Firearm owners as a group tend to shoot themselves in the foot (mostly metaphorically) now and then. TTAG’s IGOTD winners are a testament to that. We’d offer the gun control crowd considerably less fodder for their reasonable bullshit proposals if some of our poster children used a bit more common sense. To wit: had Adam Lanza’s mother acknowledged that her son was a whack job and properly secured her guns, she might still be breathing as likely would 26 kids and teachers. And as a community, we would be under considerably less fire as well . . .
The question at hand is whether mandated safety training before receiving a carry permit would be an undue burden. Please don’t flame me. I’m trying to ask a serious question here. I understand that there would need to be serious safeguards in place as it would be all too easy for anti-gun administrations to set the safety class requirement bar so high that no one could pass it. They could do things like only offer the class annually on Christmas or on February 29.
But what if the safety class simply leveraged what was already out there? Maybe the class requirement could be the NRA Home Safety Firearms course curriculum. That’s a four hour class.
There are a boat load of NRA instructors out there and for those folks who can’t afford it, I’d offer it for free. The NRA certainly has the cash to pay for course materials and people like me would be more than happy to donate a half day of our time once a month or so to help educate our fellow prospective gun owners.
The initial reaction of many will be that such a requirement would constitute regulating a right guaranteed by the Constitution, but I don’t know if that’s the right point of view. If the course were offered frequently and at little or no cost, the upside would be better informed gun owners and hopefully fewer gun accidents. I’m not seeing the downside here. Please let me know what I’m missing.
I would maybe go even further. I personally would like to see people demonstrate some minimum level of shooting proficiency before they take a gun out in public. After all, I have no problem with people carrying outside the home (and wish more people would do it), but don’t you want to know that they have a chance of hitting what they aim at? I know I do. Yes, this is an even higher hurdle than attending a safety course. But if it were run entirely by the NRA, would it still be a bad thing? After all, such gun-friendly states as Texas require a shooting proficiency test for a concealed carry permit. If we set aside knee jerk reactions for the moment, does this make sense?
Psychiatry is as much a science as is Astrology and Phrenology.
So about a year ago I saw a Charter Undercoverette .32 h&r magnum on consignment sale at a local gun shop for $200. My wife and daughters like to practice with .32 longs so I thought this would be a good way to get another practice gun that could also shoot a halfway decent round in a pinch.
The gun seemed fine at purchase but after a half box of ammo the cylinder got loose. Oh well, no big deal, sh1t happens with used guns. I sent it to Charter who fixed it pretty quickly and sent it back. I took a few shots with it and noticed crap blowing out the sides with every round. It turns out the cylinder gap was at about .17 instead of a half or third of that as it should be.
I sent it back to Charter again and they sent me a brand new gun. Nice! Their customer service was excellent. So now I’m in for $200 plus about $100 of shipping charges and $35 for some replacement grips. Not bad for a brand new gun. Or so I thought.
Straight out of the box this thing just doesn’t work quite right. It shoots fine but the cylinder sometimes doesn’t lock when you first close it unless you wiggle it. Very irritating. I’m hoping it will loosen up over time but at this point I’m not going to worry about it. I’ll just use it as a practice gun and consider the whole thing a lesson learned… No more Charters, I just don’t think the manufacturing quality is there. Maybe it was at one time but no more. And more generally, no more cheap guns for me. For a couple $100 more than what I spent on this lemon I could have gotten a decent used smith.
Yes.Civil rights equally apply to the simpleton and to the wise.
I know a lot of people don’t like the CHL training but I’ve heard some horror stories about people taking the class.
I feel like if you can’t pass basic safety instruction and demonstrate at least mediocre marksmanship, I don’t want you carrying a gun in public.
You can do whatever you want in your own home as long as their is a house between you and me.
That said, I do think making a minimum number of hours of instruction rather than focusing on actual content is just typical government BS. All the same, asking someone to take a day to demonstrate basic proficiency and understanding is not an undue burden in terms of public safety.
Do that and you can carry wherever you want as far as I am concerned.
Simple: not one more inch. Fortunately, in my opinion, you don’t decide things.
Not one more inch. I completely agree. Safety training should have been left in schools, where they were before 1/2 of this country went “gun dumb”.
On one hand, it could be a slippery slope as you point out. I wouldn’t put it past my State (The People’s Republic of Maryland) to make the training fee $500 or only offer it in one location in some warzone part of Baltimore city that no one in their right mind would go to.
On the other hand, it could cut down on accidental discharges and teach someone you don’t hold it sideways like some early-90’s “hood” movie.
It could give us leverage against the grabbers as well.
Still though it is a RIGHT unlike driving.
While we’re at it we should require a blog safety course before you can write an opinion on the internet! After all, the pen is mightier than the sword isn’t not? And better have an IQ test before you are allowed to vote! We wouldn’t want uniformed or unintelligent voters deciding who’s in charge now would we?
Yes there are benefits to these things, but the costs and risks are far too high.
“We wouldn’t want uniformed or unintelligent voters deciding who’s in charge now would we?”
Don’t look now, but……
Well, if we take the typical grabber logic about how there weren’t modern sporting rifles etc. during the Revolutionary War, then apply it to the first.. I don’t recall WordPress being available to the Founders, or TV or radio..
Also, where else in the Constitution explicitly say that a right shall not be infringed?
Additionally, people may tolerate infringement on the 1st with the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” argument. However, that’s not complete: the infringement is on “shouting fire in a crowded theater, where there is no fire”. That is, if you shout fire in a crowded theater and there _is_ a fire, then you’re doing the right thing. The 1st amendment doesn’t cover lying that results in criminal injury or damages. Likewise, the 2nd amendment doesn’t cover firearms used for criminal acts.
How do you know that Adam Lanza’s mother didn’t secure her firearms? The official police report isn’t out, none of us know how he came into possesion of the firearms he used.
I am all for training, but there are some jacked up instructors out there. Time handling, shooting, and repetition are what it takes to become comfortable in handling firearms safely. That’s not something you can do in four hours of training. It’s a start, but no where near enough.
SP101?
I don’t defend Adam Lanza’s mother, but I condemn just as much, if not more, his father, who left the household when Adam was a little boy. They weren’t officially divorced until several years ago, but they had been separated for many years already. He went off and married another, younger gal, and was absent from his son’s household.
Want to prosecute parents for negligence? Forget about the ones who don’t take their kids to the hospital right away or the ones who accidentally leave their guns around the house without training their kids. Instead, start with the parents who aren’t in the home – like the father of Adam Lanza.
As somebody who got divorced because my wife no longer wanted to be married to me after she cheated on, FOAD.
Thanks for the personal sentiments. Totally irrelevant to the discussion.
I am a parent who isn’t in the home, so I am germane to your discussion. I should not be prosecuted for negligence because of the actions of my ex.
In lieu of military service, which everyone would do and thus obtain training, NO.
“Promise me you’ll never touch it.”
And here is where the parent went astray.
This is a big grey area sadly. I am not against training requirements to own a firearm… In fact, it could be a good piece of leverage against more severe registration and a decent compromise, but on the flipside this -is- a right we are regulating. It’s hard to say, because we can’t trust the Government to actually be decent with this and there WILL be abuses in those 11 states that hate guns..
Who knows, really.
Coming from someone in one of those states I say hell no to the training. It would just be another hoop to jump through and the training would end up being some half assed bs and propaganda.
Here’s the ugly truth, the RKBA is already a regulated right. Unless you happen to live in one of the few Constitutional Carry states, you have to obtain authorization to carry a firearm. Shall issue or May issue is largely a semantic difference. The fact is that someone needs to say “okay” for you to do it.
Even if you live in a Constitutional Carry state, you still need to do the background check thing unless you are buying face to face from another state resident.
Some of you guys will be arguing about the level of training necessary for the DHS jerkoffs driving the .gov armored vehicles sent out to collect the gun owners in the future.
My position, eloquently stated: NOT ONE MORE INCH.
I absolutely agree with this, but I’m also crazy enough to think people should have to take a vehicle handling and performance driving course on a track before they get to take their car out around the public.
Adam Lanza was willing to kill his own mother to get her guns. With that level of committment I think he would have found a way to do carnage even if his mother had melted her guns into peace bricks.
As for requiring a little safety training for a carry permit. Allow the NRA to establish the program and moniter it and we’ll talk.
What kind of treatment options was she expecting to find for a gunshot wound? Cepacol and foot powder?
Robitussin……………
I think any responsible gun owner should have a basic level of training. As a gun owner you should seek out the training whether it is a requirement or not.
However, I’m very leery of government requirements on a constitutional right. Once it’s in place, all it would take is one election cycle of stupidity and we’d see those requirements go from what many consider reasonable to batsh*t crazy stupid.
I’d be willing to acquiesce to this when they get rid of every other nutbrained gun restriction and not a minute before.
This is why I’m with whoever said he’d consider a training requirement when voting requirements are also in place.
To vote, you would need to demonstrate that you understand how the US government works (at least at the level required for a citizenship test), and some questions about current events to show that you are not totally clueless. Then perhaps a catch question like what they think about Obama appointing Judge Judy to the SCOTUS:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2322144/Watch-hilarious-reactions-people-street-Jimmy-Kimmel-fools-thinking-Judge-Judy-appointed-Supreme-Court.html
or what they thought about Mitt Romney wanting to ban tampons:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2012/10/11/humorless-liberals-fall-satire-claims-romney-would-ban-tampons
If they fall for the joke, they don’t get to vote. period.
Of course, grabbers would never go for such a voter test, since they would have no chance of ever getting their candidates elected again.
Plenty of cops shoot themselves in the foot too… as well as innocent by-standers.
Training is good, but if it becomes mandatory, they slowly raise the amount of training required so that eventually it become impractical and extremely expensive.
I think a class on gun safety with a recorded shooting score of at least 80% at 15 yards and less is reasonable and not unconstitutionally burdensome. An NRA class would do fine. As a handgun safety and personal protection instructor for 22 years, I do not charge for my class. However, a 3-hour class on state self-defense and carry laws should also be mandatory. It would pull the teeth of some criticisms and dispel many myths. Before some guy stars launching rounds down the mall where my kids and I are, I’d like to know he’s had at least this level of training.
In 71/2 years as city prosecutor, NOT ONE defendant who claimed self-defense was actually legally entitled to it. As a defense lawyer I had a Mom, sister, and wife crying in my office b/c the defendant(who’d legally carried a .22 revolver for 8 years) was convicted for manslaughter. Not knowing the law, he introduced the gun into a situation that didn’t call for it. The gun went off “accidentally”, and a man was dead. We could reduce these tragedies if all states required a reasonable competentcy in safety and law. My state, Alabama, does not require either.
M40 gasmask is correct, This can and WILL be abused. The powers that be will do everything to make it harder to qualify. As an example in Boston, they make you use a POS revolver with a heavy wretched trigger they hand selected for that purpose. Then the “qualification officer” is only around every other Tuesday from 1-3. (This alos happens in MA with Lic applications). Then the fee keeps going up when the governor needs quick cash for his cronies on the payroll.
TN requires 8 total hour course. Class and shooting qualification. I don’t see anyone complaining here and most places are booked several weeks in advance. Also cost for the class is anywhere from 50-125$ again classes are always full.
When will we realize that preventing tragedies like Sandy Hook are next to impossible. Only by facing our fears, been responsible for our own actions and safety by carrying, will we ever prevent such a tragedy. Would Lanza have gone to that school if there was an armed security guard there? How about sign that says, “armed teachers and response on site?”
So we mandate training and safes. What kind of training and safes? With a crow bar and some effort, I can get into any number of low end safes. As for training, he killed his mother. What kind of training prevents that? I think a safe would have been the least of his worries unless she spent over 2k for a very high end brand. Even then, how hard does a son have to work to get his Mom to spend some quality time with him, “hey mom, lets clean some guns and talk a while, I miss our time together.” Bam, safe’s open and Moms dead, again.
The problem right off the bat, is the word “mandated”. Instantly you’re making a requirement for a Constitutionally protected right. Next, we’ll be requiring licenses to blog or go to church on Saturday instead of Sunday. And if they did push for it, how do you control it to keep it effective? Who runs it? Who funds it? How do you make it available in inner-city Chicago and still available in the backwoods of rural Pennsyltuckey? Suddenly you have folks that cannot obtain training because it it 2+hours drive for them.
The better option, and something I’m trying to push for myself, is to get instructors to form their own training and education business. Get certified, get the materials, find the ranges willing to rent space and time to you, and start advertising to help get people trained and comfortable. Get people talking about your services, start a clientele base. “Hey, I know this guy that does firearm training at really decent prices. I took his class and it made a WORLD of difference for me. I’ve got his card here, give him a call. There’s no state requirement for training, but the piece of mind I have now versus before. It’s a game changer.”
As law-abiding, responsible firearms enthusiasts it’s up to us to set the bar. It’s up to us to point out the irresponsible people and correct them. It’s up to us to be vigilant and prepared for that moment when the police are not there and evil turns its eyes on us. I say we fight back at all this government mandates and requirements by improving the gun owner crowd and showing them that we DO know what the hell we’re talking about and doing.
Well put. I would say the ‘gun owner crowd’ (you, me and anyone looking at this site) is actually pretty competent. It’s the ‘non-gun owner crowd’ that now happen to be gun owners that are the issue. I live in a Northern California city, and won’t go to most ranges here due to the yet to be felon gangsters (gangstas?), non-English speaking immigrants (from various parts of the world, mostly Eastern Europe and Vietnam), 19 year old COD fans, and the ‘just because I can’ people. The ranges here scare the $hit out of me, no basic firearm safety or skills (or shooting skills). Yes it’s a right, but I don’t really see an issue forcing people to receive basic skills on anything that can screw up my pursuit of happiness by staying alive.
Private pilot license, 40 hours. CHL 8 hours. Drivers ed, 16 hours, Static line parachute jump, 4 hours. Why not a few hours to prove basic knowledge of gun use and safety? It would be best if the NRA would take the initiative on this before the states start re-inventing the wheel and shove it down our throats. I’m talking a short basic course, readily available for minimal cost.
BUT, I have my CHL, but wanted some pointers from an instructor. She wanted $90 per hour. Being disabled and on a fixed income that’s a big chunk out of my food budget.
Because there’s no Constitutional right to jump out of airplanes, that’s why.
This really is a slippery slope. While there are lots of folks taking their right to possess/carry seriously, and train accordingly, there are probably just as many who don’t. My dad is one. I know he hasn’t pulled a trigger in years.
I think if a slope is slippery, one should avoid it. You won’t slip that way.
I’d like to see lots of testing requirements and conditions placed on people’s right to vote. First question on the test: Cite the names of the authors of the Federalist Papers. Explain what the Federalist Papers were.
Second question: Name the source of the quote “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” If the respondent thinks that this quote is lifted from any of the Founding Fathers or their works, then said applicant loses their right to vote, own guns, collect any government welfare or work in any government job.
And while we’re at it, I’d like to see journalists be forced to take (and pass) a test in high school mathematics to write anything in the newspaper (or flap their gums on TV), and I’d like all journalists who cite statistical studies be forced to take both probability and stats, which both require calculus I and II to teach properly.
If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand time: firearm training in public school gym class. We take troops of boy scouts out on the rifle range all the time; don’t tell me this isn’t feasible.
That’s not going to happen, and you know it. So you need to re-think your answer.
I think the only correct answer is no. _Requiring_ training is too easy of a way to turn shall-issue into impossible-to-issue. You’re opening up the discussion to all kinds of regulation that you don’t want. In states not interested in issuing CC permits, they’d just have to create requirements on the instructors that make it impossible to actually teach a class and make a profit. If not that, you make the accuracy requirements beyond what most people can reasonably perform.
Can you really tell a person that they aren’t allowed to protect themselves because they’re not able to shoot X number of times in X sized circle? In my mind, the only answer is no.
Exactly.
And it punishes non-wealthy citizens by imposing yet another significant cost on exercising one’s right to self-defense.
It could also delay a person who needs a gun from getting one.
“Can you really tell a person that they aren’t allowed to protect themselves because they’re not able to shoot X number of times in X sized circle? In my mind, the only answer is no.”
Depends. If while protecting themselves, they fire a gun a dozen times and miss with every single one because this is the first or second time they have ever fired a gun, and one of their stray bullets hits my five year old daughter, putting her in a wheelchair (or worse) for the rest of her life, then yes, I can tell a person that.
And yes, I think cops should be held to the same standard. If you are going to carry a gun in public, you need to have a certain level of competency. If you have the maturity to realize this and seek out the training, then by all means do so. Unfortunately many people lack that level of maturity.
Tell me, Barrett: how often does that sort of thing happen?
But the point is that it’s not appropriate to restrict someone BEFORE using the gun, although it may be appropriate to restrict (and even severely punish) someone AFTER using the gun badly.
In my opinion this is a reasonable recommendation. I’ve been around guns for many years and seen numbers of mistakes in weapons handling from very experienced and educated gun owners. Unfortunately most people are idiots and common sense and good judgement are rarely seen “in the wild”. Stupid people with guns doing stupid things can provide some level of entertainment (e.g. IGOTD) but unfortunately people can and do get hurt. This aside, it is everybody’s God given right to be stupid and a gun owner. Don’t get me started on my tangent that human beings are the only species that defies natural selection…The gun owning community allows the anti-gunners to jump on the “seize guns” bandwagon because we fail to hold ourselves (and our idiots) to higher levels of accountability.
Anyways, as a community, we should champion gun safety and education at the same levels as our advocation for our 2nd amendement rights. It should be us gun owners holding ourselves to higher levels of safety and accountability not the govt. When this becomes a “requirement” you slowly lose control of your freedoms and, justifiably so, you run into the “infringment” issue. Besides, I’ve work for and with the govt; I don’t trust these @ss clowns to run anything effectively without screwing it up in 60 seconds or less.
Have every public high schooler, as part of either the health or civics curriculum, take a basic firearms safety class, publicly financed. Whether they choose to use or not upon coming of age is up to them. While we’re at it, make it a graduation requirement that they be instructed in basic and advanced first aid and CPR.
1
I don’t think it should be required but I like that ccw classes are offered. Most people who carry (even open carry) are very familiar with their firearm. You have to be proactive to want to carry a gun, it isn’t like a cell phone or a purse. And while lots of people who carry aren’t Annie Oakley, I accept that other drivers aren’t Mario Andretti.
How about this: Every CHL holder is required to shoot 50 rounds a month, on his own time with no supervision required. If he NDs or shoots somebody and the prosecution proves he didn’t do it, then he’s in hot water. Heck, they could even mail you a dated target once a month and you’re required to shoot it and toss it in your filing cabinet.
I definitely think there should be more training required. The Texas test is a joke, you could literally do it with your eyes closed. BUT if the gov gets involved it’s going to get stupid. For example you’re not allowed to use reloads for the TX test. Luckily everyone I know already takes the personal responsibilty to train frequently, but I’m sure some CHLs never shoot again. If it actually makes people safer while appeasing the gun grabbers, it’s a win. Provided you can keep the gov from ruining it.
Is A Training Requirement An Undue Burden?
Yes it is.
Louisiana accepts the NRA Basic pistol class as sufficient training for a permit to carry concealed. If not that then a course syllabus must be sent to the ST popo for review and OK and the instructor must be a POST or NRA cert instructor.
The issue I have is the to faced BS of the grabbers- the ones that want “reasonable restriction” point out that the people should be formally trained to carry arms are also the ones that believe the NRA is evidence of the Devil’s work on earth and members of the NRA are demons. So when the NRA offers instruction the anti’s view it as indoctrination into the cult.
I’d like to see 1/2 hour of firearms safety taught to every school kid 2 x a year- every year- K-12. We teach stop drop and roll, we teach fire drills, we teach CPR is some PE classes, why not firearms safety. Graduate from High School w/o being an otherwise prohibited person then you get nation wide”constitutional carry.”
this sounds like a good idea, if we could only incorporate this into the school system, make it unbiased and teach kids starting young the dangers and fun firearms can be. then when they get older they should be better knowledgeable. i.e. the 4 firearm saftey rules. (really 5 if you include know your target and what is beyond it)
if the schools would teach it unbiased then i think that would be great, the only trouble with be the potential biastey of teachers and schools that could screw it all up in some places or make it great in others.
If you’re wanting a snubbie and are willing to have one with a hammer, let me recommend a 637 with performance center grips and trigger job: http://www.lipseys.com/itemdetail.aspx?itemno=SM170349 The grips are wood (I hate those bulky rubber grips too), but the shape and size makes them much better than the Undercover/Model 36 grips. The performance center trigger job makes for an easy, predictable double-action pull, and a crisp, immediate break in single action.
Before I started riding motorcycles I took a MSF safety course. The knowledge gained has saved my life (and my passenger) several times. For CCL in Kansas, you have to take an eight-hour course before applying for CCL. Basic firearms safety, some situational discussion, but lots of good information, especially regarding legal liability as a CCL holder should something go down. GAVE ME LOTS TO THINK ABOUT! $50 for the course taught by retired LEO (included lunch) was well spent and will make me a much better CCW holder.
I vote yes, but also can see how slave states would use the requirement to discourage CC by making it so difficult to take the class (high fees, limited offerings). Kansas is just slow with record number of CCL applicants. Had to wait a month in line to get fingerprinted at the sheriff’s office, and then send paperwork and check to AG’s office. The processing is now taking the full 90 days as allowed by law to conduct the bacground check. I am on day 62…
I love firearms training, but all the training and education in the world can’t prevent foolish or immoral behavior. It may help, but by no means can it stop the Lanzas and Holmeses of the world. And making it a requirement to keep and bear arms is inherently unconstitutional.
We don’t need more marginally effective requirements to exercise our natural rights to satisfy those who won’t stop at anything less than disarmament.
End of line.
Excellent!
The short answer to Jim’s question is yes….
Ok now let me explain.
I think most of us who are active in shooting sports, or take our shooting and CCW seriously probably train more than your average American gun owner. That being said there are a couple of things I worry about.
1. Discrimination. Here in California, New York and other places the courses, are expensive. We should not have to pay $500 plus to exercise our rights. There needs to be either free, or a standard fee which is reasonable, whether you earn $28,000 a year or $100,000 a year. We are may issue for much of California, so we need to change that. Having courses in schools for all kids is something I am 100% behind.
2. I am all for the NRA hosting the classes. They have the infrastructure to do so and in a way that is uniform. I also think we should have exemptions for active military who receive firearms training, as well as citizens who are members of a shooting sports organization like GSSF, or IDPA. They clearly are enjoying a sport which involves the practical handling of a firearm and are up to date on safety. So as an example if I am an IDPA member and compete in one or more tournaments per year, I am exempt. LEO qualify as we for exemption, but that is due to their work.
3. National reciprocity. Right now we have a patch work of state laws, which is nuts. I get it, there are constitutional carry states, and that is fine. I still think we can offer courses in those states regardless. Safety and training is never bad thing, period. I think we can all agree on that. So if you take the course and have a valid drivers license from that state you are GTG.
4. Jim, really.. when was the last time the federal government did anything that was common sense or practical that didn’t wind up causing all sorts of unintended consequences? I mean this honestly. If I felt we could get this done and have it be truly common sense I would be all for it. The government tends to create waste and red tape at every turn. As much as I would like to think we could do this and have it be reasonable I am not going to hold my breath here.
My thoughts is that this could potentially be part of a larger deal that grants nationwide carry rights to people who complete a minimum competency level. This would in no way interfere with a state’s ability to set requirements for their residents. Instead, if you hold a permit from your state and you have met the qualification requirements for the national reciprocity license, then you get the right to carry in all states
this could potentially be part of a larger deal that grants nationwide carry rights
You sound like one of those passionate baseball fans who propose incredibly idiotic trades. “Let’s trade this guy and this guy (usually two mediocre players) for that guy (the other team’s superstar).”
National carry is never going to happen. It makes all anti laws untenable. How can you tell some guy from NYC that he can’t carry in the city but some guy from Tennessee can? It’s absurd.
The second amendment doesn’t say “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as long as you receive training and pass a shooting accuracy tests”.
next.
Neither does it say “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless the state you live in decides to infringe on it.”
But that happens. D.C. vs. Heller affirmed that the rights granted by 2A are not unlimited. States and the Feds already limit gun rights, so that argument really is not relevant.
Nick, It sounds like you are just not giving it enough love.
On another note:
“Robert had some issues with his snubby’s timing being off (the cylinder not locking before the hammer drops on the cartridge)”
This sounds downright dangerous. I’d definitely look into that… or at least get a Chicago style buyback out of it.
Yeah – a slight shave is one thing, but going off half-c0cked every time?
Thank you, no.
My two favorites – original to me, I believe:
stupid as playing Russian roulette with an automatic;
stupid as lighting farts in a grain elevator.
This – person? – is that useless.
Maybe Adam Lanza’s mother knew he WASN’T a “whack job”; but that’s way above your head, I know.
Training? If someone grew up with guns, the training requirement should be waivable.
I’m all for her getting between her kids and guns, ans long as she stay out from between me and my rights.
It is an undue burden if you can’t afford the time (working multiple jobs, inflexible work schedule, obligation to family/children, a new threat to you or your family has just materialized into your life), the money (living paycheck to paycheck, food, children, daycare), or the other resources (don’t have transportation to the training facility, practice ammo, etc).
Now consider a not-untypical scenario (If you talk to anyone with a gun store near public transit):
A single mother working a full time job or two who just had to relocate to a bad neighborhood because that’s all she could afford and/or it’s close to work/public trans and she doesn’t have a car. She recently left an abusive ex she’s afraid of but hasn’t hurt yer yet so the police can do nothing to protect her. Or maybe she has a PFA. Or not. Or maybe the ex has no history of violence but has come back into her life after getting back on drugs/booze. It’s the next morning and she’s got 250 bucks that she and the people who care about her chipped together and is standing in front of a gun store “used” case on the way back from daycare with her kid. Yeah, mandatory training is an undue burden.
You have measure the burden on who needs to protect themselves the most and the most suddenly. Not on the average.
Also, regarding the worth of training… Something that is lost on the gun-samurai community is that guns exist and are good weapons because they are pretty darned simple to use effectively. Optimally is great, but effectively is good enough. Of course it is fun and good to always be trying to take it to the next level, but most SD shootings don’t look like an IDPA match and don’t need to. That woman can be shown how to load and use a used Charter, Rossi, or Taurus DA revolver, she can be told how to keep it away from people who shouldn’t have access to it right at the counter of the store she’s buying it in. She can be told to read the “children and gun safety” pamphlet they hand out with sales. She can point the thing at her attackers chest/belly and pull five times and it will save her life.
She’s likely going to carry that gun too, without a permit. Or while waiting for it to come through. And in her scenario that’s the smart thing to do, and she’ll never damage society even!
Hopefully the kid will get a magic mother, one that will dissapear. The bradys are probably saying already, “see its one of those dern printed guns”, oh well, its not like I actually give a sh.t, Randy
If you insist on training, you would probably oppose Constitutional Carry in your State.
And yet, a few States have Constitutional Carry and don’t seem to have a lot of problems related to the lack of mandatory training. Or do they have problems I am just not aware of?
I think requiring anything beyond passing the existing NICS check to own a firearm is an undue burden.
That said, I wouldn’t be opposed to a training requirement for carry – and would probably even be for it (whether open or concealed) with the following considerations added:
1) Honorably discharged veterans are exempt from mandatory training.
2) The safety course can either be through the NRA, or through an NRA approved trainer/company, and should never require more than 4 hours to complete. This process needs completed for an initial carry license/permit only, not for renewals.
3) Basic safety concepts and education points that must be covered in the class cannot be subject to government change. Currently existing basic courses would be the template for the required training.
3) Legislation requiring the training for carry also carries full national reciprocity. Every state, every town.
Is training a burden on the system?
Training is never a bad thing. More is almost always better.
But!
To slide down the slippery-slope a bit……
If the training becomes a requirement then there is an opportunity to control the system by controlling the training. Back-door gun control.
If the training element gets controlled in a such a way as to prevent, or at least minimize, the back-door gun control, then they can control it by regulating who can provide the training, or when, or both. Still back-door gun control.
No, requiring training becomes gun control eventually. Better to reward those who get trained in a similar manner to safe-driving programs. If your State has a waiting period on the purchase of guns, that waiting period is shortened if you can prove you have had training.
Find and offer benefits for training and you will increase the amount of people receiving training. Make it a positive thing overall, not something to be put up with as simply one more step in a potentially multi-step process.
The .38 Special ammo that I own from Independence was manufactured in Lewiston Idaho which the same small town where CCI is based. Federal Ammo’s parent firm HQ’d in Minnesota owns Independence Ammo, Federal, CCI, and other recognizable brand names.
There shouldn’t be a training requirement to carry a weapon. Even well trained police officers miss more than half the time in SHTF situations and negligently discharge their guns on rare occasion… It doesn’t hurt, though, to encourage people to get such training of their own free will.
“‘Cause you can fire this bad boy in single shot mode, accurately, out to 1500 meters. IMHO that’s good enough to qualify the gun “for sporting purposes.” Uncle Sam disagrees. But then he’s a crotchety old bastard who seems determined to spoil all my fun. Even in Texas.”
HAHAHAHHA – Got a solid lough out of that.
Finally! Glad to see this series continue.
For every supposed problem someone has a government solution to remedy it.
Does anyone have any knowledge of the Bullet Trajectory of this beast?
What is the bullet drop at 100 yards, 200 yds, 300 yds, 4oo yds, 500 yds?
“To wit: had Adam Lanza’s mother acknowledged that her son was a whack job and properly secured her guns, she might still be breathing as likely would 26 kids and teachers. “
Haven’t we as the pro 2A community been standing by the statement “evil people will do evil things regardless, they WILL find a way.”
So to say that had his mother properly locked up her firearms (which no one knows for sure if she did or not), does not in any way shape or form mean she or those poor children wouldn’t still murdered. If Lanza’s intent was to commit those horrible murders, he would have found a way.
I would support a basic firearm safety course in schools. Not to take the responsibility away from the parents, but to support the responsibility of the parents.
I already pay enough in taxes, including the $100 permit to carry application fee.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Isn’t open carry prohibited in Texas? I’m not sure Texas is as gun friendly as it is portrayed to be. I am not sure I want Texas to be my example of how to do things.
Last I heard was that in Texas, their Conceal Carry law was so strict that if it you’re deemed to be “printing” at all (even an inkling of it) you are in trouble. That’s hearsay of course, from a friend of mine around the Killeen area. I used to think of Texas as this great friendly state too, until I met people from Texas that told me this.
It’s a dangerous precedent.
How about this: a written test covering a gun safety booklet, will get you a CCW for the cost of processing, or some otherwise nominal fee. Elect to take the test, which would be free-of-charge and administered regularly in the same way that drivers’ tests are, and save a pile of money. One could choose not to take the test (maybe they’re very busy, or live far from the county courthouse) and still get a CCW, but it’d cost $250 instead of $75.
Not too onerous, insures that the vast majority of CCWs have at least a basic understanding of safety and how a firearm operates, and wouldn’t be financially burdensome for the applicant.
LEOs, vets/active military, shooting club members exempted.
Out of curiosity, what’s the twist on that barrel? (Rhetorical for me).
1:7 in the SCAR.
Any barrel cleaning or cooling time between each brand?
Nope.
A) It’s a SCAR and don’t require none of that city-slicker cleaning.
B) Since we’re comparing the ammunition to itself, it doesn’t impact the accuracy of the results. It should definitely have an impact on the velocity, but not the IQR. That’s the wonder of a calculated metric.
It’s like Dungeons and Dragons! He had a +3 Pistol of the Magic Rainbow gun with unicorn bullets!!! Great against orgres and goblins, but they do go off on thier own sometimes…
yes. no. it depends.
While i strongly support as much training/practice as possible, what passes as a training requirement in most states is just back-door gun control. Maryland requires training for handguns – which until oct 1st is just an online video. After, it needs to be a 4 hour course, except that the $10 hunter safety training class will be a substitute.
Now, if this were really about safety and proficiency why would it be limited to handguns? My wife trained on an m16 back in high school, but never knew how to handle a shotgun until I showed her. Shotguns have their own issues like using 20 ga ammo in a 12 ga rifle. oops. I have both, but i have my stuff organized so that in an emergency situation it’s pretty clear which ammo you are grabbing. Did shotgun Joe Biden cover that in his self defense advice? Also, many of these “safety” training classes/videos do not go over stuff like a jam or a dud. I consider proper maintenance part of safety… do they teach how to disassemble a rifle and clean the gas system?
When i think of all the really important stuff about safety, it seems to me that the mandatory “safety training” is nothing more than a state imposed burden. On the other hand, bona-fide safety guidance should be practical and not a burden at all, and yes everyone should obtain as much as possible from a parent, family member, or a class. the worst thing imaginable though is a gun grabber setting the syllabus.
Any chance there’s a ballistic gel test in the offing comparing different 5.56 loads with 7.62×39, maybe throw .300 BLK in there too?
if only those prices were still real….
These people don’t care about the guns really they care about people being able to print the things they need. That’s what they want to stop.
Is the training requirement an undue burden? Yes. In Missouri an 8 hour course is required and you have to show proficiency with both a semi-auto and a revolver. So if you own one but not the other, you have to rent one. This is on top of the course cost which is generally $100. And there is great variety in quality depending on who teaches. Not to mention that your name gets put in a data base and is turned over to the Federal Government by the idiots in the state bureaucracy while the existence of such a data base is poo-poohed by the idiot governor. I say just go nationwide with Constitutional Carry and drop the concealed license requirement.
How much do you pay
To stand in front of trainee
Pulling his weapon?
Looks pretty intense.
I would rather go do it, learn some things, modify it to suit my own training needs. What we need is a comparison with anything else out there that is equivalent.
Otherwise we are just armchair quarterbacking it.
I’m looking forward to more “tactical thoughts” from the online marketing expert.
[Something about “staying in one’s own lane” needs to be inserted here]
Shouldnt ANY DGU be the last resort?
I think training should be mandatory, at least for conceal-carry. I would also endorse the NRA/SAF to develop basic a program, good for all states. This would promote safety, increase ownership and camaraderie – while potentially reducing accidents, increase defensive gun use and reducing crime…not to mention, help keep our Second Amendment rights intact.
If we need to have a license for automobiles (also deadly weapons) why not firearms?
As an attempt to divert gun-banning energies in a less harmful direction, I’m concerned that this would pretty easily turn into an effectively impossible hurdle for ordinary people – it’s not likely to be a great burden to people who shoot daily or weekly and have ammunition/training budgets in the thousands or tens of thousands, but it would be a significant imposition on people who keep an old .38 Special or 12 gauge around the house “just in case”. I don’t want to see them disarmed or criminalized. Once those people lose their guns – or lose the right to use/discuss them publicly – they will lose their motivation to vote to protect *our* right to use guns more frequently/enthusiastically, and then there goes the 2A.
As an actual safety measure, I’m skeptical – but we should have pretty good data available about this, given that we have a lot of states that require training and a lot of states that don’t. California has had one form or another of mandatory training/testing for handgun purchases for decades, and we’re certainly not seeing an absence of idiots or idiotic behavior here.
To be meaningful, the training would need to be at least somewhat weapon-specific, with periodic retraining/retesting. And, frankly, given the example of law enforcement training/qualification and field performance, I’m not sure this would improve things. I honestly don’t mean to bash LE by saying this – but their training and firearm qualification regime is typically promoted as some sort of high water mark for gun competency qualificiation, and there are many examples where LEO’s don’t use their weapons correctly/competently/effectively, or where they store/maintain them so badly that others are injured. If the proposal is that all gun owners be trained/tested to current LEO standards, that’s not going to solve our safety problems, and requiring even that level of qualification would effectively deny gun rights to a vast majority of the current gun-owning population.
If we adopt a watered-down version, I would expect to see little or no improvement in safety – which, in the minds of the gun haters, won’t lead to “we should abandon this law, it’s not working”, it’ll turn into “we need to be more restrictive”, and 4 hours of class every 10 years for $10 will turn into 50 hours of class, every year, for $2000.
When we tried an assault weapon ban and magazine size limits, and they didn’t work, the gun haters didn’t give up, they just said that the evidence showed the current rules weren’t restrictive enough, and we need more. I don’t see any reason to expect this would work differently for training.
Re: steel targets, shooting something like paper that doesn’t give feedback that it’s been hit trains you to shoot AT something and then move on, whether you hit it or not. If you shoot at someone and they just stand there and continue to shoot back at you, you should keep shooting, not move to the next target because you popped off X number of rounds. The ring of the steel should be taken as a reaction by your target, proof that your firing has had effect. In the field instead of hearing the steel ring and seeing the plate vibrate, your target may go down, flee, or duck behind something.
Not to mention that in a training environment if you’re not hitting your target you need to make corrections, and you can’t make corrections without first knowing that you’re missing.
I’ve never regretted the extra $10-20 for a factory g18 mag………
I think for now Ill stick to the unfortunate $28 for a G23 factory mag.
I don’t see a lot of police professionalism here, sloppy pat down, poor control of fear anger. That said, I don’t know what happened before this. I was yanked out of my truck by a tactical drug squad once & they were all hyped up, as it turns out they had a rough deal with someone right before me, Randy
All my Glock 18 magazines are Glock made, and I paid less than they want for the Pro-Mag for each of them.
Almost always, the cheapest item you buy will be what fails first.
A few years ago I purchased some ProMag 10 round metal mags for my 6.8spc Ruger Ranch rifle because the fools at Ruger never bothered to make anything more than 5 rounders. Even though close inspection showed them to be well made and very similar to the factory 5 round mags, none of them worked reliably. I’m still optimistic I can make them work with a little redneck engineering but for $30 a piece it’s annoying. And I still have a bad attitude about Ruger for never offering more than 5 round mags for my now discontinued rifle. Very lame.
Yes. You can operate a vehicle on private property without a license, but to do it in public you have to prove you know how to safely operate one. The same should apply to guns. You shouldn’t need a permit or license to buy one and keep/use it on private property but if you are going to go out in public, you should have proven that you know what you are doing. I know the whole “driving is a privilege, keeping and bearing arms is a right” argument and I understand where it comes from.
“and for those folks who can’t afford it, I’d offer it for free.”
That is a personal decision but in my mind, if a person can afford a gun, ammo, holster, and licensing fee, they can afford to pay for a basic safety class with a proficiency test at the end.
I went to Classic’s website and the first thing that hits me is this christian motif. I don’t give a flying feck if you’re christian or muslim or b’hai or whatever; keep that crap to yourself and conduct *business*. I refuse to shop at local stores that promote their religion, and I sure won’t visit one again online.
Then don’t buy a gun from them. Their site. Their store. Their guns. Don’t like it, don’t buy from them. Otherwise, STFU.
Ummm, which ones?
My only good experience with Promag is with Mini-14 mags.
If you gotta go cheap, get KCI and replace the springs.
I sincerely hope there are attorneys lined up waiting for a test case such as this.
Defense fund anyone?
I anxiously await this case. I’ll kick in $20 for his defense.
And here we go.
Didnt these same state troopers say recently in the article below to not blame them for the law, because they didnt pass it? Well if they’re supposedly against the law, why are they enforcing it?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/robert-farago/new-york-state-troopers-police-benevolent-association-to-gun-owners-dont-hate-us-for-safe-act-enforcement/
I thought they were not going to enforce this … can you say, test case?
And the traffic stop heard ’round the world
Was the start of the Revolution
The Armed Intelligentsia were ready, on the move
Take your PMAG, and take your AR
Report to General LaPierre
Hurry men, there’s not an hour to lose!
Side question- I know about the Wylde chambering from RRA in the 5.56/.223 calibre but is 5.56/.223 issue the same for bolt action rifles?
Imagine if you could walk into a Kinkos or Staples and pay to ‘print’ a 3D item…
What it is interesting is that the whole language of the debate, as discussed in earlier posts today, has been changing. No longer is it “gun control (that is a negative word that validates the NRA’s position), it is the happy, healthy, and PC “gun safety.” By changing group names, it “seems like” more people are joining them on their side of the debate–like the anti-gun rallies that are made to look more populated than they really are. “Demand a Plan” was good while it lasted–but their plan went down in flames. So now they pick up the thread of that mantra and add into it the Senate’s failure to act by changing it to “Demand Action.” They still have the same plan–but now the pressure will be on legislators to enact that plan. Like the pressure on Sen. Ayotte (pressure that seems to have been set up by out of state interests). [As an aside, I am surprised that RF did not report that someone has finally come to her rescue and is airing ads saying that she did the right thing.]
This whole deal is a battle of perceptions and the moral high ground. Thus it has been, and thus it shall remain.
Since we are living in the Obama peoples republic of amerika, I am not so sure that chicom products aren’t superior. I do know my P3 shoots great and with a new coat of paint it is better able to resist rust.
We must stand together in the next state election and vote all the scumbags out that are against gun owners and put our own people in place that think like us.
I demand that they stop morphing into the next zombie fanatic group that…stay with me now….has a plan, Randy
The Mosin is the first firearm that ever called out to me, said ” Hey there! Got a little time? Good; I’ll tell you a story…” and gave me the bug.
I cannot say enough good things about those beasts.
I’ve heard a lot of people complain about the saftey. I don’t get this, whether your carrying it as a primary or a secondary the saftey is operable on both sides as your trigger finger moves into position. It’s a remarkable location that I find a plus. A minus is the 75.00 a box for ammo. Glad I stocked up early.
Thank you New York. The world is so much safer now!
So, it’s a sports bra for us fat guys. 581 bucks is a lot of money. I mean, it’s only my life. Probably a mute point for me. It’s probably illegal in California, everything else is.
Be on high alert for a false flag event to happen in the next two weeks. Nothing to take the public’s eyes off of the administration like a bombing, shooting, or set up FBI “terrorist” event.