forums

Off-Topic Mass killings

Advertisement
JD08 said:
This is the case in the majority of the states.
Click to expand...
Yep, but doesn't make it "right." Evidence of training on proper use and handling/storage of a weapon should be required before purchase. Cars are often cited here as "lethal weapons." OK, you don't get to drive a car without a license requiring evidence of appropriate training.
 
hotshot said:
Yep, but doesn't make it "right." Evidence of training on proper use and handling/storage of a weapon should be required before purchase. Cars are often cited here as "lethal weapons." OK, you don't get to drive a car without a license requiring evidence of appropriate training.
Click to expand...
We previously had to have such training to carry concealed. I had no problem at all with that as long as it was a "shall issue" policy rather than a "may issue" policy. You shouldn't be subject to the whim of local officials.

But that was to carry, not purchase. Driving is a privilege, whereas gun ownership is a right. Of course, you could solve the proper use/handling/safety problem by mandating a gun safety course in schools. Good luck with that.
 
JD08 said:
Of course, you could solve the proper use/handling/safety problem by mandating a gun safety course in schools
Click to expand...
Or you don't do that in schools and do it later on, just like driving a car? If you want to buy a gun at 18, you need to do a course beforehand?
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
We previously had to have such training to carry concealed. I had no problem at all with that as long as it was a "shall issue" policy rather than a "may issue" policy. You shouldn't be subject to the whim of local officials.

But that was to carry, not purchase. Driving is a privilege, whereas gun ownership is a right. Of course, you could solve the proper use/handling/safety problem by mandating a gun safety course in schools. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with the "shall issue" approach. If the training does nothing more than save one 8 yr old kid from shooting his 5 year old brother with a loaded gun carelessly left unsecured by a parent, it's worth it. If a purchaser refuses basic instruction, do we really want that person having a concealed lethal weapon?

As for privilege vs right, irresponsible gun ownership/ignorance shouldn't be a "right.' Basic gun safety and training don't seem to me "a bridge too far." Many of my trainers over the years were dyed-in-the-wool NRA members/2A believers yet also very strong proponents of training.
 
Ashley Schaeffer said:
Or you don't do that in schools and do it later on, just like driving a car? If you want to buy a gun at 18, you need to do a course beforehand?
Click to expand...
If you teach age appropriate gun safety even starting early, you take away the curiosity factor that leads to accidental shootings. We've had an M1 Garand on display for decades and never once did the kids think to try to take it out and mess with it. They got that healthy respect for a gun's power around age 8 with one trip to the range.

You don't need a course in Florida, but you used to for a concealed carry license. I can't speak to other states.
 
JD08 said:
If you teach age appropriate gun safety even starting early, you take away the curiosity factor that leads to accidental shootings. We've had an M1 Garand on display for decades and never once did the kids think to try to take it out and mess with it. They got that healthy respect for a gun's power around age 8 with one trip to the range.

You don't need a course in Florida, but you used to for a concealed carry license. I can't speak to other states.
Click to expand...
As long as people don't put a gun into a childs hand... I'm in favor of a safety course if people want to desperately hold on to guns, but age is something that should be talked about in regards to these courses.
 
Advertisement
hotshot said:
I have no problem with the "shall issue" approach. If the training does nothing more than save one 8 yr old kid from shooting his 5 year old brother with a loaded gun carelessly left unsecured by a parent, it's worth it. If a purchaser refuses basic instruction, do we really want that person having a concealed lethal weapon?

As for privilege vs right, irresponsible gun ownership/ignorance shouldn't be a "right.' Basic gun safety and training don't seem to me "a bridge too far." Many of my trainers over the years were dyed-in-the-wool NRA members/2A believers yet also very strong proponents of training.
Click to expand...
There is no way the anti-gun lobby would allow training in schools, if for no other reason than because the NRA is the premier safety training organization.

The focus is always on ways to prevent people from having guns, not ways to make them safer.
 
hotshot said:
Yep, but doesn't make it "right." Evidence of training on proper use and handling/storage of a weapon should be required before purchase. Cars are often cited here as "lethal weapons." OK, you don't get to drive a car without a license requiring evidence of appropriate training.
Click to expand...
Driving a car is not a right, it’s a privilege. Keeping and bearing arms is a right. Any law that hinders, delays, or prevents you from getting said firearm, is unconstitutional and should be thrown out. Period.
 
JD08 said:
There is no way the anti-gun lobby would allow training in schools, if for no other reason than because the NRA is the premier safety training organization.

The focus is always on ways to prevent people from having guns, not ways to make them safer.
Click to expand...
Has nothing to do with the NRA. Yes they hate them, but they’re merely the scapegoat bc of what they stand for. Remember an NRA member has never committed a mass shooting.

They don’t care about gun safety. They would never go for gun safety in schools bc that would make more people comfortable with firearms. It would probably lead to more gun owners and a further understanding that guns don’t kill people, people do. The goal is to keep people scared of them. Thus making the idea that guns need to be heavily regulated and/or confiscated, popular with a large portion of the country.

This idea is no different than what governments do for anything. The less readily available, accurate information that’s out there, the more they can shape the narrative. It’s why they include firearm suicides in gun death numbers.
 
Advertisement
Ashley Schaeffer said:
Or you don't do that in schools and do it later on, just like driving a car? If you want to buy a gun at 18, you need to do a course beforehand?
Click to expand...

You hit on it.

There's no reason on Earth to NOT introduce children in schools safe firearm practices. Teach them the basics when young, and they'll never forget them.

The worst thing in the world is for some parent to show a kid a firearm, and tell them to never, EVER touch it - it's dangerous. Oh! It's dangerous? Now the little one's curiosity is really stimulated! Bad move!

I made a point to take my kids out and using empty milk jugs filled with water - and show them the destruction that different firearms could do - and THEN tell them that if they wanted to see or handle a firearm - just let me know - and we'd clear it, and then they could inspect it, hold it, look at it - and thus satisfy their curiosity.

I'd drop whatever I was doing if they asked to see one - I'd pull it down - go through the process of ensuring a safety clearing - and after they'd each at different times looked at this one, or that one - in short order - it was just another tool - something to be respected - but nothing magic - nothing to fear - and thus became more or less - not interesting. Like the fireplace tools. The vacuum cleaner. The coffee maker. Just something else in the house.

Schools COULD have basic firearm training that includes marksmanship and competition shooting with air rifles, even archery. They thus learn safety, safe handling, range safety, discipline, marksmanship principles and the discipline required to enable marksmanship consistency.

It is NEVER too early in life to teach children basics. The earlier they're taught, the safer they will be. Fathers and mothers are just frikkin' lazy or have a lot of personal hang ups against firearms. And they're cheating their children by their own personal laziness or personal unjustified fears.

My sons had their first .22 rifles at age 6, and they were very disciplined and safe at that age.

One night, a former employee came to the house - drunk and ****ed off. I wasn't 'there, and he knew it. He was raising **** to get a tool he'd left behind. When he was allowed to get his tool out of the garage, he had to walk by the stairway. He almost **** himself as my 12-year old was sitting a few steps up on the stairway with his .20 gauge shotgun, and his seven year old brother with his .22 rifle, a bullet in his hand, ready to load. He sobered up in an instant, got real quiet, and real polite.

They were going to protect their mother - and even she was surprised to see them thusly prepared. Word got out among other employees - don't go messing around at my house - you **** around, you just may find out.

Lazy, sorry, permissive parents don't stress to their children the necessity to "make good decisions." Every day! You don't learn morals once you're in your twenties. You learn morals from Day One as children, and reinforced during their entire upbringing.

That's not done.

And we wonder why these kids grow up - and do horrific things.
 
Last edited:
hotshot said:
I have no problem with the "shall issue" approach. If the training does nothing more than save one 8 yr old kid from shooting his 5 year old brother with a loaded gun carelessly left unsecured by a parent, it's worth it. If a purchaser refuses basic instruction, do we really want that person having a concealed lethal weapon?

As for privilege vs right, irresponsible gun ownership/ignorance shouldn't be a "right.' Basic gun safety and training don't seem to me "a bridge too far." Many of my trainers over the years were dyed-in-the-wool NRA members/2A believers yet also very strong proponents of training.
Click to expand...
Before a certain side took over the school system in this country. Shooters safety was taught in school to children.


Guess what??? There was almost no shootings in school at that time.





Training is not required for a God given right. Should people be required to take classes before using the first amendment?
 
Advertisement
crossover22[]_[] said:
Before a certain side took over the school system in this country. Shooters safety was taught in school to children.

Guess what??? There was almost no shootings in school at that time.

Training is not required for a God given right. Should people be required to take classes before using the first amendment?
Click to expand...
I'm all for more than less training and education, whatever the "right" or policy.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top