Are mandatory training classes for OC overkill?

[Hawkflyer]

Mandatory is a bad idea, but training is almost always a good thing.

While I would be one of the first to fight any mandatory training requirement, I am also the first the recognize that many people could benefit from having training. A lot of us grew up around firearms and received training from our family as a normal part of our upbringing. These days it is very different. A lot of people are never exposed to firearms until they are adults and they never develop the instincts for proper handling.

That is not to say that people can't be taught bad habits from an early age, but this would be yet another argument in favor of having training available for those who need or want it.

Regards

 

[Marco]

I wouldn't jest about a matter so grave as an untrained gun owner in harm's way using a firearm in defense of himself. Self defense is a basic human right. However, rights come with responsibilities and repercussions.

Civil liability should be attached if someone with no knowledge of firearms and tactics opens fire and ends up hitting a bystander. Your right to self defense ends at another person's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The totality of the circumstance should be weighed; we are in agreement here.

Training is an invaluable tool when it comes to firearms. Knowing some basic tactical training such as situational awareness, shooting in a stressful situation, knowing what lies behind the target, etc comes through training and experience.

Taking someone's life is the ultimate seizure under the 4th amendment. I have denied no one's right to self defense (castle doctrine, stand your ground, or make my day laws included). I am championing the innocent's bystander's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

www.policeone.com/officer-shootings...in-the-details-of-officer-involved-shootings/

It has long been believed that officers overall have a dismal 15-25 percent hit probability in street encounters, suggesting truly poor performance under the stress of a real shooting situation. Actually, this figure, while essentially true in the aggregate, is markedly skewed by certain shooting variables

 

[Grapeshot]

www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/117909-Study-reveals-important-truths-hidden-in-the-details-of-officer-involved-shootings/

It has long been believed that officers overall have a dismal 15-25 percent hit probability in street encounters, suggesting truly poor performance under the stress of a real shooting situation. Actually, this figure, while essentially true in the aggregate, is markedly skewed by certain shooting variables

Force Science does produce some excellent studies and training tools.
www.forcescience.org

 

[jrob33]

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.

eye In THEORY I agree with you, But I cant help but wonder if I would feel that way if it were say....... my 9 year old daughter that took a stray round from someone who never bothered to seek out training in the use of that firearm even IF that person were defending themselves?? Somehow I doubt it.

Interestingly, I also wonder who I would judge to be the greater threat to me and mine at that exact moment? the original actor, or the person who just put a bullet into my kid?

 

[jrob33]

so as a whole we can embrace the "MILITIA" part but not the "WELL REGULATED" part?

 

[Grapeshot]

so as a whole we can embrace the "MILITIA" part but not the "WELL REGULATED" part?

Research what the word "regulated" meant in that context - it will be very enlightening.

 

[jrob33]

by context I assume you mean the time frame in history we are discussing?, shall we also research the term "Arms" in that context? or are we again picking and choosing?

Keep in mind I am actually hoping that my state becomes a "constitutional" OC state, but I have noticed how many people quote only certain sections, according to their agendas.

Many of them are the same people that will scream that the constitution is NOT a progressive document, then are the first ones to use terms like "context"

 

[eye95]

by context I assume you mean the time frame in history we are discussing?, shall we also research the term "Arms" in that context? or are we again picking and choosing?

Keep in mind I am actually hoping that my state becomes a "constitutional" OC state, but I have noticed how many people quote only certain sections, according to their agendas.

Many of them are the same people that will scream that the constitution is NOT a progressive document, then are the first ones to use terms like "context"

Yes, we should use the historical context of "arms" as the Framers meant when they wrote the 2A. They meant the typical weapon that an individual would use for civilian purposes (such as, but not limited to, hunting and self-defense), but could also be used, in a pinch, as a personal military weapon. In today's world, such weapons would include, among others, rifles, shotguns, handguns, and knives.

We should also use the historical context of "regulated" as the Framers meant when they wrote the 2A. As Grapeshot suggested, looking up what they meant will be eye-opening.

 

[jrob33]

lol, well played sir, I would submit you are sidestepping my point.

As society and technology change "context" tends to get a little blurry. I realize I will gain no friends here by pointing out (what I see as) the inconsistencies in the statements and opinions of some.

It aslo says "necessary for a free state" now considering that the framers were mostly concerned with overthrowing British rule, do you think they meant to defend from GOVERNMENT Forces or to defend yourself from a crack head robbing the seven eleven? the whole context of the right to bear arms And the constitution in general was based on fighting (and overthrowing) BRITISH RULE do we really have to carry guns to Starbucks for that purpose now days? I highly doubt it, but we still advocate that is is a born right, so we will take the parts we agree with at face value, but the parts that don't serve our purpose will be judged in context?


I support Open Carry, I have some concerns, and the basis of this very thread is a major concern.

Alas there is no perfect system, the regulations concerning CCW didn't seem to work either, (I know many morons with a permit)

 

[Grapeshot]

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

 

[wrightme]

lol, well played sir, I would submit you are sidestepping my point.

As society and technology change "context" tends to get a little blurry. I realize I will gain no friends here by pointing out (what I see as) the inconsistencies in the statements and opinions of some.

No, actually, he did not "sidestep" your point. He responded accurately, no matter that it was not the response you were attempting to create.

 

[jrob33]

while editing my post, I missed most of these replies, please see edited post above

 

[eye95]

lol, well played sir, I would submit you are sidestepping my point.

As society and technology change "context" tends to get a little blurry. I realize I will gain no friends here by pointing out (what I see as) the inconsistencies in the statements and opinions of some.

It aslo says "necessary for a free state" now considering that the framers were mostly concerned with overthrowing British rule, do you think they meant to defend from GOVERNMENT Forces or to defend yourself from a crack head robbing the seven eleven? the whole context of the right to bear arms And the constitution in general was based on fighting (and overthrowing) BRITISH RULE do we really have to carry guns to Starbucks for that purpose now days? I highly doubt it, but we still advocate that is is a born right, so we will take the parts we agree with at face value, but the parts that don't serve our purpose will be judged in context?


I support Open Carry, I have some concerns, and the basis of this very thread is a major concern.

Alas there is no perfect system, the regulations concerning CCW didn't seem to work either, (I know many morons with a permit)

Not at all. As technology advances, the principles are applied to the reality of the technology. The free press now reasonably includes TV. The underlying principles did not change.

The words actually are "necessary to the security of a free State." The State is not the government of that Nation (State referring to the then 13 States, which were, in fact, sovereign nations). The security of the State meant the security of its people and its sovereignty, not its government, which the Founders believed could and should be overthrown if it became tyrannical.

I really think that our disagreement lies solely in what we say that the 2A says. As long as our axioms in this regard are so diametrically opposed, further discussion will be fruitless. In order to maximize the chance the readers of this thread will look to the Framers' intent for the words in the 2A and to minimize the chance that they will be bored to tears, consequentially dismissing my points, I shall bow out.

Feel free to take the last word. I'll just move on.

 

[jrob33]

I think you are 100% correct, and we can agree to disagree with mutual respect,

 

[since9]

Most folks, just about everybody actually, voluntarily, trains to operate a 3-5 thousand pound "weapon". I contend that the training requirements are far more lax to drive a car than the training requirements we "voluntarily" have placed on CCWers. As far as OC is concerned, any training to OC would be similar to CCW if I get the OP premise. This would make being able to drive far easier than it would be to OC, let alone CCW.

Could be wrong on the premise though.

Yep, you're incorrect on the premise. I do not support any mandatory training for either OC or CC. When I was nine, my father and uncle trained me to higher standards than any $100 training course, and I did the same for my son when he was nine. I've known more accomplished shooters whose only training was a paragraph or two in their firearm's user manual. They taught themselves the rest.

I agree with you on the motor vehicle approach. Operating a motor vehicle requires considerably greater use of one's brain, and several more areas of the brain, than does firing a gun, hence the roughly 10-hour practice driving requirement while under supervision of a certified instructor. Furthermore, accidental deaths due to motor vehicles are 28 times greater than accidental deaths due to firearms. That's one indication of how much more complex driving a motor vehicle is than using a firearm.

I do support, however, training in both firearms safety, firearms use, and legal issues, for anyone who desires to take them.

 

[TicoD]

Newbie to this site

Training should be taught in schools at an early age the USA is so far behind in this it's disturbing. For 20 years or more in Russia, China and Korea that I know have been training it's population on the proper use of firearms theirs and "ours"

My father was a U.S. Marine, I was taught by the best. I have seen untrained persons firing weapons at paper and couldn't hit the target with a 12 gauge, these are protectors.

American citizens have the right to own and carry weapons, a lot of them have no idea.
Have you ever tried to explain to someone the reason they are not hitting the target, The weapon is easier to sight if it was held in a vertical position not horizontal.

 

[Aknazer]

Thank you for bringing this most salient of questions to the top of the consciousness here on Open Carry Dot Org.

No, mandatory training classes are NOT overkill, and neither is a mandatory permitting for carry unreasonable as various courts have held on many occasions. Consider the balance between responsible and irresponsible comments and rhetoric here as being similar to the responsibility of armed civilians.

I know that there are many that believe as I do, many here in Wisconsin and many in national gun control organizations. Thank you for raising the issue.

Well I think people should take a mandatory class that teaches them not only how to deliver a speech, but that also covers how to properly deliver a speech in such a way as to not incite any hostile feelings/actions. After all words can drive people to do dangerous and even deadly actions!


As for the actual post. I think that offering both a classroom and range class would be great. But these things should NOT be mandatory. I shouldn't need to take a class to show that I know how to handle a gun, and the basics should be obvious to most people (though thanks to all the warning labels now there's several people contributing to the gene pool who shouldn't be). And by basics I mean things like muzzle awareness, don't point at things you don't plan on shooting, treating all guns as if they're loaded, and other common sense things that would go with handling any deadly weapon.

Now these classes would be useful to some first-time gun owners. But my RIGHT shouldn't hinge on showing this knowledge, and it shouldn't be assumed that OCers don't already know this info and that people are unable to think of these basics on their own.

Have you ever tried to explain to someone the reason they are not hitting the target, The weapon is easier to sight if it was held in a vertical position not horizontal.

It also helps for them to actually aim

 

[Grapeshot]

Training should be taught in schools at an early age the USA is so far behind in this it's disturbing. For 20 years or more in Russia, China and Korea that I know have been training it's population on the proper use of firearms theirs and "ours"

I doubt the average Chinese non-military has ever been availed the opportunity to touch a gun, much less be schooled in the handling and function of same.

Within the military there is a lot of weapons cross training in some units.

 

[Samopal]

I don't think a course or live-fire training should be mandatory but there's nothing wrong with offering it as an option. Some people may want formal training before they start carrying, that's perfectly understandable.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

I don't think a course or live-fire training should be mandatory but there's nothing wrong with offering it as an option. Some people may want formal training before they start carrying, that's perfectly understandable.

Actually, training is good. Mine started with Daisy in the early 60's. Later the Boy Scouts and then Grandpa took over. In the 70's it was a week on the range during the academy and later CC classes in two states.

Am I comfortable, yes. Careless, NO!!! I had a couple of reminders while learning that stay with me to this day. Both times following basic safety, other than my mistake, led to no one even coming close to being hurt.