• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Training as Gun Control act

Chillfolks said:
What kind of training would you like to see? Ive swe everything from a simple online test up to multi weekend sessions as what is needed. I personally favour the idea of it being offered as part of the K-12 curriculum. I would say that would be the minimum to own a firearm and then maybe add in range qualifications to conceal carry. With all that said there is still a part of me hesitant to make a training qualification to exercise a right on principle.
Click to expand...

I can't evaluate what kind of training (in time and quality) is good as I have nothing to do with guns, I don't know much about guns. So if I'm imaging myself living in US and I'm need of Gun - with my mentality I'm in need of training to get most out of my gun and also getting better idea about guns in general. Something to think, you know..

I think I get it as constitution over-rides any kind of measures as add-on's - so result is just guns and people, plain and simple. There's nothing left to do and this thread isn't going anywhere. I can't see how this can be any way productive. Constitutions preventing power is overwhelming when it comes to my idea. So... what I have to say is: Silly me.
 
FinnFox said:
I'm just hoping training is way to influence in right way, giving some perspective and hands-on knowledge. Also when something bad is happening there is people around who can act and shoot when needed (to prevent more tragedy). For car you need some lessons and practice, so why not with guns too.
Click to expand...

Driving is a state granted privilege. Owning a gun is a constitutional right. Even then the lessons and practice, insurance and license requirements is so that you can drive the car on public roads.You don't need those things to purchase or drive a car on private property.
 
FinnFox said:
Is there any reason to despise training when it comes to guns?

I'm pretty sure that with extensive training program you can reduce some gun violence, but it's working only when training is mandatory (so you need training to own/use gun, it can be similar to driving licence).

So I'm interested in possible reasoning why training would be bad idea. There should be one as most of gun owners - if I'm right - are without proper training. So.. argument against training is alive as there isn't need to organize training for gun owners (and make it mandatory). I like to know that argument and then we can throw this whole idea about training to trashcan. As people are better off without training and things can keep going like they are just now.
Click to expand...

I guess if you must have guns, then training in safety will cut down accidents.

Are you arguing for mandatory training in firing and accuracy ?
 
FinnFox said:
I can't evaluate what kind of training (in time and quality) is good as I have nothing to do with guns, I don't know much about guns. So if I'm imaging myself living in US and I'm need of Gun - with my mentality I'm in need of training to get most out of my gun and also getting better idea about guns in general. Something to think, you know..

I think I get it as constitution over-rides any kind of measures as add-on's - so result is just guns and people, plain and simple. There's nothing left to do and this thread isn't going anywhere. I can't see how this can be any way productive. Constitutions preventing power is overwhelming when it comes to my idea. So... what I have to say is: Silly me.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's silly to want some training and think it would be beneficial to make it part of the K-12 curriculum. I think there would need to be a free training course offered to those already out of school of it ever was a requirement. What I'm not confident on is our ability to compramise to make it a reality.
 
d0gbreath said:
!. Treat all guns as loaded.
2. Never point a gun at anyone.

Now you're trained.
Click to expand...

3. Hit what you are shooting at is good gun control.

2pw48x.jpg
 
Rising Sun said:
3. Hit what you are shooting at is good gun control.

2pw48x.jpg
Click to expand...

It is sad that people think that is all that goes into training.

Didn't even get to rules 3 and 4
 
Last edited:
FinnFox said:
I'm just hoping training is way to influence in right way, giving some perspective and hands-on knowledge. Also when something bad is happening there is people around who can act and shoot when needed (to prevent more tragedy). For car you need some lessons and practice, so why not with guns too.
Click to expand...

Again, no one has ever said people shouldnt have training. AFAIK, everyone supports that.

My question to you is...what would it do to prevent gun violence? The bar in the US is high...and it should remain so...to force things unnecessarily on its citizens. So...there needs to be a substantial, valid reason to impose something on people by law (esp. if there's no evidence it will solve the problem). So: what gun violence would training prevent?

And then the next question would be: compared to driving (your example)...how many gun deaths/injuries are caused by 'lack of training?' And then we can compare those to car accidents.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
And that is the BIG problem. Democrats want to disarm legal gun owners and let the criminal run wild.
We both know if something like project Exile was put into practice across the nation gun violence would plummet!
The democrats need to leave lawful gun owners alone.
Click to expand...

I'm a Democrat, and a liberal. I know many the same and your words are BS as a blanket statement.
 
SkyChief said:
These people are talking about MANDATORY gun training, Lursa. Mandatory anything infringes on the People's protected right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Yes I know.
 
Rising Sun said:
3. Hit what you are shooting at is good gun control
Click to expand...


Control your breathing
Aim for the center of mass
Be aware of likely choke points (hint exits and entrances)
Always have a spare clip ready
Know police response times....

Points always emphasized on an Active Shooter course
 
Lursa said:
I'm a Democrat, and a liberal. I know many the same and your words are BS as a blanket statement.
Click to expand...

Who wants to take guns away form lawful citizens?
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
I dont know...who?
Click to expand...

200 House Democrats Sign On to Assault Weapons Ban Bill of 2019

[N]early 200 House Democrats have now signed on to legislation — authored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the head of Democrats’ messaging operation — banning semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines. With 198 co-sponsors, the bill is just 20 votes shy of the number needed to push it through the lower chamber.

The bill in question is HR 1296, also known as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. That’s a bill that Cicilline introduced in the House in February.

The bill would outlaw . . .

Semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine;
Semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;
Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;
Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;
And 205 specifically-named and listed firearms.

H.R. 1296: Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 Text of H.R. 1296: Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us
 
Common Sense 1 said:
200 House Democrats Sign On to Assault Weapons Ban Bill of 2019

[N]early 200 House Democrats have now signed on to legislation — authored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the head of Democrats’ messaging operation — banning semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines. With 198 co-sponsors, the bill is just 20 votes shy of the number needed to push it through the lower chamber.

The bill in question is HR 1296, also known as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. That’s a bill that Cicilline introduced in the House in February.

The bill would outlaw . . .

Semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine;
Semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;
Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;
Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;
And 205 specifically-named and listed firearms.

H.R. 1296: Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 Text of H.R. 1296: Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us
Click to expand...

Not all of them and some Republicans sign too.

Your blanket statement is wrong.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
200 House Democrats Sign On to Assault Weapons Ban Bill of 2019

[N]early 200 House Democrats have now signed on to legislation — authored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the head of Democrats’ messaging operation — banning semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines. With 198 co-sponsors, the bill is just 20 votes shy of the number needed to push it through the lower chamber.

The bill in question is HR 1296, also known as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. That’s a bill that Cicilline introduced in the House in February.

The bill would outlaw . . .

Semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine;
Semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;
Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;
Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;
And 205 specifically-named and listed firearms.

H.R. 1296: Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 Text of H.R. 1296: Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us
Click to expand...


If certain types of gun can be banned, the with a bacon slicer approach we can ban nearly all of them.


Make it so all guns with a magazine capacity of more than two are banned next.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
200 House Democrats Sign On to Assault Weapons Ban Bill of 2019

[N]early 200 House Democrats have now signed on to legislation — authored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the head of Democrats’ messaging operation — banning semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines. With 198 co-sponsors, the bill is just 20 votes shy of the number needed to push it through the lower chamber.

The bill in question is HR 1296, also known as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. That’s a bill that Cicilline introduced in the House in February.

The bill would outlaw . . .

Semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine;
Semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;
Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;
Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;
And 205 specifically-named and listed firearms.

H.R. 1296: Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 Text of H.R. 1296: Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us
Click to expand...

Sad. Note that the gun banners only care about banning guns not solving the greatest cause of "gun violence": mental illness.
 
FinnFox said:
Is there any reason to despise training when it comes to guns?



I'm pretty sure that with extensive training program you can reduce some gun violence, but it's working only when training is mandatory (so you need training to own/use gun, it can be similar to driving licence).

So I'm interested in possible reasoning why training would be bad idea. There should be one as most of gun owners - if I'm right - are without proper training. So.. argument against training is alive as there isn't need to organize training for gun owners (and make it mandatory). I like to know that argument and then we can throw this whole idea about training to trashcan. As people are better off without training and things can keep going like they are just now.
Click to expand...

The only time training is bad is when you're learning or reinforcing incorrect or ineffective technique.

Training is REALLY important and one can never have enough good training. Heck, after watching that guy struggle with his draw in the recent church shooting I've been going home every night and spending 10-15 minutes just practicing my draw from concealment.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, training (aka education) in many areas is a good idea. Is there any reason that such (gun safety and/or CCW?) training, which is typically a matter of a few (10 to 15) hours, could (should?) not be included as part of a "free" public K-12 education? When I was in HS (late 1960's to early 1970s) driver's education was offered in HS and one could by a gun without any training or BGC.
Click to expand...

Problem is training would be mandatory for legal owners. Most gun related homicides are committed by illegal owners who do not follow the laws.
 
Lutherf said:
The only time training is bad is when you're learning or reinforcing incorrect or ineffective technique.

Training is REALLY important and one can never have enough good training. Heck, after watching that guy struggle with his draw in the recent church shooting I've been going home every night and spending 10-15 minutes just practicing my draw from concealment.
Click to expand...

LOL


Have you started re-attending church too ?
 
jimbo said:
Problem is training would be mandatory for legal owners. Most gun related homicides are committed by illegal owners who do not follow the laws.
Click to expand...

Plenty are committed by legal gun owners
 
Rich2018 said:
LOL


Have you started re-attending church too ?
Click to expand...

The funny thing about not training is that you lose skills really quickly if you don't train. While I shoot regularly I have neglected some of the other fundamentals and when I saw that guy a light bulb came on. It's important to learn from mistakes others make so, perhaps, you won't make the same one yourself.

No skill is important until the day you need it and then, depending on what the issue is, it might just be too late to get back up to speed.
 
jimbo said:
Problem is training would be mandatory for legal owners. Most gun related homicides are committed by illegal owners who do not follow the laws.
Click to expand...

There are over one mass shooting a day, many, if not most, by legally held guns.
 
Chillfolks said:
I don't think it's silly to want some training and think it would be beneficial to make it part of the K-12 curriculum. I think there would need to be a free training course offered to those already out of school of it ever was a requirement. What I'm not confident on is our ability to compramise to make it a reality.
Click to expand...

I've long taken that as a start all school personnel should have as part of their learning ccw training. Apart from removing much of the false data, a prospective school shooter would not be sure if he is walking into a buzz saw or a gun free zone.
 
Lutherf said:
The funny thing about not training is that you lose skills really quickly if you don't train. While I shoot regularly I have neglected some of the other fundamentals and when I saw that guy a light bulb came on. It's important to learn from mistakes others make so, perhaps, you won't make the same one yourself.

No skill is important until the day you need it and then, depending on what the issue is, it might just be too late to get back up to speed.
Click to expand...

Skill at range accuracy and drawing a weapon in "dry" conditions are not the same.

That guy in the church shooting would have been highly stressed and pressured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom