Opinion Change - Safety Course Should Be Required

[John G C 1]

To Original Poster... Of course they should have training and of course it should be mandatory. This is common sense and does not magically lead to outlawing guns any more than having stops signs has magically lead to confiscation of cars.

I have a friend who bought a 9mm, shot 50 rounds (yeah, that is all they shot) at the CPL class, has not shot the gun again in over three years, but carries it. This person has no idea at all what is going on or how to shoot/unload/clear a gun, and yet this person carries a deadly weapon around in public.

I have no problem with the government stepping in and saying people need some safety classes and need to follow some real rules in order to use something in public that is extremely dangerous. Even drivers of cars have to use seatbelts, get a license, get insured etc.....

Nothing like some real experience with the worst elements of the gun community (whether it is through friends or people seen at the gun shop) to realize other people have rights too (like a right to life) that need to be protected.

Too many people in the gun community are like adolescents and they are going to ruin everything for the 95% of the community who are responsible adults.

 

[Tirod]

When I applied for a CCW in MO I was required to take the mandatory safety course, so, I did. After a 12 hour shift getting off at 2AM I showed up bright and early at 8 for the 10 hour course, heard the instruction, shot the required target, and was given a certificate of completion.

No recognition of 22 years handling firearms in the military as an Infantry Officer or working daily at the front gate at Fort Benning for 6 months armed was given any consideration. No - I had to have the Missouri course as required.

So much for mandatory instruction.

Now consider who I might be confronted by should I NEED said concealed carry gun - another US citizen, yes, but odds are they will not have taken mandatory training, and in point of fact may be a felon who isn't supposed to have a firearm AT ALL.

So much for mandatory instruction - the bad guys aren't meeting the requirement, and laugh in our face over it.

I've had plenty of mandatory instruction thank you. It was all government sponsored and required - yet I learn more about the use of firearms for self defense on forums like this than any course I took in the Army or by LEO's.

As for working with the general public I believe it should be mandatory for ALL to spend at least a year in a retail service position - so they understand exactly how rude, arrogant, and ignorant the average consumer is. But having met many who DO work with the public and yet still come into my store with the same demanding and ignorant attitude, I don't think it would do any good.

The public is, as some have described long before I was born, highly similar to equus asinus, a four legged beast of burden known for it's lack of cooperation and inability to obey.

In terms of being able to resist political influence it's necessary to accept the bad with the good. Those same qualities come in good stead when our hired help attempts to coerce their employers to do something "required" when in point of fact it may well be completely unnecessary.

As I well know.

 

[dragon813gt]

Look at states that have no training requirements for CCW permits as examples. There are no issues because of this. The OP is concerned about a 21yo strapping a pistol to his side w/ no training. I must have been his worse nightmare because I strapped a pistol to my side at 18 and open carried it. All w/ no required training. I'd been around guns my entire life so I knew what I was doing.

It's best to assume others know what they're doing as well. I hate to use the word assume because it's usually not in your best interest. But until someone does something blatantly dangerous w/ a concealed pistol, and it's obviously not concealed anymore if you see them doing something dangerous, it's best to go about your daily routine. There are many things that are a greater threat to your life to be concerned about.

 

[tkroenlein]

After 100 years, the progressives have finally convinced everyone that their freedoms are subject to the government' will.

Regulation and limitation of rights only gets more restrictive. Think about it.

OP, also consider that there are people who believe that you are an imbecile, and would be happy to strip every right you have, because without their training, you don't have the ability to do any number of things safely.

This is not a slippery slope, it's a cliff that only leads down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elkins45]

So no limitations on any rights sound reasonable to you? I mean right to bear arms means I should be able to buy an RPG at my local gun show right? Maybe some frag grenades? I have always wanted a Javelin.

And how about felons? Why shouldn't their right to bear arms be automatically restored the moment they are released? How about people carrying while drunk or high? Certainly not allowing them to is an infringement.

See this is the problem with you guys, it's all or nothing.

You can actually own most of the stuff on that list without taking a safety course: you just have to fill out a form, pass a background check and pay $200 in tax. Before 1934 you didn't even have to do that.

To another point: I doubt there's a law in my home state specifically against carrying a gun while drunk--but there are undoubtedly severe consequences for improperly using one in that condition.

The problem with mandatory training is that it's a political body that does the mandating. Imagine how high the bar for firearms ownership would be if Eric Holder had his hands on the final exam! A pass rate of 1% might be a real possibility.

The best solution in your specific case would be if you could talk your employer into having a regular schedule of free safety courses for anyone who buys a gun (or even ammo) there. Heck, make it free even if they buy a pack of gum! Every Saturday morning could be gun safety day at X mart. Public goodwill abounds! Home Depot has classes all the time on how to install faucets, maybe your store could have classes on how not to shoot your kids.

That's a serious suggestion.

 

[basicblur]

As Bartholomew said many of the ways they restrict firearm rights is under the guise of safety.

Corrrect - I was cleaning up the DVR the other day, and had the recent 60 Minutes episode with HRC and Tim Kaine playing in the background.

My ears perked up when she brought up guns - she almost let it slip (you could tell she almost said gun control) but caught herself and said gun safety.

Gun safety is one of the (not so recent) euphemisms for gun control the anti-2nd crowd has been using.

I'll use free speech as an example again....you can't yell fire in a crowded theater or verbally threaten someone's life...there are limitation to all freedoms.

Not the crowded theater mime again?

Yes, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theater if there is a fire.
No, you cannot fire your gun in a crowded theater, unless...
Would you not have fired your gun in a certain crowded Aurora Colorado theater had you been there?

It's been mentioned that other rights have restrictions - why not guns?
I believe there are over 20,000 gun laws currently on the books - hard to say as you have federal, state, and local laws in the mix.

I think that's quite enough restrictions...

The OP sounds like he has fallen victim to many of the anti-2nd Amendment folks' talking points.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

The OP is entitled to his opinion. However it's been my experience that your average big box retail gun counter worker is just as foolish as the person shopping. I've, on numerous occasions, overheard incorrect tech specs or facts being stated fervently by purchasers and sales people alike, and have politely and respectfully given them the correct info each time I've had it.

I'm not going to stand by and listen to nonsense being spouted. If they disagree and I KNOW I'm correct, I just say "Ok. Well, look it up and next time I see ya, we'll talk."

To those stating we need a driver's license to drive a car, well driving a car is not a constitutional right. And while a safety class may be a good idea, along with an IQ test, there is no stipulation in our constitution that only the rights of the intelligent will be protected.

I tend to be a social Darwinist, and believe the issue will resolve itself. Will some innocent people get hurt and killed a long the way. Yes, I think so, and that is really unfortunate. But I believe personal liberty is extremely important, and that nothing we do will ever alleviate all the risks out there.

 

[wojownik]

The OP is entitled to his opinion. However it's been my experience that your average big box retail gun counter worker is just as foolish as the person shopping.

I wasn't going to go there, but I was in WalMart this weekend looking for a replacement squirt gun or water blaster for the kids to play with in the pool. Asked the clerk in the toy aisle, who looked like I just asked her an advanced calculus question, and led me straight to the gun counter in sporting goods. Words fail me.

To those stating we need a driver's license to drive a car, well driving a car is not a constitutional right.

I'll reread the thread, but I did not see any post making any such assertion in this thread.

And while a safety class may be a good idea, along with an IQ test, there is no stipulation in our constitution that only the rights of the intelligent will be protected.

No other constitutional right has a training or education prerequisite.
- There is no training or prerequisite for the right to free speech or assembly. (Although some politicians and universities certainly seem to be trying their darndest to both prescribe and proscribe forms of speech, in the name of political correctness. The "left" primarily behaves badly here, but not exclusively)
- There is no training required for the right to vote - just a minimum age. And the courts are increasingly striking down voter ID laws as being an impediment to the right to vote. (the "right" primarily behaves badly here, but not exclusively)

A training requirement as a prerequisite to exercising the right to bear arms, could all to easily be made so burdensome and expensive as to effectively curtail the right to keep and bear arms by a jurisdiction with ill intent. It would be the second amendment's equivalent to Jim Crow voting laws. Can't pass a skewed literacy test? --- well you don't get to vote (effectively disenfranchising minorities and poor whites). Can't pass a skewed training test? Sorry ...

The State of Maryland has exactly this in place right now for handguns. A person may not purchase, rent, or receive a handgun unless they possess a valid Handgun Qualification License (HQL) issued by the Maryland State Police or qualify for exemption status. And there is a training requirement, including 4 hours of instruction. Oh, and a $50 fee (initial), and $20 renewals. So, in MD, you need to be trained, licensed and pay to exercise an enumerated right. And who does this primarily disadvantage?

I know the OP didn't say a "pass/fail" requirement, but that is surely where it could go in many states.

 

[Resist Evil]

Even though the OP has left the thread, I would say that his/her feeling safe is not equivalent to being safe. Neither is it incumbent upon us to pervert liberty in order to help him/her feel safe. I would also say that just because weak people have made and passed laws infringing every single last thing remotely smacking of freedom on earth and America just so those weak sisters might feel safe, does not make those laws right or just or necessary.

The only truly safe space in this world is the grave.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I'll reread the thread, but I did not see any post making any such assertion in this thread.

I meant that as a general logic based response to antis who make the argument, and was not directing it at anyone in the thread. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

 

[straightshooterjake]

I see that most issues about required training are already well addressed in this thread. But I will still add one point which I am not sure has been covered.

I am in Massachusetts, where training is required to get a firearms permit. I find that having required training actually causes people to get less training. This is a side effect of forcing people to do things.

In Massachusetts, the shortest course that will qualify for a firearms permit is the NRA Home Firearms Safety course. This is a four hour non-shooting course. Almost everyone who wants a Massachusetts permit takes this course. That course covers how to safely handle a firearm and store it in the home. It does not cover how to shoot or how to conduct yourself on a live range.

Most new shooters would benefit much more from a course like NRA Basic Pistol which includes instructor lead live fire. But since training is required by the state, people look for the shortest course that meets the state requirements. Later, when they realize that a different longer course might really benefit them, they are not interested because they just took a course.

I cannot offer any solution for this issue. Requiring people to do things creates an incentive to find the minimum way to meet the requirement. People are more likely to get appropriate training when they realize the need on their own.

 

[Ed N.]

We need to look for non-Gov't ways to address concerns like this. And we need to look for simple things that are partial solutions, rather than going after complex all-encompassing solutions that are doomed to fail.

I see no reason firearms retailers, on their own and with cooperation from the NRA and working through retail associations, couldn't implement requirements for basic gun handling training as a requirement for being able to handle or purchase a firearm in one of their stores. Leave the Gov't out of it.

This doesn't have to be complex, expensive, or lengthy. A sixty minute session of memorizing the four basic rules and then handling a few dummy weapons would go a long way. Make it a one-time thing, hand them a card asserting that they'd had instruction in basic gun handling, and it's done. A retailer can ask to see the card before letting you handle a firearm in their store.

Other evidence of training, such as a CCW card or evidence of hunter safety training, could be used in lieu of the above.

Is it comprehensive? No. Is it 100% effective? No. Will there be fraud, abuse, and objections? Sure. Will it help? Yes!

Heck, if I were fool enough to work behind a gun counter at Wally World, I would insist that a customer tell me the basic safety rules before I'd hand him a gun to examine. (Which would probably get me fired, of course... )

 

[CoRoMo]

So no limitations on any rights sound reasonable to you?

Not only reasonable, it sounds prudent, just, and necessary.

I mean right to bear arms means I should be able to buy an RPG at my local gun show right?

Yes, you are right.

Maybe some frag grenades?

Preferably, yes.

I have always wanted a Javelin.

Good on ya'.

And how about felons?

Never had anything against 'em.

Why shouldn't their right to bear arms be automatically restored the moment they are released?

Good question, great question. I certainly think they should be. Fortunately, in many places in this nation, they can be.

How about people carrying while drunk or high?

It happens all the time, but we almost never hear about it because rarely does anything ever come of it.

Certainly not allowing them to is an infringement.

Agreed.

See this is the problem with you guys, it's all or nothing.

Dang straight!

 

[cbnoble]

So I'll just keep slipping my gun safety leaflets in customers gun boxes and keep trying to help new shooters when I can.

In my earlier post, this is more or less what I was trying to get at. But I take the leaflet and hand it to them, telling them that it has some good safety tips about gun handling. They will be more inclined to read at least the first few sentences while humoring you - and it might be enough to get them to read it all. In the box it is out of sight, out of mind and out with the other miscellaneous paperwork that is in the box as well. I'll walk them through the four rules and as part of "always assume a gun is loaded unless you have personally verified otherwise" I'll take their new gun and say "This is how you check and verify on this gun" while showing them. I'll then also show them the safety if the gun is equipped with one. Takes 2-3 minutes, maybe. Is it a full blown safety course? Absolutely not. But it is a start that gets them thinking.

During those times when I've had people waiting (I'm kind of a one man band at shows), I have never had anyone complain and most of the time, I find the next guy is listening and starts asking his own questions when the first purchaser walks away.

Don't be discouraged. Every little step you take to educate helps. Your talk can get them to go out and do more research. I would venture that most of the people you are dealing with want to do right, but don't know how to yet.

As for the guy muzzling you, my experience is that one good butt chewing stops that. Only once did I have someone do it multiple times and it was another vendor with an unloaded gun. I ripped into him the first time, had the promoter lay into him the second time, and after the third time he was gone. You may not have that luxury at a big box store, but if it were me, I would have asked to look at his gun. I would have them dropped the mag and unloaded the round from the chamber before handing it back. For most people they would have gotten the message. If they don't get it after that, they probably won't ever get it. At that point I would involve security in escorting them out.

 

[yokel]

I propose that we add a serious and mature formation in America’s Second Amendment heritage to the basic civics education that all our young people receive. We must teach our children about the Constitution, its heritage and background, and its ultimate dependence on the principles of the Declaration of Independence. But we should also, as an ordinary part of their education, teach them about the relation of arms to liberty.

We must teach our children that the preservation of liberty, and of an order of society conducive to human dignity, requires that a free people retain the moral and material means to discipline its own government, should the temptation to tyranny take root. We must read the Founders’ own explanations of the core purpose of the Second Amendment, and see the great care with which they discussed the basis on which any use of the militia against government might be contemplated, much less determined upon. Indeed, any study of the Founders is a study of prudence in action, and this is particularly true in the matter of the decision to take up arms in defense of liberty.

But the perennial awareness that such citizen defense against domestic tyranny is the ultimate material defense of our liberty is a crucial component of civic formation. Conveying to our young citizens a mature understanding of the prudential judgments required of them, as members of the American sovereign, will be difficult, no doubt. But it was done in the past, and it can be done again, if only we cease shying away from a clear acknowledgment of the real anatomy of our political order.

Being an American citizen is a weighty responsibility. We must again convey a sense of that weight to a generation of young people that is tempted, watching the flitting superficiality of our current crop of political leaders, to think that freedom is a breezy and simple affair, with no deep consequences beyond the constant pursuit of pleasure.

And really, the practical side of Second Amendment education is not optional. We cannot allow ourselves to become habitually afraid of the instruments that must be used to defend our liberties and our country. The Second Amendment civics course I am proposing must include the holding and firing of basic weapons. We need to de-mythologize guns before the progressive attempt to create a totemic fear of them succeeds. If the gun control mentality promoting fear of guns themselves becomes our national mentality, we would turn the clock back to the days when a warrior class ruled over the people because only they had the confidence and expertise to deploy the means of defense and coercion. The gun control agenda will turn us into a people too timid to defend themselves from our would-be masters. We must give our young people a reasonable and responsible confidence in their ability to defend themselves and their liberties. We need to make sure that these weapons are demystified, and that people understand their responsible use, and see in themselves the capacity to handle them responsibly.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

And how about felons? Why shouldn't their right to bear arms be automatically restored the moment they are released?

Yes, once a felon has completed their entire sentence (FYI being on parol or other early release programs is part of their sentence), all rights should be restored. If they believe that the individual is still dangerous hey should not be released from prison to begin with. That is a justice system issue.

In addition, the fact that this person was willing to commit a felony in the first place tells me that a law telling them it's illegal for them to own a firearm may not be a deterrent to obtaining one.

I'll use free speech as an example again....you can't yell fire in a crowded theater or verbally threaten someone's life...there are limitation to all freedoms.

This is an often used, but flawed analogy. There is in fact no qualifier for free speech. Anyone can do it and your lack of ability to "yell fire in a crowded theater" is not analogous to a qualifier to exercise your right. However, if there is malicious misuse your freedom there are consequences, but it is however based on your actions, and not under the pretense that you have the potential to misuse your right.

If you misuse a firearm by threatening others without cause, or shooting into the sides of people's houses for target practice, there are already consequences to those actions, just like the are consequences to misusing your freedom of speech.

As an aside, if you were misuse your right to free speech and yell fire in a theater and that resulted in 3 trampling deaths and serious injuries, when you got out of prison you would immediately be able to exercise your freedom of speech, and there would be no requirement to petition to have that right restored despite the fact you could go into a crowded building at any time and yell fire and potential seriously injure or kill people.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I have a dumb question: We harp on training for gun owners -- but nobody talks about training VOTERS.

The greatest threat to this country isn't the uneducated gun owner, it's the uneducated voter.

 

[shafter]

A required safety course might be a good idea. Unfortunately no one has the legal authority to mandate one. The Constitution forbids it in my opinion.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

As I have said before, before you propose a SOLUTION (such as training) you ought to have a PROBLEM.

What is the PROBLEM? Is there a sudden spike in gun-related accidents?

No, quite the contrary, gun related accidents are going down. In fact as I said earlier, there are so few gun-related accidents that if it were not for the politics, the CDC would simply lump then under "other."

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

As I have said before, before you propose a SOLUTION (such as training) you ought to have a PROBLEM.

What is the PROBLEM? Is there a sudden spike in gun-related accidents?

No, quite the contrary, gun related accidents are going down. In fact as I said earlier, there are so few gun-related accidents that if it were not for the politics, the CDC would simply lump then under "other."

Agreed. In fact, the reasoning being used here is the same reasoning that is often used for other nanny state related legislation. We observe people are too stupid to know what to feed their kids, so fix it by banning hydroginated oils and federally mandating school lunch programs; we observe people are too stupid to invest for their retirement, fix it by taking their money and giving it to someone who didn't plan for retirement; we observe people are too stupid to to figure out their on healthcare, so fix it y making it illegal to just pay chash for healthcare; we observe people are too stupid to decide if their kid should have condoms, so we'll just give them out to their kids for them; we observe people are too stupid to get work, so we'll just take money from those who are stupid enough to work when they don;t ahve to and give it to those who don't want to; we observe people are too stupid to know what a firearm is, so we'll fix it by banning PBJ sandwiches in the shape of a gun; we observe that people drink too much soda, so we'll ban big cups; we observe that people are too stupid to decide what's best for their kid, so we'll just take them to planned parenthood and pay for them to have an abortion without their parent knowing.

We observe that people are too stupid to own firearms will soon be followed by: we think people are just too stupid to pick the right leaders, so, let's just take care of that for them.

 

[Warp]

So recently I started working at a big box retailer selling firearms. I used to be opposed to the idea of requiring people to pass a safety course before owning a firearm. Now, after being on this side of the counter and dealing with the general public, I have changed my opinion.

I assumed common sense was more prevalent than it is. Turns out, your average gun buyer is a complete and utter imbecile. I am surprised there aren't more gun related accident than there are annually.

Only if I get to decide what the test is, and I get to make it so that you fail (and only you). Clearly you don't deserve this Right as you do not respect it as such.

You should dispose of your firearms (without handling them) until I decide you are capable of handling such items responsibly.

 

[FROGO207]

WOW long read! I do not think we need any more hoops to jump through to exercise a right. We do have some really uninformed people out there though.

The basic problem here is the progressives have delved into and modified the educational process over a few generations and blurred the once clear meaning of a RIGHT vs a PRIVILEGE among other things.

A US right, you are allowed to exercise by birthright or becoming a citizen.
Some examples:
the right to free speech/religion
the right to bear arms
the right to peaceable assembly
the right against unreasonable searches or seizures

A privilege, you jump through the required hoops (steps) and the authority having jurisdiction allows you to practice this. With the ever present ability to revoke this if you fail in any number of ways to act correctly.
Some examples:
A drivers license
A marriage license
A hunting license
Drive a vehicle on the road
Own a house or land or things

Cries of "Its for the children" and "Common sense law" are politically correct actions gone amuck IMHO.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

I can buy an airplane without having to prove the ability to safely operate it. What is your point?

 

[JR24]

Turns out, your average gun buyer is a complete and utter imbecile.

I would say the same thing about the average voter. I will not, however, advocate a competency test or class prior to voting despite uninformed voters being more harmful to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (not to mention freedom) in the long run.

I have a dumb question: We harp on training for gun owners -- but nobody talks about training VOTERS.
The greatest threat to this country isn't the uneducated gun owner, it's the uneducated voter.

Beat me to it.

The OP is entitled to his opinion. However it's been my experience that your average big box retail gun counter worker is just as foolish as the person shopping.

Can't count how often I've been muzzle swept by big box gun-counter workers. Half the time I wonder if they even know which end of the gun is the dangerous one. Can't recall last time any of them checked the gun empty before handing it over.

 

[captmoto]

[QUOTEWouldn't you have to have a gun in order to take a safety course?

Doesn't do a lot of good to talk about something that you've never owned or even handled.

I belong to a private gun range and see some pretty clueless people show up to shoot on our one open to the public day every week. We have NRA certified safety instructors to help those people. They all have their own guns and ammo as we don't provide those.

Personally, I'm not in favor of anymore gov't intervention from the fed. If a state wants to pass a truck load of gun control I say have at it. If you don't like it, vote. If you vote and it still doesn't change you may be living in the wrong state.
__________________][/QUOTE]
No gun needed here to take this class.
I work in a big box store as well and i do see people that are completely clueless about firearm ownership. However, the driving factor here in Southern California was the San Bernardino Terrorist incident. California does have a Firearms Safety Certificate requirement that requires you take and pass a 25 question test. You must also perform a safe handling demonstration before you can take possession. It is a simple show clearing, unloading reloading and using the safety on the weapon. We also have a handgun safety course, in house, run by an outside vendor who is a sheriffs deputy. The course covers legal aspects, types of weapons and ammo and safe handling and so on. The course also includes range time and basic instruction. Everyone I asked said they really liked the course and felt way more comfortable after and about a third take more advanced training. Newbies are paying $125 and feel they are getting their moneys worth.