I'm going to add another NO, for all of the reasons already mentioned.
That said, comparing firearms ownership to owning a chainsaw, bleach, propane, etc. I don't think those are appropriate comparisons for a couple of reasons, they are constitutionally protected and many firearms accidents kill or injure a secondary party, whereas bleach, chainsaws and propane usually involve only the user.

__________________
GOA life member

The second amendment is the law of the land. It is without question a basis for the US of A. It is not a right to be compromised.

Educating our youngins to safely exercise that right strengthens the 2nd amendment. Educated youth are the very citizens that will help preserve the union in the future.

We are constantly being bombarded by people that don't understand it all. "Compromise" means working together to ensure that the really stoooopid laws don't get enacted.

"The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed"

This statement is an absolute, not a negotiating point

__________________
"Acta non verba"

Bear, not bare, although of you want to bear bare arms, fine with me.

Add me to the "NO" tally as well.

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

“if” . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

No.

It is the Bill of Rights. Not the Bill of Ifs.

I like Steelslaver's idea to make gun safety training mandatory in schools. I think even if you hate guns, if you love your kids you ought to support this. It's like teaching them to look both ways when crossing a street or not get into cars with strangers. Only more so.

Ya know, whether we like it or not, there are places that already mandate proof of gun safety training before one can acquire a handgun. Hawaii, for one. Been that way since the late 80s or early 90s. I bet at least some other liberal states have similar laws.

Edited to add: Was curious, so looked up whether safety training was required in other states. Massachusetts and California require safety training. Interestingly, New Jersey, which requires all sorts of paperwork and waiting, does not.... (Talk about a lack of common sense! I mean, require everything BUT safety training? Hello?)

I'm not sure other how many other states require safety training for handgun purchase/acquisition. I just checked these three.

Just what does personnal responsibilty look like when bubba joe accidentally sends a round into my spouse or child? He goes to jail, gets sued? Big deal, I'm still out a spouse or child.
Yes people should be responsible enough to seek minimal training but when they dont & someone other than they are injured or killed, how does that square? You are right, more laws dont prevent stupid, but turning a blind eye does even less.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

No. I’ll go the other direction. I don’t smoke. I’ve been paying for anti-smoking messages and sitting through anti-smoking messages my whole life. Use tax money to educate everyone that the end of a gun that has a hole in it can be dangerous. Point it in a safe direction. Don’t touch the trigger if you are not about to put a hole in something. Check several times to make sure the gun isn’t loaded. Check again. I’d love to see those messages forced on everyone. But “no” to the original proposal.

Freedom, but in the manner I dictate . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

You misunderstood that post . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

NO!
On a side note, I was driving home from work about 25 years ago. Two motorcycles were in front of me at a stop sign. One of them, making a right turn, lost control (from a stopped position) and did a wheelie accidentally and smacked right into a mini-van. The poor dude must've went straight up into the air, did a 360, and came down hard. I of course got out to assist. I looked at the bike, it had about 20 miles on the odometer. His buddy said, "Damn! We just picked that bike up (at a dealer.)" I told him maybe he should've made sure he knew how to ride before he picked up the bike.
Just an example but he had every right to buy & ride the bike.

The Conceal Carry classes for the Iowa permit have always covered the safe operation of a handgun. I have no problem with that.

__________________
_______________
Super Snooper

I have mixed emotions about this. If you have ever had any close contact with teachers you'll understand that the vast majority are as liberal as they come. Say you voted for Trump and you might be banned from the teacher's lounge.

For that reason I would be afraid that any curriculum would be tainted by the teacher giving the instructions. If in-school learning should be followed, the course should be given by a NRA instructor, with an NRA sanctioned blueprint.

I apologize if there are any teachers here. My wife is a teacher and some times I can't believe what she tells me. However, she is also a gun owner, shooter and has a full carry licence.

In that same vein, jetskis are another dangerous toy. Statistically, the vast majority of accidents occur with new watercraft on the first day of operation. Even worse, the vast majority of accidents are fatalities.

I've been riding for 30 years. Before that, we hated these water bugs because way too many of them were operated unsafely. When we were in our boat we avoided the areas where they frequented.

About 20 years ago an 8 hour course to get a marine jetski certificate was required. Sure, we still have idiots out there, but the waterways are now much safer.

Where the law went amiss was that you only needed the "licence" if you owned or borrowed a private 'ski. You could still rent one and all the vendor had to do was have you sign a paper that he explained the machine to you. Guess what? Only 2 fatalities in recent years. Both were rentals.

I won't tell you what I might answer if I trusted the people making the law and the people administering the law, because that gets too far into hypothetical situations that never existed and will never exist.

In the real world, NO!

__________________
Formerly Model520Fan

No

HOWEVER I would require to to sign a form explaining that IF they do have a ND, make a illegal arrest etc that they WILL be prosecuted and lose their firearms rights.

In other words spell out the legal responsibility and consequences of owning a firearm.

No. That being said, I believe firearms safety courses should be taught in elementary schools. When kids get into middle/junior high school, firearms safety should be reiterated with the addition of marksmanship training (air rifle). At high school level, firearms (rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver)/hunter safety courses with natural/Constitutional law (Locke/Founding Fathers) should be taught with marksmanship training advancing to rimfire/shotgun. Parents could "opt-out" their children from the training and any juvenile delinquency would disqualify the child for one year with firearms-related delinquency resulting in a permanent disqualification.

__________________
CPT, Armor (Ret)
Luke 22:36

" the best government is that which governs the least". attributed to Thomas Jefferson

And let us say, "Amen."

__________________
Formerly Model520Fan

This is one of those questions where I could argue either side of it.

My state requires a mandatory training course, and the issuance of a license, just to be able to buy a handgun. (Like all such measures, its real intent is to discourage legal gun ownership.) Because I am a longtime gun owner, I was grandfathered in, and exempted from the training requirement when the law was enacted.

A friend of mine is a retired LEO, and works as an instructor at a local range, teaching the state's mandatory training course. He tells me that a large number of his trainees truly have no idea how firearms work, and how to use them safely. He was opposed to mandatory training...now, not so much...

Like all red-blooded Americans, I don't like the gummint telling me what to do...but there seems to be a clear public safety benefit to these training requirements.

As I said, I could argue either side of this issue...

Negligence is different than knowledge

I don’t understand this statement . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I'm not a US citizen so I can't say either way. Here in Australia before you buy a firearm, you have to;-

- join a shooting club or have permission to hunt on private lands.
- undertake a safety course
- then apply to get a firearms licence
- then waiting period before being able to make a purchase + then apply of a "Permit to Purchase".
- Only then can you buy the firearm. After which, the gun is then registered in your name.

It's a system designed to be so complicated to wear down potential shooters/hunters and discourage them from the sport.

Yes! training is a great thing!!


NO! it should not be legislated.


fooled ya, didnt I?

I don't support mandatory firearms safety courses for a whole lot of reasons which I don't feel like recounting, but in short because it's just another unnecessary hoop to jump through and Drivers Licenses clearly don't prevent people from breaking the safety rules on the road, thus resulting in fatal automotive accidents.

Literally anyone who isn't a complete fool has the common sense to handle a firearm with more responsibility than this guy did, and what's more, even a fool who bothers to skim through the owners manual that comes with every new firearm and is typically available to download free of charge from a manufacturer's website would have known better, ergo this accident was the result of gross negligence which goes above and beyond the level of stupidity that even the lowest common denominator of pandemic gun-buyers would otherwise exhibit.

Firearms already come with safety instructions or otherwise freely provide them to the masses via the internet. In fact, most modern firearms go so far as to have have safety warnings molded right into the frame, urging owners to read the manual, with some even mentioning that the manual can be downloaded from their website just in case the firearm was purchased used.

So yeah, no. I'm sorry, but no. If anything, this just goes to show that some people simply cannot be taught. I guarantee that even if this guy had to attend a mandatory firearms safety course, he wouldn't have payed attention in class and this would have still happened. Heck, even if he were required to take a safety course followed by a test, either he would have failed the test only to maim/kill someone else through some other form of gross negligence. Heck, in fact, I believe that even if he were required to attend a safety followed by a test, he may have passed, only to do this anyway, just like how folks with Drivers Licenses still break the safety rules on the road, because he's a fool.

A fool by definition is someone who exhibits poor judgement as well as low intelligence, ergo no amount of prior education nor instruction will ever get through to them. A fool is one who blatantly ignores/rejects instruction, correction, or wisdom. And as unthinkable as it may be to an otherwise intelligent person, as difficult as it may be to accept, no amount of effort on the part of wise people to instruct them in order to prevent them from making mistakes, ergo all the institution on mandatory safety courses serves to do is to inconvenience the majority of responsible people who don't accidentally shoot others through gross negligence, not to mention waste taxpayer dollars in the process.

If any changes whatsoever ought to be instituted as a result of this tragedy, then it ought to be that police no longer clean firearms for lazy, negligent, incompetent people. Because honestly, if you're too lazy or incompetent to clean your own firearm, then you shouldn't own one at all.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

No. You're confusing rights and privileges again. I need sign no form that adheres to a right.

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

It means that negligence has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge, as everyone seems to be forgetting. I doubt the bulk of NDs are green noobs who have no idea how their new firearm works. They are mostly from people who know full well how they work and were just negligent in following the proper steps. And NEVER think compromise is a good thing. The anti-gun people have no interest in compromise. Anything we give up will never be returned and sure as heck won't stop them from attacking all our other rights in the future.

No, but I'd support mandatory firearms safety training in schools.

Several years ago, maybe 10-15 (Time flies) a group of the major gun manufacturers got together and created a program where every one would put in the box with every gun a Voucher for a firearm orientation and training by a "Local Club". It was to be up to the LGS to make sure the buyer got the voucher and informed the buyer of the local club contact to schedule the training. Where it all fell apart was no one contacted any of the local gun clubs and even told them about the program, how they got paid, what restrictions there may or may not be etc.

I think it lasted for just a couple months.

This would be a potential good idea if now coordinated with the NRA that now has an ON-Line basic Pistol or Rifle program. Biggest hurdle is getting NRA paid, but if they would discount the basic program for the Manufacturers I think there might be a remote possibility it could work. Unfortunately a lot of politics getting something like this done, and then it would be strictly on a buyers election, never a mandatory program.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

For sure another big NO from me on another roadblock to firearm ownership. However
The shooter had a right to own a gun.
The shooter did not have a right to break the chef's leg.
The chef has a right to sue for damages.

I disagree with the police finding no cause for charging the shooter because "...he did so with the firearm pointed away from others and in a downward direction,”

Away from others? The chef was an "other" and was shot for Pete's sake!!
Isn't there anything in the criminal code for reckless or negligent behavior that injures someone? That's like the cop who refused to issue a citation to the lady who ran a stop sign and t-boned me because I wasn't hurt, which would have given her and her insurance company an escape from damages. (He issued one after I walked him around the accident scene.)
I'm not so sure about the ruling because of lack of "intent".
Negligence doesn't require intent.
If I were on a civil jury hearing this case, I'd find for the chef.

I would not support a law like this. Gun handling is a perishable skill and taking a one time safety course, then putting the gun aside for years is no help.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

Contrary to most responders I DO believe there should be a safety test requirement. Having worked behind a Sporting goods counter I cannot remember how many times I had customers come in for ammo who had no idea what caliber their pistol was. I'll always remember a woman yelling at me for not being able to sell her "regular pistol bullets". Having a bunch of uneducated gun owners running around causing accidents is one of the surest ways to get more restrictive gun laws. While many of us grew up learning how to correctly and safely use our guns there are now generations out there with no knowledge what so ever. You should know how to safely handle your firearm. I'm just saying that people with no knowledge or experience should NOT be running around out there. It only makes things worse for all of us.

I agree wiyh all the other NOs.
TB

__________________
frontsightnsqueaz

As long as you also support literacy tests for voting, which is arguably a more dangerous right, I agree. I once saw someone pouring antifreeze into their washer fluid reservoir at a convenience store on I75 in Georgia. The driver had just finished driving in three lanes of 80 mph traffic and had smoke coming from under the hood before they exited. I know this because I needed gas, exited with them, and ended up at the same Dalton, GA store. Again, a much more dangerous privilege, not a right, but no test for mechanical competency. Firearms ownership is a right. It’s not a right only in the manner you dictate . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I'm glad there aren't a lot of anti gun people here. Some of these responses would sure make a good argument in their favor. Unfortunately if we don't clean it up ourselves the government will step in and clean it up for us to "keep everyone safe".

I will have to say yes because:
RIP

I really don't want to but what I have seen ,read & experienced over the past 10 to 20 years is F'd Up

Just say no .

Yes everyone and I do mean everyone needs to know basic gun safety the same way we all need to know of how to be safe with fire and that you DON'T play with it.

__________________
I Cor. 10:13 "1611KJV"

Please... Never suggest the schools teach gun safety.
This is the environment where liberals thrive ve and if you think gun safefy will be taught without heavy biased doses of opinion on guns... Then you haven't thought this through. And those young minds of the students will be shaped and influenced until they are old enough to vote... And guess what, they will have been taught what to think about guns and the laws that affect gun ownership and will vote accordingly.

Yes. I took an NRA safety course almost 50 years ago and the lessons learned have stuck with me all this time. I think educating people about guns and safety, especially people who are not familiar with guns is in our best interest. It would also be a windfall for the NRA. How could that not be in all of our best interest? And BTW Not everybody grows up around guns and or has family members who hunt or shoot.

NO. A right is a right. Stupid people have rights too.

No law ever stopped stupid. While training is good and everyone should do it, it's only as good as the person taking it wants it.

No.

Similarly, training must not be required to speak your mind, communicate with government, associate with other people, hold religious beliefs, vote, or to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness., etc etc etc.

What were you thinking!

No, because "shall not be infringed" is in the 2nd Amendment.

I remember the time my Dr. asked if he could give me a cardiogram.
I asked him why. He said because I make pretty good money from them.

They used to require a class to get a concealed weapons license. I made
pretty good money teaching it.

I'll never forget, a student raised his hand. I called on him. He said:
"Neighbor kids throw rocks at my house. Is it alright to shoot them?"

Unfortunately there are some out there that even a class can't help.

__________________
In Omnia Paratus

A couple of thoughts on this.

My obvious answer is no. However, along with that my dad and grandpa taught me about firearms safety, handling, and the consequences if I was stupid about it. I taught all my kids, at a very early age, the same. So..., my first thought is this. Are parents not parents anymore and expect schools, the general public or, heaven forbid, the government to teach them? Then I thought about the wussification of America (males in general) and figure there are less parents out there that actually teach these sorts of skills. Just like everything else in life if you want to know about something it's YOUR responsibility to learn. There are owners manuals that explain the basics, you can't fix stupid.

Second, licenses are a TAX, plain and simple. State run classes are a TAX, plain and simple. These sorts of things are money makers for the state, period. You have to pay a tax to do darn near anything...

No. Mr. Darwin will be by in that black school bus of his to pick up anybody who plays with guns without regarding them with an enormous amount of respect and safety.

This cannot be repeated enough

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Are you serious?

Attached Images

oh-hell-to-the-no.jpg (95.2 KB, 8 views)