Very good article on AWB written by a Democrat!

. I do like people getting trained to carry - I think that is a moral imperative. Requiring it is something that I go around on at time.
Click to expand...

Mr. Meyer, I kick this around in my head also. The crux I always face is the fact that millions of people in the US are raised with guns from the day they are born. They, my self included here, don't really "need" to be trained by a "profesional" to own a gun.

I am not saying that taking a training class couldn't improve ones skills, just that begining type training is a waste of time for some people.

How does a government set a level of training that would qualify someone to own firearms? Is a basic pistol/rifle safety class enough? Would a hunters saftey course be enough? Is military service enough? Or do we need to require advaced courses of the type Gunsite offers?

I have taken the NRA basic pistol course to qualify for my States CCw permit, and must say that it didn't really offer me any more training that I have recieved through a liftime of useing and handeling guns.

We go down a slippery slope when government starts requireing specific education in-order to exercise a right. The individual should be left to make those decisions. We sure aren't going to require a voting rights class for all 18 year olds before they can go to the polls, are we?
 
Last edited:
Polls, not pole - mandating training is an interesting issue. I do think people benefit in TX from the information about discretion in using force.

Perhaps, when you get your CHL - they should give you a CD with the info.

Good training is more than basic gun handling, it includes how and when to use lethal force. It also includes scenario training which is more than gun handling.

Mandating it is a different story. I do like people who get CHLs to have exposure to the laws and conflict resolution.
 
Haha, Poles vs. polls! Fixed that little goof.

It is like anything having to do with education: People who want to gather knowledge, seek it out, whether said education has to do with voting or gun ownership.

Requirements of licensing and tests of skill are cover. Just because Joe Citizen passed his driving test, dosen't mean he can drive worth a hoot! The same as testing ones proficiancy with a rifle doesn't mean that they won't ever use it in a crime.

I often feel like we are spinning our wheels as a nation. Gun laws are like reving the engine when stuck. The engine makes a lot of noise and sounds really cool, but when it gets down to it, we are still stuck.
 
The problem with mandatory training for owning or carrying a gun is that there is zero evidence that it reduces or mitigates either gun-related accidents or crime.
Not to mention that this way of thinking:
Getting a gun license could be made as difficult as getting a license to fly an airplane, requiring dozens of hours of training.
Click to expand...
obviously leads to the suspicion that the intent behind the training requirement is to restrict gun ownership to "the right sort of people."

There is also the issue of requiring training for the exercise of a specifically enumerated Constitutional right.
 
Just a thought about the mandatory training thing.

I'm in favor of training but am afraid that when govt makes it mandatory there will be no classes. (I understand that's how Delaware is, or used to be.)

In the ham radio world, the govt used to administer written and audio (morse code) tests to people applying for licenses.

Now there are "volunteer examiner" organizations who administer the tests for a very low fee and are freely available to take rather than having to go to some govt office somewhere far away (like I did when I was 14!).

If the antis were bargaining in good faith (BIG IF - or rather, they aren't) such training administered by volunteer organizations would accomplish the goal.
Like a driver's license.
Like a hunting license.
Like a ham radio license.

But because the antis aren't interested in safety they can't be trusted. So this idea has to be set aside.

And children will die. Thanks to the gun banners.
 
Even if training were provided, gratis, by well-meaning types (I would volunteer; have the NRA certificate, so why not?), how would the single mother who works two jobs find the time?

That is the problem with requiring training. The people who might have the most need would have the hardest time affording either the cost or the expenditure of time.

Mandatory training requirements favor the "haves."
 
I'm not against mandatory training. Heck, I'm even in favor of training people to vote. Not this party or that party, but more in the form of this is how both parties are leading you around by the nose. These are the attack ad tactics. This is how you put words in someone's mouth.

If she has time to go buy her gun, she has time to train. The Hunter Education course is a prime example of how to best accomplish that. An interactive online course, with a test at he end of each section. When you pass the section you move on. When you pass the online course, you go to a field day. The same principle could be applied.

As for people who point out it would be a waste of time... for you maybe. For others sure. For many, not. I aced my Hunter's Ed course. Between my boy scout's first aid merit badge, incalculable hours bombarded with the safe rules of gun handling on placards at ranges everywhere, among other sources, very little actually applicable to safe hunting was new to me. I'm not counting the stuff in the course that wasn't really applicable to hunter safety, but still had some value. I.e. The Pittman-Robertson Act.
 
JimDandy, you assume that:

A. Everybody has internet access;

and

B. Everybody has time.

So I assume you do not know any single parents whose day consists of:

Get up, feed kids and send them to school.
Go to work day shift cooking in school cafetaria.
Finish work, take kids to grandma's house.
Go work evening shift at convenience store.
Get kids, go home (or pass out at grandma's).
Repeat.

I have known one or two like that.

Meanwhile, please prove a correlation between mandatory training and reductions in accidents by gun owners, or between mandatory training and successful defensive gun uses.

If you can't, then how can you possibly justify infringing on the rights of others because you just think you should?
 
When is she going to buy her gun if she's that busy?
The internet is available at the library.

You want me to provide a correlation between something that does not exist, and something that is not effectively tracked?
 
JimDandy, it has been tracked, as this has come up before. There has been no such correlation. Accident rates are no higher, and successful defense rates no lower, in constitutional carry states.

If you can't prove otherwise, then you are arguing for feel-good, do-nothing red tape.
 
I dispute it has been tracked.

We cannot on the one hand say that we don't know how often good guys save t day with guns, because they aren't always reported, while on the other hand saying it's been tracked that training has no effect on that.
 
Take it up with the mods. Several of them have posted on the topic.

Thing is, since you are arguing for an intrusive change in the status quo, the rules of debate require you to prove your case.
 
Take what up with the mods? We as a community continually dispute the claim that "good guys" with guns don't save lives because it's rarely reported to the police if no shots are fired, etc. It's certainly under-reported. You are essentially asking me to prove a negative.
 
Again, you are the one suggesting creation of hurdles for the exercise of a Constitutional right. That places the onus squarely upon you to prove that it would have any benefit at all, let alone such a degree of benefit that it would justify creation of said hurdles.

If that means proving a negative, that's too bad.

The relative accident rate would not require proving a negative; it would require you to look up and compare per capita accident rates in, say, Vermont (constitutional carry) and neighboring New York, or some other state that has training requirements and has had them for some period of time.

Again, you want the change, you prove the benefit.
 
I did not suggest it. Someone else did. I said I wasn't against it.

A number of constitutional rights have been limited in the past for good or bad without a study of their affect before the fact. Sometimes the infringement has been upheld, sometimes it's been overturned. Law is a living and fluid thing.

And finally, preventing accidents is hardly the only benefit to training, thus limiting the studied benefit just to accident prevention is narrow minded.
 
You support an added requirement or restriction, so it is on you to justify it; that is not done by vaguely alluding to unspecified, unquantified benefits.
 
No, no it's not. Several states enacted legislation abridging 1A rights while driving. There were no studies that banning texting while driving would actually reduce traffic accidents. There was evidence that texting while driving did contribute to traffic accidents of course, but nothing proving banning same would lead to fewer. Because there were no bans.

I would imagine there are no studies showing a nationwide education program- in high school for example- covering the basic firearm safety rules from every gun is loaded, don't point it at anything you aren't wiling to destroy, etc. would educate the coming generations and prevent any(but obviously not all) accidental discharges- however logic certainly suggests it would prevent some.
 
The problem with your example is that studies have shown that texting and driving results in similar and sometimes worse results than intoxicated driving.

There are no such studies showing accident rates among constitutional carriers, or licensed carriers in states such as Georgia (no training requirement) having higher accident rates than carriers in states that have training requirements.

Carriers, not just owners...

Also, given that depending on whose numbers yoou believe, when guns are drawn for self defense, they do not even have to be fired between 70 and 90 % of the time.

Do I like training? Sure. I have had quite a bit, much of it voluntary. Do I recommend training? Of course.

Do I think requiring training is reasonable? No. And I will not, until you can justify it with concrete fact, and not just logic.
 
Why not? You just used logic to connect a ban on texting and driving to DUI, and thus justified a ban on texting and driving.

Your stronger argument is that driving is not enumerated as an inalienable right, thus not afforded the same protections as RKBA.

However, if it's not permissible to restrict an entire class of weapons in the general use, it seems likely it would be permissible to require education and training also in the general use.

Even voting has some theoretically required training for its general use. Every state's curriculum has some form of civics classes. Immigrants who miss these classes being out of the country at the time they WOULD have taken them have civics requirements in their citizenship process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top