Maybe requiring some training is a good idea...

[gamestalker]

I seem to remember an incident back in the 1990s in El Paso, Texas in which a car thief was shot and killed by the owner. According to the story in the El Paso Times, the owner was not charged with anything. The El Paso Times stated that Texas law allowed a person to use lethal force in protecting not only their personal well being, but also their property.
But back to the question of would I use lethal force to stop a perpertator who is trespassing on my property while in the process of robbing my neighbor. It is difficult for me to say without being in that particular situation. If I actually felt I was in personal danger, such as, if the perpetrator made a verbal threat that was physical in nature. Like, get lost or I'll get you next, you didn't see anything right? while making a gesture that is threatening in nature. I don't know, like I said it would greatly depend on the individual circumstances.
A guy my Son knows came by our house last night with a pic of some expesive rims and tires he had for sale. I asked him where he got them, and he just grinned and said little. Later last night he showed up at a friends house and made a statement that seriously concerned myself and others who heard it. He said to my Son and I, that our dirt bike, (that we spent hard earned money for) was on the market to be stollen according to people he knows, and then laughed, as though my Son or I would find any humor in that. After he left, several people told me that him and some other individuals he hangs out with, are suspected in a good number of high dollar thefts in our rural comunity. My Son and I really don't know much about this guy and met him by chance when my Son painted a car that belonged to friend of his. Before he left the house last night my Son and I asked him if he knew who he was talking to. He looked at us kind confused and said something like, I was just joking. Again we reiterated while gesturing to our guns on our hips, do you know who you are talking to? He left and seemed to get the message, I hope. Now that is a circumstance in which I would consider using lethal force to protect my self, and property, in my opinion. I nearly get sick to my stomach when I deal with a thief. They are one of the worst elements in our society, in my opinion.

 

[mgregg85]

I fear the "training" argument is a pointless one to pursue and I think it would lead to a slippery slope. How much training is enough? Who is going to pay for it? How can we know that the requirements and fees won't dramatically increase?

 

[labhound]

The 2nd Amendment give us the right to own a gun. That doesn't mean that we're qualified to own a gun, either skill wise or intelligence wise. I have no problem with training being required to make sure you know your state laws and to make sure you're capable of handling a gun safely and are capable of shooting it with some degree of accuracy. IMHO the government (city, state, or federal) can decree that you know your basic guns laws, but leave the safety and shooting requirements to be established by a gun related group such as the NRA. A little training and education certainly wouldn't harm anyone in the gun owner community and would probably help our cause when dealing with the anti-gun community.

 

[TexasBill]

I don't know. Perhaps it would be good if more gun shops carried some of the better books on the subject and had information about local resources for training for people that don't plan to get a concealed-carry permit. Perhaps the state could publish a guide, like the study guides for drivers licenses, that contained an overview of state gun laws, gun safety and some common-sense guidelines covered legal use of lethal force.

That way, it's still voluntary and there's no record. A small tax on the sale of firearms could cover the cost of printing and distribution.

The guide might not be read by everyone but it might be read by enough people who would be otherwise clueless to make it worthwhile.

 

[General Geoff]

The 2nd Amendment give us the right to own a gun.

It does not; it merely protects a preexisting right from being infringed.

 

[JTHunter]

I would make an effort to NOT be in a situation like that (esp. as I live in "Daleyland"), but I might place myself where I could get the drop on a perp to hold them for police. If they were so stupid as to try and attack me after I had them covered and disarmed, well, too bad. You know what can happen in a struggle. It would be tragic but, with no dissenting arguments, - - -.

 

[labhound]

Whether the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own a gun or strictly stated "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", it protects your right to own a gun.

 

[gbw]

I'm solidly for required training. Simple and reasonable standards, make it available easily. It's not perfect, but it will do way more good than harm. And no, it need not be an infringement.

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....

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.

Just my guess, but I'd bet Mr. F knows this is weak. In theory maybe, but I can't see any reason to think it would ever happen.

Irresponsible people are….irresponsible. And lazy. And sloppy. And they tend to stay that way. And way too many of them own guns – I just can’t see shaming any significant number of them into becoming responsible – far too much evidence to show they never will.

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.

This makes no sense at all. Training is good, but if it is requiring it somehow becomes evil? 'Encouraging' idiots to be responsible ain't gonna get it 'cause they won't do it. And if they won't, they forfeit their right and I don't want them armed. It's not evil to make folks be responsible enough to learn the law and prove basic minimum skills before they own a gun. It they aren't willing to do that then they shouldn't have one. It's the pure common sense so that many here value so highly. The NRA, Scouts, clubs, etc. could handle it easily. That is not an infringement.

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.

Little to nothing’s being done. Irresponsible idiots with guns are rampant. Check out your local road signs, or go back and review any of the ‘public range’ threads.

Requiring training isn’t the perfect solution, but it’s a good one.

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.

Yes! Mr. M2Carbine got it right, and said it best.

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.

Requiring someone show a little responsibility before they can have a gun negates nothing.

It does affirms the natural right not to turn armed idiots loose among us.

Assuming a jerk is responsible is a pipe dream and, well, irresponsible. This is so backwards – on this goofy logic the leaking roof never gets fixed. So we don’t even try to weed out the idiots til after they’ve killed someone? Nope.

The only decent argument against requiring training is the ‘slippery slope’, the same as with the mag size limit.

In neither case should it to be taken lightly. But requiring training will weed out some that have no business with guns. With care and vigilance the infringement is nonexistent, the risk is manageable and the benefit tangible.

 

[General Geoff]

This makes no sense at all. Training is good, but if it is requiring it somehow becomes evil?

Yes. Because it then becomes tyranny.

Requiring someone show a little responsibility before they can have a gun negates nothing.

Having something to prove, means it's not a right at all.

 

[RangerHAAF]

Training is a nice consideration but should not be mandatory as is the case in Georgia. Every person who owns a gun knows what an awesome responsibility it is so it is on them to prepare themselves to wield it.

I personally don't believe in storing guns and ammo separately like the Bradies are always spouting off about. An unloaded gun is no good.

Here in Georgia we have the Castle Doctrine and there have been several thieves who were shot and killed breaking into cars at night. Our Castle Doctrine extends out to our personal property and we can specifically shoot intruders in our homes, cars or anywhere else we have a legal right to be.

If you want training to prepare yourself to do it all the better for you but it shouldn't be required.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

I have no problem with training being required

I DO have a problem with government (at ANY level) mandating anything concerning the exercise of freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights.

 

[Sam1911]

Training requirements are much like literacy tests for voting.

On the face of it, they can be pitched as reasonable, even positive, steps to make some benefit for society.

In practical application, they are a means of control which is used to deny rights to whomever isn't (whatever) enough to pass muster. And just to be sure, we'll set the standard to a hair over what those (not whatever, enough) can achieve. (Not accurate enough, not knowledgeable enough -- or more historically to the point, not rich enough, not white enough, and so on.)

Now, if M2Carbine, gbw, or some other reasonable, educated, experienced, fair, impartial, and rights-minded individual would get to administer the tests and set all the standards, why I'd be all for it, because I trust them with all my heart not to abuse that power. (Wait...do I? Why sure!) But standards aren't set by our good buddies who really know what's in the best interest of society (like M2 and gbw would, without question) but by bureaucracies and state/federal government agencies who have shown a marked misunderstanding of both the right to bear arms and the practicalities of doing so, and an alarming tendency to abuse every single whiff of power they've ever been given.

In the end, if it saves one life ... or if it saves ten thousand ... it ISN'T an acceptable trade-off. This is an enumerated right, spelled out clearly in the Constitution, and it shall not be infringed. "Infringe" means, "to encroach on someone or something." Having to prove something, pay something, be something beyond the basic definition of 'the people,' surely 'encroaches' on that basic right.

You want to offer education? Fine! You want to demand education and require proficiency? NOT fine.

 

[oldfool]

by any other name, a rose is still a rose.. or a (???)

any legal training certification requirement to exercise a guaranteed constitutional right
is a poll tax
the sole purpose of which is to deny, not to empower

would it be a better world, if I could find a simple and legal way to deny 50% of voters (those I disagree with), the right to vote ?
well, of course it would, but I am really glad they won't let me do that

nobody ever said life was a free ride, and anybody who ever told you it is fair was either an idiot or a liar (but it's still worth the trip, you know)
"be very careful what you ask for, you just might get it"

 

[Gouranga]

Training...sounds good but when you get into implementation, it fails.

It becomes yet another hurdle to keep law abiding citizens from being armed. Is training a great idea? Heck yeah. I will be the first to volunteer, I have enough training to know I don't have enough training. I can get round downrange accurately, I can draw quickly and get a good sight picture on target quickly. I have begun wearing out my snap caps. But where does it end? We say BASIC training. K, well once you open pandoras box you can take that concept pretty far.

You say yeah he can use a handgun but need specific rifle training to get a rifle, then shotgun training. The specific HD training cause you can't have him shooting in his apartment without training, he might kill someone. The CCW guy NEEDS training on pulling his weapon from the holster without shooting himself. Eventually only those with enough money to afford 100 hours of in depth training can get a firearm.

As for the "New to guns, what gun should i get." questions, bring them on. What that tells me is we have a new person in our community. That is an AWESOME thing. We should take them under our wing teach them. My first gun, I knew nothing about matching the shooter to the gun. Nothing about what to look for. My family was all from NYS and with the exception of my sister who is a cop, nobody knew ANYTHING about handguns. I winged it and got real lucky.

Had I gotten a gun that was a poor fit for me, I may not have ever advanced with shooting. I may have just said "screw it." and given up. The guys that come here with the newb questions give us a great opp to take them under our wings and share our experience. IMO, that is an AWESOME thing.

 

[emb]

There is a difference between mandatory training and education. The later is the voluntary acquisition of knowledge. It implies a desire to learn. The former does not. We have quite a few rights and privileges that require training. Driving for example. Does the required training make a better safer driver. Still there are folks that are seemingly ignorant of the risks that they impose on themselves and others-and it's just as dangerous.

I grew up in a small town in eastern Washington. The entire 7th grade class took the firearm safety course. Hunting season was around the corner and at 13 you had to have the course to get a license. I used to walk home from the ROTC range with my rifle over my shoulder and the bolt in my pocket. My father taught me how to use a firearm and to respect it. I also don't recall any mention of the 2nd amendment, gun control, etc..

Times have changed. When I decided to carry concealed I got some more education and training real fast. It is an awesome responsibility and not one to be taken lightly. Encourage the education, but don't mandate the training. That just opens the door for a whole host of ills in today's polictical environment.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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

Amen!

Every time a discussion like this comes up, I ask, "What evidence do you have that there is any harm caused by people carrying that could be cured by training?" And no one can answer that.

But I can sure as the devil show you the harm caused by people voting while their brains are in neutral!

 

[gbw]

Every time a discussion like this comes up, I ask, "What evidence do you have that there is any harm caused by people carrying that could be cured by training?" And no one can answer that.

But I can sure as the devil show you the harm caused by people voting while their brains are in neutral!

No you cannot, except in your judgement.

It's not for carrying - it's for owning. And I'll answer it - it will without a doubt keep some lazy, incompetent, irresponsible goof-balls from buying a gun. By your strange logic we only do a thing when there is guaranteed success?

In the end, if it saves one life ... or if it saves ten thousand ... it ISN'T an acceptable trade-off.

If we do loose our RKBA one of the reasons will be exactly this sort of unreasonable, hostile, head-in-the-sand, "it's my right and screw everybody else" intransigence. Another will likely be the acts armed idiots who never had any business with a gun in the first place.

Yes, it’s risky. Yes we’ll have to stay vigilant. But it works for driving, flying, and all manner of other things. So it's doable, and worth doing.

 

[Sam1911]

And I'll answer it - it will without a doubt keep some lazy, incompetent, irresponsible goof-balls from buying a gun.

Lazy, incompetent, irresponsible goof-balls (from your judgments) whose right to keep and bear a weapon is just as valid and Constitutionally protected as yours.

Freedom is mighty messy at times.

By your strange logic we only do a thing when there is guaranteed success?

No, certainly. But we don't do a thing when it is damaging to protected rights -- and, ESPECIALLY, when it cannot be proved to do the thing it is claimed to do with any success.

If we do loose our RKBA one of the reasons will be exactly this sort of unreasonable, hostile, head-in-the-sand, "it's my right and screw everybody else" intransigence.

That may be a possibility. But we've tried compromising a whole heck of a lot, and that doesn't seem to have preserved our rights well, either. Again, freedom is messy, it carries risks, it is worth those risks.

Another will likely be the acts armed idiots who never had any business with a gun in the first place.

And those armed 'idiots' will always be with us, no matter how much training we force them to take or how much money we require they can spend on their licenses, or even on how white we make sure they are. (Gun control is founded in racism and classism. Whether you intend such or not, matters little.)

But it works for driving, flying, and all manner of other things.

Those, and other things, NOT being enumerated, Constitutionally protected individual rights. No one ever died because of religion? No one ever died because of something someone else said or wrote about them? (Oh yes they HAVE!) But we don't require training, education, or licensing to exercise 1st Amendment rights. Seems to me that the 2nd Amendment was placed right next door to that one in the original list. That's worth noting.

So it's doable

Sure is! And so are poll taxes, literacy tests, Jim Crow laws, etc. So "doable" that it has all been tried before, found to be ineffective at achieving the stated goal, found TOO effective as a means of control and abuse, and left, deservedly, on the scrap heap of legislative history.

Let us leave it there, please.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No you cannot, except in your judgement.

I await your defense of the current administration as a brilliant choice.

It's not for carrying - it's for owning. And I'll answer it - it will without a doubt keep some lazy, incompetent, irresponsible goof-balls from buying a gun.

"Without doubt?'

Are you saying that you believe it, and so all of the rest of us are compelled to believe? Without any evidence?

By your strange logic we only do a thing when there is guaranteed success?

And by your strange logic we do things that cost money, restrict our rights, and are counter-productive based on no real-world evidence at all?

If we do loose our RKBA one of the reasons will be exactly this sort of unreasonable, hostile, head-in-the-sand, "it's my right and screw everybody else" intransigence. Another will likely be the acts armed idiots who never had any business with a gun in the first place.

We aren't losing our RKBA -- we're rolling back restrictions every session of the legislature.

And the homicide rate is going down. The violent crime rate in general is goind down. And firearms accidents are going down -- nothing bad is happening as a result!!

 

[fireside44]

And the homicide rate is going down. The violent crime rate in general is goind down. And firearms accidents are going down -- nothing bad is happening as a result!!

Yeah, but what about "common sense"?

LOL

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
And the homicide rate is going down. The violent crime rate in general is goind down. And firearms accidents are going down -- nothing bad is happening as a result!!

Yeah, but what about "common sense"?

Given the number of people who want more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights, including training where they cannot demonstrate training is needed, that appears to be going down, too.

 

[fallout mike]

Yea gbw, you prolly would have been fine with what the military and police were doing done here right after Katrina. They were going door to door confiscating everyones guns. But it was only bc they were afraid of what a few crazy people would do. So its for the best right?

 

[gbw]

I await your defense of the current administration as a brilliant choice.

Don't hold your breath, I enjoy reading your posts...but the preceeding bunch was as bad in their own way. In my view they, not voter ignorance, are the main reason we have what we we've got now. (But in fairness I gotta sort of agree with you - very dangerous to underestimate voter ignorance.)

And by your strange logic we do things that cost money, restrict our rights, and are counter-productive based on no real-world evidence at all?

If I thought that we wouldn't be discussing this. It needn't do either.

Are you saying that you believe it, and so all of the rest of us are compelled to believe? Without any evidence?

Plenty of evidence. Easiest is drivers's education and licensing. It works.

We aren't losing our RKBA -- we're rolling back restrictions every session of the legislature.

True, and I hope it keeps up. But I don't count on it - history says it won't. In any case neither this nor the falling rates is any reason not to try to do better.

I hope Sam forgives a final response, and now as he asks I've had my say and I'll leave it at that.

 

[fallout mike]

Gbw is right about how well drivers ed has worked though. When I was in high school I had 5 friends die in car wrecks. And they were all seperate incidents. All were avoidable if properly educated.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
Are you saying that you believe it, and so all of the rest of us are compelled to believe? Without any evidence?

Plenty of evidence. Easiest is drivers's education and licensing. It works.

Show me the evidence that firearms training will result in fewer homicides.

As for firearms accidents, they are already so miniscule that were it not for the politics, they would not be reported as a separate category, but lumped under "miscellanious."