Mandatory Safety Training, yes or no?

[Ryanxia]

That's too bad. While I agree safety training should be done (if you weren't taught as a child like many of us) I still say NO on making it a law. Once the government has that requirement in the bag they can 'amend' it to as extreme requirements as they want.

 

[Fryerpower]

I don't particularly care for the fact that shooting is a requirement for a HCP in Tennessee.

People do stupid stuff. Hopefully they or bystanders don't get hurt.

I've seen that short amount of required training & shooting be that teachable moment that potentially saved a finger/life later. I am not a fan of mandatory anything brecause of the ability to track, control, and limit who has access to guns, but the benefits of even a short class are real.

I have been working with my son for the last year, starting at age 9. Yes it is fun shooting stuff, but the real point of it was to teach safe gun handling. It takes time to drill into their heads the rules and why the rules exist.

Jim

 

[Spdracr39]

They sell cars to people without drivers licenses too. It is wrong and were I the salesman I would not do it but I don't think we need anymore mandatory anything.

 

[Jlr2267]

I like the idea of safety education in school. When I was in high school in TN, part of health education was a day on gun/hunter safety taught by local DNR. We even went down and shot clays over the old football field. Times have sure changed.

Mandatory anything does seem repulsive, but I honestly do not see the current situation as optimal (or even reasonable). I would not want someone I know to be unfamiliar with guns to buy a firearm without at least offering to show them proper handling/safety. Seems irresponsible to do so.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Could I support firearms education in schools? Absolutely.

Should an adult be forced to take a training class before he purchases a firearm? No way.

Just as I can decline consultation from my doctor or pharmacist about the dangers of some medication I'm about to take, I should be able to decline training for firearms if I see fit. In both cases, I'm still responsible for the negative consequences of my actions.

I never took a safety course. To be honest, I remember very little of what my Dad taught me about firearms safety, other than don't point it at anybody. I took it upon myself to study and ask questions. There are lots of free training opportunities out there for those who wish to use them.

Even after decades of training, if you accidentally shoot yourself or someone else, you still have to live with the consequences.

 

[Drail]

The problem is simply "who" writes the training requirements? If it ends up being the same idiots who write the driving tests we use then, NO!

 

[morcey2]

"Mandatory" and "shall not be infringed" don't go together.

I think every first-time gun owner should get at least a little bit of gun safety training, but making it mandatory is a non-starter. I'm an NRA Certified Trainer, so I'd likely benefit from a mandate like that, but I fight against any requirement like that.

Matt

 

[JamieC]

Just because one has the 'right' to own a firearm, doesn't mean they have the ability. We all have the right to walk into Home Depot, among the things sold there, circular saws, table saws, chain saws, ladders. We all know people who shouldn't have access to any of those things. Just because the local Suzuki motorcycle dealership will sell you a 180+ mph Hayabusa doesn't mean you have the ability to ride it, you have the right to own it. Having a gun in your own house if you live alone is one thing, carrying one in public around people, (like you and me), is another. We've all seen people with more money than brains get the urge to buy a gun. They go buy a custom Les Baer, alligator skin holster, Zombie Max bullets. Can't find the time or money to actually go shoot, (range fees are "ridiculous"), train, "those criminals want $200 for a day of training?". Just the kind of idiot I want around when he/she feels threatened and decides it's time to pull the gun and 'defend' themselves. I don't really want the government involved with this at all, but....what to do?

 

[JRH6856]

Just the kind of idiot I want around when he/she feels threatened and decides it's time to pull the gun and 'defend' themselves. I don't really want the government involved with this at all, but....what to do?

In theory you know you should trust people to do the right thing. In fact, you know you can't. So yes, "what to do?" is indeed the question.

 

[Mauserguy]

We have a mandatory training program in California and it is rather dumb. When you buy a handgun the clerk will demonstrate how to handle it, load it, etc.. You then have to repeat what he showed you. It all takes about three minutes and will do nothing to stop a stupid person from later ignoring basic safety protocals.

I don't see the benefit of mandatory training. If a person is receptive to training, they will seek it out. If a person is not interested, they won't get anything out of training. It has no benefit.
Mauserguy

 

[thorazine]

Another vote for...

[X] No.

 

[oneounceload]

No to mandatory, buy maybe every gun store should take a minute with every sale and show the customer how to load, unload, clear, etc.

 

[JurisCani]

Mandatory for what - simply exercising a constitutional right? Who would administer/track such testing. How would it be enforced? NO TO MANDATORY TRAINING. If a private range wants to make a safety class mandatory for membership that is another matter and is fine.

 

[Plan2Live]

Here's a twist, in Charleston, SC a woman who had been deemed mentally unstable slipped through a crack in the background check system and purchased a semi-automatic handgun and ammunition. She loaded the magazine, inserted it into the pistol then went to a local school and drew the pistol, pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger. Because she had failed to rack the slide and chamber a round no one was hurt. But if she had taken mandatory training.........?

I vote No.

As a volunteer Range Safety Officer at a public range, I see appaling gun handling skills. While taking my NRA Basic Pistol Instructor Certification Course I was taught that less than 5% of all gun owners in America ever get any professional training.

I still vote No and apparently so do 95% of all gun owners.

 

[Agsalaska]

No way Jose. The last thing we need is another law to protect us from ourselves. :banghead:

 

[JRH6856]

will do nothing to stop a stupid person from later ignoring basic safety protocals.

Nothing will. You can lead a mind to knowledge but you can't make it think.

 

[kludge]

Lucky for him, he had just turned the gun away from pointing directly at his gut when it fired. He appeared to have not even a slight hint that anything he was doing was dangerous...could have just as easily shot another patron.

And you didn't yell "CEASE FIRE!"?

 

[GambJoe]

Mistakes happen. Even to the best of us.

What I can't figure out is why people bring children to the shooting range? They shouldn't be where things like this, or worse could happen.

No to mandatory training.

 

[Averageman]

This used to be a Fathers job.
A trip to the range, a long discussion about responcability and being a Man is all about. A story or too told from his personal experiance in the Military. Sit an old pumpkin on a fence post and show him what an "accident" might look like if you drop your guard.
Made a heck of an impression on me.

I can't tell you how quickly it can go from bad to really scarey bad.
I was Safety on a Night Fam Fire for some deploying Reserve unit, in the dark I observed a Soldier leave the prone and Yelled "NO" "Cease Fire" as I began moving quickly in the direction to stop "him" from getting up.
No! Ceasefire! Freeze! had no effect, as I got to the now standing and turning Soldier, I got the muzzle of the M16 jammed in to my face and up in to my Kevlar.
A double feed and no training or observation of the range rules or the range safety briefing.
Come to find out "He" was a "She" and hadn't been to Basic yet.

 

[9MMare]

No. As far as I know there is no data that shows any difference in gun incidents (not crime) in states with mandatory training and states without. So then why force training...time, costs, etc on people? Why get more govt involvement? Why assume people are not getting training on their own, or didnt already?


The only study I read of was between WA and OR. OR requires training, WA does not. But OR had more gun-related accidents...while WA has a higher population and more people with CC permits.

Much of this was covered recently on another gun forum.

 

[9MMare]

Yes, I guess that's the part that really bothers me. He lost his finger so we can shrug it off as a learning experience and give a Darwin Award. But what about the next one...maybe an innocent by-stander gets a permanent headache...can we, as responsible gun owners, offer no solutions to this growing problem, and live with that? I think we have to come to grips with the reality that we, as a community, need to offer real solutions before other solutions are imposed on us.

Since I havent seen that 'mandatory' training makes any difference, why enforce it? It just assumes that people do not get their own training OR that some specific level of forced training works better. But there is no evidence that I've seen to support this.

 

[9MMare]

In the first case, the presumption is only that the potential gun owner should be exposed to basic firearms safety. Whether he is safe or unsafe without it is not an answerable question apriori, therefore it is also a moot one. I think we all can agree that safety training is, in general, a good thing, and I also think we can agree that there are some folks not getting any safety training whatsoever.

In the 2nd case, you are correct that I am presuming that safety training would help prevent accidents such as this, although possibly not this particular one. I do not see this as faulty, but rather logical. We all train our children on firearms safety by this same premise.

A person's right to own firearms is not in question. Their right to discharge them in public areas, without having basic safety training is what is concerning. Several years ago, my state implemented hunter safety requirements for new hunters, born after a certain date. Would you consider this to be a violation of fundamental rights?

No one I have ever heard of thinks people shouldnt get training. The discussion is about 'mandatory' training.

So the assumptions are that people dont or wont get training on their own? Maybe grew up with it, hunted, self-defense, whatever? And the other assumption *seems to be* for some...that making it mandatory would make a difference...when there is no evidence to support that (that I'm aware of).

 

[JRH6856]

So the assumptions are that people dont or wont get training on their own? Maybe grew up with it, hunted, self-defense, whatever? And the other assumption *seems to be* for some...that making it mandatory would make a difference...when there is no evidence to support that (that I'm aware of).

You can make kids go to school. The ones that want to learn, do, and the ones that don't, don't. Regardless of how mandatory it is.

 

[9MMare]

The problem is simply "who" writes the training requirements? If it ends up being the same idiots who write the driving tests we use then, NO!

That's another thing that varies from state to state...and again....how much training is 'enough?'

How do we know? Where is the data?

 

[9MMare]

No to mandatory, buy maybe every gun store should take a minute with every sale and show the customer how to load, unload, clear, etc.

I think that's nice but I certainly wouldnt put that burden...or responsibility...on gun shops. Who says they know every firearm? Or that the staff there at the moment knows 'that' gun?

Not to mention that I have gotten such assistance any time I've asked for it in my local gun shop, I have no problem asking.... but would many men ask? Probably many would just assume they knew as much or more than the staff and rebuff it. (And some would know more, of course)