A suggestion from a friend on firearms education

[Aguila Blanca]

I am not saying I am in favor of industry standards for training, but if the NRA and the Gun makers decided to do this, I would not object. Our side needs to have enough votes in the Senate and the House to kill any new gun legislation. If we have the votes, GREAT. But we may need to buy some of those votes. If the price for those votes is an industry-led training program for new-gun purchases, I can live with that. It sure as Hell beats a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds. If the NRA needs to offer up this kind of proposal, I will not hold it against them.

And this will help prevent another Sandy Hook ... how, exactly?

Connecticut already requires the NRA "Basic Pistol" class as a prerequisite to a carry permit, and Connecticut requires a carry permit to purchase any firearm without a mandatory 10-day waiting period. Which is why the shooter was not allowed to purchase a rifle at Dick's Sporting Goods the week prioor to the shooting -- the kid didn't want to wait.

And, as has already been stated, the NRA already offers classes in handgun safety and long gun safety. There are numerous NRA certified instructors in every state.

But the kid was thoroughly trained in firearms safety and marksmanship. He was so well-trained, in fact, that he wore earplugs during his attack. They were still in his ears when the police found his body.

ALL the guns the shooter used and carried were stolen from his mother ... after he had murdered her. How would any of what you seem to think is a good idea have prevented this?

[sigcurious]

if they have to negotiate with a few fence-sitting congressmen and senators,

So somehow a single organization, the NRA, proposes a "voluntary" program that involves manufacturers and private business, without those businesses input?

If they're negotiating with the politicians, the politicians still have input. Which means in order to win them over from actual legislation the "voluntary" program, which now being unilaterally decided by an organization for an entire industry, would have to be equivalent to the proposed legislation. How is that a negotiation? That's just giving them what they want via a different avenue. Furthermore why would these same politicians agree to such a "voluntary" program if it could just be dumped afterwards since it has no force of law?

Additionally, if they were to reach some sort of consensus, what would prevent the politicians from turning around and proposing the standards as legislation? After all it has the NRA's stamp of approval since they agreed to those standards.

Suggestions such as yours are not only ridiculous and half baked but also short sighted and just the sort of incremental "compromise" the other side is looking for. Your suggestion is predicated on the idea that this "compromise" or "negotiation" will satisfy them and they won't come back for more.

The far better option is to express to representatives that any further restrictions is not only unwarranted but will ultimately prove ineffective. This expression can be done both by contacting the representatives directly and donating to organizations like the SAF and NRA-ILA, so that they have the funds to continue fighting and winning in the courts as they have been as of late.

It's great that we have organizations like the NRA lobbying for our interests, however to rely on them to convey what we the people want is a mistake. The politicians know what drum the NRA beats, but ultimately they are not accountable to the NRA, they are accountable to us the voters. It's far more important that they hear the message directly from us.

[btmj]

And this will help prevent another Sandy Hook ... how, exactly?

Oh I am sure it won't. I have not faith in gun bans, mandatory hurdles, or other impediments to have any effect on crime.

The only purpose is to prevent an even more restrictive law. It is a negotiating tactic. Throw the opposition something symbolic but which does very little harm.

And it would be stupid to promote this training idea until it is clear that we could lose a gun ban vote. Until that point, we need to just fight tooth and nail against any new restrictions.

Sig, I think I am failing to communicate. I apologize for that. I am proposing that if the gun friendly politicians are backed into a corner, and they know they are going to lose, and they turn to the NRA and ask "what do you think?"... I propose that the NRA have something better to offer than frothing at the mouth about rights and the founding fathers. The NRA could offer to go to the gun manufacturers and come up with a “mutually agreeable foundation" to create a pre-purchase training program. Libs get weak-in-the-knees when they hear words like "mutually agreeable framework".

So again, back to my question.... assuming (for talking purposes) a ban on high capacity magazines has passed the senate, and it looks like it will pass the house, and a vote is scheduled in 2 days, what would you suggest our gun-friendly congressmen do? What would you propose? What would you offer to try and turn a few of those fence-sitting congressmen to our side?

I can guarantee that a fence-sitter is not going to be swayed by telling him that "30 round mags are needed in case we need to overthrow the government, which is the real reason for the 2nd amendment”… This statement may be true, and we may believe it, but the truth is rarely helpful when dealing in politics.

I think our side should be ready with some proposals which will sound good to the anti's, but which in reality will not seriously affect our RTKBA. I have come up with one such proposal, but I would love to hear some more.

Suggestions such as yours are not only ridiculous and half baked but also short sighted

Believe it or not, it IS possible to disagree with someone without being a jerk.

[sigcurious]

I am proposing that if the gun friendly politicians are backed into a corner, and they know they are going to lose,

If 2A friendly politicians know they're going to lose, that means anti-2A politicians know they're going to win. Your logic for this "compromise" or "negotiation" is completely flawed. In what world would an opposing side "negotiate" or "compromise", when they know they are going to win?

Furthermore your idea is practically flawed,

they turn to the NRA and ask "what do you think?"...The NRA could offer to go to the gun manufacturers and come up with a “mutually agreeable foundation" to create a pre-purchase training program.

If the above, is triggered by the below

a ban on high capacity magazines has passed the senate, and it looks like it will pass the house, and a vote is scheduled in 2 days,

Do you seriously think you could get politicians, a multitude of company representatives and NRA representation all together in 2 days, let alone to come to an agreement?

I already stated what a better option is(which coincidentally involves not getting backed into a corner and praying for mercy at the last moment), and addressed several serious flaws with your idea. All of which you have failed to address how to remedy . What you're suggesting would in fact have serious ramifications for the RKBA(not to mention stepping on private businesses toes), it's unfortunate that you cannot see that and would rather blindly and incrementally hand over our rights to those who would take it from us.

[SC4006]

Short and sweet: It would be too hard to enforce a law regarding mandatory training.

[Xaak]

My notice is that too many are saying "if the NRA" as if this is their battle and not ours. Might be why in 1994 WE lost to a gun ban. It is our rights and we are so trained by our illustrious government to trust someone else to deal with it for us. Get involved.

[hogdogs]

Before I ever support a proficiency requirement for fireamrs purchase, ownership or even use...

I want folks to be required to pass at least a basic CIVICS 101 course and exam before being allowed to excercise their right to vote...

While we are licensing our civil rights, I know for a fact that millions upon millions of American citizens need to prove proficiency in the use of the english language, writing skills, grammar and punctuation before they ought be allowed to exercise their 1st amendment right to free speech....

Brent

[CWKahrFan]

But the kid was thoroughly trained in firearms safety and marksmanship.

Yep... It seems to me that MOST of the mass-shooters I can remember in my lifetime were fairly proficient in operating their weapons. I can't see that any more "safety" training would have made a difference. Most of them had serious mental deviations going on (some magnified by drugs) and, at some level, were obviously intent on killing people and causing mayhem.

Many political assassins, as another example, are very familiar with safe and proficient weapons handling.

It's not the point.

People generally don't absorb a balanced mind, basic morality, and stance on right vs. wrong from "gun class".

[Bud Helms]

There are a couple of important points made in this thread that are worth noting. And a couple that are worth dropping.

Proficiency training or safety training is not intended to affect a shooter's intention to take life. They are intended to teach safety and proficiency in firearm handling.

The problem is not School Safety either. What about Theatres and Shopping Malls? What about bell tower snipers on college campuses and in town squares?

A scheme to register or confiscate all the privately owned firearms in America is futile. Somewhere near 80 million new felons could be borne in short order.

An increase in qualifications to determine suitability of ownership is worse in my opinion.

The only things common to these situations is 1) the intentions of the shooter and (are you ready for it?) 2) the availability and use of firearms.

The frenzy we see in the news today is an effort to do something, by people that don't have a clue how to parse the problem in logical fashion. And they do not give a whit for your inconvenience or your precious Second Amendment and supposed Constitutional Rights. Many of our fellow citizens today believe that the Constitution is a burden to progress, not protection against self destruction.

So, just a thought here ... I think some at least partial-solution is necessary, but we must not play the gun grabber's game of the easy way out. Their position is, "Let's pass a law!" I say don't let them frame the circumstances of the debate. Don't participate in that game. We don't have good media support, so we need to work at the local level to make our case. We do that without our Alex Jones impersonation. And we do it despite the arrogant, haughty, ugly name-calling attacks from the antigun crowd.

It is time to do what we should have been doing all these decades: building bridges with nonshooters and being good ambassadors and teachers of the shooting sports and the love of guns.

I choose not to be chased into the corner with no way out, but I cannot yet, and would find it difficult in the extreme, to take up arms.

That is as it should be, I think.

[Ghost1958]

Ok im a simple guy. Taking something and twisting into pretzels trying to appease or prove something doesnt make sense to me with much of anything and gun regulation is no different.
Fact 1. You will never ever regulate firearms and make one iota worth of difference about anything to do with guns. Bad guys will get em. Period. Whatever they want and how many they want.
Fact 2. None of the preemptive notions of foretelling what a human being will do as far as criminal violent acts are anything more than foolishness. Mental folks by and large never hurt anyone. A good number do but until they have which ones are we talking about here. And being just downright mean, worthless and a waste of space isnt confined to folks with mental illness.
Fact3 You cannot deal with a criminal until hes actually done something to make him a criminal now can you? You cant just say Well this person might do this violent thing and make him pay for it before he actually does it for the first time.

The firearm isnt the problem. And until a human picks up one and tries to murder rape pillage or plunder with it there is squat we can do about it.
The problem is what we do after a human does one of those things and is caught. To stop him/her from doing it again either the victim kills or permanently disables the person. Hes caught and either locked up for life or executed. Its really that simple on any practical level.

Will the gubment ever acknowledge that? No. Will even a large number of the general public agree with it? Not likely. How to get it across I dont know since I dont understand why it isnt just common sense to folks to start with.
I only wish common sense was something more folks had in this country now a days.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Bud Helms

The problem is not School Safety either. What about Theatres and Shopping Malls? What about bell tower snipers on college campuses and in town squares?

On a macro scale you are correct, but the reality is the current furor to ban everything (or, at least, the convenient excuse for the current furor) is based on a massacre in an elementary school. There was no similar groundswell of anti-gun hysteria even after the Aurora theater shooting. Thus, on a micro level, since all these proposals are nominally purported to be in the interest of school safety (although, obviously, they would affect other venues, as well), the immediate issue very much IS school safety.

[Bud Helms]

Macro-micro ... personally I think that may be a distinction with little difference when discussing solutions to mass shootings.

[thedudeabides]

What's wrong with basic operations and range training?

I know several people who recently bought guns after the panic who haven't ever shot one.

They're the kind who put it in a drawer and hope that they know to operate it when it counts.

...and at least one of those guns is a 1911.

[Bud Helms]

What's wrong with basic operations and range training?

Because a lack of basic knowledge of the operation of any specific firearm and range training aren't causes of mass shootings, which is the reason for the latest push for gun control in the press and in gov't today.

[sigcurious]

What's wrong with basic operations and range training?

I know several people who recently bought guns after the panic who haven't ever shot one.

They're the kind who put it in a drawer and hope that they know to operate it when it counts.

If you know this and think mandatory basic training is an ok idea, would you be willing to pay for all them to take some professional training? What if they can't afford to miss work to take a class, would you be willing to reimburse them for lost wages too? How about a babysitter, transportation money, extra ammo etc, would you pay for that too?

The above only touches on some of the most practical issues involved in mandatory training many others are covered already in this thread. Training is good and should be encouraged, but mandatory training is not. Not only is mandatory training not practical but it allows a substantial barrier to be erected between citizens and their rights.

[Spats McGee]

Speaking for myself, and only for myself, I will not make any more attempts to appease the anti-2A crowd. Many of the suggestions that I've seen on here lately are aimed at exactly that: appeasement. No longer will I consider "throwing them a bone" when I know that the anti-2A crowd will never be satisfied with it. They will chew the bone until they tire of it, then come after us again. If the anti-2A crowd wants any more of my rights than have already been taken, then it will have to take them without my consent. I'll not allow them to honestly say that they reached any sort of agreement with me that involved sacrificing some of my rights in order to be "allowed" to keep others.