Mandatory Safety Training, yes or no?

Jlr2267 said:

Yes, I guess that's the part that really bothers me. He lost his finger so we can shrug it off as a learning experience and give a Darwin Award. But what about the next one...maybe an innocent by-stander gets a permanent headache...can we, as responsible gun owners, offer no solutions to this growing problem, and live with that? I think we have to come to grips with the reality that we, as a community, need to offer real solutions before other solutions are imposed on us.

Click to expand...

That almost happened to me one time, I was shooting with a buddy, and his friend I didn't know. The guy I didn't know shot a semi auto, then after the 4th or 5th shot he lowered the gun, and out of the corner of my eye I saw him start to turn it over in his hands to look at it....cocked and chambered, mag in. Before i could say anything, He accidentally hit the trigger and sent a bullet about a foot in front of my stomach. Deafened me, and singed my arm with powder.

You know what my real solution after that was? Make sure that I was on private land to shoot, or somewhere secluded on public land, and to not shoot with or around people I don't know. When I shoot with people unfamiliar with my guns, or on my property, I establish safety rules, familiarize them with the firearms, and assert that I am an authority over them when they hold my gun and what I say goes. This includes no loaded mags in the guns while in side the house (range is outside on private land) muzzles downrange unless bolt is back and mag out, etc.

I AM adamant about my personal safety and paranoid to an extent when it comes to being around strangers and their guns in uncontrolled situations. But this doesn't come at the expense of their personal freedoms, just in my willingness to be around them and their firearms and my attitude when unfamiliar people handle my firearms.

On principle, I'm a fan of constitutional carry like we have here in Alaska

Click to expand...

I was up your way a while back, and of course, during my visit there, I just had to visit on of the LGS's. My buddy was looking at one of the new .380's, and one of the customers there started extoling the virtues of the 9mm over the .380, etc... You know the drill, happens all the time. He was a nice enough guy and all, and I was taking in that local culture, just enjoying the day and conversion. Then out of the blue, he takes out his CCW DAO 9mm pistol (I forget which one it was), and as if to show me an 'example of what a 9mm looks like', just hands it over to me, fully loaded and says, 'See'? I just wouldn't feel comfortable handing a total stranger my fully loaded, ready to go CCW . That surprised me a bit. I carefully handed it back to him, and said 'nice pistol, thanks for letting me see...', and back in his holster it went.

That kind of blew me away, and I didn't really know what to think. Not sure what that has to do with mandatory education, but I feel it illustrates vast differences in the way people act. 'Cookie cutter' rules definitely don't always apply.

Jlr2267 said:

But what about the next one...maybe an innocent by-stander gets a permanent headache...can we, as responsible gun owners, offer no solutions to this growing problem, and live with that? I think we have to come to grips with the reality that we, as a community, need to offer real solutions before other solutions are imposed on us.

Click to expand...

You have two faulty premises: First, that a gun owner should be presumed unsafe until he can prove otherwise; second, that mandatory safety training could or would have prevented this incident.

A person should be presumed fit to exercise their fundamental rights until proven otherwise, even if that proof comprises damage to people or property. If you accept the idea that people need to be coddled to behave properly, the logical leap to statism is a simple one.

A week ago, I bought my ump-teenth (yes, that is a big number) firearm, a Springfield XD-S. I opened the case...right on top of everything, a 6"x4.5" red and white WARNING card. (in two languages, front and back)

First sentence:


After that are instructions to read the owner's manual, keep firearms away from kids, if you don't understand something....seek professional advice, avoid shooting indoors without proper ventilation....and so on and so forth.

If the person opts to ignore this large RED and WHITE warning card, what can you say? I grew up as a farm kid way back when.....sometimes I didn't listen to my Dad like I should have....I learned the hard way in those cases.

Training, in the form of repetitive physical action, creates and reinforces habitual action. Practicing the proper action in response to likely situations creates habitual action which one reverts to when faced with that situation. Habitual actions are executed without forethought. When under pressure, and without the proper habitual action in place, an individual is very likely to revert to the habit most often used in the most similar situation instead of thinking through the current situation to determine the proper course of action. The substituted habitual action may very well be the wrong one.

At a range, with family watching, his gun jams after the first shot.He is under performance pressure in in front of an attentive audience. Instead of executing the correct action, he tries to force a malfunctioning piece of equipment to work. He may be in the habit of pounding on his keyboard to speed up his computer. Or slapping the radio when he can't get a station tuned. The one habit he clearly had not developed is the correct malfunction drill.

Required. Nope.

It's a real slippery slope. Like requiring a license for having kids. Who decides/grants the license? Fundamental rights should not be subjected to licensing and such.

Guess what. Military and Police have lots of mandatory training.

Having been in the Army and all around the world with the Army for a minute... and dialed in to all sorts of investigations for accidents, I can tell you that the Army has a shockingly high number of accidental discharges, negligent discharges, lost/misplaced/stolen firearms, etc. Again, a shockingly high number, in elite combat units.

"Training" is only as good as the person interested in receiving it. Some people get it and some don't.

Any person in the profession of arms, or interested in arms, should be voluntarily interested in learning and applying safety. There should be no need for requiring it.

I would agree with mrvco in post 13. But also in middle school and include some range time with BB/pellet guns or 22's. Not only from a safety standpoint, but with more general familiarity by more people in their youth, maybe there would be fewer antis.

The lack of training requirements is shocking. Where I live one can actually obtain carry permit for handgun w/o passing shooting qualification tests.

A person's right to own firearms is not in question. Their right to discharge them in public areas, without having basic safety training is what is concerning. Several years ago, my state implemented hunter safety requirements for new hunters, born after a certain date. Would you consider this to be a violation of fundamental rights?

Click to expand...

It is well to keep in mind that the 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms. Use of those arms is not mentioned and is, and always has been, highly subject to regulation.

Jlr2267 said:

In the first case, the presumption is only that the potential gun owner should be exposed to basic firearms safety. Whether he is safe or unsafe without it is not an answerable question apriori, therefore it is also a moot one.

Click to expand...

You are proposing to place a condition on the exercise of a fundamental right. Of course you assume a new gun owner is unsafe, or else what is the basis for requiring him to receive training?

In the 2nd case, you are correct that I am presuming that safety training would help prevent accidents such as this, although possibly not this particular one. I do not see this as faulty, but rather logical. We all train our children on firearms safety by this same premise.

Click to expand...

It is telling that you equate requiring government sanctioned training with parenting a child. Statism often masquerades as paternal beneficence.

A person's right to own firearms is not in question. Their right to discharge them in public areas, without having basic safety training is what is concerning.

Click to expand...

Maybe you are advocating that people be required to receive training to shoot on a private (open to the public) range? I have no problem with a private range requiring shooters to receive training; that is their right. My issue is with a government mandated training regime. A right with conditions has another name: a privilege.

Several years ago, my state implemented hunter safety requirements for new hunters, born after a certain date. Would you consider this to be a violation of fundamental rights?

Click to expand...

Straw man argument. Hunter education is required as a condition of exercising what is generally accepted as the privilege of hunting.

I think safety training is great. I have obtained it, to satisfy myself that I can handle firearms safely, recognizing that it is my personal responsibility to do so. My problem is with the mandatory part. As members of a(n ostensibly) free society, we accept the potential for mishaps. We cannot nor should we try to legislate away every hazard in our lives at the expense of our freedoms.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

See that "well regulated" part? That's where the training comes in. Should that training be government mandated? I don't know. I have a hard time with that. But knowing how to safely handle a firearm is definitely part of being a responsible gun owner.

More government is never a good idea. We are suppressed by so many restrictions, regulations, mandates, etc... until nothing we do is legal and everything we do is a liability with lawyers and insurance companies that it's ridiculous.

We are responsible for our own actions. Period. Our justice system doesn't seem to take that view much anymore, nor does our govt or society. Parents don't teach responsibility, and society takes over from there. That's where the problem lies.

See that "well regulated" part? That's where the training comes in. Should that training be government mandated? I don't know. I have a hard time with that. But knowing how to safely handle a firearm is definitely part of being a responsible gun owner.

Click to expand...

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my understanding reading things written by those who are, is that "well regulated" is 18th century speak for "well equipped" not well organized, disciplined, or trained. (Aspects of those issues were seperately addressed under various militia laws and acts that were law of the land down through the years before the formal establishment of the National Guard as the organized side of the militia.)

I will say that I was in a CCW class here in Arizona and a couple of license renewal classes. It was SCARY folks. Most got their CCWs though. Some were undoubtedly hunters, but had NO familiarity with the use of a handgun as a SD weapon. As just one example, one old woman, Must have been nearly as old as me, covered a bunch of us with the muzzle of her gun. She was animatedly upset that she had done very badly on the live fire portion of the class. She emphasized this by shaking and pointing her gun, as one would shake one's finger, at her husband and others, saying that it was his fault because he made her nervous. The instructor called me a couple days later to let me know he did not pass her. Maybe there is something to mandatory safety training. Wouldn't the press have loved reporting that someone had been shot in a CCW class, even with an official Government approved and certified instructor present...

Freedom is inherently dangerous. So is life. I'd rather deal with dangerous freedom than dangerous subjugation.

HorseSoldier said:

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my understanding reading things written by those who are, is that "well regulated" is 18th century speak for "well equipped" not well organized, disciplined, or trained. (Aspects of those issues were seperately addressed under various militia laws and acts that were law of the land down through the years before the formal establishment of the National Guard as the organized side of the militia.)

Click to expand...

Neither am I a Constitutional scholar. But, I would argue that the term "well regulated" does indeed encompass "organised, disciplined, and trained". And as support in that position, I offer the following, taken from a DOJ treatise on the subject written in 2004 and published online at Constitution.org :

[T]he standard for a "well regulated Militia," as opposed to a well-regulated select militia, or well-regulated army, presupposes the background meaning of "Militia" by taking into account the body's large size and varied source. As the Militia Act of 1792 contemplated, it might be enough to have a county officer enroll persons and ensure that they possessed arms and knew how to use them through basic training once or twice a year. Similarly, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 defined "a well-regulated militia" as simply being "composed of the body of the people, trained to arms." (115) And the first New York Constitution declared that "the militia" should always "be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service" because "it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it."

Click to expand...

Again, I'm no Constitutional scholar, but this treatise is a good (although dry) read about the original meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.

I'd also like to point out that mandatory safety training, if such a thing were to become a popular idea, would best be implemented (as mentioned earlier) in grade school. Firearm safety and marksmanship training would be a valuable addition to public education. Though to be fair, I think public education in general should also not be mandatory.

If Sex Ed in public schools is mandatory, then so should be firearms education. They are both safety training for the safe exercise of a fundamental right.

Click to expand...

That's funny, because you still see women get pregnant regardless of sex ed. I work at a large hospital L&D and I've seen girls as young as 14 pregnant.

Telling people to use protection doesn't guarantee they'll use it.

I'm afraid the issue with firearms safety is more about using common sense, not mandatory training.

Well...it's a shame the guy blew his finger off, but I don't know how training could help. What, we gonna' tell people that guns are dangerous so keep out of the way of the barrel?

If Sex Ed in public schools is mandatory, then so should be firearms education. They are both safety training for the safe exercise of a fundamental right.

Click to expand...

Well...actually, its a bit different. I mean, once fired you can't call a bullet back, but you can call a pregnancy back.

Well...actually, its a bit different. I mean, once fired you can't call a bullet back, but you can call a pregnancy back.

Click to expand...

True, but I was thinking more of the dangers of STDs. HIV is a bit harder to recall.

No.

We should not punish the masses for the carelessness or stupidity of a few. In addition, I would never trust the majority of our politicians to set appropriate standards for firearm training.

I view it as just another tool that liberals will utilize in their attempt to hamstring the 2nd amendment, along with other such ridiculous proposals as ammo taxes, ammo tracing, ammo registry, firearm insurance, mental health review certificates, etc.

I'm not out there to be a police officer or some state or federal agent. The weapon is for my personal protection only; it has no proactive role. Save the training for the professionals who need it as a requirement of their job.

My home state of Texas wanted to charge me 100 bucks and take away a weekend for training required to get my CCW. I declined, and got my CCW permit from FL instead. They are much easier to work with when it comes to showing competency handling a firearm.

"free" classes on gun safety would be a good use for the existing sin tax on new firearms. (better to just remove the tax but that wont happen)

Mandatory, no way. But what if your new gun came with a voucher good for a 1 hour safety class. Some people would use them.

Even if it came with a link to youtube explaining the new gun in detail. Start with basic safety and operation, build up to detail stripping. Essentially the manual in modern format.

Right, more government controlling our lives.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, after mandatory training, shall not be infringed. Yay!

But what if your new gun came with a voucher good for a 1 hour safety class. Some people would use them.

Click to expand...

What if it just came with the class on DVD? Some people would watch it, some would even pay attention and learn. Others would just toss it in the trash with the manual, just as they would the voucher.