Thoughts on required training for LTCH in Indiana.

[ATF Consumer]

That would be OK - if it were institutionalized at the time of the LTCH. This is really more of a political issue. Any restriction or addition to the firearms laws creates a dangerous situation (politically).

Now, is it bad if the government issues pamphlets on safe and legal use of a firearm? ABSOLUTELY NOT! However, when we start talking about requiring a course - that is not a good political idea

I disagree...it costs money to print those and that only raises taxes in order to do so.

I am so tired of hearing all of these public awareness commercials that are paid for by the Ad Council (money funded by the government which is in turn your tax dollars).

It sucks that my tax dollars are going for attempting to put common sense into people's heads that just don't get it.

Lets look at Cyberbullying...The National Crime prevention Council most likely gets funds from tax dollars, and we clearly know that the funds from the U.S. department of Justice is from tax dollars.

I simply can't understand wasting tax dollars trying to educate people on common sense.

From the Ad Council

Ad Council : Campaigns
Cyberbullying Prevention

Sponsor Organization: National Crime Prevention Council, U.S. Department of Justice

Taken from their About page...

The Ad Council produces, distributes and promotes thousands of public service campaigns on behalf of non-profit organizations and government agencies in issue areas such as improving the quality of life for children, preventative health, education, community well being, environmental preservation and strengthening families.

 

[finity]

No mandatory training.

I also like the idea of training in school. I think there should be an opt-out choice (like sex ed) for people who are really against guns though.

One perfect example of a problem with mandatory training:

I was discussing IN laws on handgun posession with a guy from OH who I work with.

He was bringing his handgun to a private range in Ft Wayne to shoot since he doesn't have any close ranges in OH. During the course of the conversation it became apparent that he didn't have a permit from OH. After telling him he was breaking the law I asked why he hadn't gotten one & he said he was waiting to take the mandatory 12 hour class & he hasn't been able to coordinate his schedule with the 1 time per month that they offer the class.

So, mandatory class + 2 day course (saturday & sunday) + one weekend a month = who knows how long it will take him to get a permit.

 

[agentl074]

I disagree...it costs money to print those and that only raises taxes in order to do so.

I am so tired of hearing all of these public awareness commercials that are paid for by the Ad Council (money funded by the government which is in turn your tax dollars).

It sucks that my tax dollars are going for attempting to put common sense into people's heads that just don't get it.

Lets look at Cyberbullying...The National Crime prevention Council most likely gets funds from tax dollars, and we clearly know that the funds from the U.S. department of Justice is from tax dollars.

I simply can't understand wasting tax dollars trying to educate people on common sense.

From the Ad Council

Ad Council : Campaigns
Cyberbullying Prevention

Sponsor Organization: National Crime Prevention Council, U.S. Department of Justice

Taken from their About page...

The Ad Council produces, distributes and promotes thousands of public service campaigns on behalf of non-profit organizations and government agencies in issue areas such as improving the quality of life for children, preventative health, education, community well being, environmental preservation and strengthening families.

Good point!

 

[Bill of Rights]

No mandatory training.

I also like the idea of training in school. I think there should be an opt-out choice (like sex ed) for people who are really against guns though.

One perfect example of a problem with mandatory training:

I was discussing IN laws on handgun posession with a guy from OH who I work with.

He was bringing his handgun to a private range in Ft Wayne to shoot since he doesn't have any close ranges in OH. During the course of the conversation it became apparent that he didn't have a permit from OH. After telling him he was breaking the law I asked why he hadn't gotten one & he said he was waiting to take the mandatory 12 hour class & he hasn't been able to coordinate his schedule with the 1 time per month that they offer the class.

So, mandatory class + 2 day course (saturday & sunday) + one weekend a month = who knows how long it will take him to get a permit.

Mandatory class = waiting period.

Good post.

Rep'd

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Smitty506th]

I do not think that there should be mandatory training. I would like to think that people who carry WOULD seek training. I believe RESPONSIBLE gun ownership includes training and physical fitness. Who is to say what the requirements would be? If clubs, made up of those who carry, would form and require you meet their training requirements for membership then that would be fine but making it mandatory per gov....... Every year the requirements would go up till we are all carrying .22 revolvers.

 

[AFA1CY]

... snip ... I believe RESPONSIBLE gun ownership includes training and physical fitness. ... snip ...

What about the 89 year old widow? Or the disabled veteran?

 

[Shay]

Training should not be mandatory to own or to carry a gun.

Unfortunately too many gun owners think they know everything already and will never seek out quality training. Still, this is not a reason for the government to require something they should be doing voluntarily anyway.

 

[dburkhead]

Originally Posted by Smitty506th
... snip ... I believe RESPONSIBLE gun ownership includes training and physical fitness. ... snip ...

What about the 89 year old widow? Or the disabled veteran?

Exactly. One of the purposes of gun owner is as an equalizer between the strong and the weak.

 

[cce1302]

The big difference is the difference between a right and a privilege, but that's not the only difference.

You need a license to drive a car on the public streets. That's it. On your own property? No license. Want to push the car down the street? No problem (so long as you're not obstructing traffic). Want to have it at the mall? Only need mall owner's permission. Oh, and need to use that car in a bona fide emergency when someone's life is threatened and using the car is necessary to save it (say, take someone with an immediate medical condition to the hospital when you can't even wait for an ambulance) and I doubt anyone's going to ticket you for not having a license.

So the "license" requirement, to be comparable, would be for shooting a gun on the public streets. But the one situation where shooting a gun on the public streets shouldn't be flat out illegal (necessary to handle a bona fide emergency) is exactly the kind of situation where you can get away with not having a license to drive a car.

But that's really only by way of intellectual exercise. The real difference is "right" vs. "privilege."

I like this.

 

[Boilers]

I wanted to get other member's thoughts on this. With the number of Carry permits being issued these days, do you think Indiana should have mandatory classes in order to get a LTCH, like Ohio and other states. I hate jumping through hoops. However, it seems like we are going to have a lot of folks carrying firearms that may or may not know how to correctly use/handle them since even the most basic of firearms training is not required.

Your and why...

Personally, training is a good idea.
But, US/Indiana constitutions say nothing about training to exercise this RIGHT. So, I see no reason to adopt such a (n illegal) law.

 

[Robert Richardson]

One question-you people that think traing should be mandatory,would you be happy to take this training to renew your LTCH or when you buy your next firearm? I don't thinkk so.You just want the other guy to do it because you already know everything right?

 

[Crimson]

A flat out NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Smitty506th]

(Response to criticism on physical fitness)

Physical training is training that will help your body deal with stress. A gun is no good if you stop the "bad guy" and have a heart attack. Your weapons may be plan A. You may be your own plan B. I'm not saying that physical fitness should be a requirement for gun ownership but I am saying I think it is important to incorporate.

 

[Rattlesnake46319]

(Response to criticism on physical fitness)

Physical training is training that will help your body deal with stress. A gun is no good if you stop the "bad guy" and have a heart attack. Your weapons may be plan A. You may be your own plan B. I'm not saying that physical fitness should be a requirement for gun ownership but I am saying I think it is important to incorporate.

More on physical fitness - when the phrase "physical fitness" is used, most tend to think of running, jumping, biking, weightlifting, etc. That's not always the case. It can be low-impact and as simple as walking, yoga, etc. The 89 year-old woman or disabled veteran can conduct some type of physical training regimen within their own limits. It may not be to military standards, but it's much better than nothing at all.