Training for Everyone?

This is a discussion on Training for Everyone? within the Defensive Carry & Tactical Training forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I have been on the fence when considering the question; "Should ALL who purchase a firearm be required by law to have at a minimum ...

View Poll Results: Should Basic Safety Training Be Mandatory When Purchasing a Firearm?

Voters
137. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES

    28 20.44%
  • NO

    109 79.56%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 154
Like Tree178Likes

Thread: Training for Everyone?

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array RightsEroding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,221

    Training for Everyone?

    I have been on the fence when considering the question;

    "Should ALL who purchase a firearm be required by law to have at a minimum some basic safety training?"

    I post this today due to something I am seeing more and more. (I realize some states have requirements) Indiana has no requirements.

    In the past year and as recent as (2) days ago, I am witnessing DANGEROUS handling of firearms at the gun range. So much so, I no longer shoot there on weekends when the range is full.

    The range I go to is controlled and operated by the Indiana DNR dept. There is a range master and there are rules that are audibly called out,,"make the range safe..clear all firearms...no handling of weapons" etc.." We even have multiple strobes to indicate NO ONE should be handling a weapon while the strobes are flashing.

    Two days ago, I see arrive at the range a few guys; a few mins later here come their girl friends and after that a few more people. Must have been a fun day at the range for them.

    The first indication that I had was hearing one of the young ladies proclaim loudly "I can't hear anything" while wearing her protective hearing. OMG!
    I see a guy trying to clear a jam and breaking the 180 degree rule as I see the barrel pointing cross range at me!

    Without going into a list of specific dangerous irresponsible gun handling I witnessed; I spent my remaining 10 mins WATCHING them and then loaded up my stuff and went home.
    I did let the range master know he might want to give this group a little more visual attention.

    I am amazed that some can purchase a gun and not realize the finality of carelessness, let alone how to even properly load the thing!

    So ya; I am now a advocate for at least SOME basic safety training before one purchases a firearm OR a demonstrated ability, administered by the practice range that the shooter can safely handle a firearm and understands it's basic operation.
    GWarden and baren like this.
    "When those who are governed do too little, those who govern can, and will, do too much." Ronald Reagan

    Do what you can; then do what you must

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array Dsbjax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by RightsEroding View Post
    "Should ALL who purchase a firearm be required by law to have at a minimum some basic safety training?"
    Mandatory, no. I am a firm believer in both basic and on going training if choose to take on the responsibility of firearms ownership. Before someone starts the driver's licence argument, you are not required to have a driver's licence to buy a car, just to drive it on the road. So reuired training to buy a gun no, to carry a gun in public, concealed or not, I can see the need for a training requirement for that.

  4. #3
    Ex Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,960
    Mandatory....NO.

    Should people take it upon themselves to learn. Yes....

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array RoadRunner71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    6,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    Mandatory....NO.

    Should people take it upon themselves to learn. Yes....
    Can't put it any better than that.

    The problem with requirements is this. Who sets the standards? Will those standards be so high that absolutely NO ONE would ever be able to meet them?

    It is a nice thought and on the surface it sounds good but the reality is that there is too much potential for infringement of our Rights.
    "Mind own business"
    "Always cut cards"

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Kennydale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Richmond/Rosenberg, TX
    Posts
    3,251
    Should you be required to pay a license fee (to a govt agency) and be required to be certified let's say to "TAKE A WHIZ"? sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? BUT, govt does that in many areas to control the market not for safety reasons or what's best for the community but just to control people. I get it I wouldn't want a doctor to PRACTICE medicine on me without some competency. Then let's look at the Constitution. Shall Not Be Infringed... I believe that has DEEP MEANING. You have a right to have a firearm, BUT Big Government needs to know you have some competency so we will tax you with fees and force you to spend time so that we BIG GOVERNMENT will then give you permission to have a right, that is already GUARANTEED. I admit I crossed all my T's and dotted all my I's and did the mail box wait for my TX CHL. I like to think I followed the rules. Doesn't make it right. We compromise and compromise eventually we will have compromised all our rights away. Sorry you are 110% wrong. I realize to be trained is in everyones best interest. But, THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW mentality is killing this country.
    G-d, Make me fast and accurate. Let my aim be true and my hand faster than those who would seek to destroy me. And G-d if today is truly the day you call me home, then let me die in a pile of empty brass.

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Array Bama61's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    N. Alabama
    Posts
    971
    I think no. If we give an inch they want a mile. If everyone says mandatory training is ok then what else will they come up with.

    I do think that anyone who wants to own and operate a firearm should take it upon themself to learn the basics, which includes safety. If someone wants to place their own life in danger that's their decision. But under no circumstances shoud they put other peoples lives in danger.
    Secret Spuk likes this.
    NRA Member
    GOA Member
    US Army Vet

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member Array Jaeger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    St. Louis, MO "The Most Dangerous City in America"
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsbjax View Post
    Mandatory, no. I am a firm believer in both basic and on going training if choose to take on the responsibility of firearms ownership. Before someone starts the driver's licence argument, you are not required to have a driver's licence to buy a car, just to drive it on the road. So reuired training to buy a gun no, to carry a gun in public, concealed or not, I can see the need for a training requirement for that.
    Every school kid should get a visit from Eddy the Eagle whether they decide to ever own guns or not.
    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." C.S. Lewis

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Array RightsEroding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,221
    Seems to me (SOMETHING) needs to be done?..Or, perhaps nothing?

    I fully understand if the GOV on a FED or State level is allowed to intervene, we begin to walk a very slippery slope; I agree with that.

    But under no circumstances shoud they put other peoples lives in danger.
    The problem is; THEY DO! Happened to me at the range. I was in danger.

    Perhaps self policing is the answer. I advised the Range Master; so I suppose I discharged my responsibility to others at the range.

    Maybe I make the decision to no longer frequent public ranges? Seek out private ranges where members ARE vetted.

    Should people take it upon themselves to learn. Yes....
    Reality check; too many do not.

    Don't get me wrong; I of all people do NOT want GOV interference; but surely there must be an answer to make public ranges safer?

    OR a demonstrated ability, administered by the practice range that the shooter can safely handle a firearm and understands it's basic operation.
    "When those who are governed do too little, those who govern can, and will, do too much." Ronald Reagan

    Do what you can; then do what you must

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,104

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by RightsEroding View Post
    Should Basic Safety Training Be Mandatory When Purchasing a Firearm?
    Nope. That'd be rights eroding, right there. Ironic, eh?

    Forcible training requirements sets a bar of denial in front of folks unwilling to accept (or to pass) such so-called requirements to exercise their rights. No such hurdles exist on the 1A, so long as you don't harm folks. Similarly, no such hurdles should exist on the 2A.

    It's a RIGHT, not a privilege, not a desire, not a nice-to-have. A RIGHT. By definition, placing hurdles (aka: infringements) in front of people if they're to avoid being branded felons goes against everything we hold to be true of rights and liberty.

    Strongly recommend training, sure. Even encourage it, possibly via tax break for those deciding to acquire training, purchase quality safes, and so on.

    But, forcibly demand it as a requirement, calling such folks exercising their rights "felons" for failing to do so, despite zero harm to others, zero impending threat to others? Absolutely not.


    Now, would I like to see more-capable and safer folks out there? Sure, who wouldn't? But at what expense ... liberty, constitutionality and the rule of law? I don't think so.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #10
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,142
    Any fool can walk into a car dealership, plunk down money and take possession of a 4000-pound vehicle capable of 120 mph. That puts over 2 MILLION foot-pounds of energy at the purchaser's disposal - three to four orders of magnitude more energy than any cartridge is capable of. Then we put 15 gallons of a volatile, highly flammable liquid into the car's tank - that's another 1.3 BILLION foot-pounds of energy just waiting to detonate. Any mandatory safety training required for either?
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Personal responsibility can not be legislated.

    Should people get training before they handle a firearm? You better believe it. People should get educated before having kids, getting a job, handling money and a lot of other things. Do we require it? NO!!!!

    We need to teach people to be responsible, not try to pass a law so that people feel they will be. Why? Because it doesn't work.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by gasmitty View Post
    Any mandatory safety training required for either?
    Technically I would say that is a bad example because you have to have a driver's license which does included safety training.
    Stockhausen likes this.

  14. #13
    Ex Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,960
    Quote Originally Posted by RightsEroding View Post
    Seems to me (SOMETHING) needs to be done?..Or, perhaps nothing?

    I fully understand if the GOV on a FED or State level is allowed to intervene, we begin to walk a very slippery slope; I agree with that.



    The problem is; THEY DO! Happened to me at the range. I was in danger.

    Perhaps self policing is the answer. I advised the Range Master; so I suppose I discharged my responsibility to others at the range.

    Maybe I make the decision to no longer frequent public ranges? Seek out private ranges where members ARE vetted.



    Reality check; too many do not.

    Don't get me wrong; I of all people do NOT want GOV interference; but surely there must be an answer to make public ranges safer?
    There is. You said that there was a range master. He needed to do his job.
    Ghost1958 likes this.

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array RightsEroding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    Technically I would say that is a bad example because you have to have a driver's license which does included safety training.

    ..and is that not a infringement on MY right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?..or is driving not a right but a privilege?

    ..and exactly WHY do we need "training" to legally drive a car? It's not federally mandated but rather state mandated.

    So if we remove the training aspect of getting a drivers license, what do we have? Bedlam and danger on the streets; far worse than what we have now.

    I could easily argue the state has placed a barrier before me (infringing) on my constitutional right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in requiring a written AND driving test.

    Someone mentioned the 1st Amendment:
    No such hurdles exist on the 1A, so long as you don't harm folks.
    I beg to differ. I can no longer verbally voice my opinion in many areas of society I do not agree with.
    I give you the (new & improved) hate crime laws.

    The 1A has taken a pounding..and it is the 1A erosion that has caused the others to either fall or become diluted.

    A sad state of affairs indeed.
    "When those who are governed do too little, those who govern can, and will, do too much." Ronald Reagan

    Do what you can; then do what you must

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array CommonCents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    714
    in a perfect world you'd want everyone to have training. However, the devil is always in the details and govt will exploit if you give them an inch, they'd take a mile.

    so I would say no mandatory.

    The true focus of govt should be "crime control" not gun control. If they were seriously interested in crime control they'd take the almost $400 million the radical Eric Holder wants for "gun safety" and offer carry classes, they could add 8 million people to the carry class ranks. That'd be a cheap investment that would go far in crime control. But as we know, their real goal is to disarm the entire population and continue their utopian fantasy land thinking that bad guys would turn in their guns too.
    Ghost1958 and sensei2 like this.

Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

i have a hunting license in ct...what do i need to do inorder to buy a firearm at this point?

Click on a term to search for related topics.