Do you support mandatory training for gun ownership?

[hso]

My first inclination is to require a gun safety course for someone to have a firearm. Not to reduce the danger to themselves, but to others around them that may be exposed to their ingnorant handling of the firearm. Basic hunter safety, basic firearms safety or similar to counter the TV/Movie/Video Game BS.

Then I look at the stats and don't see a statiscally significant problem due to accidental shootings and that robs the motivation for making it mandatory.

The basic safety courses should be taught and made available for free to anyone wanting to attend.

 

[ApexinM3]

'Card,
I have to agree 100% with you. The more I look at my political standing, the more I believe the Gov't should leave us be. If a person chooses to obtain a firearm & then proceeds to injure themself with said firearm because of lack of training, doom on them for not seeking out training first. The NRA has plenty of courses available, as well as most local gun clubs.

I work part-time at a local gun store & can't tell you how many idots I get coming in that think they know everything about firearms. I also get folks that admit they know nothing but are curious, and those are the people I like spending time with even if they don't buy. I know I don't know everything, nor do I pretend that I do. I still want to go thru some more training-one can never have enough. I think I saw it in someones signature-who it was escapes me-but it went something along the lines of: "a person does not rise to the occasion but rather falls to their level of training". I'm a firm believer in that.

That said, I think a training course is a great idea, but it shouldn't be mandatory. The Gov't already has enough mandatory requirements that don't do any good:banghead: . FWIW, YMMV.

 

[NineseveN]

Not only no, but Hell No!

Now, we already did this here recently, so if you want to know my stance on it, go read that wonderfully heated thread.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=177725

Only insofar as it should be mandated in the public schools right along Drivers Ed and Sex Ed.

Agreed. That I could live with.

 

[bakert]

Voluntary training is good and should be encouraged but in no way would I support any more mandatory anything concerning guns, shooting or hunting. Too much interference now from people that know little or nothing of the subjects they make rules for.

 

[TBert]

As a new gun owner, I almost think this thread was started about me. I'm 34 years old and recently bought my first rifle and shotgun. I had a mentor teach me gun safety and take me to a gun range and hunting before I bought my first gun which is how I would imagine most people learned gun safety.

Training definitely should not be mandatory, but as a newbie, I really don't know where I would get training. The range that go to doesn't offer any training although I've heard of others that do.

The best way to teach gun saftey is for the experienced shooters to mentor the new ones.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

I would completely support Gun Training and Education as a mandatory course for graduation of High School. The public schools are supposed to train us as well-rounded citizens, therefore, we should be prepared in all areas of our rights. But that will never happen , so no, I couldn't support any regulations that infringe our RKBA in ANY way.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

If a person chooses to obtain a firearm & then proceeds to injure themself with said firearm because of lack of training

The problem with that is that said person could injure others because of lack of training, hence, the gun education in schools.

 

[Leanwolf]

In my opinion, those who are in favor of mandatory training before Big Brother & Big Nanny would allow a citizen to own a firearm, haven't the faintest idea just how politicians and govt. bureaucrats work.

Perhaps, at the very begining, a United States Mandatory Firearms Training Program might even be a bit reasonable. Perhaps. BUT, given that most politicans and govt bureaucrats do not want the worker peasants to be armed, the "training requirements" would be increased, and increased, and increased, and increased, and increased... until, finally, virtually no one would be able to pass them. And as the increased requirements wold be made retroactive, then those who'd passed before, yet couldn't pass the new requirements, would necessarily have to turn in their firearms. All this, too, at the point of Big Brother's and Big Nanny's guns!

No, those of you who want more and more and more government control of your very existence and the usurption of your Rights, really ought to do a bit of study of politics, politicians, their hired bureaucrats, and most of all HUMAN NATURE.

(Or, if you haven't done anything wrong, why would you mind testifying against yourself in a trial?? Or, if you have nothing to hide from Big Brother & Big Nanny, why would you mind if the Police search your home without a warrant?? )

L.W.

 

[Hokkmike]

A license to own a gun (1 time and for all weapons) seems fair enough just as much as getting a license to drive a car. Problem is, we can't trust the gov't enough that they wouldn't use the process against us. It is OK if people want to be a danger to themselves, but some shooters are a danger to us all.
I guess, for now, I would leave the system alone.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

No

Reccommended but not mandatory.

The logistics could make gun training for ownership restrictive
and prohibitory. Tennessee dropped the requirement for liability
insurance for handgun carry permits, partially on the grounds
that it was too restrictive: the state constitution and court
cases have held that guns may be regulated with a view to
prevent crime, as long as the regulations were not unduly
restrictive or prohibitory. Getting 80 million people into
mandatory training would be a nightmare.

OnTheOtherHand, gun safety should be taught in schools
and at home just as driver's ed and home economics are.

 

[whipper]

Actually here in California, we already have a government course on gun safety

“Effective January 1, 2003, the Basic Firearms Safety Certificate Program was replaced with the Handgun Safety Certificate Program. These new statutes affect the general public in two principal ways. First, unless exempt, individuals must possess a Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) prior to purchasing or acquiring a handgun. Second, unless exempt, individuals must perform a safe handling demonstration prior to taking delivery of a handgun from a licensed dealer.”

This coast $25.00 and only is good for 5 years then you have to tack it over again. The test consist of reading a booklet and answering some questions or watch a video and not answer any questions. Then you have to demonstraight how to Safely handle the firearm in front of the instructor or sales clerk by loading and unloading. BTW the instructor or clerk has to go through training as well at a big coast.

Coast of HSC $25.00 Good for 5 years only
Coast of DOJ $25.00
Gun Lock $15 – 20
Coast of a $200.00 gun in California $265.00 + Tax
This Sucks.

 

[High Planes Drifter]

If it did away with background checks it wouldnt bother me. Heck, I've already taken a hunters safety course. Not much difference.

 

[cbsbyte]

I believe for new shooters who don't have any experience with firearms should take a course. People who have experience with firearms either from hunting, growing up with guns, police or military training might not need to take a course but it is still a good idea. Making it mandatory might look like a good idea on paper, some states require it, but in the long run it will be abused by the powers that be to restrict gun ownership. In Mass we have to take a mandatory course on firearm saftey before we apply for a state firearm license. I found the eight hour course had a lot of good information, some of it was less usefull but I still learned alot about firearms and state laws. The course is a one time only requriment, and the certificate is good for life.

 

[rab357]

Dudes...

Yes, hell yes for at least a minimum level of gun training before purchasing a gun. I could not image selling a semi-automatic to a gun newbee without them being properly training on it's usage. I am not saying they can't own a gun. Just let's help them not accidently kill themselves.

So if the Constitution said you can't infringe on a person's right to practice medicine you would prefer an unlicensed doctor to a licensed doctor?

 

[MS .45]

No. Just look at the joke that is Diver's Education class. If government mandated classes worked then there would not be so many bad drivers.

 

[ArmedBear]

Absolutely.

Since we require anyone who wants to drive a car to have driver's training and to pass a license test, we don't have car accidents, and no one is ever killed by another driver. Same would go for guns.

 

[pax]

The basic safety courses should be taught and made available for free to anyone wanting to attend.

Are you suggesting that the government should supply those classes, "for free"? If so, I've got news for you: there is literally no such thing as something that is free from the government. Such things always cost money, but the true cost (usually three or more times the going rate for whatever-it-is) is hidden underneath multitudinous layers of bureaucratic fluff.

If you're suggesting that basic safety courses should be taught and made available for free, by volunteers, I'd like to suggest that a good place to start is by doing it yourself.

But keep in mind that you'll have to buy targets, and pay range fees, and buy insurance, and you'll probably want to pay for an instructor certificate for yourself too. Plus advertising, of course. And incidentals like classroom supplies.

Free stuff can sure get spendy in a hurry.

pax

 

[nhhillbilly]

I support training for all people

I support training for all people. It should start at about 5 years of age and continue till the day you die. It will bring a lot more 2nd voters.

 

[Silver Bullet]

I wish all gun owners had training, but my vote is NO.

Mandatory = infringement.

 

[1wildbill]

Random Thoughts

Random Thoughts On This Subject:

Driver's ed is a good example of why firearms training in Public School wouldn't work. Can you imagine trying to get that implemented on a state or national level anyway? Everyone is not required to take Driver's ed in the places I know of. I would sure hope, that a course is required in all states in order to obtain a license to carry a gun. You have to demonstrate a knowledge of firearm's safety then. (Don't know about all states, just mine). What people do in their own homes none of my, or anybody's, business; unless they harm someone else and that's covered by law already. Nothing is free. You can buy a car without a driver's license, just can't drive it, legally that is. Bothers me that some people own a gun and don't really know how to use it. There are idiots doing things everywhere that endanger me, even doctors that are licensed.

Naw, a required course in order to purchase a firearm is not a good idea.

 

[velojym]

"mandatory" usually involves some sort of government oversight.
BZZZZZT!!!
wrong answer.
You really want Hillary & Co. in power with the govt in charge of ANYTHING?

 

[Nicky Santoro]

"I'm generally against firearm regulation of any type BUT every time I go into a gun shop I see people buying guns that don't have the slightest idea how to store or use them safely."

Every time you go in?
How do you know that they don't know how to use or store them?
It's kind of a sweeping statement and, IMO, an insufficient basis to support further restriction of individual freedom.

 

[migoi]

I live in a state...

that has mandatory safety training for handgun purchasers. There are 3 ways to get the training: a. go to an NRA basic handgun course with Hawaii Laws tacked on (4 hours class, 2 hours on range in live fire). b. attend the hunter safety course (something like 12 hourse of class, 0 hour on range, never touch a gun during the course). c. get your commanding officer (if military) to sign off that you've had firearms safety training.

This mandatory training prior to legally purchasing a handgun (no training need to purchase any long gun) coupled with no legal concealed carry caused a rather ironic situation. Those legal minded upstanding citizens will take the training and not carry their firearms in public while the criminals skip the training, steal the gun, and tote it around in public anyway and anywhere they want to....

wonderful system.

edited to add: I'm against anything mandated by the government. Do I highly encourage training? Yes, I am the VP of a group of volunteer NRA instructors that teach the course for the cost of expenses and give our students an opportunity to shoot 20 to 25 different handguns during the course of the live fire. As pointed out by other though, the government can decide to change to requirements anytime they want to further restrict ownership. Baaaaaad idea.

migoi

 

[Molon Labe]

Based on some of the responses in this thread, I would support mandatory training on the meaning of the word "infringement."

 

[FPrice]

I believe in training.

The best form of firearms training I can think of is a father, or mother, better yet both, training their children in the safe and legal usage of firearms from the earliest possible age. If for some reason the father/mother cannot, then a trusted uncle or aunt or other close relative who can act as parent figure.

The further away from this ideal we go, the more the government will try to step in and take over this role. I don't think that is a good idea.