This makes good sense, this is the kind of thing I am looking for. I don't think we should have to have a license, or a tax stamp for anything, i am just wanting to have a discussion. My family ask me questions, and i look for the answers, from both sides. If i cam in here telling you "we all needed training, and i think it should be required", i could see why people would get upset, but that's not what i did. I chose to get training, and have talk about firearms to many people to try to explain we are not all gun nuts like they see on TV. I started a group for my area of the state, so we can get together and shoot, and discuss our mutual appreciation for our firearms, and what they mean to us. I do internet sales part time for a shop, and am about as pro-gun as i can be. I don't agree with a lot of things that the government does, and i do make sure i am informed before i cast my vote. I am not a Dem., or a REP., I am me, and i can think for myself, but i also like to have a good discussion on a variety of topics. I started this post to help me, and my family understand different points of views, and i welcome them all. Just for the record, me personally think that the government is way more involved in our lives, than i am comfortable with, but that's the cards we are dealt, so we have to make the best of it. I am also looking into a few legal ways to protect our 2nd amendment rights, for all of us. This is part of it, so keep the thoughts flowing, and thanks for the help.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Why are people against a safety course?
- Thread starter Drakkule
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Your post is titled "Why are people against a safety course?". That immediately puts folks on the defensive. No one in their right mind would be against safety training, especially with firearms. It's the idea of the government making successful completion of such a course in order to exercise my Second Amendment right that raises my hackles. I'm a great proponent of training with, personally, literally hundreds of hours of qualified, structured training behind me. Will I take more? Absolutely! But, not at the behest of any government official.
I am now in a position where I am being forced to take a class to defend my right to carry.I moved from Indiana to Minnesota.Minnesota recognizes my valid Utah permit,but because I am now a citizen I must obtain a Minnesota carry permit.
This will cost me roughly $400.00,plus my time to repeat the identical class I was required to take for my Utah permit.
Forced to take a fairly costly class to maintain my right to carry.I will,but this is why so many disagree with minimum training requirements.They set the minimum,and the price(at least here) and you either pay or lose what is supposedly a right. No amount of training(other than active law enforcement)exempts any one it is about collecting money.
Just to give you an idea how absurd the training class is here.I spoke with an instructor and he said though he is legally able to teach the class,he had to take the class from another instructor to be able to get his carry permit.Again,this just proves the point of revenue generation.
You can not trust any required training requirement.They can be manipulated for political purposes,as they where in Minnesota in 2003,and the state briefly reverted to a "may issue" state again.It was not until the 2005 carry law passed that it became a must issue state again.
This will cost me roughly $400.00,plus my time to repeat the identical class I was required to take for my Utah permit.
Forced to take a fairly costly class to maintain my right to carry.I will,but this is why so many disagree with minimum training requirements.They set the minimum,and the price(at least here) and you either pay or lose what is supposedly a right. No amount of training(other than active law enforcement)exempts any one it is about collecting money.
Just to give you an idea how absurd the training class is here.I spoke with an instructor and he said though he is legally able to teach the class,he had to take the class from another instructor to be able to get his carry permit.Again,this just proves the point of revenue generation.
You can not trust any required training requirement.They can be manipulated for political purposes,as they where in Minnesota in 2003,and the state briefly reverted to a "may issue" state again.It was not until the 2005 carry law passed that it became a must issue state again.
Last edited:
Slawburger
Master
Slippery slope. The government will always use a toehold to get bigger and more intrusive. Who sets the agenda? Who would the government turn to as the experts on firearms training the same people that write school textbooks, Brady Institute, Handgun Control Inc? How much does it cost and who pays? Taxpayer funded, ammo tax funded, "free" at first and then $250 per caliber for each "training" stamp?
I am a big fan of training in many areas but strongly oppose government mandated training to exercise a constitutional right. As a private citizen I would encourage new firearms owners to take advantage if training opportunities but I would not endorse another government mandate.
I am a big fan of training in many areas but strongly oppose government mandated training to exercise a constitutional right. As a private citizen I would encourage new firearms owners to take advantage if training opportunities but I would not endorse another government mandate.
I run a training company. I do not support mandatory training.
Of course I want people to take quality training, but any program required by the government will be assured to be two things:
1. a barrier to some people who want to carry a gun
2. watered-down junk that will be minimally useful
It has been my experience that people who advocate required firearms training are usually not very highly trained themselves. Or they are in the business of selling training.
Of course I want people to take quality training, but any program required by the government will be assured to be two things:
1. a barrier to some people who want to carry a gun
2. watered-down junk that will be minimally useful
It has been my experience that people who advocate required firearms training are usually not very highly trained themselves. Or they are in the business of selling training.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Because government could set the rules so no one could comply.
What about this instead: make firearms training an above the line tax deduction (it shrinks your AGI)?
Point being...
Who gets to decide which people are forced to take training? And where does the line get drawn for "it's OK to be ignorant of *this* but not *that*"?
Who makes that choice?
As for gun safety being taught in public schools, they can't even handle simple English most of the time! Kids graduate reading at a 3rd-5th grade level...and this is supposed to be the educational system to handle firearms with our kids in range and impart "knowledge"? Yeah, no.
I have come to the conclusion that here in colorado the ltch classes are for state revenue generation only.
Never taken one but have two friends that have,and they had vastly different experiences.
The first took one at a shooting range and had to go through an actual live fire course ,plus 8 hours of classroom.
The other took his at a gun show,and never touched a firearm ,he said the class started at 3pm and he was home eating with the family at 6pm
And they both got their license
Never taken one but have two friends that have,and they had vastly different experiences.
The first took one at a shooting range and had to go through an actual live fire course ,plus 8 hours of classroom.
The other took his at a gun show,and never touched a firearm ,he said the class started at 3pm and he was home eating with the family at 6pm
And they both got their license
That, and kids graduate not knowing how to balance a checkbook, figure out a budget, file their own taxes, etc. In a perfect world, the class would be taught by a competent professional, but we all know how that works...
^^ i was thinking along similar lines. that way, it's still a choice, like the discount you get on some insurances. of course, if we did away with the LTCH, that point would be null.
NRA used to go to elementry schools and train students as early as 7-8 years old on the proper handling of firearms. They taught the 10 commandments of handling safety.
It needs to be brought back. Then, when a kid finds a pistol he won't point it at somebody and pull the trigger right away. That alone would cut child deaths and injuries by about 75% if you ask me.
I voted for training as indicated by the question. Otherwise, it would be no different than handing some person the keys to a car and saying "Be careful" just because they finally turned 15 or whatever.
It needs to be brought back. Then, when a kid finds a pistol he won't point it at somebody and pull the trigger right away. That alone would cut child deaths and injuries by about 75% if you ask me.
I voted for training as indicated by the question. Otherwise, it would be no different than handing some person the keys to a car and saying "Be careful" just because they finally turned 15 or whatever.
TRUE!
When MiniJet got her first checking account, I had to sit down with her and explain the columns and show her how to make entries and how to balance it and check it against her statement.
At first she was extremely resistant to the whole idea...until she realized that sometimes banks DO make mistakes and it might not be in your favor!
I am not for government training. I am enough of a libertarian to be against the government restricting the constitution. I also live in a crowded society where people are not only allowed, but taught and encouraged to act like fools. I belong to several private gun clubs. The more difficult and expensive the club is to get membership, the safer the members act. Private clubs that are cheap to join have far more people that are not careful. I refuse to go to public ranges anymore due to the amount of people with poor gun handling skills AND unteachable spirits (foolish attitudes) I have seen some real blowhards making a scene about open carry as they strut around.
I think that peer pressure, or shall we say societal opinion, should be such that a person would WANT to be taught to handle firearms safely. A person would WANT to be proficient. Those who CHOOSE to be knuckleheads would be discouraged from continuing in their folly.
I know the Texas CHL rubs raw against the idealism of pure Libertarian thought, but there exists some practical benefit. They have a mandatory course for knowing the law, and a mandatory live fire skills demonstration before being allowed to be licensed. People who foolishly handle their firearms are flunked. Knowing this can happen forces people to seek training in safe firearms handling. I still do not like the idea of forcing legislation, but I have had too many loaded firearms pointed at me. I have had too many people refuse to act safely. Being an active member of clubs, I have repaired too many destroyed items of club property that have been shot and broken due to people acting like a fool. I like to give people the benefit of doubt that they would actually LIKE to handle their firearms correctly, only to be cussed down and threatened buy some immature fool who explains he is more qualified than I could ever hope to be.
To Summerize, I think that some mandatory testing is a necissary evil to counterbalance a total breakdown of wisdom, intellect and sense of personal responsiblity in our society
I think that peer pressure, or shall we say societal opinion, should be such that a person would WANT to be taught to handle firearms safely. A person would WANT to be proficient. Those who CHOOSE to be knuckleheads would be discouraged from continuing in their folly.
I know the Texas CHL rubs raw against the idealism of pure Libertarian thought, but there exists some practical benefit. They have a mandatory course for knowing the law, and a mandatory live fire skills demonstration before being allowed to be licensed. People who foolishly handle their firearms are flunked. Knowing this can happen forces people to seek training in safe firearms handling. I still do not like the idea of forcing legislation, but I have had too many loaded firearms pointed at me. I have had too many people refuse to act safely. Being an active member of clubs, I have repaired too many destroyed items of club property that have been shot and broken due to people acting like a fool. I like to give people the benefit of doubt that they would actually LIKE to handle their firearms correctly, only to be cussed down and threatened buy some immature fool who explains he is more qualified than I could ever hope to be.
To Summerize, I think that some mandatory testing is a necissary evil to counterbalance a total breakdown of wisdom, intellect and sense of personal responsiblity in our society
We really need to have .Gov sponsored swimming classes before anyone is allowed to be near water,then classes on bicycle safety before anyone is allowed to ride.When we are finished with those,let us require classes on the danger of blunt force trauma before anyone is allowed to play softball.....WOW!! The world is a dangerous place,since common sense is gone we need more mandatory training...
Thank you!
Exactly this ^. You better not touch a power saw, a breaker box, an extension ladder, or even a trampoline... none of those things without a Mandatory Government Instructed course! ALL those things are deadly without proper government instruction. And don't even THINK about saddling a horse!!
But as for the OP wanting to know "why" we shouldn't...
Because we are a free people (or are *supposed* to be
, though you wouldn't know it by the way we are so nannied up.)As stated above, if the government was even given a TOE-HOLD on legislating training, you can kiss it all goodbye. Not instantly...but you can bet your bottom dollar and your last donut that the restrictions would become so outlandish, ownership would become next to impossible LEGALLY.
Ayn Rand said it best;
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Thank you!
Exactly this ^. You better not touch a power saw, a breaker box, an extension ladder, or even a trampoline... none of those things without a Mandatory Government Instructed course! ALL those things are deadly without proper government instruction. And don't even THINK about saddling a horse!!
But as for the OP wanting to know "why" we shouldn't...
Because we are a free people (or are *supposed* to be
As stated above, if the government was even given a TOE-HOLD on legislating training, you can kiss it all goodbye. Not instantly...but you can bet your bottom dollar and your last donut that the restrictions would become so outlandish, ownership would become next to impossible LEGALLY.
Ayn Rand said it best;
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
So then in fact it is OK for fools and people so unknowledgable to even know how to load or fire a firearm to not only possess one but to carry one.
Yup, sounds good to me.
BTW letts do away with drivers ed and testing older drivers to be sure people understand the basics of driving skills. Yes I realize driving is a privilage and not a right but seriously both of these actions are deadly if not handled correctly.
Firearm safety is taught in basic training rather that just handing a recruit a rifle, and telling him, OK now lets learn how to march.
Hasn't proven to be true in those states that require training.
Michigan being one, and overall their laws are now easier than a few years ago.
