Do you support mandatory training for gun ownership?


PDA






mr_dove
April 27, 2006, 12:47 PM
I'm generally against firearm regulation of any type BUT every time I go into a gun shop I see people buying guns that don't have the slightest idea how to store or use them safely.

While I'm not 100% secure in my position I think that mandatory training when purchasing a firearm would probably help our cause by making people safer and more educated in general. Ignorant people with guns hurt out cause greatly.

The biggest problem that I see with the idea is that a training requirement becomes a de facto waiting period while the buyer waits for the next available training class.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you support mandatory training for gun ownership?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WT
April 27, 2006, 12:54 PM
No.

The Founding Fathers did not require mandatory training when they wrote the Constitution. Neither do I want to see mandatory training.

I WOULD like to see a gift certificate given to the purchaser for a voluntary basic NRA training course with a certified instructor. Repeat: VOLUNTARY.

Outsider_10fp
April 27, 2006, 12:57 PM
More regulation? No thank You.
Darwin will weed out the un-needed

lucky_fool
April 27, 2006, 01:01 PM
No, because when the gov't mandates a thing they control that thing. You would have to go through mandatory "approved" training classes which gives the gov't absolute authority over the curriculum in the classes.

Also, who is the bureaucracy to say that the training I got for years at my grandpappy's knee is worthless compared to a few hours in a classroom? I dare say that there are quite a few people on this board that have trained a few newbies at the range (and trained them well) but the state wouldn't recognize that training as "official".

Not to mention the additional financial burden that training classes would put on the lowest-income folks (for whom just buying the gun is a considerable outlay of funds).

Ramius
April 27, 2006, 01:02 PM
I'll take all the training I can get.

But making it mandatory won't make it effective. Just look at the 'mandatory' driver's training we all get prior to obtaining a drivers license, and ask yourself how effective that is...

The stupid people will NOT learn a thing if forced to sit through a class, they'll just try to pass the test or whatever so they can go back to being stupid.

+1 on the 'free class with each gun sold' idea though, no harm in trying to get folks interested in learning some safety.

El Tejon
April 27, 2006, 01:03 PM
No, and I do not need a course in comparative religions before I may worship as I choose.

Mikee Loxxer
April 27, 2006, 01:04 PM
No, but we should work to create a gun-culture which instills respect for firearms technology in gun owners and holds its members to very high standards. It seems like most accidents with firearms are caused by people who don't know what they are doing. Too many people think that movies and videogames give them a better understanding of guns.

Omaha-BeenGlockin
April 27, 2006, 01:04 PM
These rights shall not be infringed.

WayneConrad
April 27, 2006, 01:11 PM
shall not be infringed

svtruth
April 27, 2006, 01:15 PM
In no time there would be certificates for every caliber, auto vs revolver, target, rifle, etc.

Chipperman
April 27, 2006, 01:19 PM
Encouraged, yes.
Required, no.

I can see a requirement for the gun shop to show the buyer how the gun functions. But that's a 5 minute process, and the buyer is there anyway.

bigdaddyb
April 27, 2006, 01:20 PM
I WOULD like to see a gift certificate given to the purchaser for a voluntary basic NRA training course with a certified instructor. Repeat: VOLUNTARY.

+1 for this idea.

Want to see what government regulation of safety looks like? Look no further than the USELESS 'dog collar' lock that's mandated with every gun purchase.

Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
April 27, 2006, 01:21 PM
I support the mandatory gun training, and gun law comprehension for people who don't own guns. Most likely, then they'll get off everyone's back because they would have proved their own prior miscinceptions wrong.

real_name
April 27, 2006, 01:26 PM
Mandatory gun ownership would be a better idea.

JoseM
April 27, 2006, 01:30 PM
No, I don't think we need mandatory training.

But on the other side of the coin, there are some idiots in the world that need some instruction because some people just don't possess common sense.

My ideal solution, that you would have mandatory firearm training in highschool....but not for owning a firearm...just as a class everyone has to take to graduate. If you take it and pass and don't want a gun, then that's your choice...but you need to take it anyway. Kinda like, you have to take English...but if yews guys wants to speek not good english...that's yous problem...but you still have to take the class.

silliman89
April 27, 2006, 01:52 PM
My ideal solution, that you would have mandatory firearm training in highschool....but not for owning a firearm...just as a class everyone has to take to graduate.
+1
That's what I was going to say, but you beat me to it.

MrTwigg
April 27, 2006, 02:01 PM
I've seen too many idiots with guns in my days !

Sindawe
April 27, 2006, 02:09 PM
Support training? Yes.

Encourage training? Yes.

Manditory training? Nope, not a chance. UNLESS it were part of the curriculum in public schools, like reading and basic math is.

Molon Labe
April 27, 2006, 02:15 PM
The Founding Fathers did not require mandatory training when they wrote the Constitution.Even if they did, I would still be against it.

pax
April 27, 2006, 02:16 PM
Absolutely not.

But anyone who intends to carry a weapon in public, and does not voluntarily get as much formal training as possible, is a fool or worse than a fool.

pax

robert garner
April 27, 2006, 02:23 PM
I am the only one in this room qualified to.........
WHO"S training is going to be considered "good enuff"
NO

BigFatKen
April 27, 2006, 02:33 PM
No problem with mandatory training

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen too many idiots with guns in my days !
__________________
Make a difference http://www.jbs.org The John Birch Society

Oh, you're kidding!! You are a John Birch man and you want the Gov to mandate training.
OK. I am the Gov and I say all must be able to carry a .50 BMG up a 500 meter hill single handed to qualify. A little steep of a training course perhaps, but its keeps the weak out. Or isn't it the point that the weak should be the one who need the guns.

'Card
April 27, 2006, 02:37 PM
I'm a libertarian.

I don't believe in mandatory anything.

People have a right to be ignorant and stupid if that's what they want.

bdutton
April 27, 2006, 02:43 PM
I voted yes but with this qualifier:

Only the absolute minimum training. Quick overview of laws, safe storage and simple stuff like the three golden rules:

1. Treat every gun as if it is loaded.
2. Point in a safe direction (unless you intend to use it on the target)
3. See rule number 1.

Justin
April 27, 2006, 02:50 PM
Only insofar as it should be mandated in the public schools right along Drivers Ed and Sex Ed.

hso
April 27, 2006, 02:52 PM
My first inclination is to require a gun safety course for someone to have a firearm. Not to reduce the danger to themselves, but to others around them that may be exposed to their ingnorant handling of the firearm. Basic hunter safety, basic firearms safety or similar to counter the TV/Movie/Video Game BS.

Then I look at the stats and don't see a statiscally significant problem due to accidental shootings and that robs the motivation for making it mandatory.

The basic safety courses should be taught and made available for free to anyone wanting to attend.

ApexinM3
April 27, 2006, 02:55 PM
'Card,
I have to agree 100% with you. The more I look at my political standing, the more I believe the Gov't should leave us be. If a person chooses to obtain a firearm & then proceeds to injure themself with said firearm because of lack of training, doom on them for not seeking out training first. The NRA has plenty of courses available, as well as most local gun clubs.

I work part-time at a local gun store & can't tell you how many idots I get coming in that think they know everything about firearms. I also get folks that admit they know nothing but are curious, and those are the people I like spending time with even if they don't buy. I know I don't know everything, nor do I pretend that I do. I still want to go thru some more training-one can never have enough. I think I saw it in someones signature-who it was escapes me-but it went something along the lines of: "a person does not rise to the occasion but rather falls to their level of training". I'm a firm believer in that.

That said, I think a training course is a great idea, but it shouldn't be mandatory. The Gov't already has enough mandatory requirements that don't do any good:banghead: . FWIW, YMMV.

NineseveN
April 27, 2006, 03:09 PM
Not only no, but Hell No!

Now, we already did this here recently, so if you want to know my stance on it, go read that wonderfully heated thread.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=177725


Only insofar as it should be mandated in the public schools right along Drivers Ed and Sex Ed.


Agreed. That I could live with.

bakert
April 27, 2006, 03:10 PM
Voluntary training is good and should be encouraged but in no way would I support any more mandatory anything concerning guns, shooting or hunting. Too much interference now from people that know little or nothing of the subjects they make rules for.

TBert
April 27, 2006, 03:15 PM
As a new gun owner, I almost think this thread was started about me. I'm 34 years old and recently bought my first rifle and shotgun. I had a mentor teach me gun safety and take me to a gun range and hunting before I bought my first gun which is how I would imagine most people learned gun safety.

Training definitely should not be mandatory, but as a newbie, I really don't know where I would get training. The range that go to doesn't offer any training although I've heard of others that do.

The best way to teach gun saftey is for the experienced shooters to mentor the new ones.

SolaScriptura139
April 27, 2006, 03:16 PM
I would completely support Gun Training and Education as a mandatory course for graduation of High School. The public schools are supposed to train us as well-rounded citizens, therefore, we should be prepared in all areas of our rights. But that will never happen :barf: , so no, I couldn't support any regulations that infringe our RKBA in ANY way.

SolaScriptura139
April 27, 2006, 03:17 PM
If a person chooses to obtain a firearm & then proceeds to injure themself with said firearm because of lack of training

The problem with that is that said person could injure others because of lack of training, hence, the gun education in schools.

Leanwolf
April 27, 2006, 03:19 PM
In my opinion, those who are in favor of mandatory training before Big Brother & Big Nanny would allow a citizen to own a firearm, haven't the faintest idea just how politicians and govt. bureaucrats work.

Perhaps, at the very begining, a United States Mandatory Firearms Training Program might even be a bit reasonable. Perhaps. BUT, given that most politicans and govt bureaucrats do not want the worker peasants to be armed, the "training requirements" would be increased, and increased, and increased, and increased, and increased... until, finally, virtually no one would be able to pass them. And as the increased requirements wold be made retroactive, then those who'd passed before, yet couldn't pass the new requirements, would necessarily have to turn in their firearms. All this, too, at the point of Big Brother's and Big Nanny's guns!

No, those of you who want more and more and more government control of your very existence and the usurption of your Rights, really ought to do a bit of study of politics, politicians, their hired bureaucrats, and most of all HUMAN NATURE.

(Or, if you haven't done anything wrong, why would you mind testifying against yourself in a trial?? Or, if you have nothing to hide from Big Brother & Big Nanny, why would you mind if the Police search your home without a warrant?? :uhoh: )

L.W.

Hokkmike
April 27, 2006, 03:22 PM
A license to own a gun (1 time and for all weapons) seems fair enough just as much as getting a license to drive a car. Problem is, we can't trust the gov't enough that they wouldn't use the process against us. It is OK if people want to be a danger to themselves, but some shooters are a danger to us all.
I guess, for now, I would leave the system alone.

Carl N. Brown
April 27, 2006, 03:47 PM
Reccommended but not mandatory.

The logistics could make gun training for ownership restrictive
and prohibitory. Tennessee dropped the requirement for liability
insurance for handgun carry permits, partially on the grounds
that it was too restrictive: the state constitution and court
cases have held that guns may be regulated with a view to
prevent crime, as long as the regulations were not unduly
restrictive or prohibitory. Getting 80 million people into
mandatory training would be a nightmare.

OnTheOtherHand, gun safety should be taught in schools
and at home just as driver's ed and home economics are.

whipper
April 27, 2006, 05:20 PM
Actually here in California, we already have a government course on gun safety

“Effective January 1, 2003, the Basic Firearms Safety Certificate Program was replaced with the Handgun Safety Certificate Program. These new statutes affect the general public in two principal ways. First, unless exempt, individuals must possess a Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) prior to purchasing or acquiring a handgun. Second, unless exempt, individuals must perform a safe handling demonstration prior to taking delivery of a handgun from a licensed dealer.”

This coast $25.00 and only is good for 5 years then you have to tack it over again. The test consist of reading a booklet and answering some questions or watch a video and not answer any questions. Then you have to demonstraight how to Safely handle the firearm in front of the instructor or sales clerk by loading and unloading. BTW the instructor or clerk has to go through training as well at a big coast.

Coast of HSC $25.00 Good for 5 years only
Coast of DOJ $25.00
Gun Lock $15 – 20
Coast of a $200.00 gun in California $265.00 + Tax
This Sucks.:barf:

High Planes Drifter
April 27, 2006, 05:35 PM
If it did away with background checks it wouldnt bother me. Heck, I've already taken a hunters safety course. Not much difference.

cbsbyte
April 27, 2006, 06:19 PM
I believe for new shooters who don't have any experience with firearms should take a course. People who have experience with firearms either from hunting, growing up with guns, police or military training might not need to take a course but it is still a good idea. Making it mandatory might look like a good idea on paper, some states require it, but in the long run it will be abused by the powers that be to restrict gun ownership. In Mass we have to take a mandatory course on firearm saftey before we apply for a state firearm license. I found the eight hour course had a lot of good information, some of it was less usefull but I still learned alot about firearms and state laws. The course is a one time only requriment, and the certificate is good for life.

rab357
April 27, 2006, 06:23 PM
Yes, hell yes for at least a minimum level of gun training before purchasing a gun. I could not image selling a semi-automatic to a gun newbee without them being properly training on it's usage. I am not saying they can't own a gun. Just let's help them not accidently kill themselves.

So if the Constitution said you can't infringe on a person's right to practice medicine you would prefer an unlicensed doctor to a licensed doctor?

MS .45
April 27, 2006, 06:26 PM
No. Just look at the joke that is Diver's Education class. If government mandated classes worked then there would not be so many bad drivers.

ArmedBear
April 27, 2006, 06:29 PM
Absolutely.

Since we require anyone who wants to drive a car to have driver's training and to pass a license test, we don't have car accidents, and no one is ever killed by another driver. Same would go for guns.

pax
April 27, 2006, 06:38 PM
The basic safety courses should be taught and made available for free to anyone wanting to attend.
Are you suggesting that the government should supply those classes, "for free"? If so, I've got news for you: there is literally no such thing as something that is free from the government. Such things always cost money, but the true cost (usually three or more times the going rate for whatever-it-is) is hidden underneath multitudinous layers of bureaucratic fluff.

If you're suggesting that basic safety courses should be taught and made available for free, by volunteers, I'd like to suggest that a good place to start is by doing it yourself.

But keep in mind that you'll have to buy targets, and pay range fees, and buy insurance, and you'll probably want to pay for an instructor certificate for yourself too. Plus advertising, of course. And incidentals like classroom supplies.

Free stuff can sure get spendy in a hurry.

pax

nhhillbilly
April 27, 2006, 07:04 PM
I support training for all people. It should start at about 5 years of age and continue till the day you die. It will bring a lot more 2nd voters. :evil:

Silver Bullet
April 27, 2006, 07:09 PM
I wish all gun owners had training, but my vote is NO.

Mandatory = infringement.

1wildbill
April 27, 2006, 07:14 PM
Random Thoughts On This Subject:

Driver's ed is a good example of why firearms training in Public School wouldn't work. Can you imagine trying to get that implemented on a state or national level anyway? Everyone is not required to take Driver's ed in the places I know of. I would sure hope, that a course is required in all states in order to obtain a license to carry a gun. You have to demonstrate a knowledge of firearm's safety then. (Don't know about all states, just mine). What people do in their own homes none of my, or anybody's, business; unless they harm someone else and that's covered by law already. Nothing is free. You can buy a car without a driver's license, just can't drive it, legally that is. Bothers me that some people own a gun and don't really know how to use it. There are idiots doing things everywhere that endanger me, even doctors that are licensed.

Naw, a required course in order to purchase a firearm is not a good idea.

velojym
April 27, 2006, 07:32 PM
"mandatory" usually involves some sort of government oversight.
BZZZZZT!!!
wrong answer.
You really want Hillary & Co. in power with the govt in charge of ANYTHING?

Nicky Santoro
April 27, 2006, 07:38 PM
"I'm generally against firearm regulation of any type BUT every time I go into a gun shop I see people buying guns that don't have the slightest idea how to store or use them safely."

Every time you go in?
How do you know that they don't know how to use or store them?
It's kind of a sweeping statement and, IMO, an insufficient basis to support further restriction of individual freedom.

migoi
April 27, 2006, 07:44 PM
that has mandatory safety training for handgun purchasers. There are 3 ways to get the training: a. go to an NRA basic handgun course with Hawaii Laws tacked on (4 hours class, 2 hours on range in live fire). b. attend the hunter safety course (something like 12 hourse of class, 0 hour on range, never touch a gun during the course). c. get your commanding officer (if military) to sign off that you've had firearms safety training.

This mandatory training prior to legally purchasing a handgun (no training need to purchase any long gun) coupled with no legal concealed carry caused a rather ironic situation. Those legal minded upstanding citizens will take the training and not carry their firearms in public while the criminals skip the training, steal the gun, and tote it around in public anyway and anywhere they want to....

wonderful system.

edited to add: I'm against anything mandated by the government. Do I highly encourage training? Yes, I am the VP of a group of volunteer NRA instructors that teach the course for the cost of expenses and give our students an opportunity to shoot 20 to 25 different handguns during the course of the live fire. As pointed out by other though, the government can decide to change to requirements anytime they want to further restrict ownership. Baaaaaad idea.

migoi

Molon Labe
April 27, 2006, 07:49 PM
Based on some of the responses in this thread, I would support mandatory training on the meaning of the word "infringement."

FPrice
April 27, 2006, 08:03 PM
I believe in training.

The best form of firearms training I can think of is a father, or mother, better yet both, training their children in the safe and legal usage of firearms from the earliest possible age. If for some reason the father/mother cannot, then a trusted uncle or aunt or other close relative who can act as parent figure.

The further away from this ideal we go, the more the government will try to step in and take over this role. I don't think that is a good idea.

Old Time Hunter
April 27, 2006, 08:58 PM
Absolutely! Throw 'em in a pit with two bullets of different calibers and one single shot rolling block and a hungry, angry lion at the other side of the pit. If they figure it out and get the lion before it gets them, ther're trained.
Seriously though, today I was at Gander Mountain and a 40ish gentlman was interested in purchasing a handgun. He did not have a clue, not even as customers were damn near hitting the floor, as he waved the guns all over the place. I think a cursory test of some sort should be devised to even look at a gun and a formal class on basic gun safety before you can pick it up. If you can pass the cursory or demonstrate past experience, maybe you would not have to have the formal class.

Soybomb
April 27, 2006, 09:20 PM
Please quit trying to protect me.

Its really quite scary to see nearly 25% of the votes here favoring or possibly favoring the ever creeping gun control we have. Every person thinking like that is one more nail in the coffin of the 2nd amendment. Don't think for a minute there will be a firearms collection day, its done slowly with creeping acceptance like those votes show. Everyone yells gun grabber and liberal, but there is just as much danger from gun owners.

NineseveN
April 27, 2006, 09:58 PM
Based on some of the responses in this thread, it would appear some THR members need mandatory training on the meaning of the word "infringement."

:D +1

Please quit trying to protect me.

Its really quite scary to see nearly 25% of the votes here favoring or possibly favoring the ever creeping gun control we have. Every person thinking like that is one more nail in the coffin of the 2nd amendment. Don't think for a minute there will be a firearms collection day, its done slowly with creeping acceptance like those votes show. Everyone yells gun grabber and liberal, but there is just as much danger from gun owners.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Elvis has just left the building. I second the notion that we don't need protected from problems that do not exist.

If you read that thread I linked earlier, you'll see that in states that have absolutely no training requirement for CCW, well, the streets do not run red with the blood spilled by untrained firearms users. If you're gonna advocate a solution, you need a problem first...there is no problem here besides some unsubstantiated fears...don't legislate me based on the boogie man that hides under your bed. :banghead:

Old Dog
April 27, 2006, 10:07 PM
No.

Standing Wolf
April 27, 2006, 10:11 PM
I'll support mandatory firearms training the week after the leftist extremists agree to government-mandated and -defined training before buying books and magazines, getting married, having abortions, voting, buying internet connections, et cetera.

dartos
April 27, 2006, 10:12 PM
Yes,
I have seen too many gun owners handleing firearms like a child,
I was at the range, two teens had a bullet lodge in the barrel, cheap 22 ammo, unsure what to do they looked down the barrel ( gun still loaded ),and pointed it all over the range.

I was also at the local gun shop, a prospective buyer wanted to look at a pistol, the two sales men handed the guy the pistol and he proceded to spin around the shop aiming it at the other customers, the sales guys said nothing to the guy about pointing a firearm at people, I left the shop pronto.

another time at a party some guy asked if I wanted to see his pistol, before I could say a word he pulled it out ( a beautiful chrome 45 ), I asked if it was loaded, he said " I don't know..I don't know how to check" (pull the slide, remove the mag... ) I showed him how to check (thank god it was unloaded) he was drunk as a skunk, I told him to put it away, scolded him for pulling it out in a room full of drunks and I left the party

I worked 9 years for the medical examiner, I've seen too many stupid deaths.

c_yeager
April 27, 2006, 10:14 PM
I support training for gun ownership exactly as much as I support government required education before one may practice a religion of their choice.

Lupinus
April 27, 2006, 10:19 PM
I think there should be mandatory sponsorship of militias and gun training by either your town or county. Just like it was at the time of the writing every town or county had a militia and different towns or counties did different levels of training. Some next to nothing other then very basic marksmanship while some did some pretty extensive training, as it says "A well regulated Militia" and in the talk of the time "well regulated" meant well trained. I think it should be mandatory for each town or county to provide Militia training to any who wish to participate. They can set their own standards but they should need to sponsor at least basic formation and marksmanship with rifle, pistol, and shot gun. And do away with any and all laws which hinder the formation of private militias extending off of the sponsored ones. Same basic concept as militias in the time of the founders, citizens train and when needed are called to arms.

Sorry if it is a little of track but we have gotten to far away from the militia ideals that the founders had in mind to keep this country free.

But to the original question should training be mandatory to own a gun, the answer is no it shouldn't.

Stevie-Ray
April 27, 2006, 10:51 PM
No

Hawkmoon
April 27, 2006, 11:43 PM
No.

The Founding Fathers did not require mandatory training when they wrote the Constitution.
That pretty much says it all.

It isn't required by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." A mandatory training requirement is an infringement.

No thank you.

So if the Constitution said you can't infringe on a person's right to practice medicine you would prefer an unlicensed doctor to a licensed doctor?

Total non sequitur. The Constitution does NOT say the government cannot infringe on the "right" to practice medicine, therefore your question/statement is meaningless.

Leanwolf
April 27, 2006, 11:45 PM
DARTOS - "Yes... I worked 9 years for the medical examiner, I've seen too many stupid deaths."
________________________________________________________________

Dartos, working for an M.E. for nine years, I'd bet you've seen far more people killed as a result of alcohol, than firearms accidents.

Therefore, don't you also think that every person who wants to ever take a drink of alcohol, should have to take a mandatory course from Big Brother & Big Nanny, on how to drink and be responsible with alcohol, before the Government would allow that person to take a drink or buy a bottle of booze?

Just wondering.

L.W.

repo
April 28, 2006, 12:05 AM
What I'd like to see is "gun ed." in schools, like "drivers ed." but a run down of gun safety. You do a little quiz at the end and get a certificate that enables you to purchase a firearm at 18 or 21. We already have a background check, so why not a written safety test. You have to pass a hunter ed. course to hunt in most places. You have to pass a drivers test to drive. A firearm is not much different from a car in my opinion. The days of personal responsibility seem to be drawing to an end, so I think mandatory safety training may be needed in the future. "Officer, you mean to say I can't drink a 40 ounce and shoot road signs from by buddie's car?"... "but nobody told me!".

I expect any legislation would get alot of extra negative crap tagged on, but as an idea I would support it.

PlayboyPenguin
April 28, 2006, 12:12 AM
I have to say "NO" to this one. I am usually one of the more conservative ones on here when it comes to regulations. I believe in background checks, restrictions, etc but if you are legal able to buy and own I think how much training you receive is up to you. You are most likely to only hurt yourself anyway if you are not safe with a firearm. I am not a big fan of any law designed to "protect the stupid". Like seat belt laws for adults, restrictions on payday/title loan places, etc. I do not believe you can legislate personal responsibility or hold the hand of every person of questionable inteligence.

repo
April 28, 2006, 12:13 AM
WT - While there are still men like the founding fathers around, they have been padded out by a massive class of useless eaters suckling on the teat of "Big Nanny". The people who sue McDonalds because they are fat. The people who have zero personal responsibility and live in a fatasy land where they think real life is like TV and everything will resolve itself. The kind of people who dont have the initiative or common sense to learn safe weapons handilng and storage, and who add fuel to the fire of the antis statistics when their 3 year old finds a loaded weapon.

Logan5
April 28, 2006, 12:31 AM
People like to throw questions like these out there in the abstract, and ignore all the logistics behind it.
In the best of all possible worlds, every gun owner would have basic safety training.
But in this one, who's going to fund it? Who's going to develop and print the course materials, and decide on the curriculum? Who are the instructors going to be?
I'm an NRA basic pistol safety instructor right now, and since the course is mandatory for a pistol permit in my state, it ammounts to a tax on potential permit holders. Some instructors charge as little as they can get away with, and some charge as much as they can get away with. The State and Federal government do not subsidize the NRA to develop lesson plans and print course packs; that all comes out of membership dues and contributions. Mandatory training often ends up being a tax on RKBA advocates.

mnrivrat
April 28, 2006, 01:00 AM
I support mandatory dna testing to establish the biological father of every child so as not to confuse who is raising who's child.

I support the enforcement of our immigration laws .

I support a lot of things, but when you start talking about mandatory anything, you should give serious consideration to what that can mean. I don't support mandatory regulations on natural rights , including the right to keep and bare arms.

In a free soceity people should live and let live - lest someone decides to regulate the crap out of something they feel strongly about until they feel regulating is akin to infringment. :D

justashooter
April 28, 2006, 02:19 AM
trouble is, most of the people i've met who are certified "trainers" know less about guns than i do. guns of all kinds are a lifelong passion for me. i have designed, built, shot, and collected guns of all types for over 25 years. probably owned over 500 different guns (can't remember them all), and fired over half a million rounds. killed large and small game, shot competitively, carried a gun for 15 years, and never had an AD. "i'm the only one in this room professional enough..."

maybe they would let me CLEP this one? i doubt it. give some small brained guy a little power, and he won't know when to use it, thinking it is reqiored all of the time.

people who desire a liscence to teach are usually the individuals most in need of training, just like psychologists need "treatment", and police officers need "policing", and etc., those that can, do. those that can't, teach. those that can't teach, teach gym. once they are in a position like this, they cannot be taught a thing, because they know it all, and have a certificate that says so.

me, i don't know a thing except how little i know. learning all of the time. getting some lessons on foundry design in heavy steel application lately. by taking time to ask people who do know, i am becoming one of them. you can't learn anything from me, cause i got no creedentials, but you can shoot with me and build guns anytime.

ARTiger
April 28, 2006, 02:33 AM
No. Would work out about as well as the mandatory training we have for driving. Anybody feel safer on the roads?

I do think it's the responsibility of gun dealer to demonstrate how to work a gun being sold - if the person needs and/or asks for the demo.

But then again if Joe Shmuck who's never seen or shot a real gun before goes to WalMart and buys one in a box then shoots part of himself apart "learning" . . . oh well, Darwinism at work.

Tom Servo
April 28, 2006, 02:39 AM
My ideal solution, that you would have mandatory firearm training in highschool....but not for owning a firearm...just as a class everyone has to take to graduate
+10 to that. As Americans, we're SUPPOSED to know how to handle guns, and I guarantee that if you let an impressionable teenager fire a live weapon, he'll think twice about emulating some pop-culture figure who points it at people.

I don't know how many times I've taken new shooters out, and the first time they've fired, they've stopped and looked at the gun as if to say, "holy #$*%" with a grave look. Actually firing a gun gives you a real idea of its destructive power, and it teaches you that these are not things to screw around with or take lightly.

Besides, marksmanship teaches lessons about concentration, practice and hand-eye coordination. I also think they should bring back high-school driving education.

cracked butt
April 28, 2006, 03:53 AM
Absolutely not.

Zen21Tao
April 28, 2006, 05:20 AM
I encourage gun owners to seek and obtain instruction in firearm usage and maintain a steady amount of training but I DO NOT think that it should be required. Even the most basic and well intentioned requirements on gun ownership creates a slippery slope for stricter and stricter regulations that could (and if the gun grabbers had their way would) be used to achieve the same ends as an out right ban. Perhaps we should demand training in the english languange in order for people to speak freely. How about manditory training before a woman can have an abortion or manditory training before allowing someone to enter a church. Each day I am amazed at how people demand other rights be protected while letting the second amendment (which was designed to protect the other rights) get eroded away.

Janitor
April 28, 2006, 08:13 AM
Nope.

As several others have pointed out - manditory training is a solution to a problem that doesn't seem to exist. I'm sure that there have been a few mistakes out there, but traning is no magic shield against that. Check out the Rastanarc video again. I'm willing to bet that he's had some training. Probably far more than any manditory training course would cover. Unfortunately, no amount of training can make up for a lax mind.

Manditory anything wrt gun ownership/usage is just another toehold for the gun grabbers. Once we have a new law, it can be tightened up over time. Next step after manditory training classes could be a psychological exam to make sure you are balanced enough to own a gun. It could be an entry requirement to get into the class.

A license to own a gun (1 time and for all weapons) seems fair enough just as much as getting a license to drive a car.
I must have missed the part in the bill of rights that protects my right to have a drivers license.

/j

!!! Post # 1200!!! (I know - who the hec cares?)

Princecookie
April 28, 2006, 08:18 AM
NO. For the simple reason that, the person or people in charge of this mandatory training could be very anti gun. They could make the requirements or qualifications so difficult that no one woule be able to posess a firearm.

Thin Black Line
April 28, 2006, 08:26 AM
"well organised" with Class 3 for All ;)

bill in IN
April 28, 2006, 08:42 AM
I voted not sure. As usual, I have a problem with the question. I think everyone should have firearms training as part of their schooling. Instead of a lot of the "touchy feely" stufff that is taught in the elementary schools today i think that children would far more benefit from training in swimming, woodscraft, survival skills, personnal finance, firearms, and household safety.

If it were incorporated in everyones general education it would be to the benefit of us all and a worth undertaking. If not then I would say nay. I don't believe that this country was founded for the exceptions. Anything required to exercise a right should be the norm. (No permits to own or carry required - loss of a right would be noted retaining one would not) As it appears that we now have a defacto requirement for "papers" this could easily be done.

dartos
April 28, 2006, 10:50 AM
At the very least, I would like to see the dealer demonstrate disassembly/assembly with the new owner at the time of purchase, it doesn't take long and often the dealer provides good tips.

I still remember the first time I let the spring on my 1911 shoot across the room while stripping it ( It hasn't since, and won't happen again).

The CCW class was the most informative schooling I've had in years.

Still 2 Many Choices!?
April 28, 2006, 10:54 AM
To carry a weapon at home is a Fundamental right....To carry a gun in public you should atleast know when you are protected by law in using said weapon, wich makes it no less of a Fundamental right. Basically it would be a defensive shooting course, instead of defensive driving course with emphasis on the results of taking a human life. Smart people will then decide for themselves, and more than likely train... NO TEST at the end of the class though...:D

Nitram68
April 28, 2006, 10:56 AM
Nope. Were there manidtory training, the gov't could make it a 20 year degree to own one or keep raising the fee's for the training... or make the training every month... all sorts of backdoor stuff.

Pilot
April 28, 2006, 10:59 AM
No, but I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE firearms training and not just a basic safety course but a combat and legal course that teaches decision making with various scenarios.

1wildbill
May 1, 2006, 03:34 AM
The days of personal responsibility seem to be drawing to an end,

I sure won't argue that, but how is mandatory firearms training going to remedy that? Now matter how well trained in firearms, driving, sex ed, medicine, etc., some might be, they will still be irresponsible. Many certificates and licenses on the wall don't make a person act in a responsible way.

Did I get that some states have no course for CCW? :what: Now I see that as a possible problem.

LAK
May 1, 2006, 06:45 AM
Definately not. It is de facto licensing.

Still 2 Many Choices!?To carry a weapon at home is a Fundamental right....To carry a gun in public you should atleast know when you are protected by law in using said weapon, wich makes it no less of a Fundamental right.
I take it you are under the impression that your fundamental rights stay at home when you leave your private property - and that laws do not apply to using a firearm "at home"?

Or did you mean something else?

--------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Ohen Cepel
May 1, 2006, 07:50 AM
It's a great idea. However, I'm opposed to any more requirements for exercising a right.

Also, it's a good way for them to price people out of ownership. All they have to do is make it very difficult and charge some crazy price and then we're all screwed.

1wildbill
May 1, 2006, 10:59 AM
When you are at home you are in your private place, when you leave your home you are in the public domain. If someone chooses to act stupidly at home and doesn't harm others, their business, not mine. They come out in public and endanger me or mine, my business.
While not wise perhaps, a 12 year old can drive a truck all over private property, different story on public roads. The old saying, "one man's rights end where another man's nose begins."
Again, do some states issue CCWs with no sort of training or testing?

mpthole
May 1, 2006, 11:17 AM
Without a doubt: NO

cmidkiff
May 1, 2006, 11:51 AM
Handling, owning, or carrying a weapon without a solid understanding of how to do so in a safe manner is stupid.

Legislation criminalizing stupidity is even more so.

Setting arbitrary limits on exercising your human rights is infringement of those rights, plain and simple. What, exactly, is the difference between mandating safety training as a requirement to purchase a gun, and mandating the type of gun you can purchase? How about the now expired law mandating no more than 10 rounds in a magazine? Are you OK with that one? Is that OK with you? The state of California has decided that .50 caliber guns or 'Assult Weapons' are bad, so they're not available. Is that OK? Our government has decreed that the average citizen doesn't need a machine gun. Is that a reasonable limit on our rights? How about Chicago's or NYC's near total ban on gun ownership? Where exactly is the line on how much infringement you will accept?

How about mandating spelling, grammer, and ethics classes before allowing someone to purchase a pen, typewriter, or computer? Would that be OK? How many of our inalienable rights are the people of this country willing to allow our governent to crush for the illusion of security?

It is, after all, just an illusion. If a well trained DEA Agent can shoot himself in a classroom full of kids, how is any government mandated safety training going to prevent unsafe handling of weapons?

:banghead: :cuss: :fire: :banghead:

Ok, perhaps this touched a nerve...

V4Vendetta
May 1, 2006, 12:04 PM
As much as I think that training would be good, I don't want the government to say "you have to have training or you don't get the gun". If you had to get training first, you would have to find a instructor who's approved by the government. If that happens, the government basicly can say who can have guns & who can't. There's also that pesky little phrase "shall not be infringed".:uhoh:

chetrogers
May 1, 2006, 12:54 PM
No..

Look at how many people can get there drivers licence.And you see all the nut ball drivers out there.If somebody is gonna be stupid there gonna be stupid.I wish though that some people didnt even pick up a firearm.Most of the bad gun handeling i see is from people who have used them before and just dont "get it"

CNYCacher
May 1, 2006, 01:33 PM
I think that firearms training is a good idea, great idea really.
I think that it would be wonderful if everyone who owned a firearm had some type of training.
I do not however believe that we should be prevented by the law from owning firearms in the absence of gov't-sponsored training. That is just be one more level of control.

The trick is having some type of plan that causes everyone to get training but at the same time, doesn't infringe on the rights of someone who wants to get a gun without training. Some type of incentive program maybe. $50 voucher good at any gun shop after you complete a course? A logistical nightmare no doubt, but better than forcing the training.

Firethorn
May 1, 2006, 01:44 PM
Personally, I'm also fond of gun safety being taught in primary school. I mean, it's up there with sex & drivers ed.

akodo
May 2, 2006, 12:23 AM
aside from this giving the government the ability to have a defacto ban by incredibly harsh classes (you have to hit a quarter at 100 yards with a handgun)

I don't think a person should be denied the right to own a gun because they scored 69% on a test and someone else can own a gun who scored 71%. Where do you draw that line? Same for shooting competence for CCW. I am all for getting the most training possible, but I'd hate to have someone who applied for CCW who truely had reason to fear an immedieate threat be killed because they were denied CCW because they missed the required shooting score by 1 point.

David W. Gay
May 2, 2006, 01:17 AM
Again, do some states issue CCWs with no sort of training or testing?
Yes, Indiana. But it's not just a CCW, it's a "License to Carry". No requirement to conceal.

And let's not forget Vermont & Alaska that do not even require a license to carry a firearm.

ajax
May 2, 2006, 02:47 AM
I say hell no at home or on your property but when you hit the streets the safety of those around you become a factor. I dont care how well dad or mom or ol' granpappy tought ya as long as my kids are walking the same streets as CCW's I would like to see training. Because a accident maybe one in a million,but if its your child or loved one thats the millionth customer!!!!!

pax
May 2, 2006, 03:08 AM
Again, do some states issue CCWs with no sort of training or testing?
Yep.

Washington is one of those. We've had concealed carry permits since long before most of the rest of the country figured it out.

Very similar demographics to Oregon, right next door. Oregon has a training requirement, Washington does not. Washington has a higher percentage of permit holders, and permits are much cheaper -- not in fees, but in actual costs.

There's no measurable difference in the percentage of concealed carry permit holders who do stupid or dangerous things (it's a vanishingly small number in both states).

All the panicky posts above notwithstanding, there's no blood running in the streets here even without a training requirement.

pax

LAK
May 2, 2006, 04:23 AM
1WildBillIf someone chooses to act stupidly at home and doesn't harm others, their business, not mine. They come out in public and endanger me or mine, my business.
So if Mr. Stupid at the end of your suburban street gets stupid one day and sends a 230-grainer out his livingroom window - which enters your kitchen window a hundreds yards away and strikes your wife - is that any different than Mr. Stupid accomplishing the same thing outside the local supermarket?

-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Don't Tread On Me
May 2, 2006, 04:45 AM
I'm shocked that 17% of THR supports the destruction of our Second Amendment rights.



:what:

Medusa
May 2, 2006, 05:00 AM
Voted YES, with lot of reservations. IMHO easier would be to let the first-time gun-buyer pass the test (verbal or written, whatever suits best)- does he know the safety rules, knows how to handle the gun, knows how to take it apart and put back together. Who fail it should be sent to training, or they'll be a threat to cause.

Gun class in high scool would be grand, I surely would like to have that when I was in. free class with gun would porably be too a nice touch.

idiots who need training:I had a gun buyer who came back next day with trouble - he didn't know how to field strip his Sig Mosquito (in fact, he didn't know a thing about the gun he had - what ammo does it shoot etc), and the darned instructions were in english, not in estonian. :eek: :mad:

Again, IMHO.

Kenneth Lew
May 2, 2006, 11:31 AM
Hell yes!

Trying to wait for Darwinism to take its course may get me killed/shot.

9thhour
May 2, 2006, 11:51 AM
I believe that gun training (just like manners, civic responsibility, respect for persons and country) should begin in the home. The family unit is what makes this the greatest country in the world.

If we teach our children how to handle guns, there would be a sharp decrease in gun related accidents.

I appreciate my DAD for teaching me about firearms when I was growing up and I have passed that on to all of my children. I do not worry about my children getting into my guns (I do keep them properly secured) for curosity's sake when I am not around because I have taught them well and take them shooting often when the oppurtunity presents itself.

It is not up to society to implement its views and will on my children. It is up to me as a parent, to guide my children down the proper path.

Of course, there are some who have not been as fortunate as me to have learned the proper handling and responsibilities of guns when growing up. These folks should be afforded the oppurtunity to learn these things from easily available and low cost training that is conducted by the private sector and not by state or federal mandate.

Thanks... just my $.02

Saul Hebert

1wildbill
May 2, 2006, 12:38 PM
So if Mr. Stupid at the end of your suburban street gets stupid one day and sends a 230-grainer out his livingroom window - which enters your kitchen window a hundreds yards away and strikes your wife - is that any different than Mr. Stupid accomplishing the same thing outside the local supermarket?

I see your point, but a safety training course is not going to make Mr. Stupid into Mr. Smart. Stupid is stupid. We've just about all seen the video of the, ".....only one in this room with the training to handle this gun BOOM."

Besides I live in the country, outside city limits. Your scenario is very unlikely to happen to me or my wife. Also, where I live, "...we're them ol' boys raised on shotguns!"

If you live in the 'burbs or city, first I'm sorry for you, and I would bet that you would be more likely to be hit by a stray from a drive-by shooting, or gang gun fight, with illegal guns. Those guys gonna' take a course in firearms safety?

Mandatory training IMO would be just more government intrusion.

Also, in response to other posts, nothing is free.

You carry in public, IMHO you should have mandatory training, not just in safety but in the laws governing the legal use of deadly force. I guess that the people who carry in those states that don't require training for carry are like the rest of us, very seldom have the need to use a firearm. But again, Mr. Stupid is Mr. Stupid, no amount of training can change that.

I said this before, you can buy a car without a driver's license, you can't legally drive it. You have to pass a test to get a driver's license, many more people are killed in car wrecks than gun wrecks. Didn't use the term accident on purpose.
Just my 3 cents worth.

+10 9thhour

Trip20
May 2, 2006, 12:53 PM
332 votes as of this post.

58 voters actually approve of mandatory training for gun ownership.

18 voters are somehow "not sure".

Roughly 23% of those who've voted actually agree with adding some sort of restriction or otherwise mandating more government control into the picture.

Almost one quarter of those surveyed on a supposed pro-RKBA/pro-2A discussion forum are for more mandated control over the 2nd Amendment.


We wonder why our rights are being incrementally stripped.

Even amongst our own there are some for more gun control, more gun ownership control, and their wiles reek of the same drivel used by the Brady Campaign.

It's just a matter of time and incremental steps. We've been infiltrated. Mark my words -- we are doomed. :fire:

stevekl
May 2, 2006, 01:00 PM
"I'm against mandatory training but I want to see a required gun safety class in high school"

Are the two not the same? If you're required to take a high school class in order to graduate, how is that not "mandatory training?

NineseveN
May 2, 2006, 01:01 PM
Indeed Trip20... :barf:

Guns_and_Labs
May 2, 2006, 01:12 PM
Around about 12 years old. Mandatory for every child, right along with reading, writing, arithmetic and government. How else do we get a functioning common militia and educated voters?

mp510
May 2, 2006, 01:58 PM
I don't believe in any sort of cumpolsury firearms training, but I don't see it as unreasonable for somebody to demonstrate knowledge on how to safely operate and handle the firearm they are purchasing at the time of purchase. The 'well regulated' clause in the second should mean something, and I (unfotunately) don't see mandatory militia training as there was back then.....

Manedwolf
May 2, 2006, 06:15 PM
Nope.

One, mandatory means more government regulation, which means more government invasiveness and restrictions.

Two, a lot of people were taught excellent safety and shooting skills by a parent.

Three, the people that often need a gun for self-defense the most, the working poor in bad areas, often don't have the funds OR the time for a $100+ "safety course".

Manedwolf
May 2, 2006, 06:17 PM
but I don't see it as unreasonable for somebody to demonstrate knowledge on how to safely operate and handle the firearm they are purchasing at the time of purchase.

Aw, c'mon...it usually takes reading the manual to get used to something new, especially a rifle. You read the manual, take it apart, dry-fire it, etc...before taking it out to the RANGE.

I'm just picturing someone having to "demonstrate" how to operate an old Garand before they buy their first one...and promptly smashing their thumb. :scrutiny:

And it's not fair to tell a private seller that they have to be a nanny to their customers, too, and make sure they know how to use their purchase. Personal responsibility, hm?

SnP
May 2, 2006, 06:40 PM
No, the 2nd Amendment does not grant the government the power to requir anyone to do anything to own a gun.

10 Ring Tao
May 2, 2006, 07:43 PM
Not until after there is mandatory training for having a kid.

LAK
May 3, 2006, 07:18 AM
1WildBillI see your point, but a safety training course is not going to make Mr. Stupid into Mr. Smart. Stupid is stupid. We've just about all seen the video of the, ".....only one in this room with the training to handle this gun BOOM." .. [ETC] ..
My mistake; I thought you were making a case for mandatory training.

-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedestates.org

Trip20
May 3, 2006, 12:06 PM
363 votes as of this post.

63 voters actually approve of mandatory training for gun ownership.

19 voters are somehow "not sure".

Roughly 29% -- over one quarter -- of those surveyed on a supposed pro-RKBA/pro-2A discussion forum are for more mandated control over the 2nd Amendment.

:cuss: :banghead: :fire:

Molon Labe
May 3, 2006, 12:38 PM
Let's say I'm at the gun range shooting a rifle. According to 29% of the THR members who've posted in this thread, I should only be allowed to own & shoot a rifle if I have taken a safety course.

So how would anyone verify if I have taken the safety course? How would I prove to an LEO I have taken the safety course?

engineer151515
May 3, 2006, 12:44 PM
I'd only support mandatory training if it included mandatory gun ownership.


Issue all US non-felon citizens over 21 years old one ea AR-15 (A2 or A4) with 3 mags in a soft gun case.

:)

Trip20
May 3, 2006, 12:57 PM
So how would anyone know if I have taken the safety course? How would I prove to an LEO I have taken the safety course?

Didn't you hear? There will be an endorsement noted on your national ID card, which is also used to verify whether or not you're a terrorist. :rolleyes:

"PAPERS PLEASE, SIR!"

"HALT! I SAID PAPERS PLEASE!"

zealot
May 3, 2006, 01:16 PM
WOW! 63 (17.21%) for mandatory training, 19 (5.19%) not sure? I always try to stay civil in matters like this but, in matters like the ones we are facing, i.e., total gun control, mass invasion from the southern borders, etc. I say to those of you that voted for the training, may your chains rest lightly upon you!

Howdy Molon! Good to see another REAL American here!:neener:

Guns_and_Labs
May 3, 2006, 02:49 PM
I say to those of you that voted for the training, may your chains rest lightly upon you!


Well, speaking for myself, my vote for mandatory training was exactly for that, NOT for mandatory training as a precondition for owning or having a gun. No need to get all 2A.

Again, I think every child should be trained in safe and effective firearm use as part of compulsory education. That's why I voted "yes".

If I misinterpreted the poll, and it was meant to ask "Do you support mandatory training as a precondition to gun ownership?", then change my vote to "no".

Trip20
May 3, 2006, 05:18 PM
I don't think you misinterpreted the poll. The poll question is not posed very well. You probably just answered the poll question with out reading the initial posters comments to see what he was in fact asking:

While I'm not 100% secure in my position I think that mandatory training when purchasing a firearm would probably help our cause...

(snip)

...The biggest problem that I see with the idea is that a training requirement becomes a de facto waiting period while the buyer waits for the next available training class.

In addition, even if we're talking mandatory firearms training for children of ____ age, I wouldn't agree to it. Same as I do not agree with mandatory sex education.

I'm the friggen parent, I'll handle this stuff, thank you very much. You (the school/government) teach them math, science, english...etc, and I'll handle the rest.

Guns_and_Labs
May 3, 2006, 05:38 PM
Same as I do not agree with mandatory sex education.

I'm the friggen parent, I'll handle this stuff, thank you very much. You teach them math, science, english...etc, and I'll handle the rest.

I'm guessing you also want to take the history topics yourself. :)

I'm glad you're being proactive about the education of your children. Too many parents are not, or are not educated themselves, so compulsory education ends up being the safety net.

There's a lot to be said for home education, whether it be guns, sex, or anything else. Hopefully we agree that the kids need to be educated, though.

DarthBubba
May 3, 2006, 08:01 PM
NO,NO,NO,NO

Not another Gubermint mandated Skoolin project.
It wil only trn owt as Bad as our Publik skools.:scrutiny:
Meaning it will add cost after cost and change nothing of the ignorance that most people have about guns and their safe usage.:banghead:

DarthBubba:evil:

Trip20
May 3, 2006, 10:08 PM
Hopefully we agree that the kids need to be educated, though.

Absolutely.

Whereas I was being a little facetious in my last post, I do believe there are a wide range of "subjects" where mandating a child’s attendance should be the parent’s decision.

While I may not agree with another parent’s beliefs regarding firearms, I support their right to raise their child as they see fit.

I only hope that same parent would support my right to remove my child from a class they feel is worthy, if it's not in line with my beliefs.

It’s a two-way street, ya know?

Personally? Yes, I like your idea very much ;) :

I think every child should be trained in safe and effective firearm use as part of compulsory education.

Last summer I was able to convince an anti-gun-ish colleague to put her son & daughter in the hunter safety course. After a week or two of relaxed discussion, she realized the virtue in their children learning about firearms, learning to respect firearms, and learning how to safely handle firearms.

I give her credit for at least being unbiased enough to have her children learn, even if only for safety's sake. We need more parents like her.

goon
May 3, 2006, 11:36 PM
No.
If you give a bureaucrat power like that he will misuse it.

1wildbill
May 3, 2006, 11:41 PM
63 voters actually approve of mandatory training for gun ownership.


Anti's in disguise, we have been infiltrated!

My mistake; I thought you were making a case for mandatory training.

LAK
No problem, I thought the same about your comments.

I was in a gun store one day and a guy came in wanting "a box of bullets for a Glock", (he was holding his way too large jeans up with one hand, you know the type), the clerk asked him what caliber and were they for home defense or target shooting and the guy said, "Uh, home defense, just Glock bullets". Clerk explained there were different sizes of shells for Glocks and told him to find out what caliber the Glock was and come back. After he left, the clerk asked us if we could smell the weed on him, we could. Don't really have a point, except what kind of training does that guy need and do you think he bought the gun legally?

ProficientRifleman
May 3, 2006, 11:57 PM
This one is too easy. I once had a conversation with a lady who was supposedly for CCW and Shall Issue laws. We started talking about training requirements and she was all for manditory training.

I suggested that, since all persons in our society will come across firearms at some time in their lives, and since all persons SHOULD know how to at least handle a gun in a safe manner (i.e. pick one up and not shoot oneself), that we should have manditory firearms familiarity and proficiency training in public schools.

She started gasping and turned ghost white...

DRZinn
May 4, 2006, 03:51 AM
Mandatory in the sense that it'd be a prerequisite to buying a gun?

Not only no, but HELL NO.

Mandatory in the sense that all students learn in school? Sure, why not.

I thin the most prerequisite for purchase I'd ever go for would be reciting the 4 safety rules. In any language.

Soybomb
May 4, 2006, 07:42 PM
Trip20, indeed we're doomed. People always cry liberal, democrat, and gun-grabber but theres no need, firearm owners are more than willing to slowly handover their rights while talking big about what would happen if someone "came for their guns."

Did I get that some states have no course for CCW? Now I see that as a possible problem.
So you make your decisions on legislation based on how you feel? This is exactly the problem we have with concealed carry in illinois and wisconsin where you have people that say "I don't think thats a good idea, I can imagine alot of problems." The whole time of course they never look at the existing statistical evidence already present showing concealed carry to be safe. Several states issue licenses without training, I have nonresident NH and PA permits both with nothing more than sending them an application. Before you consider supporting something that infringes on the rights of firearm owners I'd encourage you to at least do your research on it first.

Molon Labe
May 4, 2006, 08:49 PM
The argument against mandatory training is almost too easy to win:

Pompous gun owner: Yes, I think training should be a prerequisite for owning a gun. There are just too many idiots out there with guns.

Liberty-minded gun owner: Under such a system, a gun owner must prove he/she has been trained before they can buy a gun, correct?

Pompous gun owner: Um, yea, sure.

Liberty-minded gun owner: How do they prove it?

Pompous gun owner: Um, well, uh, we can issue cards.

Liberty-minded gun owner: Like a driver's license, a "proof of training card" would be very easy to counterfeit. How would a FFL or an LEO verify the authenticity of the card?

Pompous gun owner: Um, well, they, um, um, they would call it in.

Liberty-minded gun owner: Ah, I see. So not only does your system require cards, but also a large, centralized, government-run database?

Pompous gun owner: Well, um, yea I guess. Um...

Liberty-minded gun owner: How is that different from registering all gun owners?

Pompous gun owner: Well, um, I don't know, um, um...

Liberty-minded gun owner: And I thought you were against registration?

Pompous gun owner: Well, I am! But, um, um, um...

goon
May 4, 2006, 10:07 PM
As a sidenote, I WAS required to take a hunter's safety course when I was in 6th grade. PA game wardens came into our science classroom with the tools of their trade on their hips and a handful or working rifles and shotguns (some of which were their own) to teach us how to use them safely.
We were required to pass the course if we wanted to pass the class.
It didn't turn out half bad but I had already taken and passed the course once before by then too (under my dad's supervision) and I had been shooting since I was 4.
Would I be opposed to seeing some kind of gun safety class in a school?
No.
Should you be mandated to have a government issued card if you want to buy a Mossberg or a Glock.
No.

v35
May 4, 2006, 10:30 PM
I'm a proponent of training. I wouldn't (and didn't) purchase or even handle a handgun without proper training from qualified individuals. I would advodate training for anyone else contemplating using a gun.

However, firearm ownership is a right. The Declaration of Independence states the Founders belief that certain rights are bestowed upon us by God. The right to own firearms is guaranteed by the highest law of the land, the Constitution.

Requiring training of those not willing to learn is a waste of time and energy.

mrmeval
May 5, 2006, 12:11 AM
Your feelings are irrelevant to whether I can own weapons or not.

Sheesh

Cuda
May 5, 2006, 01:35 AM
I don't believe it should be required. Just another way for the government to control you. I do think however, that training is a good idea once you get your weapon..


C

cambeul41
May 5, 2006, 07:24 AM
From Rochester Hills

I think that your suggestion for mandatory training before having children would do much more to improve the safety and welfare of the world than would firearms training.

I do like your signature line!

dpesec
May 5, 2006, 08:10 AM
From my point, I can see it both ways. If the Goberment says do it, then I'm against it.
But I do think that people should be trained on their weapons for two reasons.
First, in the old days people grew up with firearms. In today's world this is no longer the case.
Second, I participated in an IDPA match last weekend and was surprised on how many people had no idea on the basic functions and procedures of their weapons.

baz
May 5, 2006, 09:59 AM
I don't think I can say it much better than Justin did back on the first page.

As a first response, I say "no." Most (all?) states already have an age requirement, at least for purchase, if not for actual ownership. So as a practical matter we are talking here about a requirement for adult ownership. That means one would have to produce "proof of training" to purchase a gun. That is just about half way to registration, in my view, or just another way to start down the slippery slope to confiscation.

OTOH, I agree that training is socially desirable. So require it, along with other mandatory education in the public schools (and required as well for private schools and home schooling).

But I see this, in the current political climate, as about as likely as another social policy I'd favor: universal service as a prerequisite to the right to vote.

xd9fan
May 5, 2006, 04:36 PM
NO!!
Like everything else.......one thing will lead to another.
I though this was a Right!!

Havegunjoe
May 5, 2006, 05:46 PM
While I highly recomend it we do not need more restictions on what is our right to bear arms. It just leads to more and more restrictions until only the rich, famous or politically connected can have a gun.

pbass
May 5, 2006, 06:04 PM
Er, I see the objections to mandatory training, but what if the question were--should firearms operators be required to prove proficiency in the same manner MV operators must prove proficiency to drive? If you are the kind of person who believes nobody should have to have a driver's license to drive, or nobody should have to prove proficiency, then skip this post. But if you believe people should have to prove proficiency in safe operation of a MV, then ask yourself why, OK?

Molon Labe
May 5, 2006, 06:07 PM
pbass:

Driving on a public road is considered a privilege. Owning/bearing/buying/selling a firearm is a right.

pbass
May 5, 2006, 06:09 PM
Yeah well you nailed it with the word "considered." But we all know in America, the right to drive a car is basic survival.

Jac
May 5, 2006, 06:14 PM
No, no, no.

Even if you concede that driving is a privilege (I don't, but I'll live with it), vehicle ownership is a right. As is firearms ownership. But that one I won't live with, because not only is infringement of our right to self defense immoral, it's also plainly illegal.

pbass
May 5, 2006, 06:38 PM
Yah...the prob is that it's no longer "plainly" illegal. Hm, maybe the question is good as stated. F'rinstance, there's an info packet with the out-of-state FL app, and one when the permit arrives in the mail. Yeah, the mandatoriness of training in writing to the permit holder is on the part of the State, but maybe that counts too. And maybe from a practical standpoint, MV operation results in loss of life and limb routinely enough to warrant an operator licensing system, but in comparison firearms operation does not. Good topic, I'll be thinking about it on the 1900-0700 shift tonight.

Legionnaire
May 5, 2006, 06:51 PM
No. A right is a right. All for training, but not mandatory training.

Archie
May 5, 2006, 07:22 PM
As demonstrated in PDSR California, mandatory training becomes:

1. Another time delay obstacle for firearms ownership.

2. Another added cost obstacle for firearms ownership.

3. More government control over one's life.

4. Another means by which government can deny one's right to own a firearm.

5. No illegal use of firearms is prohibited by mandatory training. (No training is required for criminal misuse of a firearm.)

Do I think people should get training and do some serious study regarding firearms and firearms usage? Of course. The NRA has some excellent training courses and some good instructors (and a couple duds, but that's the way life goes.)

I just reject the added 'hoop' of government mandated training. It's another form of Gun Control.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you support mandatory training for gun ownership?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!