kbm6893
Member
90% of new gun owners don't even read the manual before they use the gun. MAYBE AFTER they shoot it to figure out how to fieldstrip it (if they even bother to clean it).
Is STATE MANDATED safety training really necessary?
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
Shooting Padre
US Veteran
If not the state, then who. I really believe when people carry a deadly weapon they should have training on how to handle it. I didn't mind paying a hundred dollars to take the class. What I did mind was paying the state for the permit. I learned much in the training class that I would not have been exposed to otherwise. I don't like someone carrying a gun without safety training.
You can mandate a training class but how do you mandate that the students pay attention? How do you mandate that they follow the rules after the class?
I never read it. Most guns are the same basics. I just youtube it if i dont know.
Rastoff
US Veteran
I find it interesting that many here will work to avoid people at ranges because of the unsafe gun handling. Yet, they are opposed to training. What a world.
50%+ of gun owners are statists.
kbm6893
Member
Some of the videos I have seen on YouTube are pretty bad. Not gonna trust anything to somebody with zero knowledge and a webcam. I'd rather get my info from the source.
A good friend of mine bought an XD9 a few years ago. He fired 100 rounds and that was it. He lived in Florida at the time so I never saw him. I made the trip and asked about his gun. Showed it to me in the sock drawer. No magazine in it. Said he kept the mag on a shelf in his closet so his kid couldn't get to the gun and fire it. I racked the slide. Round pops out. It had been there for 2 years.
Last edited:
Please cite the post in which anyone said they were opposed to training, several have stated that they were opposed to state mandated training no one has said they were opposed to training
If 20 years in the USMC wasn't enough training what makes you think an additional 3 hour class would be?
JohnHancock
Member
What he said! ^^^
kbm6893
Member
But most don't get any. Look through this thread. Time and again people leaving ranges and shaking their heads at the untrained idiots. They're not that rare. I see them everytime I shoot on a crowded day.
I remember watching a guy buy a pistol grip Mossberg 500 and 200 rounds of OO buck. As he was about to leave, he asked "where the clip goes".m clerk informed him it didn't take a "clip". Guy shrugged and left.
Pef
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,516
Amen to that.
I've been swept several times at public ranges. One range I go to has ballistic glass separators. One day I looked down to my right and a person that I could tell was a novice had leaned a shot gun against the glass and I was looking down the big round hole of business.
Another guy had a novice companion in the stall with him, and she had no firearms discipline at all. I decided to just leave the range that day.
How on earth anyone can just randomly sweep others is beyond me. And don't even get me started on the violations of the other gun safety rules.
So yes, I am a firm believer in people that are new to firearms receiving training. It's just that I don't think the Gubbermint can mandate it given the Second Amendment.
Now perhaps in the future an oppressive training scheme cooked up to deny licenses will be challenged. Then perhaps the courts will examine post-Heller whether a state can 1) require carry permits at all; 2) and if so, can mandate training; and 3) if the answer to 2 is yes, then set the limits on what the state can require.
Until then, there are good arguments for both for and against the state being able to mandate training.
(I must note that after nearly 100 posts this thread has remained very civil, which reflects well on the members here!)
Last edited:
This is incorrect. "Well regulated" as understood by the Framers of the Constitution, meant well trained. Colonial provinces and post colonial states requires all able bodied males above the age of 18 (I think) to the age of 60 to be members of the local militia. As such, they had to own weapons of good quality and suitable for military use. Part of suitable for military use included the provision for attaching a bayonet as at the time, the main purpose of a long gun was to hold a bayonet.
The Founders of this nation didn't like the idea of a standing army. For most of American history, the regular military was small and augmented as needed by units from the several states. Citizens were expected to be proficient with firearms and owning them was the norm, not the exception.
I highly recommend that you purchase and read "Armed America" by Clayton Cramer. He's an amateur historian of some repute. His work on guns in America has been quoted in several legal briefs. I believe his work was even used in Heller.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
-George Mason
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Constitutional right. No government mandated training/licensing.
All the crying about public safety is BS.
Gun owners do just fine with their freedom, it's been demonstrated time and time again despite the persistent handwringing.
All the crying about public safety is BS.
Gun owners do just fine with their freedom, it's been demonstrated time and time again despite the persistent handwringing.
bhayles
Member
Not true. Shooting off mouths has started wars.
JohnHancock
Member
We as a community of responsible gun owners should do what we can as a people to help, educate, and encourage those new to firearms. ...NOT the government. The key is LESS gov't!
How do you know that said idiots are untrained? Police officers are trained and yet negligent discharges, leaving guns in bathrooms, and loss of issued firearms are not particularly unusual.
My point being that every one of these people is presumably trained in handling firearms, yet they all lost control of said firearms in some manner.
I won't taint this thread by posting the Youtube video of the DEA agent telling kids that he was "The only one professional" enough to handle a gun, just before he shot himself in the foot.
I'm not bashing anyone, police or civilian, because these things can happen. Training doesn't necessarily prevent them or even make them less likely to happen.
My point being that every one of these people is presumably trained in handling firearms, yet they all lost control of said firearms in some manner.
I won't taint this thread by posting the Youtube video of the DEA agent telling kids that he was "The only one professional" enough to handle a gun, just before he shot himself in the foot.
I'm not bashing anyone, police or civilian, because these things can happen. Training doesn't necessarily prevent them or even make them less likely to happen.
Do you agree that a citizen can be disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights?
Please explain how forcing that person to sit through a class they don't want to be in is going to change anything.
Please be specific
