Do you support mandatory training for gun ownership?

[goon]

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]

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]

Your feelings are irrelevant to whether I can own weapons or not.

Sheesh

 

[Cuda]

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]

10 Ring Tao

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]

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]

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]

NO!!
Like everything else.......one thing will lead to another.
I though this was a Right!!

 

[Havegunjoe]

No, it's a right.

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]

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]

pbass:

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

 

[pbass]

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]

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]

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]

No. A right is a right. All for training, but not mandatory training.

 

[Archie]

NO; no government mandated training.

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.