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

[Kondor3]

...Your fellow commies would freak out if it were proposed. .

Incorrect perception.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Good point. We shouldn't be letting you vote either.

Sparkes, you don't "let" me do anything. You're not man enough to stop me.

Oooh, look out! We've got an internet tough guy here!

You know a lot of guys named Cecilie, do you?

 

[Pop23]

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.

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

No, I’m for educating idiots:

The minors “rights” are protected through the parent, or state appointed guardian.

Minors have diminished capacity, so not able to act in a reasonable condition”

Medscape: Medscape Access

 

[Pop23]

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.

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

Educate yourself.

Medscape: Medscape Access

Understand diminished capacity? The rights remain, through a parent or State appointed guardian.


“Governments have an obligation to protect all citizens and particularly their young people from harm.[13] States, in the interest of protecting public safety, have the authority to limit individual rights. The protective notion of the state, known as parens patriae, assumes that minors are unable to understand fully and consent to the consequences of certain decisions.[14] Parens patriae is possessed by the state, thereby allowing the state to protect its minors health, safety, and welfare. The state, acting in the interest of protecting the minor against her own immature decisions, may impose considerable constraints.[15]All states have codes limiting minors' rights (e.g., the age allowing a minor to obtain a driver's license, the age requirement to attend school, and the legal drinking age) and exerting parens patriae.[16]

In addition, parents have a history of legal precedent giving them the right to raise their children without government interference.[12] One example of the parents' power of authority over control of their children is Meyer v Nebraska.. This case concerned a state statute forbidding the teaching of any language other than English to youth prior to the eighth grade. The District Court of Nebraska had convicted a teacher in a parochial school for teaching German to a 10-year-old child. The parents of the child as well as several other parents in the school were German immigrants who wanted to retain some of their heritage. The Supreme Court found the Nebraska state statute to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which allows parents to establish a home and bring up children. The opinion rendered by Justice McReynolds stated: "Corresponding to the right of control, it is the parents' natural duty to give his children education suitable to their station in life...."[12]

Constitutionally, the rights of minors are protected; however, their rights are not protected to the same degree as an adult. There are three reasons that minors do not have the same constitutional rights as an adult: the vulnerability of children, their limited decision-making capacity, and the important role parents play in making decisions for their children.[17] Various state codes limit minors' rights while trying to balance the protection of the state interest, the parent interest, and the interest of the minor. Requiring immunizations for school is an example of the use of state law to protect the welfare of the greater community and having the ability to supersede the parents' wishes if necessary. State intervention in child abuse is use of state law to protect the interest of the child.”

But that was a nice, if not childish try

 

[Pop23]

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?

Good point. We shouldn't be letting you vote either.

Sparkes, you don't "let" me do anything. You're not man enough to stop me.

Oooh, look out! We've got an internet tough guy here!

You know a lot of guys named Cecilie, do you?

You are speaking to an “It”. What did you expect

 

[Montrovant]

...(Makes you look silly)

I'm sure it does... in the eyes of those looking to preserve the Status Quo... and I'm OK with that... so long as the job gets done.

If you want the job to get done, why not push for a Constitutional amendment?

Because a simple re-interpretation will do the same thing while preserving the best of the past.

So you prefer changing interpretations over clarity?

Perhaps more importantly, is there any reason for you to expect such a re-interpretation will occur, or will occur any time soon? Isn't it at least as possible that the interpretation of the second which holds that membership in a militia is not a requisite for the right to keep and bear arms will merely become more entrenched?

 

[ErikViking]

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.

I don't recall asking you to recite your fantasies and imaginings of benefits to me. I have asked, at various times, precisely what you think is taught in gun safety classes which will render some huge improvement, and to provide EVIDENCE that your proposals will produce substantial benefits without onorous restrictions. Your daydreams aren't evidence.

Those mandatory courses doesn’t exist yet. So I can’t know what’s in them.

Also, we can’t know what the exact result is going to be either.

But I can guarantee that education is going to result in educated people and that educated people tends to out perform uneducated people in their field.

There is no real restriction involved, this right is only going to get boosted by a mandatory education.

And for the record, you actually did ask me about my imagination:

You: “What is it you imagine is being taught, or would be taught...”

You again: “I don't recall asking you to recite your fantasies and imaginings...”

 

[Montrovant]

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.

I don't recall asking you to recite your fantasies and imaginings of benefits to me. I have asked, at various times, precisely what you think is taught in gun safety classes which will render some huge improvement, and to provide EVIDENCE that your proposals will produce substantial benefits without onorous restrictions. Your daydreams aren't evidence.

Those mandatory courses doesn’t exist yet. So I can’t know what’s in them.

Also, we can’t know what the exact result is going to be either.

But I can guarantee that education is going to result in educated people and that educated people tends to out perform uneducated people in their field.

There is no real restriction involved, this right is only going to get boosted by a mandatory education.

And for the record, you actually did ask me about my imagination:

You: “What is it you imagine is being taught, or would be taught...”

You again: “I don't recall asking you to recite your fantasies and imaginings...”

How is requiring an education to own a gun not a restriction? If someone does not get said education (or fails to pass an education course, one would assume), they are unable to own a gun.

Moral or not, legal or not, practical or not, it's clearly a restriction. Gun ownership would be restricted to those who receive the education in question.

 

[OKTexas]

...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?

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


.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

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.


.

Definitely one of the dumbest ideas ever. There is"stupid", there is "fucking stupid", and then there is "American stupid", like that idea right there.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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


.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I guess it depends how wide the right of way is. Here the developers install the sidewalks and it's usually outside the right of way.

BTW where I live there are no sidewalks, the road is barely wide enough for two vehicles to pass.


.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

The 11,000+ gun homicides are a result of criminal behavior. So, instead of thinking about piss, why not encourage people to pursue the time honored punishments for criminal behaviors?

 

[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.

Of course there should. And mandatory written and proficiency tests.

Well that would exclude most commiecrats.


.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Straw man alert!! Nobody said this would make society "perfectly safe".

Sorry, Chuckles, but when you're trying to pass laws to prevent people from being careless dumbasses, then what you are doing IS attempting to make society perfectly safe.

You can't make laws idiot proof.


.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

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.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

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.


.

Definitely one of the dumbest ideas ever. There is"stupid", there is "fucking stupid", and then there is "American stupid", like that idea right there.

Thanks for being a perfect example of my point.


.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

No, this is very much a gun rights issue. I used to agree with you and still think that everyone should receive firearms training but it should take place within the school system otherwise hostile levels of government can price that training outside the reach of all but the elite.

Hey, if the leftists want to require that every high school student attend a basic gun safety class as part of their curriculum, so that when they're old enough to buy a gun they're all set to do so, THAT I could absolutely get behind.

How about it, lefties? Shall we give the NRA a call and see if they can rustle up a teacher for each high school?

Not the NRA. This cultists can't teach anything in a school. Separation of church and state ya'know.

How silly. The NRA is neither a cult nor a religion and has furnished firearms instructors pretty much on request. In my State our Wildlife Resources Agency conducts hunter safety classes which are required to get most hunting licenses and stress firearms familiarity. I saw that everyone in my family has attended and have done considerable firearms instruction myself for the US Army and USAR..

 

[OKTexas]

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?

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.


.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

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

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


.

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

They don't have buses to the burbs?


.

well yeah, I guess so

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

That sounds like a movie version of pawn shop clientele.

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

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

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

Oh I agree pawn shops are a great place to find good deals, no doubt about that.

I was thinking along the lines of the innercity pawn shops being more seedy and wouldn't be a welcome site in the burbs if all pawn shops moved out of Seattle. I'm sure there are some good ones though.

Honestly I don't really know cause I stay as far away from there as possible. That place and the people in it are CRAZY!