So IF Training Became Required, What Would You Want It To Be...?

[SteyrAUG]

Let's assume for sake of argument that a National CCW or OC option was created with the provision that training become mandatory after one is licensed and not as a condition of being licensed.

The training would have to be cost effective for your average individual and standardized as a result. You probably couldn't enforce any skill level requirements without running into a "rights" issue so it would be a matter of teaching rather than testing.

For practical reasons it probably can't be as comprehensive as a 3 day course or anything like that. Currently all that is required in my state is a class of approx. 90 minutes and the ability to fire a single round successfully.

So if it was up to YOU, what would be in the course and how long would it take for a person to complete it?

[J8127]

It would be about firearm safety and mostly the laws that apply to the people taking the class. People leaving the class should have no questions about where they can carry, where what can be in their car, what they are and are not allowed to do, know how to safely handle their weapon, and have a good idea of when it's ok to draw their weapon and use it.

Knowing how to use it is on the individual.

I'm not opposed to mandatory training, even though I feel bad about that. I want to be all libertarian about it but there are just way too many ****ING IDIOTS in the world to not require some kind of basic instruction. Blame my opinion of humanity.

[rickp]

I would love to see a weekend for this.

In that time an instructor can cover a decent amount of information and the student can get a reasonable amount of time behind the gun. He can really focus on the manipulations that will make him safe and allow him to protect his family. A weekend is not a lot to ask for to ensure the safety of the CCW holder and the people around them.

From there, hopefully he'll be professional enough to get more non mandated training and further develop his skills and level of safety.

I really wish we had this now. There's WAY to many idiots and ignorant experts out there now.

R.

[Frailer]

Given the stipulations in the original post, I think my home state (KY) has it about right: six or so hours covering relevant state laws in detail as well as a general overview of firearms safety.

[Jim D]

I would much rather see an established performance standard than a "training requirement".

Much easier to enforce a standard than try to get thousands of instructors to do the same thing.

Also, I don't agree with the state/federal mandating out of pocket expenses whenever it's avoidable.

Take driving for example. There is a test, but not any "school" that everyone has to pay to attend. Yes, you need a licensed driver to mentor you while you have your learning permit, but that allows people to fit it into their lives as they see fit. Their base proficiency is what is checked for.

As for what should be a "requirement" for legal carry if there WAS a training requirement:
Legal aspects - justification and such.
Gun safety - lots of time spent on gun handling and the 4 rules.
Accuracy - they need to have their ability to hit what they're aiming at (Safety for innocent people downrange)

If people don't want to learn reloads, off hand shooting, malfunction clearing, or how to shoot faster, etc. that doesn't threaten my safety...that's their problem.

I don't see the point in mandating something that makes them more likely to survive...that's on them. Safer for people who might find themselves around someone who pulls a gun in a situation?...that I can appreciate a little more.

[CoryCop25]

CLASSROOM
State law regarding use of force.
How to react when LE shows up.
Weapon retention.
Proper carry techniques (open or concealed).
General firearm safety.
WRITTEN TEST

RANGE
Fundamentals (Grip stance etc)
Drawing from concealment.
An abreveated qualification course.

With the right facility, this can be accomplished in an 8 hour day.

[YVK]

I don't see the point in mandating something that makes them more likely to survive...that's on them. Safer for people who might find themselves around someone who pulls a gun in a situation?...that I can appreciate a little more.

With that in mind, I would absolutely mandate malfunction clearance. Malfunctions are safety hazards because they throw new shooter off and make them confused. This is very hot for me: I stopped my yesterday's practice and left the range early after a woman next to me shot the floor 5 yards in front of her. She was shooting BHP that kept malfunctioning and at some point, after clearing a malfunction while keeping a finger on the trigger...Until that point, I didn't see her goof up.

[Jim D]

With that in mind, I would absolutely mandate malfunction clearance. Malfunctions are safety hazards because they throw new shooter off and make them confused. This is very hot for me: I stopped my yesterday's practice and left the range early after a woman next to me shot the floor 5 yards in front of her. She was shooting BHP that kept malfunctioning and at some point, after clearing a malfunction while keeping a finger on the trigger...Until that point, I didn't see her goof up.

This topic was related to CCW ability, not ownership or range use.

Sounds like the range that needs to pay more attention, or implement their own safety procedures.

Do you think safety training should be mandatory for ownership?

[eo500]

I used to be strongly opposed to mandated training and even licenses for concealed carry. I thought it was like having to apply for my freedom of speech. That was until I actually took the 8 hour class that Ohio mandates to get a concealed carry permit. The course was mainly a classroom lecture following the NRA basic pistol course with some range time.
About half of the 50 people in the class seemed like they had never seen a gun. After all of two minutes in the class I could see why they made such a big deal about banning ANY ammo in the classroom. It looked like a kindergarten class touring a squirt-gun factory. I found a seat in the very back row, and tried my best to avoid being swept by about 45 careless people's firearms. Sadly, the course fell short of adequately preparing most people imo. Having a "concealed carry" course that not only doesn't require a holster, but that doesn't even allow you to use a holster is absurd. However, I do think some people were at least a little safer after the class than before.
I would only trust about five of the people in the class enough to shoot with them. If anyone showed up at my range acting like most of the morons in that class I'd bolt quick.
That being said, I think the ratio of class to range time should have been flipped. Six hours of range time teaching safety, muzzle discipline, concealment, draws, accuracy, and target discrimination with two hours of classroom instruction on laws, interaction with law enforcement, safe storage etc. would much better prepare a person to safely and effectively handle and carry a firearm. At least it would be time better spent than a half hour discussion about the difference between lands and grooves.

[YVK]

Do you think safety training should be mandatory for ownership?

Mandatory - no, strongly encouraged by peer pressure - yes.

This topic was related to CCW ability, not ownership or range use.

I understand that. However, if "we" are only concerned with not being hit when "they" pull the trigger, then why did you suggest to spend a lot of time on gun handling and 4 rules? I'd take a guess is to teach them to be fundamentally safe, no?