Why are people against a safety course?

[beararms1776]

I agree with some of the above comments.

Although, I do not think training shound be mandatory. I do training to better myself. I would like to see people do a self assessment and atleast do some type of training so they are better prepared for their safety as well as others.

This is a good post.

 

[edporch]

I didn't answer the poll, because the correct answer isn't there.


Training should NEVER be MANDATORY, but voluntary training should be encouraged.

WHY?

Because a training requirement and regulations connected with it, would be perverted by those in power to limit our right to bear arms.

Secondly, if there would be a training requirement, NOBODY should be exempted for ANY reason, and be done in order of application.

ALL TOO OFTEN, those who suggest "exemptions" seem to exempt their self...

 

[jcwit]

I agree with some of the above comments.

Although, I do not think training shound be mandatory. I do training to better myself. I would like to see people do a self assessment and atleast do some type of training so they are better prepared for their safety as well as others.

That has the same logic as a drunk deciding if its safe for him to drive.

 

[eldirector]

That has the same logic as a drunk deciding if its safe for him to drive.

Or:
The same logic as an adult deciding whether or not to drink, knowing they have to drive home later.

Personal accountability is a *****.

 

[Jack Burton]

As I noted in a previous post, the example of 2 ladies who had no idea how to load the handguns they were purchasing let alone how to aim or shot them. Being as they were this clueless it very doubtful they had much knowledge regarding how to be even somewhat safe with said firearm or any other firearm for that matter.

Would it not be for their best interests to at least know a little of the basics. But the feeling I'm getting from here they are better off bumbling along, hopefully not hurting themselves or any other innocent person.

So where's the documented proof that these two ladies actually hurt someone, as opposed to the concept that you feel they may hurt someone in the future.

And that "feeling" your getting is further proof that rationality is not driving your position. Everyone here has stated that training is good, training is good, training is good. Not one person has spoken against quality training. Not one. So tell us, just where does this "feeling" come from?

"best interests" eh.

Let me leave you with a quote from one of the wisest men who ever lived...

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

 

[rooster]

Carrying a firearm without having had proper training is downright irresponsible. And I am not talking about just a safety lesson on how to hold a firearm and not shoot yourself. Everyone should learn how to shoot,move, and take cover and concealment. Without knowing how to do all those things you are a sitting duck in an active shooter scenario.

It would be a barrier to getting a firearm if implemented. The same argument could be made that a hunters education course is a barrier to hunting but we are not up in arms to get that requirement thrown out.

 

[beararms1776]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

Excellent quote sir!

 

[Jack Burton]

Carrying a firearm without having had proper training is downright irresponsible. And I am not talking about just a safety lesson on how to hold a firearm and not shoot yourself. Everyone should learn how to shoot,move, and take cover and concealment. Without knowing how to do all those things you are a sitting duck in an active shooter scenario.

It would be a barrier to getting a firearm if implemented. The same argument could be made that a hunters education course is a barrier to hunting but we are not up in arms to get that requirement thrown out.

Then, rooster, with 8,000,000 licensed carriers over decades in dozens of states, the large majority of them not having required training on hoto to "shoot,move, and take cover and concealment" you should be able to point to hundreds of thousands of stories of dead citizens who carry. But you can't.

You can't point to tens of thousands... or even thousands.

But we can easily point to thousands of stoires where ordinary citizens with firearms defended their life, liberty or dignity without your "required" training.

As noted many times, you're looking to solve a problem that does not exist in reality.

 

[Jack Burton]

For those who say that a state "won't make training harder" here is an instructive lesson in real life for you...

NRA: Wisconsin CCW Rules 'Dangerous Precedent' for 'Separation of Powers' - Gun Digest - We Know Guns So You Know Guns

 

[femurphy77]

I didn't answer the poll, because the correct answer isn't there.


Training should NEVER be MANDATORY, but voluntary training should be encouraged.

WHY?

Because a training requirement and regulations connected with it, would be perverted by those in power to limit our right to bear arms.

Secondly, if there would be a training requirement, NOBODY should be exempted for ANY reason, and be done in order of application.

ALL TOO OFTEN, those who suggest "exemptions" seem to exempt their self...

Gotta go with Ed here, and not just because he has EXCELLENT taste in motorcycles. I didn't really care for any of the provided responses so I didn't chose one.

I think instead of equating this to drunks deciding if they should drive, as was suggested in a prior post, it's more reasonable to compare it to driving instead of drinking. Most people are not natural born drivers, they need to be taught, learn, whatever, however you want to phrase it. A gun, like any other tool has a learning curve to become profient and safe in its' use.

On a good day even the venerated Yeager could probably learn "something" from somebody else and to hear some of the opinions on this forum he already knows everything.

 

[beararms1776]

Then, rooster, with 8,000,000 licensed carriers over decades in dozens of states, the large majority of them not having required training on hoto to "shoot,move, and take cover and concealment" you should be able to point to hundreds of thousands of stories of dead citizens who carry. But you can't.

You can't point to tens of thousands... or even thousands.

But we can easily point to thousands of stoires where ordinary citizens with firearms defended their life, liberty or dignity without your "required" training.

As noted many times, you're looking to solve a problem that does not exist in reality.

 

[beararms1776]

Carrying a firearm without having had proper training is downright irresponsible. And I am not talking about just a safety lesson on how to hold a firearm and not shoot yourself. Everyone should learn how to shoot,move, and take cover and concealment. Without knowing how to do all those things you are a sitting duck in an active shooter scenario.

It would be a barrier to getting a firearm if implemented. The same argument could be made that a hunters education course is a barrier to hunting but we are not up in arms to get that requirement thrown out.

Note the bold words: but how do you train a person in something they already naturally posses, as in natural instincts?

 

[pig957]

I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer your question.

Did you take a safety course to insure proper execution of your rights under the Fifth Amendment????

 

[Roadie]

Took it, and passed, sorry that my spelling is so offensive to everyone. I realize your post is purple, and i might be smart enough to figure out what that means. I guess i just don't understand why everyone is badmouthing people that had a genuine question, like they are back in the 3rd grade. Next time someone post a serious question, i hope they get adult responses. Also thank you to the people that took a rational approach to the question, I found what i was looking for, and like i posted before, have changed my opinion. While i think everyone should have trading, i agree, it shouldn't be mandated. And this is the last time i ever want to type "man dated", i just don't feel right about it, and you can't make me.

Simmer down there buddy, my sarcastic post wasn't a commentary on your question, or your spelling, etc etc. It was an analogy, suggesting that the 1st Amendment RIGHT to Free Speech require training before being exercised.. get it?

 

[rooster]

Then, rooster, with 8,000,000 licensed carriers over decades in dozens of states, the large majority of them not having required training on hoto to "shoot,move, and take cover and concealment" you should be able to point to hundreds of thousands of stories of dead citizens who carry. But you can't.

You can't point to tens of thousands... or even thousands.

But we can easily point to thousands of stoires where ordinary citizens with firearms defended their life, liberty or dignity without your "required" training.

As noted many times, you're looking to solve a problem that does not exist in reality.

The problem with Indiana not having a training requirement ,other than the one I already pointed out, is reciprocity. Our Permit is not honored in some states such as Ohio because we lack a training requirement.

 

[Rhoadmar]

Does anyone remember when they passed the seat belt law? Politicians and law enforcement officials were promising that it would never be used as a reason to pull someone over for a traffic violation. Now some places even set up road stops just to check. Training should be advised but one more arrow in governments regulatory quiver is never a good idea.

 

[eldirector]

The problem with Indiana not having a training requirement ,other than the one I already pointed out, is reciprocity. Our Permit is not honored in some states such as Ohio because we lack a training requirement.

A) That is Ohio's perogotive, not Indiana's problem
B) They need to fix that locally, not force Indiana residents to comply with to THEIR requirements
C) Just because Ohio doesn't follow their own constitution, doesn't mean Indiana should throw out theirs!

My proposal up-thread would completely fix this, and make everyone (well, not the anti-freedom folks) happy.

 

[jcwit]

So where's the documented proof that these two ladies actually hurt someone, as opposed to the concept that you feel they may hurt someone in the future.

So where's the proof than Joe Blow the town drunk actually got drunk and had a accident. May have happened, may not have happened, but the odds are not in his favor.

 

[Jack Burton]

The problem with Indiana not having a training requirement ,other than the one I already pointed out, is reciprocity. Our Permit is not honored in some states such as Ohio because we lack a training requirement.

And just which "problem" did you actually point out? The tens of thousands of dead LTC holders laying on sidewalks and parking lots around the state each year, or the hundreds of thousands of innocent people that they've killed on purpose or by accident?

Reciprocity is a totally separate concern with training that has nothing to do with the safety and well-being of the LTC holders.

 

[jcwit]

Does anyone remember when they passed the seat belt law? Politicians and law enforcement officials were promising that it would never be used as a reason to pull someone over for a traffic violation. Now some places even set up road stops just to check. Training should be advised but one more arrow in governments regulatory quiver is never a good idea.

Don't forget the fact of how many lives have been saved by the seat belt law, let alone lower insurance costs.