Do you support mandatory training for gun ownership?

[dartos]

At the very least, I would like to see the dealer demonstrate disassembly/assembly with the new owner at the time of purchase, it doesn't take long and often the dealer provides good tips.

I still remember the first time I let the spring on my 1911 shoot across the room while stripping it ( It hasn't since, and won't happen again).

The CCW class was the most informative schooling I've had in years.

 

[Still 2 Many Choices!?]

For personal carry(at home), NO!!!! For public carry, yes.

To carry a weapon at home is a Fundamental right....To carry a gun in public you should atleast know when you are protected by law in using said weapon, wich makes it no less of a Fundamental right. Basically it would be a defensive shooting course, instead of defensive driving course with emphasis on the results of taking a human life. Smart people will then decide for themselves, and more than likely train... NO TEST at the end of the class though...

 

[Nitram68]

Nope. Were there manidtory training, the gov't could make it a 20 year degree to own one or keep raising the fee's for the training... or make the training every month... all sorts of backdoor stuff.

 

[Pilot]

No, but I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE firearms training and not just a basic safety course but a combat and legal course that teaches decision making with various scenarios.

 

[1wildbill]

The days of personal responsibility seem to be drawing to an end,

I sure won't argue that, but how is mandatory firearms training going to remedy that? Now matter how well trained in firearms, driving, sex ed, medicine, etc., some might be, they will still be irresponsible. Many certificates and licenses on the wall don't make a person act in a responsible way.

Did I get that some states have no course for CCW? Now I see that as a possible problem.

 

[LAK]

Definately not. It is de facto licensing.

Still 2 Many Choices!?

To carry a weapon at home is a Fundamental right....To carry a gun in public you should atleast know when you are protected by law in using said weapon, wich makes it no less of a Fundamental right.

I take it you are under the impression that your fundamental rights stay at home when you leave your private property - and that laws do not apply to using a firearm "at home"?

Or did you mean something else?

--------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Ohen Cepel]

It's a great idea. However, I'm opposed to any more requirements for exercising a right.

Also, it's a good way for them to price people out of ownership. All they have to do is make it very difficult and charge some crazy price and then we're all screwed.

 

[1wildbill]

When you are at home you are in your private place, when you leave your home you are in the public domain. If someone chooses to act stupidly at home and doesn't harm others, their business, not mine. They come out in public and endanger me or mine, my business.
While not wise perhaps, a 12 year old can drive a truck all over private property, different story on public roads. The old saying, "one man's rights end where another man's nose begins."
Again, do some states issue CCWs with no sort of training or testing?

 

[mpthole]

Without a doubt: NO

 

[cmidkiff]

Handling, owning, or carrying a weapon without a solid understanding of how to do so in a safe manner is stupid.

Legislation criminalizing stupidity is even more so.

Setting arbitrary limits on exercising your human rights is infringement of those rights, plain and simple. What, exactly, is the difference between mandating safety training as a requirement to purchase a gun, and mandating the type of gun you can purchase? How about the now expired law mandating no more than 10 rounds in a magazine? Are you OK with that one? Is that OK with you? The state of California has decided that .50 caliber guns or 'Assult Weapons' are bad, so they're not available. Is that OK? Our government has decreed that the average citizen doesn't need a machine gun. Is that a reasonable limit on our rights? How about Chicago's or NYC's near total ban on gun ownership? Where exactly is the line on how much infringement you will accept?

How about mandating spelling, grammer, and ethics classes before allowing someone to purchase a pen, typewriter, or computer? Would that be OK? How many of our inalienable rights are the people of this country willing to allow our governent to crush for the illusion of security?

It is, after all, just an illusion. If a well trained DEA Agent can shoot himself in a classroom full of kids, how is any government mandated safety training going to prevent unsafe handling of weapons?

:banghead: :banghead:

Ok, perhaps this touched a nerve...

 

[V4Vendetta]

As much as I think that training would be good, I don't want the government to say "you have to have training or you don't get the gun". If you had to get training first, you would have to find a instructor who's approved by the government. If that happens, the government basicly can say who can have guns & who can't. There's also that pesky little phrase "shall not be infringed".

 

[chetrogers]

No..

Look at how many people can get there drivers licence.And you see all the nut ball drivers out there.If somebody is gonna be stupid there gonna be stupid.I wish though that some people didnt even pick up a firearm.Most of the bad gun handeling i see is from people who have used them before and just dont "get it"

 

[CNYCacher]

Making sure as many people as possible get training without actually "forcing" people

I think that firearms training is a good idea, great idea really.
I think that it would be wonderful if everyone who owned a firearm had some type of training.
I do not however believe that we should be prevented by the law from owning firearms in the absence of gov't-sponsored training. That is just be one more level of control.

The trick is having some type of plan that causes everyone to get training but at the same time, doesn't infringe on the rights of someone who wants to get a gun without training. Some type of incentive program maybe. $50 voucher good at any gun shop after you complete a course? A logistical nightmare no doubt, but better than forcing the training.

 

[Firethorn]

Personally, I'm also fond of gun safety being taught in primary school. I mean, it's up there with sex & drivers ed.

 

[akodo]

aside from this giving the government the ability to have a defacto ban by incredibly harsh classes (you have to hit a quarter at 100 yards with a handgun)

I don't think a person should be denied the right to own a gun because they scored 69% on a test and someone else can own a gun who scored 71%. Where do you draw that line? Same for shooting competence for CCW. I am all for getting the most training possible, but I'd hate to have someone who applied for CCW who truely had reason to fear an immedieate threat be killed because they were denied CCW because they missed the required shooting score by 1 point.

 

[David W. Gay]

Again, do some states issue CCWs with no sort of training or testing?

Yes, Indiana. But it's not just a CCW, it's a "License to Carry". No requirement to conceal.

And let's not forget Vermont & Alaska that do not even require a license to carry a firearm.

 

[ajax]

I say hell no at home or on your property but when you hit the streets the safety of those around you become a factor. I dont care how well dad or mom or ol' granpappy tought ya as long as my kids are walking the same streets as CCW's I would like to see training. Because a accident maybe one in a million,but if its your child or loved one thats the millionth customer!!!!!

 

[pax]

Again, do some states issue CCWs with no sort of training or testing?

Yep.

Washington is one of those. We've had concealed carry permits since long before most of the rest of the country figured it out.

Very similar demographics to Oregon, right next door. Oregon has a training requirement, Washington does not. Washington has a higher percentage of permit holders, and permits are much cheaper -- not in fees, but in actual costs.

There's no measurable difference in the percentage of concealed carry permit holders who do stupid or dangerous things (it's a vanishingly small number in both states).

All the panicky posts above notwithstanding, there's no blood running in the streets here even without a training requirement.

pax

 

[LAK]

1WildBill

If someone chooses to act stupidly at home and doesn't harm others, their business, not mine. They come out in public and endanger me or mine, my business.

So if Mr. Stupid at the end of your suburban street gets stupid one day and sends a 230-grainer out his livingroom window - which enters your kitchen window a hundreds yards away and strikes your wife - is that any different than Mr. Stupid accomplishing the same thing outside the local supermarket?

-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I'm shocked that 17% of THR supports the destruction of our Second Amendment rights.

 

[Medusa]

Voted YES, with lot of reservations. IMHO easier would be to let the first-time gun-buyer pass the test (verbal or written, whatever suits best)- does he know the safety rules, knows how to handle the gun, knows how to take it apart and put back together. Who fail it should be sent to training, or they'll be a threat to cause.

Gun class in high scool would be grand, I surely would like to have that when I was in. free class with gun would porably be too a nice touch.

idiots who need training:I had a gun buyer who came back next day with trouble - he didn't know how to field strip his Sig Mosquito (in fact, he didn't know a thing about the gun he had - what ammo does it shoot etc), and the darned instructions were in english, not in estonian.

Again, IMHO.

 

[Kenneth Lew]

Hell yes!

Trying to wait for Darwinism to take its course may get me killed/shot.

 

[9thhour]

I believe that gun training (just like manners, civic responsibility, respect for persons and country) should begin in the home. The family unit is what makes this the greatest country in the world.

If we teach our children how to handle guns, there would be a sharp decrease in gun related accidents.

I appreciate my DAD for teaching me about firearms when I was growing up and I have passed that on to all of my children. I do not worry about my children getting into my guns (I do keep them properly secured) for curosity's sake when I am not around because I have taught them well and take them shooting often when the oppurtunity presents itself.

It is not up to society to implement its views and will on my children. It is up to me as a parent, to guide my children down the proper path.

Of course, there are some who have not been as fortunate as me to have learned the proper handling and responsibilities of guns when growing up. These folks should be afforded the oppurtunity to learn these things from easily available and low cost training that is conducted by the private sector and not by state or federal mandate.

Thanks... just my $.02

Saul Hebert

 

[1wildbill]

So if Mr. Stupid at the end of your suburban street gets stupid one day and sends a 230-grainer out his livingroom window - which enters your kitchen window a hundreds yards away and strikes your wife - is that any different than Mr. Stupid accomplishing the same thing outside the local supermarket?

I see your point, but a safety training course is not going to make Mr. Stupid into Mr. Smart. Stupid is stupid. We've just about all seen the video of the, ".....only one in this room with the training to handle this gun BOOM."

Besides I live in the country, outside city limits. Your scenario is very unlikely to happen to me or my wife. Also, where I live, "...we're them ol' boys raised on shotguns!"

If you live in the 'burbs or city, first I'm sorry for you, and I would bet that you would be more likely to be hit by a stray from a drive-by shooting, or gang gun fight, with illegal guns. Those guys gonna' take a course in firearms safety?

Mandatory training IMO would be just more government intrusion.

Also, in response to other posts, nothing is free.

You carry in public, IMHO you should have mandatory training, not just in safety but in the laws governing the legal use of deadly force. I guess that the people who carry in those states that don't require training for carry are like the rest of us, very seldom have the need to use a firearm. But again, Mr. Stupid is Mr. Stupid, no amount of training can change that.

I said this before, you can buy a car without a driver's license, you can't legally drive it. You have to pass a test to get a driver's license, many more people are killed in car wrecks than gun wrecks. Didn't use the term accident on purpose.
Just my 3 cents worth.

+10 9thhour

 

[Trip20]

332 votes as of this post.

58 voters actually approve of mandatory training for gun ownership.

18 voters are somehow "not sure".

Roughly 23% of those who've voted actually agree with adding some sort of restriction or otherwise mandating more government control into the picture.

Almost one quarter of those surveyed on a supposed pro-RKBA/pro-2A discussion forum are for more mandated control over the 2nd Amendment.


We wonder why our rights are being incrementally stripped.

Even amongst our own there are some for more gun control, more gun ownership control, and their wiles reek of the same drivel used by the Brady Campaign.

It's just a matter of time and incremental steps. We've been infiltrated. Mark my words -- we are doomed.