Gun training

There are now 25 states with Constitutional Carry -- no license needed to carry a gun.

Can anyone show statistically how this results in any negative results?

 

Training is a serious and important issue.
All fire arm owners ought seek out training, to develop their skills, to be confident and sure.
They also must needs do this from the prism of their abilities and wherewithal.
Individualism is, by its nature, nonuniform, but, on the whole, it works.

 

I'll just leave this here...

 

Well….

 

And here's what I said to the OP in his other thread:

 

Gun safety in elementary school grades like the Eddie Eagle program. Middle/High Schoolers need intermural air gun and small-bore shooting matches.

 

So therefore you should absolutely go out and get training. No one that wants it should be denied it.

 

My answer is likely to be long, but then worth while questions are generally not quick easy yes/no answers.

That is a really hard question, but then any question that would actually help with issues is hard. (I) think where people reel back is the step past the question, as in who gets to decide. We know from experience that places like New York or other "left" type places getting a CCW is darn near impossible.....I will link an older video here:



This is why (I THINK) people are going to reel back against the yes. I don't think I would want to trust any....as in ANY body, body being an established body of people, to decide if I have the right to have a gun, we do not have this in any other right.....I don't have to go before a board to gain access to my right to free speech.

Now that said, SHOULD a new gun owner that has zero experience go to a class, and get some basic training.....YES, we don't toss people the keys to a car and say....well you figure it out, watch a few youtube videos and you will get it. We don't do it with any complex machine, a gun is not that complex, but like a car, there are hard and fast rules where guns go.....most of us know them, some can recite them from memory.

I cut this really sorter then I started to, if I need to fill it out more I will.

 

Illinois is required by statute to issue CHL permits within 120 days after submission, 90 if (voluntary) prints are included.

They are (or were a few months ago) running 14 MONTHS from submission to issuance. Lawsuits brought forced them to speed it up, but only after two years of delays that were ILLEGAL. Now guess who in the State Police went to jail/got fined/got fired for not following the law....too easy, of course, nobody.

If you're willing to accept some 'hoops' controlled by the government, you're willing to accept government control of your rights; IL is the absolute proof of how that works out.

Larry

 

Yes.

 

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.

 

I'm sorry, where does the constitution enumerate our right to fly an airplane or drive a car?

 

If something is mandated by an organization then it is no longer a right.
Keeping and bearing firearms is a right.
End of discussion.

 

Getting firearms training is the responsible thing for a citizen to do. Recognize that, in all the states that do require training in order to obtain concealed carry licenses, ALMOST ALL of the so-called "gun violence" and homicides are committed by persons who've never received training AND are illegally in possession of the firearms they use to commit their crimes.

Mandatory training and requiring licenses at all are, as noted simply mechanisms to restrict (read "infringe") citizens' rights to keep and bear arms -- and obtain revenue for the government. Mandatory training and licensing only affect those (proven through background investigations) law-abiding citizens who go through the process. Clearly, these concepts have ZERO impact on crime.

 

I suspect the "compulsory training" argument is just another mechanism anti's use to divide and conquer armed citizens. Training, whether voluntary or compulsory, has zero to do with the criminal misuse of guns. Criminals don't get carry permits. Criminals don't get training. And has been astutely observed on this thread, setting up more compulsory, bureaucratic obstacles to gun ownership is one of the anti's primary objectives.

 

Well, to be fair, we kinda went down that road a century ago with various eugenics laws and requirements. That kinda went by the wayside when Nazi Germany actually based their own eugenics laws on ours.

It's an interesting topic to google when you've got some time.

 

You know...the flip side of all this "mandatory" stuff some people absolutely insist on is that if the government is to be allowed to do this in order for a person to own/possess/carry a firearm, then they ought to flat out issue firearms to people who "qualify" for them.

THEN maybe stupid things like "gun buy-backs" would actually make sense.

But the government won't do that, even though the provisioning of actual firearms would be, by far, the cheapest part of that.

And the government SHOULDN'T be doing that anyway.


NOBODY pushing gun control in the government wants to say it, but the issue is with personal responsibility. PERIOD. But personal responsibility doesn't buy votes, which is to say "political power".

Hold people responsible for their actions. It's that simple. When you don't hold criminals responsible for their actions, you get an increased level of criminal actions as a result. When you don't hold people responsible as they're being raised from childhood, then you get an increased level of irresponsibility. And from that you get all kinds of other poor behavioral issues on the rise as well.

Make no mistake...there will ALWAYS be people who will commit acts of criminal violence against others. We have to deal with that fact and work to minimize it where we can WITHOUT also punishing the rest of the people. Oppressing the rest of the population for their bad behavior will not resolve any of this. And expecting zero violent incidents is living in the land of rainbows and unicorn farts.

Lest we forget this fact, the biggest acts of violence against people, of mass killings when you look at things on the grand scale, are those involving governments. Color it any way you wish, but that's fact and history proves it out time and again.

 

I was on the ground floor of the Army's Training Revolution in the 1970s. When I retired I worked for a company that provided "Training and training-related services." I traveled all over the world developing and conducting training. I also have two graduate degrees in Education.

Training is a SOLUTION. Before you advocate a SOLUTION, you need a PROBLEM. In the ideal world, there ought to be some relationship between the problem and the solution.

So I ask again -- what is the problem we're trying to solve?

 

I do not believe that much should be government mandated but I thoroughly believe that every new shooter will greatly benefit from qualified instructions. The nightmare for military shooting instructors in my time was a shooter that had received poor instructions and had a hard time to unlearn all the mistakes.
I also think that every driver will benefit from some extra classes, where they learn how to handle a car that starts sliding and how to do emergency braking, especially while steering.

 

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