Zumbo, Take 2

[Warp]

I'm fine with 16 QUALITY hours; I think it might deter some of the knuckleheads I've seen demonstrating the absolute worst gun-handling skills on the planet.

No.

Absolutely not.

No government required training.

But I may be bias. I'm from a state where carry licenses are shall issue with no training requirement and a minimum age of 18 years...and it's not a problem.

I also believe VERY strongly in the Constitution of the United States, especially the Second Amendment. That also may give me a bias against infringement.

 

[David E]

Originally Posted by splithoof:
I'm fine with 16 QUALITY hours; I think it might deter some of the knuckleheads I've seen demonstrating the absolute worst gun-handling skills on the planet.

Really? Then if 16 hours of "quality" is good, then wouldn't 24 be better? Wouldn't 48 or even more be best?

Maybe charge more money, too, since the course is longer.....that would REALLY weed out the knuckleheads, don'tcha think?

Get cryin' out loud, some guys supposedly on our side sure don't act like it.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is a limitation on government not the people.

Anyone disagree?

 

[taliv]

Funny. AZ has at least as many citizens as the 13 colonies and we seem to get along just fine with "Constitutional Carry". Does anyone really think the bad guys are going to bother to take any training classes? They generally get all the training they need from Hollyweird, don't they?

i'm not interested in arguing against your strawman.

Really? Then if 16 is "good," then wouldn't 24 be better? Wouldn't 48 or even more be best?

or your slippery slope.



i'd encourage some of you guys to find a semi-random acquaintance and ask their honest opinion on whether or not you sound like a totally irrational nutjob.

 

[Warp]

i'd encourage some of you guys to find a semi-random acquaintance and ask their honest opinion on whether or not you sound like a totally irrational nutjob.

So now being against government mandated training prior to being granted the privilege of exercising a "Right"...even though we have MILLIONS OF PEOPLE who already do so without a training requirement and without a problem...means we sound like a "totally irrational nutjob"?

Did the DU hack your account?

What in the heck is going on here?

 

[taliv]

look, i didn't say i was FOR it. I very carefully said I would take it in exchange for getting rid of some NFA laws and other nonsense.

but that's not the point. the point is, most people in the country are going to tell you people SHOULD get training before owning a firearm. so making statements like this

who in their right mind would ever call a 16 hour course, "reasonable"?

just make us sound like out of touch extremists. and extremists aren't going to win many elections.

again, the whole point of this website/forum is promoting RKBA. we should keep the world focused on the massive flaws in the gun-control movement's logic. trying to debate the constitutionality of requiring training that most people obviously need is just silly.

warp, to answer your previous question, if i were conducting the training (which again, I am not advocating for), it would include simply safety and law. Heck, just reading the sticky thread on what "stand your ground", "castle doctrine" etc ACTUALLY MEAN would be a pretty big help to most people.

 

[CharlieBT]

Metcalf's column left me cold, as well. I cancelled my subscription to Guns and Ammo because of it.

It's one thing to come here and read, for free, content supporting restrictions on gun ownership. I'm a freeloader guest subject to house rules. And some opinion has been far more learned than Metcalf's.

It's quite another thing, however, to pay hard earned money for content that comes into my house and intentionally criticizes my beliefs in support of his pet gun ownership restrictions.

I've practiced law a long time, been a life NRA member longer and owned firearms longer still. Helping the gun control camel get its nose under the tent is neither a constitutional imperative nor a winning political strategy.

 

[HOOfan_1]

but that's not the point. the point is, most people in the country are going to tell you people SHOULD get training before owning a firearm. so making statements like this just make us sound like out of touch extremists. .

Where is your evidence for most people believing we should have training to own a firearm?

Saying we shouldn't have to get training to exercise a constitutional right is extremist????

 

[Warp]

most people in the country are going to tell you people SHOULD get training before owning a firearm.

Huge, HUGE difference between saying you should get training, and the government requiring it.

warp, to answer your previous question, if i were conducting the training (which again, I am not advocating for), it would include simply safety and law. Heck, just reading the sticky thread on what "stand your ground", "castle doctrine" etc ACTUALLY MEAN would be a pretty big help to most people.

This can be given to people in document form.

Here in GA there is no training requirement (like many, many states). We did, however, receive an envelope with a bunch of laws, etc, when we got our first carry licenses years ago.

 

[Frank Ettin]

but that's not the point. the point is, most people in the country are going to tell you people SHOULD get training before owning a firearm. so making statements like this just make us sound like out of touch extremists. .

Where is your evidence for most people believing we should have training to own a firearm?...

It seems a fair hypothesis. Most States which have gone "shall issue" since Florida in 1987 have a training requirement. It seems in many places to have been the political trade-off for "shall issue." It would be interesting to do some statistically valid surveys on the question.

Remember also that most folks here get too used to "preaching to the choir." I don't doubt that most people here on THR would be against training requirements.

But trying posing the question to people who don't own guns and who might have some discomfort with folks they know having guns (but who are still reachable). I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of such people would be uncomfortable with people carrying guns downtown, among the non-gun owners' families and friends, without some training requirement. Those are people we need to reach.

 

[HOOfan_1]

It seems a fair hypothesis. Most States which have gone "shall issue" since Florida in 1987 have a training requirement. It seems in many places to have been the political trade-off for "shall issue." It would be interesting to do some statistically valid surveys on the question.

That is for the right to carry a concealed firearm....taliv said most people believe we should have training to even OWN a gun....

So if your grandpa passes and wants you to inherit his double barrel shotgun, you are going to have to go to a training class before you take possession...even if you plan to hang it on the wall and leave it there.

Those are people we need to reach.

I think there are better ways to "reach" them than caving to their fears....

 

[Warp]

I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of such people would be uncomfortable with people carrying guns downtown, among the non-gun owners' families and friends, without some training requirement. Those are people we need to reach.

...in states that are shall issue with no training requirement.

Even if they know it is shall issue, and they know there is no training requirement, and they KNOW that it isn't a problem.

Who is the unreasonable person?

How do you reach people who only rely on emotion and refuse to acknowledge fact and reality?

 

[HOOfan_1]

What if a training requirement passed. How does the government keep track of that without permits? Permits to OWN firearms nationwide? I don't think most people here consider that reasonable at all....
What about current gun owners, are they grandfathered, or do they have to go get the training as well?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Who is the unreasonable person?

Their votes still count the same as yours.

...How do you reach people who only rely on emotion and refuse to acknowledge fact and reality?

First, I suspect that if we were to closely examine many of the views you hold, or any of us hold, there will be an emotional element to our reasons for holding those views.

But in any case, there are obviously ways by which to win their support. Those who advocate positions which such people support have clearly found ways to reach them.

I've often been dismayed by the failure of so many in the RKBA community to recognize the importance of positively influencing public opinion or to have any real clue about how to determine how to go about doing that.

During the course of my career I've had a pretty fair amount of experience working with business clients who needed to be able to influence public perception, understand how to make advertising effective and find the best ways to effectively communicate their messages.

When a lot was at stake, they didn't just guess they didn't assume that their audiences would think the ways they did or have the same values and perceptions. They consulted with psychologists and others who have studied human motivation and perception and beliefs. They thoroughly analyzed the demographics of the audiences and tried to understand what they cared about, what they were scared of, what made them happy or feel secure, what they believed and didn't believe.

They also tested their conclusions with surveys and focus groups. They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.

We in the RKBA community need to stop dismissing our neighbors, co-workers, the people in our community, etc., who don't share our positions as emotional or unreachable or unreasonable. We need more of them on our side. We need more of those who we can't completely win over to at least be more neutral. and to do so, we need to start trying to understand them and tailor our messages to be accessible to them given their interests, values and concerns.

 

[Warp]

Their votes still count the same as yours.

And their votes won't change.

They are not reasonable. They are not intelligent. They are not using facts. They are not using reason. They are not living in the real world.

Giving up Rights in a destined-to-fail attempt to appease them is folly.

First, I suspect that if we were to closely examine many of the views you hold, or any of us hold, there will be an emotional element to our reasons for holding those views.

Perhaps if you consider self preservation and the like to be emotional.

I've often been dismayed by the failure of so many in the RKBA community to recognize the importance of positively influencing public opinion or to have any real clue about how to determine how to go about doing that.

I don't think that giving up Rights in the hope to appease the willfully-ignorant is the way to do this.

We in the RKBA community need to stop dismissing our neighbors, co-workers, the people in our community, etc., who don't share our positions as emotional or unreachable or unreasonable.

It is important to be able to differentiate between fence sitters and people who are unreachable.

We need more of them on our side. We need more of those who we can't completely win over to at least be more neutral. and to do so, we need to start trying to understand them and tailor our messages to be accessible to them given their interests, values and concerns.

I do not think that giving up Rights to appease them is going to get us anywhere.

This "compromise" and appeasement only serves to take away more and more pieces of the pie as time slips by.

Very, very rarely do we ever get any of those pieces back.

 

[CharlieBT]

It seems a fair hypothesis. Most States which have gone "shall issue" since Florida in 1987 have a training requirement. It seems in many places to have been the political trade-off for "shall issue." It would be interesting to do some statistically valid surveys on the question.

Remember also that most folks here get too used to "preaching to the choir." I don't doubt that most people here on THR would be against training requirements.

But trying posing the question to people who don't own guns and who might have some discomfort with folks they know having guns (but who are still reachable). I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of such people would be uncomfortable with people carrying guns downtown, among the non-gun owners' families and friends, without some training requirement. Those are people we need to
reach.

Frank, I am with you if this is going to morph into a discussion advocating voluntary civilian skill at arms training. The OP, however, pointed out the provocative nature of Metcalf's column. He chose not to preach to a choir, but to divide gun owners into two camps: those who support gun control like he does, and the rest of us. I also disagree materially with his constitutional and political analyses. So if this thread is about Metcalf's method/message, he is legitimately subject to polite criticism, in my view.

While Taliv was not addressing me, it makes me cringe when any side of the RKBA house refers to
others as "nut jobs." Nevertheless, to Taliv's challenge: Here in Kennesaw, GA, we adopted a local ordinance mandating at least one firearm per home, with recommended proficiency in use of the same. The ACLU challenged it in court, and lost. Someone who criticizes government confiscation of fundamental rights here is referred to as a good neighbor, not a nut job. Pass it on.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Their votes still count the same as yours.

And their votes won't change.

They are not reasonable. They are not intelligent. They are not using facts. They are not using reason. They are not living in the real world...

And because of that attitude you will never be able reach them. Such an attitude merely reinforces their negative stereotypes of gun owners.

First, I suspect that if we were to closely examine many of the views you hold, or any of us hold, there will be an emotional element to our reasons for holding those views.

Perhaps if you consider self preservation and the like to be emotional....

Actually, what you just expressed, as I quoted you above, is an emotion driven perspective.

We need more of them on our side. We need more of those who we can't completely win over to at least be more neutral. and to do so, we need to start trying to understand them and tailor our messages to be accessible to them given their interests, values and concerns.

I do not think that giving up Rights to appease them is going to get us anywhere.

This "compromise" and appeasement only serves to take away more and more pieces of the pie as time slips by...

How do you get "giving up Rights" and "appeasement" out of my statement about finding ways to tailor our messages to be more accessible to those people we want to sway?

Indeed your reaction to my comments is highly emotional.

 

[Glocktogo]

look, i didn't say i was FOR it. I very carefully said I would take it in exchange for getting rid of some NFA laws and other nonsense.

but that's not the point. the point is, most people in the country are going to tell you people SHOULD get training before owning a firearm. so making statements like this just make us sound like out of touch extremists. and extremists aren't going to win many elections.

again, the whole point of this website/forum is promoting RKBA. we should keep the world focused on the massive flaws in the gun-control movement's logic. trying to debate the constitutionality of requiring training that most people obviously need is just silly.

warp, to answer your previous question, if i were conducting the training (which again, I am not advocating for), it would include simply safety and law. Heck, just reading the sticky thread on what "stand your ground", "castle doctrine" etc ACTUALLY MEAN would be a pretty big help to most people.

Let's assume your logic is sound and would sway anyone who doesn't believe in the RKBA. Where would you start? New York City? Chicago? High Schools? Who would pay for it? The taxpayers? Where would it be available? Within walking distance for all citizens? What would be a reasonable wait to get the training? A day? A week? A month? A year?

The simple answer is this. If it isn't 100% free, available to everyone who wants it with no waiting, given within walking distance for anyone who wants it, then it could never be compulsory. To do otherwise would be tantamount to a poll tax. For the RKBA, every day is election day. Even at that, can you imagine requiring every voter to take a class on voting before allowing them to vote? There are court challenges all across the country because people don't even want to show an ID to vote. Can you imagine requiring them to become certified and registered to exercise their RKBA? After all, if you require training, you're going to have to have a way to distinguish between the trained and untrained. You're talking about registering gun owners here. Not going to happen...ever.

Besides, we already have a civilian firearms training program in the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Given their chance, the antis would cancel that program tomorrow. While your points sound pie in the sky lovely, the actual implementation would be messier than Obamacare. Sorry, but this is a non-starter. I agree with the idea that education is the key to retaining our rights. Sadly, the left fairly well in control of the message at this point and they discriminate. The only way to win is to regain control of the education system. Good luck with that. Until then, all we have is the courts and the rule of law. That means standing on the 2nd and defending it fully. After all, it's better than the alternative.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...While your points sound pie in the sky lovely, the actual implementation would be messier than Obamacare. Sorry, but this is a non-starter. I agree with the idea that education is the key to retaining our rights. Sadly, the left fairly well in control of the message at this point and they discriminate....

Which leaves us where?

The reality is that the RKBA will be a constant struggle. It has, and will continue to face, multitudes of challenges at a community, state and federal levels. We need to address these challenges as they come up -- using the best social, political and legal skills we can muster. How we address them will depend on their nature and the surrounding circumstances.

But some things each of us can do to help:

1. Be a good ambassador for gun ownership -- as a multilayered, well rounded person; active and contributing to society in a variety of ways and spheres -- our careers, our communities, local charities, the arts, etc. We're not just "gun nuts." We're active, participating members of our communities, and we just happen to own firearms and are interest in, and knowledgeable about, them. The points are (1) to break down stereotypes; and (2) to increase our credibility.
   
   
2. Actively promoting shooting and responsible gun ownership -- training and bringing new people into shooting. I'm an instructor in a group that puts on monthly NRA Basic Handgun classes. Almost all of our students have no prior experience. We introduce about a hundred people a year to guns.
   
   
3. Contribute financially to RKBA advocacy groups to help fund lobbying and litigation.

 

[Glocktogo]

All excellent points. I am a reserve deputy in my county on a volunteer basis. I am a certified safety officer instructor for IDPA. I volunteer for events such as the Honored American Veterans Afield, which partners with the NSSF 1st Shots program to introduce 1st time shooters properly. I teach handgun competition skills to others.

In every way, I try to be a good ambassador for the RKBA. It's the best thing we have going for us. But you can't even lead some horses to water. If they refuse to hear your words in order to maintain their protective emotional bubble, you just have to expose them for what they are, pop that bubble with logic and move on. No need to do it meanly, but it has to be done from time to time.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...In every way, I try to be a good ambassador for the RKBA. It's the best thing we have going for us. But you can't even lead some horses to water. If they refuse to hear your words in order to maintain their protective emotional bubble, you just have to expose them for what they are, pop that bubble with logic and move on...

First, good for you and thank you. All those things can, IMHO, be very helpful.

And some folks will be hard to reach and some will be impossible to reach, but neither is a reason (1) to not try to reach people; (2) to not try to find other ways, ways we haven't tried, to reach them; and (3) to try to reach as many people as we can.

Also, don't necessarily expect instant gratification. We know people who have had very negative views of guns and what they thought was the gun culture. Over some years, their perspectives have changed and broadened.

 

[Jim K]

IIRC, a group (or one person pretending to be a mob) once proposed the summary execution of all gun owners and their families, including children. They called it a "reasonable first step toward real gun control." I never figured out what the second step was.

Jim

 

[happygeek]

he's an industry shill, the industry and politicians both benefit from the bureaucracy that's todays gun laws.

How does the industry benefit?

In a nutshell, 922r. More broadly speaking, the 68 GCA.

 

[Baron_Null]

If 'compromise' meant give and take, I would in a heartbeat take a requirement for 16 hours of training in exchange for getting rid of some totally nonsensical gun laws, like 15" barrel length needing a $200 stamp, or restrictions that both sides agree are totally cosmetic.

If we're still on the subject of this original example of compromise, I have to disagree with the concept. For most of us on here, the 16 hours of training would be no big deal. Most of the people with CCLs on the board more than likely had to go through that much mandatory training. Even those who don't probably has gone through that much training voluntarily.

However, I implore everyone to look at this from the perspective from someone who is not a gun enthusiast, or who is living at or near the poverty line. That 16 hours doesn't seem like much to someone who has disposable time to devote to something like this, but to the person working two jobs, or to those who are putting themselves through college, this can be a major roadblock to firearms ownership.

In essence, it would be making it harder for a large part of the population to practice their constitutional rights in exchange for being able to get an SBR without a tax stamp.

You might argue that they're more dangerous to themselves and their families if they're untrained, and I would agree that it's generally more unsafe to be untrained and armed, but it is most definitely not the case of everyone who has not taken a basics class.

I feel a lot of the proposed compromises by the gun community boil down to that. It makes it more difficult for the person who does not have disposable time or income to have the ability to protect themselves or their families.

Now, as this relates to the topic at large

...just make us sound like out of touch extremists

This is why I argue like I do. I am tired of seeing the pro-RKBA side stomp their feet and say "it's my right" without arguing any other point. Of course I feel it's my right to own a gun without any mandated training. I feel it's my right to own an SBR without having to wait over a year and pay an extra $200 on the gun. I don't feel like I should have to argue with people in order to keep the rights I have as a human being. But until something changes in the fundamental nature of we humans that makes us disagree with each other, I will have to continue to argue my points.

Now, on the original topic, I fully disagree with the thought that regulation does not equal infringement. I recognize the fact that regulation will exist for a very long time, if not forever, but that does not mean I agree with said regulations.

One of the worst offenses that the article makes, in my opinion, is that it leaves the pro-2a side open to arguments from gun control supporters in that it is another example for them to use when it comes to "gun owners supporting gun control" and that nonsense.

I will not be renewing my subscription to G&A, and will make sure to let them know why.

 

[taliv]

again, my point was comparing the issues. "reasonable people" can debate whether or not a few hours of training is a good or bad thing. An unbiased study might or might not show that additional training could reduce the number of firearm related accidents, for instance.

But There's nothing reasonable about restricting guns based on cosmetic features or pistol grips, barrel shrouds, barrel length, etc. If we engage fence sitters on these topics, they can be converted fairly easily because it just makes sense, and they can see the laws are ineffective and punitive.

Let's assume your logic is sound and would sway anyone who doesn't believe in the RKBA. Where would you start? New York City? Chicago? High Schools? Who would pay for it? The taxpayers? Where would it be available? Within walking distance for all citizens? What would be a reasonable wait to get the training? A day? A week? A month? A year?

again, I'm not saying training would sway people. I'm saying when WE say "it's my right to have a machine gun in downtown NYC with no training" the people that could be swayed by other more rational conversation will instead be put off. they won't listen to anything else you say after that.