Training to own a firearm?

[Newton24b]

theres limitations on open carry in michigan, there are jurisdictions that are allowed to prohibit the carrying of open carry handguns, but they cant touch a legally concealed handgun, they merely make it a lossely defined "brandishing" charge.


yeah some people shouldnt have a weapon, some people shouldnt be allowed to have children, some people cant be trusted to feed themselves with a spoon and a sippy cup.
but none of those really are regulated. have proof you passed your government mandated " i can flush the toilet program"?

or what about that small scandal in california were a county sherriff was giving rich people, and bigger actors a cpl simply by making them official members of the sherriffs posse wich allowed them to carry handguns, when the general public cant?

restrictions dont work. look how many people go to jail with their third drunk driving charge? or better yet, 13 driving with out a liscense convictions.. yet they still can buy a car.

to many legal issues come up with mandatory training ideology. most of them will always boil down to race/religion problems.

"what, you cant buy a gun if you dont belong to a church?"

[Aberration]

I believe that if the State is to require any training, including for a concealed carry, that they should bear the burden of providing that training.

I know of a 'range' used by the local Sheriffs. And it is closed off to the public, and its outdoors at a rock quarry.

They should be available to the public. All facilities, and all training.

[SPEMack618]

While, I'm a strong proponent of actively seeking and engaging in meaningful training, I abhor the idea that said training should be a requirement to excercise a Constitutional right.

The ability to carry a concealed weapon should be subject to a background check, no more. And that's more a selfishness on my part, because it is a convient way to avoid having to go through NICS for every gun purchase I make.

Training to purchase is even more asinine.

[CurlyQ.Howard]

"if a person is not getting training, they should not own a firearm." Sounds like something a Chicago Democratic politician would legislate and impose on Illinois citizens statewide - making sure that the training was next to impossible to get.

[BigD_in_FL]

Is like a car, you get a license to drive after you pass the test. But in the gun world who will pick the questions? or decide what is needed to pass the test?

That is what most folks will not agree upon.

Incorrect - driving is a PRIVILEGE, gun ownership is a RIGHT. Besides a license is nothing more than another form of taxation- it means at one time you passed a test of sorts somewhere. My road test when I first got my license consisted of pulling out of the parking lot, making 4 left turns going around the block and pulling back in straight into a space - no parking, no passing, nothing worth damn. Most state CCW tests aren't much better

[tahunua001]

^^^ agree, you need to get training to get licensed to own or operate an object that is considered a privilege, and driving a car is a privilege not a right.
vehicle ownership is a right, not a privilege, vehicle operation is a privilege not a right.
similarly
gun ownership is a right not a privilege. you can own as many guns as you want but if you want to take them hunting, you have to take the necessary tests and get the proper licensing first as hunting is a privilege not a right.

[SPEMack618]

In doing some thinking on the guns and car comparison, I did come up with this.

What if the state were to say that if you completed the NRA Basic Pistol Course, that you would recieve a discount on your carry permit?

In GA, driver's ed isn't mandated. However, if a teenager takes the course, his or her insurance rates are reduced.

Similar principle.

[Spats McGee]

Here's what I use in the car/gun comparison:

If we treated guns like cars:

1. there would be no minimum age to own one;
2. there would be no background check to purchase for a dealer;
3. there would be no disqualifying events from ownership;
4. there would be no need for a license, as long as I didn't shoot on public land;
5. a license would be valid in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Canada, Mexico and Europe.

Still sound like a good idea?

[pax]

Heh. I am reminded of Michael Z. Williamson's brilliant blog post on this subject: "We need to regulate cars the way we regulate guns."

Long, but I giggle-snorted most of my way through it.

pax

[pax]

Incidentally, one of the (many!) reasons I am so opposed to any form of government-mandated training is because I'm such an advocate of excellent training.

Ponder on that for a few minutes, and I think you'll see what I mean.

pax

[JRH6856]

^^^Point!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Cars and guns - when Al Gore was running for president, he stated that if driving is licensed then gun should be too. It was played up in the NY Times and I wrote a letter to the editor stating some of the points above.

Any law abiding citizen can easily get to drive a car. Should that the case with guns and thus void all the anti ownership and carry laws in the USA?

They e-mailed me and said they were going to run the letter on the OP-ed page and verified who I was. But it never appeared. I think that that a first level person approved it but the higher level editor said that we could not criticize Al. Oh, well.

[BigD_in_FL]

^^ You should have sent it to the Washington Times - a tad more friendly

[bazookajeff89]

Should someone have training to carry a firearm....Absolutely

Does it need to be necessary? Not even a little bit

As Pax mentioned earlier there any number of reasons why waiting periods, fees, taxes, whatever else can seriously cause problems for the potential owner of a gun. Self Defense is the right of everyone. Not just a select few. Not just a certain social class. Not just a certain race. Not just a certain Religion. The thing our elected officials don't realize is that they are in a position to serve us, not the other way around. So making restrictions on our ability to protect not just my life but life itself is an absolute failure upon their part

[markj]

Incorrect - driving is a PRIVILEGE, gun ownership is a RIGHT

I was doing a what if there bud.

Last time this went around I took the stance that nobody should ever have to take any test to own a gun and was blasted.

But now after seeing how many folks are getting guns and carry permits. I am kinda sceered. I see how folks cant drive a car, cant take care of their kids, cant keep a job and they all got guns it seems......

I read every day about some person playing with a gun shoots themselves or someone else close by.

So I now think maybe they should have a basic class on how to load and unload a gun without shooting it. I would and have given a short demonstration to others on this very topic out on my place.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I was not trying to write for the choir - thus, I comment on the NY Times gun op-eds if possible. I do the same for the Chronicle of Higher Ed. Get quite a few likes when I point out the flaws in the antigun arguments.

Usually, the antis have little logic or knowledge of the situation.

[kc_hhsl]

I've noticed several threads lately where many posters (including many professional trainers....coincidence?) have remarked that, if a person is not getting training, they should not own a firearm.

This thought process is nothing but an open invitiation for anti-gun supporters. Those who love to hunt and fish better come to a quick realization that this is an all or non battle. You might not care one iota about owning a handgun, or an semi-auto that can handle a 30 shot clip. The second you lose your right in one area it is a slippery slope down hill.

Better stand strong or the only gun you will be allowed to own is a plastic toy cap gun.