Opinion Change - Safety Course Should Be Required

[Vern Humphrey]

While I do not necessarily agree that we need a mandatory training course before purchasing a firearm, there is no question training does make the sport safer.

How?

As has been pointed out again and again, firearms accidents are so rare that if it were not for the politics, the CDC would not carry them as a separate category, but would lump them under "other."

Which means we're past the point of diminishing returns -- the rate is too low to be affected by training.

 

[buck460XVR]

How?

As has been pointed out again and again, firearms accidents are so rare that if it were not for the politics, the CDC would not carry them as a separate category, but would lump them under "other."

Which means we're past the point of diminishing returns -- the rate is too low to be affected by training.

The proof is in the pudding.....again, studies and figures by states have proved that hunter safety courses have made the woods a safer placer to be. This is why most states require them. Even with the rarity of firearm accidents, there really is no such thing as diminishing returns when it comes to human life. Again, the training does not have to be mandatory, but training for folks with little or no experience would be helpful....kinda why it is so commonly and highly recommended. There'd be no point if it didn't help. The argument of this thread isn't about whether or not it helps, but whether or not, it should be required/mandatory.

 

[rdtompki]

We would save many more lives by raising the bar for obtaining a drivers' license. It doesn't take much skill to drive a car, but it takes a fair amount of maturity to drive responsibly; modern day distractions don't help and we're living in very self-centered society.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The proof is in the pudding.....again, studies and figures by states have proved that hunter safety courses have made the woods a safer placer to be.

Yes, but we already HAVE hunter safety courses.

What will ADDITIONAL training do?

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Even with the rarity of firearm accidents, there really is no such thing as diminishing returns when it comes to human life.

I'm not sure I agree. There is a such thing as reasonable effort. If you applied this same concept to everything you'd spend your entire life in safety training. The world is a dangerous place and it is full of perils from everything from crossing the street to BASE jumping. There are already every flavor of firearms safety training available to anyone who is willing to attend and pay for it. Hunters safety is a negligible expense and investment in time. If people want it, it's there. You keep saying you don't think it should be mandated but you keep alluding to more... What are you proposing?

Agreed, safety training doesn't hurt and if anything else it brings safety to the forefront of your mind even if it tells you a bunch of information that really should be common sense.

I work in an industry where safety is a great concern. We have training ALL the time, we promote a culture of safety and a culture of zero tolerance for complacency. It does help, but it doesn't stop us from having serious injuries and death. The best way to instill these values in people is to talk about it often and make it part of the culture. Unfortunately, the anti-gunners defeat their own purported goal by removing it from the culture. By stigmatizing it and ricin it from common culture it prevents all but the enthusiast from having exposure to it. If you grow up watching your father shooting and hunting and in PE class in school you learn about safe handling, marksmanship, and sportsmanship instead of getting arrested for pointing your finger like a pistol, the more it will become part of common sense. Today, the first time people are introduced to firearms it is while playing xBox or PlayStation where you kill a 100 creatures a minute and you never really die. We've also removed personal responsibility from the equation and we're taught from a young age that if something bad happened it's probably because some big corporation didn't warn you something was dangerous. "Why didn't the government force me to get training?" We see personal injury as a way of getting rich rather than learning a lesson. The first thing we think of if we slip and fall or get shot in the foot is who can we sue and how much will we get, not hey how did I get myself in this situation and how can I avoid it going forward.

The problem with the "idiots" at these stores is not that there is no mandated safety training but the fact that the firearm has been removed from much of American culture along with the culture of personal responsibility and a lot of other common sense. Rather than respond with "how can I fix this by educating people" the OP responds with "the government should solve this problem for me." This behavior in my opinion is a perfect example of why these "idiots" exist in the first place.

 

[Crawdad1]

One of the other risks you have living in our free country is that other folks may have a different opinion than yours and have the right to express it without the fear of persecution. I think that right is guaranteed right before the RKBA in our bill of rights. Maybe if you don't like what the OP has to say, you should leave.

His opinion is not only foolish but dangerous and I told him. And if you don't see the danger in that opinion maybe you should wise up.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

Even with the rarity of firearm accidents, there really is no such thing as diminishing returns when it comes to human life.

Of course there is -- WANTING doesn't change reality. You can pour billions into "safety classes" and fail.

If you want to save human lives, don't butt your head against a wall -- go for those areas where you can make a difference.

 

[Warp]

One of the other risks you have living in our free country is that other folks may have a different opinion than yours and have the right to express it without the fear of persecution. I think that right is guaranteed right before the RKBA in our bill of rights. Maybe if you don't like what the OP has to say, you should leave.

One of the risks of a "free" country is that other people might try to restrict your freedom? lol

 

[Warp]

there really is no such thing as diminishing returns when it comes to human life.

Yes, there is. There most certainly is. In everything in life. Speed limits, presence/number/training of lifeguards, education/testing/licensing requirements for medical professionals, allowable side effects of drugs, allowing restaurants to serve any food that somebody might be allergic to, I mean I could probably write a dissertation of examples where we absolutely hit diminishing returns on people's lives/safety and move on to something else where more benefit can be had.

AND, you are forgetting a really damn important practical thing here...OPPORTUNITY COST. Every hoop you add to granting somebody the privilege of keeping and bearing arms reduces the number of people that will do so, which reduces the number of people who defend themselves or others with firearms. You cannot completely ignore the other side of the equation or you'll end up as a gun ban totalitarian who wants everybody to turn in every gun period, because that is the only way to stop all accidents.

All of that is simply practical stuff without even getting into it being morally wrong to disarm other people because you don't want them to have guns because you think you are better than them.

 

[Crawdad1]

One of the risks of a "free" country is that other people might try to restrict your freedom? lol

Exactly!!! I wish I could think that clearly.

 

[barnbwt]

High school safety courses would accomplish all this without needless expense or legal liability (unless that's the whole point...)

 

[coloradokevin]

So recently I started working at a big box retailer selling firearms. I used to be opposed to the idea of requiring people to pass a safety course before owning a firearm. Now, after being on this side of the counter and dealing with the general public, I have changed my opinion.

I assumed common sense was more prevalent than it is. Turns out, your average gun buyer is a complete and utter imbecile. I am surprised there aren't more gun related accident than there are annually.

The problem with this suggestion is that bureaucracy and a serious anti-gun agenda within one of our two major political parties would ultimately turn this idea into a ridiculous hurdle for prospective gun owners, rather than an educational piece that would help the naive consumer learn how to handle a gun properly.

After meeting some idiots at gun stores I've often had the same thought that you expressed. And, in reality, I could teach these folks the basics of gun safely in a simple 10 minute lecture, with no live fire being required. Will that make them a gun expert? Of course not. But, I could teach them how not to "shoot their eye out" in that amount of time.

Unfortunately, any type of government mandated safety course would ultimately balloon up into some unreasonable infringement on all of our rights. I see it going something like this: Only people with government certification could teach these classes, and they could charge what they want for the classes so that they could make a profit. The class would require X hours of classroom study, and X amount of range time. The hours of required education would be chosen randomly, rather than being chosen on the basis of how long it takes to actually teach someone gun safety. In essence, such a program would become a "feel good" hurdle for gun owners to overcome, with the goal of appeasing those who wish that we didn't have guns to begin with. Sound familiar? It should, because it's exactly what we currently do for CCW permits.

But, we're all still concerned with gun safety, and we have a government that likes to be involved in such things, so what should we do?


Here's my proposal:

1) The government should come up with a standardized set of safety guidelines for gun handling, and should develop this program through consultation with the gun industry. Think of this as a modified version of the "4 firearm safety rules".

2) This program should be rolled out in a video format that is no more than 10-15 minutes in length, and should be made available to all FFL holders. The video will cover the basics of safe firearms handling, storage, shooting, etc, and will also provide the viewer with a link to more detailed information online.

3) Since the government is so concerned about teaching gun safety, a tax incentive should be offered to any FFL holder who agrees to show this film to all first time gun buyers. The length of the video won't be much of a burden, since running a background check takes about that much time. Honestly, a well-produced video should be able to cover the truly important points in that amount of time.

4) This would be a strictly voluntary program, with incentives for compliance, and no penalties for refusing to comply.

 

[Resist Evil]

I don't understand what all the hubbub is about regarding gun safety in this thread. Man, I've been watching TV and movies for DECADES, I say, DECADES!!. I know everything there is to know about how to handle my pistol and my gun! It's all right there for any fool to see.

Seriously, if there is one thing I've learned in this life is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Everybody wants to be safe when it comes to safe gun handling and that includes me. But, every time somebody lifts their head up and bleats, "There ought to be a law," some publicity-seeking politician gets involved; not because a new law with make anything better, but only for the sake of buying a vote and getting mentioned in the news. Then everything goes to Blazes.

I think we will get better firearm safety once we develop the societal expectation that one is to get training because it is the right thing to do. If liberalism has taught us anything about manipulating societal expectations to achieve a social goal, it is that it absolutely works. It takes time, consistent effort, and an relentless stream of propaganda or, in our case, instruction in order to persuade a group to see value in a desired outcome.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

High school safety courses would accomplish all this without needless expense or legal liability (unless that's the whole point...)

As we know, liberalism owns most of the education system. One of the tenets of their agenda is to eliminate guns from the hands of the general population. Many in leadership actually hope for violence and accidents relating to firearms so that it can further their agenda. The last thing on earth they want are a bunch of responsible, well trained, firearm respecting kids coming out of the school system. Until people really understand the agenda of liberalism, they will continue to be duped. The goal of the anti-gun agenda types is not to reduce injury, not to save lives, not to create more responsible gun owners, not to improve gun safety, but to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not paying attention. They play the long game and will always sell something as "I don't understand how you can make it all or nothing, surely you are willing to take small precautions such as government approved training, why if we could just save one life wouldn't it be worth it? This is reasonable and you are so unreasonable to resist" or "well of course I think hunting and all hat jazz is fine but do hunters really need assault rifles to hunt with, how could any reasonable person think that you need an assault rifle to kill Bambi?" Everyday, mostly people who don't pay close attention to the intentions of those who propose these measures, then support them. Pretty soon they are using these centrally governed programs as a propaganda tool to recruit more "reasonable" people to take just "a few more, reasonable precautions." I mean who can argue with wanting to keep guns out of the hands of children. Shouldn't we just lock them up? Shouldn't we just increase the age of who can get one to make sure people are safe? Well, you know come to think about it, people really don't need to have more than 5 shots, I mean what sportsman needs more than 5 shots to kill a Bambi? Really, thinking about it reasonably, do you really even need handguns, I mean bad people can hide these and again, do you really need to use it to kill a Bambi? I mean that really is what the second amendment was designed for right, for hunters? And besides everyone knows the best defense is to just shoot a couple of shotgun shells out the back door.

Unless you can really understand the psychology of these leaders in these movements you will continue to be duped into thinking that these reasonable measures are all that they really want and once they have hem they will leave you alone. The purpose is not to safe lives or reduce injuries. Until you understand that you will never understand how to deal with it. Never give an inch, period.

 

[buck460XVR]

But, every time somebody lifts their head up and bleats, "There ought to be a law," some publicity-seeking politician gets involved; not because a new law with make anything better, but only for the sake of buying a vote and getting mentioned in the news. Then everything goes to Blazes.

I'm not sure I agree. There is a such thing as reasonable effort. If you applied this same concept to everything you'd spend your entire life in safety training.

AND, you are forgetting a really damn important practical thing here...OPPORTUNITY COST. Every hoop you add to granting somebody the privilege of keeping and bearing arms reduces the number of people that will do so, which reduces the number of people who defend themselves or others with firearms.

You folks need to reread my posts.

No where have I said we need mandatory training. All I've said is, that training does help and there's proof out there that it does. Folks arguing that training will not and does not make gun handling safer for folks with little or no experience, are just fooling themselves. Should it be voluntary? Sure it should. Should very basic firearm safety be taught in our schools along with how to handle blood born pathogens, how to safely cross the street/exit the school bus and not to get into a car with a stranger? Yes, it should. The latter three already are. Should any (God forbid)mandatory training be free? Yes as to not prohibit anyone from participating. It could be financed thru the old Pittman–Robertson Act. Many of us Mentor new/young shooters. Isn't that just a form of training? You folks are against that too? What is taking our grandkids to the range...that is unless we teach them bad shooting habits.

Of course there is -- WANTING doesn't change reality. You can pour billions into "safety classes" and fail.

If you want to save human lives, don't butt your head against a wall -- go for those areas where you can make a difference.

You yourself agreed in a prior post that hunter safety works. That's all the argument I was making, not that we need to pour billions into mandatory training. Us old farts that have been handling firearms all our live have forgotten how folks unfamiliar with firearms easily and often violate the basic rules of firearm safety. We hear of folks being swept with muzzles at gun stores, guns pointed directly at them in the same venues and folks that shoot themselves when cleaning a firearm. Most of the time these are mistakes by folks unfamiliar with firearms. I see it all the time in the Hunter Safety classes I help teach. Familiarity breeds safety as does experience. Those of us with 50 years of experience automatically are aware of our muzzle and where our trigger finger is and we assume everyone else does too. Guess what?

Telling folks inexperienced and unfamiliar with firearms "you don't need no stinking training or experience" is not making us safer. Telling these same folks, "you should train and/or get more experience" is not an infringement of any right. Forcing them do so is.

 

[basicblur]

High school safety courses would accomplish all this without needless expense or legal liability (unless that's the whole point...)

Let's not forget - NRA's Eddie Eagle program has been denied entry to a number of schools.

I guess it really isn't about the children to some administrators?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

1) The government should come up with a standardized set of safety guidelines for gun handling, and should develop this program through consultation with the gun industry. Think of this as a modified version of the "4 firearm safety rules".

The program would be "Guns are bad! No one should have guns! Kids, if your parents have guns, tell the police!"

 

[Resist Evil]

You folks need to reread my posts.

No where have I said we need mandatory training. All I've said is, that training does help and there's proof out there that it does. Folks arguing that training will not and does not make gun handling safer for folks with little or no experience, are just fooling themselves. Should it be voluntary? Sure it should. Should very basic firearm safety be taught in our schools along with how to handle blood born pathogens, how to safely cross the street/exit the school bus and not to get into a car with a stranger? Yes, it should. The latter three already are. Should any (God forbid)mandatory training be free? Yes as to not prohibit anyone from participating. It could be financed thru the old Pittman–Robertson Act. Many of us Mentor new/young shooters. Isn't that just a form of training? You folks are against that too? What is taking our grandkids to the range...that is unless we teach them bad shooting habits.








You yourself agreed in a prior post that hunter safety works. That's all the argument I was making, not that we need to pour billions into mandatory training. Us old farts that have been handling firearms all our live have forgotten how folks unfamiliar with firearms easily and often violate the basic rules of firearm safety. We hear of folks being swept with muzzles at gun stores, guns pointed directly at them in the same venues and folks that shoot themselves when cleaning a firearm. Most of the time these are mistakes by folks unfamiliar with firearms. I see it all the time in the Hunter Safety classes I help teach. Familiarity breeds safety as does experience. Those of us with 50 years of experience automatically are aware of our muzzle and where our trigger finger is and we assume everyone else does too. Guess what?

Telling folks inexperienced and unfamiliar with firearms "you don't need no stinking training or experience" is not making us safer. Telling these same folks, "you should train and/or get more experience" is not an infringement of any right. Forcing them do so is.

Well, Bud, I was not referring to your specific post. At all. Demanding I re-read your posts is irrelevant to what I posted because I consciously wrote nothing in direct regard to anything you have posted in this thread. Beyond that, my reading comprehension is generally quite good, but I don't put a lot of importance on what certain folks here post. If I had invested any time in your postings here, I feel confident that I would not readily misunderstood what you wrote.

Secondly, I am not against firearm safety training and if you inferred that notion from my posting anywhere ever in my sixty-three years of living, you possibly mis-read my post to which you specifically referred.

Third, I am against the government requiring any impediment to the keeping and bearing of arms. Anything mandated, even training, is not for public safety in any way, but only serves to impede the decent citizenry ready access to arms which, in turn, threatens the security of craven politicians and bureaucrats.

Last, you possibly see government intrusion into the private lives of this country's citizens because of the elitist nonsense that it, the government and its busybodies, knows best about everything is a good thing. I do not hold that conviction.

In future, please do not misapprehend my posts as referring specifically to you or your posts unless I either quote your post or refer directly to you by name.

 

[buck460XVR]

If I had invested any time in your postings here, I feel confident that I would not readily misunderstood what you wrote.

Probably why.....

I don't understand what all the hubbub is about regarding gun safety in this thread.

Kinda hard to know whats going on in a thread if you don't read the previous posts. I just assumed you did read the previous posts and thus were responding to them. My bad for assuming you knew what was going on and I apologize for misquoting you because of it, Bud.

Last, you possibly see government intrusion into the private lives of this country's citizens because of the elitist nonsense that it, the government and its busybodies, knows best about everything is a good thing. I do not hold that conviction.

If you had read my post, you would know that I too am not for government intrusion into the private lives of this country's citizens by forcing mandatory training on them before they purchase a gun. That is, iffin I remember correctly, the topic of this thread. My point from the start was and still is, that training does help folks new to, unfamiliar with and inexperienced with firearms. No where did I state folks should be forced to take this training. My only suggestion was very basic firearm safety in schools so kids know what to do(and not do) if they find a gun and they are by themselves. Like many other subjects, parents could opt them out if desired.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Reality check. The title of this thread is:

"Opinion Change - Safety Course Should Be Required ."

The answer is, no.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

You folks need to reread my posts.

...No where have I said we need mandatory training...

...Should any (God forbid)mandatory training be free? Yes as to not prohibit anyone from participating. It could be financed thru the old Pittman–Robertson Act...

...You yourself agreed in a prior post that hunter safety works. That's all the argument I was making, not that we need to pour billions into mandatory training...

...Even with the rarity of firearm accidents, there really is no such thing as diminishing returns when it comes to human life...

In most parts of the country for many decades there has been required training in order for folks to use their firearms. It has proven to save lives.

I think one of the reasons people are lumping you in with the mandatory crowd is wow you disprove it in one statement, you then say things like mandatory training to "use" firearms and you also mention public funding for mandatory training.

If you are talking about mandatory training to obtain a hunting license, then fine, harvesting "public" meat isn't a right. I can understand needing a licensing system so that you can manage these activities similarly to driving, etc.

As long as the mandatory training and licensing is "equal protection compliant" in that it is not reliant upon your social status in society, race, religion, etc., I'm ok with hunter safety requirements to obtain a hunting license. On the other hand I disagree with any barrier for obtaining and using firearms.

 

[buck460XVR]

Reality check. The title of this thread is:

"Opinion Change - Safety Course Should Be Required ."

Just like I said in the post previous to yours Vern.

If you had read my post, you would know that I too am not for government intrusion into the private lives of this country's citizens by forcing mandatory training on them before they purchase a gun. That is, iffin I remember correctly, the topic of this thread.

I think one of the reasons people are lumping you in with the mandatory crowd is wow you disprove it in one statement, you then say things like mandatory training to "use" firearms and you also mention public funding for mandatory training.

I'm assuming the wow in your statement is meant to be how. My statement about the use of the Pittman–Robertson Act is not an approval of mandatory training, or an argument for it, but the funding of it if ever(as I said before God forbid) it ever happens. This would mean that there would be no prohibitive cost for someone having to take the training. In my state, the cost of Hunter Safety is about the same as a small game license. Complete the course and your graduation certificate is your small game license for the year. IOWs, even tho you have to take the course to hunt, and it costs you no more than the license itself, you break even. Yes I know, there are those that will claim the time it takes is a cost. Whatever.

Forum threads and the post within them can be confusing because folks try to condense their thoughts, sometimes have a hard time putting their thoughts into words and can be interpreted differently than what is originally intended by others. Then there are those that don't even read the posts before jumping in the fray. Sometimes folks only see what they want and interpret anything that varies from their direct line of thought as gun control. Easy to do on a gun forum where folks feel threatened about their RKBA. Then there are those that just like to stir the pot.........

 

[CoalTrain49]

Here's my proposal:

1) The government should come up with a standardized set of safety guidelines for gun handling, and should develop this program through consultation with the gun industry. Think of this as a modified version of the "4 firearm safety rules".

2) This program should be rolled out in a video format that is no more than 10-15 minutes in length, and should be made available to all FFL holders. The video will cover the basics of safe firearms handling, storage, shooting, etc, and will also provide the viewer with a link to more detailed information online.

3) Since the government is so concerned about teaching gun safety, a tax incentive should be offered to any FFL holder who agrees to show this film to all first time gun buyers. The length of the video won't be much of a burden, since running a background check takes about that much time. Honestly, a well-produced video should be able to cover the truly important points in that amount of time.

4) This would be a strictly voluntary program, with incentives for compliance, and no penalties for refusing to comply.

Ah geez, being an FFL dealer doesn't mean you have this burning desire to educate the public about gun safety. If you purchase a gun just do the smart thing and get some training. Our private range can set you up with an NRA sponsored safety course. This isn't rocket science here. I'll even give you the training FOC if you ask me nicely and show me a little respect.

The shallow end of the gene pool will never be preserved by more gov't regulation no matter how hard they try. That's one of the things wrong in this country now, too many people think the gov't should be their provider and keeper.

 

[coloradokevin]

Ah geez, being an FFL dealer doesn't mean you have this burning desire to educate the public about gun safety. If you purchase a gun just do the smart thing and get some training. Our private range can set you up with an NRA sponsored safety course. This isn't rocket science here. I'll even give you the training FOC if you ask me nicely and show me a little respect.

The shallow end of the gene pool will never be preserved by more gov't regulation no matter how hard they try. That's one of the things wrong in this country now, too many people think the gov't should be their provider and keeper.

Honestly, I think that's the wrong way to look at this issue. To a certain extent, if we're not part of the solution then we're part of the problem. The overwhelming majority of firearms owners strongly oppose further government regulation (I'm one of them). But, if we want to keep the government out of this issue from a regulatory standpoint, we should do everything we can to police our own industry.

As you said, none of this is rocket science. It doesn't take a lot of time or effort to teach some basic gun handling principles to a person who is buying their first firearm. Personally, I do have a burning desire to make sure that fewer people have stupid, negligent, and entirely avoidable accidents with guns. It isn't the government's job to regulate this issue, and I agree that you can't really fix stupid. But, if we don't make an effort to educate the naive consumer, you can bet BIG gov will find a way to do it for us anyway.

My proposal was one that could only benefit everyone involved: the FFL holder pays nothing, and receives something in return (a tax break). The government gets to claim they're working with the firearms industry to reduce gun accidents, which will help pacify the Left without costing us anything. And, finally, the negligent consumer might pick up a bit of education through such a program, and thereby avoid an accident (which is certainly beneficial to all of us).

 

[Warp]

Honestly, I think that's the wrong way to look at this issue. To a certain extent, if we're not part of the solution then we're part of the problem. The overwhelming majority of firearms owners strongly oppose further government regulation (I'm one of them). But, if we want to keep the government out of this issue from a regulatory standpoint, we should do everything we can to police our own industry.

As you said, none of this is rocket science. It doesn't take a lot of time or effort to teach some basic gun handling principles to a person who is buying their first firearm. Personally, I do have a burning desire to make sure that fewer people have stupid, negligent, and entirely avoidable accidents with guns. It isn't the government's job to regulate this issue, and I agree that you can't really fix stupid. But, if we don't make an effort to educate the naive consumer, you can bet BIG gov will find a way to do it for us anyway.

My proposal was one that could only benefit everyone involved: the FFL holder pays nothing, and receives something in return (a tax break). The government gets to claim they're working with the firearms industry to reduce gun accidents, which will help pacify the Left without costing us anything. And, finally, the negligent consumer might pick up a bit of education through such a program, and thereby avoid an accident (which is certainly beneficial to all of us).

What do you do to educate people in firearms use?

BTW: Your suggestion definitely costs us something. THat would cost us a *lot* of wasted tax dollars, at the absolute minimum.