I just read a story about an ND that is beyond compare.

Some of the 'takeaways' from the story are as follows and I have included a link to the story.

My question - Would you support a law or directive that would require a new, non previous gun owner to attend a very short safety course that at a minimum covers the basics of gun safety before being able to purchase let's say, just a handgun?

A short response as to why (either way) is appreciated!
Customer wanted to show his gun to a cop at a Bal Harbour restaurant. The chef wound up shot

No.

Since just "no" is too short, I guess I can explain why. It's a gateway for politicians to expand requirements and make ownership difficult.

I own both bleach and ammonia, yet know not to mix them to clean my sink.

I own a barbeque grill, yet know not to bring it inside to heat my living room.

I own firearms, yet know to treat all of them as loaded, never point them at anything I don't intend to shoot, and both keep them on safe and keep my finger off the trigger until I'm ready to fire.

It's not the government's job to ensure you're trained, it's your job as the owner of a firearm.

EDIT: if you just want yes or no, start a poll.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

No. That’s like requiring literacy tests for voting, arguably a more dangerous right . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Thanks for typing everything I was going to say. That way, I can just add a "NO" to this discussion.

No I do not.

__________________
Straight shootin'
SWCA#2439

No.

^^I agree with this.

Gun ownershp is a constitutional right. It’s not a privilege granted by the gov, even though some in the gov treat it that way.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

We’d all be better off if everyone had to be qualified to have children. There is lots of living proof that no IQ is required.

__________________
SWCA 3255 SWHF 615

Yeah that's a "no" from me too....

Very succinct!

And the list could be expanded exponentially. Kitchen knives, bath tubs in the home, 5 gallon buckets, lawn mowers, ladders, over the counter medicines. Seriously, life is loaded to the gills with hazards.

I'll add my No to the "Nos" For all of the reasons stated above.

I'm surprised you bothered to ask that question on a gun forum.

I'll also be surprised if you get any "yes" responses, either because folks sincerely believe "no" is correct or because they don't want to argue with the vast majority of the forum members.

No! If you were wanting to reduce accidental deaths, get a list of deaths from various causes and go to work on that list. The state I live in has very few firearm deaths per annum, but road deaths are in the hundreds every year. Distracted driving is a major problem but there is no real sentiment to require better training.

Gun violence gets big play in the media but car crashes rarely mentioned.

FYI: most of our firearm-related deaths seem to be perpetrated by refugees from Chicago.

__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821

No. No. Non. Nein. Nyet. Wala. Ignorance is its own punishment.

All of the "tests" that have every been proposed as qualifications for exercising constitutional rights have had the effect of discouraging their free exercise, whatever the stated intention.

Look at all of the "reasonable" requirements for voting that we have shed since 1789: Land ownership; Caucasian ancestry; testicles; literacy tests; poll taxes; attaining the age of 21. As a literate landowning old white guy with a couple bucks in my pocket none of these affect me, but I would fight any attempt to impose them on others with a vengeance. The remaining "reasonable" infringements on the 2nd Amendment need to go, too. Freedom is a risky business.

__________________
I need ammo, not a ride.

Maybe when the gun is picked up the sales person could do a quick breakdown for cleaning and then explain the basic rules. When I sold guns I met a few nu-bees at the Range to show them how to stay safe.

__________________
Two Handguns every day

Do you want the sales person to be civilly liable if he/she can’t confirm that the information he/she imparted was absorbed?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I have recently noticed that my LGS always gives a quick rundown of how to operate the firearm and teaches general safety. It makes me like them more.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

Another NO for all the reasons already mentioned.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

Hmmm. Looks like the "No's" have it.

I picked up another chainsaw the other day. I've already got a big commercial chainsaw with a 24-inch bar, but I needed something quite a bit smaller for limbing. Wanted a smaller Stihl with a 14-inch bar.

I noticed the old guy behind the counter didn't ask if I had owned a chainsaw before. He didn't show me how to use it. He didn't tell me that I could cut my leg off. He didn't even show me how to replace the chain.

If we start passing legislation for stuff like that, just when the heck will it stop? Pretty soon, you'll have legislation where they have to show you which end of the hammer to hold or how to hold a pencil so you don't accidentally poke your eye out.

__________________
Pack light and cinch tight.

Noooooooo. ( Had to get 10 characters.)

I agree with no

Chainsaw is a fine example. Quite related and a bit of a sleeper are electric hedge clippers! Man, you've got to have your head in the game when you use these suckers. They chew through the easy parts of the bush like a hot knife through butter -- then it gets more difficult so you push a little harder. This compounds. Pretty soon you are swiping this electric buzzsaw in all directions and anything near is going to get chewed all to hell.

Yep, life is fraught with risks that we need to manage. Please don't mandate Government assistance for "being an adult."

Add me to the list of NO's

My Dad, my Uncle and my Grandpa taught me everything I ever needed to know about ......well, everything.....Cars, boats, guns, fishing, women (well maybe not that)

Yet...
+ when I was 12 I had to take an 8 hour safety course to get my first hunting licence.
+ when I was 16 I had to take a safety course to get a driver's licence.
+ when I was 21 I had to take an 8 hour course to get a pistol permit.
+ when I was 24 I had to take a marriage course in order for the church to marry me.
+ when I was 35 I had to take a newly mandated course to be able to hunt with a bow and arrow.
+ when I was 50 I had to take a newly mandated course to be able to drive a jetski.
+ when I was 70 I had to take a newly mandated 8 hour safety course to be able to drive a motor boat.

Yet,
When my Grandpa was 16 (in 1912) and got HIS drivers licence he didn't have to do nuthin except pay his 50 cent fee.

Just sayin'.

Looking back the state got money from me every time.

Okay, I say yes, just to break up the Nos. Otherwise, it's no.

That would be no. Although it should have the obligatory "not meant for human consumption" warning on the box.

__________________
Time wounds all heels

The Second Amendment does not give anyone the right to own a gun. It states that the govt. cannot infringe on your "right" to have a gun. As a free person you have the "right" to have a gun. Having a gun should also be covered under the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Larry

Yes.

The reason I said "yes" is because, as is so often noted here on the forum, common sense nowadays is no longer common. For many things it doesn't matter all that much. With guns it does.

Guns, like chainsaws, bleach, bathtubs, pills, etc., can be lethal to their users, but, unlike those examples, in addition, they can also be lethal to others at distance, inadvertently and instantly. This seems to me to be a fundamental difference.

To me this is self evident. (Just my opinion fellas, as asked. A heresy, I know. Sure ain't gonna argue about here!)

Can't say it any better.

__________________
Marty 4513TSW 13-1 642 60-10

All you need to know about guns can be found on prime time tv seven days a week by the best experts on firearms in the world. Honest, would I lie to you. (insert smirk here)

N. O. No!

__________________
Dave Brown
SWCA #3279

No No No No No

Add me to the NO! count.

My heck, Jim!! Don't know where you live, but please remind me never to move to your state!!

__________________
Pack light and cinch tight.

Add me to the “no” group.

I think it’s a good idea for people to receive training, I just don’t want the government involved in it.

Training is also not a guarantee that people won’t be careless. Several years ago we had a State Police firearms instructor fatally shoot a fellow trooper with a supposedly empty pistol. That instructor had been thru lot’s of training, but it didn’t prevent him from being careless.

__________________
Wheel guns are real guns.

I always have. Inspite of the 2A ideologues, I feel the real threat of stupid people with guns is just that. I dont really care if they shoot themselves, but little kids & innocent bystanders shouldnt suffer criminal ignorance.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

On the other hand: the way things have been going maybe a literacy test isn't such a bad idea. At least be a functioning member of society IE Have a full time job, retired, land owner..... As much as I hate excuse's, It is not young peoples fault. We started teaching revisionist history and stopped teaching civics 30-40 years ago.

No. It's just another brick in the wall anti-gunners are slavishly devoted to building between people and their firearms.

Furthermore, there are already legal consequences for stupid behavior.

__________________
Just Say No - To Social Media

The answer to this is simple. Read the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

I'm pretty sure your proposals have been well settled constitutional law for quite some time. My thought was advanced as hyperbole . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

NO
persons need to take responsibility for their actions or lack of action (learning about their firearm) you can't pass enough laws to stop stupid.
We don't need any more gun laws.
Where is the poll ... I vote No.

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

Absolutely no for the government to be imposing that. On the other hand as Onomea stated, unlike other hazards to oneself in life, this one can be hazardous to others.
A safe operating lesson could be given at point of sale for all concerned but not a law that mandates it.
A simple question “ Do you know how to safely operate this? If not would you like to learn?” would suffice.

__________________
“Look life in its iron face”

I tried to follow the link and it wasn’t working at the time. From the excerpt posted, it sounds like the buffoon showed up at a restaurant and approached a police officer with an item in a bag. He then stuck his hand in to the bag to retrieve what was either a complete MYSTERY item or what all involved parties were to reasonably understand was likely to be a handgun.

While this situation shouldn’t be “BLAMED” on him, I’m wondering very much why the officer didn’t intervene with some random buffoon approaching him and reaching in to a bag for what may very well be a weapon.

Add me to the NO list, for the myriad reasons listed above. It would be NICE if people acted responsibly, but it is difficult to compel responsible behavior, especially when it intersects a constitutional right. That would be sort of like compelling a person to vote intelligently, or read news that is honest and unbiased.

NOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aren't training for hunting licences and driver's licences almost universal? Certainly, motorboat licences are rapidly becoming the norm in many states, including Canada. The marriage thing is purely Catlick, and they are everywhere!

Common sense and personal responsibility.....those are 2 of the key takeoffs of this thread. The problem is that those 2 things ain't too prevalent any more.

Licensing, confiscation, 3-round non-detachable magazines (LOL), microstamping, ammotax, etc, etc are all future possibilities. Maybe we need to compromise a little and agree to some things that are less objectionable so we don't get saddled with things that are very objectionable.

I don’t care for that word ‘compromise’ when talking about the 2nd.
We’ve NEVER received anything out of any compromise yet.

__________________
“Look life in its iron face”

Quoted because it's an important distinction.

The rights noted in the Bill of Rights do not come from the Government, they're inherent in the nature of being free and, therefore, the Government can't legitimately take them away. The Bill of Rights is a codification of those inherent, pre-governmental, rights.

Note, the first 10 Amendments are not called the "Bill of Privileges".

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

NO.

But, would definitely support mandatory gun safety classes in all the schools.

I find it interesting that most liberals would oppose this and believe it would teach kids to be killers. Face it the odds are sooner or later almost everyone will probably encounter a gun and better safe than sorry.

While the man on the other side opposes sex education because it will make kids become sexually active. Face it sooner or later and better safe than sorry.

LOL, sex made me become sexually active.

I think kids should learn about sex the same way I did. Out behind the garage

Thread drift! Who me???

No.

As I have said before: Freedom is sometimes dangerous, but it is a far sight better than the alternative.

__________________
Only a cold warrior