Why Americans Need Mandatory Firearms Training

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHhn-0V0S9A

Last week, Robert Farago posted the video of the Nashville convenience store shootout at the not-so-OK Corral [above]. The video images had a Three Stooges-esque quality to them as armed incompetents blasted everything but each other in the short film. Many chocolate bars and Twinkies were harmed during the filming of this action/comedy. As a resident Canadian/ sheeple, I have a different view of the film because I believe that mandatory firearms training is not a bad idea-in fact I think it’s a great idea for legal gun owners . . .

The store employee might have been able to defend his ground a little more efficiently if he actually knew how to use his weapon. The lowlifes on the other side of the equation would require no additional training because nobody really wants them to be competent with a weapon. Except other equally incompetent lowlifes that share a basement room on the Bell curve standards of personal achievement.

The fact that most criminals would probably avoid any responsible firearms training would work in favor of responsible gun owners. Well –trained gun owners would have a racer’s edge in a situation where bullets are flying with reckless abandon.

Robert pointed out that none of the participants in the feature film were shooting through the rows of flimsy barriers on the shelves. Most convenience store shelf products are not made out of Kevlar, so a well-trained gun owner would be able to shoot more effectively from a more efficient stance.

The store employee chose to use the water pistol approach in which the shelf products would have been a barrier to his targets. Thus he shot over the shelves and placed himself in harm’s way. Luckily Moe and Curly were just as incompetent with their weapons.

The idea of any government intrusion into the gun culture is highly radioactive to most gun owners in the United States. But the rules of competency are just as compelling to me as the idea that the guy in the car next to me knows enough about vehicle operation to pass a minimal test. Nobody gets upset about that training program.

 

28 Responses to Why Americans Need Mandatory Firearms Training

  1. avatarBLAMMO says:

    I’m all for mandatory training. As long as it’s not required.

  2. avatarmiforest says:

    the problem is there are no good faith compromises with the gunowner hater. look at ccw, sold long ago as a simple good faith check with the police, then turned into a “you can’t make me” barrier in many jurisdictions and even states.

    This necessitated an entire “shall issue” movement to get them to follow the intent of the CCW laws when they were passed . this has taken 20 years and enormous resources.
    States like new york, illinois,and california would use all sorts of nastiness to make it unworkable for us. Things like making instructors liable for peoples accidents, forcing instructors to carry very expensive liability insurance, refusing to recognize training, and on and on forever.

    It would become a huge barrier to firarms ownership, used by those in power who despise us .

    Who would be responsable for liscenses? compliance? probably ATF . oh joy.

    • avatarTim says:

      I live in CA – the Good Cause requirement is very subjective here in that, it is essentially up to the local Sheriff/PD (depending on agreements between the two). Sacramento has gone “virtual” shall issue with the new Sheriff elected last fall (and I am sure the McGuinness v. Sykes case helped push that along too). As for it being a CA issue, it would help if the Legislature changed the law to Shall Issue – but, if you live in a county where the Sheriff determines CCW, then you can overcome that – get behind him (or her), push the CCW stance issue and support them. As for training, mandatory for firearm owners, NO – for carriers, YES. But it needs to be reasonable cost/time. For states where permits are not required (AZ, AK, can’t recall the others), if you use your weapon, you should be required to have documented proof of your training or be in jeopardy with the law on a shooting incident.

  3. avatarAndrew Wiggins says:

    To use your analogy; I’m never sure that the guy in the next lane of the gun range has even heard of the most basic gun safety rules. It makes sense to require people to train with firearms before we let them out and play. This is required for the handling of every major piece of machinery or hazardous material. Except for (most) firearms and ammunition, thanks to the 2nd amendment.

    It would make a lot of sense if it wasn’t for the political minefield such a mandatory training would be prancing about.

  4. avatarKW says:

    For all we know the shop owner did have SOME training. It all goes to crap when your life is on the line. I know it’s a bit of a leap because it appears so many mistakes were made. The fact is it takes a TON of training reps UNDER PRESSURE to respond well in a SHTF situation. Requiring that amount of training is cost prohibitive at best.

    I’ve wanted RF to do a piece on this guy :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkWgp2abM2w

    It makes a good contrast to the other video and I think it validates my points along with the fact that even in the best of circumstances you are still at great risk.

    • avatarJeff O. says:

      Holy cow,

      The guy in that video…wow.

      If crooks had to put up with that more often, they’d probably get out of the business.

  5. avatarA Critic says:

    But the rules of competency are just as compelling to me as the idea that the guy in the car next to me knows enough about vehicle operation to pass a minimal test. Nobody gets upset about that training program.

    I get upset about that “training program”. After I completed the state mandated “driver’s education” program I was woefully unprepared to drive safely. It took me a few years of not driving much before I taught myself, and now I could any competent person in less than a day as it’s really quite simple, yet the many weeks of government training weren’t sufficient. I’ve known and read of many more people who shouldn’t be driving, yet they are able to pass the government education and testing requirements, including my severely incapacitated grandmother who was given a license at 91 years of age when she was long past the point of being able to drive safely. By that time she lacked not only the mental faculties such as quick reflexes and sound judgment that are necessary to safe driving, but she also was physically handicapped and couldn’t safely control the steering wheel.

    “Good enough for government work” isn’t good enough for me.

    The idea of any government intrusion into the gun culture is highly radioactive to most gun owners in the United States.

    Yep, and for good cause. It’s toxic.

  6. avatarA Critic says:

    Why Americans Need Mandatory Firearms Training

    Since this site is The Truth About Guns – why not mention the real reason for mandatory firearms training – it will prevent many Americans from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

    That may not be the author’s intention, but it surely will be the intention and function of any such government program.

    For every self defense incident in which an untrained person carelessly sprays bullets all around I read of dozens in which one or two shots are fired to successfully fend off the threat, and I know there are hundreds more where no shots are fired. The reckless use of a tool by a fool in one state is no reason to restrict the liberties of hundreds of millions of people everywhere else.

    • avatarMouldy Squid says:

      So, by this logic, you should not require testing or training or licensing for:
      Driving automobiles
      Flying airplanes
      Using any kind of heavy equipment
      etc.

      One reckless fool who drives without a license or training and spins his car all over downtown side-walks is no reason to restrict the liberties hundreds of millions of people everywhere else.

      It is well known that flight training and licensing exams prevent many Americans from exercising their right to fly.

      Firearms couldn’t possibly be more dangerous than a car or a plane and the idea of any kind of safety training is ludicrous.

  7. avatarRalph says:

    A few weeks ago we saw a viddy of a police station shootout in Detroit and, guess what? The cops shot just like the Nashville store owner. Check it for yourself if you don’t believe me. So I’m completely opposed to the government having anything to do with guns, because I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that such power will be abused.

  8. avatarstateisevil says:

    No.

  9. avatarhiro says:

    Mandatory training should never be implemented. Let people get their guns without training, as they will be held accountable for where each bullet lands anyways. Responsible gun owners will go and get training or at least practice at the range by themselves when the have time or the money to do so. But forcing individuals to seek training with rule of law is pushing the issue too much and makes the right fairly vulnerable to restrictions and additional regulation. Do not want

    • avatarstateisevil says:

      Yea.

      • avatarMouldy Squid says:

        I am sure that will be a great comfort to the sons and daughters and wives and husbands of the innocent bystanders who are killed or maimed by an untrained gun owner.

        The problem is that not all gun owners are responsible. This site shows that almost daily.

        Personally I think that fire-arms training should be mandatory in grade school, and I live in Canada.

        • avatarhiro says:

          Putting a gun safety class in schools if fine by me as long as it doesn’t get in the way of curriculum. But that is a far cry from mandatory training. The OP isn’t talking about children’s safety training, but rather self defensive type courses geared for adults over 18. Something that Adults will have to make time for and will probably require registration and be controlled by the state. That’s dangerous territory.

          Now for innocents that get shot. I don’t think there solid numbers on how many lives were lost because of untrained civilians. But even if there was a significant body count; it’s a price we pay for freedom. (I’m willing to bet my knickers that there isn’t) So why restrict a right if it has largely proven to be a non issue. Once again, the individual will pay for his misdeeds; no need to add the extra burden onto the responsible because of the irresponsible

        • avatarReady Ren says:

          @squid – It is called FREEDOM! If we are the land of the free then it makes no sense to need to ask for permission. Make no mistake that any restriction on our basic rights starts the slide.

          The slippery slope was started a long time ago. When my father was young, people didn’t get drivers licenses, they didn’t have to have a license to own a horse, have a farm, carry a gun, or fly a plane. Gas cost a dime, bread 9 pennies, a house cost about 7k and a car less than a grand. A 1911 Colt .45 was around $45, today it’s around a grand.

          There is very little that changed from then to now except we gave up liberty and allowed the government to give our monetary control to the banks who were supposed to maintain the value of the dollar, but instead destroyed it. They took it from us in small bite size pieces. If they remove the 2nd Amendment they will wholesale eliminate most of our other rights.

          The real irony is using driving tests as a comparison. According to the CDC (page 35) in 2007 over 43,000 people DIED in vehicle accidents. The NHTSA claims nearly 3 MILLION injured every year. VS Guns killing slightly over 18,000 if you exclude suicide. There is nearly as many firearms in this country as automobiles. It is simply a farce to think that mandatory training will improve gun safety. Get on a road any day of the week and watch as multi ton weapons of mass destruction play demolition derby.

          I agree that in a perfect world it might make an impact, but in the real world it would make an impact because of evil men and women using it as a means of depriving you of your rights.

  10. avatarJeff Lynch says:

    Here in Texas we do have mandatory firearms training. Every parent that I know introduces their children to firearms safety and general shooting techniques generally before they become a teenager. It’s my understanding that it’s been done this way in Texas since the mid 1860′s. My wife’s a better shot than I am but she still let’s me teach the kids.

    We all enjoy shooting and it’s a great way to spend some time together before the kids go off to college where (at least until September) only the criminals have weapons. I’m fairly certain no tax dollars are needed for this “mandatory training” since most adults here feel it’s their duty to teach their kids safety, self protection and personal responsibility.

    So I guess what I’m saying is that I’m all for mandatory firearms training so long as it’s provided by the parents and costs the local taxpayers nothing. You know, the way we’ve been doing it for the past 125 years here in Texas! Y’all ought to try it sometime!

    • avatarMouldy Squid says:

      My mandatory training that I was required to take was not paid for by the government (Canada) or the tax payers. I came out of my pocket. I choose to purchase fire-arms, and the government said, correctly, that I should shoulder the cost of the training to be able to do so.

      The trainers were certified private contractors who met specific criteria (such as former military trainers, etc) who work for themselves (making the profit from my fees) who then certify me as knowing how to handle fire-arms safely. That certification is then sent to the Firearms Officer for my provence (who also oversees the regulation inspection of trainer practices), and then (once processed) allows me to obtain an acquisition license.

      Not a whole lot of hassle, really, and I have a safety training that some random guy off the street won’t have. And yet, many otherwise reasonable Americans will scream blue murder that they would have to show proficiency at a minimum safety course before they could purchase a deadly weapon.

      • avatarJeff O. says:

        I can buy an ax without a safety course – that’s a deadly weapon. I can buy a knife without a safety course – that’s a deadly weapon. Rope, sharp stick, baseball bat, sword, crossbow, bow & arrow, shoelace, rat poison, scissors, need I go on? Those items were killing people for a long time before guns came around. (Maybe not scissors or shoelaces…)

        The problem is that becomes an avenue for the right to be taken away. Suddenly the course becomes cost prohibative, weirdly scheduled, etc, etc. Then while you still have the right, you lose it through red tape.

      • I have nothing against Canada (other than the cold, snow, ice, etc.) and think y’all have the 2nd best rodeo in the world (right behind Texas of course). If you want to live in a country where you need mandatory firearms training be my guest. Most of us down here don’t. We’re not too fond of your health care system either but you folks do brew a nice cold beer.

        BTW – Just so you don’t think I’m just some Texas redneck (I am but that’s besides the point) I do know the entire Canadian national anthem. Please don’t ask me to sing it. I’d hate to start a war between Texas and Canada. We’ve got you out gunned by at least ten to one.

        Kidding. Really.

  11. avatarPT says:

    You don’t need a driver’s license to purchase a car if you don’t drive it on public roads. Why would I need a firearms license to own a firearm on my own land? And who is going to set the standards for training? Who is going to pay for it? After all, paying a tax to exercise a right is unconstitutional and wrong.

    I have no problem with it being required in school. If we teach kids “penis goes where!?” and how to drive a car, why the hell can’t we teach them gun safety?

    Training is great, licensing and putting conditions on rights is not.

  12. avatarGerald says:

    I’m all for mandatory training as long as it’s free.

  13. avatarUGA_DAWG says:

    Don’t know what the video at the beginning was supposed to imply, but I wanted to help clear up any possible confusion.

    The video is of Georgian (from the Republic of Georgia) Special Forces training. Georgia is one of key US allies in Eastern Europe/Central Asia and the Georgian army works closely with US and NATO forces. The army has made huge strides in recent years and has units fighting alongside US forces in Afghanistan.

    I was born and raised in the Republic of Georgia and am very proud to see our SF teams getting recognition on TTAG!! In fact my neighbor fought in Boquba and has a US-Georgian joint service medal to prove it!

    Keep up the great work!!

  14. avatarJohn Veit says:

    Mandatory training in what? Bad shooting techniques such as Sight Shooting or FSP that fails in CQ defense situations, or two handed shooting that is not used, or tactical reloads which with almost no expetions are never needed in CQB.

    First find out what works in CQB. Publish that, and go from there.

    As far as I know, there is no consumer agency to look out for the welfare of gun owners and shooters in terms of what is good and what is not, what works and what doesn’t. The Charter of the consumer protection agency specifically excludes firearms, and the ATF doesn’t do stuff like that either.

    Sounds like a job for TTAG.

  15. avatarJavier E says:

    Training isn’t cheap. Mandatory training is not going to be free. Bullets aren’t cheap either. But, training and practice in anything we do can only improve one’s ability as well as their chances of success. Paintball, martial arts, knife throwing,………… riding a bike all need to be practiced in order to be proficiant. How do you get to Carnegie Hall?

  16. Pingback: publichealthwatch | The Gun Reform Legislation That Every (Sane) Person Should Agree With

  17. Pingback: How can the NRA block this? The gun reform everyone should agree on | Local Shooting Ranges

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.