Mandatory Firearms Training?

[Sigblaster]

23 sir, going on 24, and you?

I though you requested an argument of logic?

Please...dispute it...

Dispute what? Those couple of silly points you tried to make?

Let's start at the beginning.

What is the role of the government of our republic?

 

[AJBB87]

*Timeout*



Gentlemen, I can see that I have a minority opinion.

I hope you will give me an opportunity to field your questions one at a time.

Or say the word and I'll sign off for the night, but I'm kind of enjoying this discussion.

 

[ATM]

Logic:

When does training cause more harm than good?

Answer:

When it becomes mandatory, it is little more than a means to infringe upon the right of a free citizen to keep and bear arms.

As long as it remains a choice, I find no fault in training.

 

[AJBB87]

*Sigh* No-one here has disputed that training is a good thing. We just keep trying to get you to realise that MANDATORY training is an unacceptable restriction on a basic right. You want to use government force to make yourself feel better by mandating training. If folks want training they'll seek it out. Do you also want licensing and training for exercising the right to free speech? Speech is almost, if not more, dangerous than any gun.

Does speech kill people, or do people kill people? I don't see your point.

A firearm is a machine that fires a projectile with the goal being to create a fatal wound in the victim.

I agree that owning a gun is a basic right, but to carry one in an effort to protect requires a little more, in my opinion.

 

[ATM]

Gentlemen, I can see that I have a minority opinion.

I love holding a minority opinion

...but only when I'm right.

 

[AJBB87]

Answer:

When it becomes mandatory, it is little more than a means to infringe upon the right of a free citizen to keep and bear arms.

As long as it remains a choice, I find no fault in training.

The grass is always greener on the other side...

 

[AJBB87]

I love holding a minority opinion

...but only when I'm right.

You know,

I am not military,
I have no combat experience.

But I wish I could express how much the NRA basic training has helped me, and not even the NRA training but the instructor. The insight, and knowledge gained from this individual who has seen and done much more than I, is invaluable.

I committed an entire weekend to this training but I feel it was worth it.

To say that I am a better shot is an understatement, not to mention the tactics and legal aspects I learned.

 

[gunowner930]

Does speech kill people, or do people kill people? I don't see your point.

A firearm is a machine that fires a projectile with the goal being to create a fatal wound in the victim.

I agree that owning a gun is a basic right, but to carry one in an effort to protect requires a little more, in my opinion.

I'll bite. I am responsible for myself. I am not responsible for everybody else. Basically, I will defend myself, I will not go actively looking for people to save with my pistol. If I wish to get training to increase my skills to protect myself, I will do so. If you're worried about stray rounds, that is as much of an issue in home defense as it is away from home. Nobody is calling for mandatory training for defensive firearms use in one's home.

 

[cosermann]

Should we require training before being allowed to vote?

Should we require training before allowing someone to speak freely (write, participate in online forums, have a web site, etc.)?

I ask merely to reset the perspective here. History has shown that both of the above are clearly far more dangerous than firearms.

 

[ATM]

Please...DON'T put words in my mouth.

I'd appreciate it.

If I've gotten the wrong impression, please correct me.

Requirement = mandatory = MUST

Good idea = choice = SHOULD

I thought it was clear from your previous posts that you are in favor of MUST before carrying.

 

[AJBB87]

Should we require training before being allowed to vote? Obviously Yes!! People should be aware of what they are doing and the consequences therein.

Should we require training before allowing someone to speak freely (write, participate in online forums, have a web site, etc.)? Free speech is code for expressing opinion. I am not a communist. Everyone should be able to express their opinion! Like Me

I ask merely to reset the perspective here. History has shown that both of the above are clearly far more dangerous than firearms.

If the answer to both of the above is "no," then the answer to the OP's question is also, "no."

I might have to unsubscribe to this thread, my phone's gonna be going off all night

 

[AJBB87]

If I've gotten the wrong impression, please correct me.

Requirement = mandatory = MUST

Good idea = choice = SHOULD

I thought it was clear from your previous posts that you are in favor of MUST before carrying.

You should just quote me to prove me wrong. That way I don't have to go search for where I F'd up in my argument.



Suppose I should try politics?

 

[AJBB87]

I'll bite. I am responsible for myself. I am not responsible for everybody else. Basically, I will defend myself, I will not go actively looking for people to save with my pistol. If I wish to get training to increase my skills to protect myself, I will do so. If you're worried about stray rounds, that is as much of an issue in home defense as it is away from home. Nobody is calling for mandatory training for defensive firearms use in one's home.

I feel like there are people out there who carry, that think life is like TV. Like they can be the hero. That you can see every bullet hit and that the bullets stop at the target and don't go through.

There is so much more to carrying a gun than just carrying a gun...

 

[Coach]

I am all for training. But I am against mandatory for a number of reasons. I also believe there are a bunch of people who own guns that feel they are armed but they are not. I once owned a saxophone but have never been a musician. Many of those who favor mandatory training think this training will help make the world safer. It might make a little bit of a difference but not enough to warrant the infringement of rights.

 

[ATM]

You should just quote me to prove me wrong. That way I don't have to go search for where I F'd up in my argument.

I don't understand how that is an excuse to NOT require some sort of training... I just don't get it...

...then yes, I would approve of the law that requires a practical range test before people are awarded a Permit to Carry.

...I do not see why it would be a big deal to have some training required for a CARRY PERMIT.

Suppose I should try politics?

No.

 

[AJBB87]

I am all for training. But I am against mandatory for a number of reasons. I also believe there are a bunch of people who own guns that feel they are armed but they are not. I once owned a saxophone but have never been a musician. Many of those who favor mandatory training think this training will help make the world safer. It might make a little bit of a difference but not enough to warrant the infringement of rights.

I don't want to be a dick, but is "a little bit of a difference" worth one victim's life?

obviously that's hypothetical but...

 

[AJBB87]

No.

Aww, I'm screwed!

Wait, no, I don't remember the original question, would you restate it?

 

[Coach]

I don't want to be a dick, but is "a little bit of a difference" worth one victim's life?

obviously that's hypothetical but...

A life is valuable. How much is the liberty of the people worth? Most people who start with I don't want to be... are intending just that.

Seat belts save some lives and sometimes they hold people in place so they can be killed in the seat.

 

[AJBB87]

A life is valuable. How much is the liberty of the people worth? Most people who start with I don't want to be... are intending just that.

Seat belts save some lives and sometimes they hold people in place so they can be killed in the seat.

Seat belts aren't designed to help anyone except those sitting in that seat.

You can't say that a LTCH holder carrying and acting, couldn't have an effect, either positive or negative, on a random person.

 

[ATM]

I don't want to be a dick, but is "a little bit of a difference" worth one victim's life?

obviously that's hypothetical but...

How many lives were spent securing our rights from infringement?

Our founders knew it was worth more than their own lives.