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

[2aguy]

The only logical, fair, or legal thing to do is mandatory, universal, firearms training, such as in high school.

There is no one who should be exempt, because it is always a potential civic responsibility.
For example, if some little old lady sees a pistol on the sidewalk, she should know how to unload it and put the safety on, before taking it to the police.

Or she could just watch it until the police showed up.

I think we could manage gun safety education to be taught alongside Fire Safety education in our schools.....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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...

Why would young males need husbands?

Your sentence structure needs work!

 

[2aguy]

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.

What about the concealed carry permits already being issued? In Florida they require a basic working knowledge of pistols versus revolvers and a lot of common sense discussion, a trip to the firing range so that you can get a feel for it and then a pretty extensive background check.

What if we had a rule that a CC permit was required to buy an AR-15?

What I want is a nationally recognized CC permit so I can buy guns in other states without hassle and travel without the extra worry of differing state laws.

`​

I'm trying to imagine how one carries a concealed AR-15. They aren't exactly small and unobtrusive.

With a folding stock and a long coat it would be possible.

 

[Pop23]

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?, Do you think a 15 year old gang banger, or suicidal teen hopped up on antidepressants care if they have the legal right to buy a gun?

Try again, this time make a bit of sense.

 

[2aguy]

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...

Why would young males need husbands?

Your sentence structure needs work!

Thanks, I see that now.......

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Oh, that tiny minuscule number. Outline for me how a 10 minute course stops careless people from being careless.

Many thanks

Jesus you are thick. When did we go down to a 10 minute course? Plus some people (conservatives) lack what most if us would call common sense and need to be reminded of certain things like not to leave their pistol and their 4 year old unattended together.

Who is this "most of us" with a corner on the common-sense market and deserving to be condescending enough to accuse others of unproven stupidity?

Would THIS be that paragon of common sense "most of us" to whom you refer?

Or maybe this?

Or how about this?

 

[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.


.

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

Not at all. For something like that, I think you'll find that there would be lots of volunteers and lots of people willing to donate money to fund it.

 

[Pop23]

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?

I missed this:

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

He/she is trying to extend a lost argument, that being, why do you need to license a car, but not a gun.

Again, there is no such law. You do not need to have a license to buy a car, nor do you have to register a car. You simply can't legally drive on tax payer funded roads without a license or registration (which is not entirely true either).

Oh, I'm not arguing about that, I'm just curious why OKTexas thinks most sidewalks are private property. I honestly don't know whether most are private or public, or even how to determine that.

Mine are public. Used to be private, then someone in the Mayors office sent out a gizziallion fix or fine notices and the Mayor got his ass kicked out the door. The city took em over and it took twenty years until they all got fixed.

 

[ErikViking]

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?

I can see benefits.
Less accidents, higher awareness towards guns and their potential use - or miss use. Storage, effects of different ammunition, how to aim, reloading, fire under stress, how to take cover, suppression and well - basic usage of a firearm.
Also, armed citizens with training would pose an even bigger threat to criminals.

Although there has been some good counter points about the issue, I have to admit that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I simply don't trust the local governments that would end up implementing this to be fair about it.

They will MAKE it difficult, then you would have to sue, and the local courts would side the with local governments.

Unfortunately I have nothing to base a substantive argument on -- except to suggest that no such proposal be enacted until all preventive, protective, and mutually acceptable provisions are clearly stipulated

Yeah, because we just KNOW that's going to be adhered to forever, as opposed to being ignored the first time a Democrat is elected.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lets mandate education before you vote.

As soon as the first uneducated voter accidentally votes himself or someone else in the head we will get right on it.

Yes, there is no dangerous power in the world beyond that of firing bullets.

Taking it a little too far, don't ya' think? It was a comparison to voting, not whatever you are imagining.

I was talking about voting, too. I'm just not brain-damaged and tunnel-visioned the way you are.

I can theoretically kill one person per bullet. Our votes elect a President who can theoretically kill multitudes with the stroke of a pen.

Which is the more dangerous right: owning a gun or casting a vote?

 

[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?

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?

I can see your partisan filter is working well.

Perhaps you can't ask questions about more than one subject, but I don't need to limit my responses that way. I'm perfectly capable of asking about whether the NRA can supply gun training teachers (for free) to every school in the country, without it having any effect whatsoever on my thoughts about whether such training (if mandatory) would be productive or pass Constitutional scrutiny.

We don't need training to practice free speech or to worship, but there ARE restrictions on those rights. I don't think the Supreme Court would accept mandatory training before someone exercised their second amendment right, but I'm not completely confident about that.

You are probably more likely to have a civil discussion if you don't make unwarranted assumptions or place silly labels on people.

 

[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.

What about the concealed carry permits already being issued? In Florida they require a basic working knowledge of pistols versus revolvers and a lot of common sense discussion, a trip to the firing range so that you can get a feel for it and then a pretty extensive background check.

What if we had a rule that a CC permit was required to buy an AR-15?

What I want is a nationally recognized CC permit so I can buy guns in other states without hassle and travel without the extra worry of differing state laws.

`​

I'm trying to imagine how one carries a concealed AR-15. They aren't exactly small and unobtrusive.

Be really really fat.

I have no desire to know where "being really really fat" would allow one to conceal an AR-15, so please do not tell me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.


.

Maybe where YOU are. Where I live, sidewalks are built and maintained by the city (or the county, as the case may be), and individuals are only held financially liable if their actions damage the sidewalk, such as planting a tree too close to it.

 

[Montrovant]

Lets mandate education before you vote.

As soon as the first uneducated voter accidentally votes himself or someone else in the head we will get right on it.

Yes, there is no dangerous power in the world beyond that of firing bullets.

Taking it a little too far, don't ya' think? It was a comparison to voting, not whatever you are imagining.

I was talking about voting, too. I'm just not brain-damaged and tunnel-visioned the way you are.

I can theoretically kill one person per bullet. Our votes elect a President who can theoretically kill multitudes with the stroke of a pen.

Which is the more dangerous right: owning a gun or casting a vote?

Guns obviously have far more potential for direct danger, but it's unfortunate that some posters don't seem to see the massive indirect danger that voting can pose. The wrong leaders can do far, far more damage than any single gun owner; one could easily argue that voting the wrong people into office has already caused many thousands of deaths over the course of US history.

I do actually understand the desire for gun owners to be educated, but making it a legal requirement of owning a gun seems to me to be the sort of infringement the second prohibits. Even ignoring that, I wonder what sort of education or training would actually make much of a difference; I think irresponsibility rather than ignorance is likely a bigger factor when it comes to firearms accidents.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Because it is putting a requirement, aka a restriction, on my ability to do something I have a Constitutional right to do.

So is an age restriction, why aren't you upset about that?

Who said I wasn't? You assume facts not in evidence, as usual.

 

[mdk]

Absolutely not. Even if it was free.

 

[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.


.

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?

Ask 'em.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!!!!"

Exhibit A of my assertion that psychological testing before voting would result in no more Democrats, ladies and gentlemen!

Out of curiosity, when you heard that people were actually having a serious, mature, thoughtful discussion about guns, did you actually break your leg rushing in here to put a stop to it with your patented brand of inane bullshit, or did you just sprain it a little?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

For starters, you forgot that my name is Cecilie, and that I wouldn't allow you to pick garbage out of the dumpster behind my house, let alone actually behave familarly with me.

The other thing you forgot is that you're a drooling imbecile and an enormous burden on any social occasion.