Maybe requiring some training is a good idea...

[TexasBill]

It's quite a shock when one leaves the warm sanctuary of The High Road to visit other forums. The following is from one of those question-and-answer groups found on the Internet. I have made some grammatical corrections and I am not posting a link for the simple reason the person asking this question deserves anonymity. After reading some of the responses to this question, I realized there is an awful lot of misinformation about the use of lethal force and the truth about armed encounters.

If your neighbor's house was being robbed would you grab your gun and wait for the robbers to leave and cross your property? Then shoot them because they are on your land against your will and threatening the community. My liberal college professor and played a YouTube police tape with a guy in this sitation and the man shot the two robbers and it was completely legal.

Would you do the same? I think it depends on if they were armed and if I thought my neighbor was in trouble. If the hot girl next girl was screaming and there was obviously a robbery in progress, I'd probably just go next door and take care of the problem. In Texas, many self defense cases aren't a big issue like the guy with the gun on his own property is usually the good guy.

I would also like to add that you have time to prepare and grab your firearm - even if it's locked in a safe and unloaded.

And you also have time to prepare a shot at under 10 yards where you won't do collateral damage or hurt anyone else. Could you shoot another human period or would they have to be threatening the life of another person to get you to pull the trigger?

I have long been a supporter of Constitutional (unlicensed) carry and I believe it is the responsibility of every gun owner to know not only the safe handling of firearms but the legal use of deadly force and at least some knowledge of tactics. Obviously, this belief is not as widely shared as I thought.

What, if anything, should or even can be done to limit the danger uneducated guns owners pose to themselves and others?

By the way, the incident in the YouTube video is the case of Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas. Horn was no-billed by a grand jury after he shot two men who had just broken into a neighbor's house.

 

[oldfool]

well you know, the eternally recycled gun forum question is,
"my 1st gun, what should I get ?"

and the only real and true answers are about 40 pages long, and are all about, legal, moral, ethical questions which ought be very well thought out and very clearly understood before you ever purchase a gun in the first place
style make/model/caliber is pretty trivial by comparison

but nobody who asks the question ever really wants to hear all that, you know

no two people are obliged to answer those questions the same way, nor should they be

me, I long ago decided to never shoot at any person absent the clear and present danger of an imminent and overt threat to life, last resort defense and survival

killing someone over a stolen TV set, just not worth it
leave gun holstered, pick up phone

but legislating ethics, morality, and good judgment is a non-starter, cannot be done, surefire failure
living with the herd has it's benefits, but it never was risk free

 

[killchain]

For the record, the Constitution doesn't say anything about requiring training to exercise your second amendment rights.

And furthermore, reply and correct them. Idiot gun owners are like idiots in any other aspect; they won't stop being idiots until something lets them know they're being idiots.

 

[emb]

Arguing with idiots is akin to teaching a pig to sing: you just get frustrated and upset the pig. Some folks you just can't teach. They do not want to learn.

 

[killchain]

Arguing with idiots is akin to teaching a pig to sing: you just get frustrated and upset the pig. Some folks you just can't teach. They do not want to learn.

Give up on them all you want, the Constitution still does not require training.

 

[hotajax]

Training A Good Idea?

I believe training is a good idea up to a point. And that point is government involvement. Once there are government run (God forbid) training courses, you know access to them will dry up. Also, why not a few pages from your service record to show you know how to handle a gun?

 

[emb]

Killchain. I agree, but ignorance has consequences.

 

[TexasBill]

My concern is consequences of the sheer amount of ignorance displayed in so few lines. I worry that in a SHTF situation, the person who posted that question is going to get themselves, or somebody else, killed. Like the hottie next door.

And you also have time to prepare a shot at under 10 yards where you won't do collateral damage or hurt anyone else.

Gosh, and all these years, people I've trusted (firearms instructors, experienced LEOs) have been telling me otherwise.

 

[killchain]

Killchain. I agree, but ignorance has consequences.

I'm just trying to fight off the Fuddthink.

 

[Justin]

So long as public schools exist, it will remain my belief that basic gun safety and marksmanship should be taught alongside driver's ed.

Sent from my Android smart phone using Tapatalk.

 

[Standing Wolf]

So long as public schools exist, it will remain my belief that basic gun safety and marksmanship should be taught alongside driver's ed.

Driver's training is no longer offered in lots of school districts. I was shocked to learn it myself.

Basic first aid, firearms safety, and fire safety should be mandatory—period.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's a tough question. Personally, I don't like the idea of government being involved, but I also believe that the responsible gun owner, on his own initiative, gets training and seeks to understand the applicable law.

Perhaps he may legally choose not to. But if he makes that choice, I'm certainly not going to pat him on the back and tell him he's a splendid fellow for doing so. IMHO the common "I don't need no stinkin' training" attitude" is far too prevalent.

Maybe we need to think of ways in which we, as responsible gun owners, can encourage training, and perhaps make it "unfashionable" to disparage training.

 

[General Geoff]

What, if anything, should or even can be done to limit the danger uneducated guns owners pose to themselves and others?

Make available and encourage training and education. That's it. Training is good. Mandatory training is evil. It is the choice that makes it good.

 

[FourteenMiles]

There are so many youtube videos reviewing the same old gear that gets watched thousands and thousands of times, maybe someone ought to make a video series explaining gun safety, etiquette, and basic self defense laws geared toward the new and uninformed.

 

[Brass Rain]

This question is slightly related, so I'd like to ask it since I don't want to start a whole topic about it.

If someone is in your house stealing something from you and you draw down on him and order him to lay on the floor as you call 911 to have the cops collect him, have you entered illegal territory? Is it any different in Castle Doctrine states?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What, if anything, should or even can be done to limit the danger uneducated guns owners pose to themselves and others?

It's already being done. The firearms accident rate is so low that if it weren't for the politics, it wouldn't be a separate category in national accident statistics.

And homicide deaths are falling steadily.

 

[Nushif]

Basic first aid, firearms safety, and fire safety should be mandatory—period.

You'd think that. It's kind of a hazard when living in civilization that one is exposed to the technology that it produces. The least any system could do is educate people on how not to get killed by it.
Fact is though, people don't like new technology. Have you seen some of the ridiculous laws that people had to abide if they wanted a car when they first came out? It's almost like the legislature of any given society lags about 100 years behind whatever technology is publicly available. And that's the same across most, if not all of them.

 

[Gato Montés]

It really depends on your definition of "training". I don't think anyone should have to complete a class before purchasing a firearm, but for hunting and for CC I think there should be at least a class on the legalities of everything.

 

[Jesse Heywood]

I wouldn't trust the public school system to teach firearms safety. Look at how good of a job they have done with sex education.

It is an individual's responsibility to know what the law says you can do. If you don't know how the law applies to anything you do, you must face the consequences. Ignorance is no excuse.

If you have to take a government class, does that alleviate your duty to know when the law changes?

 

[mikerault]

Actually they have done a great job with sex education, it is love and responsibility education they suck at. Sex is easy, the rest is hard.

 

[M2 Carbine]

What, if anything, should or even can be done to limit the danger uneducated guns owners pose to themselves and others?

When Texas first got concealed carry I was LOUDLY opposed to the whole thing.
Why should I have to take a whole weekend to prove I can shoot. I can shoot better than probably 90 percent of the LEO's on the street.
Why should I sit all day in the class and take a written test. I know the law.
Why should I have to pay big Bucks to the state and instructor so I can do what is my Constitutional right to do.
And on, and on, and on.

Well when getting the CHL I saw I didn't know the law as well as I thought I did, but I still wasn't convinced all this was necessary for me to carry a gun.


It didn't take long before I saw on the internet, from the "dumb" questions asked, that there's a lot of people carrying guns that not only don't know the law but they they don't know how to shoot or know much about the guns they carry.

The fact is most people are lazy. Without being pushed they will not learn what they should know about carrying a gun and the law. They will do as little as possible to get by.


So, I have done a complete 180. I want people that carry guns in public to meet some minimum safety and skill standards.

The other guy has his rights, but so do I and it's my right not be injured by some jerk because he just isn't safe or skilled enough and too pig headed to get some proper training and practice.

 

[General Geoff]

The other guy has his rights, but so do I and it's my right not be injured by some jerk because he just isn't safe or skilled enough and too pig headed to get some proper training and practice.

That burden lies on the "jerk," not the state. Without personal responsibility, all the training in the world won't prevent him from killing you, accidentally or on purpose.


In the end, the "jerk" must be assumed to be responsible enough to carry a firearm (as any law abiding adult should be). Only after he proves otherwise should his right be stripped or compromised. To do otherwise is to negate the entire concept of natural rights and adulthood.

 

[cthulhufan]

Nothing can or should be done on a legislative level. It is the responsibility of every citizen to be sane and safe when dealing with tools capable of applying lethal force.

 

[zxcvbob]

If your neighbor's house was being robbed would you grab your gun and wait for the robbers to leave and cross your property? Then shoot them because they are on your land against your will and threatening the community. My liberal college professor and played a YouTube police tape with a guy in this sitation and the man shot the two robbers and it was completely legal.

That's not a very accurate description of the Joe Horn case. I'm not saying JH was completely in the right... As I remember it, he placed himself in the situation, the bad guys came after him even tho' he was obviously armed, and he shot them. The "placed himself in the situation" part, I have problems with, but I don't know all the details. Also, Texas is unique in that you can use deadly force to protect property -- but only at night.

 

[wally]

I'll consider this after we've mandated intelligence tests for voters.

One should be able to pass a T/F test associating candidates with their positions on the issues be fore being allowed to vote. Once we have this in place then we can discuss other "reasonable requirements" about other rights.