- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Messages
- 63,239
- Reaction score
- 33,155
- Location
- Tennessee
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Do you have any sources at ALL that show this is a problem? That this has caused any public harm at all???? How do you know they didnt grow up with guns, hunting, target shooting, etc? Guns were just part of many people's upbringing, esp. in the past.
First of all, I grew up hunting and target shooting, reload, have fired tens of thousands of rounds through rifles, pistols and shotguns, and I'm certain I am not competent to take out a shooter in a crowded space. I recognize that armed combat with a deadly shooter in an environment like a school is an acquired SKILL. I haven't trained for that.
Every employer who actually hires people to engage in armed combat puts their employees through extensive training - cops, military, etc. I think it's beyond irresponsible to ASSUME that Mr. History Professor with his newly minted CC permit has that skill, or that giving him a handgun to carry while at work is a net reduction in risk for those kids, given that roughly 99.9999999% or so of the time he will NOT be facing armed intruders, but children, in a classroom, where the biggest threat is a fistfight.
Most employers agree with me, which is why most do not allow pistol packing employees in the office. Insurers agree because they often refuse coverage for schools intending to arm untrained teachers, and few schools elect to arm their teachers, public OR private. Same with the military, who certainly have many soldiers EXTREMELY well trained in armed combat. So nearly everyone who has the responsibility for the downside of introducing deadly weapons in the workplace elects to keep them out, believing that on net, there is less risk of harm when guns are NOT introduced into those environments.
Just because there's no 'mandated' training certainly does not mean people "dont get training." My state requires NO training for a cc permit. There are several other states the same. Some states require NO permit at all.
There is only one study t
hat I know of (we've discussed this issue alot on gun forums because not even all gun owners agree on it)...that examines if states WITH mandatory training and those without have ANY difference in gun negligence or accidents (not crime...training has no bearing on crime).
There's a study of OR and WA, regarding OR requiring training and WA not. The findings were that WA has a higher population, higher population density, more guns, more CC permits, and fewer gun-related incidents than OR.
This does not mean that training is not important. Everyone agrees it is. It just indicates that 'mandatory' training does not make a difference in public safety....probably because gun owners are getting the experience they need one way or another.
Otherwise there is no data showing that states with mandatory training requirements have any lower rate of gun incidents.
There's no requirement in my state, as I said....and while I'm not 'into guns' I do like shooting and I actively train (not just target shoot, train)..mostly because it's fun.
I'll just finish with this - if you as an employer arm your employees as they interact with the public, only the reckless employer guesses whether the person (s)he armed has the appropriate training to use his or her weapon responsibly in a combat situation, in a crowded public space, full of innocents.