So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297, *567*]

[RetiredUSN]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

No. She should get the training. It will help her to defend herself

I actually come down on your side of the argument on this one.

Training first.

Not everyone grows up in a rural area where we can learn guns safely from their fathers and family.

 

[Jarhead1369]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

I support that training. It should be required for all people prior to gun ownership. Anyone who truly understands guns knows they require training.

would you please quit with the "no true scotsman" fallacies? They don't make you look smart or credible, they make it look like you don't have factual knowledge of the issue.

You haven't addressed why both the US Constitution and the US government...not to mention most of us engaging with you, disagree? Is the basic safety and operation of a firearm really that hard for you to understand? Kids have been picking them up and learning those basics for centuries without any training requirement, just the supervision of parents, friends and neighbors. This is obviously more about your control fetish than about anything of substance or public need.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

I actually come down on your side of the argument on this one.

Training first.

Not everyone grows up in a rural area where we can learn guns safely from their fathers and family.

Its can be best to learn from family

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

I actually come down on your side of the argument on this one.

Training first.

Not everyone grows up in a rural area where we can learn guns safely from their fathers and family.

So you think that the govt should force people to get training before exercising a Constitutional right when there is zero evidence that people dont get enough training on their own? Why?

 

[vegas giants]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

would you please quit with the "no true scotsman" fallacies? They don't make you look smart or credible, they make it look like you don't have factual knowledge of the issue.

You haven't addressed why both the US Constitution and the US government...not to mention most of us engaging with you, disagree? Is the basic safety and operation of a firearm really that hard for you to understand? Kids have been picking them up and learning those basics for centuries without any training requirement, just the supervision of parents, friends and neighbors. This is obviously more about your control fetish than about anything of substance or public need.

Everyone requires some training. Handing a gun to a person and telling them to figure it out for themselves is irresponsible

 

[vegas giants]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

So you think that the govt should force people to get training before exercising a Constitutional right when there is zero evidence that people dont get enough training on their own? Why?

Prove they get enough training now.


Watch this folks

 

[Jarhead1369]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

I actually come down on your side of the argument on this one.

Training first.

Not everyone grows up in a rural area where we can learn guns safely from their fathers and family.

One does not have to live in a rural area to participate in one of the many CMP clubs around the country, one does not have to live in a rural area to have indoor and outdoor ranges available...and it used to be that urban and rural schools alike had shooting clubs and teams. Why is it that we have allowed that training to cease?

And again...the Constitution does not require training, nor does the US government require training to obtain a CMP firearm.

Yes, training first...but this notion that it must be a requirement to own a firearm is pure nonsense.

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

Prove they get enough training now.


Watch this folks

I asked you to prove that they dont first.

Why didnt you?

Watch this folks.

For reference:

How? How do you know that people dont get enough training on their own, voluntarily?

Please prove that 'mandatory' training would make any difference.

I already posted strong evidence that 'training' doesnt prevent gun suicide or accidents or improper storage, etc etc etc. How much more training did that cop need? How much do cops need to stop committing suicide?

 

[vegas giants]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

I asked you to prove that they dont first.

Why didnt you?

Watch this folks.

Hahahaha

 

[apdst]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

Prove they get enough training now.


Watch this folks

Train me all you want, but I'm not paying for it.

The only reason I even have a concealed carry permit, is because it's free to veterans in my state.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

So you think that the govt should force people to get training before exercising a Constitutional right when there is zero evidence that people dont get enough training on their own? Why?

Look Lursa… I am about as pro guns as you will ever find in a citizen.

I hate seeing ****ing newbies in a gun shop asking 100 questions about a firearm that even a boy scout would know.

What's the difference between a revolver and a semi pistol?


Yeah..... I shake my head and wonder WTF this person is thinking when he/she walks out with a Glock 19.

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

Look Lursa… I am about as pro guns as you will ever find in a citizen.

I hate seeing ****ing newbies in a gun shop asking 100 questions about a firearm that even a boy scout would know.

What's the difference between a revolver and a semi pistol?


Yeah..... I shake my head and wonder WTF this person is thinking when he/she walks out with a Glock 19.

And you assume they dont get training? Why?

 

[vegas giants]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

And you assume they dont get training? Why?

They walked out of that store with a gun and were untrained

 

[RetiredUSN]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

One does not have to live in a rural area to participate in one of the many CMP clubs around the country, one does not have to live in a rural area to have indoor and outdoor ranges available...and it used to be that urban and rural schools alike had shooting clubs and teams. Why is it that we have allowed that training to cease?

And again...the Constitution does not require training, nor does the US government require training to obtain a CMP firearm.

Yes, training first...but this notion that it must be a requirement to own a firearm is pure nonsense.

I don't care if you think it isn't basic common sense to have training before purchasing a firearm.

Learning where the safety is while sitting in your living room isn't the way to learn either.

 

[Jarhead1369]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

Prove they get enough training now.


Watch this folks

Whether they get enough training now and whether they should be REQUIRED to have training are two entirely different issues. Please try to debate honestly and cease with the weasel words. Thanks.

To answer your question:

1. Very few gun owners, including yourself, get the amount of training they need to survive a fire fight.
2. The level of training required to simply own a firearm is more than adequate, but can always be improved, as long as it is voluntary.
3. Requiring one to have training before owning a firearm is unconstitutional and not very bright.

So if are really serious about training, which I don't think you are, why are you including the poison pill of "require" rather than simply doing everything you can to get people connected to training resources, including restoring the training in the schools that have disappeared over the course of the last 50 years?

This is a political forum...you don't think some of us who have actually held elected legislative offices don't know a purposeful poison pill when we see one? That is exactly what your insistence on a requirement is...it ensures nothing will be done because you are not willing to compromise.

That said, I actually agree with you when it comes to not compromising. We've made the mistake of compromising with people like you since the turn of the century...and the result has been that our rights have been continually whittled away while all you do is ask for more. No more compromise until we see some compromise in RESTORING, what we have already mistakenly compromised away.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

And you assume they dont get training? Why?

I didn't assume anything.

I don't want a totally firearm ignorant newbie walking out of a store with a Glock.

Are you assuming that they all get training?

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

I didn't assume anything.

I don't want a totally firearm ignorant newbie walking out of a store with a Glock.

How can you stop them?

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

I didn't assume anything.

I don't want a totally firearm ignorant newbie walking out of a store with a Glock.

Are you assuming that they all get training?

There are no statistics that show states with mandatory training and without have any differences in gun accidents/negligence.

So why would I assume that people dont get the training they need? Or that 'mandatory' training would fix that? I just posted about cops and their accidents, etc. They have plenty of training. How much 'mandatory' training is enough?

 

[RetiredUSN]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

How can you stop them?

I don't want to stop them at all.

But I do want to see people grow up and act responsible about firearms.

I want people who understand the basic safety issues to be able to purchase as many firearms as they like.

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

They walked out of that store with a gun and were untrained

And you assume they dont get training? Why?

Perhaps your arguments would make more sense if you got the grammar and tense correct.

 

[Jarhead1369]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

Look Lursa… I am about as pro guns as you will ever find in a citizen.

I hate seeing ****ing newbies in a gun shop asking 100 questions about a firearm that even a boy scout would know.

What's the difference between a revolver and a semi pistol?


Yeah..... I shake my head and wonder WTF this person is thinking when he/she walks out with a Glock 19.

I do the same...but I also respect their right to do so and respect the oath I took to defend the Constitution that prohibits the government from infringing upon their right to do so.

What I do, and wish more of us would do, is not to just shake my head after they walk out, rather before they walk out, optimally before the even make a purchase , I offer them advice and point them to training resources. The vast majority of gun dealers I have observed over the years do the same...negating the need for me to be a buttinski. ;-)

The fact remains that all of us were born with the right to do stupid things up until the point where our stupidity harms someone else. Freedom isn't pretty, orderly, safe or risk free, but it's sure better than tyranny or totalitarianism. Cows, chickens and sheep have humans dedicated to keep them safe...yet the wolf, coyote and fox still prey on them and I sure as heck don't want to be a cow, sheep or chicken.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

There are no statistics that show states with mandatory training and without have any differences in gun accidents/negligence.

So why would I assume that people dont get the training they need? Or that 'mandatory' training would fix that? I just posted about cops and their accidents, etc. They have plenty of training. How much 'mandatory' training is enough?

Common sense.

There is a reason why 20' ladders come with 40 freaking annoying safety stickers.

How much training? How about a 2-3 hour introduction with a qualified trainer.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

How can you stop them?

By law

 

[Jarhead1369]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

It will help save lives.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” -- William Pitt (the Younger)

Prove it. Where are the numbers? Show us how many lives it will save and how it would be worth sacrificing their freedom?
I'm sure every tyrant in history has conned his/her people into trading their essential liberty for promises of safety.

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

Common sense.

There is a reason why 20' ladders come with 40 freaking annoying safety stickers.

How much training? How about a 2-3 hour introduction with a qualified trainer.

So you are ok with them taking my money when there's no evidence it's needed or makes a real difference (hence my cop examples.)

My ideas about Constitutional rights are different than yours I see. As is the need for useless, feel-good laws.