On Licensing and Training [guns]

It’s only been a week since Wisconsin passed their concealed carry law and they’ve already made a major change. There is no longer a mandated four-hour training requirement to be issued a concealed carry license. You still have to provide proof that you’ve received training but there is no longer a mandated training length.

From doj.state.wi.us:

On 11/7/11, The Joint Committee For The Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) suspended portions of the emergency rules affecting the training requirements for concealed carry licenses. Proof of training is still required to apply for a license. The changes include:

• Elimination of any time requirement for the firearms safety and training course
• Elimination of the word test from the definition of firearms safety and training course
• Elimination of any time requirement for firearms instructor training
• Elimination of the instructor’s signature from the certificate affirming they taught the course to the student
• Elimination of any instructor contact information on the certificate
• Elimination of the location where the training was provided from the certificate

Any application submitted prior to these changes will be processed in accordance with these revisions. If your application has been returned as a result of any of the above training issues, or because you did not have an out-of-state affirmation form; please resubmit the application with all necessary forms and the fee to the CIB Firearms Unit, PO Box 2718, Madison, WI 53701-2718, for reprocessing.

While not perfect, this is another step in the right direction for Wisconsin.

Training is important. Very. Important. Owning, much more carrying a gun is a huge responsibility that should be taken very seriously. If you own a gun you should know how to use it, you should know and exercise firearms safety. That said, it’s not the place of the government to mandate training, much less to require a license to exercise an intrinsic right.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Fundamentally, placing a barrier that frustrates or prevents the free exercise of a right is an infringement on that right. Requiring a licence to own firearms, conceal carry, open carry, etc. is as absurd as it would be to require a licence to exercise free speech.

Yes, I praised Wisconsin’s passing of their concealed carry law because it’s a step in the right direction. It’s probably as good as one can hope to get from a state that didn’t recognize Second Amendment rights in the first place. Like any shall issue state, Wisconsin’s concealed carry law is good, but it’s not perfect.

Why is there such a push to for licensing? Why do even vehement supporters of Second Amendment rights support licensing for concealed carry and even licensing just to own a gun?

First, licensing allows the government to set requirements that must be meet in order for an applicant to be issued a licence. One of the requirements that’s always included is training. Some of the most vocal supporters for government mandated training are firearms instructors. The NRA noted that firearms instructors in Wisconsin were lobbying for a training mandate. Government mandated training spells “cha-ching” to firearms instructors.

Second, licensing allows politicians to ride the fence on the gun issue. It allows them to support pro-gun legislation like Wisconsin’s new concealed carry law, while also kowtowing to their anti-gun constituents by supporting licensing which invariably limits, frustrates, and sometimes prevents people from being able to exercise their rights.

Licensing is purported to have two main benefits:

1. It helps keep guns out of criminal hands.
2. It forces people to get training.

The questions then are:

1. Does licensing really keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
2. Do gun owners really need to be forced to get firearms training? Are there so many firearms accidents that it justifies government intervention?

The first question is easy to answer — criminals are criminals because they don’t care about the law. Criminals in Wisconsin (for example) were carrying concealed guns long before there was a legal way to do so. It’s doubtful that criminals will see fit to get a licence to legally carry a concealed firearm. It’s also doubtful that any type of licensing would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

It’s utterly naive to think that someone who would commit a criminal act with a gun, would not be willing to circumvent the law to get that gun.

The second question requires a little digging. I queried the CDC’s WISQARS Fatal Injury Reports for 2008 (the latest available) to see what the data said about firearms accidents. I focused on unintentional firearms deaths because death is the most serious, and least ambiguous type of injury.

2008, All Injury Deaths and Rates

In 2008 there were a total of 181,226 injury related deaths. Of those, 31,593 (17%) involved a firearm.

2008, Firearm Deaths and Rates

Pardon me while I digress: of the 31,593 firearms related deaths in 2008 18,223 (57%) were the result of suicide; over half. In addition, 12,179 (38%) of the 31,593 were the result of homicide. It’s common for anti-gun rights people to included suicides to inflate the numbers. Since there is invariably intent behind suicide, it would be disingenuous to classify them as accidents.

One of the main reasons government mandated training is pushed is to help prevent accidents. It’s often implied that fatal gun accidents happen so often it’s nearly an epidemic. With gun owners being so stupid, they need the government to make them get training. Anyway, for the purposes of this discussion we need to look at how many of the 31,593 firearms related deaths were accidents (i.e. unintentional).

2008, Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates

So, out of 31,593 firearms related deaths 592 (1.8%) were unintentional. I do not want to seem crude, but not even one percent of the 2008 population died via a firearm accident. 40 times more people died in 2008 from unintentional falls (24,013).

2008, Unintentional Fall Deaths and Rates

Should we start requiring people to get walking licence?

I’m not trying to belittle the importance of training. Again, training is important and I think that everyone should, at the very least, get basic gun safety training before doing anything with a gun. But the data doesn’t support the supposed epidemic of accidental gun deaths.

There are well over two-hundred million privately owned guns in the US. The current US population is a smidgen over three-hundred million. Estimates put gun ownership at 45-50% of the population (and growing). There are an estimated six-million people (just under 2% of the current population) with concealed carry licences. Four states do not require a licence to conceal carry; thus no government mandated training. Most states do not require a license, or any kind of training to simply own a gun.

It’s probably safe to assume that the vast majority of gun owners have not been forced to get any kind of firearms training.

If gun owners are so unsafe and so in need of training, wouldn’t the number of accidental deaths involving guns be be higher?

Again, to be clear, training is important. I’m not tying to say that it’s not. What I think the data shows though is that despite the lack of a government mandated training there is not an epidemic of accidental deaths involving guns as some would like us to believe. I think the reason for this is the gun community actively encourages gun safety and training and even with gun ownership on the rise the number of unintentional firearms deaths has declined.

Unintentional Firearm Deaths 1999-2008

The data does not support the argument that gun owners need to be forced by the government to get training to keep the public, or themselves safe. The data shows that despite a lack of government mandated training people either already know how to use firearms safely, or they are getting at least basic safety training on their own.

Sold under the guise of public safety, the truth is that any firearm licensing system (to own, conceal/open carry, etc.) is designed to prevent the free exercise of a constitutionally protected right. Licensing is meant to limit, frustrate, and prevent the free exercise of a right because it makes some uncomfortable.

To the chagrin of many, the Second Amendment exists. It protects a right that is as relevant and valid as any other right. If you don’t like the Second Amendment then work to get it repealed. Until then, stop using false pretenses to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.