Something to think about

[Madoktor1]

May I ask why one would call the police because they hit a deer?

I've hit more than my share, and have yet to see a need to bother the law enforcement community about it.

For my insurance claim. They needed the report. So far, it's $2500 worth of damage and between the deductible and a rental for a week, it's just gonna cost me about $400 out of pocket.

 

[badge]

With rights come responsibilities and I don't have a problem w/people being required to demonstrate knowledge of applicable laws and the ability to safely handle a handgun. I realize I may get flamed for this position but I saw too many bad outcomes during my LEO days by people who did not have a clue, and wound up hurting someone needlessly.

No, your right. One SHOULD have a clue and be trained with a handgun. Face Book,...... seriously?

 

[feralmerril]

Awhile back we were talking to a young waitress that lives in a semi remote deer area near here. She said so far she has hit 6 or seven deer! In my 73 years and about 58 of them driving and many of those in heavy deer country I have never hit one yet. People never learn to slow down and use their heads in the dusk and dawn hours when they are moving. The laws arent reasonable about it either. On the road in daylight I am a fast driver. At night in deer areas I drive below the legal limit. Right here on the freeway its a posted 80 MPH. That is far too fast at night. Since we moved here to utah in 2005 I litteraly must have seen over a couple thousand dead deer!! I will bet there are more hit by cars than there is than killed by hunters several times over! They have recently put up deer fences here to keep them off the freeway. I still see fresh hits almost every day! Drive through here durring the day and you would think there is no deer. I have seen them at night in the heart of downtown! I dont know how many I have seen dead right in town when I drive in the morning. People, even the local ones, just dont , wont learn or care. Odds are in deer country you might hit one or two in your lifetime but people who say they have hit 6 or 8 in a couple years should be stopped from driving or not be able to even get insurance that is good if they hit a deer!

 

[gregintenn]

For my insurance claim. They needed the report. So far, it's $2500 worth of damage and between the deductible and a rental for a week, it's just gonna cost me about $400 out of pocket.

My insurance company never asked for a police report. Thanks for responding.

 

[maddog909]

" Just think about everybody you know and have known and think how many of them you would not want running around with a firearm with no training at all."
I know what you mean. I know of at least three people close to me that really shouldn't handle a firearm without more intensive training. Carrying is a big responsibility.

 

[Smoke]

I want to make my position on this clear, training is a good thing but I don't think it should be mandatory.
It's been my experience that those that would benefit from firearms training (safety or otherwise) tend to seek it out on their own and those who wouldn't benefit wouldn't pay any attention to the training and wouldn't retain any of it any longer than they had to, to get their permit. (Think of the one idiot in every platoon that has to be told to keep his/her weapon up and down range Every. Single. Time. they go to the qual range.)

I also don't like the idea of mandatory training because once you have a mandated training standard in place it's just a matter of degree until the bar gets raised so high no one can pass it.

My final point, as I've said before is that there is no statistical evidence that states with a training requirement have lower instance of firearms related accident than states with none. Why mandate something that hasn't been shown to have any real effect?

 

[Madoktor1]

(Think of the one idiot in every platoon that has to be told to keep his/her weapon up and down range Every. Single. Time. they go to the qual range.)

These are exactly the people I am talking about. I was in the Army (MOS 31B) after the Air Force (1T2X1) and knew plenty of people like this.

As far as your opinion about people seeking out training, I agree with that as well. The people who want to be knowledgeable and proficient will be and will train on a regular basis and I don't worry about those individuals. I worry about the ones who carry a firearm "just because they can" and really have no clue as to how to safely operate it. I have actually had people say "well I've hunted and shot rifles and shotguns my whole life so I know how shoot a pistol" and we all know how asinine this statement is. These are also the people who put law-abiding gun owners in a bad light when the inevitable catches up to them.

Also, I really appreciate the comments on this. Everyone has made great points and offered well thought opinions. Even though I don't necessarily agree with all of them, I understand and accept them. This why I have come to enjoy this forum since I joined.

 

[Smoke]

I worry about the ones who carry a firearm "just because they can" and really have no clue as to how to safely operate it. I have actually had people say "well I've hunted and shot rifles and shotguns my whole life so I know how shoot a pistol" and we all know how asinine this statement is. These are also the people who put law-abiding gun owners in a bad light when the inevitable catches up to them.

Ok, so what makes you think that they are going to pay the slightest attention to some mandatory training class?

 

[smokindog]

All these same arguments for "mandatory this" and "training for that" abound around licensing for contractors, ... All these "mandatory training" things do is add cost, create a cottage industry for "those who train", add obstacles to those that will do the job well REGARDLESS, provide FALSE sense of qualification, impede/exclude entry to market, provide one more place for people to be tracked, and enable lawsuits while creating "mandatory insurance".

You can't fix stupid and you most certainly can't legislate it out of ANY ecosystem. Training requirements are ALL big government candy.

 

[Madoktor1]

Ok, so what makes you think that they are going to pay the slightest attention to some mandatory training class?

I concede that they probably won't but most of these are the same ones that wouldn't carry or obtain a carry permit just because they have to take a class. There isn't any way to fix stupid or legislate it out like smokindog said but the requirement itself keeps many from doing it.

I have 8 kids and all but my youngest 3 (ages 7,8, and 9) shoot and I didn't allow them to until they had a good understanding of the operation of the firearm and firearm safety.

There are people I have hunted with in the past that I don't hunt with anymore because of their displays of negligence and unsafe practices. But they would argue that they are "experts" and don't need anybody giving them advice. I know we all encounter these people on the ranges everyday and we generally try to get as far as we can away from them, report them to the range marshal or walk away until they leave.

Those of us that were or are in the military went through that training for a reason and were/are better for it.

 

[gdnagle]

" Just think about everybody you know and have known and think how many of them you would not want running around with a firearm with no training at all."
I know what you mean. I know of at least three people close to me that really shouldn't handle a firearm without more intensive training. Carrying is a big responsibility.

I know more people that drive that have had mandatory training that shouldn't be driving. I don't know anyone that has any mandatory firearm training that shouldn't have a firearm. Maybe I'm lucky.

For the OP I have no problem stating I'm armed especially when I have to reach for my wallet and may expose my sidearm.

 

[Smoke]

Those of us that were or are in the military went through that training for a reason and were/are better for it.

I think we are generally in agreement on this point. I just don't like the idea of GOVERMENT MANDATED training

 

[Practical]

I posted this on my Facebook today and thought I would post it here too for input and discussion.

Many people say that we shouldn't have to have a permit to carry a firearm and I agree to an extent, but, I think that a safety course should at least be required at a minimum in order to carry a firearm. Just think about everybody you know and have known and think how many of them you would not want running around with a firearm with no training at all. Just something to think about.

Are you an oldest child? You sound like a good little boy who needs to ask mommy permission and wants to always do the the right thing an not get in trouble.

You had ONE encounter with Law enforcement. You were appeared to be a law abiding citizen, the computer lookup of you likely showed no hits.

Man up and get off facebook regarding carrying a gun. You are NOT a teenager you are a man **** and act like a man.

 

[Madoktor1]

Are you an oldest child? You sound like a good little boy who needs to ask mommy permission and wants to always do the the right thing an not get in trouble.

You had ONE encounter with Law enforcement. You were appeared to be a law abiding citizen, the computer lookup of you likely showed no hits.

Man up and get off facebook regarding carrying a gun. You are NOT a teenager you are a man **** and act like a man.

Thank you for your well thought out comment. I am the oldest and am far from good. I have seen and been through more in my life that most people can imagine and it has made me a better man for it; good enough that I won't respond further to this.

 

[bmb96mus]

Mandatory I don't like. Free training why not!! Why don't they offer training to people who are willing and want to learn. Its hard to make things meet nowadays. Id def take more classes if I could afford it (I know stupid reason, but it is the truth for me anyway)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[bmb96mus]

I want to add that I do have my cpl and have taken the mandatory classes. But I don't claim to know it all and would love to continue to learn. One reason why I am on here. Id love to know that I was learning from someone who was "certified" then reading a million posts from people you really never know. (no offense of course) its already hard enough to determine the advise given is accurate or not

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[vito]

On your points about believing that training should be required before someone is permitted to carry a firearm, and the fact that you know some people who should not be allowed to carry, just reaffirms why we should NOT have to do anything to utilize our right to keep and bear arms. What training do you think is sufficient? And more importantly, what training might someone who hates guns, hates gun owners and is terrified of guns thinks is appropriate? Once you agree that someone, whoever that someone is, should make that determination, you open the door for endless problems. Just like the states that have "may issue" instead of "shall issue" concealed carry laws. When some local or state politician gets to determine who really "needs" to carry a firearm, you can be sure that average Joe citizen is not going to get that approval.

And just as you think there are folks who should not be allowed to own, let alone carry a gun, you can be sure that there are lots of folks who would put you in that category. Some people think that anyone who wants to carry, by definition is unsuitable to carry.

Unfortunately we live in a reality where training, licensing, etc. are required, so the best we might achieve is to make those requirements as simple, clear and benign as possible to avoid the likelihood that those type rules will be used to stop us from carrying, rather than just trying to make it safer. When pro-gun folks start to agree with our opponents that we need "reasonable" restrictions on guns and gun owners, beware of what will follow next.

And as to the deer/car collisions. Why not put the deer crossing signs in open areas so that drivers will see the deer clearly when they come to that spot to cross the road?

 

[feralmerril]

Another big aspect of this is the fee/tax/fine factor. As with EVERYTHING else to do with government every agency ever established immediately is given power to asses dictated, rules, regulations and the end tool is always money. OSHA will arbitrary come into a factory (their money chest) and find something wrong and assess a charge for that violation. We can be positive some fines will cover their effort. The highway patrol has designated officers (tax collectors) to stop every truck they have time for and will inspect the truck, logs and driver and its next to impossible for them not to find something to raise money. Same with every traffic cop, code enforcer, dog catcher, meter maid, game warden, etc. EVERY government agency seems to have cart-blanch to determine just how much of a fine how much the person or organization will stand for without fighting it and/or going broke. Even non government organizations have learned it from the government such as football and baseball leagues etc. Every "professional" occupation is good at it too.
Something can go on forever unregulated until some agency is formed to "regulate" it and a new dynasty is born. See, its for our own good! After all, just what percentage of the population draws their check from the government? I dont have much use for jobs, people, and a system that hasnt anything to do with productivity. This nor any other country cant last forever without producing goods and having the majority of the population riding the backs of the real workers and producers.

 

[Madoktor1]

On your points about believing that training should be required before someone is permitted to carry a firearm, and the fact that you know some people who should not be allowed to carry, just reaffirms why we should NOT have to do anything to utilize our right to keep and bear arms. What training do you think is sufficient? And more importantly, what training might someone who hates guns, hates gun owners and is terrified of guns thinks is appropriate? Once you agree that someone, whoever that someone is, should make that determination, you open the door for endless problems. Just like the states that have "may issue" instead of "shall issue" concealed carry laws. When some local or state politician gets to determine who really "needs" to carry a firearm, you can be sure that average Joe citizen is not going to get that approval.

And just as you think there are folks who should not be allowed to own, let alone carry a gun, you can be sure that there are lots of folks who would put you in that category. Some people think that anyone who wants to carry, by definition is unsuitable to carry.

Unfortunately we live in a reality where training, licensing, etc. are required, so the best we might achieve is to make those requirements as simple, clear and benign as possible to avoid the likelihood that those type rules will be used to stop us from carrying, rather than just trying to make it safer. When pro-gun folks start to agree with our opponents that we need "reasonable" restrictions on guns and gun owners, beware of what will follow next.

And as to the deer/car collisions. Why not put the deer crossing signs in open areas so that drivers will see the deer clearly when they come to that spot to cross the road?

You make some very excellent points that I haven't given much credence to as have several others. I really do believe that we all should be able to exercise our God given rights and that all states should at least be "shall issue" like here in TN. I was a big supporter here this year of a bill that would allow open carry without a permit, but, in having discussions with friends was when the point of people carrying with no training whatsoever came up. And these were all people that have their CCW and that don't like having to have a permit themselves.

Responsible gun owners will generally seek to train and be as efficient with their weapons as possible but others would take absolutely no training without some sort of mandate. would you want one of these people drawing their weapon and going "Rambo" in a crowd where you happened to be?

I can see the points on both sides but will there ever really be any agreement on this? I really doubt it. So I will continue to train the best that I can with knowledgeable people and hope that I'm never in a situation where I am around "Bubba Rambo".

 

[Smoke]

I was a big supporter here this year of a bill that would allow open carry without a permit, but, in having discussions with friends was when the point of people carrying with no training whatsoever came up.

At present 5 states permit "Constitutional Carry" (no permit required to carry a firearm period.) Several states issue permits with no training requirement at all and several others allow permitless open carry (Again no training requirement). According to the CDC accidental firearms deaths are at an all time low while firearms ownership is at historic highs.

There are already a whole bunch of people out there carrying guns with no mandated training at all where are all the firearms related accidents you and your friends are predicting?

but others would take absolutely no training without some sort of mandate. would you want one of these people drawing their weapon and going "Rambo" in a crowd where you happened to be?

First I want to point out that according to the book First Blood Rambo was extremely well trained and graduated first in his class at the Special Warfare Training Center.

Second I want to go back to the paragraph above, in the (geographic) majority of the United States you can already carry a gun with absolutely no mandated training and firearms related accidents are at an all time low. you are trying to pass a law to fix a problem that doesn't exist.