Is compromising on training really that big of a deal?

[C0untZer0]

I read these stories of gun owners doing either dumb or ignorant things - like discharging their weapon in a Walmart restroom (or having it discharge), supposedly because they didn't have a good holster for it. Or a story about someone who shoots themselves waistband carrying, or someone who goes hunting for a burglar after a break-in... peopel letting loose with wild "warning shots" - just so many stories of stupid things.

 

Maybe training is not that bad of an idea.

 

I think a lot of people could benefit from going through the NRA basic pistol course.

 

If this comes up again as an issue maybe a compromise could be made, maybe NRA training could count as meeting many of the requirements.

 

Maybe that gets more people into the NRA courses...

 

I don't like the idea of rejecting an Illinos CCW bill because it requires more training than Indiana or Wisconsin requires.

[Jeffrey]

I'd like for you to have some training on usage of your free speech before you post again.

[Lou]

One advantage to having some element of training is that it would greatly expand the number of states that grant reciprocity for an IL license.

[TyGuy]

I'm OK with starting CCW in IL with training, but I would work to weaken the requirements over time, much like the rest of the country has done. While an idealist I understand that some compromise is needed to get anything done in politics, but in general NO, no I don't support requiring training. I also get that CCW is a huge step for IL, and CCW without any training might be too big of a step.

[mauserme]

I think too many people confuse what might be a good idea for some with what should be made law.

 

In a carry law we are trying to establish the minimum consession needed to regain our Constitutional right. No training should be required as a predicate to a right.

 

Training beyond what is conceeded might well be a good idea for cerain individuals, but not every good idea should become law.

[TyGuy]

I think too many people confuse what might be a good idea for some with what should be made law.

 

In a carry law we are trying to establish the minimum consession needed to regain our Constitutional right. No training should be required as a predicate to a right.

 

Training beyond what is conceeded might well be a good idea for cerain individuals, but not every good idea should become law.

Agreed. A good idea, but shouldn't be necessary. However, to win in the long run we have to take it one step at a time.

[Blackhawk067]

I'm OK with starting CCW in IL with training, but I would work to weaken the requirements over time, much like the rest of the country has done. While an idealist I understand that some compromise is needed to get anything done in politics, but in general NO, no I don't support requiring training. I also get that CCW is a huge step for IL, and CCW without any training might be too big of a step.

 

The Dangers of Untrained People with Guns

 

 

Love YankeeMarshal. That guy is not only intelligent, but he's hilarious. He does some great vids.

 

Anyway..

 

I am for training for a few reasons...the main one being that it would help reciprocity. I'm quite convinced, however, that, knowing Illinois, they won't accept any other state's CCW permit.

 

The 2nd reason is that, while most of us have undergone training and are quite familiar with firearms, there are too many that haven't and aren't. All we need is one or two morons to do something stupid in the first month or two after this bill passes (crosses fingers) and we'll have the Brady people and the Chicago dems screaming, "SEE, we told you so! This bill needs to be readdressed and yada yada".

 

When I took my class in Florida, half the people in there were completely unfamiliar with, not only firearms, but the laws as well. I just don't see training as a bad thing. It's simply a 4 hour education...and frankly, I think people should have to qualify on the range as well.

 

Now, if Illinois doesn't accept the previous training that most of us have, I'm going to be p*****.

[colt-45]

IMO. i'm going to do the training weather we get it in the bill or not. put that's just me, i have to every year anyway and i like it and it's fun for me. i get to shoot 150 rounds or more if i want. but i can see where a lot of you are coming from and your right. it's shouldn't be any thing more than 4-8 hr course.

[TyGuy]

You're right, we DO need training. I've heard countless stories of people in the other 49 states accidentally shooting bystanders when confronted by criminals. Heck, just up north in Wisconsin there have been several bystanders killed since CCW started up there, not to mention the thousands killed by OC before CC became the law of the land. The streets ran red with blood. It was like the wild west.

[abolt243]

None of the bills presented in the last 5 years have suggested that training be eliminated. Some here have talked about "constitutional carry", the right being endowed by our creator and guaranteed by the Constitution. I agree that you have the right to carry a gun without any further training. However, if you plan to use that gun to protect yourself and others, you'd better know the laws governing that action and you'd better know how to operate that gun effeciently and accurately or it might get taken from you and used against you. That knowledge comes from training. Training can come from formal classroom and range work, from books, from the internet or from experience.

 

Realistically, we won't get a law passed here in IL without some kind of training. Most states with a training requirement have settled on 4-8 hours with some of that being range time and some form of testing to make sure that you have basic proficiency in the laws and use of the firearm.

 

After having observed some of the "newbies" at the local IDPA shoots recently, and the many novice hunters that I guided years ago at a Southern IL goose club, strong encouragement of training is not a bad idea.

 

AB

[pyre400]

Always advocate the right thing - training and safety go hand in hand.

 

That said, I dont want the government in charge of it. Perhaps a public service announcement, offering firearm safety/awareness?

[rott]

You're right, we DO need training. I've heard countless stories of people in the other 49 states accidentally shooting bystanders when confronted by criminals. Heck, just up north in Wisconsin there have been several bystanders killed since CCW started up there, not to mention the thousands killed by OC before CC became the law of the land. The streets ran red with blood. It was like the wild west.

hhhmmmm, feeling a little sarcastic today Ty...

[TyGuy]

Agreed abolt, and most CCWers will seek training, but I don't like the idea of making it required. However, I'll give that up for now to get CCW, but I'd like it lessened later.

 

Heck, any state that accepts the Utah permit has people carrying without requiring them do live fire training. That's 31 states. Unless there is evidence that untrained CCers and OCers shooting bystanders is a problem then why make it more difficult for people to protect themselves?

 

Rott - just fired up. I am having the SAME exact debate on Opencarry.org. I dont' like the attitude of "I can carry, but those people shouldn't". Isn't that the chicago way? Alderman carry, but the normal people can't?

[Jeffrey]

Cops train, or are supposed to. How often do they hit their intended target?

[Blackhawk067]

IMO. i'm going to do the training weather we get it in the bill or not. put that's just me, i have to every year anyway and i like it and it's fun for me. i get to shoot 150 rounds or more if i want. but i can see where a lot of you are coming from and your right. it's shouldn't be any thing more than 4-8 hr course.

 

Everyone should do reoccurring training. The police do it, the military does it...we should all keep our skills sharp and keep up to date on the laws, etc.

 

I realize many of us get to the ranges often or have property to go hone our skills, but more training simply benefits...it can't possibly have any negative drawbacks.

[ming]

Cops train, or are supposed to. How often do they hit their intended target?

 

Good point. The last time a LEO friend of mine trained was when he was in the academy. He's been retired from CPD for about five years now. Not all LEOs are "gun guys".

 

While I recommend that all who use/carry get training, I cringe at the thought of it being mandated by the government. Unless of course it's a "common sense gun law" and "for the children".

[Blackhawk067]

Cops train, or are supposed to. How often do they hit their intended target?

While I recommend that all who use/carry get training, I cringe at the thought of it being mandated by the government.

 

Yeah...i agree.

[bornhunter04]

Is training a good idea? Yes. Is it highly recommended? Yes. Can training be expensive? Yes. Can everyone afford training? No.

 

Should we have to have training to carry a gun? No. Same as, is training required to reproduce? No. No-one requires you to undergo 24 hours of training to raise your kids (might not be a bad idea........)

 

There should be no training required to practice a god given right.

 

However, many many folks would benefit from just a touch of training. However, there are those who will/have received the Darwinism award that no amount of training will ever help.

 

Firearms are about like anything else, a little bit of common sense goes a loooong way, some folks got it, others aint got the brains god gave a small goose.

 

Can we live with a 4 hour training requirement and then scale it back later? Sure thing. For one thing, it'll be good for when we finally do get CCW to make awful sure that WE understand the law to it's fullest extent, because god-help the poor fellow that has to deal with a LEO that is totally ignorant of the law (or just doesn't care).

 

One thing that might not be a bad idea, down the road, is to offer more clinics around the State. Free training for those that have already received their CCW (this of course after the training requirement is scaled back). Use some of the fee's to fund it, it would be self sustaining at this point. An annual refresher type deal with range time preferred, and you can be certain participation would be higher if it didn't cost extra.

[miztic]

I like training being required for the reciprocity, but it should be pretty minimal, similar to the utah or fl requirements.

 

That being said, I believe in personal responsibility, and I take classes on my own without being *required* to. [they are fun for me actually]

[Buzzard]

I've already taken two basic pistol courses and would like to take an intermediate course someday. but that's my choice. I believe there should be at least a 4 hour course written into "the" bill, because I think people should be made aware of the legal stuff and all that goes with it. That being said, (you "no training" folks can start groaning LOUDER) if you're already there for 4 hours - may as well make it 8 hours.

 

I'd like for you to have some training on usage of your free speech before you post again.

 

Yes, I see your point. But you can't yell fire in a theater, you can't threaten folks or defame their good name and so forth. If all forms of speech are so darn simple and easy - then why are there schools of broadcasting? Hmmm?? I'd like to see duty to inform get taken out, too. But I've been told by those who know, that is NOT going to happen. So for the good of the movement - I will concede.

 

Let's all try to band together and get a "good" bill passed, instead of pulling in eight different directions - like we do every primary. Because most of us know how well that works out for us. And then there's some who are just set in stone stubborn, and will never compromise.

[4thestars]

Training?

 

You mean I get to shoot more?

 

*grin*

[TyGuy]

Let's all try to band together and get a "good" bill passed, instead of pulling in eight different directions - like we do every primary. Because most of us know how well that works out for us. And then there's some who are just set in stone stubborn, and will never compromise.

 

Agreed. We compromise, while standing firm on some things like pre-emption, to get the bill passed. Then we work to make it easier for people to carry. Other states have done this, going from may issue to shall issue, and from shall issue to Constitutional carry. Don't lose out on the good for want of the perfect.

[bornhunter04]

Let's all try to band together and get a "good" bill passed, instead of pulling in eight different directions - like we do every primary. Because most of us know how well that works out for us. And then there's some who are just set in stone stubborn, and will never compromise.

 

Agreed. We compromise, while standing firm on some things like pre-emption, to get the bill passed. Then we work to make it easier for people to carry. Other states have done this, going from may issue to shall issue, and from shall issue to Constitutional carry. Don't lose out on the good for want of the perfect.

 

Very true, without first getting a bill passed, all arguments of what should be/shouldn't be in the bill and efforts to make it better are moot.

[lockman]

Training can't fix stupid; although it will make the more liberal non-stupid feel better. It should not be required to exercise a fundamental right until such time that we train the stupid voters. Voting or shooting, when done by the "stupid" the results can be just as deadly to the innocent. BTW, I have been a NRA CPI for about 20 years.

[Lake Shore Drive]

For those using arguments like we never trained to execute our First Amendment right and we don't train to reproduce offspring, what about people who simply don't want to get shot? I have seen many comments around the internet where gun laws and gun control are discussed and these comments come from people who explicitly state they don't want to get shot, so they believe that training should be required even for a constitutional right. I have also seen many comments elsewhere from people who state they would become comfortable with citizen right to carry if all citizens who wish to carry would be required to complete training first.

 

Let me be clear that I am an advocate for constitutional carry and I am libertarian, but let's face it, nobody wants to get shot. Let me play devil's advocate here. Getting shot by a perp is one thing, but getting inadvertently shot by one of the good guys makes our side look really bad, in my opinion. Of course, no amount of training can guarantee that innocents will never be shot, but in reality, there seems to be a significantly lesser chance of an innocent being shot when the good guy shooter has undergone a fair amount of training. I'm not just talking about marksmanship here, I'm also talking about being trained in gun safety and becoming familiar with the various methods of carry, and also being familiar with the laws covering the use of lethal force.

 

I am well aware that not everyone can afford training and the cost of the training requirement may likely be viewed as discriminatory against the poor and minorities. For this, we could have charitable or non-profit groups offer training at no charge and the student may donate whatever amount they can afford. I'm sure there are plenty of charitable people already out there who would enjoy training others and not get paid for it.

[1911]

A reasonable amount of training is acceptable. The politician’s certainly will not let CC happen without training. If ALL of the requirements are within the middle of the range compared to other states they will have a hard time requiring standards that a greater or more strict than any other state. For example some states require from zero up through eight or more hours of training, the legislature isn’t going to get support for a 40 or 50 hour training course. If we approach this whole training, and are shooting (PI) for the mid line of the national average, of all other states it weakens their argument.

I also think that some sort of requalifying is acceptable also, but it shouldn’t come at a great cost. Large renewal fees and expensive training is unnecessary. Once again if the costs are comparable to other states the legislature will have a hard time justifying said costs.

A buddy of mine has been a local LEO for over twenty years. When he first started his career he had the typical only cops can carry attitude. Over the years his opinion has reversed, he now recognizes that in a SHTF situation someone trained in CC can be of great and important assistance. His though is that if a SHTF situation was to arise and somebody properly identified themselves he would have a reasonable expectation of their skill level. For example he recently had a situation where two officers broke up a street fight and it took both officers plus three citizens to detain/cuff one of the two men. He felt that someone with any amount of training would have been even more helpful considering the circumstances.

If our politicians had any common sense at all, they could use this opportunity to create the best carry laws in the nation. The “We did it last, but we did it the best” would probably further some political careers.

 

[Mr. Fife]

Maybe State of Illinois should provide training paid by an additional cellphone tax for those who can't afford it. There can be an "add a dollar" box on the monthly bill.

 

 

[Jaybuck]

If training is required to obtain a permit and for sure it will be if the court rules a constitutional right to carry must be allowed in Illinois then I see no reason or an advantage that initial applicants need training when they participate in regular league or competition handgun events. This could expedite the issuing time of many Illinois permits. Participating gun clubs could furnish a legitimate affidavit to the issuing agent concurring this individual is sufficiently qualified on handgun operation and safety so therefore dismiss training requirement an issue permit..... It is a no brainer.

[KingWalleye]

This reminds me of when I took drivers education during high school.

 

In my high school drivers ed was a full semester and it included trip planning and other non-driving aspects. I took drivers from a private school that took four weeks of maybe 2 hours per night 3 nights a week of classroom and whatever the state mandated for hours behind the wheel.

By the end of my senior year at least 4 people who took drivers at the high school had their licenses suspended or revoked. All for speeding, reckless driving and one kid flipped a car and killed his best friend. Myself and two other friends had no tickets or accidents.

 

Were the longer classes and extracarricular time spent a benefit here? Of course not! My point being that some people could have 40 hours of firearm training and still be dangerous. Driving and safely handling firearms requires common sense and no amount of training will ever fix it.

 

Training is good but generally speaking its way overrated.

[oneshot]

Guns and people ignorant of basic safe handling practices and the law do not mix. The right to free speech assumes that you know a language to speak, freedom of religion assumes that you have knowledge of one to practice, etc. I am wary of training requirements being used a de facto ban or a means of limiting the right to as few of people as possible, but I believe everyone who carries a weapon should be trained to a minimal standard and qualify that they understand how to practice the techniques they've learned. The Marines do a fantastic job of hammering safety rules into recruits heads, what I learned is still second nature to me and there are a lot of people at the local range who make me nervous with the way they handle their firearms (lack of muzzle awareness is probably the biggest, along with trigger discipline) more training is definitely needed in the private sector.