Require gun safety course before purchase (of firearm)...

[spin]

The primary question is, "should we require proof of having taken a gun safety course before allowing purchase of a gun?" The state has a responsibility to the public to ensure the safe handling of hazardous products, materials, and substances. At a minimum, we put warning labels on dangerous items to warn and protect the public. For the most lethal items, we require training, certification, and degrees of regulation and even prohibition to prevent harm from occurring by the actions of those unqualified to operate a device or control a substance.

There is precedent for requiring training for the operation of guns. There are three primary reasons people buy guns: to carry a concealed weapon on one's person, to hunt in the great outdoors, and for a homeowner's or a business owner's on site protection, excluding law enforcement and military purposes for which people in those fields receive extensive training.

To be eligible for a concealed carry handgun license, an applicant must take a 10-15 hour class and demonstrate proficiency in the use and safety of a handgun, knowledge of laws that relate to weapons and the use of deadly force, proper storage practices emphasizing practices that eliminate injury to a child, and knowledge of nonviolent dispute resolution techniques.

To hunt legally in this state, a person must not only have a hunting license but also must have passed a hunter education course which takes a minimum of 10 hours over at least 2 days. Hunters are required to learn rules and regulations, ethics and responsibilities, wildlife conservation, safe handling and storage, outdoor survival and first aid, knowledge of modern and primitive arms and ammunition, and participate in field and live-firing exercises.

However, if you want to purchase a gun for home protection there is no training required to prove competency to own and operate that firearm. It doesn't make sense to put something lethal in the hands of people who haven't proved any proficiency in the use of a potentially deadly item.
http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-austin/require-gun-safety-course-before-purchase

[Pavulon]

1. No, but a free course should be offered.

and encouraged for new purchasers.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katya Mullethov]

8. It cost me roughly 1500 -2000 + dollars

to close shop and take the Texas tests ....and sit for 10 hours.... twiddling my thumbs for 7 . It reminded me so much of public school . And THEN .....the plot thickened !

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

87. Are you truly as ignorant as you sound? n/t

[east texas lib]

96. Taking time off from your job or small business costs you money...

At least in the real world (maybe your world is different). A Texas CHL fee covers only the state's charge. Class and range fees are additional. 25 bucks won't even get you a nice water pistol. Regarding your post's last sentence, well, maybe you shoudn't try to think so gosh darn hard. It's ever so tough on the ol' noggin.

[Pavulon]

9. volunteer based NRA courses. many ranges offer them

free of charge. They just charge for range time, ammo and targets. More advanced courses will always be for cost.

I have thought many new shooters basic safety.

[spin]

14. A gun safety course should be offered in high schools ...

and should deal with how to safely handle a firearm including how to load and unload pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns. The emphasis should be on safety.

I would prefer that this was a mandatory course, but the chances of that happening are probably zero. Even the suggestions of such a course will case some anti-RKBA heads to explode.

There are so many guns in our nation that there is an excellent chance that a given teenager who grew up in a home without guns will encounter them. Anti-RKBA parents should understand this as their kids will probably find a firearm far more fascinating than a child who has grown up in a home with firearms.

I remember talking to a teenage girl who was describing her boy friend and his pals playing around with a handgun. She thought they were cool and I did my best to explain to her that to me they sounded like some fools thinking about trying out for a part in the next Jackass movie. I suggested that when they started to play with guns, she simply leave the house.

[lawodevolution]

44. This would help reduce health care costs

Gun control is put on the Tax payer, all the gun control groups leave the tax payer with the bill when they are involved in lawsuits.

[safeinOhio]

2. Great idea.

I'll bet the cost of the course would be way less than what one would spend on ammo for a day at the range.

I'll bet you catch hell from some here for suggesting a reasonable law.

[oneshooter]

3. And of course you can register your firearms at the same time. n/t

[Bonhomme Richard]

6. Not required in CT.

[oneshooter]

26. Not required in Texas either. But will be if S in Ohio has his way. n/t

[spin]

15. What does gun registration have to do with gun safety? ...

and for that matter, what does gun registration accomplish?

[RSillsbee]

34. What does gun registration accomplish?

Gives the grabbers (especially the grabbers who pretend to be pro RKBA) a convenient database to start confiscations from

[oneshooter]

37. Guess I forgot the sarcasm thingy! n/t

[lawodevolution]

45. yet gun registration cannot be used in court

Because it would be the violation of the 5th. All gun registration is good for is confiscation lists.

[cantonjaston]

114. Not quite

Gun registration can. A person who has NOT registered cannot be charged with failure to register if their registering would have been illegal. Not quite the same thing. Prosecutors introduce gun registration all the friggin' time in court. That's why they do IBIS checks before prosecuting such cases. If a murder weapon is recovered, they think you're the shooter, and it happens to be registered to you - guess what? They can introduce that evidence.

In brief, information about gun registration can and is used. It is used to help convict people all the time, to show dominion and control, ownership of a murder weapon, etc.

What cannot be done is if the person is a felon and they didn't register, the failure to register cannot be charged. The VUFA can be, though.

[spin]

11. I remember once I took a nurse who was providing home care ...

for my elderly mother to the range. She knew I enjoyed shooting and was interested in trying it.

She arrived with a cheap tiny semi-auto handgun which she showed the range master. He asked her if it was loaded.

She replied, "I really don't know. How do I check it?"

The range master politely pointed out that her gun was a piece of crap and probably more dangerous to her than anybody who might attack her. She decided to try the firearms I had with me. I sat her down and gave her a basic gun safety course and we went out on the range and shot my Ruger .22 cal target pistol and a S&W .38 cal revolver.

Since she enjoyed the experience, she bought her own Ruger target pistol and a used ex-police .38 cal revolver.

The point is that she was totally unfamiliar with gun safety but owned a firearm. I'm sure the dealer who sold the weapon showed her how to load and unload the weapon at his shop. Obviously she had forgot his demonstration.

I have seen a good number of people show up at the range with a firearm but no knowledge of how to use it. Some had just purchased the weapon and were responsible enough to want to learn how to handle their new weapon safely, but the sad part was that a large percentage were people who had owned their weapon for years and had never fired it.

There would be upsides to requiring a gun safety course before purchasing a weapon. Accidental shootings would be reduced and the course should explain the legality of using a firearm for self defense. Many states require a class before issuing a carry permit. The wise consumer would take the concealed weapons class and avoid having to take another class if he/she decided to get a carry permit.

The biggest problem that I can see is that in rare cases a person has a legitimate and immediate need for a firearm. In such a situation, I believe a judge could waive the class until a later date and possibly the police departments firearm instructor could give her a quick review on how to safely handle her firearm until she could complete the course.

[geckosfeet]

13. What in your mind, would be a legitimate immediate need?

[spin]

16. One example would be an woman ...

who had a retraining order filed against a violent and abusive husband or boyfriend. The judge could determine how dangerous the situation was. In many cases of abuse, there is a record of increasingly violent incidents.

[RSillsbee]

35. Why should a judge rule

as to whether or not I can purchase a firearm?

[spin]

41. The theoretical situation involves a state requirement to complete a firearm safety ...

course before buying a firearm.

One drawback would those times when a person such as an abused female had filed a restraining order against her ex and was in realistic fear that the ex would ignore the order and seriously injure her.

The judge could waive the school requirement until a later time or possibly have a police firearms instructor give her some basic training.

She then could purchase a firearm for self defense from her ex.

[RSillsbee]

49. And all this time

I thought the second amendment waived the school requirement. Who knew?

[spin]

52. Perhaps it should ...

However for me to get a concealed weapons permit in Florida I had to prove that I had firearms training. The same thing is true in many other states, however several states do not require a permit to carry.

[RSillsbee]

68. And I don't agree w/ that either

IMO the RKBA in America should operate on the same principle as shall issue permits. It should be assumed that a citizen has the right to own or carry a firearm unless the state can show cause that he/she should be deprived of that right.

Until I demonstrate that I am unfit to own or carry a firearm I should be allowed to do so

[spin]

71. We are moving in that direction ...

Arizona now has unrestricted carry. I predict more states will follow.

[cantonjaston]

115. Note 1 is incorrect

I used to live in Hawaii, and they DID issue permits. EXTREMELY rarely. They issued a few to the civilian investigators for the county prosecutor, for example. They were technically not law enforcement, so needed the permit to carry. One of my best friend was an investigator for the county prosecutor. He had a permit.

[HiDemGunOwner]

121. Depends on which island you live on...

Research from the information at the Attorney General's office, which reports yearly on gun statistics, including the number of CCW and open carry permits applied for and granted or denied. Since 2000, there have been only three permits issued for concealed carry. One of those was on Kauai.
When someone on Oahu wrote the Maui police Department asking about their concealed carry permit process, they said "Maui PD does not issue concealed carry permits..." which means no permits for all of Maui County (Maui, Lanai, and Molokai). We assume the same mentality on the island of Hawaii (The "Big Isle")

[geckosfeet]

98. Potentially. I could see real problems developing with a newby trying to use a firearm

under a stressful situation, but something along those lines might be justified.

[Bonhomme Richard]

5. In CT you have to take a 1 day course for CCW that runs.....

through all that you mentioned above. If I remember right you had to put seven rounds in the target. Not a bad starter course and I am glad that it is required. The requirement seems reasonable to me.

[oneshooter]

27. In Texas the law requires a 50rd course of fire to get a CHL. n/t

[geckosfeet]

7. MA does that. It's only a couple hours and covers some basics.

1. Don't point (or keep pointed in safe direction)

2. Finger off trigger

3. Keep unloaded until ready to fire

No live fire but you do handle a handgun.

At the end of the class there is a written test that most people could pass before taking the class. As long as you remember the three rules you pass. But there are always some people who fail it. You need the certification to get a carry permit but not to hunt.

[-..__...]

10. Not exactly...

A previous year’s hunting or sporting license (from any state); or
· A hunter education course certificate; or
· A Massachusetts Firearms Identification Card; or
· A Massachusetts License To Carry Firearms.

http://www.goal.org/Documents/law_faq_pdfs/Hunting.pdf


MA requires a permit to purchase, posses and own firearms (either an FID for non-large capacity long arms, or an LTC for handguns/large capacity long arms).

The same permit(s) are also required to purchase/posses ammunition and reloading components (yes... you read that right; MA law is worded so that that empty 8mm brass casing your grandfather brought back from the war as a souvenir is illegal to posses without a permit).

Making matters even worse... LTC permits are "may issue" (FID's are "shall issue").

That might not sound that bad to some here, but as stated above; an LTC is required for simple purchase and possession.

An "unrestricted" LTC (CCW), is another matter.

Regarding the subject thread... I'm totally opposed to any incensing/safety requirements for purchase, possession and ownership.

I'm open to safety training requirements for CCW... but the permit should be "shall issue".

[geckosfeet]

12. I live in the state and have my class A. The laws are continually being tweaked.

I don't hunt but the laws regarding shotgun and rifle ownership are a little less strict than those for concealed carry.

The firearms class is a good thing. It teaches some basics that all people who handle guns should know. That people actually fail the class is telling. The class is typically taught by a someone from law enforcement. They are usually packed and are,,, quite popular. Great place to meet people get your feet wet.

There absolutely should be some minimum level of training required buy and own firearms.

[sharesunited]

17. It doesn't make sense to put something lethal in the hands of people.

End sentence there.

A gun safety course cedes the point that the general public is fit to possess guns and ammo.

That is a point which must not be conceded. They are, on the whole, unfit.

Training does nothing to eliminate the risk that guns will be used in anger, in despair, and during other irrational states of mind.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sharesunited]

19. The evidence speaks for itself. Don't blame the messenger.

[spin]

20. To you, one homicide would justify banning firearms ...

or attempting to make them difficult to obtain.

Very, very few responsible firearm owners ever shoot a person without a legitimate reason.

[sharesunited]

22. That axiom is a very self-serving one, you do realize.

"Responsible" firearm owners cease to be so the moment they act irresponsibly.

Whereupon you disassociate yourself from them and they become some "other" kind of gun owner.

A great lot such verbal gymnastics do for the dead and maimed.

[spin]

25. Obviously anytime you allow people to own dangerous items ...

a minority will misuse them.

For example, people often use knives to injure and kill others. Many people carry knives on a regular basis and rarely use them to murder or to commit crime, but a very few do misuse knives. You probably favor passing laws such as exist in Great Britain which prohibit carrying any knife except a tiny slip joint folding knife which doesn't lock open.



Twenty years ago your ideas would have been popular. Today with the spread of "shall issue" concealed carry law, castle doctrine, "stand your ground" and "take your gun to work" laws coupled with the recent two favorable rulings by the Supreme Court on RKBA; your argument is as dated as bell bottom pants and Disco.

But I will give you credit for fighting for what you believe in.

[X_Digger]

61. Do the math.

There are ~300m firearms in the US.

There are approximately 400k non-fatal gun crimes each year (DOJ's BJS), ~9k firearm homicides (FBI), and about 17k firearm suicides (CDC's WISQARS, 2007).

That's 426,000 out of 300,000,000.

That's a little over one tenth of one percent- 0.142 % of all firearms.

So in 99.858 times out of 100, a firearm is not used in 'anger, despair, or an irrational state of mind'.


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.cfm
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_11.html
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[TheWraith]

21. The evidence being that you should be kept away from public policy at all costs. nt

[sharesunited]

23. And you from guns and ammo.

No offense, nothing personal.

[TheWraith]

32. Fortunately for everyone, that's not your decision.

Particularly since you can't offer any justification for why taking away people's rights "for their own good" is different with guns than it is with, say, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, other than "it is because I say so." At least, assuming that you DO believe people should have the right to protection against unreasonable search, since you obviously don't believe in the right to self defense.

[cleanhippie]

60. You mean the evidence that you contunually ignore that proves you wrong?

[lawodevolution]

46. Sorry SharesUnited, Mexico has tried banning guns, didn't work. move on dude

[DissedByBush]

48. You're taking away my kitchen knives? n/t

[PavePusher]

58. You want to ban a large list of items then.

I suggest you start with your own ignorance.

Bu-bye now.

[Straw Man]

80. Thank you, Mr. Hobbes...

A gun safety course cedes the point that the general public is fit to possess guns and ammo.

That is a point which must not be conceded. They are, on the whole, unfit.

Common folks just need some good old benevolent despotism to keep them in line, eh? Could you explain how it is that you consider yourself a progressive?

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. Are you perchance Dr. José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia y Velasco?

because you certainly come across like him...

[virginia mountainman]

104. It doesn't make sense to put something lethal in the hands of people.

End sentence there.

A car safety course cedes the point that the general public is fit to possess cars and gasoline.

That is a point which must not be conceded. They are, on the whole, unfit.

Training does nothing to eliminate the risk that cars will be used in anger, in despair, and during other irrational states of mind.

[Arctic Dave]

24. I say mandatory mental evaluation. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[oneshooter]

28. And what perimiters would you place on this test? n/t

[Arctic Dave]

29. I am not mental health provider. I would have them do the screening.

[HiDemGunOwner]

123. Hawaii does that, too.....

Sorry for the flurry of comments, but Hawaii's experience with this is yet another real world example of how this type of "reasonable" gun control can quickly go down the proverbial slippery slope. Hawaii requires both a release from your medical doctor and a review of your mental health records. We have had folks denied "Permits to Acquire" because their doctor didn't like guns, or that the medical group had an anti-gun bias. We have had individuals denied Permits to Acquire because of bed wetting as a child, seeing a therapist for grief related issues after the passing of a spouse, and for engaging in psychological therapy as a child without any mental health issues as an adult.

One of the dirty tricks that was often employed by anti-gun doctors and medical groups was to report to the police they didn't think the individual should own a gun (no factual basis to substantiate that assertion, it is basically a "yes" or "no" question posed to the physician) which resulted in a denial of the Permit to Acquire, and then refusing to see said individual to evaluate him/her to see if they were no longer "adversely affected."

Again, this is not some hypothetical argument of what "may" happen, it is our current reality.

[spin]

30. Obviously a person with a history of severe mental problems ...

should not be able to buy a firearm.

Many people may suffer from minor mental problems and if an anti-RKBA panel determined the criteria for denying a license to purchase a firearm might be unfairly rejected.

For that reason, I would suspect a mandatory mental evaluation. Also the cost would probably be prohibitive and would therefore eliminate many people in the middle and poor classes who might have the most need for firearms for self defense.

It would be like having a mandatory mental evaluation to get a license to vote.

[safeinOhio]

33. In many states drivers licenses

of older and impaired drivers are reviewed if notification is issued by friends and relatives. As long as a hearing where the person is able to defend their sanity is held, it would seem rational to review gun ownership of those that a person's doctor, friends and family have a concern about.

[spin]

39. That's a good idea! (n/t)

[Pavulon]

38. I "passed" two ssbi checks

and had access to thing far more dangerous than handguns. Somehow I doubt you would support my right to own a gun even after all that.

[Arctic Dave]

57. Why wouldn't I? I own several.

[oneshooter]

65. Did you volunteer for a mental exam before buying them?

If not, Why?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Arctic Dave]

66. Well considering we are talking about the present I would have to say no.

Would I do one for a new purchase, sure.

[benEzra]

31. You have to take a safety course in order to go hunting with the firearm,

but not to merely possess it in your home. It is the same for a firearm owned for defensive purposes; you often have to take a class on self-defense law and basic gun safety to get a carry license, but do not have to jump through those hoops merely to possess one.

[RSillsbee]

36. training required to prove competency to own and operate that firearm.

I think taking a firearms safety class is a great idea. I think empowering the government to require such a class by law or set “reasonable” minimum safety standards on owning a gun is a horrible idea. It smacks of nanny statism

If you choose to own a firearm then it should be your responsibility to learn to use it safely.

[jtuck004]

40. Absolutely. People shoot through apartment walls, pull guns

without shooting them, use inappropriate calibers and bullets for home defense, etc.

I wouldn't mind seeing a requirement that they go to a range and shoot a box of shells under supervision at least once a year.

I noticed that for a concealed carry here there is no requirement other than paying the $35 or $50 or so. They ought to raise it to $100 which includes range time, have at least a short discussion about how to avoid or defuse problems and avoid the use of the gun, and shoot a box of ammo under supervision.

I ahve been shooting off and on for years, but a class was required in the state I moved from, and people brought in guns with the wrong ammo which they were going to load and shoot, broken guns, all sorts of things.

This ought to be a basic safety requirement everywhere.

[X_Digger]

62. Pulling a gun without shooting is a bad thing?!??

According to the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey), most defensive uses of a handgun don't actually involve discharging them, much less shooting someone.

That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

[jtuck004]

67. I should have said just to threaten. They should intend to kill and be skilled

enough to do so, unless we are talking about some recreational use. Nearly any other reason for pulling that weapon on someone is dangerous to them and others.

[X_Digger]

77. Intent to kill = murder.

I get your point, I won't belabor the terminology further.

If by threaten, you mean without provocation, or to a degree that is unwarranted, yes that's a bad thing.

Getting back to your previous post though.. why would you like to see fees increased? Are poor people just shit out of luck?

[jtuck004]

79. Oh, no. I want people to hit a range once a year, and somebody

has to pay for it.

That would include range time (frankly, it ought to include a box of shells, just as an inducement. Especilly .45's - they are expensive).

I have some experience with this, though not with guns. I think dogs and cats should be spayed or nuetered. Some people can't pay for it, so I volunteer to raise the money, organize and pay for whatever vets and techs I need, buy all the supplies, get anesthesia machines, instruments, sterilizer, etc - to do that a community just needs to get together a group, name them, find a place (school best, fire station, some public place). Then the pet owners and their kids come in and do all the roles which can be taught in a few minutes - and that's a lot, supervised by a few experienced people. The history of such efforts is that people learn, and begin to participate more in the future - with some fundraising as well, hopefully take it over in a small area. It worked well in our last one.

Same could go for this. The community could rent a range for a couple days a month and make it available to everyone. I think they should pay for a box of shells a year, but that's just me.

Then you could keep the license the same and encourage a degree of skill in the community.

[X_Digger]

85. Feel free to organize a free gun safety / range session for folks.

I just can't see it passing constitutional muster to require it for ownership.

Especially not when it would have such a disparate impact on inner city minorities and the poor.

[PavePusher]

83. Might I ask what you mean by "innapropriate calibers and bullets for home defense"? n/t

[jtuck004]

90. Sure. I think a .22 Long Rifle pistol is an innapropriate round for home

defense, as is the .25. I think a heavy .45 slug is much better. A shotgun is even better.

IMHO, you need something that is heavy enough to stop someone, won't fly all over the neighborhood.

[PavePusher]

94. Ah, gotchya. For the most part, I agree...

with certain caveats for individual (dis)ability, location and circumstances, of course.

[Euromutt]

42. There's a reason suggestions like this--reasonable though they are--run into opposition

Namely that, in the past, this kind of seemingly reasonable requirement has been exploited to impose de facto gun bans by making it onerously difficult to even attend the required safety class (e.g. by scheduling it at times inconvenient to most potential applicants, not holding anywhere near enough to meet demand, or even not holding them at all).

Another issue is that with the wide variety of firearms out there, no instructor can guarantee that he'll have a particular model that is or closely resembles the one the student intends to purchase. Firearms work on fairly universal principles, but for best effect, the instructor does need to show the student how that specific model works, along with possible pitfalls in the design. The easiest way to achieve this is by having the student buy the gun he wants and then bringing it to class. Problem is, that's impossible if the prospective gun owner has to take the class before buying the gun, but of course, letting the prospective gun owner buy the gun before taking the class defeats the purpose of the law.

[spin]

43. True, a student might buy a 1911 style pistol and bring it to class ...

and later buy a Glock and not having been trained on a Glock not realize that the main safety is on the trigger. Or he might train on a 1911 style .45 acp and buy a firearm that has a decocker.

One way to get around the government making it difficult for people to schedule classes is to allow gun stores to run classes. Obviously there would have to be minimum standards for the classes and the instructors would have to meet some form of certification, but this might eliminate or reduce the wait time for a class to open. For that matter you could have gun safety courses at gun shows. Gun shows in Florida offer the concealed weapons class.

Requiring a class before purchasing a firearm would require a period of time to set up and get into operation. and there is no doubt that in a anti-RKBA area of the country like Chicago, Illinois the politicians would make every effort to turn it into a excuse to make purchasing a firearm as difficult as possible.

[X_Digger]

63. Chicago and DC are already going down that route..

Have you seen the requirements that Chicago upchucked and threw a stamp of approval on?

[spin]

72. Eventually the new regs will be reviewed by the court system ...

and in all likely hood rejected.

[PavePusher]

95. It's the "eventually" part that is the problem.

It shouldn't take years of effort and thousands, if not millions, of dollars, to regain Civil Rights.

There are days when I think that the saying: "Tree, rope, politician, some assembly required" should be applied with a bit more frequency. Then I sit down and recall all the places I've seen first-hand where such a policy was applied far to liberaly (how do you know when to stop is the hardest part), and the feeling usually passes.

[HiDemGunOwner]

122. Hawaii, again...

When Hawaii enacted its strict firearms laws, which included a training requirement, it was, in most individuals assessment, an attempt to make it as difficult as possible to own a gun in Hawaii. The training required it be done by a "State" authorized trainer. Luckily, we were able to modify it to include training by an NRA instructor. At the time, there were few of those in Hawaii, so a not-for-profit group was formed to offer training that would meet the statutory requirements. Without the formation of this organization there would have been a defacto ban on handguns for lack of training meeting the statutory requirements.

Note that this is not a hypothetical of what could happen with these suggested "reasonable" training standards...it is the current situation in Hawaii

[Euromutt]

128. I appreciate your weighing in

When it comes to gun laws, I tend to forget about Hawaii. And welcome to the forum.

[HiDemGunOwner]

129. Thanks...

Been around for a while, but mostly lurk. You guys do a great job of debunking the oft repeated anti-gun BS, so no real need for me to put my 2 cents in....Aloha

[lawodevolution]

47. maybe we should require people to have a class on raising children before they are allowed to repro.

reproduce. All we have to do is to establish reversible sterilization sometime before puberty. When they prove they can support a child, the sterilization will be reversed. I'd bet Hitler'd love this one.

How about requiring a degree in order to vote.

What about requiring culinary school in order to be allowed to cook

So no, I do not support forcing people to take a "safety class" before owning a gun, it's just another method that can be used for the government and gun control crowd to reduce gun ownership rates.

[RSillsbee]

50. I see your point

But I doubt the closet authoritarians here will

[lawodevolution]

51. That's because they all support everything in my post as well. lol

[spin]

53. Scuba diving and sky diving require courses ...

before you participate in those sports.

Such courses appear to have worked out well.

[oneshooter]

54. They are not Constitutional Rights. n/t

[PavePusher]

59. Not that I was aware of.

I can walk into any scuba shop, buy the gear, grab my own boat and do whatever I want to.

Sky-diving may be different with regards to FAA regulations on aircraft and airspace, but I am unaware of a training requirement for jumping out of my own airplane.

Now, if I want insurance to cover my injuries.....

[RSillsbee]

69. I can walk into any scuba shop,

I don't believe that any shop will fill your tanks w/ out a dive card but, that's an industry standard as opposed to a government mandate

[PavePusher]

70. I think you're right about that.

Damn, gonna have to buy my own compressors now too.

[spin]

74. You may be able to jump out of your aircraft,

but you want to leave a pilot behind to land the aircraft. That pilot would be risking his license according to my son in law who is a sky diver.

[X_Digger]

64. There is no government mandate.

I can sky dive tomorrow after a 2 hour 'class', and I can dive next week in the caymans, with a tourist diving 'certification'. *snort*

Even if you go with the 'official' certification, it's not a government agency, and it doesn't stop you from buying diving gear or a parachute.

Close, but no cigar, I think.

[spin]

76. According to my son in law who is a sky diver ...

there is no way you are going to sky dive alone without a license at any jump zone in the states. He says that after you go through a class you can tandem dive with an instructor, sky dive with two instructors or jump with a static line for several jumps. That's not what I am taking about which is jumping without an instructor or a static line. In other words the same way a certified sky diver jumps.

The procedures he describes are discussed here:

http://www.uspa.org/BecomeaSkydiver/ChooseaMethod/tabid/65/Default.aspx

As far as scuba diving, the Cayman Islands are a British Overseas Territory. I imagine you could go to many countries in Africa or the orient and dive without a class if you wanted.

[X_Digger]

78. Not government and it doesn't preclude you from owning.

License to carry concealed? Sure.

License to drive on the roads? Sure.

License to _own_ a parachute, a tank, a dive computer, or a gun? No.

Apples to oranges. One's licensing an activity, the other is ownership.

[spin]

88. When I started this OP, I was interested in what others thought about ...

a requirement for schooling prior to purchase.

I can see advantages and disadvantages to the idea. The biggest advantage is that people who buy firearms would have been exposed to a level of safety training and should have some familiarity with how to safely load and unload their firearm.

The largest disadvantage that I can see is that in some areas of the country, the school would be so expensive or scheduled on an infrequent basis to basically become a method of gun control in itself.

I personally favor a class on firearms in high school with hands on training using dummy rounds, but the difficulty of actually implementing such a system against the anti-RKBA forces make this extremely difficult. My daughter is currently a substitute teacher in a high school and the way she describes the students, training them would be at the least, challenging.

Your comment, "Apples to oranges. One's licensing an activity, the other is ownership." is valid.

I was actually surprised that I didn't more negative feedback from the pro-RKBA contingent. Still, this is a more progressive and liberal board than most gun forums.

The fact that the anti-RKBA groups would oppose my idea because they would say that schools on gun safety are an industry attempt to get more people to buy more guns and the pro-RKBA groups would oppose my idea because they feel it infringes on their Constitution right means that the idea is no more than a pipe dream.

[X_Digger]

89. I generally do 3-4 gun safety classes a year, for friends / friends of friends.

I more than happily share my knowledge.

I just can't see predicating ownership on such a course. Recommend it? Absolutely. Require it? Nope.

[spin]

92. Voluntary classes sound like the best solution ...

Gun stores could offer them as a way to increase business. If you take the safety course you get a discount on firearms, ammo or accessories.

[slackmaster]

107. You don't have to take a safety course to buy SCUBA gear or a parachute

:hi:

[X_Digger]

55. Which of these things are rights, and which are privileges

Driving (on a public road)? Privilege. (While a right to 'travel' is well established, it doesn't extend to unfettered access operating a motor vehicle on public highways.)

Hunting (in public)? Privilege.

Keep (own / have / possess) arms? Right. As such, infringement of the right must pass a much higher hurdle.


Makes me glad I left Austin.

[cleanhippie]

56. Should a civics course be required before voting?

I submit that a vote can be much more dangerous than a gun...just look at who has been elected in the last 12 years and by whom. Perhaps a mandatory civics and Constitution course should be required...

[spin]

73. That is a fair point.

However I remember a civics class in high school. Naturalized citizens have to pass a test that most native born Americans fail.

[Euromutt]

86. As a naturalized citizen, I'm not sure most native-born Americans would fail the test

See, the thing is that they make you memorize a metric assload of civics and history trivia, but then at the actual test they throw you a bunch of softballs. The Simpsons totally nailed this in the episode "Much Apu About Nothing" (S7E23) when the INS guy asks Apu about the causes of the Civil War, whereupon Apu launches into an extensive historical discussion, only to have the INS guy interrupt him and say "Just say 'slavery,' sir."

[spin]

91. I remember a couple years ago reading about a sample test ...

for naturalization which the news media said many Americans failed. From what you're saying the news article was misleading and the actual test is easier to pass.

Casual Fridays: Most citizens don't pass the citizenship test
Posted on: October 6, 2007 2:01 PM, by Dave Munger

Last week we wondered how thorough news reporters were being when they conducted "person on the street" interviews with questions from the U.S. citizenship test. We decided to administer the test a bit more systematically (but still not scientifically). Over 680 people responded to our study, allowing us to get some pretty solid results.

The headline is what we stated above: Most U.S. citizens didn't get a passing grade on the test -- even though we were very generous in grading the tests. We didn't even count off for spelling errors and accepted answers that were only partially correct. But how did U.S.-born citizens compare to naturalized citizens, who themselves had to take the test at some point? This graph shows test results by citizenship status:



***snip***

But how many people actually passed the test? This next graph shows the portion of each group receiving a passing grade:



***snip***

So what questions were the hardest for our test-takers? Here's a graph of accuracy on all the test questions:


http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/10/casual_fridays_most_citizens_d.php

Out of curiosity I took a 35 question version of the test at http://www.cantonrep.com/carousel/x1350923697/Could-you-pass-a-citizenship-test. I scored 95% probably because I have recently been reading a lot of American history and concentrating on the period of time between the Constitution and the Civil War.

[Euromutt]

97. Yes, those articles were misleading, though I doubt it was intentional

The impression I get from reading it is that the experiments were set up on the basis of the published information about the test, and not on the basis of the way the test is actually administered. This is reflected, for example, in this passage from the Cognitive Daily post:

Most U.S. citizens didn't get a passing grade on the test -- even though we were very generous in grading the tests. We didn't even count off for spelling errors and accepted answers that were only partially correct.

There's nothing generous about not counting off for spelling errors, because the actual civics test is verbal, not written; it doesn't matter if you say "Phranses Skot Kee" wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner," because it sounds the same as "Francis Scott Key" anyway.

And I suspect that, in an effort to be scientific, respondents were presented with ten randomly selected questions. In practice, the questions aren't selected randomly; they're selected by the USCIS agent conducting the interview. Those ten questions that respondents had most difficulty with? I wasn't asked a single one of those. And I remember being disappointed at the time, because I would've aced them.

Three years ago, that is. Because that's another thing to consider: applicants for naturalization know when the test is, and they study for it. Once they get their citizenship, who knows how much of it they retain?

[jazzhound]

99. Love it!

Those ten questions that respondents had most difficulty with? I wasn't asked a single one of those. And I remember being disappointed at the time, because I would've aced them.

:toast:

[RamboLiberal]

81. IMHO the gun industry should be offering a coupon for a free

course offering with the purchase of a firearm. I think sometimes it is tough for a new gun owner to find an NRA or free or reasonably priced course in their area.

Every range should look in to offering First Shot or NRA courses & advertise them better.

I'm one who has no problem if a course is required for concealed carry. But it shouldn't be prohibitively expensive and widely available. And I'd like to see that CCW license extended to be honored in all 50 states like my driver's license is.

All that being said the gun owner should also take the responsibility to learn what gun to buy, what caliber is good, what bullets will pass through, their state laws concerning its use in self defense, how to safely handle, store and shoot the gun and how to safely carry it.

[RSillsbee]

82. Free Coupons

aren't free. why should the gun industry pay for what should be your responsiblity?

[RamboLiberal]

100. Wouldn't cost them that much to offer a course

Gun industry already pours a lot of money in to advertising. They already do a lot of freebies and sponsorships for various shows, competitions, pro shooters, etc.

Increased gun sales could easily pay for the free course.

IMHO taking some responsibility to teach new shooters pays off for them in good publicity and even brand loyalty. If Glock has a day at the range and shows me how to safely shoot the Glock pistol, chances are my first purchase will be a Glock.

[RSillsbee]

101. Taking some responsibility

Wouldn't cost them that much to offer a course

Wouldn't cost you that much to pay for one.

It's not Gaston Glock's responsibility to ensure that you know how to safely operate a firearm it's your's

Neither is it the government's responsibility to force him to do so.

Typo

[RamboLiberal]

108. Government forces gun companies to do a lot of things

The safety lock that is now included for one with each firearm.

New semi-autos that come with loaded chamber indicators.

To sell in CA you have to be compliant with that state's laws in the design of the gun.

I'm not saying mandate the course, I'm just saying it would be a good PR move on the part of the gun companies to offer in conjunction with gun stores & ranges.

[RSillsbee]

112. The more responsibility you assign to your government

the more freedom you give away.

The government mandated trigger locks, the gun companies passed the cost on to me and now I have a drawer full of useless gun locks.

What really changed except we got one more useless gun law?

[PavePusher]

84. Those "free coupon"(s) would be paid for by increases in the price of the firearms.

If you're buying from a licenced dealer, they will almost certainly know where to find a local instructor or range. Every range and shop I've been to has advertisements for classes. A quick internet search works quite handily too.

[spin]

93. Gun stores could offer a discount to people who take a safety course ...

and it might work to create new business.

Newbie shooters might decide to take the course and get a break on the price of their first firearm.

[Remmah2]

103. Firearm safety education should be universal and incorporated into the public education system.

My kids have had health classes and know how to avoid/prevent HIV, STD and pregnancy. They have also been told of their civic responsibilities to vote and to participate in the jury process if selected.

So with firearms requiring caution to use and ownership being a civil right firearm safety should be a mandatory part of the public education curriculum weather the young citizen decides to own one or not. Ownership is not mandatory but the education to be safe around them should be. Education after ownership is a little too late. It would be like sex education after getting pregnant.

[spin]

106. I agree, the problem is getting the anti-RKBA crowd to go along ...

You would think the people that complain the most about the extremely low rate of firearm accidents would love to incorporate firearms training into high schools. Lives would be saved.

Unfortunately, they look at it as a conspiracy to increase the popularity of firearms among young adults in order to increase sales of firearms by the evil rich gun manufacturers.

[RamboLiberal]

109. Righties fight against Sex Ed

I have a funny feeling many on the left would be equally hostile to mandatory gun safety classes.

But not this lefty. I'd like to see courses taught at age appropriate levels in several grades.

I've been to the funeral of a 12 year old killed by horseplay with a loaded firearm. Maybe if he and the kids he was with that day had such a class he'd still be alive.

[spin]

110. Agreed. I believe high school course would save lives.

The problem is that the anti-RKBA groups feel that gun safety courses in high school would interest high school age kids in owning firearms.

Can't have that. Better to have some dead kids than a bunch of new gun owners who are safe.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. It used to be.

My alma mater had a rifle team, in years gone by. Unrelated to ROTC.


In the 40's TIme Life did a series of pictures of kids, as young as 3rd grade getting demonstrations of what a firearm is, and how it works, wnd why to leave them alone, from police officers, in school.

[SteveM]

105. Exercising your 2A right should not be contingent on a competency test...

because such a test (given on a state-by-state basis) could be rife with abuse, and serve merely as a pretext to restrict the right. I agree that everyone would be better served with gun owners being competent in the use of arms, but given the track record of gun-control/prohibition groups and politicians, this "test" would be used to delay, restrict and prohibit law-abiding citizens from acquiring a firearm when they so wish.

If gun-control groups think that a competency test is needed, perhaps they could, in conjunction with pro-2A organizations, support (financially) a scheme by which a basic and voluntary course could be offered for free to gun purchases, up to and including a hand-out or other notification of the course's availability upon a firearm purchase.

[mikekj]

111. How about requiring drivers ed

before you can purchase an automobile. Or, maybe, require a homeowners course before you can buy a house. No, I have it. A course on the US Constitution before being able to post on DU.

[Kennah]

119. A perhaps more apt analogy would be ...

... requiring English 101 before exercising the First Amendment and penning a letter to the editor.

[cantonjaston]

113. *IF* it's required for purchase of a firearm, then it should be provided

at little to no cost.

[cleanhippie]

116. Should a civics class be required before registering to vote?

[PavePusher]

117. The ethical side of me says "no"....

But the practical side of me screams "Please, dear ghod, YES....!!!!!"

[cleanhippie]

118. Agreed.

[Kennah]

120. Why not "gun stamps"?

Dr. Robert Cottrol, GW Law, has espoused the issuance of "gun stamps" so that poor people could buy decent quality guns.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=1756

Gawd would the details of that ever give the rabid reich a royal shit fit. "Mister Chairman, this amendment to House Bill blah-blah-blah would put more guns into the hands of more Americans, and I ask for unanimous consent ..."

Give "A Liberal Democrat's Lament" a read.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/104ali.htm

For a longer, more detailed read, have a go at "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration".

http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-recon.html

[spin]

124. It was also mentioned that Dr. Cottrol's comment was "levity" ...

Prof. Bob Cottrol and other experts addressed the issue of firearms and civil rights; Prof. Cottrol argued that the Second Amendment served three purposes: 1) defense of one's self; 2) defense of the state; and 3) defense of one's self from the state. Prof. Cottrol also added a bit of levity, describing himself as a Humphrey Democrat who supports "issuing ‘gun stamps' so poor people can have access to quality firearms."
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=1756

Note: I fail to see any humor in the comment. I have seen poor people arrive at the range with cheap inferior handguns which are unreliable. Fortunately there are many reliable firearms which can be purchased for a reasonable price. Used firearms are often a good buy.

I found the leading quote from the second link fascinating.

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

—Hubert Humphrey, 1960
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/104ali.htm

Humphrey, often known as "The Happy Warrior" served as Vice President in the Johnson administration and unfortunately lost the Presidential race to Richard Nixon in 1968. How different our country might be been had he won.

Robert J. Cottrol summed things up nicely with his statement:

All of this should force us to reconsider our debate over arms and rights. For too long, it has been framed as a question of the rights of sportsmen. It is far more serious: The Second Amendment has something critical to say about the relationship between the citizen and the state. For most of human history, in most of the nations in the world, the individual has all too often been a helpless dependent of the state, beholden to the state’s benevolence and indeed competence for his physical survival.

The notion of a right to arms bespeaks a very different relationship. It says the individual is not simply a helpless bystander in the difficult and dangerous task of ensuring his or her safety. Instead, the citizen is an active participant, an equal partner with the state in ensuring not only his own safety but that of his community.

This is a serious right for serious people. It takes the individual from servile dependency on the state to the status of participating citizen, capable of making intelligent choices in defense of one’s life and ultimately one’s freedom. This conception of citizenship recognizes that the ultimate civil right is the right to defend one’s own life, that without that right all other rights are meaningless, and that without the means of self-defense the right to self-defense is but an empty promise.

Our serious thinkers have been absent from this debate for too long. The Second Amendment is simply too important to leave to the gun nuts.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/104ali.htm

The third link does an excellent job of documenting the fact that the roots of gun control are racist.

In 1865 and 1866, southern states passed a series of statutes known as the black codes. These statutes, which one historian described as "a twilight zone between slavery and freedom,"<171> were an expression of the South's determination to maintain control over the former slaves. Designed in part to ensure that traditional southern labor arrangements would be preserved, these codes were attempts "'to put the state much in the place of the former master.'"<172> The codes often required blacks to sign labor contracts that bound black agricultural workers to their employers for a year.<173> Blacks were forbidden from serving on juries, and could not testify or act as parties against whites.<174> Vagrancy laws were used to force blacks into labor contracts and to limit freedom of movement.<175>

As further indication that the former slaves had not yet joined the ranks of free citizens, southern states passed legislation prohibiting blacks from carrying firearms without licenses, a requirement to which whites were not subjected. The Louisiana<176> and Mississippi<177> statutes were typical of the (p.345)restrictions found in the codes. Alabama's<178> was even harsher.

***snip***

While discussion of the Second Amendment has been relegated to the margin of academic and judicial constitutional discourse, the realization that there is a racial dimension to the question, and that the right may have had greater and different significance for blacks and others less able to rely on the government's protection, has been even further on the periphery. The history of blacks and the right to bear arms, and the failure of most constitutional scholars and policymakers to seriously examine that history, is in part another instance of the difficulty of integrating the study of the black experience into larger questions of legal and social policy.<281>

Throughout American history, black and white Americans have had radically different experiences with respect to violence and state protection. Perhaps another reason the Second Amendment has not been taken very seriously by the courts and the academy is that for many of those who shape or critique constitutional policy, the state's power and inclination to protect them is a given. But for all too many black Americans, that protection historically has not been available. Nor, for many, is it readily available today. If in the past the state refused to protect black people from the horrors of white lynch mobs, today the state seems powerless in the face of the tragic black-on-black violence that plagues the mean streets of our inner cities, (p.360)and at times seems blind to instances of unnecessary police brutality visited upon minority populations.<282>

***snip***

The history of blacks, firearms regulations, and the right to bear arms should cause us to ask new questions regarding the Second Amendment. These questions will pose problems both for advocates of stricter gun controls and for those who argue against them. Much of the contemporary crime that concerns Americans is in poor black neighborhoods<290> and a case can be made that greater firearms restrictions might alleviate this tragedy. But another, perhaps stronger case can be made that a society with a dismal record of protecting a people has a dubious claim on the right to disarm them. Perhaps a re-examination of this history can lead us to a modern realization of what the framers of the Second Amendment understood: that it is unwise to place the means of protection totally in the hands of the state, and that self-defense is also a civil right.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-recon.html#h4

[Kennah]

126. Levity may have been intended ...

... but I'm not sure Dr. Cottrol was being flippant.

[spin]

127. At the range, I have seen some firearms ...

that poorer people owned for self defense. When I had the opportunity, I would try to convince them to save for a better firearm. A Jennings J-22 may be cheap but even so it's overpriced.



A used S&W .38 revolver in good condition may not be today's most popular firearm but often you can find one in great mechanical condition that is very reasonably priced. Such a firearm can be a reliable and a very accurate self defense weapon.


S&W Model 10