Mandatory Gun Training?

[sht4brnz]

Free classes exist.
How do you entice the uneducated to take the class?

 

[bwframe]

Absolutely. But they have to be free to act, first, before being held accountable.

Preventing that action in the first place is not freedom; it is tyranny.

Which is why nobody is saying that.

Free classes exist.
How do you entice the uneducated to take the class?

Financially. Then more peer pressure from those who might have been just as sloppy dangerous had they not been trained otherwise.

 

[Hop]

If only there was some kind of school... like a mandatory place where all the kids had to attend... they could all learn something useful like safe gun handling... K-12 yes, that's it! Start em' young!

 

[Ggreen]

That's presumptuous. Besides the fact you wouldn't be paying for anything. The training incentive would be tax credits/deductions. No one required to participate.

Lots of organizations out there that are not the gov't to monitor and approve trainers.

And why should my tax dollars have to pay the gap that a credit creates? If you can afford a gun you can afford a basic safety course on your own and at your own will.

And the government would have to approve the civil agencies that sanction training. That means a large group of government overseers looking into, writing a cfr, lawyers, etc... Tax credit voluntary firearm training is ridiculous at best. We need to focus our tax dollars on our debt not lining some Jack hole "firearms expert"s pockets. Most instructors I've met try to sell me something, teach me"their" system, and are heavy on opinion and internet knowledge and light on real experience and fact. Way to easy to pay your way through the NRA training ranks, fake military or police experience,get a shiny office at a gun shop/range, a YouTube channel and some 5.11 gear and pass as an"expert instructor".

Training is a personal responsibility and it takes a lot to find someone who isn't fronting or pushing product, politic, or bull. It's not the tax payers burden, it's the burden and responsibility of the user.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If only there was some kind of school... like a mandatory place where all the kids had to attend... they could all learn something useful like safe gun handling... K-12 yes, that's it! Start em' young!

Lol....hell will have frozen over several times before anyone would ever touch that idea.

 

[eldirector]

If only there was some kind of school... like a mandatory place where all the kids had to attend... they could all learn something useful like safe gun handling... K-12 yes, that's it! Start em' young!

Common Core Firearms Safety. What could go wrong?

I do think it would be interesting for public and private schools (and home school curriculum providers) to have opt in/out seminars led by volunteers. Just like all of the other elective topics that are brought in throughout the year. I believe it is already happening, just not all that common. Probably need more of us parents asking for it, and more of us "certified trainers" getting info to the schools and making ourselves available.

 

[Brad69]

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.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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.

Brad, with respect, I think almost all of us can give cites of negligent discharges, injuries, or death in mandatory training states, e.g. Ohio or Texas.

Training is merely a barrier to entry to prevent citizens from exercising their civil rights.

We can obtain training, something the antis tell us that they want, via the tax code.

 

[Brad69]

I concur

I have encountered a very experienced well trained personnel do some stupid stuff.
Like shooting a borelight out of a M4 it will travel about 20 feet!

 

[actaeon277]

I've often seen people with more safe skills that were taught by a family member (not allowed under mandatory training) than people that went to an approved trainer.

 

[Hawkeye]

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.

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?

 

[Brad69]

My free speech has never had an AD!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

My free speech has never had an AD!

Yes, but the Southern States used to have such training/tests for the right to vote.

 

[ATM]

...One could not receive your license until you completed the training...

Requiring a license is an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Requiring training for such a license is an extra barrier to complying with an infringement.

You say that you "believe" in this, but I'm not sure what that means. You can't possibly justify it.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

You believe in requiring something that infringes on a natural right, while admitting that the thing you believe should be required has no impact on the public good that it purports to further.

Really, nothing more needs to be said.

 

[actaeon277]

My free speech has never had an AD!

Speech can be used to incite.
Voting can be lead to war, which kills wholesale.
The pen is mightier than the sword.

 

[chipbennett]

My free speech has never had an AD!

Are you claiming that no exercise of the constitutionally protected right of free speech has ever caused harm?

 

[Brad69]

One learns at INGO not to engage with ATM!

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

 

[chipbennett]

One learns at INGO not to engage with ATM!

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

By definition: yes.

 

[actaeon277]

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.