Would you agree to a required class if...

[Stschil]

Playing devil's advocate here, which subjects would you remove in order to accommodate these classes? You propose 3 new items for grades 1-4. Here is my son's (3rd grade) schedule...

Citizenship
Language Arts
Mathematics
Reading
Science
Spelling
Social Studies

The below subjects are in 2 groups and rotate daily, so today he may have Art and World Language, tomorrow he'll have Music and PE.
Art
World Language (Spanish)
Music
P.E.

Now, Indiana already mandates a 180 day school year, and Perry Township has already moved to a "balanced calendar". His day starts at 7:55am and ends at 3:40pm.

No eliminations. Citizenship and Social studies could include Constitutional and US History.

PE can include safety. Little kids can start with air soft look a likes or BB guns.

I'm not proposing it be an every day, one class period event. It can and should be incorporated into a normal schedule. The is a lot of fluff in the Curriculums today. I'm sure they could find things that could be either shortened or dropped in lieu of something important like this.

 

[eldirector]

What happens when you have a rush for LTCH like we just saw and the facilities are overwhelmed?

What about rural areas that might not have access to training facilities nearby?

What about people who want a permit but haven't bought a pistol yet?

What about people who work on the days the classes are scheduled?

What are you going to do to attract quality instructors?

How much good would come from all that extra expense and logistics? Enough to justify the cost?

Well, in MY plan:

1) There are plenty of trainers and ranges. I think we could have handled the rush. To top it off, it would have stimulated the LOCAL economy, rather than COST tax money!

2) The Urban areas would have this problem, not rural!

3) Not an issue. Most classes I've seen had plenty of "extra" handguns available. Instructors might just ask students to bring a box of ammo if they want to borrow a gun.

4) Classes taught by private business would simply offer classes as demanded. Need a Tuesday class? I can think of several instructors that could accommodate you right now.

5) The NRA already handles that. If the demand went up, they would simply "push" to find and certify more folks.

6) Well, I would guess more folks would be carrying in general (Constitutional Carry), and more folks would get training (for the benefits of multi-state carry). I don't see a downside?

 

[kwatters]

The only positive I can derive from this is Ohio would potentially honor our LTC

 

[Stschil]

The only positive I can derive from this is Ohio would potentially honor our LTC

Ohio has legislation to do just that and it's gaining traction, without Indiana changing a thing.

 

[ViperJock]

Definintely not mandated!

We want to create a culture of training/learning and decouple ourselves from what we have all seen at the gun shop or the gun shows: "EYE been around dem gunz all MEYE lie-eff. I don't need no ejama *bang* . . . sorry, Cledus."

What is the best way to achieve this goal? Through the carrot, not the stick. Make training "cool", just like how now government-mandated classes are cool to some gun owners in Indiana because all the cool kids in Texas have them.

Let us use the tax code to our advantage instead of having it used against us. It is almost as if we are afraid to use the weapons of our enemy. Don't be, turn the cannons around and use them against them.



Just like the basic comparative religion class I had to take for my Church License?

Why do you believe that it would stay "basic"?



Full stop. There you go--the government has never fixed anything. Nothing more need be said . . . but you know I will.



Range time is meaningless unless you are practicing what you have been taught.

Do not lose sight of the goal: how do we ensure that people are competent with firearms?



By encouraging a culture of learning. Let 10,000 flowers (gun schools) bloom.

How do we do this?

1. Taxes. Control the tax code and impact behavior via a carrot.

2. Culture. Make gun school cool via the gun culture's media.



The paranoid are mentally ill. They need counseling, not laws.

The paranoids have sought to ban training.

If you want to reach a Man of the Left, you need coercion of the law. A Man of the Left care not what you do as long as it is mandatory.

What do you mean, Kirk? Glad you asked.

Schools. We need the schools.

State mandated firearms training beginning in grade school and continuing on to graduation. No diploma without checking out on the M9 and M16 and a written firearms exam. The community service requirement that some schools have for graduation can be satisfied with work at the school range (range chicken, admin, what have you).

This can be packaged as "safety training"/"safe shooting" etc. Something must be given up for firearms training? No, not necessarily. Gun class could only be one semester, once a week, on weekends, etc.

Turn the canons around.

In a perfect world. I agree with you. But we don't live in this world. If what is going on politically now represents the majority then "risky freedom" is no longer what the majority want. You can can argue this all day long but in the end, we are the minority. Laws are not likely to get any better. Government (at least for the foreseeable future) is not likely to get any smaller.

Your arguments are good arguments. But they are academic.

My idea was to be a win-win with the LTCH being issued at the end of the class and at least some value (minimal range time) being included in the price of the class.

Clearly there is a feeling on INGO that we should go all or nothing. I'm guessing what we will end up with not be all.

 

[gglass]

I have no problem with taking a course to learn more about firearm laws, firearm handling, firearm safety...

I would NEVER support such training be a part of exercising my 2nd Amendment rights. Any infringement, including the ones we already have, and no matter how well intentioned, simply strips a right and makes it a privilege.

 

[KLB]

What months of waiting? I had my LTCH in a week.

As for the training, look what good the government mandated driving training does. People forced to take training would learn little to nothing, and would forget most of what was taught soon after the class. You have to WANT to learn to be able to. Kirk's idea of tax credits or Stschil's of school training would be much better.

 

[cosermann]

I'll agree to such training requirements as long as they're tied to training, registration, and licensing requirements for voting.

Since history shows that voting is FAR more dangerous (i.e. responsible for world wars, genocides, poverty, etc. leading to the death of millions of people) than privately held firearms, we must assure that voters are sufficiently literate, knowledgeable, and capable of logical & rational thought. Of course, a fee would be required to offset the administrative overhead.

While we're at it, we might implement a similar system for those desiring to express their ideas using technology that can reach large numbers of people, say over 10 (i.e. blogs, Internet forums, mass media, etc.). Since the pen IS mightier than the sword we simply can't allow just anyone to express their ideas without first having some assurance that they've been properly trained in rhetoric.

Now that I think about it, this is a really good idea that could be extended to groups that want to hold meetings, churches/places of worship, and lots of other risky activities.

I really think we're on to something here.

 

[Scutter01]

While we're at it, we might implement a similar system for those desiring to express their ideas using technology that can reach masses of people (i.e. blogs, Internet forums, mass media, etc.).

The first amendment is a relic of a bygone era. The Founding Fathers couldn't have known that we'd have phones, internet, television, and so obviously it was only meant to be about the technology available at the time. You should only be allowed to communicate freely by manual printing press and woodcuts.

 

[B-lou]

Training

I have been shooting for over 50 years and never took a training class of any kind. Last year the wife wanted to learn how to properly handle a handgun so we went down to the ladies training day put on by INGO and she really enjoyed it as I did but she wanted more so we took a husband wife training class and I think I got as much out of the class as she did, so we sent our daughter to a pistol training class and it was money well spent. My son-in-law- is active military so he is already well trained. My point is that we did all this because we wanted to and could afford it not because we had to, somehow that would have made it all different....Bob

 

[whispers76]

1. It will have no positive effect.

2. There should be no license or permission required, let alone a class required.

That being said, I do believe it very beneficial for those who carry concealed to have real training. It should be voluntary, and not state run or mandated.

 

[poptab]

How much good would come from all that extra expense and logistics? Enough to justify the cost?

Well according to this study: The firearm accident death rate is 0.2 per 100,000 population.

Accidental firearm related deaths are only on the top 10 list for the 10-14 age group.

The room for improvement is quite small and I dont think we will ever eliminate firearm accidents completely.

 

[rgoodin]

I believe it should be a safety class and a handgun self defense class. I believe a waiver for those in the military and retired should be waved. Since, inherintly they already have been trained in shooting and self defense

 

[Scutter01]

I believe it should be a safety class and a handgun self defense class. I believe a waiver for those in the military and retired should be waved. Since, inherintly they already have been trained in shooting and self defense

Why the waiver for retired people?

 

[N8RV]

Why the waiver for retired people?

He was likely referring to retired military.

 

[ViperJock]

Most of you missing the point. Should have expected that though. Let the cards fall.

And for those of you who cannot get it over the "Its my gallderned right!" I say, with rights come responsibilities. If all the "responsible gun owners" took theirs seriously we wouldn't have NDs at the 1500 etc etc etc. The second amendment gives you both a right and a responsibility. I know that is foreign concept to many Americans who think they deserve all kinds of rights without taking any responsibility but gun owners, at this time, should be bending over backwards to show that we are responsible with the rights we have. Our actions should be our arguments, instead we get guys blowing holes in their hands. The hammer is going to fall. If you prefer to let the other side decide how its going to fall so be it.

 

[Stschil]

In a perfect world. I agree with you. But we don't live in this world. If what is going on politically now represents the majority then "risky freedom" is no longer what the majority want. You can can argue this all day long but in the end, we are the minority. Laws are not likely to get any better. Government (at least for the foreseeable future) is not likely to get any smaller.

Your arguments are good arguments. But they are academic.:

I'm sure that Civil Rights Activists of the 60's felt the same way.
'Hey, Poll Tax?, oh well, as long as I get to vote'
'Back of the bus standing?, sure, why not, as long as I don't have to walk'
'My bathroom is a pit toilet, two blocks down the street?, Well, as long as I don't crap my pants on the way there'

They stood up for their rights and things changed. (However, there are those like Sharpton, Jackson, and Fahrakan who are happy with equal)

We don't live in a Mob Rule Democracy. Many here have story after story of changing the minds if the Un/misimformed. The fact is the true blue gun grabbers are the minority, not us. We must make people realize it, which we cannot do by capitulating to them all the time.

 

[poptab]

Most of you missing the point. Should have expected that though. Let the cards fall.

And for those of you who cannot get it over the "Its my gallderned right!" I say, with rights come responsibilities. If all the "responsible gun owners" took theirs seriously we wouldn't have NDs at the 1500 etc etc etc. The second amendment gives you both a right and a responsibility. I know that is foreign concept to many Americans who think they deserve all kinds of rights without taking any responsibility but gun owners, at this time, should be bending over backwards to show that we are responsible with the rights we have. Our actions should be our arguments, instead we get guys blowing holes in their hands. The hammer is going to fall. If you prefer to let the other side decide how its going to fall so be it.

The stats show that gun owners are responsible. More responsible than ladder owners and pool owners and saran wrap owners.

You think we can eliminate all accidental discharges?

 

[millsusaf]

I completely agree that anyone who owns a gun should seek training. However this should be done on their own time and accord. I do not like the idea of compelling anyone to do anything and especially don't like the idea of subsidizing it through our tax dollars. The amount you listed is not sufficient given the goods/services you are offering.

Having said that, if it were a forced choice between that and no LTCH period, I would obviously choose that.

 

[millsusaf]

I believe it should be a safety class and a handgun self defense class. I believe a waiver for those in the military and retired should be waved. Since, inherintly they already have been trained in shooting and self defense

Having spent 7 years in the military, I would disagree. Just because you were in the military does NOT mean you know what you are doing with a gun. In fact in a lot of cases they have no freaking idea how to be safe and or operate a gun. Most jobs in the military, Air Force specifically, you only get to shoot once every 2 years. I have seen this in the Army as well but I highly suspect it is an issues across all branches of service.