Mandatory Gun Training?

[Brad69]

So one should not complain if you see a guy with a hi point in a drop leg.
Get flagged while in Wal Mart at the range ect.
Just doing the 2nd Admenment thing!

 

[HoughMade]

I'm trying to comprehend background checks.
Let's do checks that criminals won't submit to, and will only affect law abiding citizens will do.

You're trying to comprehend the idea that it's relatively easy to make dumb people feel more secure?

 

[chipbennett]

So one should not complain if you see a guy with a hi point in a drop leg.
Get flagged while in Wal Mart at the range ect.
Just doing the 2nd Admenment thing!

And why should one not complain about unsafe firearm handling practices observed in the wild?

(Note: the point has already been ceded that mandatory training has no impact on firearm safety.)

 

[Brad69]

I kinda find it disturbing that several people I have encountered have applied and were denied.

Its always something stupid they did as a kid or so they say.

 

[chipbennett]

I kinda find it disturbing that several people I have encountered have applied and were denied.

Its always something stupid they did as a kid or so they say.

The Bullying Mommies will claim that outcome as a victory, and a demonstration of the efficacy of background checks.

Meanwhile, the real criminals carry on, acquiring firearms that they intend to use to commit crimes, utterly unfettered by background checks.

 

[Brad69]

I still refuse to believe effectively applied training would not make a difference!
The range I frequently use has berms that makes me feel better.
Living in the southern part of the state I have not seen any crazy carry yet just lots of cheap holsters.

 

[Brad69]

Background checks are effective just ask Chicago or St. Louis!

I was in St. Louis last night they are having a crime explosion on the train system and a huge carjacking issue.

 

[Goodcat]

I had an old landlord who wanted to show me his new s&w body guard with laser. He drew it and pointed the laser at my chest to show me how cool it was. Needless to say, never happened again. I still am completely against mandatory training.

 

[ATM]

One learns at INGO not to engage with ATM!

lol

But would requiring a background check and fee also be infringing?

Nonsensical infringements, yes.

 

[chipbennett]

I still refuse to believe effectively applied training would not make a difference!
The range I frequently use has berms that makes me feel better.
Living in the southern part of the state I have not seen any crazy carry yet just lots of cheap holsters.

There are two points here:

1. With millions of firearms owners licensed to carry, and millions of others in unlicensed carry states, there ought to be plenty of data to support or to refute your belief.

2. Regardless of the efficacy of training, making government-mandated training a required prerequisite to the exercise of the right to bear arms is by definition an infringement upon that right, and therefore unconstitutional. There is no public utility balancing test that overcomes "shall not be infringed".

 

[actaeon277]

I still refuse to believe effectively applied training would not make a difference!
The range I frequently use has berms that makes me feel better.
Living in the southern part of the state I have not seen any crazy carry yet just lots of cheap holsters.

We never said anything against "effective training".
We are against "required training".

As I've brought up another time...
I've taught someone the basics, and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't count for your State sanctioned training.
That person almost immediately needed to use a gun in self defense.
Are you stating that she should have died, because she should have waited tillbshe had more money for a class, and a scheduled time?
Some people actually have people trying to kill or hospitalize them.

 

[chipbennett]

Background checks are effective just ask Chicago or St. Louis!

I was in St. Louis last night they are having a crime explosion on the train system and a huge carjacking issue.

That is un-possible. Firearms are prohibited on the St. Louis Metro.

 

[gregr]

All those "excellent" firearms "instructors" out there... Mandatory training for a right granted by the constitution is ridiculous. Responsible ownership and use is the sole responsibility of the user/owner. We have had driving schools forever and there are still idiots who kill people everyday with their cars in totally preventable "accidents". Mandatory training is not the answer, personal responsibility is the answer. As a responsible shooter I feel it is ok to correct an obvious safety violation. I think most of us who shoot at public ranges have had "muzzle moments", but I've had a lot more incidents of people endangering my life on the road in automotive near misses. I don't care how much training you mandate there will always be those who pass then brain dump. We need to be better decision makers as a whole and be humble enough to judge our abilities to carry a gun or seek personalized training.

Not to quibble, but, it is an important point, the Constitution does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms. It is a Natural Right, i.e., a God-given right, the Constitution merely acknowledges it, and supposedly, preserves it.

 

[actaeon277]

So one should not complain if you see a guy with a hi point in a drop leg.
Get flagged while in Wal Mart at the range ect.
Just doing the 2nd Admenment thing!

I don't care if they use a drop leg holster.
And it doesn't take a State sanctioned course to learn the rules.

 

[gregr]

I am in the minority on INGO that believe in training to receive a LTCH!
While being stationed in other states before I retired it's was mandatory to attend training. If I rember right it was 8 hours cost around $50-100.
The class covered the basic rules of weapons handling and marksmanship then coverd basic shoot no shoot and laws ect.
No it was not just a idiot at large random trainer they are certified by the State Police.
One could not receive your license until you completed the training.
I understand that no data shows it to be an advantage to safety.
I assume most here feel safe standing next to an untrained person.
Then when that person has an AD they say he/should have applied the "four rules" on a weapon they barely could load.

At issue here isn`t whether someone "feels" safe, the issue is, mandatory training turns a right into a privilege granted by the state.

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../249564-why-people-against-safety-course.html

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...or-introduces-bill-training-requirements.html

 

[gregr]

Change from 2nd Amendment rights to free speech or religion. Require someone to prove writing/speaking skills before they can exercise their right to free speech?

 

[gregr]

So one should not complain if you see a guy with a hi point in a drop leg.
Get flagged while in Wal Mart at the range ect.
Just doing the 2nd Admenment thing!

No stomach for freedom? Bacuae yeah, he`s just doing the Second Amendment thing.

 

[gregr]

There are two points here:

1. With millions of firearms owners licensed to carry, and millions of others in unlicensed carry states, there ought to be plenty of data to support or to refute your belief.

2. Regardless of the efficacy of training, making government-mandated training a required prerequisite to the exercise of the right to bear arms is by definition an infringement upon that right, and therefore unconstitutional. There is no public utility balancing test that overcomes "shall not be infringed".

Ahhh, but it`s "only common-sense, sensible regulation", claim those who cannot grasp what "shall not be infringed" means...