Gun training

bdickens said:

I think people should have to pass an IQ test before they can vote. Or opinionate on matters of public policy....

Click to expand...

They should have to pass an IQ test, have a job and take an oath to stay with their partners before they can have a child.

"I'm a 2A supporter and a new member and I want us to breathe free."
Post # #12112
New Member? Introduce yourself here (just intros, questions get answered elsewhere) | Page 485 | The High Road

Once again, I have to excuse my poor comprehension of the English language but the OP wrote the above quote in his introduction. Since then he has only made posts that appear to be contrary to anything that the U.S. Consitution guarantees in the Second Amendment.

We obviously have someone here, who likes to stir up the discussion. I am out of here and this is the last post I put in response to that poorly educated and misguided...

bangswitch said:

Mandatory firearms training does not violate one's right to bear arms. Along with our rights is a responsibility and duty to exercise said right in a manner that does not expose others to danger.

Anybody can buy an airplane, but they need education in safe operation. Otherwise, you could crash, killing yourself and who knows how many others.

Anybody can buy a car, but they have to be educated in how to operate it safely. Otherwise, you could kill yourself and your passengers, or a pedestrian, or someone in another vehicle.

Anybody can buy a chain saw, but should be instructed in its safe use. This isn't mandatory, but common sense dictates knowing how to use it properly, lest you cut your leg off because you are careless and didn't have the proper knowledge.

Guns are no different. Even proper education does not guarantee safety, or less intent to misuse one, but to do less is even more irresponsible.

Click to expand...

OK, I think people should have about 300 hours of formal, professional firearms training before they can carry a gun. Do you have that? I do (I have around 800...)

See how that works? Who decides what is 'enough', especially considering most of the people administering these regulations HATE guns?

So, you willing to give up your CHL now that we've decided you need 300 hours of training? Or are you only comfortable with restrictions you already meet?


Larry

lovehappiness22 said:

I definitely think it should be manitory

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that every community should form a militia to insure all of it's citizens are trained in the use of their arms? That would ensure that every citizen is trained to the same standard and be prepared to defend their community and rights.

I see you measure training in time, not in content. Until we know the content, we cannot know what a phrase like "300 hours" means.

But until someone can say what the PROBLEM is that training is supposed to SOLVE, we have no basis for selecting training as a solution.

Personally, as an old infantryman, I say firearms training isn't the problem in a situation like an active shooter-- the problem is tactics. And tactical training involves physically running through a situation, not just shooting at targets or talking about it.

bangswitch said:

Mandatory firearms training does not violate one's right to bear arms. Along with our rights is a responsibility and duty to exercise said right in a manner that does not expose others to danger.

Click to expand...

Bovine excrement! What other constitutionally enumerated rights should have mandatory training requirements in order for them to be exercised?

lovehappiness22 said:

Awesome, Bangswitch

Mandatory firearms training does not violate one's right to bear arms. Along with our rights is a responsibility and duty to exercise said right in a manner that does not expose others to danger.

.

Click to expand...

And that should include running your mouth.

bangswitch said:

Mandatory firearms training does not violate one's right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

When the government forces citizens to pay money to obtain training and take time away from their families and jobs to undergo training, yes, yes it does.

Do you think there should be mandatory training in order for citizens to exercise their other (enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights) natural rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of peaceable assembly, etc.?

I said this earlier (few actually seem to read through each post): Why? Are you aware that in the two original "shall-issue" states, Washington and Indiana (back when there was only one state that required no permit to carry, Vermont), there was NO training requirement to obtain a concealed pistol/weapons license and both states for years had lower rates of firearms accidents, crimes by license-holders and license revocations than the states that required training?

Well, threads such as this can be useful. We are getting a good handle on which members read for comprehension, understand principles of educated debate, address actual points of contention -- as well as who our absolutists are, our Constitutional scholars, those with an understanding of history... and those who would cede away more of our rights to a government which no longer serves its citizens.

bangswitch said:

Mandatory firearms training does not violate one's right to bear arms. Along with our rights is a responsibility and duty to exercise said right in a manner that does not expose others to danger.

Anybody can buy an airplane, but they need education in safe operation. Otherwise, you could crash, killing yourself and who knows how many others.

Anybody can buy a car, but they have to be educated in how to operate it safely. Otherwise, you could kill yourself and your passengers, or a pedestrian, or someone in another vehicle.

Anybody can buy a chain saw, but should be instructed in its safe use. This isn't mandatory, but common sense dictates knowing how to use it properly, lest you cut your leg off because you are careless and didn't have the proper knowledge.

Guns are no different. Even proper education does not guarantee safety, or less intent to misuse one, but to do less is even more irresponsible.

Click to expand...

You actually don’t need training to fly many types of aircraft. https://pilotteacher.com/do-you-need-a-pilots-license-to-fly/

As far as my 2nd amendment goes it’s not a conditional agreement with the government and their “training”. All being said. Flying is definitely safer having been getting training. I always encourage people to get good quality firearms training as well.

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.

lovehappiness22 said:

Awesome, Bangswitch

Mandatory firearms training does not violate one's right to bear arms. Along with our rights is a responsibility and duty to exercise said right in a manner that does not expose others to danger.

Awesome job. I support you.

Click to expand...

Great job learning to spell 'mandatory'; it seems to be a word you use a lot, so it's good to at least spell it correctly.

Now work on this-states with constitutional carry and mandatory training have comparable rates of crimes and incidents related to the carrying of a gun; there is no empirical evidence that 'mandatory training' in any way reduces purposeful or accidental deaths with a carried firearm.

How, in the face of this data, can you support your call for mandatory training? It goes against the science....

Larry

DT Guy said:

Now work on this-states with constitutional carry and mandatory training have comparable rates of crimes and incidents related to the carrying of a gun; there is no empirical evidence that 'mandatory training' in any way reduces purposeful or accidental deaths with a carried firearm.

Click to expand...

C'mon now, Larry, I know you know that actual facts don't matter to anyone with an anti-gun agenda. Plus, he won't answer the hard questions. (Good catch on the guy's spelling improvement, that was kinda bugging me as well.)

I have been a firearms trainer since 2007. I never think anyone should be forced into mandatory training. That is how you get state loopholes to practice a right. You can only go to *their* trainer. That does classes on the third Tuesday at night under a full moon.

But should everyone get training? Yes. A trainer can see what you don't. Evaluate form and fix bad habits you might not be aware of when shooting.

I just wanted to respond to those who quoted my post, thanks to the Admin for allowing it. Whether they keep the thread open after this is up to them.

One question posed was how much training time I had. I can't answer that in specific hours, but I have been a NRA Basic Rifle, Pistol and Shotgun instructor since 2012, and I have both military (USAF Combat Arms) training, and law enforcement (NC Dept. of Corrections, now Dept of Public Safety) firearms training. I'm also a NRA Chief Range Safety Officer. I was also, but no longer, a NC Concealed Carry Instructor. I hope this satisfies my training requirements for the readership.

2A isn't as simple as the right to vote, or to believe in who you want (deity), or say what you feel. With any right, I believe, is a duty to responsibly exercise the right. Owning a firearm means you have the ability to operate something inherently dangerous, capable of taking a life, either your own or someone else's. It is, or should be, incumbent upon the owner to know how to operate it safely, and follow the guidelines set forth by the industry. certainly, firearms instruction does not guarantee that the owner will not be reckless or irresponsible even if they know how to do it safely, but it does prevent them from mishandling it out of ignorance.

As a society, we should take it upon ourselves to do what is best for the group as a whole, and not force the government, out of our lack of our own initiative, to mandate regulations designed to save ourselves from ourselves. However, in the absence of our own initiative, we need regulation sometimes. Many of us (the gun owners) take it upon ourselves to learn about our firearms and their safe operation, and the responsibilities that go with owning a firearm. Those who would refuse to consider this learning on their own should have it mandated for the greater good of everyone else. This is all I'm trying to say. It does not impinge on our 2A right, I feel in the long run, it will help to preserve it.

Those who would refuse to learn and accept safety training and proper operation are as dangerous to those who embrace it as those who know nothing about guns and are afraid of those who do.

These forums are everyone's platform for their opinion, hopefully based on their own knowledge and experience. The great unknown here is who is, and who isn't knowledgeable and responsible, as few of us have ever met or know each other beyond this forum. I can accept another's 1A right to speak their mind and state their opinion, although I may not agree with it either in part or on the whole. I would hope the readership feels the same way, that we can agree to disagree, if we cannot come to better terms.