Why are people against a safety course?

[jcwit]

That's not enough.

Not enough what?

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

As noted previously, what you "just feel" is your whole argument. You've yet to document any actual societal problem that needs to be solved by a government mandated program.

I understand you're emotionally invested in what you "feel." But let's not pretend in any way that logic or common sense enters into the picture. You've already admitted that when you declare that you are not going to change your mind.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

Being as you do not know me, what do you base that on.

If its only the fact I believe that gun owners should at least know the requirements of safe gun handling and basic knowledge of the operation of their firearm you are totally missing my point. Can not see what is wrong with that.

I really think someone else was dead on why dont you Join the Brady Campaign? I bet you voted straight democrat didnt you?

So a Few people might not know gun safety or familiarty? How is that my Problem? Should I have been made to go to a mandatory training class? Mind You I was also fresh out of the Employ of Uncle Sam.

Mass punishment just doesnt work.


MY God Given Right to self defense and my Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms are Uninfringable.


What part of the phrase "shall not be infringed" are you failing to comprehend? Can I link you to a dictionary? want me to draw you a picture? Write you a book with pop ups? Shall I write it on the sky with smoke signals? Sign language? Brail?


It Shall not be Infringed

 

[SaintsNSinners]

Like I said, Whatever you say Davy boy!

i


And Just what is this supposed to mean?


Some kind of illogical attack on me? You fail you see the point apparently. I am above your intellectual level and simple reasoning.

I understand what the phrase "Shall not be Infringed" means.


I understand it dearly, I fought to defend it, I had friends who died to guarantee it.

Regardless of your illogical reasoning of because I feel so, Jack is dead on in the fact that there is no Societal Problem that needs corrected by a Goverment Mandated class that will be nothing more than Guns are dangerous Mkay.

 

[jcwit]

As noted previously, what you "just feel" is your whole argument. You've yet to document any actual societal problem that needs to be solved by a government mandated program.

I understand you're emotionally invested in what you "feel." But let's not pretend in any way that logic or common sense enters into the picture. You've already admitted that when you declare that you are not going to change your mind.

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.

 

[jcwit]

i


And Just what is this supposed to mean?


Some kind of illogical attack on me?

Why Heavens no, it means exactly what it says. Agreement?

 

[JettaKnight]

You should not be carrying a gun.

I have found a web forum that I believe would be much more agreeable to your position:

Brady's Campaign

You mean college? As in an institution of higher learning, right?

Regardless of your illogical reasoning of because I feel so, Jack is dead on in the fact that there is no Societal Problem that needs corrected by a Goverment Mandated class that will be nothing more than Guns are dangerous Mkay.

IBTL

This thread has ceased to be a rational discussion of the pro/cons of mandated training for LTCH holders. Personally, the only thing that could possibly sway me into believe manditory training is a good thing is a non-partisan study evaluating the cost / benefits (tangible and non-tangible) of mandatory training.

Highly unlikely such a study has been undertaken.

 

[Shay]

Not enough what?

Training.

You think you're safe but you're not.

 

[jcwit]

Training.

You think you're safe but you're not.

How could you come to that conclusion.

 

[jcwit]

IBTL
Personally, the only thing that could possibly sway me into believe manditory training is a good thing is a non-partisan study evaluating the cost / benefits (tangible and non-tangible) of mandatory training.

Highly unlikely such a study has been undertaken.

Actually that would be a good start.

 

[IndyDave1776]

IBTL

This thread has ceased to be a rational discussion of the pro/cons of mandated training for LTCH holders. Personally, the only thing that could possibly sway me into believe manditory training is a good thing is a non-partisan study evaluating the cost / benefits (tangible and non-tangible) of mandatory training.

Highly unlikely such a study has been undertaken.

I can understand your position, but mandating training would still reduce the Second Amendment to the status of a conditional privilege, which is absolutely unacceptable.

 

[actaeon277]

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.

Has there even been ANY posts here that think a class is a bad idea? Don't remember one.
Most are just against the idea of a REQUIRED class.
Are you saying that because its not required, the women described above will not get the class.
Neither would a friend of mine. CAUSE HER HUSBAND WOULD HAVE KILLED HER BEFORE SHE COULD COMPLETE THE CLASS.

 

[JetGirl]

Has there even been ANY posts here that think a class is a bad idea? Don't remember one.
Most are just against the idea of a REQUIRED class.

There ya go.

 

[Jeremiah]

Jcwit, You do not have enough training because he says so. In the eyes of the state he is more important than you. You are a lowly revenue stream, SHay, is a subject matter expert, The state will listen to his opinion over yours.

Imagine if Shay was anti- civilian carry? and he set the training bar so high that most professional trainers couldn't pass? the point here is setting a performance standard will not eliminate stupid gun handling, and by allowing this to be ab appropriate hurdle to hop, you open all gun owners to an anti-gunner eliminating carry by setting the bar too high to pass.

 

[Shay]

How could you come to that conclusion.

Being judgmental is FUN!

I learned it by watching you dad! I learned it by watching you!

 

[esrice]

What Shay is doing, I see it. And so does Jeremiah.

 

[JetGirl]

Being judgmental is FUN!

I learned it by watching you dad! I learned it by watching you!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbGNE_OYAW8[/ame]

 

[CobraEye]

Training in and of itself is not the problem. Once it is "required" then it has to be regulated. Someone or some intity has to decide what training, who can administer the training, how it is documented, when and where it takes place, and usually the cost. Any idea what intity will fill that void? Your Local, Sate, or Federal Gov. If the current Gov does not agree with the 2nd Amendment, the requirements get increasingly more difficult to meet. And all of this takes place BEFORE you can exercise your rights? Not a fan of required training

 

[WestSider]

I can understand your position, but mandating training would still reduce the Second Amendment to the status of a conditional privilege, which is absolutely unacceptable.

This.

 

[SSGSAD]

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?

I have NOT, read every thread, but I agree with YOUR 4 exceptions.... However, am I to understand that YOU support training for all new apps. ????? As long as they meet your 4 exceptions ????