george burns
Member
I still feel that an hour of training would help cut down on accidental firearms accidents due to the plain old lack of knowledge of what a gun can do if someone isn't careful about how they handle it. And has little to no idea of the implications, power, and ability to cause grave bodily harm and death that is possible from their purchase.
Is that unreasonable? I see people who know nothing about guns, go out and spend a thousand dollars. or more, on a new 1911, like a Kimber, just because it looks "cool", with no idea what a 45 caliber bullet can do, how far it can travel past the target, what the safety does, or even what single action, vs. double action is.
Let alone how to safeguard, load, clean, and everything else that goes along with it.
Perhaps this being a fairly knowledgeable bunch of guys, it goes unrecognized that over 8 thousand people a day, move into my state. Many of them can't wait to get a gun, with absolutely no prior experience with firearm, they need only pay and wait 3 days and Walla, they have a gun ammo and whatever else they want, and can keep it in their car, home or business, with no training.
But many only bought what they saw in a gun magazine or what someone else told them they "have to get".
Would a little training past the 4 rules be such a bad idea? It's not like anything else you can buy, nothing is as immediate as a bullet that mistakenly gets fired while showing off their new toy, or failure to secure the weapon from the kids.
I don't see it as a big imposition to ask someone to spend an hour to take a "no grade" course in firearm safety. I think it would cut down on accidents and benefit everyone if done properly on a state level or even at the gun store once a week for new purchasers.
This is just a common sense question, not a manipulation of the Constitution, I have been writing my legislators and every politician for decades, "before computers" about the necessity of the Right to bear arms, so if this is a bad idea I would abandon it but I just don't see why it is so bad to make sure that the person buying the gun knows what they are doing more so than when they walked in without a gun.
Is that unreasonable? I see people who know nothing about guns, go out and spend a thousand dollars. or more, on a new 1911, like a Kimber, just because it looks "cool", with no idea what a 45 caliber bullet can do, how far it can travel past the target, what the safety does, or even what single action, vs. double action is.
Let alone how to safeguard, load, clean, and everything else that goes along with it.
Perhaps this being a fairly knowledgeable bunch of guys, it goes unrecognized that over 8 thousand people a day, move into my state. Many of them can't wait to get a gun, with absolutely no prior experience with firearm, they need only pay and wait 3 days and Walla, they have a gun ammo and whatever else they want, and can keep it in their car, home or business, with no training.
But many only bought what they saw in a gun magazine or what someone else told them they "have to get".
Would a little training past the 4 rules be such a bad idea? It's not like anything else you can buy, nothing is as immediate as a bullet that mistakenly gets fired while showing off their new toy, or failure to secure the weapon from the kids.
I don't see it as a big imposition to ask someone to spend an hour to take a "no grade" course in firearm safety. I think it would cut down on accidents and benefit everyone if done properly on a state level or even at the gun store once a week for new purchasers.
This is just a common sense question, not a manipulation of the Constitution, I have been writing my legislators and every politician for decades, "before computers" about the necessity of the Right to bear arms, so if this is a bad idea I would abandon it but I just don't see why it is so bad to make sure that the person buying the gun knows what they are doing more so than when they walked in without a gun.