Should there be mandatory training before you can purchase a firearm?

[OKTexas]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how requiring a gun safety course for buying a gun infringes anyone's rights?

Let's say what you want comes to pass and the powers that be decide to severely curtail the availability of guns. They can charge extensive fees for the course, limit the number of instructors, slow-walk the paperwork any time anyone applies for the course. They can offer the course only during most people's working hours, charge a high cost for the training, put restrictions on who can take the course, who can teach it, or make the entire process so expensive no one can afford it. They could also "lose" the records showing people completed the training.

There are literally hundreds of wys this could be used as an infringement. just think about it for a minute.

Nobody is proposing anything close to this. This is a ridiculous 'slippery slope' argument that depends on some pretty obviously unconstitutional tactics to include breaking the law.

Yeah, kind of like Seattle putting additional taxes on gun and ammo sales. The slope has already been greased.




.

Yeah, Seattle likes to tax everything.......damn greedy buggers

I just hope all the gun dealers leave the city limits. Leave them with less than nothing because they'll lose the regular sales tax also.


.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how requiring a gun safety course for buying a gun infringes anyone's rights?

Let's say what you want comes to pass and the powers that be decide to severely curtail the availability of guns. They can charge extensive fees for the course, limit the number of instructors, slow-walk the paperwork any time anyone applies for the course. They can offer the course only during most people's working hours, charge a high cost for the training, put restrictions on who can take the course, who can teach it, or make the entire process so expensive no one can afford it. They could also "lose" the records showing people completed the training.

There are literally hundreds of wys this could be used as an infringement. just think about it for a minute.

Nobody is proposing anything close to this. This is a ridiculous 'slippery slope' argument that depends on some pretty obviously unconstitutional tactics to include breaking the law.

Yeah, kind of like Seattle putting additional taxes on gun and ammo sales. The slope has already been greased.




.

Yeah, Seattle likes to tax everything.......damn greedy buggers

I just hope all the gun dealers leave the city limits. Leave them with less than nothing because they'll lose the regular sales tax also.


.

That may be hard to do though since it's big money for the shop owners. Especially the pawn shops. Downtown is where it's at

 

[OKTexas]

Let's say what you want comes to pass and the powers that be decide to severely curtail the availability of guns. They can charge extensive fees for the course, limit the number of instructors, slow-walk the paperwork any time anyone applies for the course. They can offer the course only during most people's working hours, charge a high cost for the training, put restrictions on who can take the course, who can teach it, or make the entire process so expensive no one can afford it. They could also "lose" the records showing people completed the training.

There are literally hundreds of wys this could be used as an infringement. just think about it for a minute.

Nobody is proposing anything close to this. This is a ridiculous 'slippery slope' argument that depends on some pretty obviously unconstitutional tactics to include breaking the law.

Yeah, kind of like Seattle putting additional taxes on gun and ammo sales. The slope has already been greased.




.

Yeah, Seattle likes to tax everything.......damn greedy buggers

I just hope all the gun dealers leave the city limits. Leave them with less than nothing because they'll lose the regular sales tax also.


.

That may be hard to do though since it's big money for the shop owners. Especially the pawn shops. Downtown is where it's at

Pawn shops? People will follow the money, if they have to drive an extra few miles, they'll find a way.


.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Nobody is proposing anything close to this. This is a ridiculous 'slippery slope' argument that depends on some pretty obviously unconstitutional tactics to include breaking the law.

Yeah, kind of like Seattle putting additional taxes on gun and ammo sales. The slope has already been greased.




.

Yeah, Seattle likes to tax everything.......damn greedy buggers

I just hope all the gun dealers leave the city limits. Leave them with less than nothing because they'll lose the regular sales tax also.


.

That may be hard to do though since it's big money for the shop owners. Especially the pawn shops. Downtown is where it's at

Pawn shops? People will follow the money, if they have to drive an extra few miles, they'll find a way.


.

Yes pawn shops sell guns as well. Those that live in downtown don't usually drive

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, kind of like Seattle putting additional taxes on gun and ammo sales. The slope has already been greased.




.

Yeah, Seattle likes to tax everything.......damn greedy buggers

I just hope all the gun dealers leave the city limits. Leave them with less than nothing because they'll lose the regular sales tax also.


.

That may be hard to do though since it's big money for the shop owners. Especially the pawn shops. Downtown is where it's at

Pawn shops? People will follow the money, if they have to drive an extra few miles, they'll find a way.


.

Yes pawn shops sell guns as well. Those that live in downtown don't usually drive

They don't have buses to the burbs?


.

 

[Andylusion]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

So I met a guy who had a gun for sale, and bought it from him at a parking lot.

If you made mandatory fire arms training, when I've been around guns my whole life, I would simply buy all my guns that way, and ignore your dumb law.

 

[Andylusion]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

Sorry but the only permission I need to own a firearm is in the Bill of Rights. Nothing about having to meet some stupid bureaucrat's idea of if I am worthy or not.

That's what makes you a gun nut. Safety of others means nothing to you

That is what makes you an asshole. The Bill of Rights means nothing to you.

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

Sorry but the only permission I need to own a firearm is in the Bill of Rights. Nothing about having to meet some stupid bureaucrat's idea of if I am worthy or not.

That's what makes you a gun nut. Safety of others means nothing to you

That is what makes you an asshole. The Bill of Rights means nothing to you.

Would you want a gun owner, who knows nothing about gun safety, living next door?

Again... I can buy a gun online, and meet someone at a rest stop, and there is nothing you can do about that. Your law will do nothing.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Yeah, Seattle likes to tax everything.......damn greedy buggers

I just hope all the gun dealers leave the city limits. Leave them with less than nothing because they'll lose the regular sales tax also.


.

That may be hard to do though since it's big money for the shop owners. Especially the pawn shops. Downtown is where it's at

Pawn shops? People will follow the money, if they have to drive an extra few miles, they'll find a way.


.

Yes pawn shops sell guns as well. Those that live in downtown don't usually drive

They don't have buses to the burbs?


.

well yeah, I guess so

I was just thinking of the 'quality' of the pawn shops & it's clientele, not sure they'd mix with the burbs crowd. But whatever. The cost of real estate is already pricing most of the people out anyway

 

[Andylusion]

I just hope all the gun dealers leave the city limits. Leave them with less than nothing because they'll lose the regular sales tax also.


.

That may be hard to do though since it's big money for the shop owners. Especially the pawn shops. Downtown is where it's at

Pawn shops? People will follow the money, if they have to drive an extra few miles, they'll find a way.


.

Yes pawn shops sell guns as well. Those that live in downtown don't usually drive

They don't have buses to the burbs?


.

well yeah, I guess so

I was just thinking of the 'quality' of the pawn shops & it's clientele, not sure they'd mix with the burbs crowd. But whatever. The cost of real estate is already pricing most of the people out anyway

That sounds like a movie version of pawn shop clientele.

I grew up in Upper Arlington, a sub-burb of Columbus Ohio. That's all upper-middle class. Million dollar homes. My neighbors were all doctors and lawyers.

We had a pawn shop just blocks from the house, and a half-priced books, which is just a pawn shop that specialized in media. In fact, it's huge, one of the biggest in Columbus, and it's now bought up the entire strip it was in, taking up 3 store fronts. Now there's a second store in another part of Upper Arlington.

Yeah, I get that there are a lot of pawn shops in seedy areas, filled with garbage, and porn. But being wealthy, doesn't mean you don't find deals on goods. In fact, part of why wealthy people are wealthy, is specifically because they find great deals.

 

[ErikViking]

So, do you think anyone should be allowed to buy a gun? Even if doing so would make them a danger to others? We're talking about a short gun safety class here. That's all. How could anyone have a problem with this? It doesn't even need to be a graded test. Just show them how to safely use it.

Dude, you are looking for a solution to a non existent problem.

Most gun deaths are the result of:

A. Criminal activity. And if you think criminals give a rip about laws, then I can’t help ya Son.

B. Suicide. If someone is hellbent on killing themselves, you think that training will stop them? Really?

C. The rest have almost zero statistical relevance. And even with these, you would save only a insignificant number that it’s nearly zero.

Thanks

So, you're saying my sisters death is not statistically relevant? It's relevant to me. It's relevant to her mother, her father, her brother and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins. The simple fact is that hundreds of people die each year due to carelessness with guns. Proper training would reduce that number. If it saved just a single life, it would be worth it. It might have saved my sisters life.

I ask, again. Why would anyone have a problem with demonstrating basic safety and competency, before buying a firearm?

So we don't require doctors to demonstrate basic safety and competency but how many people do they kill by making errors in medication?

We only require a college degree. I wasn’t thinking the gun education to be that extensive, more in the line of... well a drivers license?

Yet people with medical licenses and drivers licenses kill about 43 times the number of people with guns. Sounds to me like you don't have your priorities straight if you're really interested in saving lives.


.

That wasn’t a valid comparison now, was it?

That cars driven by trained people hurt more people than guns used by untrained people isn’t the question.

It’s not about anti cars, doctors or guns. It’s about education before use. If you don’t think such an education would have any effect, well that’s an argument I can understand.

 

[Andylusion]

Dude, you are looking for a solution to a non existent problem.

Most gun deaths are the result of:

A. Criminal activity. And if you think criminals give a rip about laws, then I can’t help ya Son.

B. Suicide. If someone is hellbent on killing themselves, you think that training will stop them? Really?

C. The rest have almost zero statistical relevance. And even with these, you would save only a insignificant number that it’s nearly zero.

Thanks

So, you're saying my sisters death is not statistically relevant? It's relevant to me. It's relevant to her mother, her father, her brother and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins. The simple fact is that hundreds of people die each year due to carelessness with guns. Proper training would reduce that number. If it saved just a single life, it would be worth it. It might have saved my sisters life.

I ask, again. Why would anyone have a problem with demonstrating basic safety and competency, before buying a firearm?

So we don't require doctors to demonstrate basic safety and competency but how many people do they kill by making errors in medication?

We only require a college degree. I wasn’t thinking the gun education to be that extensive, more in the line of... well a drivers license?

Yet people with medical licenses and drivers licenses kill about 43 times the number of people with guns. Sounds to me like you don't have your priorities straight if you're really interested in saving lives.


.

That wasn’t a valid comparison now, was it?

That cars driven by trained people hurt more people than guns used by untrained people isn’t the question.

It’s not about anti cars, doctors or guns. It’s about education before use. If you don’t think such an education would have any effect, well that’s an argument I can understand.

Well yeah, that's the whole point. The idea that education is a magical fix, is brainlessly stupid.

Guns are not complicated. I was shooting guns when I was 10, at a church camp, with zero training whatsoever.

This isn't quantum physics. The long part with hole, is where the bullet comes from. The fist sized part, with the textured pattern on it, is where your hand goes. The slender stick by the grip, is the trigger. Don't pull that slender stick part, when the long part with the hole, is facing anything you don't want a bullet going through.

I remember watching this video of a lady held at gun point at a robbery. She grabbed the gun from the guy, and shot him with his own gun. Never held a gun before in her life.

Was there an emergency gun class, between the time she grabbed it, and the time she shot him with it? Did she contact Tank from the matrix, and download the gun handling program, so she could figure out how to fire it?

This is asinine. Dumbest argument ever.

When I got my CCW, I had to take a gun training course here in Ohio. I learned absolutely NOTHING.... as in NOTHING AT ALL... of any practical value. Not one single thing. Not even one.

Now I did learn some cool stuff. Overall, I thought the course was neat and worth the $75. But.... nothing they taught had any practical value. Like they taught how guns used flint, to cause a spark, into a pan of gun powerder, that went through a hole into the rifle barrel to then fire the bullet. If you improperly packed the gun powder, the pan would burn, but not fire the bullet. That's where the phrase "Flash in the pan" came from. Bright light, nothing happens.

They taught us that. Do tell buddy.... what practical application does that have? Do tell, how much safer I am with fire arms, with this arcane knowledge and wisdom?

Or they taught us the various parts of a gun. Barrel, frame, action, cylinder. Oh, and it's not a CLIP.... it's a 'magazine". You feel safer? Because I feel safer. Don't you?

Training will (hopefully) make people sound less stupid. Like if everyone went through that course, no one would say "Fully semi-automatic", like those anti-gun dip wads on TV have been saying.


The only 'safety" part of the training, was so unbelievably stupid... I laughed during the course. The instructor told me had to go through it by law.

"Do not point the gun at anything you don't want to shoot".....

WOW! NOW I AM SAFE!..... We're all safe now! Aren't you safe? We're all safe.

Do tell...... how many people..... until they got to that particular class... and was told by an instructor not to point a gun at something they don't want shot....... did not know this?

Really...... How many people were completely oblivious until they were 'trained' that guns shoot bullets?

Again, very interesting going through the history of fire arms. I liked it, and learned a ton.

But fact is, there was not one single thing of any practical value, that people didn't know before getting in that class room. Never seen a person yet, grab a gun by the barrel, and start pointing the handle at people.

So again, my argument to you is.... aside from maybe a mentally disabled person...... education is not going to do anything at all. Nothing. People do not need to be 'trained' on how to use a gun. They are not complicated.

 

[HappyJoy]

It's not a tax. Demonstrating your proficiency with a firearm before you buy one is not a tax.

It's just something I'm not going to do, because you have no right to demand it.

Let's not get overly dramatic, OK? I haven't demanded anything to begin with however if the government made this the law then yeah..you'll ******* do it if you want a gun.

But the criminals won’t.

And you solved nothing

Except looking like a pinhead.........




















Again

It's not really about criminals, but you go ahead with that.

So you want to impose your will on law abiding citizens and not criminals, talk about screwed up priorities.


.

You must stare at your drivers license and feel imposed on.

 

[Auld Phart]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

Yes I agree with this......here in Washington state it's required to take a 'Hunter Safety Course' before getting a hunting license. It includes several things and if I remember correctly is like a 6 day course over a 2 week period(?) It's not that far of a stretch to do the same or similar with guns & license/permits. It would be like a graduated step.....first the safety course, then get your permit, then buy your guns.

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

What would the requirements be for a veteran who spent up to 30 years in the military, especially in combat arms? Or even a National Guardsman or Reservist who completed basic training and received extensive firearms training?

Military should be exempt for obvious reasons

.first the safety course, then get your permit, then buy your guns.

a permit, to take advantage of a Right?

Should we also get a permit to vote, comrade?

 

[ErikViking]

So, you're saying my sisters death is not statistically relevant? It's relevant to me. It's relevant to her mother, her father, her brother and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins. The simple fact is that hundreds of people die each year due to carelessness with guns. Proper training would reduce that number. If it saved just a single life, it would be worth it. It might have saved my sisters life.

I ask, again. Why would anyone have a problem with demonstrating basic safety and competency, before buying a firearm?

So we don't require doctors to demonstrate basic safety and competency but how many people do they kill by making errors in medication?

We only require a college degree. I wasn’t thinking the gun education to be that extensive, more in the line of... well a drivers license?

Yet people with medical licenses and drivers licenses kill about 43 times the number of people with guns. Sounds to me like you don't have your priorities straight if you're really interested in saving lives.


.

That wasn’t a valid comparison now, was it?

That cars driven by trained people hurt more people than guns used by untrained people isn’t the question.

It’s not about anti cars, doctors or guns. It’s about education before use. If you don’t think such an education would have any effect, well that’s an argument I can understand.

Well yeah, that's the whole point. The idea that education is a magical fix, is brainlessly stupid.

Guns are not complicated. I was shooting guns when I was 10, at a church camp, with zero training whatsoever.

This isn't quantum physics. The long part with hole, is where the bullet comes from. The fist sized part, with the textured pattern on it, is where your hand goes. The slender stick by the grip, is the trigger. Don't pull that slender stick part, when the long part with the hole, is facing anything you don't want a bullet going through.

I remember watching this video of a lady held at gun point at a robbery. She grabbed the gun from the guy, and shot him with his own gun. Never held a gun before in her life.

Was there an emergency gun class, between the time she grabbed it, and the time she shot him with it? Did she contact Tank from the matrix, and download the gun handling program, so she could figure out how to fire it?

This is asinine. Dumbest argument ever.

When I got my CCW, I had to take a gun training course here in Ohio. I learned absolutely NOTHING.... as in NOTHING AT ALL... of any practical value. Not one single thing. Not even one.

Now I did learn some cool stuff. Overall, I thought the course was neat and worth the $75. But.... nothing they taught had any practical value. Like they taught how guns used flint, to cause a spark, into a pan of gun powerder, that went through a hole into the rifle barrel to then fire the bullet. If you improperly packed the gun powder, the pan would burn, but not fire the bullet. That's where the phrase "Flash in the pan" came from. Bright light, nothing happens.

They taught us that. Do tell buddy.... what practical application does that have? Do tell, how much safer I am with fire arms, with this arcane knowledge and wisdom?

Or they taught us the various parts of a gun. Barrel, frame, action, cylinder. Oh, and it's not a CLIP.... it's a 'magazine". You feel safer? Because I feel safer. Don't you?

Training will (hopefully) make people sound less stupid. Like if everyone went through that course, no one would say "Fully semi-automatic", like those anti-gun dip wads on TV have been saying.


The only 'safety" part of the training, was so unbelievably stupid... I laughed during the course. The instructor told me had to go through it by law.

"Do not point the gun at anything you don't want to shoot".....

WOW! NOW I AM SAFE!..... We're all safe now! Aren't you safe? We're all safe.

Do tell...... how many people..... until they got to that particular class... and was told by an instructor not to point a gun at something they don't want shot....... did not know this?

Really...... How many people were completely oblivious until they were 'trained' that guns shoot bullets?

Again, very interesting going through the history of fire arms. I liked it, and learned a ton.

But fact is, there was not one single thing of any practical value, that people didn't know before getting in that class room. Never seen a person yet, grab a gun by the barrel, and start pointing the handle at people.

So again, my argument to you is.... aside from maybe a mentally disabled person...... education is not going to do anything at all. Nothing. People do not need to be 'trained' on how to use a gun. They are not complicated.

Solid answer, perhaps most people can handle guns instinctively?

Then again, most people doesn’t miss fire their guns either. With proper mandatory training, one that you would have passed in ten minutes, don’t you think it would be beneficial at all?

 

[sparky]

Training vs no training is a no-brainer.

you can say it's a simple tool, but there are plenty of simpletons out there that violate simple gun etiquette

If i would simple Q's like>>>>

A) hand a gun over

B) secure a firearm

C) store a firearm

I'd wager i would not get universal replies.

Note also VT has hunter safety , nothing to simply OWN a gun , just a short course on how to handle one hunting.

Why?

because we're flooded with out of state cowboys who take brush shots , get lost, do stupid things w/guns

we can't send our kids to school , or let the dog out opening weekend w/o wearing a lotta orange, because these irresponsible fools result in our woodlands sound like a war zone here

~S~

 

[Kondor3]

...If you want driver's licenses and gun ownership on a par, legally, you'd need a Constitutional amendment repealing the second. Driver's licenses are not a Constitutionally protected right. Gun ownership is.

Not really.

Otherwise, individual States would not be able to require Firearms Owner Identification Cards, nor to limit automatic weapons.

But if you want to play that game... fine.

The entire citizenry of the United States constitutes a Militia Of The Whole or militia of last resort in defense of the Republic.

Licensing, registration, training, etc., then become the regulating - well - of that militia... not an infringement, but a Constitutional obligation.

Whatever it takes, to establish Federal standards for such things.

 

[Kondor3]

...No Moon Bat you are confused. It is time to adhere to the Bill of Rights. **** gun control.

Thank you for your insightful feedback, Princess; however, mandatory training is coming, and sooner than you think.

When it DOES come, you will obey the laws of the United States, just like everybody else; piss-and-moan all you like.

Just teach gun safety in all schools, your perceived problem is solved and it won't cost anyone a dime. I'm sure the NRA would be happy to supply qualified instructors for free.


.

A brave offer.

But merely a down payment on what is needed in the eyes of many of your fellow citizens.

 

[Kondor3]

...Any government control is an infringement, dumbass!

Regulating the Militia, well, is not an infringement, it is a Constitutional requirement.

And here we are dealing with the weaponry of the Militia As A Whole - the citizenry of the Republic.

It's a requirement for the State, not the feds.


.

Now.

That is going to change.

 

[sparky]

The entire citizenry of the United States constitutes a Militia Of The Whole or militia of last resort in defense of the Republic.

Maybe you're onto something Kondor

Instead of these 'mandatory gun laws', why don't we make the American militia mandatory ?

~S~

 

[Kondor3]

The entire citizenry of the United States constitutes a Militia Of The Whole or militia of last resort in defense of the Republic.

Maybe you're onto something Kondor

Instead of these 'mandatory gun laws', why don't we make the American militia mandatory ?

~S~

Works for the Israelis.

Now, all we need to do is surround ourselves on all four sides with hostile Muslims and we've got the rationale we need to do it.