Cannibul
Member
Ask those people how ONE MORE LAW will stop the criminals?
Thoughts on people who claim "Only people who are formally trained should be able to own a firearm"?
- Thread starter 38-45 Special
- Start date
- Status
Ask those people how ONE MORE LAW will stop the criminals?
Old Dog
Member
It's pointless to argue with anyone who'd posit that more laws are needed to reduce crime (or accidents, mishaps, anything involving firearms). These people want you to argue with them. It's just like the old saying about wrestling with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig likes it.
Those who argue for more laws and regulations cannot be reasoned with. Look at what's going on now: more and more activists and "peaceful protesters" nightly breaking a myriad of laws while at the same time, calling for more laws and more regulation! How does this compute?
While I understand what you are saying, I’m not sure you can say that blanket statement with anything approaching honest evaluation.
For example, I don’t particularly want you to argue with me, I can generally be reasoned with, and I’m positive that legislating things like Gunsafe ownership, Gun safe technical guidelines (the guy who does the gun safe videos where he has his toddlers break into some of these things with gravity and a paper clip is terrifying), education (required school classes, or required training a la ccdw permits) and safety courses, etc, would reduce the number of kids coming into our ER with unintentional wounds, the number of careless accidents, and a whole lot of other things. Would it make everyone safe? Of course not. Would it help make situations generally less likely to to result in badness, I reckon so. Guns are a tool, and a tool that I’d suspect anyone on this website loves and respects. To pretend they aren’t dangerous or that legislation like I’ve generally outlined above (which would be restrictions on gun ownership to an extent) wouldn’t make thangs safer on average seems disingenuous. Bad folks with guns used illegally do the most damage with guns, but good guys with guns and irresponsible practices also accidentally end up doing significant damage with guns and it’s oftentimes an innocent that suffers the physical harm. The system we have now is still allowing a lot of those accidents to happen, and frankly I think we can do better in a way that still upholds and supports our Founding documents and the ideals therein.
Edit/addition- how can one more law influence and stop criminals? Legislate that to have a firearm in your car it needs to be secured in a “real” gun safe. They exist, and very functional and quick to access — example, the titan safe compact handgun vaults. The amount of firearms being stolen out of folks cars and presumably going to criminals to use is also staggering, and present even in my well off neighborhood. Something like 8 reported handguns were stolen from vehicles within three miles of me last year. I bet, the criminals around here with 8 less handguns would have done less crime.
For the record George, I completely respect your position on that and definitely understand it. I think the whole larger conversation is full of extremely valid, good, well reasoned, yet oftentimes still conflicting viewpoints. I’m glad to be able to discuss it.
Sort of selfishly speaking, I just really think it is interesting to discuss and grapple with the issues of rights and responsibilities and how they affect and are implemented in a society, where they effect others. I talk about various things like this with my uncle all of the time, who is a wonderful guy and huge Libertarian. His ideas and practices are just as valid as mine, and work super well for him on his farm, but if he lived in the suburbs where I live I think he’d either go crazy or Punch out a neighbor in about a year.
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,592
{flame retardant coat on}
I feel like, as much as we all hate the idea of a mandate for training in law, in practice many folks here, especially, dare I say it, those who are older and therefore perhaps more prudent and cautious, and also perhaps more endowed with time for classes and money to pay for them, also seem to think that it’s irresponsible not to have training of some kind. Every time a new guy shows up asking what type of gun to get, a dozen people line up to tell him he needs a lot of training and practice. And they’re not wrong, but it just goes to highlight that careful distinction that needs to be made in a free society between what is good and what should be mandatory.
When I first got into guns I took the NRA basic pistol course. The instructor was some kind of ex special forces type, and I learned a lot about trigger control, proper stance and grip, and how to hit what I was aiming at. I don’t think everyone should have to take that course, but it was very worth it for me, as a complete firearms noob.
I feel like, as much as we all hate the idea of a mandate for training in law, in practice many folks here, especially, dare I say it, those who are older and therefore perhaps more prudent and cautious, and also perhaps more endowed with time for classes and money to pay for them, also seem to think that it’s irresponsible not to have training of some kind. Every time a new guy shows up asking what type of gun to get, a dozen people line up to tell him he needs a lot of training and practice. And they’re not wrong, but it just goes to highlight that careful distinction that needs to be made in a free society between what is good and what should be mandatory.
When I first got into guns I took the NRA basic pistol course. The instructor was some kind of ex special forces type, and I learned a lot about trigger control, proper stance and grip, and how to hit what I was aiming at. I don’t think everyone should have to take that course, but it was very worth it for me, as a complete firearms noob.
Old Dog
Member
History has proven that it is no more possible to legislate common sense and responsibility than it is to legislate morality -- which is to state that we cannot.
Furthermore, most states already have a plethora of laws to facilitate holding offenders accountable for negligence, irresponsibility and criminal stupidity involving firearms
Furthermore, most states already have a plethora of laws to facilitate holding offenders accountable for negligence, irresponsibility and criminal stupidity involving firearms
bushmaster1313
Member
I am fine with formal training.
With every gun purchase the buyer acknowledges to the seller:
1) I understand that all guns are loaded unless I have personally cleared the chamber and magazine.
2). I will not point any gun at something I am not willing to destroy.
3) I will always be aware of my backstop.
What’s not to like?
With every gun purchase the buyer acknowledges to the seller:
1) I understand that all guns are loaded unless I have personally cleared the chamber and magazine.
2). I will not point any gun at something I am not willing to destroy.
3) I will always be aware of my backstop.
What’s not to like?
I think there would be tremendous benefits realized from making formal training a pre-requisite for firearm ownership.
It would also be a tremendous opportunity for anti-gun people, unethical/anti-freedom/meddling politicians/bureacrats to restrict gun rights in the name of safety. This means that in spite of the fact that it could be hugely beneficial, I am firmly against making formal training a pre-requisite for firearm ownership.
It would also be a tremendous opportunity for anti-gun people, unethical/anti-freedom/meddling politicians/bureacrats to restrict gun rights in the name of safety. This means that in spite of the fact that it could be hugely beneficial, I am firmly against making formal training a pre-requisite for firearm ownership.
I agree wholeheartedly. "Training! Training! Training!" You see it CONSTANTLY. To the point of causing me a headache. Many of these people, though well meaning, perhaps, don't seem to realize that we don't all have the disposable income to do "training". We can't shoot hundreds of rounds every week. We can't get into competitive shooting. We can't travel all over the country to take classes.
And if the gooberment was to demand that we have "training" in order to own a gun, well, that would knock out MOST gun owners right there. We can't afford it when it's voluntary, we definitely wouldn't be able to afford it if it were mandatory.
It doesn't take much money to get some formal training. It certainly doesn't require firing hundreds of rounds every week, or even every month. It doesn't require entering competitions or traveling all over the country.
For example, I just did an internet search and found a course at a range less than 30 miles from my house. It's a half-day course for about $150 that requires about 150 rounds of ammunition, and covers, among other topics, speed reloads, stress reloads, malfunction clearance, firearm safety in the home (including safe storage) injuries/basic anatomy, shooting one-handed, from a kneeling position, from cover and in low light.
I feel fairly safe in saying that the vast majority of people who will read this post can probably manage to save $200, get 200 rounds of ammo together for a class, and manage enough time off to schedule a half-day class.
Are there more expensive classes that require shooting a lot more ammo, that last for several days and are only offered in a few locations nationwide? Sure there are, but that's not the only way to get some useful training that can help provide a solid foundation to work from.
And I didn't even search for the cheapest classes I could find--that's just the first thing that came up on an internet search of my general area.
Now, I'm not saying that every shooter has to get training to be responsible. I'm certainly not saying that it should be mandatory. I'm just saying that people who want training should be able to get training without spending lots of money, traveling all over the country, getting into competitions, or shooting hundreds of rounds every week.
P5 Guy
Member
Start safety training in grade school. Teach gun handling in junior and high school with air gun competitions between schools.
Sovblocgunfan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 1,483
The “if... why not then...” line of questioning is what allows scope creep in mandating “training” in certain subjects, and, by extension, opportunity for abuse and further scope creep. Look at licensing on state and local levels. Some places you have to have a license for just about anything trade-related these days. Some places you have to have a permit for a garage sale, or to gather in a public place for free speech. Look at mask mandates. If we have to wear masks in place X, then why not make it mandatory in place Y?
schools can barely focus on the three R’s anymore and are constantly being pulled in several different curriculum directions in an attempt to serve all, but provide individualized learning.
as much as i think a return to trades, physical activity, and applied science is critically needed, piling extra services onto an already overcrowded requirement list is not something that will be feasible unless administrators and legislators can be convinced to relieve an educator’s burden in other areas. Honestly I would like to see a gun safety program of some sort implemented, but schools/teachers are already asked to give up precious instructional time for all kinds of other things, and I can’t see a gun safety program as something that would have a high priority for implementation.
wiscoaster
Member
ABSOLUTELY!! YOU GUYS GET IT!!
Gun knowledge is the answer, not gun control. Only by knowledge (education and training) comes responsibility and proper behavior. There's always going to be those who abuse that whether there's control or not, but when the vast majority is equipped with the knowledge, training, and yes - with the proper equipment to oppose them, then they will feel safe and secure because they will be safe and secure and they will be comfortable with being able to be responsible for doing it themselves!!
The money is not there for teaching gun handling and marksmanship in the schools or for universal conscription. Independent of the additional social issues for either, so forget it.
I’m ok with the NICS checks for purchases and that’s it,
I’m ok with the NICS checks for purchases and that’s it,
Trunk Monkey
member
wiscoaster
Member
Since the government creates the new money they want to spend on something they want, it will be there if it's wanted.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,087
...and there we are, "forcing" training. The exact same thing everyone here is snibbling about. I don't have a problem with it being an elective, but gun owners are still a minority in this country and not all kids have an interest in guns. Now sex is much a different question.......
I think this is "much to do about nothing". Just how many folks are seriously demanding that everyone should be forced to take training before they can own a gun? Probably about as many that insist that everyone should be able to buy/own a gun, regardless of age, mental health or criminal record. Both are unrealistic extremes. Use your heads folks and apply common sense. Again, we all ready have mandatory training required to hunt and CWC in most states. Like a drivers license, not a license to own....but a license to operate.
P5 Guy
Member
So, forcing education is a bad thing? Did you send your children to school, public or private? Even home schooling is enforced education or training if you prefer.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,087
....never said anything about general education, good or bad. Only that some were suggesting forced firearm training, the topic of this thread. As I said in the post that you quoted me from....."Use your heads folks and apply common sense." Why would forcing gun training in schools be any different than mandated gun training any where else? because it wouldn't involve you?
Generally what happens after 5 pages in a thread. But I don't see it drifting to the point of killing the thread, just folks grasping at straws a tad.
wiscoaster
Member
Because it could be structured so as not to be tied to gun aquisition & ownership. Just make gun knowledge a normal curriculum item, but don't require it as a prerequisite to the right to bear.
Sovblocgunfan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 1,483
it’s a detour, maybe, but seems related to topic to me.
refocusing, we’re talking about mandating training prior to purchase. Arguably, a gun safety program in a public school setting could potentially qualify if at the right age (17-18 yrs old) bc at that point you’d reach a federal-level age of eligibility for purchase of a long gun.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
