Argue for Mandated Training So As To Exercise a Basic Civil Right

[batoncolle]

in my opinion using the 2nd amendment argument simply because it's in the Constitution is kind of weak.

This pretty much tells me all I need to know. I wonder if you find other Constitutional arguments weak.

Btw in 2010 there were 606 accidental firearm deaths. In 2010 there were 32,788 car accident deaths. Estimates are there around 190 - 300 million firearms in the US, and there is an estimated 250 million cars in the US. So basically your comparison between driving and firearm ownership holds no water.

Until you actually take a firearms training class, you should probably spare us all the hypocrisy.

 

[dunkel]

Really? You need statistics to tell you that doing something repeatedly IE. training would give a person more experience and thus make them safer at doing said thing? Why do LEOs have to go through an EVOC if not to train them to drive safely? Why do safety training courses in general exist if they don't make people safer? If safety training courses don't make for safer operation why spend the time and money on providing them? How would someone who has no firearms experience know how to operate firearms safely? Not everyone is the sharpest tool in the shed and if you're seriously arguing this then common sense as we know it really is dead...

Then you should have no problem finding the statistics I asked for to back up your argument.

FWIW, I'm not arguing against getting training. I'm saying that it shouldn't be a government mandated requirement.

And if you want to talk "common sense", what is more "common sense" than reality staring you in the face? The reality that says that no one has yet to provide any evidence that mandatory, expensive, and inconvenient training requirements significantly reduce the number of idiots carrying weapons or reduce the number of accidents that happen every year. In fact, the only effect that increasing requirements has, according to actual studies and research and not just your own version of "common sense" is that it reduced participation.

Show me a statistic that shows people would undoubtedly think differently about driving regulations if driving is a constitutional right.

People most certainly would think differently about something if that something was somehow different than it is now. How they would think about it, I have no idea. I did not make any claims as to how they would think differently. I'm not aware of any studies that have attempted to tackle that question. I'm not even sure how that would be studied. Heck, maybe they wouldn't think differently about it at all, I don't know.

You, however, are making specific claims about the value of training requirements when it comes to carrying handguns in public. If it's as simple a situation as you seem to be claiming, you should have no trouble finding something to back that claim up, right?

 

[batoncolle]

Some of you guys need to read this, then re-read this, to let it sink in what Jeff is saying.

These are facts that are very hard to dispute. GCO (you and I), have been working very hard to stop any mandated training issues in Georgia.

Facts do not lie. State (Government) mandated training laws, in general, do absolutely nothing to promote safety.

They are great revenue generators, though.

Jerry

Did GCO support the training requirement for students to carry in schools last year as part of the legislation?

 

[dunkel]

I look at the whole gun issue from an objective none biased point of view. I'm neither a gun nut that wants unrestricted exercise of our 2nd amendment nor am I a total anti gun/ ban all guns "left wing liberal".

I may not have taken an official safety course but I was taught the 4 main safety rules the first time I ever handled a firearm. Actually he is a member here. CCW (evil clown avatar) to be exact. And I recall muzzling him at one point and he pointed it out and I quickly corrected.

The 2nd Amendment has no restrictions as written but yet we do have restrictions so asking me to point out "extra restrictions" is stupid. Self preservation is universal and I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that I can protect myself and in my opinion using the 2nd amendment argument simply because it's in the Constitution is kind of weak. You all seem to want unrestricted exercise of our 2nd amendment so what about the felons or the mentally ill. Don't they have the right to protect themselves too? We have these restrictions because they protect us (or at least try) from the misuse of firearms.

I am in no way suggesting that people submit to 100s of hours of "tactical" training. All I'm saying is that people need to learn how to handle firearms safely. I know there are some responsible people who will go take courses even if not required. They do that out of personal responsibility but sadly these days personal responsibility and common sense is very lacking. If someone can't be bothered to learn how to handle a firearm safely because it's too "inconvenient" they shouldn't have a a gun. If someone is not competent enough they shouldn't have a gun.

Does anyone think we'd even be able to have this discussion if we didn't have the 2nd Amendment? All the statistics and realities of gun ownership hold true in the UK and Australia...taking away guns has made no one safer...yet gun bans passed with no problem.

If you aren't a fan of the Constitution, I don't know what to tell you, other than I have little use for you and your ridiculous arguments.

 

[mountainpass]

Thanks Jerry.

What I'm saying is that no matter how much training some folks get they may well be just irresponsible, a danger to themselves and others. No amount of training, be it none or a 1000 hours will change that.

When I decided to carry, I learned as much as I could about my gun as I could, cause I wanted to make sure that when I stuck it inside my pants I didn't shoot any sweet meat.

I encourage everyone to seek out training. But I steadfastly am opposed to having the government dictate what type and how much I must have.

Oh and I'm against the the permit as well.

 

[mountainpass]

Did GCO support the training requirement for students to carry in schools last year as part of the legislation?

My understanding is that GCO asked the GA arm of the group Concealed Carry on Campus what they wanted us to do. They requested we not stand in the way of it, if it was the only way they could carry on campus and work next year to take it out much in the way we got restaurants that serve alcohol one year, then remove the consumption restriction the next. Steps.

 

[batoncolle]

My understanding is that GCO asked the GA arm of the group Concealed Carry on Campus what they wanted us to do. They requested we not stand in the way of it, if it was the only way they could carry on campus and work next year to take it out much in the way we got restaurants that serve alcohol one year, then remove the consumption restriction the next. Steps.

Forwards steps are fine. Backwards steps are not. Introducing any type of training requirement was/is a huge mistake.

 

[mountainpass]

delete

PM sent

 

[RamRoddoc]

Thanks Jerry.

What I'm saying is that no matter how much training some folks get they may well be just irresponsible, a danger to themselves and others. No amount of training, be it none or a 1000 hours will change that.

When I decided to carry, I learned as much as I could about my gun as I could, cause I wanted to make sure that when I stuck it inside my pants I didn't shoot any sweet meat.

I encourage everyone to seek out training. But I steadfastly am opposed to having the government dictate what type and how much I must have.

Oh and I'm against the the permit as well.

Very wisely so.

The bureaucracy added and mandated in order to exercise a right serves but one group and it's not the people. Empowering a government entity with the ability to deny a right contingent upon a fee (tax) and mandated training is a poor practice to establish and sets a precedent that will not fare well for the people of a free state.

An of age citizen, entitled to all other rights, not a true criminal, not one created by unjust laws, should never be hostage to government in order to enjoy an individual "right". For when they do, then honestly, they are no longer rights but privileges granted by the government that bestowed them.

One need only look within our own borders to observe the application of these type of infringements. Hundreds of years ago our founding nation was aware but today far too many fail to observe the distinction between intent and application.

 

[batoncolle]

123

I remember hearing about what happened, and I still was 100% against it. The alcohol issue was a step by step removal of a restriction. The training for school carry issue, however, was adding a new requirement to a restriction we already have.

The legislature and governors office is 100% controlled by Republicans, and yet we still have had no meaningful gun legislation in 3 - 4 years. This was/is not an anti's issue. The BOR has many of these Republicans in their hip pocket.

The problem is the RINOs in the GA legislature and governors office, yet I never see anything being done about them. Let's just continue to play nice and make calls to beg for some more scraps.