Perhaps, but...can you load that muzzleloader without putting any part of your body in front of the muzzle?
Well, you have to admit fingers and hands are more expendable than heads.
Perhaps, but...can you load that muzzleloader without putting any part of your body in front of the muzzle?
I would support 100% a shooter safety test, only require a course for people who don't pass it.a lot of states require a hunter safety course for prospective hunters. so,why can't ranges require a shooter safety course before being unleashed onto the range, or when they break one of the rules? might be a good idea to pound the reason for the four rules into peoples heads as often as possible.
murf
I would support 100% a shooter safety test, only require a course for people who don't pass it.
Um, actually, probably yes. I can't count the number of posts I've seen here about alcohol and guns not mixing. Or that in pretty much every state it's illegal to carry while intoxicated. Or don't you consider knowing the laws that apply to one as a gun owner part of "training"?Of course, more "training" would have prevented this: :banghead:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/us/washington-movie-theater-shooting/index.html
I hope I'm not supposed to feel guilty for looking in the muzzle of my 686 when I'm cleaning it and the cylinder is open!Perhaps, but...can you load that muzzleloader without putting any part of your body in front of the muzzle?
Regardless, I think the point is that it is perfectly acceptable to look down the bore...from the muzzle end...of a rifle that has absolutely verifiably had it's bolt or action removed.
When I take the bolt carrier group out of my AR or the bolt out of my Mosin, nothing wrong with taking a close up look at the crown (or equivalent)
I was responding (or thought I was responding) to a suggestion that a course be required before allowing people to shoot at a range. Are you saying a range shouldn't have the right to make sure prospective patrons aren't going to endanger the existing ones? Who is then liable if unvetted patron #26 manages to shoot one or more of the other 25?No. Absolutely not.
1-The Right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. Requiring a test, requiring permission, in and of itself relegates it to the statue of privilege...not a Right.
2-Anything that adds any time, complexity, potential ambiguity or mis understanding, or effort will reduce the number of people who choose to arm themselves. This is a net negative.
3-It is far too easy for those with an agenda, if and when they have the power/authority to do so (in many locations, they already do/would), to make the test too difficult, to complicated, hard to schedule (government hours anybody??), backlogged, expensive, you name it. It would happen, inevitably. Why open that box?
We have a huge body of evidence to work with, as millions of license carriers are out there from states with no training or testing requirements. Guess what...no different than states that require hours of training + tests when it comes to accidents, etc.
Please see my response to Warp. I was not talking about a government test, I was talking about a range.I agree 100% with Warp.
Should you be required to pass a test before you're allowed to post things online? After all, people spread bad information online, some of which is potentially dangerous. When they wrote the First Amendment, our founding fathers never intended us to have such widespread access to spread information via the Internet. We need more regulations on people's First Amendment rights in the interest of public safety.
I was responding (or thought I was responding) to a suggestion that a course be required before allowing people to shoot at a range. Are you saying a range shouldn't have the right to make sure prospective patrons aren't going to endanger the existing ones? Who is then liable if unvetted patron #26 manages to shoot one or more of the other 25?
My mistake, I apologize for assuming.old lady new shooter said:Please see my response to Warp. I was not talking about a government test, I was talking about a range.
With all due respect, you're missing the point.Um, actually, probably yes. I can't count the number of posts I've seen here about alcohol and guns not mixing. Or that in pretty much every state it's illegal to carry while intoxicated. Or don't you consider knowing the laws that apply to one as a gun owner part of "training"?
At my regular range the guys behind the counter size up walk-ins by engaging them in conversation and sometimes handing them a couple of snapcaps and asking them to demonstrate something on either the gun they came in with or the one they're asking to rent. The first time I went there I had actually made an appointment for a lesson, and after the lesson the instructor said I was cleared to shoot by myself in the future. They also don't rent to anyone who comes in alone without their own gun, which I once observed them articulate to a walk-in who came in alone and asked to rent something. The main guy who does this is very nice but also very clearly somebody you would not want to mess with. OTOH, the outdoor range I went to a few weeks ago didn't ask me anything except to pay the charge and the cashier seemed somewhat distracted. Guess where I feel safer.I didn't see/follow/understand that this was a range specific thing that proprietor of a private business might choose to do.
I have shot at a fair number of ranges, not one required a test. Only one required anything, and that was to watch a few minutes long safety video, which covered how they want things handled at their range (indoor range...don't go past firing line, pointed downrange at all times, guns set down on the 'bench' need to be unloaded actions open ejection port facing up, basically).
Any private business that wishes can pretty much set whatever requirement they want for testing, training, certification, proficiency, you name it. No problem there, at all.
"Transform"? No, probably not. But it can have a strong influence on an idiot. And it can often improve his behavior.Shaq said:"Training" will NOT transform an idiot into a responsible person...Never has, never will.
I wasn't aware loading a muzzle loading rifle required you to point it at your face. I learn something every day on here.
With all due respect, you're missing the point.
"Training" will NOT transform an idiot into a responsible person...Never has, never will. It will simply make him a reckless idiot who has had training. Most drunk drivers were trained on safe driving & passed tests that included questions about driving while intoxicated. There are warnings in the DMV handbook about drunk driving. They chose to ignore them. I'm sure Ted Kennedy passed his driving test & he knew he shouldn't drive drunk but he didn't care because he lacked a conscience. Princess Dianna's driver was a professional chauffeur with "training." He knew better than to drive drunk...he simply didn't care.
Here is someone with much more training than the average driver - a CA Highway Patrol Officer. He killed himself & his passenger because he decided to race on a public street. Obviously not due to lack of training, but because he was a reckless idiot & training can't cure that:
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrT...016.html/RK=0/RS=Uzks.B_hZUvTuixjLYLw3IxRiyo-
Shaq said:but because he was a reckless idiot & training can't cure that:
Ok. I can accept that there are some people predisposed to be too reckless as a matter of personality.
SO WHAT?
It is in the nature of our very belief system to assume that such persons are rare and that the majority are capable of being taught and of being trained and of learning and engraining the lessons taught.
So your example of one doofus who couldn't or who chose not to really boils down to an argument that if this one guy couldn't be thoroughly indoctrinated in proper habits, that no one else can either and so training is useless.
And when you see that argument in its naked, shriveled glory, it doesn't hold a drop of water, now does it?
With all due respect, you're missing the point.
"Training" will NOT transform an idiot into a responsible person...Never has, never will.It will simply make him a reckless idiot who has had training. Most drunk drivers were trained on safe driving & passed tests that included questions about driving while intoxicated. There are warnings in the DMV handbook about drunk driving. They chose to ignore them. I'm sure Ted Kennedy passed his driving test & he knew he shouldn't drive drunk but he didn't care because he lacked a conscience. Princess Dianna's driver was a professional chauffeur with "training." He knew better than to drive drunk...he simply didn't care.
Here is someone with much more training than the average driver - a CA Highway Patrol Officer. He killed himself & his passenger because he decided to race on a public street. Obviously not due to lack of training, but because he was a reckless idiot & training can't cure that:
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrT...016.html/RK=0/RS=Uzks.B_hZUvTuixjLYLw3IxRiyo-
Keep in mind that there is another incentive going on here that has nothing to do with safety or proficiency...it has to do with money (as a few others have noted).This entire thread has been both entertaining and frustrating. ...sorta like discussing religion. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong and nothing will get settled. The sad part, to me, is the attitude that some of the commenters express toward other members. All I can say is it must get very lonely looking down from on high at all these poor peons.
Phooey!Shaq said:Keep in mind that there is another incentive going on here that has nothing to do with safety or proficiency...it has to do with money (as a few others have noted)....
...I've shot competitively for 10 years & been an instructor for five years. I never took a safety class or got any formal training....
...I made my fortune practicing law. In all the years I've help teach people to shoot I've never asked for, or received, a penny. The folks I work with now are all professional who make, or have made, their money in various ways (and have all had multiple classes at schools like Gunsite and Front Sight). We teach for free. Our class fees cover our expenses (like range fees, the ammunition, which we supply, and the books we give the students), and we receive no compensation....
Holy strawman, Batman. Absolutely no one has said anything remotely like that.Shaq said:...To a firearms instructor, NO ONE should touch a gun without professional training, or else they'll shoot themselves & everyone around them. (Pay me or take your chances)....
Have you taken your concerns to the range master or on-hand range officers and if so was the situation handled satisfactorily at the time?