Gun Saftey Training Courses Mandatory?

[toole13]

I'm doing a report about how it should be mandatory for a citizen to take a gun safety training course before purchasing a firearm. Any arguments in support of this that I could use?

[Winter wind]

That you would ask a person to go through a long and difficult (in my opinion) driving test before getting something with only the potential to be a weapon. A gun is made for the purpose of doing damage, therefore it is logical that someone go through a training course before getting a license. It's also sometimes better then a background check, because you get to see the person with a gun rather then on a file.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: toole13 I'm doing a report about how it should be mandatory for a citizen to take a gun safety training course before purchasing a firearm. Any arguments in support of this that I could use?

Since people are required to take a driving test before being given a driver's license, why not a mandatory gun safety training course (perhaps one developed by the NRA)?

[ZNFYRH]

I have the same logic.

You need a license to drive a car... and are required to demonstrate competency.

Should be the same for firearms.

[Winter wind]

Is that an echo...

Another good argument is that during gun training, you can inform a generally idiotic public about small things, like firing a bullet into the air means it will return to earth at the same velocity it was shot at (minus air resistance).

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Winter wind Is that an echo... Another good argument is that during gun training, you can inform a generally idiotic public about small things, like firing a bullet into the air means it will return to earth at the same velocity it was shot at (minus air resistance).

That's not exactly right. The speed at which something goes up has no affect on it's speed coming down.

The bullet can only go as fast as it's terminal velocity, which gets lower and lower as it approaches the ground.

[Praxius]

Anyways, this has been a common practice in Canada for those who want a firearm, and it's at least nice to know people are not just going into a store to pick up a firearm with no actual knowlege on how to use it / clean it properly, etc.

ITTA CANADA

Anyone who wishes to acquire firearms in Canada must first pass the Canadian Firearms Safety Course tests in order to apply for their Possession and Acquisition License. (PAL). If one wishes to acquire restricted firearms (handguns) they must ALSO pass the Canadian RESTRICTED Firearms Safety Course tests and be a member of a certified gun club prior to applying for their PAL with Restricted privileges. ITTA provides instructional classroom seminars such as The Firearms Acquisition Course (FAC), now referred to as Possession Acquisition License (PAL). The Canadian Firearms Safety Course This is a basic firearms safety training course. It is designed to give the student a working knowledge of safe firearms handling and familiarity with the laws and procedures regarding firearms ownership in Canada. Following the firearms training even complete novices should have no problem passing the required examinations. The course is designed so that those who have never handled guns will gain a good understanding of the subject. Students who have experience find the course to be a great refresher, and excellent preparation for the Canadian Firearms Safety Examination. There are actually two separate courses - one for non-restricted and the other for restricted firearms. The two courses can be run in one continuous session, eliminating about 4 hours of overlap from the agenda. Those not interested in "restricted" firearms would be finished after the first 10 hours of training; the others would continue for six more hours. This is a classroom training course, there is no actual shooting. There is however, ample opportunity to handle various kinds of rifles, shotguns and handguns. For someone relatively experienced with guns and not wanting to take the course, we would be happy to provide the course manuals and allow the CFSC exam(s) to be challenged. As some of the methods taught in the courses are different from many other firearms safety courses, studying the manuals is an excellent idea even for experienced shooters and hunters.

The 3 legal classes of firearms in Canada are: Non-Restricted Firearm Are ordinary hunting and sporting rifles, shotguns and airguns with an overall length of 660mm or greater. Many airguns fall into this class because they are capable of achieving a muzzle velocity of 500 feet per second. If it is a centre fire semi-automatic firearm, the barrel length must be at least 470mm to be non-restricted. These firearms must be stored, transported and displayed according to Federal regulations and you need a firearms license to possess them. Provincial and municipal rules may further regulate these firearms. Restricted firearms Include many handguns and other firearms which do not meet the above specifications. Some firearms are classified as "restricted" by Federal order-in-council. A transport permit is required to transport a restricted firearm from the locations where the firearm is registered. Anyone with the appropriate firearms license. and a valid purpose can acquire this type of firearm. Prohibited firearms Include all fully automatic firearms, converted automatics and a variety of other scary looking firearms which have been classified as "prohibited" by order-in-council. Most types of prohibited firearms are "grandfathered" to their current legal owners (i.e., owners are allowed to keep them), but cannot be transferred to non-grandfathered individuals. Firearms converted from full automatic to semi-automatic, and many handguns (barrel lengths less than or equal to 105mm, .25 or.32 caliber) fall into the prohibited class. If you do not already own prohibited guns; there is no legal means to acquire firearms of this type.

Just some tid bits of info across the border.

"Scary?" *Snickers*

[Osborn F Enready]

WinterWind said: That you would ask a person to go through a long and difficult (in my opinion) driving test before getting something with only the potential to be a weapon.

Chancellor said: Since people are required to take a driving test before being given a driver's license, why not a mandatory gun safety training course (perhaps one developed by the NRA)?

ZNYFRH said: I have the same logic. You need a license to drive a car... and are required to demonstrate competency. Should be the same for firearms.

Driving is a privlidge.
Travelling is not.

You need a license to drive because driving is a privlidge, not a right.

Travelling is a right, and you need no test to operate your own two feet.

Arms for defense are a right, not a privlidge, so the government can't demand a test for ownership and still maintain its current system.

[Praxius]

Sorry Oz, but that just shows the flaws in the bill of rights making owning a firearm a right.

If it was something we were all born with and we all had an equal understanding of what they are capable of, then I could see justification for it being a right......

but both you and I know the world is full of idiots. We can all learn how to diddle our wangs.... we can all learn how to make our own decisions and opinions..... but I kinda think a training course in firearms being manditory would be a good thing.

Technically in order to protect what I think is a misinterpretation of the constitution, one could still own/posses a firearm as they see as their right to do so...... but until they get a license or take a safety course, they are not allowed to use them legally

[mark3748]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Driving is a privlidge. Travelling is not. You need a license to drive because driving is a privlidge, not a right. Travelling is a right, and you need no test to operate your own two feet. Arms for defense are a right, not a privlidge, so the government can't demand a test for ownership and still maintain its current system.

Absolutely correct. Not to mentions that driving a car is a lot more complex and difficult. You can get fairly proficient with a semi-auto handgun with a couple hundred rounds, the owners manual, and a couple hours to burn at a shooting range. There's even a pamphlet with all the safety rules you'd need at a range included with every new gun sold today, and if you go to a commercial range there usually are strict rules that you have to read and understand before you're allowed to use the facilities.

Hell, even a 6-year-old in Iraq can operate and maintain an AK. Try giving a car to a 6-year-old and see how well, even after a class, he or she does. And since we're so stuck on the fact that cars require licenses, and it has been said that it's good to know the purchaser can clean/maintain it properly, it's a good thing that's not a requirement to get a license, very few people would be driving at all.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn Travelling is a right

Where is my right to travel enumerated?

Quote by: Osborn Arms for defense are a right, not a privlidge, so the government can't demand a test for ownership and still maintain its current system.

Blah blah blah Second Amendment blah blah blah.

Actually, it's the right to bear arms.

Nothing in there talks about your right to purchase in the first place.

[mark3748]

Quote by: Praxius If it was something we were all born with and we all had an equal understanding of what they are capable of, then I could see justification for it being a right......

The right of self-preservation is something we're all born with. It is a natural right. A firearm is a tool, and everyone has the right to have the best tools available to them. Like any tool it can be misused, but the majority of people are not criminals, and most criminals won't work within the laws anyway.

I'm not against proper training, I'm against the government requiring it. If you want to purchase a firearm without any experience, you should first see if a friend or family member would be able to take you out, show you the ropes. Barring that, there are plenty of classes available.

[ZNFYRH]

mark

You just opened up a simple counter to your own argument.

Automobiles are a tool. They require training before licensing.

[mark3748]

Quote by: ZNFYRH mark You just opened up a simple counter to your own argument. Automobiles are a tool. They require training before licensing.

but they're not constitutionally protected, and they aren't a tool of self-defense. It's also not a natural (or God-Given, if you prefer) right to drive. It is a natural right to walk, but that doesn't require training, unless you count the training you receive on how to tie your shoes...

If you want to take comments out of context and build a response based on that, you won't have a very strong argument.

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: Sorry Oz, but that just shows the flaws in the bill of rights making owning a firearm a right.

Sorry prax, but thats your opinion, not mine.

Prax said: If it was something we were all born with and we all had an equal understanding of what they are capable of, then I could see justification for it being a right...... but both you and I know the world is full of idiots.

All the more reason innocent people have a right to keep and bear arms.

Prax said: We can all learn how to diddle our wangs.... we can all learn how to make our own decisions and opinions..... but I kinda think a training course in firearms being manditory would be a good thing.

As you know, I am always the one championin firearms training, defensive training and responsible gun ownership.

That does not mean I support the federal, state or local government having the ultimate power to ok, or not ok firearms ownership based on any test, under any pretense.

Prax said: Technically in order to protect what I think is a misinterpretation of the constitution, one could still own/posses a firearm as they see as their right to do so...... but until they get a license or take a safety course, they are not allowed to use them legally

Well, as I have stated many times.

The people are the ones that give this government the authority to operate legitimately, and we can just as easily remove that authority.

Mandating tests such as this is a sure way to invoke violence for no need whatsoever, as people in this country have always had the individual right to keep and bear arms, and it is the staple right that protects all other rights.

The government has no right or authority to prevent ownership of arms except through due process, and all regulatory arguments to the contrary are without constitutional authority.

ZNYFRH said: Where is my right to travel enumerated?

Haven't we gone over this before Z?

ZNYFRH said: Blah blah blah Second Amendment blah blah blah.

If you want me to lose respect for you and your argument, that is a sure way to do it.

ZNYFRH said: Actually, it's the right to bear arms.

Correct, an individual right to bear arms.

ZNYFRH said: Nothing in there talks about your right to purchase in the first place.

You assume all rights are enumerated, when there is clearly written and adopted the amendment to protect other rights not enumerated.

Using your logic, do you have an explicit right to purchase, own and consume food?

Pffft.

[Osborn F Enready]

mark said: If you want to take comments out of context and build a response based on that, you won't have a very strong argument.

Get used to this, its one of his main tactics.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Driving is a privlidge. Travelling is not. You need a license to drive because driving is a privlidge, not a right. Travelling is a right, and you need no test to operate your own two feet. Arms for defense are a right, not a privlidge, so the government can't demand a test for ownership and still maintain its current system.

Is it really the individual's operation of a motor vehicle itself that is a privilege or is it the individual's operation of that vehicle on roads within a particular state that is a privilege?

Besides, I wasn't referring to requiring a license to own a gun but, instead, the completion of a gun safety course prior to such ownership.

[brien]

Actually, it's the right to bear arms

Nothing in there talks about your right to purchase in the first place

the phrase reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

In the 18th Century there were no Bass Pro Shops or National Firearms Dealers. A firearm was a houselhold necessity, particularly in the woods. Many guns were simply passed down from father to son. They were often procured from a gunsmith who operated as freely as blacksmith did in the colonies. Of course, the nineteeth century brought manufacturers like Colt.

The framers of the 2nd Amendment would have never even thought to mention procurement of firearms since they were as common in the household as were kitchen tools.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chancellor said: Is it really the individual's operation of a motor vehicle itself that is a privilege or is it the individual's operation of that vehicle on roads within a particular state that is a privilege?

As you know, on the roads provided for through taxation are the reasoning of the privilidge, and the fee for licensing part of the expense for maintaining those roads.

Chancellor said: Besides, I wasn't referring to requiring a license to own a gun but, instead, the completion of a gun safety course prior to such ownership.

I have no problem with people being required to take a safety course, as long as their ownership does not DEPEND on the outcome of that course, as in, the form of a test.

You know someone will refuse to take the course, and the government will try to use that as a reason to prevent ownership.

They don't have that rights to prevent ownership.

[Praxius]

Quote by: mark3748 The right of self-preservation is something we're all born with. It is a natural right. A firearm is a tool, and everyone has the right to have the best tools available to them. Like any tool it can be misused, but the majority of people are not criminals, and most criminals won't work within the laws anyway.

We all have the right for self-preservation which I supose we're all born with.... but that doesn't mean firearms are manditorily required to protect this right.

And if a firearm is a tool to protect this, so are nuclear arms for countries protecting their way of life against other countries..... they're both weapons which kill..... but depending on how they are used can be interpreted, such as you did above.