AZ - Unlikely Opponents To New Concealed Carry Law

[DickWanner]

Offcamber,

No we don't.

I'm from NH, born and raised. Was taken out shooting my by uncle and father when I was quite young. I learned firearms safety very early - Dad kept an unlocked, loaded revolver on top of the Fridge most of my life. I got refresher courses in firearms safety: When I joined a shooting team, every year at the start of the shooting team's season. When I took hunter's safety. When I joined a shooting club while at college and when I took the NRA basic firearms class in MA.

Here's my point:
It is not the governments place to impose a training requirement on the purchase or posession of a firearm. That is a personal liberty. However, an extention of that - It is not the governments place to restrict a retailers choice about who to sell to or what requirements they can place on those sales. Unreasonable requirements will be weeded out by Market Forces, let them work.
Moreover, I am saying that I appreciate and will patronize establishments that demonstrate a concern for the safety of their customers. From asking each and every customer, "Are you familiar with the safe handling and operation of this firearm?" before renting it to them to requiring a member demonstrate familiar and safe handling of firearms before allowing them on the range.
Again, it's the market forces that will weed out the unreasonable. A club that requires its members to take a $100 certification class before using its facilities might find members hard to come by, just as a shooting range might find they loose a lot of business requiring all users have completed their 8-hour basic firearms course. However, it makes me feel more comfortable when I go to a range that requires members demonstrate safe handling to become members and non-members to demonstrate safe-handling to be use the facilities. And this can be as simple as handing a prospective user a handgun and asking them, "Here, please make this safe" to observe that they follow safety procedures and understand what "make it safe" means.

Such policies might take a little time, feel childish or inconvient, but they do make everyone safer by ensuring that the person who does need some safety instruction get its before they're on the line with a loaded firearm.

Another range I've visited required all first-time visitors have a range employee on the line for them for basic handling instructions. I brought 7 of my own firearms, but that was their policy so I agreed. The guy asked me if I knew the basics, I said I did, and then he asked me to follow a few simple tasks - Load a handgun, make it ready, make it safe, etc. Less than 5 minutes and he was satisfied. When I left, they gave me their certification card so I wouldn't need to repeat that next time.

Policies like that have nothing to do with profits (other than maybe liability reduction) and have everything to do with customer / member safety and as little as they may do, they do make me feel better about using such facilities.


I agree, everyone SHOULD get safety training, but again, the State has no place requiring it (offering a tax incentive to gunshops who require it isn't the way to go either. It's not the States place to artificially affect Market forces. Not getting training would be like buying a Table-saw without learning about its safe use. But if a Store wants to make sure everyone buying a table saw understands its safe use, that is and should be, their choice.

You're living in a fantasy land that someone who has taken a safety course or has shown they are 'safe' once will never have an accident or violate safety rules.

 

[Serapis]

Zappa,

Rather than to issue a neg rep behind the scene, why don't you be a man and post your beef in the open forum??

Funny he did the same thing to me, but for posting a video he did not like...

 

[Serapis]

Personally, I think everyone should take a safety course. I just have an issue with the government telling me I have to.

 

[offcamber]

Personally, I think everyone should take a safety course. I just have an issue with the government telling me I have to.

That's my point....don't tell me I have to wear my seat belt, take a class etc...no amount training will guarantee an accident is avoided...

wasn't there a story just recently about an instructor shooting himself during a class??

 

[cekim]

That's my point....don't tell me I have to wear my seat belt, take a class etc...no amount training will guarantee an accident is avoided...

wasn't there a story just recently about an instructor shooting himself during a class??

A POLICE ACADEMY instructor. Yes....

 

[M1911]

...no amount training will guarantee an accident is avoided...

Guarantee? No, there are no guarantees. But if you think people are just as safe without training, then you are sadly mistaken. While I think everyone should get some training, no I'm not in favor of mandatory training.

 

[Zappa]

Cato:
Zappa,
Rather than to issue a neg rep behind the scene, why don't you be a man and post your beef in the open forum??

I did. Scroll back a little.

Funny he did the same thing to me, but for posting a video he did not like...

That thread got locked after the third post.
I guess I'm not the only one who disapproved.
If you felt the need to title it "Sorry to Do This" then maybe you shouldn't have.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php/95617-Sorry-to-do-this-but-LMAO!

 

[TomH]

i haven't thought this fully through, just throwing it out there:

what do you think if there was no mandated training, the state gave some sort of tax incentive to gun shops that only sold to people who had taken a safety course?


personally, i think that state-mandated safety classes create more problems than they solve. i think everyone SHOULD get safety training, and that much i think we all agree on.

Why? That sounds to me like government corruption intended to go around the 2nd Amendment. Give out rewards to those who will oppose freedom.

 

[Serapis]

I did. Scroll back a little.



That thread got locked after the third post.
I guess I'm not the only one who disapproved.
If you felt the need to title it "Sorry to Do This" then maybe you shouldn't have.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php/95617-Sorry-to-do-this-but-LMAO!

We'll leave it at that. It seems we can agree on this though.

 

[GSG]

There is a huge difference between a government mandate and a local facilities requirement and choosing (or not choosing) to patronize a facility whose policies you agree or disagree with.

I agree with you that ranges and gun stores (and I do mean stores, they shouldn't need an FFL) should have the right to require a safety course before selling a gun or allowing you to use the range. I have a few problems with it still though, even when it's not the government doing it.

Stores: Many people can barely afford a gun. Think hard economic times, kids to feed and clothe, a family that realizes they need something to defend themselves, and then the store tries to force them into taking a safety course. In some rural areas, or in Massachusetts where FFL's are rare, it may not be possible to "shop around" for another store in your town. What if the person took the course but lost their certificate? Soldiers with training returning home from an un-popular war who don't want to put their private business out there? A woman who's psycho ex just found out where she lives, who needs a gun ASAFP? What is the store achieving by requiring proof that someone paid someone to sign a form that says they taught them safety? People forge degrees and diplomas, how hard can it be to forge a "safety certificate"? The store proves nothing other than that the person has a piece of paper that says someone told them how to be safe. It doesn't mean that they learned, or that they'll apply what they learn. It's a useless hurdle and a slap in the face to customers IMO.

Clubs: I know there's clubs that have "safety rules" that only apply to the general members. When an LE agency shows up to qualify they ignore their stupid antics, when a board member at the range acts like a moron no one corrects him because he's in charge... I am very safe with guns, religiously safe, but adding another set of tests and rules to shoot when most people there are already trained, licensed or experienced is a little ridiculous.

And I will continue to only join clubs that do not require such 'provings' and only buy guns from shops who mind their own f'in business.

Me too.

Taxation is tolerated to pay for services rendered. Any other use abuses one group to the benefit of another. Wealth redistribution.

+1

 

[Uncle Ogre]

... the whole point of not having the government tell us what to do, is not so that we can have someone else do the exact same thing.

If that "someone else" is a private business owner they should have every right to choose how to run their business. You can choose to patronize them or not. No need for government to get involved on either side.

If you believe that the government should prevent private businesses from "restricting" your rights, you are advocating the suppression of their liberty. There is no distinction between the government requiring you to take a safety class and the government preventing a private range from requiring a safety class. That sword cuts both ways.

 

[drgrant]

I've been muzzle swept with guns by people that recently took a safety course!!! (Obviously I helped "correct" the problem... but still... ) Education and knowledge is meaningless if the person doesn't choose on their own will to implement/use any of it. Yes, training helps but it only truly makes a difference if the "student" has the appropriate mindset to reinforce and utilize it. The type of unsafe gun owners that probably back over the tire spikes at the rental car place by driving through the wrong exit will still be doing it, IMO.

I have no problems with gun stores or pay ranges or private clubs setting their own regs, even if some of them have rules that make the facilities unusable, it's still not even in the same ballpark as the state setting the rules. At least in the private sector the market will dictate the conditions, not some government bureaucrat.

-Mike

 

[M1911]

I've been muzzle swept with guns by people that recently took a safety course!!! (Obviously I helped "correct" the problem... but still... ) Education and knowledge is meaningless if the person doesn't choose on their own will to implement/use any of it. Yes, training helps but it only truly makes a difference if the "student" has the appropriate mindset to reinforce and utilize it. The type of unsafe gun owners that probably back over the tire spikes at the rental car place by driving through the wrong exit will still be doing it, IMO.

You can't fix stupid.

When you corrected those folks who swept you, they probably at least understood why you corrected them, having been through the safety course. Hopefully with enough correction they will eventually get it.

 

[zeppelinfromled]

It seems that everyone here supports training, and the issue is whether or not the government should mandate it. The question that I have is "why do we all support training?" The answer that I would come up with is "to make sure that a person doesn't do something stupid and shoot himself or something else." While I don't much care if someone is stupid and shoots himself, I do care if he is stupid and shoots me. Since we all seem to agree that training is good, it seems to follow that a person who has training is less likely to negligently shoot me than someone without training.

To those who oppose mandatory training, could you please summarize your reasoning? And to be clear here, we can either talk about what is or what should be. If you want to cite the second amendment (talking about what is), then you have to recognize that the second amendment hasn't (yet) been incorporated, so it doesn't apply to the states. If we want to talk about what should be, then we can't really use laws to argue our points since laws are always subject to change.

Obviously personal responsibility is a big part of it. But if we were to accept personal responsibility in all cases, there would be no need for laws at all. Why have a law against drunk driving? Everyone should be personally responsible for themselves and make sure that they don't do it. Sure, if they end up not being responsible they could end up negligently killing me or someone I care about, but that's okay, right?

Perhaps there's a perfectly good argument why that analogy is a bad one, and if there is, I'd be happy to hear it. But the individual responsibility argument doesn't do much for me.

 

[drgrant]

To those who oppose mandatory training, could you please summarize your reasoning? And to be clear here, we can either talk about what is or what should be. If you want to cite the second amendment (talking about what is), then you have to recognize that the second amendment hasn't (yet) been incorporated, so it doesn't apply to the states. If we want to talk about what should be, then we can't really use laws to argue our points since laws are always subject to change.

I can summarize the reason in one sentence: "Government mandated training is a possible vehicle for infringement of rights. " That's all that really needs to be said.

Hint: Most states don't require training for mere ownership of firearms. That should tell you something right there.

-Mike

 

[ShadeWPI]

Zepplin,

1) I support training.

I believe that everyone should seek out instruction whenever undertaking a new task. From the simplist tasks to the most difficult and dangerous.

2) I do not support government mandates

I don't believe it's the place for our government to impose mandates on the people. I especially don't like government madates that impose arbitrary requirements on people, attempt to leglistate "common sense" or protect people from themselves.
I also believe that a government mandate of training can easily become a method of tracking/registering, simply by requiring that records of the training be maintained.

3) Everyone learns differently.

Some people learn best on thier own, reading manuals, viewing pictures, etc. Some people learn best being taught while other learn best through experience. A mandated training program typically ignores this, treats everyone the same and generally encourages "going through the motions for the motions sake" rather than exactually learning.

4) You can't get away from politics with a mandate.

These politics include who decides what's an "approved training program" who approves a training program, who certifies a trainer and what method is used for verifying proper training. All of these lead to influence, control and a elimination of the competition that drives high quality at low cost.

5) I don't care what you do on your own time in your own place

If you have a few acres of land and build a berm, then start shooting at it in your back yard, I don't care if you follow proper safety rules or not. The only person you're likely to hurt is yourself and that's your problem, not mine. The government has no part in protecting you from yourself. (I have the same issue with Mandatory Helmet and Seatbelt laws, but that's a different thread)

6) I do care about what you do when your actions can place ME at risk

But I don't need a government mandate for that. I can choose to visit places that have their own rules and regulations in place that I agree with to keep me safe. I can watch the people around me and take appropriate action when they are doing things that risk my safety. I can also choose to visit places that have their own rules and enforcement, independant of the government, to improve my safety.

 

[cekim]

To those who oppose mandatory training, could you please summarize your reasoning?

"poll test"

I shouldn't need to say more, but I will...

When you impose mandatory yet subjective requirements, history shows them to be the instrument of discrimination. Maybe not now, maybe not you, but eventually someone will stretch the requirement just enough to exclude someone they don't like. Someone of a given ethnicity, race, etc...

"Shall not be infringed" was said because it needed to be said. Imposing "reasonable restrictions" is a path to destruction paved with good intentions that has us where we are now.

Gun Control has a shameful history deeply intertwined with racism, genocide and mass murder. This is not an accident. It is because the simple logistics of oppressing people get a lot easier if they aren't armed.

It's the old problem of the "benevolent dictator". Say you get a great guy, really smart, has all the answers. So, you give him absolute power and he makes everything better.

Now he dies and his jerk of a son takes over. Now he has the absolute power you gave to the prior dictator.

The only solution is to never relinquish the power in the first place.

You need to recognize what you are doing when you impose requirements upon other people. You are taking their freedom to ensure your safety. Sorry, but you cannot have it.

 

[Cato]

It seems that everyone here supports training, and the issue is whether or not the government should mandate it. The question that I have is "why do we all support training?" The answer that I would come up with is "to make sure that a person doesn't do something stupid and shoot himself or something else." While I don't much care if someone is stupid and shoots himself, I do care if he is stupid and shoots me. Since we all seem to agree that training is good, it seems to follow that a person who has training is less likely to negligently shoot me than someone without training.

To those who oppose mandatory training, could you please summarize your reasoning? And to be clear here, we can either talk about what is or what should be. If you want to cite the second amendment (talking about what is), then you have to recognize that the second amendment hasn't (yet) been incorporated, so it doesn't apply to the states. If we want to talk about what should be, then we can't really use laws to argue our points since laws are always subject to change.

Obviously personal responsibility is a big part of it. But if we were to accept personal responsibility in all cases, there would be no need for laws at all. Why have a law against drunk driving? Everyone should be personally responsible for themselves and make sure that they don't do it. Sure, if they end up not being responsible they could end up negligently killing me or someone I care about, but that's okay, right?

Perhaps there's a perfectly good argument why that analogy is a bad one, and if there is, I'd be happy to hear it. But the individual responsibility argument doesn't do much for me.

Zep it is not a proper function of government to decide when and if an individual obtains any sort of training for anything. The people never delegated those powers to the government. To any free person it should be highly offensive that one person feels that they have the right to require another person to jump through hoops in order to exercise a basic right.

But let's put aside the issue of the statists who want to control everyone and look at tha mentality of those who support mandated training for firearms. It is my opinion that people are brainwashed in the way they think about guns. In states like MA even many gun owners seem to give firearms a sort of mystical characteristic.

Please take a look at the following accidental death stats and then answer a few questions.

Accidental Death in the US Year 2000:
Falls - 13,332
Pedestrian - 5,870
Drowning - 3,482
Firearms - 776

If your motives are truly solely to prevent accidents then do you also favor mandated training in the other categories that have many more accidental deaths than firearms?

Should all people be required by the State to take a course outlining the dangers of falling and how to prevent getting into a situation where a fall could occur?

Should people be required to take a course in pedestrian travel before being allowed to walk on the street? People now-a-days could certainly benefit by it. I constantly see people just walk right out in front of cars as if to challenge the driver and to assert that the pedestrian has the right of way. It’s a pretty dangerous activity.

Should people be required to take swimming lessons before being granted permission by the all powerful State the right to swim? It might save upwards of 3,400 lives.

If your answer is that you do in fact think that the government should require training in the other statistically more dangerous activities before people could legally perform them then at least your motives would be consistent. Of course I would strongly disagree with you however.

If you do not feel that mandated training should be required in those more dangerous areas then I think that you should take a step back and rethink your position. I would respectfully submit that you and the others who support mandated firearm safety training to seek out some deprogramming.

 

[NHAtHeart]

The fewer things the government regulates the better, no form of mandatory "it's for your own good" safety mandates are ok. If people want to become a Darwin finalist because they didn't learn how to handle a firearm it should be their option. If somebody shoots another person because they weren't being safe with a firearm they should be held accountable for it.

Safety classes are a good thing, but they're not worth screwing with peoples rights.

Also, I have an issue with people who think "yeah it should be a law!" when that law provides them with financial security. Any firearms instructor that advocates mandatory training is a traitor to the 2A in my opinion.

 

[DickWanner]

If that "someone else" is a private business owner they should have every right to choose how to run their business. You can choose to patronize them or not. No need for government to get involved on either side.

If you believe that the government should prevent private businesses from "restricting" your rights, you are advocating the suppression of their liberty. There is no distinction between the government requiring you to take a safety class and the government preventing a private range from requiring a safety class. That sword cuts both ways.

I never said that, you are putting words into my mouth...

 

[GSG]

If you believe that the government should prevent private businesses from "restricting" your rights, you are advocating the suppression of their liberty.

He meant the store is just as bad as the gvt. doing it, he's not the kind to advocate for gvt. interference. At least if he is, he's kept in hidden from me every time we've talked guns .

To those who oppose mandatory training, could you please summarize your reasoning?

Certainly. I've posted about it all over here in the past, but the two posts I'm quoting below sum up my opinion on it pretty well.

I think the issue is that you can never legislate safety. It doesn't matter how many courses one takes, it doesn't mean they will use their brain with guns. Ever see the video of DEA Agent Lee Paige shooting himself in the leg in front of a class of Florida schoolchildren? IIRC he was a firearms instructor, so you'd think he wouldn't have broken all those safety rules he did if he paid any attention to the classes he taught.

Not only that, but when you need a gun, you need it ASAP, not when the government deems that you can safely own it. If you live in New Hampshire (and aren't a prohibited person) and your life is threatened at 9:00 a.m., by 9:30 a.m. you can have 3 guns, 1,000 rounds of ammo, and as long as you open carry you can take the pistol with you almost anywhere you go. You can apply for a restraining order and get a gun on the way back home from a gun store, or you can borrow one from a friend until you get your own.

If you live in Massachusetts, if you're threatened at 9 a.m., you can call your local PD to get the application (and see what extra illegal requirements they have, since it's different in all 351 municipalities). You can fill it out, find a Basic Firearms Safety course, schedule it, pay for it, and sit through 3-12 hours of training. You can then schedule an interview with your local CLEO/licensing officer, show up for the interview days or weeks later (whenever they schedule it, remember), pay $100, apply, if you're approved, wait however long it takes for the application to be processed (5-6 weeks if all goes well), then call the police department to find out when it comes in. Keep in mind, the entire time you're waiting for this LTC/FID, it's illegal to have so much as a can of pepper spray in your house.

If your life were threatened, which state would you rather live in? The one where legal self-defense is instantly available to law abiding citizens, or one where you can apply for the right to self defense Monday-Friday, 9 to 5, and provided you aren't unsuitable, you can defend yourself 5 weeks from the date of your interview, providing all goes well?

I didn't get into guns until I felt a need to have them, and it took me months from making the decision "I need a gun" until I could legally have one in my hands in this state.

Guns aren't something we need to protect everyone from like rabid animals or exposed electical wires. No matter who and how we teach people about them, there will always be idiots with guns, and there will always be criminals with guns. We won't change that until we wipe out the human race or drink the Brady Campaign red Kool Aid.

The one thing we can do is make sure that law-abiding citizens aren't totally screwed by the gun laws when they need to protect themselves, and IMHO the best way to do that is to put the same restrictions on law-abiding gun owners that there are on criminals: none.

Please don't take offense from me here, I'm not trying to be unkind, I just think that gun safety should be an individual responsibility, not a state run/controlled one.

and then later in the same thread:

My issue with the training requirement is this: who sets the training standard? This is not a firearm friendly state, and every time we've given a little more control to the state WRT firearms, it has gotten further and further out of control. What's to stop them from saying that the only kind of training that meets the standard to own a gun is having attended a full-time police academy or military basic training?

I understand that you don't want dangerous people with guns. I've been muzzle swept on and off the range, seen people do stupid stuff with guns, etc. etc. It's very scary. I posted awhile back about the time someone accidentally fired a 12 gauge over my head while I was downrange. The idiots with guns do scare me, but again, it comes down to each individual.

I had a former boss point an empty pistol at my penis and pull the trigger, then laugh when I jumped. He had a Mass. LTC (requires the state safety course), was Army infantry and is now an auxiliary police officer. He had lots and lots of firearms training, passed it all with flying colors, but the fact remains that he pointed a gun at parts of me I don't want a gun pointed at, and he pulled the trigger as a joke. Absolutely idiotic of him, but he did, despite all that training and experience, plus 20 something years of gun ownership behind him.

Anyone can pass a test. Highly trained racecar and stunt drivers still get in car accidents. Highly trained gun users still make stupid mistakes sometimes.

If you're a single mom, a disabled veteran in a wheelchair on a fixed income, an old person on a fixed income, a poor college student, or just someone down on their luck, you still have a right to be able to defend yourself. Unfortunately in Massachusetts, there is a great cost already attached to gun ownership. $50-150 for a safety course, $100 for the license, and the cheapest new handgun you can buy once you have your LTC is what, a $300 Sigma? Manufacturers charge us more here anyway because they have to pay to have their guns "safety tested" to get them approved to be sold here.

In most other free states, if your life is in danger, you can get a gun faster as I wrote about before, but you can get a gun a lot cheaper. In NH, with a photo ID you can buy a Jennings, Raven, Kel-Tec, etc. brand new for exactly the cost of the gun and a box of bullets. No, they're not great guns, and yes, most of us would be ashamed to show up at the range with one.

However, when you're living hand to mouth, the difference in cost between a Jennings and a Sigma is a heck of a lot of grocery money. Or worse, if you're in the middle of a SHTF situation like the LA riots or post-Katrina New Orleans, any training requirement/license requirement/etc. is going to leave you defenseless.

Training is great. You can never have enough, for safety reasons, liability and just gun skills in general. But it doesn't mean it will generate intelligence or common sense in the trainee.

I saw a video on one of those shock television reality TV shows of a convenience store robbery in a free state (I just tried looking for it online but there’s too many convenience store robbery videos to search through). The female clerk didn't like guns, she'd never handled one before in her life and said so in this interview. When a robber came in with what seemed like a gun in his pocket, she gave him the money, and when he told her to come out from behind the counter and get on her knees (after he had the cash in hand), she felt that her life was in danger. Her boss kept a .357 magnum snub nosed revolver in a drawer behind the counter, so she drew the gun, aimed and shot the robber one time center-of-mass. He dropped, she called the police, he survived the gunshot to the stomach and served time for the attempted robbery.

My point is that this clerk didn’t need a safety course, 10 hours of Massad Ayoob approved live-fire training, or any of that to defend her life. She knew how to use the gun, she used it, and behaved in exactly the right way without any formalized firearms education.

I’m not saying every beginner has all the skills they need to shoot wonderfully safe. But I am saying that when my life is on the line, I should have the right to self-defense, immediately, with no red-tape or other BS. Gun rights should not be limited to the highly trained spec-ops proffessional.

IMHO, trading off more training for shall-issue MA licensing wouldn’t be worth it to me. Florida has shall issue LTC’s, and you only need that to carry the gun on your person. Buy a gun on a driver’s license, and carry it in your glove compartment fully loaded with no LTC whatsoever. Their training requirements are much broader than Massachusetts are WRT what kind of safety course is acceptable for an LTC, and life goes on as usual.

We don’t need to trade anything off in Mass. We need full access to our rights, no questions asked, no CLEO discretion/suitability issues, no approved firearms roster, no incredibly long wait to prevent one from legal, inexpensive, ready availability of self defense. We need a state that recognizes the Constitution and that is taken to task every time they violate our rights.

Sometimes your life is in danger outside of the regular business hours of the local PD, or you need ready self defense sooner than the amount of time it takes to process an LTC application.

Also, the clerk without any training who I referred to in the above linked post was Karen Smith, this is a link to her story and a video of her shooting the robber with a snubbie revolver.

 

[cekim]

My issue with the training requirement is this: who sets the training standard? This is not a firearm friendly state, and every time we've given a little more control to the state WRT firearms, it has gotten further and further out of control. What's to stop them from saying that the only kind of training that meets the standard to own a gun is having attended a full-time police academy or military basic training?

Indeed - what's to stop them from requiring courses that don't exist taught by instructors with certification and training that no one has?

Which BTW, has been done.

 

[GSG]

Indeed - what's to stop them from requiring courses that don't exist taught by instructors with certification and training that no one has?

Which BTW, has been done.

Really? When/where/how? Details please.

 

[DickWanner]

He meant the store is just as bad as the gvt. doing it, he's not the kind to advocate for gvt. interference. At least if he is, he's kept in hidden from me every time we've talked guns .

Shhh! You're gonna blow my anti cover

 

[Realtor MA]

'shall issue' with a mandatory training class would be much better than the ridiculous system that MA currently has.
I don't like the .gov getting involved but it sure would be nice if we knew that gun owners had a clue.
How many of you would loan a gun to a friend or relative without first knowing if they had at least a basic understanding of it's workings?

 

[Larry Legend]

How many of you would loan a gun to a friend or relative without first knowing if they had at least a basic understanding of it's workings?

I know that was a hypothetical situation, but it was a bad one. Would YOU actually "loan" a gun to someone, free and clear, no strings attached. Kind of a "here ya go, have fun" type of thing?

 

[Realtor MA]

I know that was a hypothetical situation, but it was a bad one. Would YOU actually "loan" a gun to someone, free and clear, no strings attached. Kind of a "here ya go, have fun" type of thing?

Not a bad hypothetical at all. YOur actions and your statements are on opposite courses. 'Have fun, here ya go' is exactly what the .gov and gun shops are doing right now.(think FID cards) I have loaned guns to friends and family on a few occasions. It may be important to add that this was all done within the confines of the law. I might also add that, in all cases I was confident with the knowledge and ability of the person.

 

[Larry Legend]

Not a bad hypothetical at all. YOur actions and your statements are on opposite courses. 'Have fun, here ya go' is exactly what the .gov and gun shops are doing right now.(think FID cards) I have loaned guns to friends and family on a few occasions. It may be important to add that this was all done within the confines of the law. I might also add that, in all cases I was confident with the knowledge and ability of the person.

Touché. Point understood. I still believe that we are trying to compare something on the micro level with something on the marco level. That isn't always easy. Lot's can get lost in translation.

 

[Cato]

'shall issue' with a mandatory training class would be much better than the ridiculous system that MA currently has.
I don't like the .gov getting involved but it sure would be nice if we knew that gun owners had a clue.
How many of you would loan a gun to a friend or relative without first knowing if they had at least a basic understanding of it's workings?

I wouldn't loan my chainsaw to anyone without making sure that they knew how to use it safely. The point is that I don't want the government to require someone to have formal training in order to buy and use a chainsaw. Can't you see the difference?

 

[drgrant]

'shall issue' with a mandatory training class would be much better than the ridiculous system that MA currently has.

Yes, but only in a lesser of two evils sense. It still sucks, and it's still oppressive- as ownership would still be illegal by default without a license.

I don't like the .gov getting involved but it sure would be nice if we knew that gun owners had a clue.

The problem is that taking a course does not prove that they have a clue. Even if the instructors are the best out there and constantly reinforce gun safety, after the person leaves that course, if they don't do their homework, they will revert to their old ways. If everyone had integrity, including those in government, mandatory training would not be a bad thing, because it would be cordoned off to a pretty limited list of things and requirements, and training could be offered on the spot in a gun store. The problem is that in reality, once you give the government power to control something, the potential for abuse will always be there. This is why training mandated by the force of law will always be a bad idea- it gives our enemies an inroad to control us or to limit/restrict ownership. What appeared to be a rational idea one day gets changed into an absurd one with a stroke of a pen. It's a lot easier for legislators to justify modifying a law than it is for them to create a new one or destroy an existing one.

I'd much rather see gun shops and industry somehow or another offer free training, or make it available to first time buyers, etc. In a lot of ways the better gun shops are already doing this sort of thing. I think most people who buy guns WANT to be safe, and if low cost training is offered people will take advantage of it. Gun shop owners and the like often work with the customer to make sure that they at least have a base level of knowledge regarding the safety features of the firearm they are buying, etc. Often times if a shop owner detects that a person is not so savvy, they will politely recommend that the buyer seek additional training. There is living proof that these sort of things are already working, as I think on the whole gun accidents are still relatively rare, especially when you get outside of the realm of hunting. Whenever I see news stories about unintentional injury with a firearm, the overwhelming majority seem to be hunting accidents, not "joe smoe's kid shot his brother because he didn't know that dad's gun was loaded." While that still does happen, it's relatively rare.

There's also a mindset game at play. Whenever the government tells us to do something many people dislike it on principle, and these days, that's no surprise. On the other hand, when a friend, or someone like a friend, tells you "this might be a good idea" you're more likely to get involved, listen, or pay attention to whatever advice it is that's being offered. I think it was Reagan that said, feared words are something like "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" People dislike that sort of treatment on principle. They'd rather voluntarily do something than be forced to do something- it's human nature, at least for individuals who want to live freely.

As far as gun safety is concerned, WE- as in gun owners, dealers, etc, are at the front lines here... not the government. If anything, mandated training can often get in the way of more useful training.

How many of you would loan a gun to a friend or relative without first knowing if they had at least a basic understanding of it's workings?

I agree with this but I'm not sure what this has to do with compulsory training mandated by the state.... completely different ballgame- your gun, your rules- not the government's, or anyone else's rules.

-Mike