Would you agree to a required class if...

[indytechnerd]

If the Gubbmint wants mandatory training, they can start with public school system.

Grades 1-4: Firearms Safety, Firearms Recognition, Constitional History

Grades 5-9: Marksmanship, US History (in depth history not the BS taught today) in addition to the above

Grades 10-12: Advanced Marksmanship. State/National scholarship competitions

At 18 years old: Graduates are provided with a National Constitutional Carry affidavit and a discount coupon for their first handgun.

Playing devil's advocate here, which subjects would you remove in order to accommodate these classes? You propose 3 new items for grades 1-4. Here is my son's (3rd grade) schedule...

Citizenship
Language Arts
Mathematics
Reading
Science
Spelling
Social Studies

The below subjects are in 2 groups and rotate daily, so today he may have Art and World Language, tomorrow he'll have Music and PE.
Art
World Language (Spanish)
Music
P.E.

Now, Indiana already mandates a 180 day school year, and Perry Township has already moved to a "balanced calendar". His day starts at 7:55am and ends at 3:40pm.

 

[reesez]

You have a valid point, I cannot say you don't. Like I said, I am against more restrictions. Maybe if I take a course that is accepted, then i petition every state I go to, I might be able to carry there.

 

[traderdan]

1. What program does State of Indiana run effectively?

2. Why do you think that such a class will not be $10,000, be held on one day a year in Yankeetown, Indiana and have a ten year waiting list?

Yankeetown: Yankeetown, Indiana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Training is far to important to trust to the government.

Why this fixation on governmental training abounds in INGO I cannot fathom. Maybe it is because all the other cool kids are doing it so to sit at the cool kids table we have to do it? "I wanna be like Texas too! I have the big hat and elf boots and everything!"

If we are truly wanting a governmental role, then how about adopting one of the Freeman Proposals?

Firearms Training Proposal #2: "All ammunition expense, firearms accessories, travel expenses, lodging expenses, class tuition fees related to firearms training are tax deductible above the line."

I believe I have eaten at a restaurant/tavern in Yankeetown called the Salty dog???Anyway we do not need training to exercise natural rights..

 

[N8RV]

There are TONS of new gun owners out there who have made their purchases for self defense, yet have ZERO training. Rare would be the first-time owner who just naturally knows how to properly store, carry, fire and maintain a handgun.

I don't know about anyone else, but I know several of my friends who are as intimate with their handguns as they are with their electric carving knives that they pull out each Thanksgiving to make a mess of a perfectly cooked turkey. If you ask them if they know how to use it, they will confidently assert that they do. But don't ask the turkey.

Back in the olden days (think 1620-1900), everybody except a few city slickers knew how to handle guns. They grew up using them to feed and defend their families. Rare was the man -- or woman -- who couldn't respectably shoot a gun and knew better than to wave it around in public.

However, with the urbanization of our society, the vast majority have never been exposed to firearms and are totally clueless regarding gun safety and manipulation. I chuckle morbidly when I watch the pundits on TV discuss "gun control" from the knowledge and experience bases of their studios in NYC and DC. Nitwits.

Yes, we have a Constitutionally-protected, natural right to keep and bear arms. However, the practical utility of that right must be measured by the competence of those so blessed, and there's the rub -- this current crop of Americans is not worthy of that right because they are ignorant of the accordant responsibilities.

The solution to that conundrum is to mandate rudimentary firearms training for all who have not already received adequate training. That really shouldn't be an issue for anyone. If you have already been adequately trained, you're good to go. If you haven't, then you are a liability to yourself, your loved ones and society in general until you do.

Our founding fathers were brilliant, gifted and visionary men. They wrote inspirational documents upon which our republic was founded and has flourished for 237 years (excepting the last few, sadly.) However, they were not seers. There was no way that they could have envisioned a country where the average man had no grasp of firearms knowledge, any more than they could have imagined a world with cars, TVs, cell phones, computers and Honey Boo Boo.

I'm not one who believes in the Constitution as a "living document," with its content and intent shifting with society's whims. However, it doesn't take an Einstein to realize the practicality of requiring some basic firearms instruction prior to being licensed to carry it in public. Last I looked, nobody gets a driver's license without taking a test and proving that he knows how to drive safely.

Sometimes common sense dictates that we pick our battles and live to fight another day.

 

[Scutter01]

Yes, we have a Constitutionally-protected, natural right to keep and bear arms. However, the practical utility of that right must be measured by the competence of those so blessed, and there's the rub -- this current crop of Americans is not worthy of that right because they are ignorant of the accordant responsibilities.

The solution to that conundrum is to mandate rudimentary firearms training for all who have not already received adequate training. That really shouldn't be an issue for anyone. If you have already been adequately trained, you're good to go. If you haven't, then you are a liability to yourself, your loved ones and society in general until you do.

I am astonished that someone with the phrase "molon labe" in his sigline is so ready to deny someone their Rights until they have passed a government-mandated regimen first. As long as you've got yours, that's all that really matters? Rights are inalienable and a person's "worthiness" is entirely irrelevant. Who decides who is "worthy"? You? The anti down the street?

I don't think anyone on INGO denies that everyone SHOULD get training, but there is definitely a disagreement about whether they should be REQUIRED to get training. Personally, I've seen how pointless government-mandated firearms training is. It's expensive, it's hard to get, and it doesn't really do anything to train people with firearms. The only thing it accomplishes is to put yet another expensive obstacle between Citizens and their Rights.

Kirk's idea of making training classes tax deductible is a much better way to go. He didn't say "optional training", but I'm going to add that in there. At the state level, encourage training but do not require it.

 

[ViperJock]

First of all for the "shall not be infringed" people. A LTCH is ALREADY required. And I believe I deliberately stated this was not an argument about infringement. So **** off

All this does would add a very basic class. I would think it would include the four cardinal rules. Range would be to safely load and unload the gun and become familiar with its use and function in a safe setting.

Obviously the law of unintended consequences would come into play. Kirk makes the $10000 point. I don't really see why they wouldn't just increase the cost of the LTCH if that was their goal? So that really doesn't become a "new" issue.

I agree that the govt has never "fixed" anything. If the class were contracted out to local ranges and taught by their people would that make a difference?

I see events like the most recent shooting at the 1500 and I can't help but feel the black clouds rolling in. If we don't find a way to regulate ourselves we will find ourselves regulated by others. (right or wrong it will happen so again don't argue this point here find another thread).

Clearly a basic class and an hour at the range does not make one an expert or even competent, but I know people with hundreds of hours of range time that are still not competent so....

I guess my question is How can we effectively regulate ourselves without increasing limitations? It seems like a class for LTCH would be a good way to do that since we all know that gun laws are based on emotion not logic. A class may make zero difference in criminal activity (as pointed out above) but it may make the paranoid libs feel safer?

 

[Scutter01]

First of all for the "shall not be infringed" people. A LTCH is ALREADY required. And I believe I deliberately stated this was not an argument about infringement. So **** off

All this does would add a very basic class. I would think it would include the four cardinal rules. Range would be to safely load and unload the gun and become familiar with its use and function in a safe setting.

Hey, we're already infringing, so what's what more tiny little infringement? Why not also add a conceal-carry restriction? Or a 10-round mag limit? Required locks on all your guns? After all, we're already being infringed and those things will make us all safer, right?

 

[ViperJock]

Shall not be INFRINGED

I hope you aren't counting this as a "quality" post LOL. Especially since you obviously can't even read the OP effectively.

 

[ViperJock]

Hey, we're already infringing, so what's what more tiny little infringement? Why not also add a conceal-carry restriction? Or a 10-round mag limit? Required locks on all your guns? After all, we're already being infringed and those things will make us all safer, right?

Don't see how this is infringing. I see additional cost and time commitment. At the end of the day you still get your LTCH. Don't even tell me a small class fee is prohibitory because a box of 9 will cost you $40 right now. shoot one box less this week. Obviously, as mentioned previously the class fee could be made prohibitory, but then so could the LTCH fee so its a wash.

Want to see those other infringements? well, if things keep going the way they are, you will. I am trying to come up with ideas for a preemptive strike that does no damage. What ideas do you have? I'd love to hear any practical ideas.

 

[reesez]

Hey, we're already infringing, so what's what more tiny little infringement? Why not also add a conceal-carry restriction? Or a 10-round mag limit? Required locks on all your guns? After all, we're already being infringed and those things will make us all safer, right?

WOW.Ummmmm.

 

[eldirector]

Better idea, and I think it has been proposed MANY times:

Constitutional carry for ALL Indiana residents. No license, no permit, and no fuss. Anyone can carry anywhere in the state with no (or minimal) restrictions. Of course, we would also recognize all other State's licenses/permits. Heck, maybe even constitutional carry for them, too!

Make a Reciprocity permit available that has a photo ID and required training (NRA Basic, not taught by the .gov, would be my choice. Military Service would count.). This would satisfy many of the other State's requirements, and they would accept our "permit". It would also appease the "But, training is important!" crowd, and get them off of our backs.

On a similar note: Training is already widely available to ANYONE who wants it. It can be cheap (I took the NRA Basic for $25), and is certainly less than the cost of your gun. At today's ammo prices, it is less than the cost of 200 rounds of ammo! Anyone who wants or thinks they need training is already taking it. Should it be encouraged? YES. Should lack of formal training disqualify you from exercising your rights? NO.

 

[indytechnerd]

Scutter, I know where you're going, and you're right with the "what's one more little infringement" theme. But, let me throw this at you (because I don't know the answer). Do you have a Utah out of state permit? Many, many folks here have taken the Utah class in order to have less infringement on their right to bear arms. So, is a training class to get your ticket (knowing that you get about 9 more states worth of RTBA) an extra infringement or a facilitator?

 

[Scutter01]

Scutter, I know where you're going, and you're right with the "what's one more little infringement" theme. But, let me throw this at you (because I don't know the answer). Do you have a Utah out of state permit? Many, many folks here have taken the Utah class in order to have less infringement on their right to bear arms. So, is a training class to get your ticket (knowing that you get about 9 more states worth of RTBA) an extra infringement or a facilitator?

I already addressed that question up-thread.

And for the record, I am absolutely for training. As much as you can possibly get, in fact. I am just against government-mandated REQUIRED training.

 

[reesez]

Better idea, and I think it has been proposed MANY times:

Constitutional carry for ALL Indiana residents. No license, no permit, and no fuss. Anyone can carry anywhere in the state with no (or minimal) restrictions. Of course, we would also recognize all other State's licenses/permits. Heck, maybe even constitutional carry for them, too!

Make a Reciprocity permit available that has a photo ID and required training (NRA Basic, not taught by the .gov, would be my choice. Military Service would count.). This would satisfy many of the other State's requirements, and they would accept our "permit". It would also appease the "But, training is important!" crowd, and get them off of our backs.

On a similar note: Training is already widely available to ANYONE who wants it. It can be cheap (I took the NRA Basic for $25), and is certainly less than the cost of your gun. At today's ammo prices, it is less than the cost of 200 rounds of ammo! Anyone who wants or thinks they need training is already taking it. Should it be encouraged? YES. Should lack of formal training disqualify you from exercising your rights? NO.

Now THAT^, is a logical argument. I see your point fully and agree. A government ran course would not be the right attitude. I think an NRA course and maybe a coupon for the class when you apply for your LTCH would be substantial. Therefore it would not be a requirement, but having a coupon or gift card or something of the nature would entice the people to take the class. I mean who doesnt like saving money, or likes to waste a discount for ANYTHING lol.

 

[hacksawfg]

I would consider paying for and taking such a class if they abolished the $200 for every Class III purchase

 

[thatgtrguy]

I took my course in USMC boot camp, ITR and Vietnam, having said that; we teach kids how to drive and have safe sex in school why not voluntary basic firearm education. Skills and marksmanship and real life situations left to dads, grandpas and uncles. I have plenty of regs in my life as it is.

My high school had a rifle team. So anyone interested or curious about shooting could learn and compete.

I think a club or a team or a class that can be taken as an elective would be a great idea in our schools.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kirk's idea of making training classes tax deductible is a much better way to go. He didn't say "optional training", but I'm going to add that in there. At the state level, encourage training but do not require it.

Definintely not mandated!

We want to create a culture of training/learning and decouple ourselves from what we have all seen at the gun shop or the gun shows: "EYE been around dem gunz all MEYE lie-eff. I don't need no ejama *bang* . . . sorry, Cledus."

What is the best way to achieve this goal? Through the carrot, not the stick. Make training "cool", just like how now government-mandated classes are cool to some gun owners in Indiana because all the cool kids in Texas have them.

Let us use the tax code to our advantage instead of having it used against us. It is almost as if we are afraid to use the weapons of our enemy. Don't be, turn the cannons around and use them against them.

All this does would add a very basic class.

Just like the basic comparative religion class I had to take for my Church License?

Why do you believe that it would stay "basic"?

I agree that the govt has never "fixed" anything. If the class were contracted out to local ranges and taught by their people would that make a difference?

Full stop. There you go--the government has never fixed anything. Nothing more need be said . . . but you know I will.

Clearly a basic class and an hour at the range does not make one an expert or even competent, but I know people with hundreds of hours of range time that are still not competent so....

Range time is meaningless unless you are practicing what you have been taught.

Do not lose sight of the goal: how do we ensure that people are competent with firearms?

I guess my question is How can we effectively regulate ourselves without increasing limitations?

By encouraging a culture of learning. Let 10,000 flowers (gun schools) bloom.

How do we do this?

1. Taxes. Control the tax code and impact behavior via a carrot.

2. Culture. Make gun school cool via the gun culture's media.

A class may make zero difference in criminal activity (as pointed out above) but it may make the paranoid libs feel safer?

The paranoid are mentally ill. They need counseling, not laws.

The paranoids have sought to ban training.

If you want to reach a Man of the Left, you need coercion of the law. A Man of the Left care not what you do as long as it is mandatory.

What do you mean, Kirk? Glad you asked.

Schools. We need the schools.

State mandated firearms training beginning in grade school and continuing on to graduation. No diploma without checking out on the M9 and M16 and a written firearms exam. The community service requirement that some schools have for graduation can be satisfied with work at the school range (range chicken, admin, what have you).

This can be packaged as "safety training"/"safe shooting" etc. Something must be given up for firearms training? No, not necessarily. Gun class could only be one semester, once a week, on weekends, etc.

Turn the canons around.

 

[Hdfb03]

My high school had a rifle team. So anyone interested or curious about shooting could learn and compete.

I think a club or a team or a class that can be taken as an elective would be a great idea in our schools.

This is a great idea. I'm assuming it would be something that would have to take place off school grounds, but what a great way to get younger poeple (I say that like I'm not 27 years old) involved in shooting.

 

[JetGirl]

Please, no rants about Rights, thats not what this is about.

I don't see how it can't be. Owning a firearm is inextricably tied to the 2nd Amendment which DOES state "Shall not be infringed".
My question to you is; How do you think "rights" and "required training" could possibly go together? And if they don't, how can you say "That's not what this is about."?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What happens when you have a rush for LTCH like we just saw and the facilities are overwhelmed?

What about rural areas that might not have access to training facilities nearby?

What about people who want a permit but haven't bought a pistol yet?

What about people who work on the days the classes are scheduled?

What are you going to do to attract quality instructors?

How much good would come from all that extra expense and logistics? Enough to justify the cost?