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

[rightwinger]

Until you take it outta your house onto the taxpayer funded sidewalk.

Most sidewalks are private property. Dip.


.

What makes you think that?

Reality. People are sued all the time for not maintaining their sidewalks.


.

That's both anecdotal and not all that compelling. Sidewalks are not only in front of people's homes, and not all laws regarding sidewalks and who owns/is responsible for them are necessarily the same. It doesn't even specify whether those being sued for not maintaining their sidewalks are considered legally responsible for doing so; just because a suit is brought doesn't mean it has merit.

Don't mistake me here, I'm not claiming that most sidewalks are public rather than private. I was just curious if there was some sort of empirical evidence that led you to claim most are private property.

The vast majority of sidewalks are installed by developers and belong to the people that purchase the property.


.

Those sidewalks are outside the property line

 

[JustAnotherNut]

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?

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry. That's what I meant by permit......not to have to get something else, other than a handgun safety class.


I'd rather have to take a mandatory safety class, than lose the right to own an AR15 or bump stock or anything else they deem unneccesssary

 

[Montrovant]

The NRA would provide instructors to every elementary, middle, and/or high school in the country for free? That sounds extremely unlikely.

Have you asked them?


.

No. Have you? Does the NRA have the trained manpower to do that for every school in the country?

They've done it before you regressives ran them out of the schools. They could train teachers, it the military we called it train the trainers, it's a great way to get maximum use of resources.


.

So now I'm a "regressive" that ran the NRA out of schools?

Question whether an organization has the resources to conduct free classes in every school in the country, get pigeon-holed in a political stereotype.

Well stop acting like a regressive and you won't be pigeonholed. And yes the NRA has the resources, in the age of the internet there is no reason a warm body has to show up in every class room. Teachers could be given course outlines and the actual training could be conducted via video online or DVD. I would bet they would provide the age appropriate materials for free.


.

Apparently you consider questioning whether a claim is true or not to be "acting like a regressive." I certainly don't plan to stop questioning people's claims.

While online instruction is a possibility, that depends on what this sort of education or training would entail. Some in this thread have called for things that would seem to require more hands-on training.

 

[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?

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry. That's what I meant by permit......not to have to get something else, other than a handgun safety class.


I'd rather have to take a mandatory safety class, than lose the right to own an AR15 or bump stock or anything else they deem unneccesssary

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry.

not in my area

 

[JustAnotherNut]

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

You are mistaken. It is one very large stretch, from the "privilege" of hunting to the RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms. No. Nuh uh, screw that, and also piss off.

Not so much.......that hunter safety course includes gun safety as well because it's for those hunting Modern Firearm AKA guns.

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one, regardless what you intend to use it for. With that requirement, would it really be so bad to also require a safety course taught by military or police before purchasing a gun. It's not taking away any right to own any gun on the market. But it is teaching people the safety and hazards of owning one.

Currently there is no training and people buy guns, but they don't have the first clue how to use it, how to clean it, what a 'safety' is or where it's located even. They don't seem to have the first clue how to keep those guns 'secured' from others or how to avoid accidents.

They just think it's good to have a gun, with some ammo and prop it behind the bedroom door and think it's all good. WRONG!

 

[JustAnotherNut]

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?

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry. That's what I meant by permit......not to have to get something else, other than a handgun safety class.


I'd rather have to take a mandatory safety class, than lose the right to own an AR15 or bump stock or anything else they deem unneccesssary

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry.

not in my area

you DON'T have to have a permit???

 

[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

You are mistaken. It is one very large stretch, from the "privilege" of hunting to the RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms. No. Nuh uh, screw that, and also piss off.

Not so much.......that hunter safety course includes gun safety as well because it's for those hunting Modern Firearm AKA guns.

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one, regardless what you intend to use it for. With that requirement, would it really be so bad to also require a safety course taught by military or police before purchasing a gun. It's not taking away any right to own any gun on the market. But it is teaching people the safety and hazards of owning one.

Currently there is no training and people buy guns, but they don't have the first clue how to use it, how to clean it, what a 'safety' is or where it's located even. They don't seem to have the first clue how to keep those guns 'secured' from others or how to avoid accidents.

They just think it's good to have a gun, with some ammo and prop it behind the bedroom door and think it's all good. WRONG!

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one,

What country do you live in?

 

[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.

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?

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry. That's what I meant by permit......not to have to get something else, other than a handgun safety class.


I'd rather have to take a mandatory safety class, than lose the right to own an AR15 or bump stock or anything else they deem unneccesssary

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry.

not in my area

you DON'T have to have a permit???

no

 

[OKTexas]

Most sidewalks are private property. Dip.


.

What makes you think that?

Reality. People are sued all the time for not maintaining their sidewalks.


.

That's both anecdotal and not all that compelling. Sidewalks are not only in front of people's homes, and not all laws regarding sidewalks and who owns/is responsible for them are necessarily the same. It doesn't even specify whether those being sued for not maintaining their sidewalks are considered legally responsible for doing so; just because a suit is brought doesn't mean it has merit.

Don't mistake me here, I'm not claiming that most sidewalks are public rather than private. I was just curious if there was some sort of empirical evidence that led you to claim most are private property.

The vast majority of sidewalks are installed by developers and belong to the people that purchase the property.


.

Those sidewalks are outside the property line

Not everywhere, my deed reads to the center line of the road, there is just a right of way and easements for utilities, which out here is only electricity and phone.


.

 

[Montrovant]

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

You are mistaken. It is one very large stretch, from the "privilege" of hunting to the RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms. No. Nuh uh, screw that, and also piss off.

Not so much.......that hunter safety course includes gun safety as well because it's for those hunting Modern Firearm AKA guns.

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one, regardless what you intend to use it for. With that requirement, would it really be so bad to also require a safety course taught by military or police before purchasing a gun. It's not taking away any right to own any gun on the market. But it is teaching people the safety and hazards of owning one.

Currently there is no training and people buy guns, but they don't have the first clue how to use it, how to clean it, what a 'safety' is or where it's located even. They don't seem to have the first clue how to keep those guns 'secured' from others or how to avoid accidents.

They just think it's good to have a gun, with some ammo and prop it behind the bedroom door and think it's all good. WRONG!

Do you really think the issue is ignorance, rather than simple negligence?

 

[JustAnotherNut]

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

You are mistaken. It is one very large stretch, from the "privilege" of hunting to the RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms. No. Nuh uh, screw that, and also piss off.

Not so much.......that hunter safety course includes gun safety as well because it's for those hunting Modern Firearm AKA guns.

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one, regardless what you intend to use it for. With that requirement, would it really be so bad to also require a safety course taught by military or police before purchasing a gun. It's not taking away any right to own any gun on the market. But it is teaching people the safety and hazards of owning one.

Currently there is no training and people buy guns, but they don't have the first clue how to use it, how to clean it, what a 'safety' is or where it's located even. They don't seem to have the first clue how to keep those guns 'secured' from others or how to avoid accidents.

They just think it's good to have a gun, with some ammo and prop it behind the bedroom door and think it's all good. WRONG!

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one,

What country do you live in?

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.



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?

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry. That's what I meant by permit......not to have to get something else, other than a handgun safety class.


I'd rather have to take a mandatory safety class, than lose the right to own an AR15 or bump stock or anything else they deem unneccesssary

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry.

not in my area

you DON'T have to have a permit???

no

Sorry, I guess I thought some type of permit was required nation wide.

I'm in Washington state....you know, one of those stupid liberal places that require permits for everything

 

[westwall]

...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.

As has been shown to you multiple times, "well regulated" meant "in good working order" back then. It had nothing to do with laws. Clocks used to have the phrase engraved on their makers plates to show that they would keep time accurately.

 

[westwall]

Mandatory training on any firearm being transferred into one's possession? ( sale, gift, inheritance, whatever )...

Yes.

Absolutely.

Time to put Gun Ownership on a par with Drivers Licenses.

Different categories of license for different categories of vehicles... ditto for firearms.

Different levels of training for different categories of vehicles... ditto for firearms.

But mandate it on the Federal level; leave it to the States to execute (or face denial of Federal funding); with the Feds auditing & monitoring.

The States have had far too long to get it right, and they haven't; besides, America needs consistency from one jurisdiction to another.

No Moon Bat you are confused.

It is time to adhere to the Bill of Rights. **** gun control.

The Bill of Rights requires training

How else do we regulate our militias?

No, it doesn't. It merely states that for a militia to be in good working order the Right of the PEOPLE, not the government, to keep guns shall not be infringed. Simple.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

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

You are mistaken. It is one very large stretch, from the "privilege" of hunting to the RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms. No. Nuh uh, screw that, and also piss off.

Not so much.......that hunter safety course includes gun safety as well because it's for those hunting Modern Firearm AKA guns.

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one, regardless what you intend to use it for. With that requirement, would it really be so bad to also require a safety course taught by military or police before purchasing a gun. It's not taking away any right to own any gun on the market. But it is teaching people the safety and hazards of owning one.

Currently there is no training and people buy guns, but they don't have the first clue how to use it, how to clean it, what a 'safety' is or where it's located even. They don't seem to have the first clue how to keep those guns 'secured' from others or how to avoid accidents.

They just think it's good to have a gun, with some ammo and prop it behind the bedroom door and think it's all good. WRONG!

Do you really think the issue is ignorance, rather than simple negligence?

True enough about negligence being a contributor. A safety course would give some kind of heads up though

 

[Pop23]

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.

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

You are mistaken. It is one very large stretch, from the "privilege" of hunting to the RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms. No. Nuh uh, screw that, and also piss off.

Not so much.......that hunter safety course includes gun safety as well because it's for those hunting Modern Firearm AKA guns.

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one, regardless what you intend to use it for. With that requirement, would it really be so bad to also require a safety course taught by military or police before purchasing a gun. It's not taking away any right to own any gun on the market. But it is teaching people the safety and hazards of owning one.

Currently there is no training and people buy guns, but they don't have the first clue how to use it, how to clean it, what a 'safety' is or where it's located even. They don't seem to have the first clue how to keep those guns 'secured' from others or how to avoid accidents.

They just think it's good to have a gun, with some ammo and prop it behind the bedroom door and think it's all good. WRONG!

Do you really think the issue is ignorance, rather than simple negligence?

True enough about negligence being a contributor. A safety course would give some kind of heads up though

And do almost nothing of statistical value. Roughly 99% of gun deaths are caused by A. Criminal activity and B. Suicide. Neither will be effected by training.

The other 1% is caused by carelessness. Those folks won’t be any less careless because they went to a class or two.

So, if there’s a point to all this, except, wouldn’t it be nice, please bring it forth.

 

[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.

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

You are mistaken. It is one very large stretch, from the "privilege" of hunting to the RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms. No. Nuh uh, screw that, and also piss off.

Not so much.......that hunter safety course includes gun safety as well because it's for those hunting Modern Firearm AKA guns.

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one, regardless what you intend to use it for. With that requirement, would it really be so bad to also require a safety course taught by military or police before purchasing a gun. It's not taking away any right to own any gun on the market. But it is teaching people the safety and hazards of owning one.

Currently there is no training and people buy guns, but they don't have the first clue how to use it, how to clean it, what a 'safety' is or where it's located even. They don't seem to have the first clue how to keep those guns 'secured' from others or how to avoid accidents.

They just think it's good to have a gun, with some ammo and prop it behind the bedroom door and think it's all good. WRONG!

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one,

What country do you live in?

a permit, to take advantage of a Right?

Should we also get a permit to vote, comrade?

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry. That's what I meant by permit......not to have to get something else, other than a handgun safety class.


I'd rather have to take a mandatory safety class, than lose the right to own an AR15 or bump stock or anything else they deem unneccesssary

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry.

not in my area

you DON'T have to have a permit???

no

Sorry, I guess I thought some type of permit was required nation wide.

I'm in Washington state....you know, one of those stupid liberal places that require permits for everything

 

[JustAnotherNut]

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.



Military should be exempt for obvious reasons

You are mistaken. It is one very large stretch, from the "privilege" of hunting to the RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms. No. Nuh uh, screw that, and also piss off.

Not so much.......that hunter safety course includes gun safety as well because it's for those hunting Modern Firearm AKA guns.

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one, regardless what you intend to use it for. With that requirement, would it really be so bad to also require a safety course taught by military or police before purchasing a gun. It's not taking away any right to own any gun on the market. But it is teaching people the safety and hazards of owning one.

Currently there is no training and people buy guns, but they don't have the first clue how to use it, how to clean it, what a 'safety' is or where it's located even. They don't seem to have the first clue how to keep those guns 'secured' from others or how to avoid accidents.

They just think it's good to have a gun, with some ammo and prop it behind the bedroom door and think it's all good. WRONG!

Do you really think the issue is ignorance, rather than simple negligence?

True enough about negligence being a contributor. A safety course would give some kind of heads up though

And do almost nothing of statistical value. Roughly 99% of gun deaths are caused by A. Criminal activity and B. Suicide. Neither will be effected by training.

The other 1% is caused by carelessness. Those folks won’t be any less careless because they went to a class or two.

So, if there’s a point to all this, except, wouldn’t it be nice, please bring it forth.

If nothing else, it could appease the anti-gunners and still allow ownership of semi-autos & bump stocks or anything else they're targeting for banning

 

[JustAnotherNut]

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.



Military should be exempt for obvious reasons

You are mistaken. It is one very large stretch, from the "privilege" of hunting to the RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms. No. Nuh uh, screw that, and also piss off.

Not so much.......that hunter safety course includes gun safety as well because it's for those hunting Modern Firearm AKA guns.

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one, regardless what you intend to use it for. With that requirement, would it really be so bad to also require a safety course taught by military or police before purchasing a gun. It's not taking away any right to own any gun on the market. But it is teaching people the safety and hazards of owning one.

Currently there is no training and people buy guns, but they don't have the first clue how to use it, how to clean it, what a 'safety' is or where it's located even. They don't seem to have the first clue how to keep those guns 'secured' from others or how to avoid accidents.

They just think it's good to have a gun, with some ammo and prop it behind the bedroom door and think it's all good. WRONG!

To own a gun in this country you already have to get a concealed or open carry permit before being able to purchase one,

What country do you live in?

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry. That's what I meant by permit......not to have to get something else, other than a handgun safety class.


I'd rather have to take a mandatory safety class, than lose the right to own an AR15 or bump stock or anything else they deem unneccesssary

But we already have to get a permit, whether it be conceal to carry or open carry.

not in my area

you DON'T have to have a permit???

no

Sorry, I guess I thought some type of permit was required nation wide.

I'm in Washington state....you know, one of those stupid liberal places that require permits for everything

Fine.......scoot over cause I'm moving in

 

[mdk]

 

[OKTexas]

Have you asked them?


.

No. Have you? Does the NRA have the trained manpower to do that for every school in the country?

They've done it before you regressives ran them out of the schools. They could train teachers, it the military we called it train the trainers, it's a great way to get maximum use of resources.


.

So now I'm a "regressive" that ran the NRA out of schools?

Question whether an organization has the resources to conduct free classes in every school in the country, get pigeon-holed in a political stereotype.

Well stop acting like a regressive and you won't be pigeonholed. And yes the NRA has the resources, in the age of the internet there is no reason a warm body has to show up in every class room. Teachers could be given course outlines and the actual training could be conducted via video online or DVD. I would bet they would provide the age appropriate materials for free.


.

Apparently you consider questioning whether a claim is true or not to be "acting like a regressive." I certainly don't plan to stop questioning people's claims.

While online instruction is a possibility, that depends on what this sort of education or training would entail. Some in this thread have called for things that would seem to require more hands-on training.

No real need for general firearms safety training.


.