Thoughts on required training for LTCH in Indiana.

[esrice]

Absolutely NOT.

Just about everyone here has hit the nail on the head.

If you need a nanny sign up for one on reality TV.

 

[tv1217]

At most I could see if they mandate the local PD to suggest you get training, but requiring it to get an LTCH, no.

 

[citizenvain]

I really would be for mandatory gun safety training in elementary school.

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?

But, if there has to be a some sort of compromise on the mandatory training thing, the only thing I could think of or even remotely be in favor for is that if you do take "mandatory training" for your firearm, no place, make that NO PLACE should be off limits to carry your firearm as not only have you gotten your permit, you have taken training. You should be able to carry EVERYWHERE (the bank, schools, the Gov center, state parks, city parks, your dentist, massage parlors, etc) without harassment or threats of ejection.

But really, you should be able to carry any where really, but again, that is the only way I would be willing to compromise.

 

[Biohazard]

No mandatory training.

1. You can teach a technique or safe handling. You cannot ensure that people follow what is taught.
   • Case in point: go to any gun range on any weekend
2. You cannot control the quality of instruction. Either the techniques that are actually taught or the ability of instructors. Not all are equal.
3. Common sense is the bottom line of what is attempting to be passed along. Common sense is anything except common.
4. It is the "right" to bear arms.

They (government) should offer a list of firearms trainers that are available in the area. A complete list unqualified by affiliation, more like a yellow pages, and recommend training.

 

[revance]

First, have we had a problem? This sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

Here is my problem with it...

We already have places in this state where the local LE have made it as hard as they can to get a license. They make you schedule appointments with the chief of police between the hours of 10-11am weekdays on weeks with a full moon that fall before an equinox but after a soltice. He also plays golf any days that are above 60.

Do we want to add more ways for them to make it impossible to get? How often do you think those areas would offer the class?

I vote for mandatory gun safety in elementary school and mandatory marksmanship in HS as part of your civics class.

 

[chasekerion4]

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. I would argue that it comes with MORE responsibility than driving a car. We all had to take driver's ed, or have a permit for X amount of time, etc... One could argue that we shouldn't just hand carry permits over.

Again, I don't necessarily think it should be required, but if you think of all the idiots on the road today.. Anyone can go get a driver license.

And the same can be said for LTCH - don't get CONVICTED of a felony and you can get your LTCH just as easy as you can buy Tylenol.

Thinking of the idiots in the world, I can see the argument of required training. But thinking of myself and most of us on here, I know that MOST of us are responsible enough to use our heads...

I honestly think if it were to become law, and written right with no chance of being altered by another administration, etc. I wouldn't be vehemently opposed to it. I wouldn't like the idea of 'big brother' sticking their noses in, but safety training can't hurt anyone. It can only be a good thing.

 

[Bubba]

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.

 

[INRanger]

+1 for the Alaska model.

 

[chasekerion4]

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.

The discount idea isn't a bad one.... But the state ain't gonna let you take money out of their pockets! That you can be sure of!

 

[Bill of Rights]

The point has been made that it's a good idea that those carrying guns should have training. It is also a good idea that people not indulge in behaviors that are detrimental to their health, such as smoking, drinking alcohol to excess, and, since this is INGO, I must add eating three pounds of bacon per day.

It is a good idea that if you become pregnant, you should have that baby and raise him or her as best you can, with values, responsibility, respect, and integrity. It is a good idea that if you father a child, you and the child's mother should raise him or her together (not necessarily in the same house, but with the same values). If you cannot do the above, then you should probably put the child in a setting where s/he will have all those things made available.

Now... Just because the above are good ideas does not mean they should be laws or even should be addressed by government, which screws up everything it touches.

I do a pretty good job of controlling myself on each of those. I trust my fellow humans to do likewise or to accept the responsibility for their choices.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

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 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

 

[Bubba]

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

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.

 

[agentl074]

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.

Exactly! Firearm safety is YOUR responsibility! If you want to carry a knife, the government is not responsible for training you on the use of the knife correct?
It is however, RECOMMENDED that you take whatever courses or buy whatever books etc. you need to operate such weapons.

 

[HICKMAN]

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...

 

[agentl074]

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...

They provided good training for us ... I cannot guarantee the same quality of training for Citizens.

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.

 

[jeremy]

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!

 

[agentl074]

Less is more!

Training in arms should begin at a young age in ones home!

I wholeheartedly agree This has been done for generations in our country before!

 

[jeremy]

It takes years for one to truly become an accomplished rifleman.

 

[dburkhead]

Coming in a bit late.

This issue has been around a few times. My take is that there are people who will get training on there own and there are folk who will get training only if its mandatory. Dividing things up another way, there are people who will benefit from a short training course, and people who won't (for whom it will be "in one ear and out the other" to use an old expression). Put those two together and you've got four categories:

1) People who will get training anyway and who will benefit from it.
2) People who will get training only if it's mandatory and who will benefit from it.
3) People who will get training anyway but won't benefit from it.
4) People who will get training only if it's mandatory but won't benefit from it.

I strongly suspect that almost everyone who might get a gun would fall into catetories 1 and 4. Very few will be in category 2 who would be the targets of any mandatory training requirement.

The truth is that Indiana, which has had at least 10% of it's adult population being licensed to carry handguns for years now, simply doesn't have a higher accident rate than states which have a training requirement.

Training is good. I don't think you will find anyone here who disagrees with that. However, there's essentially no evidence that mandatory training helps.

 

[fatvette]

uuuhhhh.....NO!!!!!