What part of range safety don't you understand?

[garyb]

This is a very interesting thread and it seems that even within our diehard pro 2nd amendment pro gun group there is division on this subject and I have to admit I'm sorta on the bubble myself....I am upset that my state Georgia doubled the price of a CCW from 4 years age because they could and they saw an opportunity to raise even more money from us sucker taxpayers.....

I don't want to see the Government get involved in this and perhaps charge gun owners more than they can afford for a license and mandated training...My state has very lenient gun laws and is a must issue state but if the right Politician gets elected and wants to come down on gun owners then mandated license and training fees might be used to keep leigitimate gun owners from being able to afford a CCW....

I think it should be left to the FFL seller to train a new gun owner at least how to safely load, unload and take down and reassemble their new handgun...I don't think this should be mandated but IMHO any FFL worth his salt would be sure this was done before a new owner walks out their door...

That is like having the fox guard the hen house. The FFL makes money on sales. I'd agree that most FFL's I met would want you to know your weapon, but not necessarily care if you were trained in gun safety. It is out of his spectrum of business. Trust me guys, I hate to see the Anti Gun movement take any advantage away from our freedoms. Training is a way to help us not hurt us. Sinking your head in the sand is not the answer. Ignorance is not the answer. Educate gun owners. Set the bar higher. That's what training is all about. Set a standard above what is required.

[chrish]

As a matter of fact...in most states, if you have not received special archery safety training, you can not hunt with a bow and arrow. Surpirses You? It is a fact. Go out west and try to bow hunt without archery safety certificate and you will drive home alone while your buddies hunt. You need training. Archery is a unique sport that requires special training. It is a fact. Nothing wrong with training.

You are kinda changing the equation there. Not that I will even agree w/ the change in direction. But you are talking about hunting now, which is an almost guaranteed discharge of a weapon (bow or firearm) by somebody, in a (typically) public area or private area where there are other people in the vicinity and no controls in place like there are at the range. And I don't have to go to hunter safety to go to a private archery range, or my private property, with my bow and arrow or my firearm. Hunter safety courses also involves more than how to safely use your weapon. It's course to get a permit to go onto public land to hunt and kill things.

Hunting is also not protected by the Constitution.

All that being said, if a private range wants to (and I think should) require training to use their facility, more power to 'em. That's the kind of range I belong to and would ONLY belong to.

The only place (in my opinion) that this debate holds ANY water is with being issued a CCW permit. And I still don't agree with it. Beyond the CCW permit debate...no way, no how though, is anyone gonna sell me on the idea that I need a government issued permit to own a firearm, go to a private range with a firearm, or be on my private property with a firearm. If somebody is gonna do something stupid, no amount of government training or printed paperwork with my name on it is going to prevent that.

I just don't want the government involved in this. At all.

This one just isn't gonna be decided here I'm afraid. Obviously a camp that sees government regulations as acceptable here and another group that doesn't.

[chrish]

Back to the point... Would you put a gun in the hands of your son or grandson without training that boy? Be honest. You would make it mandatory because you love him and rightfully so. It is a FACT! That is how much you respect safety training....you would make it mandatory.

No, obviously not, but do I want the government doing it? Requiring it? Hell no. Have you been out on the roads lately, people are EVERYWHERE that were trained by the government (public schools) and licensed by the state (DMV) to drive a vehicle. They failed miserably. Idiots abound everywhere on the road. Matter of fact, look at the numbers. You are way more likely to be killed by those trained fools, than some idiot at the range not practicing gun safety.

That's the whole point. Mandated training by the government will do nothing to stop the moron at the range, the moron carrying three shelves down the aisle from you in the grocery store, etc.

You (or somebody) asked who trained you...well, actually, nobody. I was taught to respect firearms, but once I got into it, I'm self taught. Safety, proficiency, etc. I understand not everybody is gonna do that, that's how the world is. And no amount of regulation and mandatory training is gonna change that.

[garyb]

You are kinda changing the equation there. Not that I will even agree w/ the change in direction. But you are talking about hunting now, which is an almost guaranteed discharge of a weapon (bow or firearm) by somebody, in a (typically) public area or private area where there are other people in the vicinity and no controls in place like there are at the range. And I don't have to go to hunter safety to go to a private archery range, or my private property, with my bow and arrow or my firearm. Hunter safety courses also involves more than how to safely use your weapon. It's course to get a permit to go onto public land to hunt and kill things.

Hunting is also not protected by the Constitution.

All that being said, if a private range wants to (and I think should) require training to use their facility, more power to 'em. That's the kind of range I belong to and would ONLY belong to.

The only place (in my opinion) that this debate holds ANY water is with being issued a CCW permit. And I still don't agree with it. Beyond the CCW permit debate...no way, no how though, is anyone gonna sell me on the idea that I need a government issued permit to own a firearm, go to a private range with a firearm, or be on my private property with a firearm. If somebody is gonna do something stupid, no amount of government training or printed paperwork with my name on it is going to prevent that.

I just don't want the government involved in this. At all.

This one just isn't gonna be decided here I'm afraid. Obviously a camp that sees government regulations as acceptable here and another group that doesn't.

Two discussions were going on....you caught that. Glad for that. Hunting was one. CCW was the other. OK.

You believe the shooting range should require safety training. Why is that? You'd feel safe there if everyone was safety trained. Right? Of course. I agree with that.

Would you give your son or daughter or grandson/daughter a gun to carry concealed without safety training (even if it were not required by the government)?

[chrish]

Two discussions were going on....you caught that. Glad for that. Hunting was one. CCW was the other. OK.

You believe the shooting range should require safety training. Why is that? You'd feel safe there if everyone was safety trained. Right? Of course. I agree with that.

Would you give your son or daughter or grandson/daughter a gun to carry concealed without safety training (even if it were not required by the government)?

Yes, I think a range should require safety training.


No, I don't by default feel safe at my range where people are 'trained' because I've seen people, with their orange 'I have been trained badge' doing stupid stuff. I watch them ALL like a hawk and correct them if need be.


No, I would not give anyone a firearm to use or carry if they did not receive training, whether that be from me or someone else qualified to do so. That's not the point.


I don't think anybody here is saying training is bad, or should not be done, but having it mandated by the government is the issue. The second issue in my mind, is the wording of the 2A. It's clear, crystal clear. I personally do not believe you can go off and start tinkering with it with federal, state, and local regulation and still adhere to it.

[garyb]

Yes, I think a range should require safety training.


No, I don't by default feel safe at my range where people are 'trained' because I've seen people, with their orange 'I have been trained badge' doing stupid stuff. I watch them ALL like a hawk and correct them if need be.


No, I would not give anyone a firearm to use or carry if they did not receive training, whether that be from me or someone else qualified to do so. That's not the point.


I don't think anybody here is saying training is bad, or should not be done, but having it mandated by the government is the issue. The second issue in my mind, is the wording of the 2A. It's clear, crystal clear. I personally do not believe you can go off and start tinkering with it with federal, state, and local regulation and still adhere to it.

OK, You feel the range should require range safety training and you would not give anyone a firearm if they did not receive training. But the mandate by the government is wrong. I get it. That makes perfect sense. It is an issue with the government. I sincerely understand that. We all realize they are after our guns and we want nothing to do with that. So it might be better to tell them that we won't be trained. It is another hoop we MUST jump through and we don't like it because it is a mandate from the govt and seen as a threat against firearms....which I admit it is. But from the perspective of safety training alone, we agree that it is a good thing. We are on the same page....I think. We don't want government mandates on guns because it is a freedom. But we want to be safe at the range and make sure all gun owners are safe.

What is 2A? And what do you mean by tinkering with it? I sincerely don't know what that is about. Thanks.

[chrish]

I really shouldn't even be engaging in this debate for a more fundamental reason. This all surrounds a CCW permit and the assumption that you need one in the first place, which I have to remain within the letter of the law. But I don't not think they should even exist in the first place. The CCW permit is already an overreaching grab by the government into an area that the Constitution says they have to stay out of.


So, if there were no 'permit' to get, we are back to saying you have to have training to even buy a firearm. Which...um...nope.

[chrish]

OK, You feel the range should require range safety training and you would not give anyone a firearm if they did not receive training. But the mandate by the government is wrong. I get it. That makes perfect sense. It is an issue with the government. I sincerely understand that. We all realize they are after our guns and we want nothing to do with that. So it might be better to tell them that we won't be trained. It is another hoop we MUST jump through and we don't like it because it is a mandate from the govt and seen as a threat against firearms....which I admit it is. But from the perspective of safety training alone, we agree that it is a good thing. We are on the same page....I think. We don't want government mandates on guns because it is a freedom. But we want to be safe at the range and make sure all gun owners are safe.

What is 2A? And what do you mean by tinkering with it? I sincerely don't know what that is about. Thanks.

Yea, I think we all agree on the most of the point here. Glad you saw my point, whether you agree w/ it or not. I think this is a great discussion to have. Glad folks are able to have it and not get all hot-n-bothered by each others positions.


By tinkering I mean things like CCW permit, restricted locations where you can carry a firearm, etc. About the ONLY part of gun control I agree with is not allowing a violent felon purchase a gun or someone adjudicated by a JURY of being mentally unfit. Beyond that, most gun regulation I see as 'tinkering' with the 2A (2nd Amendment).

[garyb]

No, obviously not, but do I want the government doing it? Requiring it? Hell no. Have you been out on the roads lately, people are EVERYWHERE that were trained by the government (public schools) and licensed by the state (DMV) to drive a vehicle. They failed miserably. Idiots abound everywhere on the road. Matter of fact, look at the numbers. You are way more likely to be killed by those trained fools, than some idiot at the range not practicing gun safety.

That's the whole point. Mandated training by the government will do nothing to stop the moron at the range, the moron carrying three shelves down the aisle from you in the grocery store, etc.

You (or somebody) asked who trained you...well, actually, nobody. I was taught to respect firearms, but once I got into it, I'm self taught. Safety, proficiency, etc. I understand not everybody is gonna do that, that's how the world is. And no amount of regulation and mandatory training is gonna change that.

LOL. Wait a minute, I was "changing the equation" by mixing up hunting and government mandates, but now you are changing the equation by mixing in driving with CCW. OK, I see it. You feel that Mandated training by the govt will do nothing to stop morons at the range but range required training will. OK.
The reality is that the gov't does not do the training. They only want to see that you have had it through an approved program of the private sector. Some sort of safety program before purchasing a handgun. We don't like it, but that's how it is in some states. Eventually the Feds will make it universal. Get ready.

[garyb]

Tired. Tracked a deer all day. Having a beer now. It was fun. Thanks.

[jocko]

nuttin wrong with any kind of training.I just don't think it should be mandatory to own a firearm. I would venture tosay that 90-% of gun owners are not rambo gun owners. but they want the gun for protection or for what ever reason. I would venture to also say that most ccw permit owners are not trained either, but they have knowledge of guns be it just because they have been shooting that firearm alot or reading about guns and gun safety. Again, I don't think a shooting course should be mandatory.

I can say that I have read here and utter gun forums in the past that some of these gun owners scare the piss outta me. To much macho rambo stuff for me.
ur notgonna regulate safety without somekind of government regulatin and I don't want that. Do u honeslty think that ovomit, feinstein, and utters really give a fokk about how much training u have, thats gonna make a difference in how they would react to shoving more gun laws up our ass, IF THEY HAD THE CHANCE?? They don't want us to have guns, is that hard to fokking understand. I want the government as far as I can outta my life and if that means to some of u that I am taking a chance sitting in a booth and some "untrained" gun owner is in the next booth, then I will take that chance. I feel if we let some here set the bar for who should and should not own a gun or be allowed to carry a gun, there would be far less of us and probably less gun forums. Sorry, I just don't want you or anyone telling me how qualified or unqualified I am accordig to yoiuyr criteria. Just sayin

[jocko]

well

Tired. Tracked a deer all day. Having a beer now. It was fun. Thanks.

did u find the deer???

[tv_racin_fan]

Ugh! You guys are killing me. We all agree that training is essential. What we're talking about is not being allowed to buy a gun until we can prove we bought our training from the government. Sheesh. I love you guys but sometimes.........

I promised not to argue this point anymore so I'll go back to biting my tongue.

Carry on.

They don't mind mandated govt training. They don't worry how much it will cost or where they may have to go to get that mandated govt training.

Bet they do have a problem with the govt mandated healthcare and the increased cost.

Quite an interesting conundrum.

[chrish]

LOL. Wait a minute, I was "changing the equation" by mixing up hunting and government mandates, but now you are changing the equation by mixing in driving with CCW. OK, I see it. You feel that Mandated training by the govt will do nothing to stop morons at the range but range required training will. OK.
The reality is that the gov't does not do the training. They only want to see that you have had it through an approved program of the private sector. Some sort of safety program before purchasing a handgun. We don't like it, but that's how it is in some states. Eventually the Feds will make it universal. Get ready.

Sorry for the confusion. I never said training would stop morons regardless of where they got it. I only said that training is good, everybody should do it, and that private individuals or organizations that provide it are correct (in my opinion) to do so. If they don't, its not an organization (private) that I would choose to join or frequent.


But, having health insurance is also a good idea. I recommend it. Everybody should do it. But should the government be imposing it. Nope.


That's all I was saying. All because I think training is good and should be conducted does not HAVE to go hand in hand with thinking the government should do it or limit my freedom because I do or don't get what they deem to be acceptable training. That's all.


Hope that clears up my point/thoughts.

[yqtszhj]

I never said training would stop morons regardless of where they got it.

And there is the key. Look who got voted in as president. Too many morons around all over.