Maybe requiring some training is a good idea...

[TexasBill]

There are already such guides -- published by the NRA and similar organizations. No need for the state to do anything, and no need to tax us for doing it.

Okay, where are they? Are they free? Are they at the gun store at no cost to the retailer (which makes it more likely they would be at the gun store)? Do they have an overview of the gun laws and use of lethal force guidelines for each state?

Every new gun I have bought recently came with a manual that included a guide to gun safety and safe gun handling. That's a good thing but more information would (or at least, could) be useful.

Heck, maybe even a brochure telling the new gun owner how to find NRA training courses.

 

[cskny]

IMO, training is as much about the firearm as it is about the responsibilities that come with using it (or miss-using it I suppose).

I'm in a state that requires handgun training for anyone who wants to own one. Probably 1/3 of the training had anything to do with a firearm itself and it's safe operation. The remaining 2/3's was about the specific state and local LEGALITY that comes with owning and using one. We went through specific cases and analyzed the actions of the firearms owner (and the legal consequences that may have attached in our state).

It was eye opening, and even if it wasn't mandatory, I'd still want to take it.

 

[Gouranga]

Heck, maybe even a brochure telling the new gun owner how to find NRA training courses.

Somewhere along the line here we lost the concept of responsibility for ones self. You want firearms training? If you can fill out the 4473 you can use google. One can read the manual that came with their firearm. One can go online and find local classes in about 5 seconds.

When I needed my CCW I put in "CCW" and my home town. Got about 35 hits. it does not take a rocket scientist. IF you don't have the web, the gun store WILL absolutely have information if you ASK. I simply cannot accept that we have become such a useless, weak society that we have to be spoon fed everything. Folks can go into any Home depot and buy a Skill saw or chain saw. They can go about cutting down trees left and right and crush someones house. I have seen MANY close calls like that in suburbia. Nobody calls for mandatory training on power tools.

I think everyone SHOULD get whatever training they NEED to use their firearms for the purposes they need them for. However, i would never support forcing it on folks. That goes down a slippery slope in a direction I hope we never travel to.

 

[stuckinsocal]

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.



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.

It's my responsibility to educate myself about the laws regarding any activity I engage in. It doesn't matter if it's guns, 'wheeling, starting a small business, etc. It has been said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I believe that. If you engage in an activity that's regulated by the gov't somehow (and what activity isn't now?) it's your responsibility to know the laws and obey them. Freedom has risks, and part of that risk is that people won't exercise their freedoms responsibily. Requiring training, education regarding laws regulating the freedom in question- in this case, guns- etc. isn't freedom at all. It's yet another form of infringement on our rights. If no training=no gun then it's a gov't license to exercise a right and therefore an infringement of that right.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Okay, where are they? Are they free? Are they at the gun store at no cost to the retailer (which makes it more likely they would be at the gun store)? Do they have an overview of the gun laws and use of lethal force guidelines for each state?

They are published by the NRA and other organizations --all of what you want is available right now, no government involvement needed.

Every new gun I have bought recently came with a manual that included a guide to gun safety and safe gun handling. That's a good thing but more information would (or at least, could) be useful.

There you go -- all there, no need for a tax.

Now, what isn't there that would be more useful? Contact the manufacturers and the NRA and express your concerns to them.

 

[youngda9]

It's my responsibility to educate myself about the laws regarding any activity I engage in. It doesn't matter if it's guns, 'wheeling, starting a small business, etc. It has been said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I believe that. If you engage in an activity that's regulated by the gov't somehow (and what activity isn't now?) it's your responsibility to know the laws and obey them. Freedom has risks, and part of that risk is that people won't exercise their freedoms responsibily. Requiring training, education regarding laws regulating the freedom in question- in this case, guns- etc. isn't freedom at all. It's yet another form of infringement on our rights. If no training=no gun then it's a gov't license to exercise a right and therefore an infringement of that right.

+1...VERY well said.

 

[gym]

You can get a license or not, and legally carry a gun, but you can't teach common sense, self control, intelligence, or many other qualities that enter into the decision making process. It's not just training with guns that some of those characters need.
Just because you can legally have a gun, dosen't mean everyone should. I meet people all the time who I wonder how they find their way home. Don't expect that giving them a weapon is going to make them smarter. Same ones who set their house on fire, beat their kids and dogs, and cheat on their wives. You cannot teach certain things like ethics to some folks. Mainly because they are too old and have lived their life a certain way. Can't fix dumb. They have the right to bear arms, and by golly they are going to do it, no matter if they know the laws or not. And god forgive you if you start telling people what they should or shouldn't know or do. It's amazing how little the vast majority of people actually know about guns. Other than guys like those in here who take this stuff seriouslly, there are a whole lot of uninformed uninterested people out there. They just want one.

 

[CoRoMo]

I love training and education. I detest requirements and mandates. I'll never be in favor of any mixture of the two.

 

[Sam1911]

there are a whole lot of uninformed uninterested people out there. They just want one.

Right, but as several have pointed out in this thread, with accident and "gun-death" rates falling every single year, this just doesn't seem to be a problem. It sounds like a very bad thing, and any individual death or injury is tragic, but when viewed as a social trend or broader condition, the problem seems to be fading toward some statistically insignificant minimum on its own.

With the actual problem fading on its own, why decide NOW to throw billions of dollars and legal requirements/penalties at it?

 

[Sam1911]

The CDC estimated about 52K deliberate and 23K accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States back in 2000.

As an interesting counterpoint, author Bill Bryson reported once after reading part of the Statistical Abstract of the United States, there were, in one year, 142,000 Americans who received emergency room care for "injuries inflicted by their clothing."

There's a thought for you! Perhaps some mandatory training isn't a bad idea when purchasing some of the more dangerous kinds of apparel.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Right, but as several have pointed out in this thread, with accident and "gun-death" rates falling every single year, this just doesn't seem to be a problem. It sounds like a very bad thing, and any individual death or injury is tragic, but when viewed as a social trend or broader condition, the problem seems to be fading toward some statistically insignificant minimum on its own.

With the actual problem fading on its own, why decide NOW to throw billions of dollars and legal requirements/penalties at it?

Because gun control is all about control. Get it?

 

[JayBird]

Do I have to take a chainsaw safety course before I go and purchase one at my local hardware store?

It is a dangerous tool just as a firearm is.

Now would it be wise to learn how to use said chainsaw....certainly, by no one requires me to do so....and that is the way it should be. I dont need nor want to live in a nanny state thank you very much.

 

[Sky]

+1 Sam1911..Maybe some of those posting on this thread have never read a government document if they want the government involved....training used to be handed down from father to child...still is in many cases...Gun ranges; if someone asks there is usually someone there who will give their time and knowledge...admittedly maybe not the best instruction but usually enough to keep someone from getting self inflicted wounds or hurting someone else. I believe in natural selection and have seen many cases of it's effect; I just believe in individual responsibilities....

 

[Monkey_King]

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.

WORD!!! This is why mods are mods; because they get it and know how to articulate it. This reminds me of the Blackstone ratio "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". I think it is better to have idiots with guns than the right to all infringed. Any way you slice it, if you let government regulate guns at all some politician will abuse their power to enforce their own anti-gun viewpoint.

 

[NG VI]

You'd be surprised at the number of people who think that a legal requirement for the use of deadly force is that you can only respond with the exact same type of deadly force, applied in the exact same way. It makes no sense, but I guess some people just don't like to wear their helmets.


I mean say someone is rushing you with a knife after stating that they will carve you up, I have heard people opine that it is only legal to use a knife to fight them off. It's just mind-boggling.

 

[Frank Ettin]

As I believe I made clear in post 12, I'm no fan of government required training. But I'm also no fan of folks who choose not to bother to get training voluntarily. And I also think we need to be careful with some of the analogies we draw.

Do I have to take a chainsaw safety course before I go and purchase one at my local hardware store?

It is a dangerous tool just as a firearm is...

A chainsaw mishandled generally is a risk only to you. A gun mishandled puts others at risk.

...This reminds me of the Blackstone ratio "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". I think it is better to have idiots with guns than the right to all infringed....

It doesn't seem to me that Blackstone's quote applies here. The "idiot" with the gun is a potential hazard to the innocents of his community.

...if you let government regulate guns at all some politician will abuse their power to enforce their own anti-gun viewpoint...

[1] Governments, federal and state, have been regulating guns for a long time.

[2] As fro the "anti-gun" views of politicians, while it's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws, politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

 

[Classified00]

To the OP:

Giving way your freedom for a false sence of security helps how?

 

[armoredman]

Justin, here ya go. http://www.azleg.gov/ars/15/00714-01.htm

15-714.01. Arizona gun safety program course

A. In addition to the voluntary training in the use of bows and firearms prescribed in sections 15-713 and 15-714, any school district or charter school may offer as an elective course a one semester, one credit course in firearm marksmanship that shall be designated as the Arizona gun safety program course.

B. A pupil shall be deemed to have satisfactorily completed the Arizona gun safety program course by demonstrating that the pupil has the ability to safely discharge a firearm as defined in section 13-3101.

C. The course of instruction prescribed in this section shall be jointly developed by the Arizona game and fish commission, the department of public safety and private firearms organizations and may include materials provided by private youth organizations. At a minimum, the Arizona gun safety program course shall include each of the following:

1. Instruction on the rules of firearm safety.

2. Instruction on the basic operation of firearms.

3. Instruction on the history of firearms and marksmanship.

4. Instruction on the role of firearms in preserving peace and freedom.

5. Instruction on the constitutional roots of the right to keep and bear arms.

6. Instruction on the use of clay targets.

7. Practice time at a shooting range.

8. Actual demonstration by the pupil of competence with a firearm as defined in section 13-3101 by safely discharging the firearm at one or more targets.

D. School districts and charter schools shall arrange for adequate use of shooting range time by pupils in the Arizona gun safety program course at any established shooting range.

E. Pupils who satisfactorily complete the Arizona gun safety program course shall receive a certificate of accomplishment.

F. A person who is currently certified as a firearms safety instructor by the Arizona game and fish department, the national rifle association, a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, a branch of the United States military, a federal agency, the reserve officer training corps, the junior reserve officer training corps or the civilian marksmanship program is qualified to teach the Arizona gun safety program course.

G. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand the liability of any person under other provisions of law.

Currently I don't know any AZ schools using this, but I keep hoping/asking every year that this becomes asmnadatory as Drivvers' Ed and Sex Ed.

It's not the training that people rightly fear - it's the testing, and who controls your supposedly inviolable rights by pass/failing your tests. Remove the possibility that the government will revoke your rights by failing an arbitrary test, and just offer basic firearms safety at Motor Vehicle every other Tueday night, and prepare to pay an additional $.0025 sales tax to pay for it. Or use the AZ GSP template, and start getting them when they are young enough to listen, and maybe even pay a little attention.

 

[JayBird]

A chainsaw mishandled generally is a risk only to you. A gun mishandled puts others at risk.

Generally....maybe. Certainly not always.

Man accidently kills wife with chainsaw
Investigators say incident was accidental http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/gun_lake_region/Man_accidently_kills_wife_with_chainsaw

Also....

The Consumer Product Safety Commission found that the number of chainsaw accidents requiring medical attention increased from 70,000 to 135,000 annually over a five-year period. These accidents appear to be increasing at the alarming rate of 10 percent per year.

In Minnesota, fatality reports show that during a five-year period 19 people died. Seventeen, or nearly 90 percent, of the chainsaw deaths resulted from trees or branches falling on workers as they used a chainsaw. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/dd2487.html

something to think about.....I wonder how many of those 135,000 accidents involved tree limbs falling on others. You may want to reconsider your stance on mandatory chainsaw training.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Consumer Product Safety Commission found that the number of chainsaw accidents requiring medical attention increased from 70,000 to 135,000 annually over a five-year period. These accidents appear to be increasing at the alarming rate of 10 percent per year.

In Minnesota, fatality reports show that during a five-year period 19 people died. Seventeen, or nearly 90 percent, of the chainsaw deaths resulted from trees or branches falling on workers as they used a chainsaw. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distrib...es/dd2487.html

something to think about.....I wonder how many of those 135,000 accidents involved tree limbs falling on others. You may want to reconsider your stance on mandatory chainsaw training.

No need to.

As noted in the information you posted, in Minnesota, "...nearly 90%, of the chainsaw deaths resulted from trees or branches falling on workers as they used a chainsaw...."(emphasis added) So that supports my supposition that misuse of a chainsaw is generally (perhaps 90% of the time) a danger to the user himself.

 

[TexasBill]

To the OP:

Giving way your freedom for a false sence of security helps how?

Exactly what freedom have I proposed giving up? Maybe some of the God-given right to be ignorant, which I realize runs counter to Darwin but there you go.

A what false sense (with an "s") of security am i looking to obtain? None, but I do think a true sense of what gun ownership entails is a good idea.

Okay, I understand the objections to mandatory instruction. That's why I suggested an information guide to be paid for through gun purchases so the expense didn't impact the general population. I got a response that met almost none of the conditions I recommended and completely ignored the fact that better than 20% of Americans don't own a computer or use the Internet. Try again, Vern.

Owning a gun, just like owning a chain saw, carries certain responsibilities. In addition, guns are subject to restrictions that aren't applied to chainsaws. I've never seen a law prohibiting you from carrying a chain saw into a bar or school zone, but I've seen plenty of laws the forbid doing the same with a gun. Apparently a number of THR members think supplying information about those laws is a bad thing. I don't.

 

[Monkey_King]

As I believe I made clear in post 12, I'm no fan of government required training. But I'm also no fan of folks who choose not to bother to get training voluntarily. And I also think we need to be careful with some of the analogies we draw.

A chainsaw mishandled generally is a risk only to you. A gun mishandled puts others at risk.

It doesn't seem to me that Blackstone's quote applies here. The "idiot" with the gun is a potential hazard to the innocents of his community.

[1] Governments, federal and state, have been regulating guns for a long time.

[2] As fro the "anti-gun" views of politicians, while it's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws, politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

fiddle, you obviously hold different beliefs than I do and I can respect that. I will even admit that I see your point of view. However, since you quote me as some of the poor analogies I will offer a rebuttal. (I do enjoy intelligent debate with good people and I feel most all of you on here are because you care enough to be on here.)

Forgetting the chainsaw analogy, try this: Parenting is the most important job most of us will ever undertake. If we screw it up, we can ruin at least one life and quite probably many other lives. I think we've all seen children grow into monsters through parenting or the lack there of. Now, should we then require training or a license before one procreates?

2nd - you say you don't see that Blackstone applies and that one armed idiot poses a risk to the innocent masses. Don't you think that the 10 guilty men that should go free in the Blackstone ratio pose a threat to society? That's the whole point; we accept risk as a side effect of our tremendous liberties. I don't remember the quote exactly, but I believe a forefather said something like "Those who would sacrifice some of their liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Ben F. I think.

3rd - yes govt. does regulate guns, but we (those like myself) do not support this and fight to deregulate every time we step into the voting booth. I believe in the constructionist viewpoint of the constitution and it says "shall not be infringed". TJ and the rest of em were pretty dang sharp and they knew exactly what they were writing. Its a wonder they thought to put it in in the first place. History is littered with nations that allowed themselves to be disarmed because it was for the good of the nation. Last I checked our brown brothers to the south had very strict gun laws and they have had more murders since 06 than all of our fallen soldiers in our dual front war. My belief is that if you allow government to require training for the ownership or use of firearms, it will only be a matter of time before some anti makes sure that training is seldom, expensive, limited seating, & far from home. That's how I would do it if I hated guns and wanted to keep them out of public hands. Ok, all done. I want to say again how glad I am that there are red blooded Americans that care enough to have a forum like this for debate and knowledge sharing.

 

[JayBird]

No need to.

As noted in the information you posted, in Minnesota, "...nearly 90%, of the chainsaw deaths resulted from trees or branches falling on workers as they used a chainsaw...."(emphasis added) So that supports my supposition that misuse of a chainsaw is generally (perhaps 90% of the time) a danger to the user himself.

And your point is....

Over 50% of gun fatalities in the US are by suicide. Dont you think that maybe mental health issues and treating depression would be far more important, and cut down dramatically on firearm deaths than taking a test to own a firearm would?

And how many of that remaining chunk of firearm deaths in the US every year are due to gang violence? Wouldn't addressing the gang problem in the US, mostly due to socio-economic problems, cut down the number of firearm deaths in the US more than a test to own a firearm?

How about mandatory gun safety training in junior high school. A resurgence of ROTC programs in HS, where they actually handle and use firearms, instead of broomsticks?

Don't you think that a test is simply a red herring? Not to mention an infringement on a RIGHT!

 

[TexasBill]

And your point is....

Over 50% of gun fatalities in the US are by suicide. Dont you think that maybe mental health issues and treating depression would be far more important, and cut down dramatically on firearm deaths than taking a test to own a firearm would?

And how many of that remaining chunk of firearm deaths in the US every year are due to gang violence? Wouldn't addressing the gang problem in the US, mostly due to socio-economic problems, cut down the number of firearm deaths in the US more than a test to own a firearm?

How about mandatory gun safety training in junior high school. A resurgence of ROTC programs in HS, where they actually handle and use firearms, instead of broomsticks?

Don't you think that a test is simply a red herring? Not to mention an infringement on a RIGHT!

You don't think there would be a test in your mandatory training in school?

Since we aren't likely to have mandatory training in school, perhaps you'd rather we require proof of completion of a NRA-certified course to purchase a firearm? Mandatory is mandatory, no matter where it takes place.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...fiddle, you obviously hold different beliefs than I do and I can respect that. I will even admit that I see your point of view. ... should we then require training or a license before one procreates?...

What are you talking about? I've never said anything in support of government required training. See posts 12 and 91.

...you say you don't see that Blackstone applies and that one armed idiot poses a risk to the innocent masses. Don't you think that the 10 guilty men that should go free in the Blackstone ratio pose a threat to society? That's the whole point; we accept risk as a side effect of our tremendous liberties. I don't remember the quote exactly, but I believe a forefather said something like "Those who would sacrifice some of their liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Ben F. I think....

And I still don't think the Blackstone quote applies. He was writing about the judicial process. We're talking about something entirely different.

The question is whether we are trying to frame arguments that both strongly support our positions and resonate with folks who might not be entrenched in a position, or do we just want to toss some neat sounding slogans around.

From a political perspective, neither the Blackstone statement nor the Ben Franklin statement (and yes, he said it) will have much effect on someone who is nervous about untrained folks with guns, and who votes.

...yes govt. does regulate guns, but we (those like myself) do not support this and fight to deregulate every time we step into the voting booth....

That's good. And I'm very familiar with all the arguments and statistics about why gun laws don't work. But in the real world some regulation of guns is and will continue to be a fact of life. We live in a pluralistic, political world, and a lot of people have a lot of different ideas.

There are a bunch of people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There are also a lot of people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. Some think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. Some may be willing to go a long with private citizens being able to own guns as long as they were regulated. These people vote.

We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they also vote.

Of course we vote too, but there are enough of them to have an impact. They may be more powerful some places than others. But the bottom line is there would always be enough political opposition to repealing all gun control laws so that we will always have some level of gun control.

Of course there's the Second Amendment. But there is also a long line of judicial precedent for the proposition that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited governmental regulation, subject to certain standards. How much regulation will pass muster remains to be seen. But the bottom line, again, is that we are unlikely to see all gun control thrown out by the courts; and we will therefore always have to live with some level of gun control.

How much or how little control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller litigation.

So whether or not we like it, whether or not we think the Second Amendment allows it and notwithstanding what we think the Founding Fathers would have thought about it, we will have to live with some forms of gun control. We may have opportunities to influence how much. But imagining that somehow we can make it all go away isn't going to help.

...Dont you think that maybe mental health issues and treating depression would be far more important, and cut down dramatically on firearm deaths than taking a test to own a firearm would?...

And exactly where did I say anything about taking a test? See posts 12 and 91.