Before anybody gets upset, it is a legitimate question. I don't have a problem with it, training is a good thing. Not everyone was brought up with guns, most of us are lucky enough to have been, but not everyone was. I understand that we shouldn't need a license, but we do, so why not require training? Most people on here agree that everyone should train, get help training, and continue to train for as long as able, so why not make it required? I don't think of it as the same as a drivers license, the second amendment is "supposed to be" a right, but with all of the new gun owners, i am a bit more worried now. I know people that have very poor gun handling skills, but have their LTCH, so out they go in public carrying a deadly weapon with them, with no training. I also think there should be some type of pass for people that have been around firearms for most of their lives, like
NO TRAINING REQUIRED IF
1. You were/are in the armed forces- you were trained
2. X amount of years of hunting licenses - proof you have handled firearms
3. Have held a LTCH for X amount of years - same as above
4. Have received training in the past - with proof, for same as requirement
I'm just saying a basic course, concentrating on the fundamentals, and the 4 main rules. In this instance, why would a training requirement be a bad thing?
NO TRAINING REQUIRED IF
1. You were/are in the armed forces- you were trained
2. X amount of years of hunting licenses - proof you have handled firearms
3. Have held a LTCH for X amount of years - same as above
4. Have received training in the past - with proof, for same as requirement
I'm just saying a basic course, concentrating on the fundamentals, and the 4 main rules. In this instance, why would a training requirement be a bad thing?