Mandated training?

/ hsoi

Back when I wrote my series on “Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol“, the notion of legality kept swimming in my head.

Not if things are legal or not, but rather how minimums should be defined by law, if at all. I mean, here in Texas we have the CHL shooting test, which is what the State considers as acceptable minimum. But as I discussed, is it really a minimum? Or of course, we have to ask the question “minimum for what?”. And if I have a discussion and say it’s not an acceptable minimum (for whatever), does that open the door for changing the minimum? Could someone try to set the bar so high that it puts it out of reach of most or all people, and thus denies the right?

It’s a tricky and sticky subject.

Todd Louis-Green recently wrote about this. Like most, he’s not a fan of legislatively mandated training. And yes, it sounds funny to hear that coming from him, who is a trainer. And me, who is a trainer (that stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night).

Do we advocate more education? Of course! Name me any facet of life where you are not better served by more knowledge and education! The more you know, the better life can generally be. Why would that be any different here?

But again, should it be mandated?

How many CNN talking heads would be OK with a state-designed, state-mandated English test that had to be passed before you could become a news reporter? Who would support a mandatory Constitutional law exam before you could exercise your 4th & 5th Amendment rights?

Self-defense is a natural right that was recognized by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights and reiterated by two recent Supreme Court cases (Heller and McDonald). Period. Full stop.

I would have used MSNBC instead of CNN, but either way.

What I thought was interesting about Todd’s piece was his suggestion:

Rather than mandatory training, what I would like to see is a two-tiered system. Simply carrying concealed should be legal without a permit (or training). But because it is legitimately in the government’s interest (and the community’s interest) to encourage training, instead create benefits — incentives — for gun owners who get serious training

Incentives. I think that’s an interesting take on things. And wouldn’t it be nice if we could see more of that in our country? Instead of basing everything upon lowest common denominators and penalties for doing wrong, why don’t we do more to incentivize doing right? reward people for doing better and going above and beyond? Help raise people up, help people truly become better. Granted, this happens in certain areas, but gee wouldn’t it be nice to see it more widespread?

Alas, I doubt we’ll see it regarding gun laws, because offering incentives would be seen as legitimizing and accepting, instead of stigmatizing and divisive. It seems all the mainstream folks want these days is the latter… because for all their talk of the joys of “unity” and “diversity” and “acceptance”, they don’t practice it very much.

17 thoughts on “Mandated training?”

  1. “Instead of basing everything upon lowest common denominators and penalties for doing wrong, why don’t we do more to incentivize doing right?”

    Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Let’s say I get a CCH in Texas (I did actually) what sort of incentives would most likely motivate me to take more training? I am asking that, but also thinking about it myself. Not entirely sure what they would be. Maybe a reduction in the cost of renewing?

    lwk

    • Well, I would hope the biggest motivation would be your own proficiency such that if you found a need to call upon your skills, you could do so swiftly and effectively. 🙂

      • Agreed that an individual should be motivated for their own self interest, but I thought you were suggesting perhaps society or government creating some incentives? That was where my question was headed … 🙂

        regards,

        lwk

        • Well yeah. 🙂

          I don’t think there’s any clear answer here. It’s very contextual to the state, the laws, etc.. e.g. taking a shooting class from a recognized school or having some other certification (e.g. IDPA Master-class shooter) might be ability to waive the proficiency requirement thus saving some time and money.

          So it really all depends. It’s hard to talk without a specific situation to resolve.

          But yes. It would ge good to try to find ways to do it. Costs, rewards, whatever.

  2. Tony Blauer nails it with this article. http://www.tonyblauerblog.com/2013/10/17/x-marks-the-spot-get-off-the-x/

    People either “get it” or they don’t. It would be great if we could pass a law that raises the bar for CHL to a 40 hour Gunsite 250 class, and allocate state funds to pay for every CHL holder to take that training. But if we did, how many do you think would go and how many would let their CHLs lapse because it was too much trouble/time/effort?

    • “It would be great if we could pass a law that raises the bar for CHL to a 40 hour Gunsite 250 class, and allocate state funds to pay for every CHL holder to take that training.”

      The major problem I see is that such a law is highly discriminatory against people who might have a difficult time affording such training (unless the state would pay, which seems unlikely). It is often these people, given where they may live, that actually need a gun for self defense more than the well heeled person with a $2,000 handgun living in the affluent suburbs. 🙂

      Personally I think it is better to have good people out there with minimal skills with guns than lots of good people out there without guns facing bad guys with guns.

      In the CHL the instructors need to -as mine did- highly emphasize personal responsibility for every shot fired and encourage additional training.

      lwk

      • I would hope people see the value and merit in more education. I mean, it doesn’t matter if it’s math, history, science, or self-defense — the more you know, the better off you are in life.

        But, that’s not a motivator for everyone. Alas.

    • Yah. Too many would because it is tough.

      I’m not sure raising the require bar is the approach, but rather, if you go beyond the minimum there’s some sort of incentive and reward for doing so. Again, you’d hope that people would do it on their own volition (there’s reward in and of itself); and if dangling some unrelated carrot gets them there well… is that so bad? They still got there, they’ll be better off for it. Because yeah… if they can’t necessarily see why they need it, if they can’t see a need for it, but somehow they acquire the skills so when needed they actually have what’s needed to be called upon well… could that be good?

      Tho, would it work out? Because if they take the training but never do anything with it other than file the certificate away well…. dunno if there’s any gain.

  3. You ask what is wrong with creating an incentive system — I give you the U.S.A Tax code for my first piece of evidence.

    The tax code is the original ‘incentive’ plan and look how screwed up that is.

    And related to this is the abomination of letting any level of government dictate what is ‘acceptable level of training’ — even on a voluntary basis. And who does the government turn to in developing their training criteria — the police or the people already providing training. A little conflicting interest there perhaps. Look at how that has worked out in just about every licensing scheme developed — from doctors to cosmetology; it always starts off voluntary and moves to mandatory — and higher and higher entry barriers each generation.

    Second; I think creating any tiered system is also creating a tiered citizenship status.
    My wife hasn’t worked outside of the home since January of last year. My pay hasn’t increased since before that. Yet I’m expected to take not just training classes but ones that would meet state qualifications, right?

    For what reward? Being able to ignore property rights of people and businesses; not fair to the business owners. They do have the authority to limit who carries on their property.
    For NICS exempted purchases ; already have that through my CHL.

    Those who can afford the time (huge concern for single parents for example) and the money would have benefits most people can’t — given the government Equal Protection clause, I’m not sure how that would fly.

    Third, I think there is a huge perceptual issue that “Training = Competence” — which I’m not sure is a valid statement. Seen too many people take too many training classes and come out just as clueless.
    I’m not arguing I’m a better shot, have better judgement then you, etc but I’ve probably have been carrying with as few as problems as you’ve had — NONE.
    Isn’t that what is really important?

    In Todd’s example, should a news reporter who has ‘gone to school’ be given any more liberty than some blogger writing from his home in Austin?

    The answer to problems isn’t always more government. Instead of getting the government involved; why aren’t trainers offering reduced cost classes (I know you and others are reasonable but some of them are outrageous).
    Why aren’t grants being developed to start training programs in low income areas; provide ranges and instructors open when and where people can take advantage of them?
    (Think of how many big box stores lay abandoned in neighborhoods; cities could write off taxes to companies converting them into indoor ranges.

    I think the answer to the problem lays in cultural norms; we need to make the minimum acceptable level of competency high through social pressure and approval. But in order to do that we have to make facilities available, we have to make competency something to be admired again, we have to make self protection an individual responsibility.
    I know that last one sounds strange to us but for many people it will be the hardest one to change — they absolutely depend on others for their safety.

    • A fair rebuttal. It’s a reason I asked the question — would it be good? would it be bad? I think in general it’s better to reward good behavior than punish bad; that’s not to say we shouldn’t punish bad but all too typically things get structured to only punish bad with no reward nor incentive to do good. Not just in the legal sense, but even parents towards kids, or any other area of life.

      I like your thought at the end. That is a solid way to approach things. I think it may be changing. Karl likes to refer to “Gun Culture 2.0”, which is what a lot of the new and young gun owners of today are part of. Training is something sought out and considered part of the “requirement” for owning a gun; not that you just grew up around them, that you shot tin cans off the fence post in the back pasture. It’s changing, it’s improving… but because of your very last point well… it’s just going to take time.

    • “…too many training classes and come out just as clueless.”

      I am not entirely sure that you can train “responsibility.” You can encourage it and hope for it, but ultimately the individual decides for it.

      “The answer to problems isn’t always more government.”

      I would guess that more often than not the answer is less government, far less government.

      “I think the answer to the problem lays in cultural norms…”

      My personal belief is that we would be well served by going back to a real concept of a citizen militia with a civic duty to participate in the common defense. One could certainly see getting a concealed carry license or permit as contributing to the common defense of the community.

      In that way the 2nd Amendment would not just be about a right, but also about a civic duty.

      “I think creating any tiered system is also creating a tiered citizenship status.”

      I am actually in favor of a tiered status, although I am probably talking to the issue a little differently than what you were commenting on.

      Have you ever read Robert Heinlein’s science fiction novel “Starship Troopers”? I am not at all talking about the Hollywood movie with lots of action and a couple big tits on Denise Richards, but the actual novel it came from? If you haven’t, you might enjoy reading it. The basic premise is a two class system. Those who have gone in harms way for their country get the right to vote. No one else does.

      Made sense to me. 🙂

      regards,

      lwk

      • There’s something to be said for participation in the common defense, but could it create more than we want… because there will come a need to support that common defense.

        For example, when we talk about self-protection we raise scenarios like… you’re in the convenience store to pay for your gas and get a soda. You went into the bathroom. When you come out, you see dude at the counter sticking a gun in the face of the clerk. What do you do?

        There’s a strong pull in people like us to want to step in and do something about it. But does the violate the maxims of “maximize enjoyment of beer and TV” (see elsewhere on my blog)? or to simplify, is stepping in here worth dying for? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s an important question to ask yourself. My general response would be no, I wouldn’t step in — not until it became my problem (e.g. dude turns, sees me, and starts to come after me). If things go bad, is the clerk going to pay for my medical bills? Is the store owner going to offer me a job when I lose mine because I have to take so much time off due to being in the hospital? If I die, is the store owner going to take care of my family? I really hate to be so selfish here, but I have existing duties and obligations to some (e.g. my family) and I must make decisions in life that enable me to ensure I can fulfill those primary obligations.

        Now, if we turn this into something for common defense of the community, does that mean I’m now obligated to step in? If I am, is the state/community going to provide me with the means to handle that? like a bulletproof vest (which I now must don every day, far more often than a cop does because they only do when on duty). Is the legal system going to protect me from legal harm? will the state pay for my legal bills? my insurance? my medical bills? take care of my family if I die? how about providing me training to ensure I can keep skills up and current? And the list can go on.

        But I thought we were also talking about less state mandates and involvement. 🙂

        I hear what you’re trying to say, but I’m not sure it doesn’t open up a larger can of worms.

        But I also think if individuals took more vested interest in their own personal safety… if businesses and organizations acknowledged the individuals that work for them have a vested interest in safety and shouldn’t be deprived of the ability to protect themselves and others that might be in their care (e.g. teachers, and their students)… well, we just might get further.

          • The way I understand it the writers of the 2nd Amendment were indeed talking about an individual right and that is exactly what they intended. However I also think they had in mind a basic civic duty to participate in the defense of one’s community when bearing those arms.

            One way we could reinvigorate the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment in the 21st century is the idea that people who get a concealed carry license would be willing to use those concealed handguns to stop or apprehend criminals in the act. I understand that is not exactly how the law sees it today, but I could see that idea being a goal for concealed carry for the future.

            Maybe the law could be amended to encourage that? We talked about the idea of people getting more advanced training. Maybe a those people – with more training – could be in a sense a “well regulated militia” that assist the police in stopping violent criminals and bringing them to justice?

            regards,

            lwk

          • I’m just not sure we live in a country any more where such ideals are viewed with esteem. I mean, it seems personal responsibility is dead (or merely given lip service, at best)… so how can we have such things? Ideally what happens with 2A is people understand a need to take care, to be responsible, to stand up, to do right and reward those who do right… and alas, those things just aren’t promoted any more. *sigh*

            I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to bring such things back in vogue… I’m just saying we’ve got an uphill battle, and gotta put the horse before the cart.

Comments are closed.