would you rather

[jethrodull]

So, lots of threads on here that espouse making sure you have proper training for carrying. Concealed or open, would you rather others carry even without a high level of training, or would you rather they don't carry?
J

 

[eagleeyes]

i think training is good i just wish it wasn't so darned expensive ........i have little training but enough sense to get by ......i took a krav maga course it was fun and want to do more when i have the time and money to do so it's fun and gives me alot to practice and think about
as far as others training it would be good to do but if they can't they should at least learn the laws and good safety and at least have common sense and think on their feet to carry imo as it's not childs play it's a responsibility not to be taken lightly imo

 

[GlockOclock]

Great question.

The obvious answer is "of course there should be formal training. No one should be allowed near a firearm without lots of formal training".

This is wrong. If you take out the word 'formal' then it's closer.

How did people get 'trained' before there were laws requiring formal training? How did people get 'trained' on other, more dangerous tools?
Someone passed the knowledge down to them. The training was part of their upbringing like every other learned skill. I'm sure some of the training was 'bad' or less safe than others, just like parenting skills are not equal. This is where a better means of communication is helpful. On the internets we have access to loads of information, some of it down right dangerous, but all the same, easy access to information. This is helpful to 'training'.

People should be 'trained' to handle tools that can kill, but I don't propose a government mandated 8 hour class to buy a chop saw, or a nail gun. The training to use such tools is not hard and consists of a few simple rules, it can be learned by almost anyone.

The free market is filling a void for people that don't have access to informal training in the form of 'schools' that, for a price, will teach people various skillsets with firearms. If the government wanted to do something, they could have low-cost or free training centers for basic skills with firearms, yes, even for kids. Crap, what am I saying, this would never happen, or if it did, it would end up in bureaucratic red tape and lawsuits. ;->

"Shall not be infringed". Even if it means there are accidents and deaths.

 

[Treo]

I cannot add one word to this and I might even steal it at some point.
Go GlockOclock

Great question.

The obvious answer is "of course there should be formal training. No one should be allowed near a firearm without lots of formal training".

This is wrong. If you take out the word 'formal' then it's closer.

How did people get 'trained' before there were laws requiring formal training? How did people get 'trained' on other, more dangerous tools?
Someone passed the knowledge down to them. The training was part of their upbringing like every other learned skill. I'm sure some of the training was 'bad' or less safe than others, just like parenting skills are not equal. This is where a better means of communication is helpful. On the internets we have access to loads of information, some of it down right dangerous, but all the same, easy access to information. This is helpful to 'training'.

People should be 'trained' to handle tools that can kill, but I don't propose a government mandated 8 hour class to buy a chop saw, or a nail gun. The training to use such tools is not hard and consists of a few simple rules, it can be learned by almost anyone.

The free market is filling a void for people that don't have access to informal training in the form of 'schools' that, for a price, will teach people various skillsets with firearms. If the government wanted to do something, they could have low-cost or free training centers for basic skills with firearms, yes, even for kids. Crap, what am I saying, this would never happen, or if it did, it would end up in bureaucratic red tape and lawsuits. ;->

"Shall not be infringed". Even if it means there are accidents and deaths.

 

[wmodavis]

I believe training is good!
That being said, look at the statistics of missed hits, negligent discharges, hitting innocent etc comparing civilian and LEO. I think you will see that there are some blind places. And to accept as fact that the average carrier without 'formal training' is an accident just waiting to slaughter the masses is a bit naive. How many car drivers have formal training? That may be a better place to start to reduce unnecessary carnage.
I am definitly considering some formal training but as eagle said it is a bit expensive. Until then I'll informally train. Work on awareness, presentation, accuracy, scenarios, my mindset, safety etc. I know I'm NOT formally trained so I am working hard on the not so formal type. I take carrying seriously and I assume others do as well. Likely everyone does not but I am responsible for me, not everyone. Making everyone toe the line by taking manditory formal training would not likely eliminate all/any perceived hazards.
I'd rather a lot more carried than do now whether or not formally trained. And I will keep being vigilant.

 

[Deafninja]

Training is essential and IMO an absolute requirement if you're going to carry. I try and acquire instructor training at least once a year and wished I could do so once a month however it's a business and very expensive (cost of class, travel expenses and ammo expenses). I really wish to see many top facilities lower prices for people like me that just cannot afford to train consistently but I also understand it is a business with costs associated with it.

 

[Boston Boy]

My state requires training, albeit without a shooting qualification. I am a state instructor, and spend as much time on the range with folks as is possible, with at least five different firearms. I also suggest that they come to my club as a guest whenever possible--since I'm retired and offer training for free, that is no problem for me. We all know people who get their permit/license and never punch paper after that, which is a big mistake. It seems that most of the posters here know their stuff, both legal and practical. You can't get others to take as much concern about their duties as we do. It's hard getting my neighbor (who's been licensed for about two years) to get out to a range, and as far as I know has never shot more than a box of ammo. But I'd rather see more people carry, whether they shoot weekly, yearly or never; just as long as they assert their 2A rights.

 

[Firefighterchen]

So, lots of threads on here that espouse making sure you have proper training for carrying. Concealed or open, would you rather others carry even without a high level of training, or would you rather they don't carry?
J

I would rather they carry without training than not carry at all.

Training should never be a requirement, just recommended.

Anyone who feels training and permits should be a requirement is a gun control advocate, just like the Brady campaign, with a slightly different agenda.

 

[GlockOclock]

Thank you Treo, feel free.

I cannot add one word to this and I might even steal it at some point.
Go GlockOclock