gunquestionmarkWhat do you think?  Do you believe that, in Massachusetts, where a firearms safety class is required for anyone applying for a firearms license, that that class should include firing a real gun on a real range, or is classroom-only training sufficient?

You don't have to be a shooter or a gun owner to have an opinion on this topic.  Think about this.  Someone in your family decides to obtain a firearm for personal protection.  They find a half-day course that covers gun safety, laws, the parts of various types of guns and ammunition.  They see and handle some guns here, but don't fire them.  They do fire a training aid that looks like a gun, but "fires" a laser, like a laser pointer.  How confident are you that they are now prepared and qualified to protect themsleves and anyone else who might need protection?

What if they took, instead, a full day class that included not just safety and legal issues but also some actual firing of actual guns on a real range.  Wouldn't they be better off?  Wouldn't you have more confidence in their abilites?

It is a no-brainer to me that licensing someone who has never actually fired a gun to carry one concealed in public is as dangerous as giving someone a driver's license when they have learned driving laws and used a driving simulation game, but have never been on a real road in a real car.

If you are a shooter and do have a license, what kind of training did you get first?  Was it sufficient, or did you seek more training at some point? Does it make you feel safer in public to know that there are people carrying guns without ever having shot one?