Opinion Change - Safety Course Should Be Required

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hanzo581

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
2,136
Location
Chesapeake, Virginia
So recently I started working at a big box retailer selling firearms. I used to be opposed to the idea of requiring people to pass a safety course before owning a firearm. Now, after being on this side of the counter and dealing with the general public, I have changed my opinion.

I assumed common sense was more prevalent than it is. Turns out, your average gun buyer is a complete and utter imbecile. I am surprised there aren't more gun related accident than there are annually.
 
So, you do know you are proposing to have "complete and utter imbecile(s)" regulating and providing content for said "safety course" ?

Otherwise, I agree with you on the mental capabilities of the general public.
 
It's called personal responsibility. I will not give up freedom in the name of "safety". The fact that there are so few incidents is a testament to people not being as stupid as you perceive them. Forcing someone to take a class does not mean they will learn anything. They may go in w/ a chip on their shoulder and not pay attention at all. Where as if they went into training on their own they would pay close attention.
 
You know, if it weren't for the not insignificant portion of our elite leadership who think that you and I are utter imbeciles merely for wanting to own a gun, I might agree with you. Sadly, they've demonstrated repeatedly they are willing to twist the words of well-meaning legislation to reduce anyone's ability to own a firearm no matter how well trained they miight be.

And since accidental firearms deaths and injuries are at all time lows despite the current rush to buy guns, I'm not particularly inclined to give them tools they will abuse horribly to prevent a situation that is rare and declining (historically speaking).
 
No thank you, we are surrounded by people we personally view as imbeciles, can't think of a test I'd have any faith in.
Being on this forum alone has taught me this.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
I agree this could be a slippery slope, and I agree that you shouldn't have to take a test to exercise a constitutional right, but, all rights have limitations. You already have to take a safety course for hunting (in most places), and a course for concealed carry....I don't know, I just do not see this as any more of an infringement assuming a low/free cost of entry.

But I do see where you guys are coming from.
 
The average person isn't very knowledgeable when it comes to firearms in general.

I agree with you that gun safety needs more addressing, there are countless anecdotes about gun store and gun show experiences where a person gets swept with a firearm and no one seems to mind because it's unloaded, except of course the one being swept. To call an average gun buyer an imbecile is a stretch though. Not to bash on you personally, being an employee, but how many times has a customer gone in to a big box store for a firearm purchase and had an experience where the clerk didn't know anything beyond what they could read off a box or label? I think those that are in the larger chain stores don't know of a better source or means of purchasing, and I would say inexperienced in general (customers and staff alike, on average). I know I have seen it in retailers like Gander Mountain, Cabelas, Academy, and Dick's.

I think a possible solution would be to advertise safety rules in the place of business, I know a lot of ranges and clubs do so, why not start at the stores. I think it would be practical to have staff members help direct customers in proper firearm handling, as in where they should keep the muzzle pointed, not to flick a revolver cylinder open or closed, and so on.
 
Oh for sure, most of my co-workers are at the same level as the customer insofar as gun safety goes...we've seen plenty of threads about bad or misinformation from salesmen, but I have never paid too much attention to other customers when I shopped. It's just interesting to me some of the encounters I've had on this side.
 
Talk your employer into offering the appropriate NRA First Steps course for free with a firearms purchase.

As soon as you have a government mandate for a safety course, the safety course becomes so difficult (or just plain crooked) and no one will be able to pass it. And does it become retroactive where if you currently own a gun you have to pass the course or your guns are confiscated? And is the course only for the purchase of a gun or to possess a gun?
 
So if you have to take a safety course to hunt on public land, or take a safety course to carry a firearm in public for self-defense already, then what additional benefit is gained by making a safety course a prerequisite of ownership that justifies the risk of that slippery slope?

You don't have to take a safety course to own a car, purchase fireworks, install a backyard pool, buy a chainsaw, etc.

FYI: Have you read the "Emily Gets Her Gun series where a D.C. journalist tries to comply with D.C.'s safety and registration requirements? That slippery slope isn't hypothetical.

See also: California Safe Handgun Roster (which ironically, police are exempt from since only police need unsafe handguns, right?)
 
Last edited:
All this is well and good, but firearms accidents are declining as firearms ownership increases. In fact, if it weren't for the politics the CDC wouldn't even have a category for firearms accidents -- they'd be grouped under "other."
 
I assumed common sense was more prevalent than it is. Turns out, your average gun buyer is a complete and utter imbecile. I am surprised there aren't more gun related accident than there are annually.

I've found that the average "Big Box retailer" gun buyer is a tad less informed than most of those folks that buy online or from dedicated LGSs. I've also found that within the last 5-10 years or so, the average gun buyer has changed dramatically. I have been helping teach Hunter Safety on and off for the last 30+ years. Up till 5 years ago, very few of our students were totally unfamiliar with firearms. Most were youths that had already shot Dad's/Gramp's gun and many already had guns of their own already. They have to take the course in order to hunt, not to shoot/own. Five years ago the state legalized CWC with the requirement of some form of training. The State hunter safety program meets that requirement. The cost at a local LGS or Goose Hill is $100 or more...the cost of our Program is under $25. What we see now as much as we see young hunters with previous experience are those Single moms/Single career women seeking to get a CWC or a man with no previous firearm experience that wants his CWC. They don't know a 10 ga. shotgun from a .17 pellet gun and don't have a clue where to find the safety on any gun. When I see these folks I sometimes think they same thing as the OP....thank goodness there are required to take a course. Many would do so anyway, because of common sense and the desire to know what they are dealing with. Still a good percentage would not, even at the reasonable cost of $25. This is why I have always thought that kids should be taught firearm basics at school. Not how to shoot them necessarily, but how to handle them safely to check if they are loaded, whether or not the safety is engaged, what to do if they find a firearm somewhere and to show them the consequences of what happens if the basic rules of gun safety are not followed.
 
You do have to take a safety course to use said car on public roads.....

Overall, I do agree with you, Bartholomew.

I've worked at shops both behind the counter and at the gunbench, and some of the BS I've heard over the years has been amusing. ;)
 
You are correct about many people being imbeciles, but I don't believe a safety course would change that.

Safe gun handling (much like safe gun storage) requires common sense & a safety course wouldn't provide that. Most idiotic drivers have passed required written & actual driving tests to get their driver's license - and are still idiots behind the wheel.
 
This article and graph tell an interesting story. Accidental gun deaths from 1900 through 2012. Firearms certainly have never been safer than they are today. The users are certainly more informed.

http://extranosalley.com/accidental-gun-deaths-1900-2012/

The chart immediately below reflects the best available data, beginning with 1900 when there were 78 million of us, and 2704 fatal firearms accidents were reported to the Bureau of the Census, for a rate of more than 3.5 per 100,000 population or 35 per million population.

ACCDTHRT.png


The graphic on the right is taken from the Center For Disease Control’s “top twenty leading causes of accidental death graphic. Please click on the graphic for a clearer view. Out of 119,733 fatal accidents in 2010, just 606 involved firearms. With an estimated population of 309,300,000 Americans, that is a rate of just 1.9 fatal firearms accidents per million population. That is a 92 percent decline in the fatal firearms accident rate from 1900 to 2010. A period when Americans purchased and still possess almost six hundred million guns.
 
Wouldn't you have to have a gun in order to take a safety course?

Doesn't do a lot of good to talk about something that you've never owned or even handled.

I belong to a private gun range and see some pretty clueless people show up to shoot on our one open to the public day every week. We have NRA certified safety instructors to help those people. They all have their own guns and ammo as we don't provide those.

Personally, I'm not in favor of anymore gov't intervention from the fed. If a state wants to pass a truck load of gun control I say have at it. If you don't like it, vote. If you vote and it still doesn't change you may be living in the wrong state.
 
Two semi-random and only partially connected thoughts:

The Army trusts practically every recruit with a rifle, but they don't always trust them with ammunition. It's not the gun that makes you dangerous.

How does "Everytown for Gun Safety" (or whatever they are called) feel about mandatory safety courses? Do they promote safety courses before resorting to restrictive laws? Hmmm...
 
"...government mandate for a safety course..." Been like that up here for years now. Hasn't made a lick of difference to anything. It's sole purpose is to make getting into the shooting sports as expensive in time and money as possible.
Prior to the Provincially mandated second club level course for handgun target shooting, clubs did a free range safety course anyway. Now, most of 'em require a fee. Part of the expensive in time and money.
Biggest issue being that the course material was laid out by unelected civil servants with little or no knowledge or experience and the course are taught by unqualified people.
Like Shaq says, people are stupid and no course is going to fix that. Doesn't with driving either. Mind you, hunter's safety courses have proven to be valuable. Even though the courses are highly politicized here in Ontario. Whole program is operated by a non-government club that's in bed with the Provincial government.
However, a 100% lack of public ranges(as in there are none. If you want to shoot, you must join a club. More government interference.) has made hunting related shootings increase a bit. That might just be increased media attention though.
 
Gun handling should be taught in school. Just like the Constitution, American government, how to balance a checkbook, basic civil law, and basic childrearing.

What? "Never mind..."
 
No there should not be a required course to own a gun.
Shall not be infringed. Period.
Idiots are everywhere but they still have a right to exercise their constitutional rights.
Washington state does not require a course to get a CPL.
It is the responsibility of the gun owner to get the training they feel is needed.
It would be a fast slope to stopping people from owning firearms.
Who gets to make the decisions about the classes?
The liberal gun haters?
 
Let's look at how phenomenally well mandatory driver's training has done compared to no mandatory training for firearms.

The CDC's 2013 report indicates 35,369 deaths from motor vehicle accidents versus 505 deaths from the accidental discharge of firearms. Meaning that we are 70x more likely to get killed in a vehicle accident than by an accidental/negligent discharge.

OK, wait .. that's just accidental discharges. What about all the other bad stuff that can happen? Let's look at 2014 - 33,804 vehicle related fatalities vs. 33636 firearms related fatalities.

Deaths from accidental discharge are just 1.5% of all firearms related deaths. Maybe (??) mandatory training would help shave that a bit, but would the further infringement on a constitutional right be warranted. But mandatory training would nothing, IMHO, to stop the misuses of firearms.

And that same year for poisoning fatalities? 48,545. No mandatory training for going down the home cleaning supplies aisles at the supermarket, no mandatory training on storing/using pharmacy prescriptions, no mandatory training on doing stupid things like ingesting industrial chemicals.
 
Let's look at 2014 - 33,804 vehicle related fatalities vs. 33636 firearms related fatalities.
But 2/3s of "firearms fatalities" are suicides. Training won't help that.

And as I said before, accidental firearms fatalities are so low that if it weren't for the politics, the CDC wouldn't carry them as a separate category, but would simply lump them in with "other."
 
So recently I started working at a big box retailer selling firearms. I used to be opposed to the idea of requiring people to pass a safety course before owning a firearm. Now, after being on this side of the counter and dealing with the general public, I have changed my opinion.

I assumed common sense was more prevalent than it is. Turns out, your average gun buyer is a complete and utter imbecile. I am surprised there aren't more gun related accident than there are annually.
People do stupid things even when they know better, requiring mandatory education/instruction isn't going to magically enlighten them.
 
@ hanzo

I sadly do agree with you.

I go to my very close and local range [ private gun club ] and ALL members are now required to take a " safety course " and sign a card that is their "safety number".

That "safety card number" is logged into the range book with their member number EVERY TIME you use the range.

I was an LEO,and a range officer,so I am a 'bit' anal about the safety rules on the range.

The past 3 visits [ I go at least once a week ] have had me tell 3 sets of shooters to BENCH THAT GUN !.

My last encounter was last week,and the gentleman was close to my age [ OLD ] and his response was "but its not loaded".

Had I not heard that with my own ears,I would have said it was a joke.

I am now thinking electric shock collars for all shooters and guess what happens if you violate the rules.:evil:
 
But 2/3s of "firearms fatalities" are suicides. Training won't help that.

And as I said before, accidental firearms fatalities are so low that if it weren't for the politics, the CDC wouldn't carry them as a separate category, but would simply lump them in with "other."

As noted in my post, accidental firearms fatalities is 1.5%. Training might address a bit of that.

Fatalities by police around 3% (thought stats are hard to verify). Mandatory training will not address that.

Around 63% are self inflicted/suicide. Which is a tragedy, and there needs to be better attention mental health issues. But mandatory training will NOT address this.

The remaining third of firearms-related deaths are all other causes (primarily homicide, but also "undetermined").
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top