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

[Hossfly]

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.


.

And now they're trying to strap roller skates to our feet before giving us a push.

That's not as scary as a would be paratrooper who freezes in the door experiences.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Our "fellow citizens" mistakenly imagine that we owe them something they have a right to demand payment of. Our "fellow citizens" should piss off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

...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.

Then why are you wasting time here, making empty declarations about how you own the world and are going to force us to live with your redecoration of it? Get your ass off the computer, and get busy on that Amendment drive. It's not just gonna happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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~

Because the answer to pretty much anything you want to say, "The rest of you HAVE to do this!" about is going to be "Fuck you".

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's great.

Now, all you need to do is to establish Federal standards which the States must enforce to the letter, pertaining to Mandatory Gun Training for all owners, and you're golden.

"Golden" apparently meaning "You will have pleased Kondor - for now - because we all know how important that is to you".

You're still mistakenly imagining that you have some blank check with which to make demands on us, and that we feel some sort of debt or obligation to you that we're desperate to have you tell us how to discharge.

 

[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.

There should be mandatory psychological testing: 50% of our current gunnuts would be eliminated.

There should be mandatory psychological testing for voting. We'd never have another elected Democrat.

 

[Montrovant]

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


.

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?

 

[Montrovant]

An infringement of what? Driving isn't a right.

Furthermore, you don't require a license to operate a vehicle. You require a license to operate one ON PUBLIC ROADS. And most places still require a permit to carry a weapon in public places, so there you go.

It’s really easier then that C.

You are not required to have a license unless you drive a car on a tax payer funded highway.

So, if we take this to it’s logical conclusion, only those using a gun at a tax payer funded shooting range must have a license.

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.

 

[Flash]

[QU

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

Don't you worry your little Moon Bat head. There will be many Libtard school boards that wouldn't allow the NRA into the school.

If there was some stupid Federal mandate to give firearm safety training the government would screw up doing just like they screw up everything else.

 

[Montrovant]

[QU

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

Don't you worry your little Moon Bat head. There will be many Libtard school boards that wouldn't allow the NRA into the school.

If there was some stupid Federal mandate to give firearm safety training the government would screw up doing just like they screw up everything else.

Worry my little Moon Bat head? Does questioning whether the NRA would be able to provide trainers for gun classes in every school in the country make me a liberal/progressive/whatever Moon Bat means to you?

 

[Flash]

[QU

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

Don't you worry your little Moon Bat head. There will be many Libtard school boards that wouldn't allow the NRA into the school.

If there was some stupid Federal mandate to give firearm safety training the government would screw up doing just like they screw up everything else.

Worry my little Moon Bat head? Does questioning whether the NRA would be able to provide trainers for gun classes in every school in the country make me a liberal/progressive/whatever Moon Bat means to you?

Only a Moon Bat would question that. The question you should be asking is why in the hell would somebody be so stupid as to suggest that the filthy ass government require qualifications like training before a citizen could enjoy a right that clearly says shall not be infringed?

Do we need training before we are allowed free speech? Do we need training before we are allowed by the filthy government to go to church?

When does the filthy government get a say so in the rights that are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? If we have to get permission from the government then they aren't really rights, are they?

 

[Taz]

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?

Can most people hold a gun safely without perforating the cat? Yes. Just as most people can figure out how to chop food with a butcher knife without losing a finger, and don't require a "butcher knife safety class" before being allowed to cook.

This isn't rocket magic here. What is it you imagine is being taught, or would be taught, in a gun safety class that would constitute the magic bullet (pardon the expression) to make society perfectly safe?

Let me guess what you're getting at: "MORE GUNS!!!! MORE GUNS!!!! MORE GUNS!!!!"

 

[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.

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.

Why?

Why not just not do it?

What about all of that "personal responsibility" crap you guys spew when we talk about important stuff like healthcare?

"Personal responsibility" is not defined as "the government makes a law and forces you to do what it believes is the right thing".

I don't think there's a person here who is maintaining that it's a bad idea for people to take classes to learn more about their guns, the laws pertaining to their guns, and to practice shooting regularly to be comfortable with their guns. But TRUE personal responsibility is doing it WITHOUT a government mandate, because it's a good idea. It's the "government mandate" portion we're objecting to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Why?

Why not just not do it?

What about all of that "personal responsibility" crap you guys spew when we talk about important stuff like healthcare?

You are not making sense. Why should I have to pay an additional $400 for a training class to exercise a right?

How about we make people take classes to vote?

No answer huh?

Pretty much what I expected.

There was an answer. You just didn't like it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then why does a background check in NYC take 3-6 months simply to get a handgun permit for home use?

Why does it cost up to $600 for that background check?

I don't have any idea what goes on in New your, and don't really care. I'm talking about federal gun laws goober.

There is a proposal on the table (read the OP) and then tell us the tremendous saving of life’s it saves.

I’ve outlined how ineffective it would be.

You?

You outlines the basic NRA mantra "Don't worry about dead people. Sell more guns"

I see you have no answers. Let’s try.

Will the OP’s suggestion make criminals less likely to kill? If so, how is training a killer to more effectively kill going to reduce his killing rate?

Will the OPs suggestion stop someone wanting to kill himself less effective in his/her attempt because he is better trained in killing himself?

I’ve just given you two examples, that are 99% of all gun deaths.

Please explain how better training ends the percentage of death caused by guns.

Give it a shot. You might not look as stupid as you appear.

The OP's suggestion is about preventing accidents.

It's not that hard dude. Tighten up.

Thank you for that utterly unneeded restatement of the OP. Now if you could possibly see your way clear to answering the question and providing us with evidence - beyond "it's just so OBVIOUS to me!" - that the OP's suggestion is actually going to provide a real and measurable improvement WITHOUT a real and measurable onerous restriction, that would be great.

 

[Taz]

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

Why?

Why not just not do it?

What about all of that "personal responsibility" crap you guys spew when we talk about important stuff like healthcare?

You are not making sense. Why should I have to pay an additional $400 for a training class to exercise a right?

How about we make people take classes to vote?

No answer huh?

Pretty much what I expected.

There was an answer. You just didn't like it.

There should be no training, no age limit, no restrictions on what kind of weapon you can buy (like AA missiles...), the NRA should have a permanent cabinet seat on every administration (without having to pay for it), and everyone who pays taxes should get a gross of bullets every year for free. Did I forget something Ceci?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your logic is to impose your set of values on law abiding citizens because of criminal actions of others.............Your logic is flawed and your mindset and opinions are your own..............

Kind of like punishing the cows for the actions of a Coyote raiding the hen house.................Our castrating a neighbor of a rapist for the crimes of a rapist.

You want to ENFORCE YOUR VALUES ON OTHERS.............who don't agree with you.........and we will resist you until hell freezes over.

Your logic doesn't work AT ALL. If your logic worked, we would have no laws and no regulations AT ALL. I don't drive drunk or recklessly, but there are laws against doing so. Why am I punished for what others do? Why do I need to buy liability insurance? I don't steal. Why are there laws against doing so? Why are there laws against cheating on taxes: I don't cheat on my taxes. Why am I punished for what others do?

Your logic is the same as a young child's.

Can you outline these punishments?

I am curious

Seriously?

Punishment isn't the correct word. Punishment is the word the poster used to whom I was replying. It's a childish term and a childish way to represent having regulations and laws in respect to civilized behavior.

You apparently seem unable to see the correlation between requirements and regulations in just about every 'right' we have as 'free' citizens and the right to have guns.

Really your question is just too stupid a question for me to bother with. Figure it out yourself, unless you are too retarded. You are obviously too retarded to pick up on irony.

You are frustrated I see.

Can you explain the problem that the OP will solve by his proposal.

99% of all gun related deaths are caused by suicide and criminal activities.

At best, you think that training these two groups will make them less effective in there deeds? How so? Seems training them makes them more effective, not less.

The one percent is due to carelessness. And I’ve seen no argument made that this training will make careless people less careless.

Do you have anything?

Other countries have requirements for training and psychological testing in the ownership of guns. Pro-gun people are always comparing what they think are lax regulations in Switzerland regarding gun ownership. Not true. The government keeps a list of people who have guns but whom the authorities think may not be psychologically competent to have them. Government officials and psychologists regularly check up on these people and remove their guns, and right to own guns, if they think the person shouldn't have them.

The OP is talking about legally owned guns. Suicides are related to mental health: therefore, psychological tests would help prevent suicides. In Switzerland, most gun related deaths are also due to suicides. As far as crime: most guns used by criminals are illegally obtained, most often stolen from legal owners. When the number of guns in circulation is reduced, criminals have fewer guns. In countries with strict gun control, there is less crime. I live in Spain at present. They have very strict gun control laws and very low crime, one of the lowest in Europe. There is correlation between strict gun control and low crime.

If people get training to own firearms, it wouldn't be just about the literal physical safety, but the wise and careful ownership of them, including keeping them out of the hands of thieves. The reason that illegal had a gun which killed the woman in SF is because the legal gun owner left it unsecured under the driver's seat in his car. The car was parked in downtown SF. Even if it was locked, that is not good gun safety because it is not unusual for someone to break into a locked car.

We've been through this a million times. If "other countries" are doing things so damned perfect, pick one and go live there. But please interpret the fact that the rest of us are NOT moving to East Leftist Utopiastan as an indication that we do not want to live there, and thus are resistant to having it brought to us.

 

[2aguy]

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 take the drug.

The 2/3rds that do not take the SSRI but are mentally ill, 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.

The 11,000+ gun homicides each year are not because of SSRI's.

Stop drinking piss.

No..the majority of the 11,004 gun murders in 2016 are due to single teenage mothers raising young males while on welfare without fathers and husbands...

 

[2aguy]

Can you outline these punishments?

I am curious

Seriously?

Punishment isn't the correct word. Punishment is the word the poster used to whom I was replying. It's a childish term and a childish way to represent having regulations and laws in respect to civilized behavior.

You apparently seem unable to see the correlation between requirements and regulations in just about every 'right' we have as 'free' citizens and the right to have guns.

Really your question is just too stupid a question for me to bother with. Figure it out yourself, unless you are too retarded. You are obviously too retarded to pick up on irony.

You are frustrated I see.

Can you explain the problem that the OP will solve by his proposal.

99% of all gun related deaths are caused by suicide and criminal activities.

At best, you think that training these two groups will make them less effective in there deeds? How so? Seems training them makes them more effective, not less.

The one percent is due to carelessness. And I’ve seen no argument made that this training will make careless people less careless.

Do you have anything?

Other countries have requirements for training and psychological testing in the ownership of guns. Pro-gun people are always comparing what they think are lax regulations in Switzerland regarding gun ownership. Not true. The government keeps a list of people who have guns but whom the authorities think may not be psychologically competent to have them. Government officials and psychologists regularly check up on these people and remove their guns, and right to own guns, if they think the person shouldn't have them.

The OP is talking about legally owned guns. Suicides are related to mental health: therefore, psychological tests would help prevent suicides. In Switzerland, most gun related deaths are also due to suicides. As far as crime: most guns used by criminals are illegally obtained, most often stolen from legal owners. When the number of guns in circulation is reduced, criminals have fewer guns. In countries with strict gun control, there is less crime. I live in Spain at present. They have very strict gun control laws and very low crime, one of the lowest in Europe. There is correlation between strict gun control and low crime.

If people get training to own firearms, it wouldn't be just about the literal physical safety, but the wise and careful ownership of them, including keeping them out of the hands of thieves. The reason that illegal had a gun which killed the woman in SF is because the legal gun owner left it unsecured under the driver's seat in his car. The car was parked in downtown SF. Even if it was locked, that is not good gun safety because it is not unusual for someone to break into a locked car.

In countries with strict gun control, there is less crime.

Wrong....Britain has more violent crime than the United States does...

Britain's homicide rate is less than one fifth of ours. Stop making shit up.

Their gun crime is going up....ours is going down, their criminals have guns they just don't shoot to kill. The criminals in Britain are shooting each other in the legs.....rather than in the head or chest..

 

[2aguy]

Why?

Why not just not do it?

What about all of that "personal responsibility" crap you guys spew when we talk about important stuff like healthcare?

You are not making sense. Why should I have to pay an additional $400 for a training class to exercise a right?

How about we make people take classes to vote?

No answer huh?

Pretty much what I expected.

There was an answer. You just didn't like it.

There should be no training, no age limit, no restrictions on what kind of weapon you can buy (like AA missiles...), the NRA should have a permanent cabinet seat on every administration (without having to pay for it), and everyone who pays taxes should get a gross of bullets every year for free. Did I forget something Ceci?

Wow...that is too extreme.....where are your anti gun buddies making comments about your body parts....