Would you support mandatory firearms safety courses?

[Prophet 451]

Poll question: Would you support mandatory firearms safety courses?

(apologies to mods if this is in the wrong forum)

I'm not talking about having to attend college but simply requiring, on a federal level, that everyone wishing to legally purchase a firearm must produce a certificate showing that they're completed a basic firearms safety course, proving they know how to safely load, unload, handle, clean, etc a firearm. Possibly this would include refresher courses every so often (say, every two years) because all of us pick up bad habits over time.

Please note: I am not anti-gun, I'm a supporter of peaceful, law-abiding citizens having access to firearms. I just think a few revisions to the firearms laws (i.e. basic safety, a federal age limit, stiff penalties for allowing minors to have unsupervised access, a ban on assault weapons) would save lives.

[virginia mountainman]

1. Case by case basis...

I have handled firearms since I was little, so have my children under my close supervision.

It simply is part of rural life, no controversies in my neck of the woods about this, nearly everyone has handled firearms since they where old enough to carry them safely. Odds are, my 10 year old knows more about proper gun handling than many big city instructors.

Yes, I had to go study under one when my wife and I got our CCW permits...LOL it was embarrassing. How much he did NOT know about firearms. But, he had his "permit" to teach.

[Prophet 451]

4. I'm sure but...

...according to the studies I could find, only about 20% of Americans still live in a rural enviroment. The law, by it's nature has to deal in generalisations. If that 20% can turn up and walk through a safety test without pausing, good for them, it's the other 80% I'm worried about.

And for the record, I'd put in for a CCW license if they were legal here.

[virginia mountainman]

17. Yea..

But what I hate about government mandated classes is this..

In Virginia, long ago, me and my newly married wife, was really struggling, she had just given birth too our first born, money was exceedingly TIGHT..

I had gotten a speeding ticket (the ONLY speeding ticket I had ever got)the year before, I paid my fine, but I forgot some $20 buck B.S charge that the DMV had at that time. I had my drivers license suspended. I did not know this, because during this time, me and my wife had moved about twice, trying to get a better place.

I got stopped one night going to work, and got busted for having a suspended licence. I was in shock and very confused, but the cop did not care, he wrote me the tickets, and left me stranded beside the road.

A couple of NIGHTS later, with my wife unable to drive, and living out in the boondocks, I had to drive myself to work, I HAD TO WORK, it was not an option at that time, and the same cop busted me coming home.

The DMV in their infinite wisdom REQUIRED ME...TO take 2 classes to get my drivers license back..

1, was the standard driving school BS.. $80 bucks for that..
2 was VASAP...The Virginia SUBSTANCE ABUSE and PREVENTION class, HELD NEARLY 100 miles away $80 more for this one..

Now let me say, I DON'T DRINK, I have NEVER BEEN DRUNK IN MY LIFE... Tell me what good that VASAP class did me????? Please explain to me that??? It was so nice being treated like a 3 time DUI offender, just because the damn DMV had to prove that it could.

Why did I, need to set thru pointless, stupid (to me) lectures about the dangers of drinking and driving, the penalties of drinking and driving, and MY favorite, How much of a certain alcoholic beverage you could drink and get away with?

Yes, the DMV made me go thru all that over 20 dollars.

[Prophet 451]

30. Imperfect system, I'll grant you

I'm not disputing that bullshit like that happens on occasion. There will be flaws in any system, we can try and minimise them but they're always going to be there but, in operating anything potentially dangerous, basic safety has to be followed and sadly, it seems that the only way of getting the majority to do so is to require it of them.

Incidently, I'm also in favour of retesting drivers on a periodic basis.

[virginia mountainman]

32. re-test..YES...

But force a bunch of stupid classes down our throat, NO.

At the beginning of the remedial drivers ed class the DMV FORCED me to take, they handed out a test, it was the same test that you need to take to PASS the class at the end. The intent was, to show you how much you THOUGHT you knew about driving, and the law, and to prove to you that even YOU, had something to learn from the class...

I got a 100% on the pre-test, and STILL had to take the two days out of my life to sit thru that class.

Problem is, with most of these government mandated classes, their logic appears to be that the reason that your their, is because you did NOT KNOW, it was illegal to speed, or illegal to do this, or that.

That is a very flawed logic, and all the classes become, is another way for the DMV to soak you.

[flobee1]

5. Definitely need competent teachers^^^

Just as you need a licence to operate a car- you should be licenced to have a firearm

[virginia mountainman]

8. You DON"T need a licence to operate a car...

Just to drive on on the street...But out on the farm, or other private property, my 10 year old drives all the time, perfectly legally..

.

[flobee1]

12. perfectly legally

sorry, but the state might not agree with you

[virginia mountainman]

18. Yes they do

It is not a "might" disagree...I am CERTAIN that they do allow it.

[YankeeFan]

87. He right

If you do it on your own property,and stay on your own property, avoiding any public roads, you don't need a license.

You can drive up and down your driveway as much as you want, just don't get into the street.

[Tesha]

19. Okay. You won't need training to operate a firearm...

Okay. We'll write the law so that as long as you're:

1. On your own property

2. And not within shooting range of the borders
of your property,

then you can fire your weapon without training.
But if your bullets can escape your property,
training should absolutely positively be required.

Tesha

[Arkansas Granny]

34. I could argue that the vehicle that your child drives is likely

to stay on your property, however, I don't think you could always make the same guarantee for a round that is fired on your property.

[Prophet 451]

9. Well, obviously competant instructors

Hence the reason who such a course would need to be required at the federal level. I can just see what would happen if each state was allowed to make their own rules on the content: Buffalo, New York would have regulations so exacting that no-one would pass while Doglick, Kentucky would assume that if you know which end to point at the bad guy, you're good to go.

I don't have a problem with licensing on an ideological level but my concern is practical: How do you design a system in such a way as to ensure that the average law-abiding person (such as myself) can own a firearm with little interference while weeding out the crazies? Of course, I also believe that the reason the USA has such a high level of gun violence is not because you have too many guns but because you have too many loonies.

[virginia mountainman]

2. Double Post, N/T

[bluerum]

3. Yes. And having that certification would make you eligible for the federally

mandated insurance that you must carry on every firearm.

[Prophet 451]

6. Query

Do you mean insurance on the firearm in case of loss/damage, etc or insurance on the chance of you misusing it?

[bluerum]

16. Both. Insurance would cover the damage inflicted by you or your

negligence in handling your firearm.

ie: if it gets "stolen" from the front seat of your pick up while you ran in to get a loaf of bread, then is used in a robbery half an hour later, the convenience store clerk that gets shot has some financial compensation if he lives and can prove that you were negligent.

ie: If you are shooting at an intruder (aka a squirrel on the front lawn) and a bullet break my window, puts a hole in my wall, and injures my dog or myself, I have some financial compensation.

ie: You accidentally shoot your neighbor while dear hunting. Oops.

There is no end to this list, but I have to stop somewhere.

[Prophet 451]

25. Surely that comes under criminal negligence?

I mean, I know I'm not entirely familiar with US laws (my training was in UK law) but certainly, if I'd done something like that here, I'd be up for criminal negligence. On the other hand, if I've taken sensible precautions to safeguard my weapon and my home is burgled, I shouldn't be liable anymore than I'm liable if the burgler steals my hammer and bludgeons someone with it.

See my point? I'm aware that "common sense" is not common and often not sensical but a little basic thought really should be applied to the firearms laws (as an example, I can see no reason a private citizen would ever need an assault weapon, if you need one of those for hunting, you're not a hunter).

[bluerum]

45. Guns laws are vague and poorly enforced. If I sell a gun, once it leaves

my shop I no longer am responsible for it or what happens to it. I think gun merchants need to be more accountable for their sales. If every gun they sold was sold to a licensed and insured customer it would go a long way towards better regulation of sales. This gives them the knowledge that the customer has been trained and is legally responsible for the gun.

Once the gun is out there, it can be illegally sold, conveniently lost or stolen. There are many ways for people to buy guns legally, then sell or transfer them illegally to make money. Licensing, insurance, and education is a way to combat this behavior.

Also, say I did sue through some criminal negligence statue after being paralyzed by a stray bullet while you were legally shooting squirrels. Who is to say that I will ever be compensated for my pain and suffering if you have no money, leave town, or just decide not to show up in court? If you are insured, I can go to the insurance company. Just because you are within the law and technically not negligent does not guarantee that an accident will not happen.

Finally, the bat-hammer-knife-shovel argument holds no water. Guns were made for one thing. If you want to drive a nail with a loaded gun and it blows a hole in your belly fine. But if some innocent bystander is injured then they have some form of compensation as a result of the negligent behavior.

[Prophet 451]

100. The purpose of a gun is irrelevant in this context

I wasn't using the hammer analogy to argue they were the same thing, I was making the point that if I've taken sensible precautions to safeguard the weapon (as an example, I've locked my rifle in my attic) and it is stolen despite those precautions, I shouldn't be liable. What the gun is intended for is irrelevant in that context.

[bluerum]

115. If the gun is insured and has been properly registered, then I agree

that you should not suffer any liability.

You bring up a valid concern though; At what point does the original owner cease being liable for any crime committed with a stolen weapon? I suppose that once a report of a stolen weapon has been made and records have been verified then the original owner is in the clear.

But what if the owner does not even know it has been stolen? Does that become negligence? I believe so.

In exchange for the constitutionally protected right of owning a gun, you also become responsible for it. You become responsible for protecting the gun and those around you who may be injured by the improper use of it.

[virginia mountainman]

7. Why??

They are inanimate objects??

I would rather start forcing CRIMINALS to carry a "peace bond" after all, they have PROVEN that they don't belong in normal society.

Why penalize the MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of gun owners, who will do NOTHING?!

[bluerum]

20. It is not a penalty. It helps to provide financial compensation to victims

in accidents, crimes and shooting incidents.

[virginia mountainman]

23. You seem to think that 80,000,000 People

are nothing but accidents waiting to happen. Make the ex-cons get insurance before they can get release from prison.

That would be far more effective. Stop adding costs, and other assorted BULLSHIT to law abiding peaceful folk, that just happen to have a different point of view than you do.

[bluerum]

41. Sorry, I dont' agree. I guns did not find their way into the hands of

criminals, then I would be less concerned.

[Madspirit]

44. How

How are federal regulations on handguns going to keep them out of the hands of criminals? <g>
The three largest criminal money making endeavors, in AMERICA, are guns, drugs and the sale of people. These laws never keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Lee

[bluerum]

51. Lets try. eom

[YankeeFan]

108. Sorry blurum

But all it takes to arm a criminal is a Policeman with his back turned. Club him with something and take away his pistol. One dead cop, one armed hoodlum. That's why New Jersey is working on a Smart Gun. The one problem I see with what New Jersey's plan is just who do you sue if the gun doesn't work when it is needed? The hood has a knife, the cop with a smart gun that won't work because the battery is dead. In all his 20 years on the force he never neded once to use his gun. So he never took care of it. So then the hood has both a knife and a gun he might be able to hot wire so he can use it whenever he wants.

[bluerum]

114. What? If the employer does not have a policy of ensuring that all

weapons are in working order, whose responsibility is it? If you are fool enough to think that simply carrying a gun protects you, then perhaps you need to be clubbed over the head.

The fact is, you carry a weapon, you are responsible for it. I am not letting my employers lack of comprehensive weapons maintenance plan get me into trouble. You get clubbed from behind, I could argue that you should have been aware of your surroundings.

I have heard all kinds of fantastic imaginative scenarios made in defense of relaxing guns laws - to make it easier to buy, own and carry guns. My favorites involve baseball bats, shovels and knives but rarely have I heard an argument that makes sense.

In reality, I am not sure what your point was, but if a municipally owned, insured and registered weapon is stolen and used in a crime, then the municipality is responsible. Why is that so hard to understand? Does that seem unfair?

[jody]

21. Do you also support federally mandated insurance on swimming pools and other items

involved in accidental deaths?

[virginia mountainman]

26. Accidental death statistics.

National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15, September 16, 2002


Accidental Death statistics..

Total Number of Deaths 97,900 100%

Motor Vehicle 43,354 44.3%
Unspecified nontransport accid'ts 17,437 17.8%
Falls 13,322 13.6%
Poisoning and Noxious Subst's 12,757 13.0%
Drowning 3,842 3.9%
Exposure to Smoke, Fire, Flames 3,377 3.4%
Other Land Transport Accidents 1,492 1.5%
Complications of Med/Surg Care 3,059 3.1%
Accidental Discharge of Firearms 776 0.8%

[slackmaster]

50. My homeowner's insurance covers liability if I screw up and shoot someone improperly

Would that fulfill your proposed requirement, bluerum?

[EstimatedProphet]

10. I had one

I think they're pretty much a universally good thing. The basic safety course, at least - I'm not talking about CCW permitting courses.

[Prophet 451]

11. That's a seperate topic

I was actually taught firearms safety at a very early age by my father (ex-military sport-shooter).

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

13. To get a permit to buy a handgun in MI

You have to pass a little test. Not quite as hard as a written driver license test, but it's there. They even have a little booklet to read if you need to review. It's mostly about the laws, not how to load, shoot, or clean.

I'm all for classes in safe handling, maintenance, and marksmanship. I wouldn't mind if it was a required course in middle or high school. I don't think it should be a requirement to buy a gun, but it should be a requirement for buying a hunting license.

The specifics on loading, unloading, field-stripping and cleaning a gun are different for each gun. Usually the dealer can demonstrate it, and there are manuals available for most guns from the manufacturer or online. A class can cover this in general, but can't address all types of guns.

[Prophet 451]

22. Small problem there

Currently, a weapon purchased for home defence is around 40 times more likely to perforate a family member than a criminal. Now, obviously, a certain percentage of those are crimes but a good portion are accidents and a good portion of those accidents are caused by unsafe practices (my father served as a range officer, you simply wouldn't believe some of the stories he can tell).

One underlying idea of this is that a mandatory class in basic safety, maintenance, etc serves to remind people that a firearm is not a talisman that anyone can pick up and play Annie Oakley with (as the media sometimes perpetuates). It is a potentially dangerous tool which requires skill and practice to master. That doesn't mean we should be frightened of it but it does mean that, just as with a car or a power tool, we should be aware of safety when we use it.

[jody]

14. IMHO a national org. should offer to teach courses in basic firearm safety for children & adults

particularly for people who use firearms for self-defense and hunting.

Nearly all states require a hunter-education (safety) course before anyone can purchase a hunting license. Hunter-education courses given in one state are accepted by other states.

Hunter-education courses are cited as a major cause for reduction in hunting accidents. Of course they don't work for people like vice-presidents.

[Prophet 451]

24. Drunk politicians are above the law

I was under the impression that the NRA already offered free firearms safety classes? Certainly the UK version used to.

If hunter-education causes are a major cause for reduction in hinting accidents, logically the same should hold true of those who hold their weapons for sport or home defence.

[virginia mountainman]

27. One small problem with that..

Most gun classes that WHERE taught in school where ran out long ago, Something about if the kids where exposed to guns, that they would use them more. Or some nonsense like that.

And many schools have such strict non violence rules, that merely drawing a picture of a gun, is enough to get you expelled, it HAS happened.

How can you expect a system so paranoid about firearms to OFFER instruction about them??

BTW, I am ALL FOR IT, but I just don't see it happening, you must have seen the way some folks in here, and DU, react when ever the topic of guns come up.

They react viscerally, with blind hatred, without the first clear thought. Some of these people that react that way, HONESTLY believe that the best way to "protect" their children from firearms, is to keep them ignorant of them..

They use the same flawed reasoning as the "abstinence only" bible thumpers.

[Prophet 451]

29. Sure

What's the old saying about God, guns and gays? You could probably add "abortion" to that list. All topics that people tend to react from the gut rather than the brain on.

I'd rather not require schools to teach firearms safety for two reasons and neither of them have to do with the dangers of exposing the precious innocents (excuse me while I spit) to firearms:
1. Schools have enough to teach and not enough funds already.
2. A fair portion of students will never own a firearm in their lives. No point in giving the little sods driver's ed if they're not going to drive, no point in teaching them firearms safety if they're never going to handle a firearm.

[jody]

31. "If you see a gun: STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult" as a minimum. n/t

[YankeeFan]

93. Didn't you just quote the NRA's 'Eddie the Eagle' Program?

And how many times have us Democrats tangled with the NRA? And just how much did the NRA contribute to Kerry's defeat? (I kept telling everybody we should have supported Dean.) The NRA gives more money to Repunks than us Democrats, too.

[jody]

99. Dem Party supports Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms but some candidates don't.

"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

[Hangingon]

36. The NRA has been in that business since it began.

They should be to shooting what the Red Cross is to swimming.

[Prophet 451]

101. Heartily agreed

And, imaginging myself president for a moment, I'd very much like to see teh NRA contributing to the content and teaching of such a class/test.

[Squatch]

15. Absolutely...with choices on the type(s) of course.

But an individual should have the choice on which type of course he/she wants, as long as it meets some sort of federal criteria:

- NRA safety course
- Private firearm course (like Frontsight Academy)
- State-run hunter education course
- Proof of military service

The only drawback I see is that institutions will use the requirement to be a federally-licensed source of firearms instruction and pass high costs on to the consumers. While this might be a barrier to entry for some future firearms owners, it could become an undue burden on most.

[Prophet 451]

28. That's a concern, I'll agree

I don't have a problem with allowing the owner to choose which course they attend, so long as it meets a federally-set minimum standard. So long as basic safety can be shown, I'm not overly bothered how it was acquired. Perhaps a basic safety certificate could be issued to military personel along with their other paperwork? Something could be worked out pretty easily, I'm sure.

The problem of price-gouging is a little more of a concern. However, if if state could set up a course (presumably under the auspices of the FTA) and the cost kept at only what was required to cover administration (actually relatively cheap) then competition should keep the prices down. Let's say that the FTA runs a class in your town every week or two (or monthly, depends what the demand was) where you can take the class for, say, fifty bucks. Then if Frintsight or the NRA or whoever want to charge more, they'll need to demonstrate that theirs is a better class (and that works too).

[FloridaJudy]

78. Our local Junior College used to offer fire-arms courses

taught by a retired cop, through adult extension. The fee was extremely reasonable. A friend offered to take me, but since I'm the sort of myopic klutz who's far more likely to shoot her toes off than disable a Bad Guy, I passed on the opportunity.

You might want to check out your own local J.C.

[Prophet 451]

102. My other half is the same way n/t

[zalinda]

33. I may be dumb on the subject, but

doesn't the police have to check out on their firearms? Don't they have access to a firing range? There are disabled cops who could teach a course on gun safety and the care and cleaning firearms. I have never understood the reluctance to have to have a license to own a gun. There are a lot of different licenses out there that individuals have to have to deal with the public, and some aren't dangerous.

So you have different kinds of guns, and you have to register them. All you would have to do is show the officer that you know how to shoot, handle and clean your guns. You get your license and registration, and it would cost you about $10. If you need a course, then it would be more.

I have a gun, I would be terrified to shoot it, at this point. It hasn't been cleaned in over 25 years. My ex used to clean the guns and he never showed me how to do this. I think if you live out in the country, a gun is really a necessity.

zalinda

[Prophet 451]

104. I'm cautious on licensing

For teh simple reason that even before my (UK) government went bugfuck insane and banned all firearms from civilian hands, the issuing of a license was solely down to the discretion of local law-enforcement who tended to refuse simply because they could and weren't required to give a reason.

I'm all for keeping firearms away from loonies and habitual criminals but, assuming they observe basic safety, I can't see a problem with a law-abiding citizen owning a firearm.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

35. as one of the 'rabid gun-nuts' on this board

I fully support requiring training in order to purchase a fire-arm (or at the least a certification test) and for waiting periods (no more than 5 days). I cannot fathom why you would not WANT to be trained in the use of something that could easily be used to kill...

sP

[Poll_Blind]

38. As a gun owner, I absolutely agree. If a license is required to drive...

...there should be a similar training program before the purchase of firearms. Now, if your grandfather dies and leaves you his hunting rifle or pistol collection, I don't see any reason why there should be a requirement to undergo any sort of training, etc., in order to own them. But, if you want to purchase one I see no reason why you shouldn't have had some form of training in them.

  In my state of Oregon, attending a basic firearms class is a requirement to getting a concealed weapon(s) permit, if I recall correctly. Makes sense to me.

  The waiting period I'm not so fond of. Gun shows are a great place to pick up deals on new and used firearms and that would make the seller's life extremely difficult.

PB

[Prophet 451]

81. Well, I'm assuming

and, granted, this may be naive on my part, that if your grandfather (as an example) leaves you his service rifle, he'll have drilled you on safety as a child (that's how I learned, my ex-military father drummed it into me as a child).

[benEzra]

37. I'd be conditionally for it...

(1) I'd like to see EVERYBODY take it (a disproportionate number of gun accidents involve people who can't legally possess guns, i.e. criminals), but don't see how that's practical.

(2) There would need to be STRONG safeguards to keep the "safety class" from being used as anti-self-defense indoctrination, or manipulated by the gun-control lobby into an obstacle to ownership (you have to take this class to buy a gun, but it's only offered the first Wednesday morning of each month at the state capitol, and a reservation fee of $75 is required, yadda yadda yadda).



BTW, not to hijack the thread, but please research the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch a little more. You're talking about outlawing some of the most popular civilian rifles in America (and half the guns in our family's guns safe), and rifles of any description are almost never used criminally. It was that misunderstanding that cost the House and Senate in '94 and the Presidency in '00, and hurt the Kerry/Edwards ticket badly in '04.


---------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[virginia mountainman]

40. Yep Ben, I agree.. N/T

[Prophet 451]

85. Point taken

The weapons listed are mostly not what I think of when I say "assault weapons". I'm thinking mainly of battle rifles and the like but that's a topic for another time.

Drilling everyone in basic safety is, sadly, not practical. Your second point is somethign that would admittedly, have to be guarded against. I was thinking of a class offered every week (say, every Sunday afternoon assuming that's practical) within a reasonable distance of your home and costing no more than admin costs (which can be kept fairly low, say $20 or $30 a head). Someone else came up with the good idea of asking retired or disabled cops to teach the class. My interest here is genuinely not with taking your firearms away (I'm still pissed that my UK government took mine away), it's simply in reducing accidental firearms deaths and injurys.

[TahitiNut]

39. Some of us had that training ... provided by the U.S. Army and a tour of duty in a combat zone.

:shrug:

[Prophet 451]

86. Well

Military personel would get their certificate issued with their exit papers, no problem there. It's the ones who haven't had that kind of training that worry me.

[BlooInBloo]

42. I wouldn't require the class, I'd require passing a test on that material...

... just like a driver's license. You *can* get the knowledge from a class, but that's up to the individual. All I care about is that the knowledge be obtained from *somewhere*.

[Prophet 451]

88. Poor phrasing on my part

That's more or less what I mean. I proposed running a safety class once a week or so on the assumption that most would feel the need to get some instruction before taking a test but if you could turn up and walk through the test without taking teh class, more power to you. I don't really care if you get the knowledge from the class or your local gun club or your dad (which is where I got mine), so long as it comes from somewhere.

[Sapere aude]

43. It's already mandatory in CA unless you have been trained in the military and some other places.

I did not have to take a safety course because I was trained by the Army.

[slackmaster]

48. The CA Handgun Safety Certificate is a joke

It's WAY too easy.

I did not have to take a safety course because I was trained by the Army.

I was trained by my stepfather, who had served as (among other things) a rifle instructor in the Navy.

[Prophet 451]

89. That's CA though

I'm talking about the nation at large. I've already said that military or ex-military personel would get their certificate issued with their paperwork. I learned firearms safety from my father who was taught his by the Royal Air Force.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

46. Yes, if it included pro-active psychological fitness screening to keep guns out

of the hands of violent psychotics.

Unfortunately, the people who want guns the most urgently may be those who never should be allowed to have them.

[slackmaster]

49. There are two types of people who want guns urgently

Ones who shouldn't have them, and ones who really need them.

[slackmaster]

47. I would support a mandatory safety course for a license to CARRY a gun, not to own one

There are people who collect firearms and never shoot them. Requiring them to take any kind of safety course would be of no benefit to public safety.

I think guns should be licensed like cars - Anyone can own one, but using it in public is a privilege that requires proof of competence.

;-)

[derby378]

52. If you support a ban on "assault weapons"...

...then you are, by definition, anti-gun. I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for that designation.

That said, I'm favorable towards mandatory gun safety classes. But it would have to be done right.

[Prophet 451]

79. Can I be anti *some* guns? n/t

[YankeeFan]

103. Not if you follow McCarthy

She wants all guns banned.
The same thing with Pelosi and Feinstein. Their HR1022 isn't just about "Assault Weapons". I did a little bit of checking after getting bothered by some Repunks at work. That bill even bans lawful semi-automatic hunting rifles.
And then there is Kennedy and Kerry and what they voted for then the Assault Weapons Ban expired a few years ago. Soon afterwords they voted to prohibit every kind of hunting ammunition made in the world. On S1805, one of the amendmendments was S.AMDT.2619, "AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and to require the Attorney General to promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor." It lost 34-63-3. Every Photo-Op that Kerry did to show that he was Pro-Hunting went down the tubes that night. While it's nice to think that Kerry lost to voter fraud, as a Poll Watcher I know that isn't the case.

[Prophet 451]

105. Thankfully, I don't have to follow McCarthy

Since someone else brought it up, I checked the assault weapons ban and I'll just say that many of the weapons covered aren't what I was thinking of when I said "assault weapons", I was thinking mainly of battle rifles and the like. Likewise, when I say "armour-piercing ammo", I'm thinking of the kind of APDS ammo designed for getting through a cop's body armour, not general hunting rounds.

However, I reserve the right to argue that if you need a semi-auto rifle to hunt, you're a lousy hunter but that's a matter for personal disagreement, not the law.

[YankeeFan]

111. re: APDS

Those rounds are already illegal on the Federal Level. And many, make that most, hunting rounds will go through all but the strongest body armor.
And a Repunk at work made me check this out: Many of the guns on that list haven't been made in decades, and many of the foreign weapons have only a few dozen or so ever imported. To quote him."Remember the joke about the little boy who was screaming and carrying on? A neighbor asked his what he was doing. He said he was scaring away all the wild lions,tigers and bears. When he was told that there wasn't any of those animals around for hundreds od miles, the little boy beamed and said 'See how good a job I'm doing?'" Too often that's what is getting many Democrats kicked out of office. Just look, I was told, at what happened after the original Assault Weapons Ban was made into law. The Repunks took over. And while that's only a small part of it, there is enough justification to believe that's what put enough Americans over the edge and vote us out of office. Remember that Certain Dakota Senator that lost his job? He voted for Gun Control. He was thrown out on his ear. We can't say that he was robbed.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. No. Mandatory firearms safety courses violate my right to choose. n/t

[ulysses]

54. your right to choose what?

[Blue-Jay]

55. To choose to bust a cap in your ass!

or something.

[ulysses]

56. people without training don't bust a cap in my ass.

Unless they're lucky, or I'm asleep.

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. Oh I beg to differ

Ever hear of the "magic bb"? Someone with a .22LR could drop a piece of lead in your ass from 2 miles away. On New Years Eve. Thanksgiving. Fourth of July.

On second thought, you're right, it'd be a lucky shot. But it'd still be a piece of lead in your ass.

[Blue-Jay]

59. back, and to the left...back, and to the left...

[ulysses]

61. if you're looking for me,

keep heading left. ;-)

[ulysses]

60. you see what I mean about luck.

Now, what was that about your right to choose?

[cherokeeprogressive]

62. My right to choose is my right to choose.

Apply it to any situation you want. It's my right. I choose _____________ .

Challenge me on that.

Then come to my street and take guns away from citizens. I'm not saying YOU support such a silly notion, I'm just SAYIN'.

[ulysses]

64. ok, you choose to mow down the neighborhood.

I call bullshit.

Then come to my street and take guns away from citizens. I'm not saying YOU support such a silly notion, I'm just SAYIN'.

I don't support taking guns away from citizens. I do support mandatory training for owners.

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. Easy, Turbo...

I don't mow anyone's neighborhood.

[ulysses]

66. "Apply it to any situation you want."

If the situation doesn't apply, maybe you'd like to be less obtuse concerning your "choice" idea.

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. Obtuse? How is my right to choose obtuse?

I. Have. The. Right. To. Choose.

How is that obtuse?

[ulysses]

68. you have the right to choose what?

Is this a Roe-envy thing?

[cherokeeprogressive]

69. I have the right to choose whatever I want. It's called "Free Will".

Are you challenging me? If you're wondering whether or not I support a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE, maybe you'd like to re-read my previous posts?

[ulysses]

70. no. free will is about ability, not right.

Are you challenging me?

Are you going to shoot me if I am?

maybe you'd like to re-read my previous posts?

Maybe, maybe not. I'm still curious about what your right/ability to choose has to do with gun safety and licensing.

[cherokeeprogressive]

71. Free will is what it is. Free will. It's not about ability, NOR right. It is what you make of it.

Would I shoot you? Of course not, with qualifications of course. Shoot you for CHALLENGING me? Don't be silly. Shoot you for stepping through my front door after I've asked you not to? Maybe.

Your notion of gun safety and how to disseminate your notion of gun safety might not square with mine. Is my right to choose limited to YOUR gun school? Who writes the course outline?? You? Or someone of your choosing?

[ulysses]

72. hooookay.

Is my right to choose limited to YOUR gun school? Who writes the course outline?? You? Or someone of your choosing?

I do, by the power of my right to choose.

[cherokeeprogressive]

73. Okay. I'll play... YOU choose where, why, and when I go to Gun Safety School.

It's your right to choose. See how that works out for ya. I'll come, and I'll sit respectfully while you tell me about gun safety. I WILL, but that's just because it's the kind of guy I am. The other four million gun owners in Southern California? I can't vouch for them. I'll stand with you though.

[ulysses]

76. cool.

Where: the nearest gun safety class to your home.
Why: it's in the interest of society to regulate the ownership and operation of guns.
When: before you purchase a gun. Those who already own them have a specified amount of time to complete the course. How does a year sound?

I'll stand with you though

I appreciate it.

[Prophet 451]

107. To answer the actual questions

The version I was originally thinking of:
You could get your safety training from any school you liked so long as it met some basic criteria laid down by the government. If you want to get your safety certs through a private academy rather than the NRA, I couldn't care less, so long as you learn basic safety. Who writes the course outline would be a mixture of pro and anti-gun politicians, the NRA (who already run a very good basic safety course) and similar bodies.

[cherokeeprogressive]

74. I choose NOT to abide by what YOU deem to be mandatory. n/t

[ulysses]

77. free will is indeed a marvelous thing,

but you live on a planet with several billion other free wills. Regulation isn't evil.

[Prophet 451]

92. On what grounds?

I'm not tryign to take weapons away from law-abiding people, I'm simply asking that they take a small test (which shouldn't even be that difficult if they pay attention) in order to be law abiding.

And teh plain fact is, your right to choose does not give you the right to drive a car on teh street without some safety testing in case you plow your car into a bus stop. Same logic applies.

[RamboLiberal]

57. I'd be for a safety course like the NRA teaches on firearms

basics for purchase which could be done in a few hours at a reasonable cost. If you want to carry a firearm then you'd have to take a more comprehensive course that would go over the law of when you can use the firearm, concealment requirements and a qualifying session on the range. But I'd like for it then to be like my driver's license and would allow me to carry in any state in the U.S.

Most states that passed CCW laws in the last decade require such courses. My state of PA doesn't. All it takes is $25 and a clean record to get a 5 year permit here. I personally decided that is not enough and have paid for a couple of courses on my own.

I might be amenable to a reasonably priced range and safety test when it came time to renew the CCW.

There are plenty of ranges and already established schools plus instructors who could be certified for this.

[Prophet 451]

95. That's the kind of thing I'm thinking of

I haven't dealt with the US NRA but the UK version used to run very good basic safety courses. If this became law, I'd also like to take advice from them on the content of the course, how often refresher classes should be required, what the demand for classes would be like and so on. I imagine they'd also be very helpful at getting the new requirements out to their members.

If we get a class taught by (for example), retired or disabled cops, we can probably keep the admin costs down to perhaps 20-30 dollars a head. I think it's reasonable to ask a law-abiding gun owner to give up a few hours of their time to learn basic firearm safety.

[treelogger]

63. Sorry, this is already the law

In California, before you can take delivery of a handgun, you have to:

• A. Take a test which demonstrates that you know the basics of gun control law, gun safety, and fundamentals of guns, which then gives you a "HSC", a little card valid for 5 years demonstrating that you have taken the test.
  
• B. Demonstrate with the actual gun you are buying that you can safely load and unload it.
  

What you are suggesting is already the law. Note that it has been demonstrated to be utterly pointless. 100 murders are committed in Oakland every year, and zillions more in Compton, Watts, and other such slums, by people who (a) own guns illegally, so none of the rules we're discussing here apply to them, (b) for the most part would be ineligible to buy guns legally anyhow, (c) obviously know how to use guns, well enough to kill people very effectively, and (d) law enforcement in those areas seems to no longer care much, and is completely incapable of preventing this violence, and of trying to locate and punish the perpetrators.

From this point of view, your proposal, although well-intentioned and laudable, amounts to no more than additional harassment of legal gun owners. But note: I'm a gun owner, and I share your frustration: There should be a way to prevent violance with guns. Except that harassing legal gun owners is not it. Nor are the various bans you suggest (assault weapons are hardly ever used in crimes, and have significant sporting and hunting uses). It is dangerous to channel your (and my) frustration at the abuse of guns into denying gun rights (or making guns too onerous) to lawful gun owners.

Not to mention that if the democrats push gun control measures, they are de-facto handing control of congress back to the republicans. I don't want a repeat of 1994, when the AWB swept Newt Gingrich and his Contract on America into power.

[Prophet 451]

80. I'm not trying to stop those who own their firearms illegally

At least, not with this measure. And I'll agree that this law isn't going to do much to stop them. This is simply an attempt to reduce the 750-1000 killed and several more thousand injured annually by accidental discharge. That's my only agenda here.

The point about making the laws too restrictive is why I proposed this at the federal level. You can just see what would happen if it was left to the States: New York would have a test so restrictive that no-one could pass it. I'm talking simply about running everyone through basic safety procedures (do not hand a weapon to someone loaded, do not look down the barrel of your weapon, that kind of thing).

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. In a heart beat

as well as licencing

For god sakes we need to licence dogs but not gun owners?

[ncteechur]

82. Hell no! I'm all for giving away guns in school with the right hand and handing

out the Gideon's Bible with the left. Every Tom,Dickhead, and Harry should get. Drunk, stupid, blind,--give everybody a gun. A big-ass assault weapon that holds 500 rounds. You know, 2nd amendment and all.

:sarcasm:

[piedmont]

83. No. It would just create another way to ban ownership by jacking up the price of the training later.

But I'm whole-heartedly in favor of free training courses available to the public. These could be made very attractive by including training with guns some people wouldn't otherwise get to fire-- it could be a mix of AR-15s, shotguns, pistols, the bolt-action .50 cal, etc.

[Prophet 451]

96. Really not my intent

You could write the law so that the fee is fixed at just what it costs for admin (actually pretty cheap) but having seen what can be counted as "admin" in some companies, I can see what you're saying.

[Pavulon]

84. So if you go through basic

and end up with a combat mos should this apply?

[Prophet 451]

97. mos?

Perhaps this is an Americanism. Forgive the dumb Brit but what does "mos" mean?

I assume from the use of teh word "combat" that you're talking about teh forces. In which case, military would get their safety certificate with their usual paperwork.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

90. Yes

but I think the courses should be free, so as to not hinder anyone based on income.

[Prophet 451]

98. Not sure that's possible

I'm not sure "free" is possible but certainly it's possible to keep costs low enough (say, 20-30 bucks a head) that cost shouldn't be a problem for most people.

[roamer65]

91. Yes. Canada does it and its a great idea.

People need to be educated on the safe handling, use and storage of a firearm.

They also need to be educated on the legal ramifications of actually using the firearm for "protection".

I would never use mine unless I absolutely feared for my life.

[Jacobin]

94. most states require it to get a hunting license

but handguns are not generally used for that

[Paladin]

106. Absolutely: Mandatory Safety Courses, Starting Immediately

To be repeated every two years thereafter, with a complete criminal and emotional health review as part of the process.....

[Prophet 451]

109. How do you do emotional?

Criminal checks are already mandatory as I understand it. Emotional reviews would be firstly, impossible to enforce and secondly, would push admin costs to the point of being a burden on law-abiding gun-owners. Not what I'm interested in. Psychos will always manage to get their hands on weapons somehow. I'm just interested here in reducing the accidental deaths and injuries caused by unsafe practices.

Periodic re-testing was something I was thinking about anyway. I'd also support periodic re-testing of drivers.

[Missy Vixen]

110. Yes, unless you can prove

you've either served in the military with firearms training, were a police officer, or had occasion to have firearms training at some time in your life previously.

The rest of us have the right to know that those walking around packing lethal force have some idea of the consequences and reality of using and operating a firearm.

Julie

[Prophet 451]

112. Easily done

That one's simple. In amongst the various paperwork given to cops and the armed forces, we just issue them with a basic safety certificate.

[westerebus]

113. NO, NO and NO.

Every time the congress passes a firearms law,Dems loose elections. What part of that don't you folks get? If you want firearms training get your state to mandate it and keep it a local issues. There are enough federal regulations enacted to cover automatic weapons. I have no problem with training and background checks or waiting periods for that matter. As long as it's a state law. LA or NYC are way different then small town USA. Different views as to what works and what doesn't for the home team. Thanks for your time