# Mandatory Firearm Education



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

In the sword arts forum this thread illustrates the importance of learning how to use a deadly weapon. I think the same approach should apply to firearms. In fact, I would say we need to emphasize education with firearms to a greater degree because of three reasons.

1. Firearms are more dangerous then swords.
2. Firearms are more numerous then swords.
3. Firearms are easier to get then swords.

I do not think that we should infringe upon a person's right to bear arms, however, I do think that a person should demonstrate skill before owning a firearm. In my opinion, this can take the form of formal or informal education that allows an individual to demonstrate practical and field knowledge of the firearm.

Do people think this is too big of a hurdle or is this stipulation fair?


----------



## Jerry (Aug 29, 2005)

Requiring training as a prerequsite to getting a firearm license seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

Jerry said:
			
		

> Requiring training as a prerequsite to getting a firearm license seems reasonable to me.


I think this would accomplish a couple of things...

1.  Good law-abiding folks would benefit from being properly educated on the handling of their firearms.
2.  Good law-abiding folks become more dangerous to predators.
3.  It would go a long way in preventing accidents.
4.  Perhaps, a system of firearm education could replace gun control methods that ban certain firearms.


----------



## TonyM. (Aug 29, 2005)

In Vt. and NH. you cannot get a deer tag or hunting license without proof of having taken a hunter safety course. Unless you're old enough to have had a hunting license before the law took effect in the eighties.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> In Vt. and NH. you cannot get a deer tag or hunting license without proof of having taken a hunter safety course. Unless you're old enough to have had a hunting license before the law took effect in the eighties.


I would like to see more firearm specific education then just hunter safety.  Perhaps, a course on the particular firearm or "type of firearm" would be advisable.  I would also like to see an actual field component where students would actually have to shoot in situations where the type of firearm is appropriate.


----------



## tsdclaflin (Aug 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I would also like to see an actual field component where students would actually have to shoot in situations where the type of firearm is appropriate.


In Connecticut, half or more of the course is about firearms and to pass the course, you have to attend the field day and fire weapons.

In the field you have to demonstrate how to hand a weapon to someone else and how to walk with people, everyone carrying weapons.

To purchase a handgun, most states require a decent handgun/firearms course.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 29, 2005)

The way things are, or were, is that anyone could own a gun. Now there are provisions that unless you have some type of mental illness, you are assumed responsible enough to own a firearm.

The second ammendment does not say you first have to take (pay) for a firearms class before owning one.

What does this mean for collectors? That they have to take a class on how to shoot, even if they never intend to load one? I can see it now:

Removing Firearms from Display Cases 101
How to Dust your Reproduction Black Powder 102
Where to keep your Inherited Over-Under 101

Massachusetts (glad I'm gone) required a Firearms Safety class. It taught how to identify the type of firearm, check a loaded rifle, shotgun, revolver and semi-auto pistol. After that it was mostly covering the long list of firearm laws specific to Masachusetts. (Don't disobey a Fireman, don't get a restraining order put out on you, yadda yadda yadda.)

Any new law put in front of obtaining a firearm is an infringement on a person's right to own a firearm.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

We would all be better off if people needed licenses to reproduce.....


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 29, 2005)

Tgace,

If only life were so simple and certain people could not
breed, eh!

As someone who owns firearms. I would have no problem
if a reasonable training requirement was put in to purchase
one! *Reasonable* being the key term there!

Brian R. VanCise


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

Of course that training would require money, time, transportation, and 3,000 bureaucrats to implement......

You dont need a license to buy a car, only one to operate it on a public road. 

Most gun deaths are not "accidental". In most cases somebody wanted to shoot someone (or themselves) and they did. Its obvious that most people can figure out how to operate them. The issue is who should have them. And who should not.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 29, 2005)

That is always the problem in that what you or I would
term reasonable would definately, probably be unreasonable
when the bureaucrats got through with it!

I also have to agree with you about the major issue being who 
should have one and who should not!

Brian R. VanCise


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> The way things are, or were, is that anyone could own a gun. Now there are provisions that unless you have some type of mental illness, you are assumed responsible enough to own a firearm.
> 
> The second ammendment does not say you first have to take (pay) for a firearms class before owning one.
> 
> ...


Mike, you have some beautiful swords on your website. Would you recommend that someone buy an "authentic" one with absolutely no knowledge of its use? You and I both know that live blades are dangerous and should be handled with training. Why is a firearm any different?

Whether your training is formal or informal, one can still demonstrate proficiency with a weapon.  Setting a bar does not have to be a barrier.  People with a will will rise to the challenge.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

What about those sharp kitchen knives?
You can get killed on a bicycle. License those kiddies.
Slippery bathtubs are dangerous too...


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What about those sharp kitchen knives?
> You can get killed on a bicycle. License those kiddies.
> Slippery bathtubs are dangerous too...


Does a firearm have the potential to be more dangerous then any of those things?


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Mike, you have some beautiful swords on your website. Would you recommend that someone buy an "authentic" one with absolutely no knowledge of its use? You and I both know that live blades are dangerous and should be handled with training. Why is a firearm any different?
> 
> Whether your training is formal or informal, one can still demonstrate proficiency with a weapon. Setting a bar does not have to be a barrier. People with a will will rise to the challenge.


I see your point, and to that, I think that is why most storefronts who sell weapons have some waiver of liability for selling the sword, and that the person must be 18 years or older. On top of that, yes, it may be my preference to only sell to a person who I think is competant, just as a bartender can deny alcohol to any person for any reason.

AND, I'll even add this in, I would personally feel safer if everyone who owned a gun took a sanctioned NRA safety course. Who wouldn't? I just still won't hop on to the "required" idea.

:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

The person holding it has the potential...We are all more "dangerous" in our automobiles on a daily basis. I didnt need a license to buy mine.

I believe that anybody who buys a gun should get some training. Im not for placing a training hurdle in front of ownership. Gun violence has little to do with issues that skill can solve. Even if anti gun folks want us to believe that accidental gun deaths are the #1 problem. (Suicide is the largest chunk of "gun death" stats). Keep them out of the hands of criminals. Thats the key.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Keep them out of the hands of criminals. Thats the key.


How is this possible without limiting the rights of law abiding citizens?

:idunno: 

I guess, I would rather educate then regulate when it comes to guns...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/access.html

CRIMINAL ACCESS TO GUNS
Criminals get guns in several main ways. They could make them. They get them from other criminals. Many of the guns are stolen. Some are sold to people who aren't known to be criminals because the owners don't know they are criminals. Some are sold by people who don't care.
Law abiding gun owners have good reason to help reduce criminal access to guns. Those criminals victimize gun owners. The crime and violence committed by the criminals is wrongfully blamed on guns and gun owners, resulting in pressure to take away the rights of gun owners. What can be done without hurting gun owners? This is what gun controllers should be working for rather than dividing the country with proposals of oppressive and ineffective laws.

Something done to reduce criminal access to firearms actually does nothing to help if it reduces access by the law-abiding by the same proportion or even greater proportion. This should be kept in mind if someone thinks to reduce criminal gun possession by passing a law that only the law-abiding will conform to.

Some ways in which criminals and juveniles can be discouraged or deterred from obtaining guns include penalizing criminals who steal or sell guns more than if they just stole anything else, and sentence enhancement for guns being among stolen property in possession. An approach that has been very successful in recent years involves frequent checking of high-risk criminals on parole/probation or on the streets awaiting trial under agreements (because the people are most likely to illegally possess guns, they are subject to arrest and search without warrant at any time, and they would go immediately to jail because gun possession would be a violation of release terms). Another effective approach has been to actually enforce firearms laws, especially federal laws (since a convicted person will serve the actual sentence).


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 29, 2005)

How to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Simple.  Keep them locked up for their full sentence, and only allow them to be eligible to leave after the sentence is completed with good behavior.  

As for mandatory training by the law abiding, this is a slippery slope, indeed.  I certainly agree that everyone who wants to use firearms should have some sort of training, but to arbitrarily assign a specific entity the power to control who passes and who doesn't opens things up for too much abuse. 

Back when I was younger, permits to carry concealed firearms were quite difficult to get, before laws finally were passed making it shall issue.  Back then, the test consisted of firing from multiple positions, sometimes firing at moving targets with your weak hand only, as well as requiring specific permission from various law enforcement folks, who had the ability to deny you if they didn't like your race, creed, etc.  

The chief of issuing agency wasn't too keen on issuing permits (and is still an anti-gun fellow to this day, doing everything he can to obstruct the shall issue process and reciprocity), and would stall, often times frustrating the applicant, and even deliberately taking longer than the "usual" amount of time, sometimes even flat-out lying that he never received your letters of reference.  When it came time to take the test, he would make you take your test at some of the most inconvenient times, and would always speak to you in a condescending sneer.  

I just don't like the idea of having someone like that guy in charge of issuance, whether it would be for concealed carry or for the ownership part itself (in some states).  I do, however, strongly encourage people to get decent training, whether it's in a formal sense (NRA-class), or from a well-qualified individual that can teach them the proper safe handling and firing of the weapon as well as the laws of the land.


----------



## Mark L (Sep 1, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> The way things are, or were, is that anyone could own a gun. Now there are provisions that unless you have some type of mental illness, you are assumed responsible enough to own a firearm.
> 
> The second ammendment does not say you first have to take (pay) for a firearms class before owning one.
> 
> ...


I do live in Mass, and am required to take a firearms safety course to obtain an Firearms ID, necessary to purchase any firearm or ammo.  I'm OK with that, but not with the idea of having to pay money before I can exercise my constitutional rights, around $100 in this case.  Imagine having to pony up $20 every time you want to exercise free speech, or $50 to invoke your right against illegal search & seizure.  Sounds absurd, doesn't it?  On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect an expert to be compensated for their time in teaching.  I guess I shouldn't complain if I don't have an alternative, but I don't ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 1, 2005)

Mark L said:
			
		

> I do live in Mass, and am required to take a firearms safety course to obtain an Firearms ID, necessary to purchase any firearm or ammo.  I'm OK with that, but not with the idea of having to pay money before I can exercise my constitutional rights, around $100 in this case.  Imagine having to pony up $20 every time you want to exercise free speech, or $50 to invoke your right against illegal search & seizure.  Sounds absurd, doesn't it?  On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect an expert to be compensated for their time in teaching.  I guess I shouldn't complain if I don't have an alternative, but I don't ...




Under the first admendment you can also meet and assemble, yet, many places require you to have a permit, which requires you to register the date and time of your event. 

You are still allowed to exercise your rights, and just as you stated reasonable compenation should be in order.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 1, 2005)

Mark L said:
			
		

> I do live in Mass, and am required to take a firearms safety course to obtain an Firearms ID, necessary to purchase any firearm or ammo. I'm OK with that, but not with the idea of having to pay money before I can exercise my constitutional rights, around $100 in this case. Imagine having to pony up $20 every time you want to exercise free speech, or $50 to invoke your right against illegal search & seizure. Sounds absurd, doesn't it? On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect an expert to be compensated for their time in teaching. I guess I shouldn't complain if I don't have an alternative, but I don't ...


Yes, it was nice of them to change the license renewal fees from $25 or whatever to $100, all in one year.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 1, 2005)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> How to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Simple. Keep them locked up for their full sentence, and only allow them to be eligible to leave after the sentence is completed with good behavior.
> 
> As for mandatory training by the law abiding, this is a slippery slope, indeed. I certainly agree that everyone who wants to use firearms should have some sort of training, but to arbitrarily assign a specific entity the power to control who passes and who doesn't opens things up for too much abuse.


Many people make the same argument against standardized tests in our schools and NCLB, however, tests can be designed so that they are fair and impartial. The bottom line is that no one would be denying anyone the right to bear arms...only adding a caveat of education.  Heck, the process could even be privately contracted to find the most impartial organization.


----------



## Jerry (Sep 1, 2005)

> I would like to see more firearm specific education then just hunter safety. Perhaps, a course on the particular firearm or "type of firearm" would be advisable. I would also like to see an actual field component where students would actually have to shoot in situations where the type of firearm is appropriate.


 To get my CCW I had to take and pass a firearms compitency course (people with Marksman ratings in the NRA, and people discharged from the millitairy are exempt). 



> We would all be better off if people needed licenses to reproduce.....


 Yes.



> You dont need a license to buy a car, only one to operate it on a public road.


 Theoretically true but actually unrealistic. 



> I believe that anybody who buys a gun should get some training. Im not for placing a training hurdle in front of ownership. Gun violence has little to do with issues that skill can solve. Even if anti gun folks want us to believe that accidental gun deaths are the #1 problem. (Suicide is the largest chunk of "gun death" stats). Keep them out of the hands of criminals. Thats the key.


 Training does keep them out of the hands of children who steal them from their parents who don't realize the danger, it does make their proper use defensively more effective, it does allow us to train people when the law allows a hangun to be pulled or used, etc.


----------

