WIBC to Discuss Mandatory Gun Training Tonight

[GuyRelford]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I thought I'd post it here too.

I'll be subbing for Abdul Shabazz again tonight on WIBC (93.1 FM or www.wibc.com) from 6-7 pm. We'll be talking about the issue of mandatory firearms training, which seems to come up in the General Assembly every session. Would mandatory gun training (either to purchase a firearm or obtain a LTCH) be a good thing or a bad thing, in your opinion?

Please join the discussion tonight at (317) 239-9393.

Guy​

 

[KittySlayer]

Would mandatory gun training (...turn on purple) be a good thing or a bad thing, in your opinion?

Yes!!!

I think every school child should be taught proper firearms safety as part of the regular school curriculum. Not just guns are bad, rather how to safely handle a firearm and include a trip to the range.

If it is really important that people get gun training then the school is the place to start. School is where we teach them to have sex so let's give them a complete education.

If we can save just one child from being a mind numbed liberal it will be worth it.

Would mandatory gun training (either to purchase a firearm or obtain a LTCH) be a good thing or a bad thing, in your opinion?

No!!!

It is simply a means for gun control:

• Make the cost of training too high.
• Make the location of training inconvenient.
• Make the timing and length of the training inconvenient.
• Make the requirements unrealistic, in addition who decides what the requirements are.
• Offer too few classes so it takes too long to obtain training.

 

[Jackson]

Yes!!!

I think every school child should be taught proper firearms safety as part of the regular school curriculum. Not just guns are bad, rather how to safely handle a firearm and include a trip to the range.

If it is really important that people get gun training then the school is the place to start. School is where we teach them to have sex so let's give them a complete education.

If we can save just one child from being a mind numbed liberal it will be worth it.



No!!!

It is simply a means for gun control:

• Make the cost of training too high.
• Make the location of training inconvenient.
• Make the timing and length of the training inconvenient.
• Make the requirements unrealistic, in addition who decides what the requirements are.
• Offer too few classes so it takes too long to obtain training.

Why all the purple? I think firearms training programs starting in middle school are an excellent idea. Or at least let high schools have competitive marksmanship programs. Even air rifle and air pistol programs would be awesome.

(At no point should any training be a prerequisite for owning or carrying a firearm.)

 

[KittySlayer]

Why all the purple?

Just a knee jerk reaction when thinking about the General Assembly doing something so logical.

 

[eldirector]

Random thoughts, in case I don't call in for some reason:

1) If we don't need ID and training to vote, then we don't need training to own/carry a gun.
2) Add firearms safety and shooting into jr. high civics courses.
2a) For the cost of RENTING a couple of textbooks any more, I can BUY a decent .22LR rifle and some ammo.
3) Training is a GREAT idea. It must not be mandatory.
4) The whole concept of licences for ownership and carry are deeply flawed in principle. Adding MORE flaws isn't going to make them good ideas.

I'll be tuning in!

 

[GuyRelford]

Yes!!!

I think every school child should be taught proper firearms safety as part of the regular school curriculum. Not just guns are bad, rather how to safely handle a firearm and include a trip to the range.

If it is really important that people get gun training then the school is the place to start. School is where we teach them to have sex so let's give them a complete education.

If we can save just one child from being a mind numbed liberal it will be worth it.



No!!!

It is simply a means for gun control:

• Make the cost of training too high.
• Make the location of training inconvenient.
• Make the timing and length of the training inconvenient.
• Make the requirements unrealistic, in addition who decides what the requirements are.
• Offer too few classes so it takes too long to obtain training.

So give us a call tonight! (317) 239-9393

 

[mcjon77]

We have states that very in their requirements from ZERO hours training to 16 hours training (Illinois) and everything in between. Here is the question. Is there ANY data that shows states with a formal training requirement having a lower rate of permit holders commiting crimes/being involved in accidents? With so many states that have different forms of concealed carry and 20+ years of data, that should be an easy question to answer. Personally, Indiana does not seem to be drowning in rivers of blood from negligent gun owners after permitting LTCH issuance without training.

Coming from Illinois, I have come to understand that training requirements and the subsequent cost will (often by design) lead to fewer people getting carry permits. IIRC, you guys in Indiana pay about $50 for a 4 year permit or $135 for a lifetime permit, with no training cost, correct? In Illinois, we pay $150 for a 4 year permit PLUS 16 hours of training (average price is $250 for training). Doing the math, it cost over $400 on average just to get the 5 year permit in Illinois This DRAMATICALLY limits the number of people who get carry permits. Ironically enough (or perhaps AGAIN by design) the people who are least able to afford the permits (the poor) are most in need of them.

John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center has produced a fascinating report on the current state of concealed carry in the US. One of the most interesting things I read in the report concerned what happened when Texas lowered the training requirements from 10 hours to 6. The result was that the growth of minority permit holders (specifically Black, Asian, and Native American) increased at a much higher rate (an even higher rate than whites). Lots of anti-gunners love to pull out the stereotype that gun owners are nothing but angry white men. Not only is this obviously not true, but it seems that the excessive fees/requirements/taxes are a key issue keeping more minorities and women from carrying/owning.

The more we lower the financial barriers to carry, the more people will carry, and the safer our RIGHT to carry will be.

 

[PistolBob]

Would LOVE to see Eddie Eagles in the schools. I am absolutely against state mandated firearms training. No thanks.

 

[PistolBob]

We have states that very in their requirements from ZERO hours training to 16 hours training (Illinois) and everything in between. Here is the question. Is there ANY data that shows states with a formal training requirement having a lower rate of permit holders commiting crimes/being involved in accidents? With so many states that have different forms of concealed carry and 20+ years of data, that should be an easy question to answer. Personally, Indiana does not seem to be drowning in rivers of blood from negligent gun owners after permitting LTCH issuance without training.

Coming from Illinois, I have come to understand that training requirements and the subsequent cost will (often by design) lead to fewer people getting carry permits. IIRC, you guys in Indiana pay about $50 for a 4 year permit or $135 for a lifetime permit, with no training cost, correct? In Illinois, we pay $150 for a 4 year permit PLUS 16 hours of training (average price is $250 for training). Doing the math, it cost over $400 on average just to get the 5 year permit in Illinois This DRAMATICALLY limits the number of people who get carry permits. Ironically enough (or perhaps AGAIN by design) the people who are least able to afford the permits (the poor) are most in need of them.

John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center has produced a fascinating report on the current state of concealed carry in the US. One of the most interesting things I read in the report concerned what happened when Texas lowered the training requirements from 10 hours to 6. The result was that the growth of minority permit holders (specifically Black, Asian, and Native American) increased at a much higher rate (an even higher rate than whites). Lots of anti-gunners love to pull out the stereotype that gun owners are nothing but angry white men. Not only is this obviously not true, but it seems that the excessive fees/requirements/taxes are a key issue keeping more minorities and women from carrying/owning.

The more we lower the financial barriers to carry, the more people will carry, and the safer our RIGHT to carry will be.

My brother lives in the People's Republic of Illinois...home of the most corrupt state government in the country...home of the state with the most former governors sitting in prison....and I told him to move out 20 years ago...the training fees are ridiculous, and the Illinois gun license is also a money grab for the political party in power.

Someone else will tell you that in Indiana we don't have permits. We have licenses.

Good luck

 

[K_W]

Will sensitivity training be mandatory, prior to speech outside of private property or on the internet, so no one gets offended anymore? (no purple)

We're blurring the line between a right and a privilege.

 

[digitalmonster]

While we dislike the idea of a training requirement, we must come to grips that some people need it.

From the posts on INGO the majority of us have witnessed unsafe firearm practices at some point in our lives (e.g. I witnessed someone unload a semi-auto without removing the magazine first while simultaneously muzzle sweeping me).

I would imagine a 30 minute video can discuss safety sufficiently to make people aware of how they handle firearms.

 

[eldirector]

Hmmm.... As the right to keep and bear is guaranteed, I wonder if we should be using tax monies to support safety training? Maybe some open classes at your local library on firearms, knives, and some less-lethal weapons safety? Maybe we can divert some funds from a non-constitutionally-protected entitlement program to a constitutionally-protected education program?

Of course, firearms negligence is pretty far down the list of injuries/deaths. Well below even bathtub negligence. So, this kind of training would really fit well with the government - spending a ton of resources for minimal return, but lots of positive press.

Apply purple if you feel it necessary. *I* don't even know what parts should be purple.

 

[riverman67]

I am positive that firearms training is a great Idea. I think that everyone that owns and or carries a firearm should train with it regularly. They should complete some sort of formal training a couple times per year.
Should the above be a prerequisite for firearms ownership or a requirement to get a LTCH? Uhm HELL NO !!! The requirements that Indiana currenly has to obtain an LTCH is an infringement in my opinion. Which in the real world means absolutely nothing, let's not make it worse

 

[cedartop]

I am positive that firearms training is a great Idea. I think that everyone that owns and or carries a firearm should train with it regularly. They should complete some sort of formal training a couple times per year.
Should the above be a prerequisite for firearms ownership or a requirement to get a LTCH? Uhm HELL NO !!! The requirements that Indiana currenly has to obtain an LTCH is an infringement in my opinion. Which in the real world means absolutely nothing, let's not make it worse

Agreed. I teach in both MI and IN. In MI training is required to get your CPL, it is NRA training and is very similar to what IL has put in place. It is certainly more costly than what IN has. I realize that it is anecdotal, but I have seen no difference in the skill level or safety of students in my lower level classes between MI and IN.

 

[Coach]

I would imagine a 30 minute video can discuss safety sufficiently to make people aware of how they handle firearms.

I disagree. I am against mandatory training. But a 30 minute video is not enough by itself.

 

[woowoo2]

License fees should be used to provide training.
But, it should be voluntary, not mandatory to participate.

Or....
A state tax credit should be provided with proof of completed voluntary training.

 

[Nacelle]

I disagree. I am against mandatory training. But a 30 minute video is not enough by itself.

As a new LTCH holder, I'm glad there was no mandatory training. While my father taught me a lot about guns when I was young, I watched a lot of videos about the law and safety to get up to speed before I started carrying. I think it would be a good idea for the ISP to have a page of recommended videos to watch somewhere within the registration process. Then maybe it also gets emailed to you, in case you forget it's location.

 

[billmyn]

I really like the idea of firearms training classes. Strictly voluntary, state supported (not controlled). maybe 1/2 price carry licenses for those that complete the course.

 

[Coach]

As a new LTCH holder, I'm glad there was no mandatory training. While my father taught me a lot about guns when I was young, I watched a lot of videos about the law and safety to get up to speed before I started carrying. I think it would be a good idea for the ISP to have a page of recommended videos to watch somewhere within the registration process. Then maybe it also gets emailed to you, in case you forget it's location.

Do you want people to learn to drive via video? Shooting is hands on. You need to go out on the range and put lead down range. You can teach yourself but it will be longer and more expensive that quality training in person. As Col. Cooper said many times you are not armed because you have a gun. Videos can help but not enough by themselves. If you don't want training then don't take any.

 

[mcjon77]

Do you want people to learn to drive via video? Shooting is hands on. You need to go out on the range and put lead down range. You can teach yourself but it will be longer and more expensive that quality training in person. As Col. Cooper said many times you are not armed because you have a gun. Videos can help but not enough by themselves. If you don't want training then don't take any.

I can't speak for Nacelle, but for me those videos would not be there to make them a skilled shooter. They are only there to make them a SAFER gun owner. The videos I have in mind would cover the BASICS of SAFELY handling a gun. There are things that many of us take completely for granted that a significant number of people don't know. A video could cover the 4 basic rules of gun safety, with demonstrations. Perhaps a video explaining the differences between different types of firearms and how to properly handle them.

As an example, the first time I ever heard the 4 rules was on youtube. I learned how to disassemble and clean my guns on youtube. I learned the BASICS of handgun shooting (i.e, grip, stance, sight alignment, sight picture, trigger control) from a DVD before I ever took a class. There are definitely MANY things that should learned from formal instruction (that is why I took a handgun course last week and will be taking a few others in the coming months), but how to avoid accidentally shooting yourself or someone else isn't necessarily one of them.

Sure, people can scour the billion+ videos on youtube for an answer, but why not make it as EASY for new gun owners as possible. It only helps our community. Even videos covering such things as how to store guns in the house if you have kids would be extremely helpful.