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

[MikeK]

I had a 12 ga. shotgun when I was in the Navy. That makes it a military firearm. Are you sure you want to go there? Dumbass!

12 ga. shotguns were the preferred weapon of some Marine Recon units for patrols in Vietnam jungles.

 

[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.

I think that a "one time" basic safety class or proof of military service, in conjunction with the purchase of a firearm would be sufficient. Such a class should be limited to: the proper handling of your choice of firearm, ensuring the weapon is unloaded when cleaning the weapon, its safe and secure storage when children are present in the home and not actively involved in learning gun safety by the gun's owner, the state and local ordinances regarding your weapon and one hour range time with a rented firearm from the range. Any additional time is on your own, but once a month is recommended, but not mandatory. The price of the safety class should fall on the purchaser and not be cost prohibitive.

Again, a solution seeking a problem.

The vast majority of gun deaths are gang bangers ir drug dealers. You think they will care? Really?

A majority of the rest is from suicide. You think training them will change anything?

The remaining few are statistically insignificant. So there really is no problem except for sensationalism

 

[Cecilie1200]

Founding fuckers had no problem infringing the right to fly a helicopter. (Unless it’s armed, then it would be considered a weapon, perfectly in order to use without any restrictions)

That's because there's no such thing as a "right to fly a helicopter", Mensa Boy.

And why is that? How come?
How come that we decided to require some sort of training to get to use helicopters, cars and airplanes?

Is it perhaps because they weren’t around at the time? No one could foresee this?

Well, perhaps - just maybe - if the founding fathers knew we would use guns to blow kids to pieces they would actually have entered “but you DO need some training first”.

Really? You really need me to explain to you why some things are inherent human rights, and other things aren't? If you don't even have THAT rudimentary knowledge, you have no business trying to participate in this discussion, and should stop interrupting the grown-ups.

No, it has nothing to do with what did or didn't exist at the time. Basic rights transcend details of technology.

"We" haven't used guns to blow kids, or anyone else, to pieces. I have no idea about YOU, but I'm wondering if the FBI doesn't want to pay a visit to your trailer.

”We” have.
Those documents were produced to “us”.

Now, some things have changed. The idea of some sort of education before having access to firearms isn’t bad. It’s wise.

It’s something the producers of that document would have suggested themselves if they knew what fashion guns would be used today.

Actually I do hold them in high regard, they were ahead of their time. What I can’t stand is the betrayal of their attitude by not carrying that legacy on.

Look, Sparkles, if you want to take on yourself responsibility for other people's evil acts through some collective "hive mind" thing you have going, that's your little red wagon. I'm not obligated to go along with it. I WILL say that if that's really the case, then your happy ass needs to get to prison and start serving time immediately for Jeffrey Dahmer's cannibal murders.

Furthermore, if it weren't for the fact that my dog has more Civics education than you do, you would know that the concepts of individuality, personal freedom, and personal responsibility are the cornerstone of our entire American society and American creed. Everything about who and what this nation was founded to be is built on the paramount importance of individual citizens having as much freedom of self-determination as is possible in proximity to each other.

So "those documents" were produced to "we the people", not "we the society", or "we the ant hill".

I have never shot another human being. I never plan to, no matter how attractive meeting you has made such a fantasy. Not one iota of guilt or blame attaches to me for the evil decisions and actions of others, and I will not be accepting delivery on the load of guilt and blame you're trying to send me.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Why, I bought a gun and shells when I was 11 years old, already knew how to use it, got my own later that month. Already had my drivers license when I took drivers ED, just did it for the insurance credit. Driving isn't a constitutional right.


.

Why isn’t driving a constitutional right? Why is it that we aren’t free to move from point A to point B freely?

You can move freely, there's no right to any particular mode of transportation other than your feet. Everyone during the founding were free to buy a horse, but they weren't guaranteed.


.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Show me in the Bill of Rights where it says the government cannot infringe upon your right to drive a car.

I can show in the Bill of Rights where it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infirnged.

Do you understand the difference? Probably not.

Would you allow someone who is mentally retarded to own a gun? Would you allow a blind person to own a gun? Would you allow someone with anger management issues, who drinks too much, to own a gun? If not, you are infringing their rights. BTW, I'm still waiting to hear how requiring a free class on gun safety is an infringement on the 2nd amendment.

I know at least one retarded individual that is not only responsible, but a very good shot. Should he be even more vulnerable to criminals than anybody else?

There are also many who cannot function on his level. Should they have a gun?

Back to the difference between "this is a good idea" and "therefore, the government must be the one to handle it".

Who said anything about the government handling it? It could be handled at the state level, or even locally. All we need is a law stating that one be required to take a course on gun safety. You get a certificate to show when you purchase your gun. I find it amazing that anyone would have a problem with this.

You DO realize that "the state level, or even locally" are ALSO governments, right? And laws? Those actually COME FROM governments? Any of this ringing a bell?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's because there's no such thing as a "right to fly a helicopter", Mensa Boy.

And why is that? How come?
How come that we decided to require some sort of training to get to use helicopters, cars and airplanes?

Is it perhaps because they weren’t around at the time? No one could foresee this?

Well, perhaps - just maybe - if the founding fathers knew we would use guns to blow kids to pieces they would actually have entered “but you DO need some training first”.

Guns couldn’t blow kids up in 1776?

Ok, now your just stupid. You realize you could own a canon back then, right? Were the founding fathers unaware of that as well?

Oh, how could any one forget the school shooting scenes from Little House...

Or how kids went to school with cannons hidden in their black coats to take revenge on their bullying schoolmates.

Nothing’s changed.

One major thing has changed, and it isn't that guns suddenly, miraculously acquired lethal potential they didn't have before. It's that humans acquired lethal levels of stupidity and immorality.

Disagree - humans have always been this bad.
Agree - the potential of using violence has nothing to do with guns.

No, humans have always had the potential to be this bad, but they USED to value trying to rise above it. Now they revel in seeing who can be worst.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I didnt call it a poll tax. I said it would be basically doing the same thing.

Right, you're still wrong.

I don't think the government would be performing the training so you'd have to go to a local gun range, or perhaps the NRA can train you, often these classes are free/cheap. A private business would make the profit, not the government.

This is nothing "like" a poll tax that people of color were subjected to you poor, poor victim.

Charging people to express rights arent the same because.....
Im not claiming victimhood. How ridiculous.
I cant even have a civilized discussion with you without you turning into a dumbfuck.
Good day

You are claiming victim hood when you compare the cost of a gun safety course to people who really did lose their rights when they had to pay a poll tax to vote.

I am having a civilized debate, your argument doesn't pass muster.

The courts made it clear that it was not the amount of the tax, but that a tax existed in the first place.

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.

 

[ErikViking]

Founding fuckers had no problem infringing the right to fly a helicopter. (Unless it’s armed, then it would be considered a weapon, perfectly in order to use without any restrictions)

That's because there's no such thing as a "right to fly a helicopter", Mensa Boy.

And why is that? How come?
How come that we decided to require some sort of training to get to use helicopters, cars and airplanes?

Is it perhaps because they weren’t around at the time? No one could foresee this?

Well, perhaps - just maybe - if the founding fathers knew we would use guns to blow kids to pieces they would actually have entered “but you DO need some training first”.

Guns couldn’t blow kids up in 1776?

Ok, now your just stupid. You realize you could own a canon back then, right? Were the founding fathers unaware of that as well?

Oh, how could any one forget the school shooting scenes from Little House...

Or how kids went to school with cannons hidden in their black coats to take revenge on their bullying schoolmates.

Nothing’s changed.

BINGO!

Damn. He actually went somewhere that can be controlled.

So, since for most of the history of this country, when most weapons were not illegal to own, even fully automatic machine guns, NONE OF THESE SHOOTINGS EVER HAPPENED!

Now to, what changed?

The start of the use of SSRI’s (antidepressants) on children as young as eight

Almost (and it may be all, but some of the info is not released) all of these shooters were on these SSRIs, which were either not available or rarely used on children until roughly 25years ago.

Gee, that’s about the same time these shootings started.

Now, before you blame this on mental illness, consider this:

There are roughly 33% of the country that have an illness that is treated with an SSRI. But only 1/3rd of them do.

The 2/3rds that do not take the SSRI but are mentally, RARELY commit a violent crime. It’s almost zero. So no, it’s not the mental illness causing this.

The 1/3rd that do take the SSRI’s are 50% more likely to commit a violent crime than the general population and compromise nearly 100% of these school and other mass shootings.

You want to actually save life’s?

Quit feeding our children’s drugs that turn them into monsters.

You wanted to know what changed? There you have it.

Well, solid argument. However, this is the way things have turned. A lot of counter actions can be taken.

But to ensure that the majority of armed citizens are trained to use their weapons is certainly one thing.

What you read in to those documents is shameful. If the founding fathers would have done the same thing they would have entered “mandatory long bow training from the age of 12”. They didn’t look back 250 years for guidance.

It’s common sense to require the skills needed to operate a gun, especially in a Ritalin accelerated environment like you describe. Or else we will have people sh...

Oh, we already have.

Although I did read a pretty good argument (not yours) a few posts back. People already in possession of guns, can’t see how new laws can be enforced upon them.

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

I think that a "one time" basic safety class or proof of military service, in conjunction with the purchase of a firearm would be sufficient. Such a class should be limited to: the proper handling of your choice of firearm, ensuring the weapon is unloaded when cleaning the weapon, its safe and secure storage when children are present in the home and not actively involved in learning gun safety by the gun's owner, the state and local ordinances regarding your weapon and one hour range time with a rented firearm from the range. Any additional time is on your own, but once a month is recommended, but not mandatory. The price of the safety class should fall on the purchaser and not be cost prohibitive.

Again, a solution seeking a problem.

The vast majority of gun deaths are gang bangers ir drug dealers. You think they will care? Really?

A majority of the rest is from suicide. You think training them will change anything?

The remaining few are statistically insignificant. So there really is no problem except for sensationalism

I also am aware that 2/3 of gun deaths are related to suicides and that criminal gangs and an assortment of various criminals make up most of the others, however, I see nothing wrong with a one time safety class. There are people out there that buy a handgun, put some bullets in it, set it on a night stand or on a shelf in the closet and may or may not have kids in the house and think that "now" they are safe. You don't just buy a car and hop out onto the road. You go through a driving school or are taught by your family, then take a test. Again, no harm in a one time safety class. Also, I believe that once you've had your background check, a basic one time safety class and a bit of time at the range, the state should issue you a concealed weapons permit and it should be recognized in all states. I never understood why some states objected to concealed licensed firearms carriers the right to carry across state lines. Such individuals respect the law, keep their weapon concealed and are no threat, yet to listen to those state officials that object to law abiding concealed permit holders entering their state, carrying their firearm, you would think that the same law abiding individuals would somehow, once crossing the state line, would suddenly go berserk and begin shooting up their communities, when the opposite is true.

 

[Crepitus]

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, there should be.

 

[OKTexas]

I had a 12 ga. shotgun when I was in the Navy. That makes it a military firearm. Are you sure you want to go there? Dumbass!

12 ga. shotguns were the preferred weapon of some Marine Recon units for patrols in Vietnam jungles.

And sawed off shotguns for tunnel rats. They're very effective in close quarters.


.

 

[Crepitus]

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 will happen is places will make the class cost $400 and make you wait 2-3 months to take it after scheduling said class.

You simply can't trust a gun control nut.

You could volunteer to pay for it for people Who can't afford it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is gun ownership a right? Is driving a right? You just didn't like my answer and yes it's black and white. You cannot infringe on the right to bear arms

Would you give a gun to a small child? No. You wouldn't. Isn't that an infringement on the 2nd amendment? By your reasoning it is. Also, by my reasoning, it is not an infringement to require someone to demonstrate a minimum proficiency and knowledge of gun safety before owning one. I'm not talking about a government agency determining whether you can own a gun or not. This can be done on a local basis. Like I said. Pass a gun safety course and get your gun. If you cannot pass such a test, and it's not difficult to do so, then you should not own a firearm. You call it infringement. I call it public safety. BTW, look up the FBI statistics for accidental shootings. Might change your mind. Every one of those shootings was preventable.

Now you're building straw men....

No. It is not. I lost my sister because some idiot was playing around with his new gun. She was 6 years old. If there had been mandatory gun training, she might still be alive. THAT is not a straw man. It's my reality.

I'm sorry about your sister but you can't force people to take training to own firearms, it's a sound idea but sorry it's an infringement

How is requiring basic competency and safety an infringement?

Who decides who is competent or safe?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If it happens quickly and free(like same day? maybe next day?), i might not have a problem with it.
Charging for it would be equivalent to a poll tax. But i also dont want some guy having the power to restrict me of my rights either..

No, that is not like a voter poll tax. Unless you want to count the price of the gun and ammo as a poll tax.

Thats exactly what it is. Paying a fee to express your rights.

Not a poll tax, sorry.

You most likely have already paid for the NICS background check whether explicitly or through the dealer padding the cost into the firearm.

If you want a fully automatic weapon you also have to pay additional fees and jump through real hoops.

There is nothing unconstitutional to require you to pay for basic firearm training.

I didnt call it a poll tax. I said it would be basically doing the same thing.

Right, you're still wrong.

I don't think the government would be performing the training so you'd have to go to a local gun range, or perhaps the NRA can train you, often these classes are free/cheap. A private business would make the profit, not the government.

This is nothing "like" a poll tax that people of color were subjected to you poor, poor victim.

Why is it your mission in life to prove how much of a dumbass you can actually be?

Poll taxes are just another thing you know nothing about. Maybe when you go back to get your GED you will learn.

 

[ErikViking]

Founding fuckers had no problem infringing the right to fly a helicopter. (Unless it’s armed, then it would be considered a weapon, perfectly in order to use without any restrictions)

That's because there's no such thing as a "right to fly a helicopter", Mensa Boy.

And why is that? How come?
How come that we decided to require some sort of training to get to use helicopters, cars and airplanes?

Is it perhaps because they weren’t around at the time? No one could foresee this?

Well, perhaps - just maybe - if the founding fathers knew we would use guns to blow kids to pieces they would actually have entered “but you DO need some training first”.

Really? You really need me to explain to you why some things are inherent human rights, and other things aren't? If you don't even have THAT rudimentary knowledge, you have no business trying to participate in this discussion, and should stop interrupting the grown-ups.

No, it has nothing to do with what did or didn't exist at the time. Basic rights transcend details of technology.

"We" haven't used guns to blow kids, or anyone else, to pieces. I have no idea about YOU, but I'm wondering if the FBI doesn't want to pay a visit to your trailer.

”We” have.
Those documents were produced to “us”.

Now, some things have changed. The idea of some sort of education before having access to firearms isn’t bad. It’s wise.

It’s something the producers of that document would have suggested themselves if they knew what fashion guns would be used today.

Actually I do hold them in high regard, they were ahead of their time. What I can’t stand is the betrayal of their attitude by not carrying that legacy on.

Look, Sparkles, if you want to take on yourself responsibility for other people's evil acts through some collective "hive mind" thing you have going, that's your little red wagon. I'm not obligated to go along with it. I WILL say that if that's really the case, then your happy ass needs to get to prison and start serving time immediately for Jeffrey Dahmer's cannibal murders.

Furthermore, if it weren't for the fact that my dog has more Civics education than you do, you would know that the concepts of individuality, personal freedom, and personal responsibility are the cornerstone of our entire American society and American creed. Everything about who and what this nation was founded to be is built on the paramount importance of individual citizens having as much freedom of self-determination as is possible in proximity to each other.

So "those documents" were produced to "we the people", not "we the society", or "we the ant hill".

I have never shot another human being. I never plan to, no matter how attractive meeting you has made such a fantasy. Not one iota of guilt or blame attaches to me for the evil decisions and actions of others, and I will not be accepting delivery on the load of guilt and blame you're trying to send me.

You do realize that we are discussing the requirement of proper training to arming yourself? It seems you are somewhat overreacting here.

All bad things going on is the result of bringing this exact lot of people together. This is now. Everything that’s happened has led up to this point. Sure, you can try to distance yourself from the people that constitutes the country, but they will find you. They may come in the form of a bad driver, a bad doctor or a bad shooter. The last category is something we have not tried to improve on. Why?

Because there was no need 250 years ago.

 

[Crepitus]

There are no qualifications in the Constitution to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

It says so right in the Bill of Rights. It says that because it is necessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stupid Moon Bats have a hard time understanding what the words "shall not be infringed" means. They think it means that the right can be infringed, the stupid shithheads.

If you have tests and background checks administered by the filthy ass corrupt government before you get a right then it is really not a right, is it?

It also says you are supposed to be part of a militia. Where did that go?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Trump made sure the mentally ill could purchase guns in February 2017. So why all the fuss about mandatory training? What possibly could go wrong to give a total novice a gun and unleash him upon society?

No, he didn't. What he did was make sure that people couldn't be declared mentally ill without due process, just so you could have warm, fuzzy "feelz" about having "done something".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Why, I bought a gun and shells when I was 11 years old, already knew how to use it, got my own later that month. Already had my drivers license when I took drivers ED, just did it for the insurance credit. Driving isn't a constitutional right.


.

Why isn’t driving a constitutional right? Why is it that we aren’t free to move from point A to point B freely?

You are. There's a difference between the right to move around, and the non-existent right to a specific means of doing so.

 

[ErikViking]

And why is that? How come?
How come that we decided to require some sort of training to get to use helicopters, cars and airplanes?

Is it perhaps because they weren’t around at the time? No one could foresee this?

Well, perhaps - just maybe - if the founding fathers knew we would use guns to blow kids to pieces they would actually have entered “but you DO need some training first”.

Guns couldn’t blow kids up in 1776?

Ok, now your just stupid. You realize you could own a canon back then, right? Were the founding fathers unaware of that as well?

Oh, how could any one forget the school shooting scenes from Little House...

Or how kids went to school with cannons hidden in their black coats to take revenge on their bullying schoolmates.

Nothing’s changed.

One major thing has changed, and it isn't that guns suddenly, miraculously acquired lethal potential they didn't have before. It's that humans acquired lethal levels of stupidity and immorality.

Disagree - humans have always been this bad.
Agree - the potential of using violence has nothing to do with guns.

No, humans have always had the potential to be this bad, but they USED to value trying to rise above it. Now they revel in seeing who can be worst.

I’m sad to say I agree.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are no qualifications in the Constitution to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

It says so right in the Bill of Rights. It says that because it is necessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stupid Moon Bats have a hard time understanding what the words "shall not be infringed" means. They think it means that the right can be infringed, the stupid shithheads.

If you have tests and background checks administered by the filthy ass corrupt government before you get a right then it is really not a right, is it?

By your own reasoning, A blind person should be allowed to get a drivers license. Would you want a blind person to own a gun?

How much of a stretch is it for a blind person to own a gun from someone severely mentally ill owning one. Trump gave his blessing to the latter.

Exactly why is it that you think being blind invalidates someone's rights?