Why are people against a safety course?

[DFM914]

I'm all for training, and practice, and hours spent at the range...but making it mandatory would not work for me. Mandatory training means the state gets to decide what is suitable for a training class, the state gets to decide how much a class costs, the state gets to decide WHO is qualified to teach the class, the state gets to decide too many things that can be used politically to keep people from owning firearms. I say hell no.

THIS!

 

[esrice]

As far as who should should make the rules, standards, and pay for the training, its way past my pay grade. Anything I would suggest on those questions would be pure speculation.

Speculation is fine, as long everyone understands that's what it is. In this case I'm asking for you to speculate.

You think people should be required to get training. If you were put in charge of such a program, how would you like to see such regulation administered?

I'm genuinely curious.

 

[lovemachine]

So Thread Closed, Troll Defeated, Nothing to say or add left,

The troll has been reduced to stupid posts of smiley faces instead of facing the very questions that for the basis of his asinine and silly position.

Just another silly troll that will probably end up with a shooter status at some point.

He cannot even defend a position that he knows and has had proven wrong.




IBTL

Just because his opinion is different or unpopular doesn't mean that the rules for name-calling don't apply.

Please refrain from any future name-calling or a temp ban will follow this in-thread warning.

SO your basis is again that one group of people whould dictate how another group exercises a constitutional right?




LMAO SILLY TROLL go back to the Brady Campaign, You and that Wheel Chaired Freak were cut from the same cloth

Somebody can't read.

 

[esrice]

LMAO SILLY TROLL go back to the Brady Campaign, You and that Wheel Chaired Freak were cut from the same cloth

PLEASE tell me you simply missed the above warning and you didn't just call him a troll again on purpose.

 

[jcwit]

Guess what folks, I'm gonna change my mind, or viewpoint if you will. Had a chance to do a little research and found this which gave some hard facts. For your reading pleasure, it is what it is.

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=360&Itemid=37

I still believe that most if not all people should seek out basic training with regards to safety and operation of their arms. Obviously by the articule I linked to should not be mandated tho, I guess. I'm convinced, but still wonder.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Guess what folks, I'm gonna change my mind, or viewpoint if you will. Had a chance to do a little research and found this which gave some hard facts. For your reading pleasure, it is what it is.

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=360&Itemid=37

I still believe that most if not all people should seek out basic training with regards to safety and operation of their arms. Obviously by the articule I linked to should not be mandated tho, I guess. I'm convinced, but still wonder.

Does that mean I can keep my guns then even though I have had no training?

 

[Hogwylde]

Don't forget the fact of how many lives have been saved by the seat belt law.......

That's the problem with seat belts.....They don't do a darn thing unless you are in an accident, they don't discriminate between those that should be saved and those that Darwin selected for elimination, and they don't save EVERYONE. (Don't make me document the people that have died while wearing one.)

 

[esrice]

Guess what folks, I'm gonna change my mind, or viewpoint if you will. Had a chance to do a little research and found this which gave some hard facts.

Kudos to you for being open-minded and allowing yourself to search out the answer to something that makes you feel uncomfortable.

In a perfect world such mandatory training would render all those carried to be Costa-level shooters and incidents of negligent handling would be reduced to near zero. And I wish that would be the case. But history has told us that this isn't what happens when the government steps in to regulate things.

Your base thinking is still correct, however-- people who take up arms SHOULD also take up the responsibility to wield them with knowledge and experience.

Rep to you for being a thinker.

 

[Jack Burton]

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=360&Itemid=37

Seems as if I heard those very thoughts echoed around here recently...

 

[JetGirl]

So JCWit you have never answered my question...

Who decides who trains?

Hey! That was my question way before you ever even got here!

So Thread Closed, Troll Defeated, Nothing to say or add left,

The troll has been reduced to stupid posts of smiley faces instead of facing the very questions that for the basis of his asinine and silly position.

Just another silly troll that will probably end up with a shooter status at some point.

He cannot even defend a position that he knows and has had proven wrong.




IBTL

Just because his opinion is different or unpopular doesn't mean that the rules for name-calling don't apply.

Please refrain from any future name-calling or a temp ban will follow this in-thread warning.

OP isn't a troll, and if you'd read the thread, you'll see in no less than two different places he said he had changed his thinking on the matter.

 

[Eric70]

I'm all for you getting the training if you feel that you need it. In my line of work I've had to go to several training sessions over the years where the college educated idiots had no clue as to what it was like to do the real job. Their theories sounded good, but the only experience they had was in a classroom. I can't imagine the training that you want us all to get would be much different.

 

[Drakkule]

Hey! That was my question way before you ever even got here!

OP isn't a troll, and if you'd read the thread, you'll see in no less than two different places he said he had changed his thinking on the matter.

Someone please rep her for me, i can't do it again until i pass it around more. I don't think he was talking about me being a troll, but thanks. I guess i should post a picture of my new 1911 now, everyone knows that's a good way to calm JetGirl down. LOL

 

[Captain Morgan]

Personally, I think everyone should have gun safety training. And I literally mean everyone. Not just gun owners, not just people who carry or hunt, but every man, woman and child should receive training on proper gun safety. I think this would eliminate some stigma and incorrect beliefs about guns and gun ownership. I also think there shouldn't be any restrictions on where a person can carry and don't think people should need a license or permit to carry. And to clarify even further, owning a gun would not be dependent on a person having taken the course. The training would simply be a natural thing that happens. There would be different levels. As soon as a child is old enough to understand, they would be taught gun safety. As they get a bit older, they would be taught safe gun handling and shooting. Nobody would be forced to own a gun, but everyone would understand them. It's a bit utopian, but whatever.

 

[ckcollins2003]

NO TRAINING REQUIRED IF
1. You were/are in the armed forces- you were trained
2. X amount of years of hunting licenses - proof you have handled firearms
3. Have held a LTCH for X amount of years - same as above
4. Have received training in the past - with proof, for same as requirement

I'm just saying a basic course, concentrating on the fundamentals, and the 4 main rules. In this instance, why would a training requirement be a bad thing?

1. There are people who have served years and years in the military without ever shooting a handgun. Hell, some have only handled a rifle once a year for quals. Why should they be exempt?

2. Because sitting in a tree stand in the middle of the wild IS the exact same as defending yourself in public... Do hunting licenses with bows also count? Or is it just shotgun season hunters that get the free pass? (insert sarcasm all over this one in case you couldn't tell already)

3. WHAT?! So because someone's had the ability to compromise their own safety and everyone else around them for "X amount of years" they should be exempt from learning how to actually handle their weapon and use it?

BTW, I'm completely against mandatory training, but if was ever enacted I don't believe anyone should be exempt from proper firearm handling. I also believe it should be paid for by the state.

Disclaimer: Sorry if all of this has already been discussed. I looked through 8 pages and didn't find it and I really didn't feel like looking through the other 20.

 

[actaeon277]

Guess what folks, I'm gonna change my mind, or viewpoint if you will. Had a chance to do a little research and found this which gave some hard facts. For your reading pleasure, it is what it is.

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=360&Itemid=37

I still believe that most if not all people should seek out basic training with regards to safety and operation of their arms. Obviously by the articule I linked to should not be mandated tho, I guess. I'm convinced, but still wonder.

Thank you for the link jcwit.

I am against mandatory training.
But, I always recommend training to everyone I meet. Even if I showed them "all i know".
I think multiple training is good, from different trainers.
No one has a lock on all the knowledge.
I've been shooting for somewhere around 35 years. And I still try to learn.

So, if you introduce anyone to firearms, or see someone at the LGS that doesn't know which end of the gun the pointy thing comes out of, you can recommend training for them.

 

[JetGirl]

Thank you for the link jcwit.

The best quote to take away from that article is "...responsible people are going to learn what they need to know to be safe, but no amount of government mandated training will ever change an irresponsible person into a responsible one."

 

[jcwit]

The best quote to take away from that article is "...responsible people are going to learn what they need to know to be safe, but no amount of government mandated training will ever change an irresponsible person into a responsible one."

I must admit that that is clearly obvious on the highways.

 

[JetGirl]

"...responsible people are going to learn what they need to know to be safe, but no amount of government mandated training will ever change an irresponsible person into a responsible one."

I must admit that that is clearly obvious on the highways.

Of the (currently) 53 people who voted "mandated training" in some form...I wonder how they reconcile that fact.

 

[youngda9]

I just love to watch people get hammered with logic...it's funny to watch their little glass houses of emotional thought shatter around them.

 

[Tinner666]

Of the (currently) 53 people who voted "mandated training" in some form...I wonder how they reconcile that fact.

My idea of mandatory training is to at elast have a presentation in school about safe handling. Just a 10-20 minute 'session'. It should be as simple as the teachers telling the kids about the fire drills. No more is necessary.
It used to be standard back in the fifties. You didn't need to qualify anything. Even teachers were able to tell the NRA's 10 commandments.
How many here remember the classroom sessions on blasting caps and dynamite?
Many here are missing the point I'm trying to make. Anti-gunners WILL NOT teach their kids anything whatsoever about firearms safety. Nothing.
They'll just preach their crap to them, and when one finds a firearm or decides to look at one for some reason, he or she won't have a clue. We gun owners DO teach our kids safety. Every day at the range, we also HAVE to turn around and teach a newbie who's standing there sweeping people with a loaded firearm those simple facts.

No, I do not think it should be necessary to take training to own or carry.