Re: What does the club "think"...
102I don't think anyone will dispute that training is important and desirable. But should it be necessary?Cannibal wrote:It is my belief that training, even just basic, is an important thing for any gun owner. Regardless of the reason for ownership. I also acknowledge the likelihood of harm when a firearm is in the hands of a person ignorant to the safe operation of it. An analogy could be made for free speech, but you can't accidentally kill yourself by saying "fuck you". You can pick a fight and get killed for saying it, but the words can't hurt you. Poor actions with a firearm can hurt you, or someone you love...instantly, with no time to say "I'm sorry". The 2nd is a unique Right in that regard.
As usual, the first question I always apply to these discussions is, "What problem are we trying to solve?" Is the large number of firearms-related deaths in America down to a lack of training? No, it is not. How much carnage can we attribute to lack of training? Well, accidental gun-related deaths occur at the rate of fewer than 1,000 annually, which is a pretty damned good record for a nation with maybe 300 million privately owned firearms in approximately half of all households. By contrast, 30,000 people die every year on the nation's highways - at the hands of licensed drivers operating registered vehicles, I might add - and everyone is just fine with that! Fretting unduly about the relatively tiny number of fatal firearms accidents seems somewhat disingenuous to me.
So there are maybe 700 accidental firearms-related deaths in the US annually, and I'd wager the greater proportion of those are due not so much to lack of training but instead lack of judgement (as with auto accidents). You can't teach that.
So I disagree that making training mandatory will actually solve any significant problems; and for the record, that's all I think legislation should do: solve problems, not provide photo ops for the authors and advocates. Furthermore, such a requirement can justifiably be recognized as an illegal impediment to the exercise of a fundamental civil right. When such devices as poll tests have been used to deny the franchise (which is a privilege, not a right) to certain people, all right-thinking people agree this was a Bad Thing. Why the double standard when it comes to CCW? After all, direct participation in the government of the world's last superpower is a far more heady responsibility than the mere carrying of a sidearm.
There's another point you will hear me say again and again: today anyone who wants to can carry a concealed handgun, no training required, no licensing required, no nothing. And many, many people do. This entire discussion is about what law-abiding people can do. Personally, I'm not that concerned with what law-abiding people do. But consider how little (training-related) trouble we have, as a nation, with the fact that many thousands of people illegally carry concealed weapons every day without a license. How would a mandatory training requirement for legally carrying concealed improve the situation?
Finally, I strongly believe that any advocacy of a national training standard must be prefaced by a thorough examination of the CCW polices in the various states. I would be very interested in seeing whether states with lax or non-existent training standards suffered substantially more training-related problems (as opposed to those down to dumbassery or criminal negligence). I don't know the answer, but I would bet they don't, since training-related accidents aren't really much of a problem anywhere. And if that is true, there is no need for local CCW training requirements, or a nationwide mandatory training threshold for mutual reciprocity. Frankly, I don't believe any thoughtful person can advocate mandatory training without knowing these facts first.
Sure, like any reasonable person, I'd like to see CCW holders, and gun owners in general, have more training (and as someone who works with law enforcement I'll tell you right now that if most CCWs are firearms hobbyists of any kind, they already have more firearms training and much more practice than most cops). But I am also a mountain climber. Mountain climbing is potentially a very hazardous sport; many people die in America every year in the mountains, and many of these deaths, unlike most firearms-related deaths, are indeed attributable to a lack of experience and training. Yet there is no minimum training requirement necessary for access to dangerous mountains in public lands, and thank goodness for that. The fact is, climbers know that experience and training are needed to safely perform increasing levels of challenge. They seek the training and experience on their own. This overbearing concern is an aspect of any and all mountain-related education (which can be anything from discussions over beers to the text of the climber's Bible, The Freedom of the Hills).
Education, as opposed to training, is the key. Like others, I do favor mandatory firearms safety and operation modules in high school, not as part of any special industry-funded program, but as legitimate and necessary preparation for adult life (along with reading, writing, math, swimming, driving, personal finance, etc). If we had that we wouldn't need a training requirement because responsible people would seek whatever training they think they need (and there's nothing we can do about the irresponsible people anyway).
Now that you have read this far I will reward you with a photo of a hot chick shooting an AR-15:
Nunc est bibendum.
Re: What does the club "think"...
103Really?
I suppose I should be glad it wasn't actually cheesecake.
I suppose I should be glad it wasn't actually cheesecake.
Re: What does the club "think"...
104Good post, mitch.
Requiring training would be defensible, legally, as I claim that "well-regulated" means more "well-trained" than "encased by a zillion regulations."
Now, "necessary" can mean many things. I claim that requiring training is necessary to grow our sport.
When we look at requirements as being big-.gov infringing, we miss an opportunity. I say that requiring training will create a demand for training services. Small business will develop to satisfy the demand, and many of these businesses will try to garner customers by having fun training programs. When people have fun doing something, they are inclined to reject laws that limit the fun. I'm good with that.
I very much support the educational mission of the LGC. I claim that by helping people have fun learning to shoot stuff, that we can grow the number of folks who shoot, and this will grow a voter base--especially in California--that will vote appropriately.
Shooting stuff is fun.
So is making then eating pecan praline cheesecake.
CDFingers
Requiring training would be defensible, legally, as I claim that "well-regulated" means more "well-trained" than "encased by a zillion regulations."
Now, "necessary" can mean many things. I claim that requiring training is necessary to grow our sport.
When we look at requirements as being big-.gov infringing, we miss an opportunity. I say that requiring training will create a demand for training services. Small business will develop to satisfy the demand, and many of these businesses will try to garner customers by having fun training programs. When people have fun doing something, they are inclined to reject laws that limit the fun. I'm good with that.
I very much support the educational mission of the LGC. I claim that by helping people have fun learning to shoot stuff, that we can grow the number of folks who shoot, and this will grow a voter base--especially in California--that will vote appropriately.
Shooting stuff is fun.
So is making then eating pecan praline cheesecake.
CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack
Re: What does the club "think"...
105Oh, as far as I can tell just about anything is legally defensible these days. I'm just trying to identify problems to be solved, and possible solutions.CDFingers wrote:Requiring training would be defensible, legally, as I claim that "well-regulated" means more "well-trained" than "encased by a zillion regulations."
Yeah, I'm going to start a thread in this subforum about Shooting Salons in a few minutes.CDFingers wrote:I very much support the educational mission of the LGC. I claim that by helping people have fun learning to shoot stuff, that we can grow the number of folks who shoot, and this will grow a voter base--especially in California--that will vote appropriately.
Nunc est bibendum.
Re: What does the club "think"...
106The same could apply to other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, such as voting. Things deemed "necessary" for voting, such as literacy tests, come to mind. Similar arguments were used. Remember that the antis have just as religious-like a fervor for disarming Us, The People as the power-brokers in the Jim Crow South had in keeping White superiority. To both ends, they would, and will, use any "requirement" to make it more difficult for Us, The People to actually exercise our rights. We've been down this road before, and the "destination" wasn't very good the last time...nor, history shows us, was the trip.CDFingers wrote: Requiring training would be defensible, legally, as I claim that "well-regulated" means more "well-trained" than "encased by a zillion regulations."
Now, "necessary" can mean many things. I claim that requiring training is necessary to grow our sport.
When we look at requirements as being big-.gov infringing, we miss an opportunity.
Can you address this concern?
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Re: What does the club "think"...
107States control voting rights, so the comparison quickly begins to fray when comparing an Amendment covering all states. My claim that training is necessary to grow our sport can be looked at in an insidious manner. Or it could be looked at as educating new firearms owners.CowboyT wrote:The same could apply to other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, such as voting. Things deemed "necessary" for voting, such as literacy tests, come to mind. Similar arguments were used. Remember that the antis have just as religious-like a fervor for disarming Us, The People as the power-brokers in the Jim Crow South had in keeping White superiority. To both ends, they would, and will, use any "requirement" to make it more difficult for Us, The People to actually exercise our rights. We've been down this road before, and the "destination" wasn't very good the last time...nor, history shows us, was the trip.CDFingers wrote: Requiring training would be defensible, legally, as I claim that "well-regulated" means more "well-trained" than "encased by a zillion regulations."
Now, "necessary" can mean many things. I claim that requiring training is necessary to grow our sport.
When we look at requirements as being big-.gov infringing, we miss an opportunity.
Can you address this concern?
When we look at over all firearms ownership, we find that many gun owners own more than one gun. If we take "well-regulated" to mean, as I claim above, "well-trained and well-drilled," and when we consider multiple firearms ownership, we could make some suggestions, such as training could involve all common weapons platforms. If we posit that it is likely a person would buy more than one, we wonder, "which to buy?" If training involves multiple platforms, a new gun owner might be exposed to, for example, single action revolvers in such a training. This owner might think, "Hey: these things are fun. Gonna git me one."
The one trouble with requiring training would be that the serial number of the firearm might be connected to the owner through a training program. The solution would be to award a certificate with a serial number. The certificate would be shown, or the number would be communicated via mail, in order to buy a gun. The gun would not be transferred without that number, but the gun and the certificate number would not be required to appear together.
I suggest training would be good for gun owners. However, it would cost money somehow.
The voting comparison above provides some food for thought: we train students to read, which allows them to read about candidates and other proposed things we vote on. The public at large pays for this training through public schools. I am in favor of a firearms training program in public schools using the same support for it as I use for training students to read: everyone benefits from it. A school program might award a certificate about firearms education as well.
I don't think "training" automatically becomes insidious. It would depend on how the program was designed. We don't consider learning to read to be insidious, though the student could use those skills to read all kinds of unsavory things like 50 Shades of Grey or what not. Yet there's always room for abuse. YMMV.
CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack
Re: What does the club "think"...
108A thought I had was for the gun manufacturers to foot the bill for training as they are the ones who directly profit from guns being sold even if on the secondary market. NSSF already has the First Shots program which for $20 folks get taught firearms safety and then get to handle and shoot many different firearms, depending of the venue holding it. The way I understand the program, the NSSF collects a very small amount of the fee and the rest stays with the range to offset the cost of ammo and wear on their firearms.
If we could get a firearms safety class structured for 15 year olds and get buy-in from manufacturers who make rifles and shotguns, I see a lot of safe shooters. Much like there is no actual car in the Driver's Ed classroom in the school, the live fire portion could be conducted at a local range.
this of course would never get through Congress as it would work, be cheap, etc, etc...
If we could get a firearms safety class structured for 15 year olds and get buy-in from manufacturers who make rifles and shotguns, I see a lot of safe shooters. Much like there is no actual car in the Driver's Ed classroom in the school, the live fire portion could be conducted at a local range.
this of course would never get through Congress as it would work, be cheap, etc, etc...
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.
Re: What does the club "think"...
109While I'm all for training (being a former RSO 'n' all), I see a major vector for abuse with the proposed requirements for serialized certificates and such. That tells the Government officials who has the guns. We don't want them to know for the same reason we don't want Bad Guys (TM) to know who's carrying concealed in a shopping mall, college campus, or other publicly accessible places. If not a "firearms registry", then the proposed mandatory certificate program would be a "firearms owner's registry", which is just as bad.
I much prefer ErikO's proposal for "Firearms Ed" classes like the "Drivers Ed" classes are. Actually...that's a really good idea, there. Just because you took Firearms Ed doesn't necessarily mean you actually have a gun, any more than Drivers Ed means you necessarily have a car (think cities like Washington DC and especially New York City where many people don't even own cars but do know how to drive). And if we encouraged it the way we encourage Drivers Ed, so many people would take it that you'd have to round-up half or more of the population during any confiscatory events based on high school records. It should not be a *requirement*, but it should definitely be encouraged--strongly so, just like Drivers Ed is.
I much prefer ErikO's proposal for "Firearms Ed" classes like the "Drivers Ed" classes are. Actually...that's a really good idea, there. Just because you took Firearms Ed doesn't necessarily mean you actually have a gun, any more than Drivers Ed means you necessarily have a car (think cities like Washington DC and especially New York City where many people don't even own cars but do know how to drive). And if we encouraged it the way we encourage Drivers Ed, so many people would take it that you'd have to round-up half or more of the population during any confiscatory events based on high school records. It should not be a *requirement*, but it should definitely be encouraged--strongly so, just like Drivers Ed is.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Re: What does the club "think"...
111My problem with this is the question of who sets the acceptable standards, and how do we insure that this doesn't just become a method of disenfranchisement? Once you give authority to the state to legally require training and to set the standards of such training, you largely lose the ability to control those standards. And if this is done at the national level, you really start to lose control.CDFingers wrote:My claim that training is necessary to grow our sport can be looked at in an insidious manner. Or it could be looked at as educating new firearms owners.
I don't disagree that training is good for the "sport" (although the right to own firearms is not about "sport"). And even if we limit our discussion to just the less important sporting aspect of gun ownership and shooting, I see the scuba diving example as instructive. Once scuba started becoming well-known and popular, there were widespread calls to regulate it. Sport divers understood that government regulation and training standards would more likely kill the sport than help it grow, so they lobbied for, and in the vast majority of the country, got self-regulation. Then they drew up their own standards and depended on members of the community to enforce them. And, when they realized that even their own standards were too strict for the good of the sport, they were able to loosen them without the resistance one would have in loosening government standards controlled by politicians. There was a lot of hand-waving and name-calling when standards were loosened, with all kinds of predictions that unqualified people would be getting killed or injured, but none of that happened. Instead, the dramatically loosened standards helped the sport grow tremendously, driving a vast market for better equipment, and moved it from an extreme sport practiced by a few type-A personalities to a mainstream leisure activity. And it's safer now, as a result, than it's ever been. Had they accepted government regulation, chances are scuba would still be an extremely limited sport that would require Navy UDT standards for certification. And that's with a sport that no one is particularly out to ban.
Given that, as Mitch pointed out, there isn't actually any significant problem that training actually even addresses, I don't understand why anyone in the firearms community (except someone who stands to personally profit directly from such a requirement) would invite a regulation with such a high risk of abuse by anti-gun politicians. Better to encourage voluntary training or encourage firearms businesses (like ranges) to require some minimum level of training to use their services than give additional regulatory power to governmental bodies that have a proven track record of trying to destroy not only the sport, but the entire industry.
Last edited by Evo1 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: What does the club "think"...
112Chuck Shumer, likely as not.Evo1 wrote:My problem with this is the question of who sets the acceptable standards . . .
Nunc est bibendum.
Re: What does the club "think"...
113Wow, it's a rorschach test!mitch wrote:Chuck Shumer, likely as not.Evo1 wrote:My problem with this is the question of who sets the acceptable standards . . .
Re: What does the club "think"...
114Wow. Reading that just made me Noticeably salivate, as in I almost drooled on myself. I want it so bad, it's gotta be right!CDFingers wrote:
So is making then eating pecan praline cheesecake.
Every one you've ever met or will ever meet, knows something you don't. -Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Anti-Gravity Activist
Black Lives Matter
Anti-Gravity Activist
Black Lives Matter
Re: What does the club "think"...
115Your "positions" are something I can completely agree with. Especially with regard to focusing on the real problems as opposed to knee-jerk gun banning efforts.
Some of the other gun forums I regularly attend would already be reaching for the tar and feathers over this forum's positions on gun rights issues, but in the end I think that reasonable people can reach reasonable agreements without a lot of saber-rattling or empty political speechifying.
Some of the other gun forums I regularly attend would already be reaching for the tar and feathers over this forum's positions on gun rights issues, but in the end I think that reasonable people can reach reasonable agreements without a lot of saber-rattling or empty political speechifying.
Re: What does the club "think"...
116Rational thought. We thought we'd try it out.billstaf wrote:Your "positions" are something I can completely agree with. Especially with regard to focusing on the real problems as opposed to knee-jerk gun banning efforts.
Some of the other gun forums I regularly attend would already be reaching for the tar and feathers over this forum's positions on gun rights issues, but in the end I think that reasonable people can reach reasonable agreements without a lot of saber-rattling or empty political speechifying.
Puffing up is no substitute for smarts but it's a common home remedy
Re: What does the club "think"...
117I still have some roof sealant and down comforters at the ready. I could pitch in a railroad tie or two in a pinch.
I'd like to think we are more on the John Adams thought plain and not the John Handcock one. If the Revolution was ONLY the Sons of Liberty it would have failed miserably.
I'd like to think we are more on the John Adams thought plain and not the John Handcock one. If the Revolution was ONLY the Sons of Liberty it would have failed miserably.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.
Re: What does the club "think"...
118Yeah! I agree with the stated position. Remember that Tip O'Neal state that all politics are local. So what works in a rural setting like Camano Island should be left alone and let the other areas regulate their areas as they see fit. Amen to the increased support for mental health screening. This is the best argument yet for universal health care, in my opinion. If the people who need help can get it, there would be lot less problems with abuse and misuse of weapons. I really do know people that have no business owning a dull butter knife, never mind a handgun, shotgun, or rifle.
Re: What does the club "think"...
119I felt it was necessary to me! I did not want to use a handgun or rifle I had not been properly trained to use.Inquisitor wrote:Relevant to new folks, why we might be cautious.
Re: What does the club "think"...
120Welcome. How about a quick into in New Members so we can say "Hello"? What do you shoot?410Judge wrote:I felt it was necessary to me! I did not want to use a handgun or rifle I had not been properly trained to use.Inquisitor wrote:Relevant to new folks, why we might be cautious.
Shower together to save water.
Re: What does the club "think"...
121Mister 410
We like intro posts, helps the old folks keep track of who is who. Otherwise it gets confusing sometimes.
Start yerself a thread, so folks can say hi. http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... m.php?f=37
We like intro posts, helps the old folks keep track of who is who. Otherwise it gets confusing sometimes.
Start yerself a thread, so folks can say hi. http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... m.php?f=37
Re: What does the club "think"...
122Is vehicle training in high schools billed to car companies?ErikO wrote:A thought I had was for the gun manufacturers to foot the bill for training as they are the ones who directly profit from guns being sold even if on the secondary market.
I would say training should come from the general taxbase.
But the other questions remain.
Is there evidence that training helps?
Do we require it for exercise of other bill of rights liberties?
Do we want to require tens of millions of people each year to take NRA courses?
Re: What does the club "think"...
123Hey Rac, thanks for jumping right into the conversation. When you get a minute, swing by the new member section and do a quick intro!
Re: What does the club "think"...
1241435 snider, huh?janetfdoss wrote:Great post here. It really did it's work perfectly.
http://www.boston.com/community/user/5527867
how's that frisbee/slinky thing going?
i'm retired. what's your excuse?