Why are people against a safety course?

[Spanky46151]

I checked 'Training for Everyone' because whenever I walk into a gun shop / show and watch people pick up guns to handle, feel, and caress...I watch 95+% of them pick up the gun, trust the sales person's check of the gun (chamber and mag) for a loaded round, and then PLACE THEIR FINGER ONTO THE TRIGGER when handling the gun!!!

Very rarely do I see a customer (regardless of age or experience...although the older generation does it some) drop the mag and re-check the chamber, or open the cylinder and check it, themselves, after the sales person's check! Remember, it's only an unloaded weapon if you've checked yourself!!!

Secondly, I see lots of customers (again, regardless of age or experience) then turn and hold a weapon in a pointed manner, at the sales person or toward the middle of the store. Very rarely do I see a customer turn and point a weapon (loaded or unloaded) toward a window or wall...even with their finger off the trigger, when handling it for the first time!

Even people with experience can have bad habits...and it only takes one mistake while practicing a bad habit to have an 'accidental' discharge which can range from being embarressing all the way to a critical injury and/or death of another individual!

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!

I have no problem saying that someone should pass training if they wishes to carry a gun for personal protection (i.e., be 'out and about in public' with it) they should have to go through training...that includes legal issues, proper use of the weapon, and pass a qualification shooting test.

You are the Bizarro to my Superman.

 

[Spanky46151]

Wrong!

It's a given right. However a majority vote rules.

Not if that majority's opinion violates the Constitution.

 

[pig957]

Safety courses are a good, but as to your question.
Go back to the Consitution :
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Mandating a safety course infringes this right. No other part of the Consitution is regulated like th 2nd is.

 

[Richwon4]

Giving the government even more area of our lives to control. What is next? It is not specifically a bad thing but one step closer to where they want to be. Give an inch they take a mile. I carry a deadly weapon with me wherever I go, even when I am not carrying a firearm. Many things can and should be considered deadly weapons, actually far more deadly than a firearm when in the hands of a person who doesn't know how to handle a firearm. We only need a liscence to carry a firearm.

 

[Jack Burton]

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?

Training solves ongoing, existing problems (or is supposed to). When you find an ongoing existing problem with the way Indiana provides an LTC to the individual then get back to us with your question.

As of now, we have the same, virtually zero, rate of problems with those who carry as those states that require extensive training.

Training is good. Government mandated training is not necessary.

 

[Richwon4]

You cannot train stupid recklessness out of a person any more than you can train a dog not to shed.

 

[StuBob]

Given that a LTCH has certain limitations, there should at least be a pamphlet that they have to give you when you get your LTCH, outlining the restrictions. For instance, I only know that I can't carry a gun into a school because I read it on the Internet.

That's not the training you asked about, but it's important.

 

[Jack Burton]

I have watched older woman purchasing handguns for protection that did not even have the slighest idea how to even load them let alone shoot them. Yes there some out there who need training.

My momma bought a computer for email that she didn't know how to use. No one from the government thought that was a bad idea, and I brought her up to speed on it. Just like it should happen with firearms.

 

[HoughMade]

Legislatures have gained a lot of power beyond original intent because people came up with a "good idea."

This whole, yeah I know what the Constitution says, but it's a "good idea to...." No.

I believe that training is absolutely a great idea. Everyone should get proper training. It's not my place, no any other person's or group of persons' place to force it, though.

Exhort, encourage, advertise, offer, cajole, even....but don't force it.

 

[wizard_of_ahs]

it should be highly recommended and pushed but not mandated.

 

[Jeremiah]

It's a given right. However a majority vote rules.

That has to be one of the saddests things ever posted on the Internet.

 

[Dixiejack]

Below is a link to the Georgia DNR hunter safety course web site. It has been around for a long time. I feel it is a good thing, especially teaching kids how to safely handle guns. I have a good friend who took his 12 y.o. son squirrel hunting on the family farm. Walking out of woods, dad in lead, son behind carrying the .22 rifle with muzzle pointed at dad. Gun loaded, kid had finger on trigger. Got coat sleeve of shooting hand on some briers. Kid snatches hand back, gun goes off and dad gets shot in right shoulder. I visited dad in hospital after surgery and he joked about the stupidity of the whole scenario. He's is lucky he lived. Dad survived without any disability, but was sore for a long time. Kid never picked up a gun again. That was ten years ago and a hunting legacy of father and son was blown to hell, not to mention that my friend could have died if the bullet had hit a vital area and his son's life would have been a living hell forever. I might be off track with the question, but I wanted to share that true story.

Hunter Education Course and Age Requirements for Hunting | Georgia DNR - Wildlife Resources Division

 

[canav844]

Why, i'm looking for why/why not.

It's a right.

Also instituting mandatory minimum training leads the vast majority of people to seek and stop at the minimum, rather than develop the mindset that the knowledge and skills are a good thing that should be continuous.

Mandatory training increases cost and time, I'd rather a woman being choked and raped by a recent Ex that began stalking her be able to use the gun she just bought last week to save her life at point blank range, than not be able to, because she couldn't afford go to a training class, permit and gun in the same week, to learn it's ok to use it if you're about to die and prove you can hit a target at 25 yards. Same goes for time and availability of training, if you need to wait several weeks for the next class with any openings, that's time your defensive options are limited.

Training becomes mandated and the # of poor trainers skyrockets, WI instituted a training requirement with their permit, much due to the lobby of existing training groups, and there was a ridiculous explosion of the ambulance chaser equivalent trainers once the law passed, because the law simply required training and someone willing to sign off, it became a business sustainable because of government dictated need rather than a profession sustainable by the quality of the organization that it was prior to the training issues. This also makes life difficult for those seeking good training, and potentially dangerous for those too naive to tell the difference between good and bad information.

Voluntary training is a s good thing, quality training is a very good thing. The government, federal, state or local, has no business mandating training to posses, own carry or shop for a firearm; because in the US we've got the 2nd amendment to protect that right.

 

[eldirector]

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.

 

[JettaKnight]

Don't have an opinion on safty courses, but I'd like a salty course! We'd start off with the basics: pretzels, popcorn, etc. Then, we'd cover sweet and salty. The afternoon would be all bacon!

 

[the1kidd03]

People have a natural "god given" right to protect themselves and their families. A gun is merely a tool to accomplish that task. A means to "even the playing field," so to speak. Since that is a RIGHT, it is not appropriate or responsible for anyone (especially government) to be restrictive from that capability in any sense, so long as the person(s) are not a proven danger to others (such as dangerous felons).

It's really that simple.

ANYTHING restricting one's ability to protect themself is indeed infringing on that right.

I agree that training is upmost important and should be preached, but not FORCED/required. If one makes a mistake, that is what the legal system is for. They will be punished accordingly. Does it make the rest of us look bad? Sure, but that's where education of the ignorant becomes important and in a sense ALL of our responsibility to protect the rest of our rights. Bad incidents leaves a bad impression, but only to an uneducated person. If they understand firearms and safety, they would be able to identify how the person involved in the incident FAILED in whatever way they did and would not need to place blame elsewhere (the rest of gun owners, guns in general, etc.)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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

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

 

[IndyDave1776]

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

 

[griffin]

I would imagine that if a safety course was forced on people there would be fewer people with guns.

I might be able to look this up on the ISP website, not sure, haven't tried, but do you know offhand how many people have a LTCH?

MI requires an eight hour class covering safety and the law, along with included range time instruction, to get a concealed carry license (no license is required for open carry). Classes range from $100 - $150, with $100 being the norm. Carry licenses cost $105 (not including picture) and are only good for five years. Yet MI has 340,000 active concealed carry licensees.

 

[jcwit]

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!