also be a weapon and we get training before driving it on the road. Carrying a gun as well as driving a car come with considerable responsibility.

I don't recall any training being required before getting a learner's permit or driver's license. I took a driver's safety course in high school for the insurance break, but it wasn't required. Vehicle accidents rank far higher than accidental shootings.
Once you let the gov't get it's sticky fingers in something it won't stop. ever.

 

[Nwcid]

Common sense should tell you to get some training. Keep in mind a car can also be a weapon and we get training before driving it on the road. Carrying a gun as well as driving a car come with considerable responsibility.

I agree they both have a large amount of responsibility. The problem with the car argument is that driving is a privilege, the 2A is a RIGHT.

Even with RIGHTS people have to take personal responsibility to exercise them correctly. If they are abused then the proper punishment needs to be given.

 

[Mark W.]

If you want a hunting license in WA you need the hunters safety course...So...Now I will give you a challenge...How many hunting accidents have resulted from misuse of hunting firearms in the last 10 years (just use WA). Then check how many AD's, ND's, and misuse of handguns BY PERMIT HOLDERS in WA in the last 10 years...???? I think you will find that even when you take into account the number of hunters (about 600K) Verse the number of CPL holders (about 350k) you will fine more that 2X hunting "accidents" when compaired to CPL holder misuse accidents...Don't count the accidents and insodents involving police, they have a lot of "training" in firearm use so they don't count. Only CPL holders.....

Not sure where you get your numbers but the State of Washington has issued less then 195K hunting licenses this last year.

 

[Mark W.]

The Learners permit is the Training

 

[fuhr52]

I agree they both have a large amount of responsibility. The problem with the car argument is that driving is a privilege, the 2A is a RIGHT.

Even with RIGHTS people have to take personal responsibility to exercise them correctly. If they are abused then the proper punishment needs to be given.

Agreed, one is a privilege and one is a right. My point is if you are going to take on the resposibility you should get some kind of taining. Comon sense you know.

 

[hermannr]

As someone else mentioned. Obtaining a CPL with only being handed the laws (like here in WA) forces some responsibility onto the license holder. You have to take that booklet on the laws and actually read it or you are not going to have any idea what is legal and what is not.

Forcing that personal responsibility is probably the best argument against manditory training. You make someone take a training course and they think they know everything they need to know...no way.

Here is my take: I have a beautiful 12 year old granddaughter that likes to come shoot with her grandpa. And she is a good shot, and safe too...

Last time my daughter and her family were here I asked my daughter to take her down to NorPoint (it's less than a mile from where they live) and get her some basic formal training... This young lady has shown a lot of interest, and responsbility, she has been shown the basics and has shot several thound rounds out of a High Standard Trophy, so why did I suggest she get a basic course...because no-one (including an old man like me that has been shooting for well over 50 years) knows everything...(and compitition rules change over time)...

Now, should the government mandate that she take a formal course before she can compete with a pistol? H%$# no! If the group she is going to compete requires a special course that is fine, but the government should stay out of it...one size does not fit all.

 

[enjr4]

Training is a very, very good idea. BUT, it should not be required for a permit.

Most of the entry level courses are nothing more than this is a gun, this is how it works, followed by if you shoot someone you will be in deep poop.

To really learn something you have to take one of the advanced courses.

 

[fd15k]

I'm okay with training being required if government can show evidence of such requirement having a positive effect on public safety. That is they have to demonstrate compelling interest in requiring training.

Also, while I could probably agree permits should not be required, I would find it useful for permits to be issued anyway (for a minimal fee), to help with unrolling Law Enforcement encounters in timely manner.

By the way, there is that another thread about TN resident being arrested for gun possession in NYC. Regardless of your thoughts on NYC laws (there will always be some places off-limits for firearms possession even in gun-friendly states), do you guys think it could have been avoided with proper training in TN ?