Why are people against a safety course?

[Jeremiah]

Hasn't proven to be true in those states that require training.

Michigan being one, and overall their laws are now easier than a few years ago.

However the fear is real, see THe changes to Chicago's pistol policies in the past.

 

[Jeremiah]

So then in fact it is OK for fools and people so unknowledgable to even know how to load or fire a firearm to not only possess one but to carry one.

Yup, sounds good to me.

BTW letts do away with drivers ed and testing older drivers to be sure people understand the basics of driving skills.

1. many police and military members shoot them selves and others accidently every year. Training is no guarantee of safe performance.

2. Please lets get rid of drivers ed requirements, simply making people responsible
for their own actions will ensure better training for the majority.

 

[hookedonjeep]

Training on any level would be a good idea - simple logic says that you would want to be proficient with something that can change your future in a heart beat. But, training comes in various forms, and different folks require different instruction. As for the matter or requiring it as a condition of exercising your God-given right to defend yourself.... No. Shall Not Be Infringed - simple. Any truly responsible person will seek out their own training on their own time; therefore, there is no need for the requirement.

 

[jb1911]

"Training, as described in the question"

What does this mean? And what's safty?

 

[griffin]

why would a training requirement be a bad thing?

I think a training should be a requirement before people open their pie-holes in public. There are a lot of dumb-asses out there.

I think a training should be a requirement before people are allowed to vote. There are a lot of dumb-asses out there.

 

[gabrigger]

If conditions are placed on a right, it becomes a privilege. I think that if you are going to carry a gun, you should be proficient with it and know what you are doing. However, I would never advocate mandatory training. Training is a good idea, but should not be a condition of exercising a right because, as I previously stated, it then becomes a privilege and not a right.

 

[melensdad]

NO TRAINING . . . why?

Well the reason why is because the government mandated training in many states is totally worthless.

My sister-in-law holds a N.M. and a Utah license. She had to take a training course in N.M. when she lived there to get her license. She needed 'training' for the Utah license as well. She came to Indiana and wanted to go shooting with me and my daughter one day so we took her. I had to teach her how to use her own gun!?!

So what good was her training if she didn't even know how to use her own gun?

Then about a year later she went to buy some ammo and bought the wrong caliber for her own gun. This is a woman who is in her 40's, who holds licenses to carry in more states than my license is valid in, and she 1) can't use her own gun and 2) can't buy the right ammo for it.

Me, I've never had a 'certified' training class from the NRA or other group that issues nationally recognized 'certifications' but I have had training from people way more experienced than myself. Just becuase they were not 'certified' instructors in the eyes of the law did not make them bad or unqualified. They taught me pistol skills. They taught me self-defense skills. They taught me how to shoto a shotgun well enough that I competed in competitve Trap Shooting for many years, often flying out of state with my shotguns to shoot.

So we have me, the 'un-qualified' and 'un-trained' gun carrier. And we have my sister-in-law, who has 'certified' training. Which would you rather have beside you in a fight?

 

[Amishman44]

I checked 'Training for Everyone' because whenever I walk into a gun shop / show and watch people pick up guns to handle, feel, and caress...I watch 95+% of them pick up the gun, trust the sales person's check of the gun (chamber and mag) for a loaded round, and then PLACE THEIR FINGER ONTO THE TRIGGER when handling the gun!!!

Very rarely do I see a customer (regardless of age or experience...although the older generation does it some) drop the mag and re-check the chamber, or open the cylinder and check it, themselves, after the sales person's check! Remember, it's only an unloaded weapon if you've checked yourself!!!

Secondly, I see lots of customers (again, regardless of age or experience) then turn and hold a weapon in a pointed manner, at the sales person or toward the middle of the store. Very rarely do I see a customer turn and point a weapon (loaded or unloaded) toward a window or wall...even with their finger off the trigger, when handling it for the first time!

Even people with experience can have bad habits...and it only takes one mistake while practicing a bad habit to have an 'accidental' discharge which can range from being embarressing all the way to a critical injury and/or death of another individual!

Just because someone has experience in handling guns...doesn't mean they've been taught how to do it in the right and safe manner EVERY TIME!

I have no problem saying that someone should pass training if they wishes to carry a gun for personal protection (i.e., be 'out and about in public' with it) they should have to go through training...that includes legal issues, proper use of the weapon, and pass a qualification shooting test.

 

[jcwit]

1. many police and military members hoot them selves and others accidently every year. Training is no guarantee of safe performance.

2. Please lets get rid of drivers ed requirements, simply making people responsible
for their own actions will ensure better training for the majority.

Both of the above would work in a perfect world, which of course we do notlive in!

You have noticed just how responsible people really are haven't you!!!!!

 

[Hookeye]

I support Jeremiah's view of those who supposedly have been "trained".
Seen too many LE/military on ranges and at shops/shows who are downright scary/clueless.

 

[jcwit]

NO TRAINING . . . why?

Well the reason why is because the government mandated training in many states is totally worthless.

My sister-in-law holds a N.M. and a Utah license. She had to take a training course in N.M. when she lived there to get her license. She needed 'training' for the Utah license as well. She came to Indiana and wanted to go shooting with me and my daughter one day so we took her. I had to teach her how to use her own gun!?!

So what good was her training if she didn't even know how to use her own gun?

Then about a year later she went to buy some ammo and bought the wrong caliber for her own gun. This is a woman who is in her 40's, who holds licenses to carry in more states than my license is valid in, and she 1) can't use her own gun and 2) can't buy the right ammo for it.

Me, I've never had a 'certified' training class from the NRA or other group that issues nationally recognized 'certifications' but I have had training from people way more experienced than myself. Just becuase they were not 'certified' instructors in the eyes of the law did not make them bad or unqualified. They taught me pistol skills. They taught me self-defense skills. They taught me how to shoto a shotgun well enough that I competed in competitve Trap Shooting for many years, often flying out of state with my shotguns to shoot.

So we have me, the 'un-qualified' and 'un-trained' gun carrier. And we have my sister-in-law, who has 'certified' training. Which would you rather have beside you in a fight?

Well that is your opinion.

 

[jcwit]

However the fear is real, see THe changes to Chicago's pistol policies in the past.

And as I noted check Michigans or check the Texas laws.

 

[jcwit]

Any truly responsible person will seek out their own training on their own time; therefore, there is no need for the requirement.

Finding the truly responsible person is about like finding the person with common sense in todays world, we have only to look at last months election to prove that as being a fact.

 

[melensdad]

Well that is your opinion.

Is that not what we were asked? For our opinion and then to back it up with why it was our opinion?

I provided factually based objections to mandated training using real life examples.

 

[leftsock]

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?

What about this instead: make firearms training an above the line tax deduction (it shrinks your AGI)?

These ideas initially sound good ideas, and I would love another tax deduction or a discount on a LTCH...

BUT, any time the government incentivizes something, what they're actually accomplishing is social engineering.

We receive incentives from our government, through our tax codes, to have children, own a home, go to school, and a myriad of other items. In addition, some members of our society receive incentives to remain unemployed and receive government benefits. These incentives, some more subtly than others, tell us that these are thing we should do. As much as I like tax deductions, I am against government sponsored social engineering.

 

[QingLong]

I personally think every citizen should have to have National Defense training as part of their early secondary schooling. As much as grammar, math, and US history is required, so should training in basic survival, first aid, and weapon safety be covered as a natural part of growing up in this country.
Too many children get long-lasting ideas of gun use and culture from movies and video games, and too many citizens grow up with an unreasonable prejudice toward firearms for no better reason than that they've never handled one.
I think it's a bit far to require universal military service (my parents are from Singapore, and have a few words to say about that), but surely asking kids to spend a few weeks of a summer learning outdoorsmanship isn't a bad thing?
Owning a firearm may be a right, but it should be a citizen's duty to exercise that right in a responsible and informed manner. Just because the Constitution doesn't demand it of us doesn't mean we shouldn't demand it of ourselves and each other.
Just my opinion, of course.

 

[beararms1776]

There's nothing negative about safety courses. You have everything to gain. I think finances would be more of an issue for most people. Pushing for it as a requirement though, could be destined to collapse the very foundation you want to build on.

 

[jcwit]

I personally think every citizen should have to have National Defense training as part of their early secondary schooling. As much as grammar, math, and US history is required, so should training in basic survival, first aid, and weapon safety be covered as a natural part of growing up in this country.
Too many children get long-lasting ideas of gun use and culture from movies and video games, and too many citizens grow up with an unreasonable prejudice toward firearms for no better reason than that they've never handled one.
I think it's a bit far to require universal military service (my parents are from Singapore, and have a few words to say about that), but surely asking kids to spend a few weeks of a summer learning outdoorsmanship isn't a bad thing?
Owning a firearm may be a right, but it should be a citizen's duty to exercise that right in a responsible and informed manner. Just because the Constitution doesn't demand it of us doesn't mean we shouldn't demand it of ourselves and each other.
Just my opinion, of course.

Not a bad idea at all, but with the liberal public school system***,well I bet you understand where this could go. hehe

Also wonder how the Amish would approach this, they do not even recognize the Flag.

 

[Giddaltti]

It's a given right. However a majority vote rules.

 

[Napalm217]

I would imagine that if a safety course was forced on people there would be fewer people with guns. By this I mean that only those who really want and respect a firearm would go through then class.