Why are people against a safety course?

[Hogwylde]

Why not? For the same reason that you don't have to take a test or "have training" before having children.

Yea, it's a good idea and yea, you SHOULD have to prove you have the knowledge and resources to properly raise a child before having them. But, it's your god given right to screw up (raise) a child any way you see fit and any talk of requiring "training" or being judged "competent" would be an infringement of your rights, right?

 

[LarryC]

Before anybody gets upset, it is a legitimate question. I don't have a problem with it, training is a good thing. Not everyone was brought up with guns, most of us are lucky enough to have been, but not everyone was. I understand that we shouldn't need a license, but we do, so why not require training? Most people on here agree that everyone should train, get help training, and continue to train for as long as able, so why not make it required? I don't think of it as the same as a drivers license, the second amendment is "supposed to be" a right, but with all of the new gun owners, i am a bit more worried now. I know people that have very poor gun handling skills, but have their LTCH, so out they go in public carrying a deadly weapon with them, with no training. I also think there should be some type of pass for people that have been around firearms for most of their lives, like
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?

First we all know all government programs really work well right? All mandatory training would achieve would be (1) a new source of revenue for the government. (2) A way would be found by the government to "limit" those that "pass" the course - thereby limiting gun ownership. - this probably wouldn't happen in the first few years, if such a requirement was made law - but watch out when the gun haters control the house and senate. (3) Any government regulated course would be a farce - the rules taught probably would not have any relationship to reality. (4) The government has NO RIGHT to restrict gun ownership or issue carry licenses - NO CRIMINAL cares about the law so in what way would a nonsense "training requirement" help?

 

[beararms1776]

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

Michigan being one, and overall their laws are now easier than a few years ago.

So there is no history of how laws have progressed?
Why make it more difficult for people who purchase legally and with no intent on using it in a criminal act?

 

[JettaKnight]

So who would run these courses?

Private contractors?
Then you could end up with a complete hodge podge of (mis)information: LTCH ending, OC will get you shot, etc.

Counties, or authorizing agency?
They're worse than contractors at misinformation! Look at some of the Sheriff Dept. web pages.

State?
Doubtful. Plus, who wants another level of bureaucracy, delays, etc.

What would be good is if there was a good source of valid information that was delivered in the mail with your pink slip. It should have:

• A reference to all relevant laws
• The four rules of firearm safety
• A list of state run gun ranges
• No opinions!
• A list of training organization for voluntary training
• A promise not to take away, invalidate or ever stop offering lifetime BS.
• A link to INGO

 

[JettaKnight]

Before anybody gets upset, it is a legitimate question. I don't have a problem with it, training is a good thing. Not everyone was brought up with guns, most of us are lucky enough to have been, but not everyone was. I understand that we shouldn't need a license, but we do, so why not require training? Most people on here agree that everyone should train, get help training, and continue to train for as long as able, so why not make it required? I don't think of it as the same as a drivers license, the second amendment is "supposed to be" a right, but with all of the new gun owners, i am a bit more worried now. I know people that have very poor gun handling skills, but have their LTCH, so out they go in public carrying a deadly weapon with them, with no training. I also think there should be some type of pass for people that have been around firearms for most of their lives, like
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?

So two honest questions for Drakkule:
1. Is this about training to receive an LTCH or for ownership?
2. Do you envision this to be a state or federal requirement?

Assuming it's related to state training for LTCH (As I previously thought) I wouldn't say this "opens the door" to more regulation*. We already have "gun free" zones, but those zones really haven't grown (I'd say for some cities they've shrunk). But, like those gun free zone laws, this one would be darn near impossible to get rid of in the future.

Also, it would put in place another burden that impacts some more than others. For instance the poor single mother who can't afford training in terms of cost or the time off of work or finding a babysitter so she can exercise her right to self defense.


PS - The more I read the OP, the more it smacks of elitism. I take it that you, Drakkule, would get a pass on training?


* That door's always open, so be vigilant.

 

[JettaKnight]

Just because someone has experience in handling guns...doesn't mean they've been taught how to do it in the right and safe manner EVERY TIME!

Just because someone has training doesn't mean they'll handle firearms safely outside of class.

EDIT: I know Florida has training. Read the paper and let me know how that's working out...

 

[jcwit]

Why make it more difficult for people who purchase legally and with no intent on using it in a criminal act?

Why have it easier for those who wish to do the opposite?

 

[Drakkule]

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......

So sorry i left out a letter at 3, or 4 in the morning, after being up for 20+ hours. And for your information, I went to college, did very well, and I don't believe I ever insulted anybody's intelligence, or who they are as a person, but I'm so glad you know me so well. I will be expecting a Christmas card, you know the address, since you know me so well. I don't appreciate personal attacks about who I am, or how intelligent I am. If you don't know me, you can keep your uninformed opinions to yourself. I hope none of the words are spelled wrong, it might be a safety issue after all.

 

[Tinner666]

Training doesn't have to be a federal issue. Like I posted before, allow the NRA or maybe SPD to come into classrooms and give a lesson on safe handling. They used to and there probably were fewer AD's or ND's.
I was swept three times that I saw in the past week. Once, the gun was loaded and I tensed up hoping not to startle the person into firing. Once was at a LGS and a 5-6 y.o. girl girl pointed a pink 22lr kids rifle in my direction. Her dad swept it aside and laid down the law to her so I let it ride.

I suppose I could switch over to the 64% not wanting any trianing and just toss loaded guns into the crib with spongebob toys. The dumb one will weed themselves, thier siblings, or their parents out pretty soon. We'll find out if it come naturally or not for sure.

 

[Drakkule]

Any other rights the OP would like to curtail without the proper training?

How about a government-run education on public speaking before you can speak? We already need permits to peaceably assemble, so we are well on our way.

How about a government-run education in a state-sponsored religion before you worship? Maybe even a "certified pious person" exam?

Maybe a class or two about how to be a proper sheep before voting?

Of course, you can't "plead the fifth" until you pass the Bar exam, right?

I'm sorry. The "state" didn't GIVE me my rights. As a matter of fact, the State is SUPPOSED to be prevented from RESTRICTING these rights. If we can't even get THAT part correct, then there is no way I'm giving them MORE control.

Training and education is a absolutely FABULOUS idea in all aspects of your life. Firearms (and any weapon) included. Required? No. I don't think so.

Now, one idea a floated a while back, and seemed to get some acceptance, was a 2-tiered system to help Indiana residents travel more freely.

#1 - Constitutional carry for all people. No "permit" needed for at all, and no restrictions in-state. Absolutely anyone could carry (resident or not) anywhere they choose. Just like Section 32 of the IN Constitution clearly states.
#2 - A photo-ID carry permit, with required classroom and range training (NRA Safety Course) would be available for a fee. This would satisfy the reciprocity requirements in something like 38 or more states. If you make it expire/renew, then you might even pick up 40+ states.

Perfect? No. But it would be much closer to our Constitution, without needed to get all 50 States on-board.

I asked a simple question, and everyone thinks i want to take your rights away, but i love how everyone skips over the fact that i said we shouldn't need a license in the first place. I am not fixed in my opinion, and there have been some very good reasons against a mandate, these are the type of things i was originally looking for. I am man enough to say that i looked at it differently now, than when i posted the topic. A pamphlet, suggested training, maybe even a coupon for a training course could all be a very good idea. I have been swayed a bit, i still think everyone should get training, but can agree that it should not be mandated. Thank you to everyone that posted a thought out point of view.

 

[Drakkule]

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.[/QUOTE]
Sorry if anyone thought i meant federally mandated, i was talking about Indiana only. I think having children, and wanting to protect them, might have made me see this issue through the fog of fatherhood. I have seen the error of my thinking. i still think everyone should have ongoing training, but can see how a mandate could be used to take away something i hold dear to my heart. Some of my best memories involved firearms, i have been trying to teach my kids what i was taught while growing up. I was lucky enough to grow up in a time when Cub Scouts trained with .22lr rifles, hunters safety was everywhere. I have been around firearms for 36+ years, and always want to learn more, training, and laws.

 

[Drakkule]

So two honest questions for Drakkule:
1. Is this about training to receive an LTCH or for ownership?
2. Do you envision this to be a state or federal requirement?

Assuming it's related to state training for LTCH (As I previously thought) I wouldn't say this "opens the door" to more regulation*. We already have "gun free" zones, but those zones really haven't grown (I'd say for some cities they've shrunk). But, like those gun free zone laws, this one would be darn near impossible to get rid of in the future.

Also, it would put in place another burden that impacts some more than others. For instance the poor single mother who can't afford training in terms of cost or the time off of work or finding a babysitter so she can exercise her right to self defense. And originally i was talking about our LTCH .


PS - The more I read the OP, the more it smacks of elitism. I take it that you, Drakkule, would get a pass on training?


* That door's always open, so be vigilant.

I have no problem taking training, and have taken several classes, i did not intend to sound elitist, on the contrary, i was looking for pros, and cons. I, in no way think of myself above, or better than anyone else, i was just lucky enough to grow up around firearms, and was looking at this topic as a safety concern , nothing more, nothing less. I am truly sorry if i have offended anyone on this board, and i am man enough to admit that I wasn't thinking clearly when i made the post, but i digress.

 

[HICKMAN]

we don't have a right, we have a pink permission slip...

 

[Shay]

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!

You probably aren't as good with a gun under stress as you think you are.

I'll make a test that you have to pass. We'll see if I think you should be carrying a gun in public.

 

[Jack Burton]

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!

Pardon us, the general public, for not coming up to your obvious high standards.

 

[jcwit]

Pardon us, the general public, for not coming up to your obvious high standards.

Not ment for the general public, but then if the shoe fits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jcwit]

You probably aren't as good with a gun under stress as you think you are.

That is probably a very accurate statement!

I'll make a test that you have to pass. We'll see if I think you should be carrying a gun in public.

What would be so wrong with a class with just the basics regarding safety and operation.

Yesterday "Sunday" I was at On Target in Kalamazoo, there was a guy there "looked to be in his mid to later 20's" with his wife who didn't know the difference between a .22 rimfire and a .223 center fire. Yup folks they are out there.

 

[downzero]

we don't have a right, we have a pink permission slip...

Which has to be granted as a matter of right. It ain't too far off.

 

[Jack Burton]

Common logic is truly missing here.

Okay, INGOers.... jc has established nothing other than "he doesn't like it." That is his whole argument.

It's been pointed out that Indiana has the same virtully zero rate of problems with those who carry as states with extensive training... and he is still agin it.

And he accuses others of lacking "common sense."

 

[jcwit]

Okay, INGOers.... jc has established nothing other than "he doesn't like it." That is his whole argument.

It's been pointed out that Indiana has the same virtully zero rate of problems with those who carry as states with extensive training... and he is still agin it.

And he accuses others of lacking "common sense."

Absolutly untrue, I just feel a basic course would be very helpful for those who would obviously need it. Its beyond my comprehension what would be wrong with this. Basic safety rules and basic teaching of the operation of said firearm would harm no one and really help those that need it.

If you or anyone else here doesn't get the common sense issue you are just ignoring the facts of life all around you.

But as said earlier, If the shoe fits!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also as I said earlier, no internet argument is going to change my mind. Nothing wrong with a little extra education.