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

[g5000]

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.

And then what will happen is someone will start a class which costs $50.

And we can’t ask people to spend that much for a State ID to exercise their right to vote.

Interesting, ain’t it?

People spend hundreds of dollars for their guns. Many spend thousands.

Interesting, ain't it?

 

[g5000]

I wouldn’t have a problem with being required to take a gun safety course before purchasing a firearm.

I've taken one in each state I have lived, even though it wasn't required.

I think it is a convenient way to learn the local laws so I don't run afoul of them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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

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

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

Guns couldn’t blow kids up in 1776?

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

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

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

Nothing’s changed.

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

 

[g5000]

Here's an idea.

A licensed gun dealer offers a coupon for their state-accredited gun safety course if you buy a gun at their shop.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Neither are guns.

What’s the point?

You said use of internet should require training, I guess you won’t object to the same principle regarding guns. We’re on the same page.

Just for you. I want to simply restrict your right. Everyone else is doing just fine.

Oh. I guess the founding corpses didn’t know I was coming along. Either.

Maybe they just figured we wouldn't allow droolers like you to run around loose, pretending to be competent adults.

And where they right?

Up until the ACLU fought a legal battle to have mental hospitals cleared.

What can I say? Like the Spanish Inquisition, no one ever expects the ACLU lawyers.

 

[RWNJ]

Question. Do you believe that someone who has never used a firearm should be allowed to purchase one without any kind of training? If you do, then you are a fool. Guns are dangerous in the hands of the incompetent. A short class on gun safety does not infringe the rights of anyone.

You can buy a car without any training. They are dangerous. They Kill.

What’s you point exactly? Saying someone is a fool is not an answer.

Do I think? Yes. You?

So, do you think anyone should be allowed to buy a gun? Even if doing so would make them a danger to others? We're talking about a short gun safety class here. That's all. How could anyone have a problem with this? It doesn't even need to be a graded test. Just show them how to safely use it.

Dude, you are looking for a solution to a non existent problem.

Most gun deaths are the result of:

A. Criminal activity. And if you think criminals give a rip about laws, then I can’t help ya Son.

B. Suicide. If someone is hellbent on killing themselves, you think that training will stop them? Really?

C. The rest have almost zero statistical relevance. And even with these, you would save only a insignificant number that it’s nearly zero.

Thanks

So, you're saying my sisters death is not statistically relevant? It's relevant to me. It's relevant to her mother, her father, her brother and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins. The simple fact is that hundreds of people die each year due to carelessness with guns. Proper training would reduce that number. If it saved just a single life, it would be worth it. It might have saved my sisters life.

I ask, again. Why would anyone have a problem with demonstrating basic safety and competency, before buying a firearm?

 

[ErikViking]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RWNJ]

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

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

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

Do you understand the difference? Probably not.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ErikViking]

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

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

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

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

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

Guns couldn’t blow kids up in 1776?

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

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

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

Nothing’s changed.

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

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

 

[HappyJoy]

Not a poll tax, sorry.

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

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

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

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

Right, you're still wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not a tax. Demonstrating your proficiency with a firearm before you buy one is not a tax.

 

[HappyJoy]

Not a poll tax, sorry.

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

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

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

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

Right, you're still wrong.

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

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

1. You can own a gun, as long as you have training

2. You can vote as long as you have the funds to pay a tax

3. You can marry as long as you marry members of the opposite sex

Hmmmmmmmm

You can drive a car as long as you are licensed and insured?

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, believe it or not your third point is well...pointless since very few people care who you marry.

Has nothing to do with require firearms training to buy a gun which considering gun control laws in the past or currently in the books wouldn't appear to be unconstitutional at all.

I drive two regularly, neither are insured and my license is not required. Are you really that stupid you can’t read my post?

What's the matter, they don't let you off the funny farm?

Poll taxes are known as a hindering a right. There must be, according to the Supreme Court NO HINDERING ACCESS TO A RIGHT

It;s not a poll tax, I disagree with the premise.

 

[rightwinger]

Basic firearm safety, proficiency and understanding the myriad of rules and regulations should be a requirement

For handguns, training should be much more extensive.

 

[HappyJoy]

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

Right, you're still wrong.

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

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

1. You can own a gun, as long as you have training

2. You can vote as long as you have the funds to pay a tax

3. You can marry as long as you marry members of the opposite sex

Hmmmmmmmm

You can drive a car as long as you are licensed and insured?

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, believe it or not your third point is well...pointless since very few people care who you marry.

Has nothing to do with require firearms training to buy a gun which considering gun control laws in the past or currently in the books wouldn't appear to be unconstitutional at all.

I drive two regularly, neither are insured and my license is not required. Are you really that stupid you can’t read my post?

What's the matter, they don't let you off the funny farm?

Poll taxes are known as a hindering a right. There must be, according to the Supreme Court NO HINDERING ACCESS TO A RIGHT

It;s not a poll tax, I disagree with the premise.

 

[rightwinger]

That would be an infringement

Constitution requires training
It is part of a well regulated militia

 

[tycho1572]

When I think about all the yearly mandatory courses I’m required to take to keep my job, spending an afternoon on a gun safety course isn’t a big deal.

 

[OKTexas]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

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


.

 

[Flash]

Here's an idea.

A licensed gun dealer offers a coupon for their state-accredited gun safety course if you buy a gun at their shop.

Here is a better idea. Adhere to the Bill of Rights.

 

[Reasonable]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

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

 

[ErikViking]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

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


.

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

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

I disagree. It could be done at any shooting range. Many of them offer free classes, if I'm not mistaken. And what you said does not change the fact that gun owners should at least get basic training.

How many people have formal driver's training before getting behind 2 tons of deadly steel, plastic, and fiberglass?