• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Are mandatory training classes for OC overkill?

How do you feel about an OC training course?

  • An OC training course is utterly ridiculous, useless, and repulsive.

    Votes: 65 44.2%
  • Ok to offer a classroom course.

    Votes: 62 42.2%
  • Ok to offer a range course.

    Votes: 56 38.1%
  • The classroom course should be mandatory.

    Votes: 11 7.5%
  • The range course should be mandatory.

    Votes: 12 8.2%
  • I don't know, don't care, or am otherwise unqualified to answer

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Total voters
    147

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
I believe in training. Training should be readily available for those who want it. It should be affordable, accurate, and encouraged.

Mandated by the government? No. Encouraged by other gun owners? Yes!!!
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I believe in training. Training should be readily available for those who want it. It should be affordable, accurate, and encouraged.

Mandated by the government? No. Encouraged by other gun owners? Yes!!!

+1

Wash, rinse, repeat - the cycle should never end.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I would be interested in looking at the possibility of some sort of incentive where, on taking various levels of (optional) safety courses, discounts can be applied to homeowner and personal liability insurance policies.

Now you're talking! In fact, I asked my insurance company the other day if they offered additional legal liability insurance for those of us who routinely carried firearms, as there's not $5/month deal here in Colorado like there is in Lousiana. Their answer: No, but if it occurs on your property, it's covered under renters/homeowners liability/insurance.

Once we are in a violent situation, we have the right to defend ourselves with the means at hand, whether we have been trained or not. As long as we act in good faith, any innocent casualties are the responsibility of the person who initiated the violence, necessitating the defensive response.

Here in Colorado, that's precisely what the law states. I suspect it says much the same in most other states.

Permit requirements for any sort of carry in most states is unconstitutional I suspect. I know it is in my state. The unfortunate thing is that over a number of generations, this most basic of freedoms has been diluted and in some cases, lost to the whims and controls of dictatorial employees of We the People.

I suspect that'll continue up to the day we march to the polls and tell those employees, "YOU'RE FIRED!" by voting for the other guy or gal.

As for WAVE, just wave "bye-bye." I'm heartened that they're loosing big-time. Hopefully, they and the Brady Bunch will all soon flush themselves down the same putrid rabbit hole.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
since9: I was speaking from a moral standpoint. It is nice to know that some States encode the moral POV on self-defense. Alabama law protects citizens from lawsuits in self-defense cases. I don't know it that protection extends to prohibiting bystanders from suing if they are injured.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
The founding fathers certainly didn't contemplate a time when people would not grow up with guns. And if they did, they probably assumed that if there were no guns when one grew up, there would be none when they were grown.

The obvious need for training in handling and associated laws arises from society's failure to teach people these things everyday.

We don't have a Constitutional right to hunt, but I think that was understood to be a natural right 240 years ago. We now require hunting licenses and hunter safety classes in many states. I'm just sayin'...
 

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
I like Slowfiveoh's view, give an option at purchase for a proper training course, for little to no $, but not absolutely necessary. (I hope he did not fall out of his chair in shock...)

My personal experience, when watching others, who had never picked up a firearm, try to pass their Tennessee Permit Class, yes, a training course, or learning to shoot with the aid of the experienced, is crucial for safety's sake. But, making a course mandatory to exercise a right, smacks of a way to control that right...

Oh, and FYI: In accordance to the Tennessee Code Annotated, there are NO BARS in the state of Tennessee. They are illegal... We have restaurants serving alcohol. Those which serve more than 50% volume in alcohol, instead of food, are fined for violating the law...
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The founding fathers certainly didn't contemplate a time when people would not grow up with guns. And if they did, they probably assumed that if there were no guns when one grew up, there would be none when they were grown.

The obvious need for training in handling and associated laws arises from society's failure to teach people these things everyday.

We don't have a Constitutional right to hunt, but I think that was understood to be a natural right 240 years ago. We now require hunting licenses and hunter safety classes in many states. I'm just sayin'...

Virginians have a constitutional right to hunt, fish and harvest game.
Approved by Governor-Chapter 802 (effective 7/1/00)
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?001+sum+HB787
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Assuming everyone has answered correctly, the poll is currently revealing that more than half of the respondants believe that any and all training classes, whether mandatory or voluntary, are a complete and utter waste of time.

Was this really your intention when you selected the first response?

Please read the choices carefully. Also, realize that while you can choose more than one answer, if you choose the first response, it's mutually exclusive with the remaining responses. That is, if you choose the first response, there's no logical reason to have chose any of the other responses.

This works in reverse, as well. If you choose any of the other responses, you should not have chosen the first response.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Oh, and FYI: In accordance to the Tennessee Code Annotated, there are NO BARS in the state of Tennessee. They are illegal... We have restaurants serving alcohol. Those which serve more than 50% volume in alcohol, instead of food, are fined for violating the law...

So it's a volume game, huh? Does water count towards the food volume? How about cotton candy and popcorn? Lots of volume there without cramping one's diet...
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Assuming everyone has answered correctly, the poll is currently revealing that more than half of the respondants believe that any and all training classes, whether mandatory or voluntary, are a complete and utter waste of time.
No, it reveals that the poll is flawed.
since9 said:
Was this really your intention when you selected the first response?
You only provided pro-mandatory-training responses, except for the 'waste of time.'

since9 said:
Please read the choices carefully. Also, realize that while you can choose more than one answer, if you choose the first response, it's mutually exclusive with the remaining responses. That is, if you choose the first response, there's no logical reason to have chose any of the other responses.

This works in reverse, as well. If you choose any of the other responses, you should not have chosen the first response.
Therein lies the rub. You have only provided two diametrically opposing positions, and forgot that the world is fuzzy.


Unless you intended choice 2&3 to read "OK to offer a non-mandatory course."


You appeared to leave no middle ground.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Assuming everyone has answered correctly, the poll is currently revealing that more than half of the respondants believe that any and all training classes, whether mandatory or voluntary, are a complete and utter waste of time.

Was this really your intention when you selected the first response?

Please read the choices carefully. Also, realize that while you can choose more than one answer, if you choose the first response, it's mutually exclusive with the remaining responses. That is, if you choose the first response, there's no logical reason to have chose any of the other responses.

This works in reverse, as well. If you choose any of the other responses, you should not have chosen the first response.

The problem is the questions I think, and why I didn't vote.

If you wrote "mandatory" for option number 1, I may have picked that. On second thought, the choice of the word "useless" probably still would have kept me from voting for it. Although I believe it's "ridiculous" to have mandatory training for the exercise of a right; it may not be useless. The question would remain who it's useful to, however.

For options 2 and 3 what are the caveats? Who is paying for it?

Also, I didn't realize until just now that I could pick more than one option but that's my fault. :)

Am I nitpicking? Probably a little, but a slight clarification might garner a more reliable response.
 

FightingGlock19

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
583
Location
, Kentucky, USA
Anybody who carries a gun should seek out competent instructors so they can further their knowledge of mindset, tactics, skill, and gear, however to make it mandatory is akin to having to pay for one's First Amendment rights ...

But there are some who think like what's in my signature ...though I must admit, the gentleman that posted that has since changed his stance on said topic ...
 

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
What a sticky wicket this one is. On the one hand the scenario described as the 21 year old watching "Cops", "NCIS" and all those other neat shows is a real probability. He goes out, buys his weapon (still hurts me to say Gun, being career military and knowing my "gun" is for fun LOL) and decides he's going to OC all around town bein "Billy Badass"
From my perspective having been trained by "Gramps" at a very early age that guns are not toys and "Never point a gun at something you don't intend to kill" and "Treat every gun as if it's loaded even when you know it's not"
My point being is that most of today's young people did not have that "Proper fetchin' up"
Government already has way too much control over our daily lives but having Joe Schmedlap out there with a loaded weapon thinking he's going to deter crime and he's not even trained to fire his weapon safely just kinda makes my hair on the back of my neck stand up.
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
I don't think OC has necessarily become mainstream across the country yet. In VA, its becoming a way of life once again.

While somebody may have the maturity and exhibit the responsibility that a firearm requires (or anything lethal from a ballpoint pen to an eighteen wheeler), training is a necessary part of the equation. You will revert to your highest level of training when it comes to a stressful moment. Training is essential in using a firearm when in an urban environment. In the backwoods, the scenery may be more forgiving.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
You only provided pro-mandatory-training responses, except for the 'waste of time.'

Incorrect. Response 2 and 3 are not mandatory in the least. The only responses that are mandatory are the ones marked "mandatory. :banghead:

Unless you intended choice 2&3 to read "OK to offer a non-mandatory course."

Aha! You're brighter than you first let on...

You appeared to leave no middle ground.

Except for the "ok" (but not mandatory) classes.

Yes, I should have worded it using something like "voluntary" or "non-compulsory."

My bad.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
My point being is that most of today's young people did not have that "Proper fetchin' up"
Government already has way too much control over our daily lives...

You're scratching the stinky surface of it now, but this is the result of a few generations of "guns are bad!" public school training. Amazingly, accidental firearm deaths among 14-25 year olds is dropping, but it's not because of revamped public school training, nor is it because of fingerprint triggers or other Star Wars (and at Star Wars prices) devices which will do little to solve the problem but which will cost of 2 to 3 times as much per firearm.

Rather, it's because with the increasing return to our firearms heritage over the last twenty years, we're no longer approaching our firearms as a "dirty little, but necessary secret," but as a part of our national heritage. Despite the fact that firearm use and carry is increasing, accidental deaths are dropping, and the reason is because we're incorporating the responsible, one-on-one training our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers received when they were brought up to handle firearms appropriately.

...but having Joe Schmedlap out there with a loaded weapon thinking he's going to deter crime and he's not even trained to fire his weapon safely just kinda makes my hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Mine, too, KansasMustang. Were it 1830, I wouldn't worry about it, as every nine year old knew how to load, unload, clear, clean, and fire a flintlock with his eyes closed and both hands tied behind his back. Yes, an exaggeration but not by all that much. My son's an utter whiz at PlayStation. I don't think my brain is even capable of forming those neural connections any more, although I can still aikido his feet out from underneath without thinking about it.

Joe Schmedlap needs some training. Most of you, however, probably do not. But how to tell the difference? Aye, there's the rub...
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Consider that an encounter of the least desirable kind happens in 3 sec or less at a distance of 7ft or closer. Now put your wife or daughter in those circumstances and let me know how much training you think she needs before she should be allowed to carry a self-defense tool.

Basic safety and the fundamentals can be taught in a few short sessions and should be. Granted that the more training and practice one obtains the greater the degree of proficiency, but no level of expertise should be required to protect the sanctity of life.

I have taken complete neophytes to the range, briefed them and watched virtually all respond in a manner that we might well hope for in our loved ones. What scares me more is that they should not be equipped to defend themselves.

Rather than address what might happen (that is the mantra of those opposed,) let's look at was does happen when those that have a need have the tool available. The results are immeasurably better.

When people are allowed to choose to be responsible with a minimum gauge, what do we have? Why just good citizens going about their normal, every day lives. That IS the reality of it.

BTW - that is precisely the circumstance/situation we enjoy in Virginia and a number of other states and with a darned good record too.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Consider that an encounter of the least desirable kind happens in 3 sec or less at a distance of 7ft or closer. Now put your wife or daughter in those circumstances and let me know how much training you think she needs before she should be allowed to carry a self-defense tool.

As much as I could give her, and as much as she could stand, Grapeshot. Evidently, our time at the range was enough, as in just one lesson she proved to be a good shot, and said she felt comfortable with keeping a loaded firearm in the house, particular when I was away on TDY, and especially since she knew how to load it, safe it, clear it, and most imporantly, keep in a condition where all she had to do was pick it up and fire it, if need be.

Basic safety and the fundamentals can be taught in a few short sessions and should be. Granted that the more training and practice one obtains the greater the degree of proficiency, but no level of expertise should be required to protect the sanctity of life.

My first instruction to her: "Honey, if someone is in our home and you know it's not me, I want you to point this at him or her and pull the trigger. Otherwise, leave it alone."

And for the rest of our marriage I made DANG sure I called home after being on any extended trip!

Amazingly, despite our differences (often heated), neither of us pulled a Hollywood. We loved one another, and in a distant manner these days, still do. Judging by the 67% divorce rate, the 50% gun ownership rate, and the less than 1% murder rate, I'd say this is pretty much standard, and definitely not "Hollywood."

I have taken complete neophytes to the range, briefed them and watched virtually all respond in a manner that we might well hope for in our loved ones. What scares me more is that they should not be equipped to defend themselves.

A sad day. There's a reason the firearm, when introduced, was called "the equalizer." I question anyone who claims otherwise, along with their motives.

Rather than address what might happen (that is the mantra of those opposed), let's look at what does happen when those that have a need have the tool available. The results are immeasurably better.

When people are allowed to choose to be responsible with a minimum gauge, what do we have? Why just good citizens going about their normal, every day lives. That IS the reality of it.

BTW - that is precisely the circumstance/situation we enjoy in Virginia and a number of other states and with a darned good record too.

That's not only the reality of it now, but it was the required reality of things not so long ago:

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statutes comparable to those
of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless the were "well armed"; in
1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and "to bring their peeces to church." 26
In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws
provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for
him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. 27 In
Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured
servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.
28​
Citations can be found at the document's site.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Incorrect. Response 2 and 3 are not mandatory in the least. The only responses that are mandatory are the ones marked "mandatory. :banghead:



Aha! You're brighter than you first let on...




Except for the "ok" (but not mandatory) classes.

Yes, I should have worded it using something like "voluntary" or "non-compulsory."

My bad.

You could have worded your post in a way that did NOT include a snarky personal attack, so I assume this is another poorly worded one. Or you meant it.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I think any responsible person wants to learn how to use the firearm to protect himself, but I don't think these classes should be required.
 
Top