Thoughts on people who claim "Only people who are formally trained should be able to own a firearm"?

Let's apply that to cars as well.

Freedom means people have to put up with stuff that you do that they don't like and conversely you have to put up with stuff that people do that you don't like.

They've seemingly forgotten that point.

You dont have to be educated to vote. Or talk. Or peaceably assemble. Same thing with RKBA. And that’s usually how i respond. “How would you like it if you were forced to undergo formal training so that you could exercise freedom of speech?”. The response is usually something about how words dont kill, but guns do. The discussion is boringly predictable from that point.

formal training requirements to own a gun could be argued as a denial of access.

I don’t want additional strings added to the rights listed in the bill of rights.

freedom is messy sometimes.

My thought: Ok, so only people that pay income and property taxes should be able to vote. Which is incompatible with Constitution, just like the proposed 'formal training' requirement.

Things get very “messy” when “We the Formally Trained People” begin as white male property owners and then time/ process begins to extend that awareness to all others; things get diluted for the good and for the bad - a work in progress that sometimes turns against the original concept of the “People” - establishing rights and preserving rights will always require a perpetual fight - the only thing guaranteed in life is that things will change.

Sovblocgunfan said:

The response is usually something about how words dont kill, but guns do.

Click to expand...

My counter to that is "ever heard of a book called Mein Kampf?"

Sovblocgunfan said:

freedom is messy sometimes

Click to expand...

Yep.

Take a look at the frequency of injury auto accidents vs gun accidents.
Where's the outrage?

All you need to know, a few minutes to read and understand.

Is formal training going to take the form of hunters safety course in high school. For us who have been in the military have had formal training. As for Wisconsin those things are required to get a hunting license.It is not a stretch of the imagination to see these requirements for the purchase of a firearm.

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/Education/OutdoorSkills/safetyEducation

Hunting course requirements
Anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 1973, must have completed a hunter education course and show the certificate to purchase any hunting license in Wisconsin. However, if they will be hunting under the hunting mentor ship program or they have successfully completed and have proof of completing basic training in the U.S. Armed Forces, Reserves or National Guard, they do not need a hunting safety course certificate to purchase a license.

I am all for individuals obtaining education and instruction regarding the safety and use of firearms. I do not think training for competition has much value. Competition is not self defense. But that is not the primary question here.

The real danger is when governmental agencies of any level mandates permission to own, possess or bear a firearm is dependent upon completion of a legislative or director dictated course of instruction. One of the easiest ways to disarm most everyone is prohibited ownership, possession in one's home or possession on one's person by the individual to pass a course which requires five or more days of daytime study (meaning not going to work), costing an exorbitant amount of money and having a final examination to pass the course which would cross a theologians or astrophysics doctor's eyes.

Education and training are good. A bureaucrat's command is not.

You would expect the governing Princes of New Jersey or California to set standards that would be suitable and not change them over time to become onerous and restrictive? A law writ today can be changed tomorrow. Camel's noses, tent flaps, that sort of thing.

I agree that the urbanization of the country has diminished the numbers of fathers, uncles, and older brothers who could take a kid "shootin'," with the attendant instruction. But I don't think formalizing it on a legal basis is the way to go.

Used to be the BSA had Riflery merit badges, but I believe that program has been seriously curtailed, if not eliminated.

One solution to the training problem, though, would be universal military conscription. But yeah, try to get away with proposing that nowadays, especially considering the Leftist efforts to reduce the voting age to infancy.

Terry

How about we make basic firearms safety, handling, and marksmanship training a part of the High School curriculum again?

Oops, forgot whos in charge of the reeducation camps, err, I mean schools, in this country.......sorry, Im back to reality now.

"Only people who are formally trained should be able to own a firearm"?
Never heard this before, even since working in the law enforcement community. However, based on the way things are going in this country, unless there's a significant sea change, I think that's the direction in which we're headed. All you need to do is look at the website of your state's department of licensing to see how many more things each year require documented training and licensure.

Many is the time however, that I've heard someone lament that some people should be formally trained and licensed before being allowed to breed... Sometimes I feel that I could be onboard with that.

Sounds like a "full employment act" for firearms instructors. The insidious nature of this proposal is that it would divide the gun community: the instructors versus those who would have to pay for their services. In this regard (divide and conquer), it's like UBC proposals that channel all firearms transfers through FFL dealers. (That gives the FFL dealers a vested interest in the UBC system.) The antigunners are getting tactically smarter.

Must you be a Chef to eat?
Must you be a Sommelier to drink?
Must you be a Neurologist to sleep?

Does one need a teacher to learn to run?

Is there course of study that leads to a license to procreate? I think this is actually a pretty good idea. But then, with all the troubles, I wouldn’t have the best things I have in my life. Sound familiar? Like Natural Rights?

Must I be a race circuit driver, chauffeur, pilot to drive a car or a boat?
No, drivers education is not formal training of the operation of a car. If so, it lacks. Just as many mandated courses for Concealed Carry Licenses are. No, in fact it is merely rudimentary, the minimum, the least we can do.

Should we all be Mario Andretti?
Should we all have to be Jerry Miculek?

Who formally trains the Professional Hunters?
Who formally trains the artist?
If you can not paint a perfect circle, should ‘we’ allow you to paint a circle at all? Even to eat?

The prime fallacy of this notion is that, despite training, and despite licensing requirements, people will still do stupid things and people will still be irresponsible.

All you have to do is get on the road and note that, even with six weeks (or whatever length a state mandates) of instruction, stiff fees for licensing, and outrageous prices for motor vehicles, fully half the drivers are the public thoroughfares are blithering idiots who put the lives of everyone else on the roads with them in danger. Furthermore, having been the recent victim of a bad, bad haircut, I have to ask, how long is barber college and how much do they pay to renew their licenses every year?

Archie said:

Education and training are good. A bureaucrat's command is not.

Click to expand...

That says it all!

While it sounds like a good idea on its surface, the Constitution recognizes RKBA as an inherent right, which means it accrues to the individual at birth and without any special qualification or recognition. I think it's more important to the United States to maintain the Constitution as written than to implement what sounds like "good ideas" or "commonsense" solutions to perceived problems.

That being said, I do think that gun knowledge is better and more effective than gun control. We need to teach kids about guns and their rights in school as educational requirements. It's ignorance that's responsible for fear and misuse. If all citizens understood firearms and their rights and responsibilities with respect to same I do believe you'd see a decrease in gun violence.

As another point of thought:

Legally blind people can own firearms.

Im probably not alone when I say I do not want to be around in the event said legally blind person uses a firearm for defensive purposes.

A lot of people making that argument falsely claim that it would be like requiring driver’s ed, a driver’s license, and registration for cars. Those people don’t know what they are talking about.

You do *not* need driver’s ed, a driving test, or a driver’s license to own a car, keep it at home, drive it on your own property (or someone else’s) with permission, etc. And you can modify a car until it has 10,000+ hp if you wish, or build one from scratch, or buy one over the Internet. You can let a 12-year-old drive it on private property if you wish.

You only need a license to operate a car *on public roads.* There is no licensure or registration for car ownership.

Yes, define "proper training". I recall Jeff Cooper writing that his correspondents were appalled by the careless weapons handling they saw in the Sandbox, for most soldiers weapons training is the two weeks they get in Basic, in my 4 years of active duty 1967-1971 I met only one NCO who was a gun guy. A few years ago the New Jersey State Police adopted the H&K P7 because it was considered a "safe" gun to handle-they actually had more accidents. Internal problems and accidents within law enforcement agencies are rarely revealed to the public.
Gun owners should be subject to the same rigorous background checks and screening as parents.

We have a "right" to own firearms, and nothing should hinder that.

That said, along with that right comes "responsibility", and its our responsibility to be proficient and safe with them. You screw up, its all on you, and you have to face up to that.

I feel that way about driver's licenses too. Being forced to get one by the state, makes driving a privilege, just like making you get a permit to carry your gun turns that right into a privilege.

When you allow the state to dictate what you are and are not allowed to do, then you have given up your right to do it, and it becomes a privilege that they can deny at any whim.