Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:
When I got my conceal carry permit, all that was required was to watch a video and then take a test; all online. The video was 45 minutes and the test was 10 question of which you had to answer 6 correctly; nearly all of which were "where can't you carry a gun". I was truly surprised how lax it was.

I would definitely support nonmandatory safety classes much in the same way I would support a pool safety awareness campaign.
Yeah, that's tied to the idea that you're in a militia. The supreme court recently ruled the second amendment doesn't require militia membership to exercise. You can't just pick words out of the clause and strip them of context - it's a declaratory sentence.

I don't know that I agree with that interpretation, but it is what it is.

That is truly hilarious. Dreadful

 Alex C wrote:
On the other hand, mine was 2 days at 8 hours per day. One day was classroom going over safety and legal stuff, the other was on the range doing practical exercises. It was extremely thorough and taught by an ex-Detroit LEO and a lawyer.

Such are the pitfalls of having a patchwork of regulations across the entire country.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


However my point is for people to identify whether they think safety training in the operation of guns is in principle a good thing or a bad thing (or pointless.)

I think it's a good thing and I encourage people to seek training, but it should not be mandatory to complete a class prior to use or ownership, for reasons that CptJake outlined.

 Alex C wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
When I got my conceal carry permit, all that was required was to watch a video and then take a test; all online. The video was 45 minutes and the test was 10 question of which you had to answer 6 correctly; nearly all of which were "where can't you carry a gun". I was truly surprised how lax it was.

On the other hand, mine was 2 days at 8 hours per day. One day was classroom going over safety and legal stuff, the other was on the range doing practical exercises. It was extremely thorough and taught by an ex-Detroit LEO and a lawyer.

12 hours for the wife. She got a perfect score on the written test. I got a perfect score on the shooting test.
Now Genghis Connie wants one and has confiscated my Beretta for future use.

I'm very much for safety training and shooting classes. I'm less for requiring them, but could live with it if the mandate had private options and it was purely a safety course. The devil is in the details as some states have used such things to exclude ownership previously.

 dogma wrote:
The US Federal Government abridges the freedom of speech by way of the fighting words doctrine, so it seems a bit odd that it cannot also infringe upon the right to bear arms.

It really doesn't, though. "Fighting words" is one of those things that people on the "restrict speech!" side of the free speech debate like to throw around, but never seem to actually research. It's simply not an applicable restriction anymore. The court has refused to invoke it for ~70 years, and has in fact continually narrowed, rather than expanded its domain every time the issue comes up.

It's dead in all but name.

Indeed, its a false equivalency argument.

 Alex C wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


However my point is for people to identify whether they think safety training in the operation of guns is in principle a good thing or a bad thing (or pointless.)

I think it's a good thing and I encourage people to seek training, but it should not be mandatory to complete a class prior to use or ownership, for reasons that CptJake outlined.

You mean you don't want more government regulation in your life???

A mandatory training class is just a bad idea. Who offers the class? The police department? (Already stretched thin here in northern CA, and they should be responding to more important matters.) The ATF? Some other agency sucking up tax payer money?

Where does the class take place? Most government buildings are closed on weekends and police departments aren't exactly spacious.

How long is the course? 4 hours? 8 hours? A week? Guess I have to take some time off work, awesome.

Don't want to take it? Thats ok! Just pay the fine!

Who sets the fine? How much do you think it should be? $100, $500, $1000?

All ways to control and infringe IMO.

And again all for what? To hopefully reduce the amount of negligent discharges or other negligent behavior? I'm all for training, but it should be SELF regulated. I'm responsible for my actions. Its MY job as a responsible gun owner to make sure my firearms are safely stowed, and others living with me are taught to respect these potentially dangerous items. If someone can't do that, thats on them. But I'm personally not ok being forced to jump through MORE hoops because some people aren't responsible.

Exactly.

 Jihadin wrote:
I can get behind the mandatory training. As long as its free.

No such thing as free. Tax dollars fund 'free' stuff. And again, there are so few injuries and deaths due to accidents that it is a waste of resources to implement and track training for 10s of millions of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chief Tugboat wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


However my point is for people to identify whether they think safety training in the operation of guns is in principle a good thing or a bad thing (or pointless.)

I think it's a good thing and I encourage people to seek training, but it should not be mandatory to complete a class prior to use or ownership, for reasons that CptJake outlined.

You mean you don't want more government regulation in your life???

A mandatory training class is just a bad idea. Who offers the class? The police department? (Already stretched thin here in northern CA, and they should be responding to more important matters.) The ATF? Some other agency sucking up tax payer money?

Where does the class take place? Most government buildings are closed on weekends and police departments aren't exactly spacious.

How long is the course? 4 hours? 8 hours? A week? Guess I have to take some time off work, awesome.

Don't want to take it? Thats ok! Just pay the fine!

Who sets the fine? How much do you think it should be? $100, $500, $1000?

All ways to control and infringe IMO.

And again all for what? To hopefully reduce the amount of negligent discharges or other negligent behavior? I'm all for training, but it should be SELF regulated. I'm responsible for my actions. Its MY job as a responsible gun owner to make sure my firearms are safely stowed, and others living with me are taught to respect these potentially dangerous items. If someone can't do that, thats on them. But I'm personally not ok being forced to jump through MORE hoops because some people aren't responsible.

Not to mention there are already penalties (criminal and civil) for injuries and deaths due to negligence. You want to avoid the penalties? Don't be negligent. Have trouble not being negligent? Take one of the many available safety courses the NRA, local ranges, the Civil Marksmanship Program and other agencies offer. (CMP has some great resources: http://thecmp.org)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
It is exactly the same. Mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right is mandatory training required to exercise a constitutional right. The rights are similar in that they are constitutionally protected.

If you refuse to grasp that, there is nothing I can do about it. It should be clear to every kid who made it through high school.

Let's suppose for the sake of a little thought experiment that mandatory safety training for gun use was not prohibited by the Constitution. Would you still hold that safety training was a bad thing?

I never said safety training was a bad thing. I said federally mandated training required to exercise a right is a bad thing. I encourage folks to seek out an get the training they feel they need. I provide training to those who ask for it. I run my home range in a very safe manner and ensure any guests we have over fully understand my rules and why they are rules.

 CptJake wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I can get behind the mandatory training. As long as its free.

No such thing as free. Tax dollars fund 'free' stuff. And again, there are so few injuries and deaths due to accidents that it is a waste of resources to implement and track training for 10s of millions of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chief Tugboat wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


However my point is for people to identify whether they think safety training in the operation of guns is in principle a good thing or a bad thing (or pointless.)

I think it's a good thing and I encourage people to seek training, but it should not be mandatory to complete a class prior to use or ownership, for reasons that CptJake outlined.

You mean you don't want more government regulation in your life???

A mandatory training class is just a bad idea. Who offers the class? The police department? (Already stretched thin here in northern CA, and they should be responding to more important matters.) The ATF? Some other agency sucking up tax payer money?

Where does the class take place? Most government buildings are closed on weekends and police departments aren't exactly spacious.

How long is the course? 4 hours? 8 hours? A week? Guess I have to take some time off work, awesome.

Don't want to take it? Thats ok! Just pay the fine!

Who sets the fine? How much do you think it should be? $100, $500, $1000?

All ways to control and infringe IMO.

And again all for what? To hopefully reduce the amount of negligent discharges or other negligent behavior? I'm all for training, but it should be SELF regulated. I'm responsible for my actions. Its MY job as a responsible gun owner to make sure my firearms are safely stowed, and others living with me are taught to respect these potentially dangerous items. If someone can't do that, thats on them. But I'm personally not ok being forced to jump through MORE hoops because some people aren't responsible.

Not to mention there are already penalties (criminal and civil) for injuries and deaths due to negligence. You want to avoid the penalties? Don't be negligent. Have trouble not being negligent? Take one of the many available safety courses the NRA, local ranges, the Civil Marksmanship Program and other agencies offer. (CMP has some great resources: http://thecmp.org)

Or you could cut all of that out and just ensure everybody is going to know what they are doing handling a deadly weapon. If everybody could just choose not to be negligent, we would not have the problem of accidental discharges in the first place. So far this all comes down to "government regulation bad grrr" and not a lot of substance in an argument. You admit that accidental discharges and deaths happen, but do not think it is worth spending money on it to save lives. Why is it not worth saving lives? Why is this something we should not be spending money on but instead we give tax breaks to companies? We have the money and resources to do this. We have the infrastructure to do this. It just makes sense to ensure that people know how to handle a deadly weapon if they are going to be handling one.

Like I stated earlier in this thread, unless there is a mechanical malfunction, there is no such thing as "accidental" discharges. It is always negligence. Therefore it doesn't matter what training you mandate, if someone is negligent, they are negligent and should be punished by law.

I voiced reasonable concerns about this hypothetical "training". If you don't share those same concerns, thats fine, but saying "cut all that out" doesn't address any of them. Some of those concerns was questioning the infastructure. Where would the training take place? Who would conduct it? Who sets the bar on what is "trained enough to handle a deadly weapon"? Again all reasonable.

But this might be OT.

Thats a very optimistic attitude.

What if the safety course is a six weeks course, taught once a year, in Omaha? Thats how these things work.

Further, infringements on the Bill of Rights of this nature often don't withstand scrutiny. Should you have to take a government mandated education class before you can vote?

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats a very optimistic attitude.

What if the safety course is a six weeks course, taught once a year, in Omaha? Thats how these things work.

Further, infringements on the Bill of Rights of this nature often don't withstand scrutiny. Should you have to take a government mandated education class before you can vote?

I had to look twice there, because I thought you said Omaha beach!

Anyway, I read some interesting statistics about guns in the USA.

In 2015, you were more likely to be shot by a dog, or a person under 5 years old, than you were by gun toting terrorists.

Rural gun owners were less likely to be the victim of gun violence than non gun owning urban dwellers.

Hell, if you take the urban gun crime figures out of the official counting. the USA looks a lot better.

Going further, If I were an average American, I'd be more concerned about lightning bolts, type 2 diabetes, and bad drivers, than guns.

Point is, I don't think this proposal will change that much.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats a very optimistic attitude.

What if the safety course is a six weeks course, taught once a year, in Omaha? Thats how these things work.

Further, infringements on the Bill of Rights of this nature often don't withstand scrutiny. Should you have to take a government mandated education class before you can vote?

I had to look twice there, because I thought you said Omaha beach!

Anyway, I read some interesting statistics about guns in the USA.

In 2015, you were more likely to be shot by a dog, or a person under 5 years old, than you were by gun toting terrorists.

Rural gun owners were less likely to be the victim of gun violence than non gun owning urban dwellers.

Hell, if you take the urban gun crime figures out of the official counting. the USA looks a lot better.

Going further, If I were an average American, I'd be more concerned about lightning bolts, type 2 diabetes, and bad drivers, than guns.

Point is, I don't think this proposal will change that much.

You are more likely to die from a drunk driver than a gun.

You are more likely to die from a drug overdose than a gun.

*the more you know*

I mean I support gun control at its basic level, I think more ATF agents is a great idea as I know its a very underfunded department and probably one of the smallest branches of enforcement.

 Frazzled wrote:

Further, infringements on the Bill of Rights of this nature often don't withstand scrutiny. Should you have to take a government mandated education class before you can vote?

Well.... we do require that children go to school for quite some time, so you could consider that "government mandated education prior to voting"

I agree that making firearm safety courses mandatory for ownership is generally bad. That said, I think most people could use a safety course, with a couple refreshers over the years, however it is and should be, up to the individual person.


Personally, I would like to see some strengthening of safety courses from a legal/judicial point of view, specifically with the mindset that if I have a CCL (or whatever they are called in your locality), it should transfer and be recognized anywhere else in the US, the same as a marriage or drivers' license.

In 2015, you were more likely to be shot by a dog, or a person under 5 years old, than you were by gun toting terrorists.

I see you've met Team Wienie.

 Frazzled wrote:

In 2015, you were more likely to be shot by a dog, or a person under 5 years old, than you were by gun toting terrorists.

I see you've met Team Wienie.

It's true, Frazz. Remember that story of a woman hunting in the woods? She left her rifle on the ground, her dog started chewing on it, and the rifle went off

Or that tragic tale of a woman who left her gun in her handbag during shopping, and her kid was in a shopping cart, started looking through the bag...

Do gun clubs offer safety training courses?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do gun clubs offer safety training courses?

I find they either offer gun safety training, or government resistance training. Depends on the gun club

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do gun clubs offer safety training courses?

I know, or know of many that do, so I would sort of assume, based on the few that I know of, that it's fairly common. I would bet that it has something to do with insurance costs as well.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do gun clubs offer safety training courses?

Some do, depends on the club.

When the dog wants a treat, if you know whats good for you, you're going to give that dog a treat!

So are we done talking about the EOs?

 Alex C wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do gun clubs offer safety training courses?

Some do, depends on the club.

And are clubs open at the weekend? And they aren't all on a remote mountain top in Omaha, that no-one can get to?

You can see where this is leading.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do gun clubs offer safety training courses?

Some do, depends on the club.

And are clubs open at the weekend? And they aren't all on a remote mountain top in Omaha, that no-one can get to?

You can see where this is leading.

I will report you to the other mods for using logic in a gun thread. DO NOT TEMPT ME!

Its not logical at all. Such safety courses cannot be guaranteed to be equally distributed.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its not logical at all. Such safety courses cannot be guaranteed to be equally distributed.

The same way venues for voting cannot be guaranteed to be equally distributed? Monarchy it is then!

 d-usa wrote:
So are we done talking about the EOs?

Not yet. Has there been any clarity on the definition change for "Seller" yet?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its not logical at all. Such safety courses cannot be guaranteed to be equally distributed.

Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?

I'm all for gun control and bans on guns no one has any business owning, but a litmus test for exercising Constitutionally protected rights has been done before. It was called Jim Crow, and I don't think we look kindly on that these days

Though I think a law requiring that all guns be packaged with a piece of paper reading "<Gun maker> highly advises taking a gun safety course when possible before using this product" would not be unreasonable, cause taking such a course would seem a responsible thing to do and for all I know there are stupid people who don't know such things exist