I mean an exemption from mandatory training.
But why? I think mandatory firearms training for everyone whether or not they own guns is a good idea (and, frankly, ought to appeal to both sides because I think the gun rights side would be interested in some demystifying). But certainly it makes sense for populations that own guns.
More acceptable, yes. I’d like to see guns regulated like cars - you have to demonstrate that you can behave responsibly with this potentially lethal item - and that includes periodic renewals of the license involving some form of retesting. Perhaps different classes of license for different types of guns - handguns, hunting rifles, etc. And the weapons have to be registered (as cars are), with owners responsible for their use and misuse.
I’d also be all for schools teaching gun ed (just as I’m for schools teaching drivers ed - do they still do that?) too. And some places would still have the right to exclude guns from their premises (banks, bars, government buildings, schools (except for school-owned weapons), and so forth).
Sadly you’d still get dumbasses doing dumbass things with their guns - ain’t no law that can stop that - but at least it would hopefully reduce the avoidable accidents and make it easier to track criminals.
I don’t have any fundamental problem with licensing firearms owners in terms of safety, maintenance, etc… I look at it in much the same way that I look at drivers’ licenses- at least we know that people on the roads at some point met some minimum standard of knowledge and performance. Of course, I think that continuing education and periodic retesting should be part of drivers’ licensing, so I wouldn’t have a problem with it for firearms either. The licenses would have to be “must-issue” so that places like Chicago couldn’t just de-facto ban guns by refusing to issue any licenses.
Plus, in many parts of the country, getting your gun license would be like getting a drivers’ license- everyone would have one, regardless of whether they actually own guns, so it wouldn’t be much help in terms of confiscation.
The main reason I feel this way is because of the constant idiot parade that came to the gun counter of the Sports Authority I worked at. Fools that wanted to use other ammunition in their guns “Can I use that 380 in my 9mm? Why not? But it’s cheaper.” Fools too dumb to understand that just because I boresighted their 22 with a scope, they still need to sight it in a bit more at the range. Fools that would ask to see the guns in the case and then dry fire them at each other in the store. Fools that would ask to see the shotguns and then point them at me.
Based on this cavalcade of retardation, I think that licensing is a good idea. At least it would hammer home that you don’t keep loaded guns in drawers where toddlers can get at them, and that you don’t point the damn things at each other unless you intend to shoot each other.
I don’t like the idea of registering individual firearms; I still think there’s some potential merit in the insurrectionary interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and having a government registry of firearms would run counter to that.
And the US now has a militia that can “get the job done”?
Not to hijack, but this seems to me a truth-by-repetition type of deal. I’m not convinced this is true but if a professor of colonial English usage weighed in and told me otherwise I’d believe it. Anyway, who cares? The Founding Fathers didn’t bring the Constitution down from Mount Sinai. They were mortals who fucked up big time in writing the 2nd. The world is a different place and weaponry has changed dramatically. What we need is to repeal the 2nd and join the 21st century.
Mandatory training would be an improvement but not sufficient. I would prefer that nobody have guns, except for hunting weapons or perhaps a sidearm for ranchers and the like to deal with varmints and rattlers. I’m realistic enough to know I’ll never live to see the day, but Americans of 2200 will be dumbstruck by the reluctance of modern Americans to give them up.
The problem is still that too many yahoos with anger issues or borderline sanity problems (a) can easily own guns, (b) can take the guns with them wherever they go, © believe they can shoot anyone who crosses their property without permission, (d) believe they can shoot anyone they feel threatened by in a public place, etc.
Unless and until someone has some magic training that can make those anger issues and so forth go away, training isn’t the answer.
Sure. We call it the National Guard.
In my state there’s a mandatory 12-hour class required for a CCW permit. Recently there was a bill being kicked around that would drop the requirement to a 4-hour class (or drop it altogether, I can’t remember). The consensus on the local gun forum is that the 12-hour course is already about as short as it can get (everyone finds it incredibly useful), and in fact it could be longer as the tactical portion is only a couple hours. This surprised me; there were a few holdouts who thought they they were born Bronsons, but the vast majority of people were in favor of the mandatory training. (Read one of their opinions here.)
Is that what the OP has in mind? Because I’ll defer to the gun-owners here and say that mandatory training in the range of 20-40 hours seems like a good idea; I’d even be OK with an annual requirement.
Would that be enough? It really only helps to solve one problem, which is gun-owners escalating situations to dangerous levels, and even then it won’t eliminate the problem entirely. The biggest problem (suicide) is difficult to deal with via legislation, and the second biggest problem (gang violence) will most likely require some sort of registration requirement to help stem the gun supply chain. Training classes won’t eliminate accidents or crimes of passion. These are all different problems that require different solutions, and the “well regulated” gun owner described in the OP is only a small piece of the puzzle.
ALEC has been pushing legislation to make CCW training 5 minutes long (or at least really short) recently.
Who’s stopping you? Feel free to give it a try. Might be refreshing to see anti-gun types actually attempt to use the mechanisms we have for changing the Constitution, instead of the under the table fiat types of change they have always favored in the past. If the world has changed and the 2nd needs to be repealed, well, there is an app for that.
Of course, we both know that you’ll need to get a few more folks on board to make such a change happen, and that’s really the (craw) sticking point, isn’t it?
Or, they will be dumbstruck by the antics of the anti-gun types trying to get their way by fiat instead of by using the mechanisms for change that are built into our system. Hard to say how it will play out, but since neither of us will be alive by then it’s pure speculation. Personally, I think that fire arms ownership will always be a part of American culture, and that eventually people will be able to look at things more dispassionately and more objectively and work out the remaining issues…and get a little perspective on the actual threat and danger having firearms in the hands of citizens really is (or isn’t).
For the same reason they aren’t required to pay into social security. They will not want to be taught to do something that is against their beliefs. And they already handle their own gun safety, just like they already handle their own retirement benefits.
There’s just no compelling interest in forcing the Amish to go against the religious beliefs in this case.
The OP’s proposal doesn’t sound too bad, but I don’t like the school one. I don’t think you need full out training for kids. You just need some basic tips on what to do around a gun. Then, if you want to do it like a driver’s license, do that, which means the class is optional and can only happen after you are a certain age.
One thing that is really ridiculous–I got my hunter’s license without ever having fired a gun or any other weapon. It was just a written test. That’s stupid–don’t do that. (I’ve still never shot a gun. And I don’t plan to, as I just don’t trust myself.)
But owning or using a firearm isn’t against their beliefs, is it? I’m certain that learning how to use a firearm isn’t against their beliefs.
And I’m not sure that learning from an outsider is against their beliefs, but maybe it is (although, I would think in this mandatory training regime, you could just incorporate into Amish schools).
I have factual question, not a legal question.
So far in nearly all threads on gun control or guns and roses, there is a post that says: "Why is a person who has a concealed carry permit going to… !
Immediately followed but a post that says: “Because when they come in with the gun openly carried they will do xxxx…”
This is the problem with the discussions IMO.
As said up thread, change the Constitution… Why is that not done? Could it be that the majority don’t want it changed? Well, we can’t have that in this country now can we?
Until there is a magic satellite that will spot all guns in the world, all guns being home made, all personnel who we legally allow to have guns in the whole world will not EVER black market them, then & only then can guns be controlled.
We can’t keep full sized people out of this country, how are you going to keep little hunks of metal out when the bad guys want them? Disarm law biding citizens? Just what % of guns used in criminal actions do people really think came from honest people who have had them stolen from their houses?
Suicides, maybe a few people, how many commit suicide by car? More or less than guns? Other means?
Domestic violence? No gun present will save how many?
Oh, any saved are worth any cost to society at large?
What about auto deaths?
Want mandatory yearly retesting? Going to make drives take a driving test yearly? I did not think so?
Will parents who forget and leave a poison where a visiting child can find it? They going to suffer the same punishment that a gun owner will?
I am amazed that those that claim that violent home invasion is so seldom that no one needs protection from it.
Twice in my life so far.
Car jacking attempt with a weapon once so far.
Used a weapon to stop other assaults of various degrees of danger. Bust into the house at dinner time or… with a gun in hand. (2)
Protection from attacking animals including rabid ones. 5 if iirc. None of these was reported because I stopped them before thing went really bad.
The attacks & invasions were handled in such a manner that involving the police was not necessary IMO at the time.
I know for a fact that my 18 year old daughter not having a weapon DID NOT keep her from being murdered. Where was the system when she needed it?
I know for a fact that not having a weapon DID NOT stop two rapes on my siblings that have been really life changing for them. What did the system do when at arraignment, the rapist said that he would do it again and they still let him out on bail & he did what he said he would.
Guns & bad guys can not be legislated away, confiscated away, not with the present condition of the whole world. Much less the USA.
A magic satellite that would instantly destroy all guns not belonging to the police or military in the whole country would stop most crime?
For how long?
Bad LEO, bad guys with a work shop and two weeks to get the black market & smuggling back on track will rearm the bad guys in just weeks.
Just like auto deaths, medical mistakes, accidental poisoning, swimming pool drownings, it can not be stopped.
So what is the best way to reduce these things in a fair way?
Pick out one of the least deadly types and spend useless time fussing about it instead of actively trying to change things is a democratic way?
Wait, the majority is against you? What is the next thing to try if you are really about saving the most lives? Oh, the majority are against that one also?
The most damaging problems, the easiest to make a real difference in, the ones that are the most cost defective don’t make it on you radar?
The only real way is through education, not regulation. Look at cigarettes, prohibition, what did the most good, regulations or education?
Of the normal lay abiding citizens, which will cause more laws broken or physical damage, monetary damage or deaths? Guns or alcohol?
I’m probably one of those people you refer to in your OP.
To me, “well-regulated” goes beyond simply being trained on how to use them. Regulations would have to cover usage like you said, but should also cover:
-Manufacturing necessities on the gun itself (safety locks)
-Criteria for ownership (no convicted felons, children, mentally ill people)
-Regulations on where and when they can be brought (if a private restaurant doesn’t want it inside, then you cannot bring it, no amount of litigation should be able to change that)
Just forcing people to go through training is not enough. There’s a lot of people out there that shouldn’t be allowed to have a weapon
No…it’s because a large-enough minority don’t want it changed.
If all it took to change the Constitution were a majority, the 2nd Amendment would have been modified, if not repealed, by now. We do not live in a direct democracy. The Senate is profoundly undemocratic. Even the House is not strictly representative because every state has at least one Member; plus gerrymandering. It takes 3/4 of the States to modify the Constitution. So these statements that gun-control advocates should just go out and change the Constitution are facile and pointless.
How about if we add to the mandatory school gun training curriculum a mandatory curriculum in non-violent conflict resolution? And one about how people who have a different skin tone from you aren’t automatically potential killers?
Really, I don’t think the problem with guns is a failure of regulation or law enforcement. I think it’s a consequence of every-person-for-themselves cultural norms that are beyond help. Safety training for gun owners would likely reduce accidents, but probably little else.
Also, I’m blind (or nearly so). Do I have to undergo this mandatory training?