Why are people against a safety course?

[Drakkule]

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?

 

[45calibre]

it should be highly recommended and pushed but not mandated.

 

[Drakkule]

it should be highly recommended and pushed but not mandated.

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

 

[lumpagus1]

I think it should be just like Switzerland...to some degree. It's my understanding that in Switzerland, the government issue a rifles to each family and they are trained on how to use it. I think everyone, military, law enforcement, hunters, sport shooters, newbies, etc. should be mandated to take a very basic firearms handling course. I realize it's nothing but a joke to the experienced guys but I still think it's necessary. I'd say that the instructor should divide the class into "new shooters (0-1 year), amateur shooters(2-5) years, and expierenced shooters (5 years or more). By dividing the class, the instructor knows who he needs to focus on more, besides since when is more training a bad thing? At the very least if someone has a incident (negligent discharge or accidental discharge) they can't claim ignorance anymore if everyone is forced to take a safety/firearm manipulation course.

It could work both ways as far as the whole Anti-Firearms people are concerned. If their is less incidents then it shows the training helps and firearms aren't the Anti-Christ, but on the flip side, if there is an incident then they'll be all over it saying it's not the person it's the weapon they're holding. Either way, I vote training for everyone.

 

[Jeremiah]

it should be highly recommended and pushed but not mandated.

This. for the love of god this.

1. safety courses in many places are a joke, it is literally someone reading the owners manual of most guns (or the side of a ruger) to you.
2. fence building or rent seeking should be discouraged. in many states it adds $40-250 to the cost of a permit. on top of the time needed to make it work.
3. its a barrier to entry in some cases could be detrimental. For instance, some person leaves an abusive relationship, the abuser threatens violence, then acts on it. from a phone call or a text message someone could be spurred to go buy a gun and a holster, add a safety course before they could purchase it or the carry permit, and it may very well be too late (extreme, yes, possible also. I am advocating for constitutional carry in this line)
4. It is ineffective in many other fields ( doesn't stop car accidents, or hunters from having mishaps) why waste the time.
5. more mandates are something I can never get behind.
6. a training course will not make you safe, it will not prevent malfeasance or stupidity, you are grasping for a solution to something that makes you uneasy, but is not a problem, you fear your fellow many and desire to control him, Are you a progressive?

 

[Drakkule]

This. for the love of god this.

1. safety courses in many places are a joke, it is literally someone reading the owners manual of most guns (or the side of a ruger) to you.
2. fence building or rent seeking should be discouraged. in many states it adds $40-250 to the cost of a permit. on top of the time needed to make it work.
3. its a barrier to entry in some cases could be detrimental. For instance, some person leaves an abusive relationship, the abuser threatens violence, then acts on it. from a phone call or a text message someone could be spurred to go buy a gun and a holster, add a safety course before they could purchase it or the carry permit, and it may very well be too late (extreme, yes, possible also. I am advocating for constitutional carry in this line)
4. It is ineffective in many other fields ( doesn't stop car accidents, or hunters from having mishaps) why waste the time.
5. more mandates are something I can never get behind.
6. a training course will not make you safe, it will not prevent malfeasance or stupidity, you are grasping for a solution to something that makes you uneasy, but is not a problem, you fear your fellow many and desire to control him, Are you a progressive?

I am posing a question, I don't want to control anyone. It also could be taught in schools to seniors, my daughters had military personnel come into class at school, and they went over basic gun safety. I am only responsible for myself, and my family. I guess uneasy is overstating, but you act like "it's all a waste of time", and i disagree. If you have to take a course to "carry" a gun, it might make some look for more training, making them a better shot, more cautious, and also more comfortable with the firearm they choose to carry. As for number 3., i never said anything about needing training to buy a gun, this is about carrying one, and if your lifes in danger, I'm sure the little pink piece of paper won't stop to many people anyway. I tend to look at the best out of people, and i know there are stupid, violent, psychotic, and a whole host of other problems, but what about the ones that will learn? I agree that some courses will not be very good, but if it is mandated, it can be standardized, making it more likely to help. As for cost, the last basic course i took with my son was free, so i think the price can be kept at a minimum. Please don't take this as an attack, that is not how i mean it, just a discussion about a topic. As a bonus, we would probably be able to carry in Ohio, since the no training is what is stopping us now, i know it's not a big deal to everyone, but i live 4 miles from there, and used to work there, and hated the fact I couldn't protect myself to, and from work. Well legally. Oh i forgot #5. those are human errors, and I took hunters training, and drivers ed, and i think they both help reduce the number of human errors, i don't like to call them accidents, when they are almost always, human errors.

 

[Spanky46151]

Having firearms is a right. No right, unless legitimately suspended through due process in our legal system, should be dependent upon any condition. There is no room for negotiations, conditions or compromise on this issue IMHO. There is your requested "why not".

 

[GlockPaperScissors]

Having firearms is a right. No right, unless legitimately suspended through due process in our legal system, should be dependent upon any condition. There is no room for negotiations, conditions or compromise on this issue IMHO. There is your requested "why not".

Agreed. It should be very strongly recommended to new gun owners, but not forced upon them.

 

[BigMatt]

Having firearms is a right. No right, unless legitimately suspended through due process in our legal system, should be dependent upon any condition. There is no room for negotiations, conditions or compromise on this issue IMHO. There is your requested "why not".

This...

 

[Spanky46151]

Training is a common sense issue and it isn't specifically a gun related issue. For one example, one would hope that those exercising their most important right would do some "training" before they participated. But, as we know, any imbecile can vote.

 

[Jeremiah]

1. it is an attack, your position is that a mandated training course would be a good thing. this goes against the rights we all posses, and affirmed by both the state and federal constitution. I can not support more of this, the fact that we must get permission to defend ourselves is outright perverse and disgusting.

2. while many may benefit from a safety course, it is a waste of time. Those that do not wish to give it an honest effort will breeze through, and be just as complacent as they were before. Nothing would be accomplished but that a trainer made money for signing a piece of paper. You can lead a horse to water.....

3. I don't want anything taught in public schools.

4. what may happen from taking a course is not what will happen. You want more people armed and trained get activated, don't support a new law, get off the computer and get training credentials and get to work, or start talking to people about a course you have liked.

5. I put buying a gun in there because it is a similar barrier to entry. My ex girlfreind from the day she decided to get a gun and a permit waited over 6 weeks. (granted her 5"627 was a pain to track down) but the fastest she could have done it was 3 weeks. by the time she made it to a required course, and managed to be able to get time off work during the day to go apply, it took 3 weeks. plus time to wait for her permit to come back. She lives in michigan and without a CHL there she would have needed a permit to purchase.

 

[CTS]

I hope you won't find anyone on here who thinks that training is a bad idea, but I definitely believe it shouldn't be required, mainly because I fear a self-defense hostile legislature. Right now we have a legislature that's been pretty good to gun owners, short of full-on constitutional carry, we're pretty fortunate in this state compared to many many others (thought we shouldn't rest until we get rid of the permission slip all together).

Now let's say that changes, and we get a legislative majority that isn't so friendly. Even in that case, they would have a very steep uphill battle to an outright ban or changing us from shall issue...however if there's an existing training program requirement, the media would hardly make a peep if they decided to increase the training requirements. After all, everyone wants safer gun owners right? So they could then go on to demand that everyone who applies for a LTCH has to take a training course and they could even legislate when, where, and how much that course costs. They could even just delegate that authority to the local PD, and suddenly the Evansville PD could decide that the course costs $1000 and only meets one day a year and has a class size limit of 20.

My point is essentially this. Any training requirement mandate could potentially be made into a defacto ban. Now yes a hostile legislature could set all of that up even if we don't already have one, but we make their task significantly easier by having a requirement already on the books.

 

[JimmyR]

The more we regulate, the more we restrict. As the OP said, it is a right that is being restricted/infringed. Adding more restrictions to it does not make us more free, and only limits access to something we have a constitutional right to keep and bear.

Think of it this way: we have the right to vote, and the right to keep and bear arms. We learned that by allowing states to charge a fee or by mandating a test to be able to vote, people were having their rights violated, especially minorities. What happens when we require that same idea (paying fees, testing) to the right to K&BA. It keeps people from exercising their right. Wrong is wrong, and suggesting adding more restrictions is only infringing MORE people's rights.

Today, we can't require people to be educated about any election. We can encourage people to educate themselves about the candidates and issues, but we cannot force them. Firearms must be the same way- both are specifically enumerated constitutional rights.

 

[actaeon277]

Should you have to take a class to vote, speak, have a house secure from warrantless search?
Who determines what's good enough? The same people that believe you should be able to hit the pistol out of someones hand?
I think classes are a good idea. But not mandated classes.

 

[KoopaKGB]

Will the felons and other would be criminals be required to attend? Also when does the mandated knife class come out?

What about the training classes for new parents? I go into people’s houses all the time and see unlocked kitchen cabinets at the floor level full of toxic chemicals. Uncovered electrical outlets, lack of safety stairway fences at the tops or bottoms of stairways. Little one year olds crawling around in the non-baby proofed household. Yet people are still allowed to procreate and make children with ZERO training.

But all this crap I just said aside… to answer your question on why some folks would say no to REQUIRED training would be that it is just a further regulation against Americans right to keep and bear arms. What kind of proficiency test would be required? If its just to understand a gun manual and all of it's contents then I would say that this kind of class would be a waste of time/money. Now if it went into a marksmanship test and some folks failed would that mean they shouldn’t be allowed the option of protecting themselves in their own home? Who would I be to tell some little old widowed lady who doesn’t feel safe in her home since her husband passed away that since she is a bad shot (maybe due to poor health reasons or whatever) that she shouldn’t be able to own a handgun even tho she lives alone now and is scarred.

I get what you’re saying which is basically that any yahoo that can pass a background check and fill out some paperwork with the state can legally now tote his/her handgun with them and potentially have ZERO experience with a handgun. This person maybe has never even shot a gun before. That right there is troublesome that nobody has ever instructed this person on proper firearms handling.

You know what I would vote for with your idea here. Mandatory school training for children in basic rifle handling/firearms safety. This would bring up all sorts of other questions too and I haven’t really thought the specifics of it out, nor would I be pushing for a bill or something like this to pass. It just seems like a good idea to teach kids when they are young, that way when they are 21 and decide that a LTCH is a good idea for them then they’ll have already had at least some basics down. That is assuming of course that their parent/guardian hasn’t taught them already. Which I’d venture to say is the caseof most inner city kids.

 

[JimmyR]

Just had a thought- what if the State discounted and LTCH if someone completed a recognized training course. It might encourage more people to train, even if it is a basic NRA course, but allow those who don't want to take the class to simply get the LTCH?

 

[MickeyBlueEyes]

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient... The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 - establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control crime." -- Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) quoted from "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1982, p. vii."

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. … Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that’s good. When firearms go, all goes; we need them every hour.
— George Washington
​

"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed." Luke 11:21
​

The militia of each state includes "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are or have [made] a declaration of intent to become citizens." Title 10, section 31 of the U.S. Code
​

In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a city gun ordinance that required heads of households to keep at least one firearm in their homes. Crimes against persons which include homicide, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and burglary, plummeted 74 percent the first year, dropped another 45 percent the next year, and has remained notably low ever since, despite a doubling of the population. From 1983 to 1993, armed robberies averaged a mere 1.6 annually, rapes 1.5, and murders (none with firearms) 0.2.
​

 

[Spanky46151]

Personally, I'm against requiring a license to carry a firearm at all. All it is is a way to apply a tax to something I'm constitutionally guaranteed. The entire process operates under the guise of assuring only "proper" persons are permitted to carry a handgun, but all it really promises is more money in the state coffers. "Bad guys" who carry guns are already "bad guys" before they further break the law and carry unlicensed and we already have laws that forbid "bad guys" from possessing firearms. Some espouse the licensing process prevents the mentally unstable, chemically addicted or otherwise potentially dangerous people from walking the streets packin' heat. Can't happen. Medical conditions, histories and conditions are confidential and protected under the ADA, HIPAA and various other laws. LTCH is simply another way for a government to control, intimidate, discourage and, once again, tax the citizenry.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

"Absolutly no training, for any reason" - as a requirement.

The state should not regulate the possession of firearms. The fact that we are forced to pay $125 and wait for our fancy pink cards in the mail to lawfully exercise our "right" is ridiculous in itself - why should we create another hurdle to jump through?

The four rules of firearm safety are so simple and easy to understand that those that fail to follow them would likely not benefit from a mandatory course. These are the same people that took drivers ed, but still drive like jack wagons.

 

[PistolBob]

I'm all for training, and practice, and hours spent at the range...but making it mandatory would not work for me. Mandatory training means the state gets to decide what is suitable for a training class, the state gets to decide how much a class costs, the state gets to decide WHO is qualified to teach the class, the state gets to decide too many things that can be used politically to keep people from owning firearms. I say hell no.