I agree with this assessment. I do not feel we should even have to get a license to Life Time Carry as NO OTHER rights we have require you to register and have both hands and palms fingerprinted on top of paying over 100 to exercise. Can you imagine if we had to register and be finger printed to have blogs, or have rallys?I really would be for mandatory gun safety training in elementary school.
The State has no business mandating training. I quite like the Alaska model mentioned earlier, but barring that, the State might encourage training if they gave a discount on the LTCH for graduates of a certified training program. Maybe $50 off a lifetime and $15 off a 4-year if you present a certificate of completion from an NRA, LE or similar handgun course.
How about multiple classes? I know I had a sex ed class (gender segregated) in 5th grade, addressing issues like "what's going on with my body?", again in 7th, covering more info about the opposite sex, and yet another that was supposed to be in 9th, but I got as a senior in HS, covering the biological, factual details of many different aspects of sex.I like the mandatory training classes in school but not elementary school; I'd prefer at the very least middle school.
Not because I don't think elementary kids couldn't use the knowledge, but because they generally don't retain as much information at that age.
Kinda an 'out of sight out of mind' thing. It's the parent's job to keep guns away from small children, so if you follow through with that philosophy, they might not remember their training when their old enough to handle/shoot/own a gun.
On the flip side, while I don't think it should be mandatory for us to all take a safety course to get our LTCH, I sit and think of how nice the training idea is. As we all know, with the LTCH comes GREAT responsibility. ...
How dare you attempt to address the core issues behind a young person causing a negligent discharge, becoming infatuated with guns as a "cool" Hollywood icon, and failing to respond to threat in a reasoned and responsible way. Clearly the only solution is to ban the word 'gun' from all schools, businesses, and government buildings receiving federal money. We should immediately appoint a "Gun Czar" (sorry, "That-Which-Shall-Not-Be-Named Czar") to begin rewriting textbooks, telling the story of how Allied forces achieved victory in WWI when the Germans failed to eat their citrus fruits and succumbed to scurvy in the trenches, and how law enforcement exploitation of Clyde Barrow's horrific food allergies lead to his untimely demise in a hail of Ritz Peanut Butter Sandwiches.How about multiple classes? I know I had a sex ed class (gender segregated) in 5th grade, addressing issues like "what's going on with my body?", again in 7th, covering more info about the opposite sex, and yet another that was supposed to be in 9th, but I got as a senior in HS, covering the biological, factual details of many different aspects of sex.
OK, guys, c'mon.. we're not in high school now, and I'm trying to address this seriously.
My thinking is that children at two or three can be taught "don't touch". Four or five and they can learn the Eddie Eagle rules. Six and older, these can be reinforced and cleaning can be taught. Perhaps third, fourth, and fifth graders might have a basic marksmanship class, which could even be taught with BB guns, if only because the individual attention required would be difficult to achieve in our government schools.
At middle school, I agree, they can be taught non-lethal threat mitigation and begin addressing deadly force law as well as crisis de-escalation and situational awareness, while in high school, they could begin addressing advanced marksmanship, possibly with multiple types of firearms. Each level would build on and reinforce the last, and of course, anyone who got in legal trouble or displayed problem behavior would be removed from anything but things like Eddie Eagle or how to safely unload a firearm (taught with snap caps)
Of course, all of the above has just vapor-locked the gun-grabbing, hoplophobic soccer mom and the liberal democratic politicians, who might attempt to use this to show how we "just want guns everywhere". This would be erroneous, however; I want responsible gun owners and if people choose not to own guns, I would at least want to see them know how to be safe around them. It would be analogous to teaching children to look both ways before they cross the street, not touch the kitchen knives, or not to touch fire-that doesn't mean they are taught that the street is bad, that the kitchen knives are removed from the house, or that they are not taught what fire is, they're just taught that if you're not careful, you can get hurt. This is about teaching them how to be careful.
Sticking your head in the sand just raises another part of your anatomy and exposes it to something most of us probably do not want.
Blessings,
Bill
No.
Why?
1. It's not the government's responsibility.
2. It isn't even the gov't's right to require training to exercise the 2nd Amendment. It borders on "infringement" as all the other restrictions on weapons do.
3. It would cost more money.
4. It wouldn't reduce crime.
5. It would make the backlog worse.
6. It would add more bureaucracy.
7. It wouldn't increase safety.
Do you think the Govt could provide good training?
Did it right in Texas.... We would just go to someone like ACT or any other firearms trainers and take a course and qualify. Simple.
As far as the gov't providing good training.... I qualified expert every single time I went to the range...
Any required course would simply and effectively restrict our 2nd Amendment right. We need less government - not more. The individual is responsible for his/her training and/or insurances IMHO.
Less is more!
Training in arms should begin at a young age in ones home!