system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: People who wish to carry guns in public should have to attend a mandatory training session to learn/practice how to handle real-life situations (active shooter, being held up, etc).

In the US, people are just going to have guns. No matter what kind of bills get passed, it's just a culture that is very attached to guns. People who would use them for ill purposes will usually be able to find a way to get them. And people who wish to protect themselves from those people will arm themselves no matter what they're told.

But a gun in the hands of an ill-informed, poorly educated, jittery, person who has never in their life been in a high-pressure, life-threatening situation where they had to act fast and decisively can make a bad situation more chaotic and dangerous. So I'm putting forth the idea that anyone who wants to get a concealed carry license (or even anyone who wants to own a gun) should have to attend a training course to learn how to do just that (as well as gun safety). And if they don't pass it, they aren't able to get that gun/concealed carry license. Just like a driving test.

&#x200B;

**Edit: Woah thanks for all the very informative comments! I think we've pretty much covered the basic major reasons why this would not be effective and even make the problem worse in reality, even if it seems like a good idea on paper.**

Additionally I'd like to add that it turns out most states DO require a bit of training to get a CW permit but I happen to live in a state which does not.

**1)** It would de facto violate/hinder the 2nd amendment right. Beyond the argument some people have that ANY hurdles to owning a gun is actually a violation of this, requiring people to pay  for the class, get to the class, buy the material to practice/take the class, would all create barriers to obtaining an CW permit that would effectively be socioeconomically driven. IE, you could only get one if you had the means to take the test.

Also, if the legislation wasn't done right, some states could make taking and passing the test so prohibitive that it would essentially enact a gun ban. At least to all except a certain class of people, which would be even worse than no on having guns in my opinion.

**2)** Having training doesn't mean that a person with a gun would improve ANY situation. In fact, having only SOME training might make a person without real-world experience think they were capable of handling a situation which in reality they were not. And if they hadn't had that little-bit-of-training-confidence-boost, they probably would have just had the sense to stay out of it, even if they were carrying a gun.

A very good example of this is all the police out there who have drawn their weapon out of sheer fear and killed an innocent person. Honestly, when someone made that point it alone was enough to make me realize that this training wouldn't change ANY statistics.

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

There were a lot of other good points and I learned a lot, but I think those are basically the two major reasons that pretty much made this argument a moot point. At this point it seems like there's a lot of restating of these same points.

But I thank you again for all your opinions and information you gave. I really do not believe that the US should or can be a gun-free place. I actually started thinking more about responsible gun ownership after my boyfriend got into them and made me start training some with them. I realized through this discussion that I am actually carrying around some bias towards the stereotypical Bible Belt gun fanatic, but that in actuality the majority of gun owners are responsible people who know their limits.

So if you thought I was just trying to get on a preachy liberal soapbox then I hate to disappoint you. Know that your smart-allecky comments did not add much to the conversation.

Thanks and keep having a great discussion!

&#x200B;
gpt
The problem with testing is that it's probably left to the states to implement, and they can make it *de facto* impossible to pass (or possibly even sit the exam), or worse, allow preferential treatment/make it prohibitively expensive to accomplish and therefore accomplish a gun ban.

For example, let's say there's a class, but there's 10 people in the entire state (Let's say, California) that are allowed to teach the class, it takes two weeks, and you can't teach more than 50 people at time. Also, it costs $800 to take, meaning you lock out a lot of people that can't afford.

EDIT: Like has been done with voting in the past (particularly to disenfranchise minorities), and abortions in the present day. States will follow the letter but not the spirit of the law if given the opportunity.