Why are people against a safety course?

[the1kidd03]

So we have returned to the idea that fools and idiots should have the ability to carry even tho they have no idea how to use said weapon.

I have seen some really pathetic cases at various ranges, let alone gun shows or gun stores.

Yup, makes sense to me!

Yeah, it's their right. The gun doesn't get used and shouldn't even leave its holster if all is well. Unlike a vehicle, where merely operating it endangers everyone else. Therefore it requires a proper education. Since it is not a right to drive, it can be regulated in such a fashion.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So we have returned to the idea that fools and idiots should have the ability to carry even tho they have no idea how to use said weapon.

I have seen some really pathetic cases at various ranges, let alone gun shows or gun stores.

Yup, makes sense to me!

This is less sensible (letting all citizens exercise constitutional rights) than creating a system in which a right is converted into a privilege starting off with requirements that you deem 'reasonable' while acknowledging that in concept they are right and proper so that a few years down the road we can find ourselves facing down either prohibitively expensive fees for such training or standards that Elmer Keith couldn't have met? Don't even try arguing that it is a right after this happens--you already conceded that this is an acceptable requirement, remember? Even if you don't remember, the gun grabbers will cheerfully remind you.

 

[griffin]

Training becomes mandated and the # of poor trainers skyrockets

This. Michigan requires training (eight hours) for a concealed carry license. Michigan also requires the trainer to be certified by the state or a nationally recognized organization (e.g., NRA).

So we have all these NRA-certified trainers that are total CRAP! And NRA certification is not just doled out in heaping spoonfuls or given away in Cracker Jack boxes. And they still f' it up. Mostly it is the people who complement the "legal" part of the course (typically an active or retired police chief, sheriff, DA, etc), but not always. Many primary trainers are still bad. The misinformation given is astounding, and even when you show them the law they will argue with you.

Here is just one example:

It says Michigan Concealed Pistol License, therefore you can only carry one pistol (no BUG, etc). Never mind that you show them the MCL (law) that states for the purposes of this law, "he" means he and she, singular also applies to plural, etc.

There is all sorts of misinformation spread by "certified" trainers. They will tell you that once you are issued a concealed license, you must conceal and can no longer open carry (obviously not true, but even some LEOs think that), that everyone in Texas wears a pistol openly on his hip, but don't try that in the northern states or cops will hassle you and charge you with brandishing (open carry is illegal in Texas), and more.

This training stuff is a myth that makes lawmakers feel good.

I want to see people be required to pass a test before being allowed to vote.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I want to see people be required to pass a test before being allowed to vote.

How about requiring politicians to pass a constitutional law test before holding office?

 

[daddymikey1975]

We could incentivize the training..

Similar to driver's education. You want to buy a gun for home/self defense, go pass the background check and take it home (just like it is now).. You want your LTCH.. The fee for a lifetime pink slip is (hypothecically) $120 to the state. If you take a training class, and supply a certificate with your application, the cost is $80.

Then it begs the question, 'who' provides and certifies the training.. that's a whole 'nother issue.. Incentivizing the training could be a barrier to entry so to speak, but by making the cost of the LTCH lower with a training cert, it might motivate more folks to get some training.

Just my .02

 

[jcwit]

Its perfectly fine for youngsters to pass a hunter safety course, but people should just be allowed to purchase and/or carry with no instructions whatsoever.

Its even fine for members to join a range and needing to pass simple safety rules and regulations, which BTW usually are ignored, but again its perfectly fine to purchase and/or carry with little or no instructions.

Common logic is truly missing here.

so that a few years down the road we can find ourselves facing down either prohibitively expensive fees for such training or standards that Elmer Keith couldn't have met?

Sorry guy, in many states that require training history does not support this.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sorry guy, in many states that require training history does not support this.

You could use this same logic to support the notion that because you have not yet died you are going to live forever. Throughout history, both ours and world history in general, infringements on liberty are often incremental, even slow enough as to go unnoticed. Just because it has not happened yet, don't take that as proof it won't. In fact, the use of prohibitive cost has been tried once in federal law with the 1934 NFA* and failed by lacking a vehicle for raising the cost of the transfer tax, omitted only because significant permanent inflation was unknown to the US economy at the time. You are arguing that just because that lever hasn't been pulled, it won't. I won't be happy if any level of .gov has that lever available to them.

I would also advise you to consider that anything that you may legally do after jumping through hoops to the satisfaction of any level of government to secure official permission (not to be confused with penalizing perpetrators of harm for the harm caused) is not a right, but a privilege. It would appear that you subscribe to the notion that constitutional rights should be revocable privileges. Unfortunately, your vision of 'common logic' as you see it runs afoul of the concept of the Second Amendment being a right.

*Before reminding me that the NFA has nothing to do with training, allow me to remind you that I previously divided this issue into control through financial burden and excessively high skill requirements.

 

[Dixiejack]

I agree it is everyone's right to own a gun as long as certain responsibilities go with it. But, does the 2nd amendment mean we should eliminate all federal, state, and local laws that mandate where , when, why, what and how we can use our guns? Who can own a gun? Shouldn't a felon who committed a non-violent crime be able to own a gun? Shouldn't it be legal for students to to carry guns to school? What about drunks in a bar? I could go on and on about who has the right to own/carry a gun. I will be the first to admit we have too many gun laws that are without merit and were passed because some anti-gun group were putting the pressure on their flunkeys in Washington while we proponents of the 2nd Amendment sat around and whined about too many gun laws. If I have gotten off base with this, correct me--just be kind when you do.

 

[Dixiejack]

I want to see people be required to pass a test before being allowed to vote.

griffin, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 took care of that. )

 

[actaeon277]

Its perfectly fine for youngsters to pass a hunter safety course, but people should just be allowed to purchase and/or carry with no instructions whatsoever.

Its even fine for members to join a range and needing to pass simple safety rules and regulations, which BTW usually are ignored, but again its perfectly fine to purchase and/or carry with little or no instructions.

Common logic is truly missing here.



Sorry guy, in many states that require training history does not support this.

You obviously haven't read Emily Miller's articles on getting a gun, just for the home.
Or what you have to do in New York.

 

[jcwit]

I still fail to see anything wrong with basic education regarding firearm safety and operation. As I stated many posts ago I have witnessed people purchasing firearms who didn't even know how to load said firearm, let alone aim and fire them.

These are my opinions and will not change them thru an internet argument. If some of you feel its just fine for idiots and fools to run hither and yon while armed, so be it. Just please stay out of their way, I sure plan to.

 

[jcwit]

You obviously haven't read Emily Miller's articles on getting a gun, just for the home.
Or what you have to do in New York.

Nope! You've got that right!

Did Dear Ol' Emily know how to load, aim, and shoot whatever she had? If so, then she was worlds ahead of some of the folks I've seen.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I agree it is everyone's right to own a gun as long as certain responsibilities go with it. But, does the 2nd amendment mean we should eliminate all federal, state, and local laws that mandate where , when, why, what and how we can use our guns? Who can own a gun? Shouldn't a felon who committed a non-violent crime be able to own a gun? Shouldn't it be legal for students to to carry guns to school? What about drunks in a bar? I could go on and on about who has the right to own/carry a gun. I will be the first to admit we have too many gun laws that are without merit and were passed because some anti-gun group were putting the pressure on their flunkeys in Washington while we proponents of the 2nd Amendment sat around and whined about too many gun laws. If I have gotten off base with this, correct me--just be kind when you do.

1. Those responsibilities are properly addressed in laws that prohibit harm and endangerment of others.

2. Yes. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. You may recall that the nation survived well over half of its history without a federal gun law and state laws that were far from anything we now consider standard. Back to point A, 'shall not be infringed' and 'reasonable restrictions' are mutually exclusive. Students in school raises multiple questions. Are you talking about adults (i.e., college students) or children/teens/under age persons in K-12? What is the problem with the drunk so long as he isn't doing anything harmful with his gun which is already illegal on its own? How do you justify a second-class citizenship for any felon? If someone is too dangerous to be turned loose with his rights as a free citizen, he should either be in prison or else already have been executed.

3. There is no need for any gun law. Anything harmful you could possibly do with a gun is already illegal on its own merit. This makes no more sense than having a separate set of laws controlling automobiles on the concern that they may be used in crimes (already are if you have a CDL, but not for everyone else). How about barring drug dealers from possessing houses or apartments because they can use them in plying their trade? Making laws against an inanimate object which can be misused in not a reasonable vehicle for making society safe from crime. In fact, the only reasonable explanations are that either our congressmen are far stupider than I am willing to believe or they see such 'reasonable restrictions' as a means to deprive different aggregates of the population of their rights at different times and for different justifications in order to do what they cannot do, at least not easily, which is to impose an outright ban or at least general onerous restrictions. Then again, as feeble as the will is to defend freedom here among what should be the best and most motivated examples of freedom-honoring citizens, it may not be long before a majority would tolerate rolling over an giving up their freedoms altogether.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I still fail to see anything wrong with basic education regarding firearm safety and operation. As I stated many posts ago I have witnessed people purchasing firearms who didn't even know how to load said firearm, let alone aim and fire them.

These are my opinions and will not change them thru an internet argument. If some of you feel its just fine for idiots and fools to run hither and yon while armed, so be it. Just please stay out of their way, I sure plan to.

OK, we have established that you do not believe in constitutional rights. Fair enough. Offering and encouraging training is one thing. Requiring it is entirely different and effectively converts a right into a privilege offered (or denied) at the pleasure of the .gov.

Nope! You've got that right!

Very short version: For a very respectable young woman (who happens to be a journalist) legally purchasing a gun was like bending over and kissing her own ass.

 

[lowriderjim]

I was trained in the military, mostly a joke. I was given a 45, some ammo and a key to building and was told to go fire some rounds. I did this and was then qualified. At least I knew which end the round came out from.

I was well trained with the M16 and other weapons. I recently purchase an AR15 and had to use the manual and you tube to remember how to break it down. My training is over 40 years old.

Training should not be mandatory. Responsible people should seek the assistance they require.

 

[Spanky46151]

jcwit,

Yup, just like free speech, religious practices, free assembly, etc. Simply because you don't do it to suit "somebody" doesn't diminish your right & authority to continue. Get out of my guaranteed personal freedom. You are under the misconception that you know what is best for me more than I do. Feel free to encumber yourself with whatever yoke you choose to adorn, but stop trying to convince everyone that you possess the optimal standard. If you choose to voluntarily live under falicy of a "government knows best" mentality, keep it personal. Not all of us are incapable of making proper decisions without an elected nanny.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I was trained in the military, mostly a joke. I was given a 45, some ammo and a key to building and was told to go fire some rounds. I did this and was then qualified. At least I knew which end the round came out from.

I was well trained with the M16 and other weapons. I recently purchase an AR15 and had to use the manual and you tube to remember how to break it down. My training is over 40 years old.

Training should not be mandatory. Responsible people should seek the assistance they require.

This is a sorry time to be out of rep!

 

[downzero]

The hilarious thing about this thread is the OP can't even spell "safety course." He'd be the first one the government minions would prevent from owning firearms, on the basis that someone who couldn't spell "safety" probably doesn't know what it is, either. I mean, if we're going to have a test to exercise one's liberty, why not have it be a spelling test? Seems as fitting as any other criteria......

 

[printcraft]

jcwit,

Yup, just like free speech, religious practices, free assembly, etc. Simply because you don't do it to suit "somebody" doesn't diminish your right & authority to continue. Get out of my guaranteed personal freedom. You are under the misconception that you know what is best for me more than I do. Feel free to encumber yourself with whatever yoke you choose to adorn, but stop trying to convince everyone that you possess the optimal standard. If you choose to voluntarily live under falicy of a "government knows best" mentality, keep it personal. Not all of us are incapable of making proper decisions without an elected nanny.

/ thread

 

[JetGirl]

So then in fact it is OK for fools and people so unknowledgable to even know how to load or fire a firearm to not only possess one but to carry one.

Yep. Because the Second Amendment doesn't say "Shall not be infringed unless you are ignorant."

BTW letts do away with drivers ed and testing older drivers to be sure people understand the basics of driving skills. Yes I realize driving is a privilage and not a right but seriously both of these actions are deadly if not handled correctly.

If you (as you stated) realized that driving is NOT Constitutionally protected, then you'd have never used that as a comparison.

Hasn't proven to be true in those states that require training.

That's because we're not talking about what the states may or may not do.
We're talking about FEDERALLY mandating something...which is far more over-reaching when they ignore States' Rights.