Are mandatory training classes for OC overkill?

[FTG-05]

A very good read on the value of requiring training vs. safety. Not mine, but the emphasis is mine:



"Are you, personally and individually, safer and better able to protect yourself if you've had some decent training? Absolutely. The better trained you are, the better able you are to protect yourself and thus the safer you'll be. If you want to carry a pistol and don't get training, you're a fool.

But are you a threat to people around you without that training? Statistically speaking, the almost certain answer is, "No."

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have two states very similar demographically -- Washington and Oregon. Right next door to each other on the edge of the continent, the states feature similar crime rates, similar population sizes, similar geographies, and similar political climates.

Washington is one of the few states which had shall-issue laws long before the wave of concealed carry reforms swept the country in the late 1980s. Washington's shall-issue law passed in 1961, and the state has never had a training requirement. In Washington, to get a concealed pistol license, you go to the local cop shop, let them take your fingerprints, and give them some money. A few weeks later you get your license in the mail. No class, no test, no demonstration of proficiency or safety.

Oregon's law is more recent, going back to 1989. Because it's a modern law instead of an old one, Oregon's statute does require that applicants take a class before they may receive a permit to carry. The statute does not specify the length or content of the class, but does require that the instructor be certified by the NRA or a law enforcement agency and that the class must include firearms safety as a component.

With no training requirement at all in Washington, one would expect that all the untrained concealed carry people surely must cause problems here: more unintentional shootings, more accidents with firearms, more misbehavior. Something, right?

Not so. There's no statistical difference at all between Oregon's accidental shooting rate and Washington's. None. There's no blood running in the street here.

There is one measurable difference between the two states, however: measured as a percentage of the adult population who have carry permits, Washington has roughly twice as many permit holders as Oregon does.

In other words, the only measurable result of Oregon's training requirement seems to be a chilling effect on the number of people exercising their right to carry a concealed handgun.

pax"


Original TFL thread: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=443538

 

[Grapeshot]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have two states very similar demographically -- Washington and Oregon. Right next door to each other on the edge of the continent, the states feature similar crime rates, similar population sizes, similar geographies, and similar political climates.

With no training requirement at all in Washington, one would expect that all the untrained concealed carry people surely must cause problems here: more unintentional shootings, more accidents with firearms, more misbehavior. Something, right?

Not so. There's no statistical difference at all between Oregon's accidental shooting rate and Washington's. None.

In other words, the only measurable result of Oregon's training requirement seems to be a chilling effect on the number of people exercising their right to carry a concealed handgun.

Would love to see some statistical data, correlating all of this - that would be worth having and saving.

 

[FTG-05]

Would love to see some statistical data, correlating all of this - that would be worth having and saving.

I've asked the author, who is the editor of the Concealed Carry magazine, I'll let you know what she provides, if anything.

Thanks,

 

[Grapeshot]

I've asked the author, who is the editor of the Concealed Carry magazine, I'll let you know what she provides, if anything.

Thanks,

There is a difference in how a question is asked, isn't there?

 

[FTG-05]

There is a difference in how a question is asked, isn't there?

???:question:

 

[Grapeshot]

???:question:

Instead of demanding a cite as some do, a kinder, gentler request for more information with "Would love to see some statistical data, correlating all of this - that would be worth having and saving."

No big thing was intended.

 

[FTG-05]

Still have no clue what you're talking about, but whatever.

 

[since9]

In other words, the only measurable result of Oregon's training requirement seems to be a chilling effect on the number of people exercising their right to carry a concealed handgun.

Having lived in Washington state in the first few years of the 1990s, and visited Oregon many times while CCing, I looked into both the laws and stats, and I concur wholeheartedly with your assessment, but with one exception:

Most of Oregan tends to attract liberals, while only Seattle tends to attract liberals. My brother lives in Portland, and is no stranger to firearms, yet whenever he visits he's adament about his son never seeing me carrying my firearm!

I told him, "Welcome to Colorado. This is what we do, here. Live with it."

Put simply, he's been in Portland long enough to have been brainwashed by the locals.

 

[marshaul]

If training makes people as responsible as Lee Paige, I want none of it.

 

[FTG-05]

since, just so you know, it's not my assessment but an author of a post I C&Pd from The Firing Line. The original author's name is pax over there. She has her real name in her signature, but I'm not going to post it here.

While I agree with her assessment, my 10 years living in the Seattle area was over 21 years ago. My sense then was that the Seattle area was pretty equivalent to the big cities in Oregon (Portland, Eugene etc.) in their liberalness, while the rural areas of both states were pretty conservative.

I do know that back then that everyone was pretty polite in the rural/back roads of both states since pretty much everyone was armed.

One thing probably hasn't changed in the last 21 years and that is: the eastern sides of both states have some of the prettiest country you'll ever see.

 

[eddallen1958]

Requiring classes would be against our constitutional rights. However, anyone that does want a class on using their handgun should have that option available to them. Why deny anyone of any kind of education. Not everyone knows the laws of using a handgun and the consequences could be devastating. Also, not everyone knows how to shoot one and wants to learn how. Education is not a bad thing but should not be mandatory.

 

[Michigander]

I think the answer on mandatory training and its validity can be found pretty easily simply by referencing the past. For decades now the NRA's silly trashy and almost completely worthless certification programs have been required to get a license/permit to carry in most states. In my experience, following their guidelines in a classroom setting means that students may pick up legal knowledge, but will leave the range just as grossly incompetent as when they got there. The NRA's delusional nonsense personal protection courses are shining examples of what happens when you require training. Money is wasted, and students are no better off for self defense shooting skills. I haven't spent as much range time with OCers, but I know well from experience that concealed carriers who I'd trust under pressure to shoot their way out of a wet paper bag are rare.

Given this, and the way that the NRA is the only key player in training programs due to the liability of taking it on nation wide and jumping in bed with as many politicians as possible, I think we can be confident that required training is a horrible mistake. Only the individual, or maybe someone who gets good training assigned by their employer will find their way to learning to shoot well in combat conditions, and given the NRA, I don't believe that is something that can be changed with legislation.

 

[bajadudes]

I am not opposed to mandatory training and a test as a condition to carry in public. I see it like a drivers lic.

My only objection comes from unreasonable permit fees. In NC $5 for a purchase permit is reasonable, no test but imho there should be one. $85 for the ccp is not. Especially since it needs to ne renewed every 5 years. And you already just dropped $100 smackers on a 12 hr class and qualifying.

Again just my personal 2 cents.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

[marshaul]

I think the answer on mandatory training and its validity can be found pretty easily simply by referencing the past. For decades now the NRA's silly trashy and almost completely worthless certification programs have been required to get a license/permit to carry in most states. In my experience, following their guidelines in a classroom setting means that students may pick up legal knowledge, but will leave the range just as grossly incompetent as when they got there. The NRA's delusional nonsense personal protection courses are shining examples of what happens when you require training. Money is wasted, and students are no better off for self defense shooting skills. I haven't spent as much range time with OCers, but I know well from experience that concealed carriers who I'd trust under pressure to shoot their way out of a wet paper bag are rare.

Given this, and the way that the NRA is the only key player in training programs due to the liability of taking it on nation wide and jumping in bed with as many politicians as possible, I think we can be confident that required training is a horrible mistake. Only the individual, or maybe someone who gets good training assigned by their employer will find their way to learning to shoot well in combat conditions, and given the NRA, I don't believe that is something that can be changed with legislation.

Yup. People love to imagine that government is capable (or willing) to institute "training" that accomplishes all the things they assign to it.

But it simply isn't so. Take drivers' licensure: people love to credit mandatory training with anything positive on the roads, but the reality is one can obtain a license with virtually no real-world skill (I see it all the time driving in the Sunset of San Francisco). The fact that Americans are (usually) tolerable drivers has everything to do with individual volition, and virtually nothing to do with mandatory "training".

 

[Michigander]

Yup. People love to imagine that government is capable (or willing) to institute "training" that accomplishes all the things they assign to it..

Willingness is an interesting issue I'd never thought of.

As far back as WWII the US government was already way better at teaching soldiers to shoot handguns than the NRA is at teaching civilians 70ish years later, and meanwhile that same government mandates that the NRA teaches this garbage. While that should speak volumes about the government not wanting people to be combatively effective, I think it's more a statement on Jeff Cooper's Modern Technique of whoring out the use of handguns to make as much money as possible.

First Jeff figured out that the harder a system he could make the more accurate it would be, but only with lots of practice and "training". So he founded his school, wrote all about his nonsense in books and magazines, and convinced multiple generations that he was right using his excellent writing and speaking skills. And whether to make money or not, the NRA has gone along with his ideas for their personal protection courses, and it has made them a ton of money. It's also made states a ton of money in permit fees, all at the expense of people's freedom and hard earned money. And throughout the whole process, the NRA can claim these actions as accomplishments, and use it to get even more people to donate/join.

Willingness to have the masses shoot well I don't think is even a concern to anyone. Nor do I think anyone on the outside of the gun world has the capacity to understand the issues of shooting well enough to even know that the government could do a better job with shooting class requirements. At the end of the day, I think it's all about money.

 

[ApacheBunny]

To be honest I don't think classes should be mandatory. From what I have seen what they teach in shooting classes is sometimes inconsistent with other classes that are taught around this state, always some chic shooting school D-bag trying to teach his "system" for tactical readiness not to mention those 2nd Amendment dvd's they send for free making you cock your head like an owl after shooting. so it would be very shifty from area to area.

Sort of glad I live out in the sticks here in Washington because I can just walk out on my front porch and practice whatever the new handgun school craze is and see if its BS or some copied varied form of something already taught that's still slightly the same but a whole "new" system. But none the less classes should be offered with free will and not mandatory, and yes I believe you should pay for them.

 

[since9]

OP's fourth-month observation

When I began this poll, I had no idea it would generate anywhere near this response! Then again, other polls I've put out here garned less than a dozen responses, so that just shows I'm not very good at generating consistantly-interesting polls!

Some surprises, and not so surprising observations:

1. I am not surprised that the percentage of folks advocating mandatory training is low (about 9.1% of those opposing). That's based not only on my understanding of this crowd on this forum, but on a far more broad range with respect to folks who tend more than the average U.S. Citizen to "get it" when it comes to history and their Constitutional rights.

2. Nor am I surprised by "don't know/care" response, except that it's as low as it is. I'll chalk that up to the fact that forums like this tend to call folks on the carpet, and if you're unable to qualify your opinion further, you're usually "outahere."

3. Far more surprising is the statistic which states, "An OC training course is utterly ridiculous, useless, and repulsive," particularly when two of the five options concern themselves with offering and OC course.

For those who are new to OC, if not new to carry altogether, and might not have a clue as to who, what, where, why, how, or when with respect to the law, likely situations they may encounter, how to avoid those situations if at all possible, how to leave those situations if at all possible, and how to best deal with those situations when one can neither avoid them, nor leave them, I think an optional course is not only desirable, but it's probably highly advisable!

I've given such courses. No, I'm not a certified firearms instructor. What I am is a well-trained individual with a level head, combat experience, a military background, several training certifications and a lot of hands-on training experience which renders me a pretty darn good personal one-on-one firearms trainer.

None of the folks I've trained ever received any credit, but they didn't need it, either. They simply wanted to become both a better shooter as well as a more responsible armed citizen. In that, I've succeeded mightily over more than 20 years, i.e. not jumping towards a firearm to solve life's problems, but more than ready, willing, and capable of using one should the time actually arise, and, most significantly, being able to identify that situation, avoid it at all possible, evade it as necessary, and react to it without hesitation should the need arise.

I've not "trained" many with respect to firearms. Perhaps twenty, and simply as one friend to another, "well, here's what I do" or "here's what I think about that." To date, I, and they, and mostly identified a bad situation and stayed out of it, avoiding it if at all possible, evaded it if it came their way, and to date, that's worked. None have ever had to "react to it without hesitation should the need arise" although I know at least half of those I've helped along the way would have done so without hesitation...

...IF that need had arisen. That their instincts were firing on all eight cylinders is apparent from the fact that those they'd encountered were (about half) picked up soon after on charges similar to what my friends have shared. And to be honest, of the friends I've "taught," only half have reported anything. (shrugs, but I'm ecstatic about any lack of bad things).

What I find very difficult to understand is why "An OC training course is utterly ridiculous, useless, and repulsive" is running neck and neck with split/combined options of "Ok to offer a classroom course" and "Ok to offer a range course."

I have to ask those who followed the "ridiculous, useless, and repulsive" route actually understand the term "offer?" as in "voluntary" aka "not mandatory?"

It is that you view "voluntary" as a wormhole to "mandatory?" Is that why you're so opposed to any sort of training whatsoever, unless it's the same sort of training I received from Dad and Uncle, and have given to my Son? What about the non-certified training I've given to friends, family, and acquaintences at various ranges? Are my efforts to help make others interested in self defence null and void simply because I sport not an NRA instructor's license or the equivalent?

Over the course of my military career, I received certifications on many U.S. weapons systems, ranging from the M-8 (.38 cal, 6-shot handgun, circa 1989) to flying a B-52 laden with 20 cruise missles each of which were laden with many times the destructive power of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Why? Don't ask me! Ask those who made the policy. I will tell you this: It was a different era then than it was today, and they had much the same pointing at us.

My point is that if I can be trusted with multiple instances of a several-hundred megaton nuclear weapon, perhaps I can be trusted with helping a friend adjust their grip and sighting on the local range.

To that end, I will continue to emphatically state those who support forced training with respect to firearms stem from either A) the nervously shaking control of those who're simply unfamiliar with firearms at all, and being unfamiliar, they're scared, and regardless of our 2nd Amendment, they would prefer not to know about "that stuff" at all, or B) those whose hooks into the U.S. Government and their plans to gain an ultimate upper hand are contingent upon disarming the general U.S. population at large.

Meanwhile, I will unequivocably oppose anyone who opposes voluntary training.

 

[since9]

Sort of glad I live out in the sticks here in Washington...

Hi, AB. My ex and I stopped for gas in your neck of the woods years ago while visiting my grandparents. He was both a pastor at Pulman, as well as an instructor at the local collage.

Cheers!

 

[Ruger63]

New here and I have a question.

This is my first post and I have a question. How many of you here started to OC without first reading about it first? Or even thought about OCing until you found a website like this one or a friend who OC and got you interested. My point is that OCing is not just a thing you start one day without doing homework first. Until you find out about a thing or activity you are not going to just jump in and do it. I am willing to bet that 99% of the OC'ers out there did not think it would be a good idea to strap a weapon on your hip and walk into a bank without thinking about it first. Thats all the "training" you would need in my mind. OCing is a way of life, it changes you, the sheep out there(myself included until I started reading the right books) think we are crazy and need to be fixed. They have thoughts like why would anyone need to the police will save me......:banghead:

Just a thought thanks for your in put.

 

[MamaLiberty]

Ruger63, I've been shooting and handling guns most of my life, but didn't start to carry until I moved out of California and into Wyoming.

A lot of the problems and controversy is due to location, customs and "laws," and the attitude of both neighbors and police. Here in Wyoming it is quite common to see someone open carry a firearm, so all I had to do was become comfortable with the belt and holster before I began to carry in public. And yes, that first OC trip into the bank was quite an interesting experience. I've never had a seriously negative encounter in 6 years.

I have taken quite a bit of NRA and professional instruction and am now an instructor myself for handguns and self defense. Most people I know who carry have taken at least some formal training, and most want more. My classes are filled.

It's a process, and no two people see it the same or start in the same place.