would you support a requirement of...

14372 Views 62 Replies 34 Participants Last post by orangello, Jan 8, 2013

70cuda383

Discussion Starter · Jan 6, 2013

so, yesterday I was at the gun store, buying my umpteenth gun. I'm a CCW permit holder, and a military veteran. I'd like to think that I have the training and understanding to be safe with weapons, and could probably pick up any weapon system and be safe with it, even if it's one that I've never fired before.

however, when I was at the gun store, what I saw and heard was somewhat scarey. the questions people were asking, the comments they were making, the way they were handling weapons... it all screamed one thing to me; that the gun store was full of first time gun buyers who had no idea how to be safe, no experience with weapons, no training, and most likely, have never been to the range to even fire a weapon.

Good for them for deciding to go out and arm themselves.

but its also scarey to think that all these people are buying weapons with no idea on how to safely handle them.

Question, would you be ok with a new requirement for gun owners -- one to show that you've had SOME kind of weapons training, before buying a weapon? i.e. a DD214 to show prior military experience which means you've had weapons training, or a "diploma" from some type of NRA approved weapons handling class? or would this be viewed as more restrictive oppressive rules that make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy weapons?

Thoughts? discuss!

1 - 20 of 63 Posts

HOSSFLY

· #2 · Jan 6, 2013 (Edited)

70cuda383 said:
so, yesterday I was at the gun store, buying my umpteenth gun. I'm a CCW permit holder, and a military veteran. I'd like to think that I have the training and understanding to be safe with weapons, and could probably pick up any weapon system and be safe with it, even if it's one that I've never fired before.

however, when I was at the gun store,

what I saw and heard was somewhat scarey. the questions people were asking, the comments they were making, the way they were handling weapons... it all screamed one thing to me; that the gun store was full of first time gun buyers who had no idea how to be safe, no experience with weapons, no training, and most likely, have never been to the range to even fire a weapon.

Click to expand...

Good for them for deciding to go out and arm themselves.

but its also scarey to think that all these people are buying weapons with no idea on how to safely handle them.

Question, would you be ok with a new requirement for gun owners -- one to show that you've had SOME kind of weapons training, before buying a weapon? i.e. a DD214 to show prior military experience which means you've had weapons training, or a "diploma" from some type of NRA approved weapons handling class? or would this be viewed as more restrictive oppressive rules that make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy weapons?

Thoughts? discuss!

Seen the same many times (even "normal" times)
It is a bit un-settleing to say the least

But no to more requirements- boat is bein rocked enuff---
More requirement to obtain a CCL? MABE but thats another discussion-

robocop10mm

· #3 · Jan 6, 2013 (Edited)

While it SOUNDS reasonable to require people have some training/experience before buying, it is a can of worms. Many will equate it to driver's licenses. Training/experience/test required to get a license. First off buying or driving a car is not a Constiutionally protected RIGHT. Second of all, no license required to buy a car. You may have NEVER even been in a car and you can buy as many as you want. AND any DB with a set of keys can drive. No license or insurance required. Millions of illegal aliens do it every day.

We have made way too many concessions that are "reasonable". The left NEVER makes concessions, they just crawl in a hole ad plan for the next round of concessions by us. Screw that. The line has been drawn. Not one more concession!

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is granted by our CREATOR and guaranteed by the CONSTITUTION! Who the hell to these people think they are to play GOD and take the rights that are GOD GIVEN?

vincent

· #4 · Jan 6, 2013

Agreed on the can of worms...no more requirements...

I would like to think, however, that inexperienced shooters would take it upon themselves to seek proper training...hey, a guy can dream, right?

HOSSFLY

· #5 · Jan 6, 2013

vincent said:
Agreed on the can of worms...no more requirements...

I would like to think, however, that inexperienced shooters would take it upon themselves to seek proper training...hey, a guy can dream, right?

Click to expand...

Sure.................

Shade

· #6 · Jan 6, 2013 (Edited)

In general I would have to say no.

A requirement is a very slippery slope...

I do however, offer anyone willing and new to firearms to provided them
training on the safe use of them. I have had several takers on the offer.

Although I agree that people should and we as gun advocates should
strongly urge that new and existing gun owners get training. I cannot
endorse a requirement for training.

FYI, I am also a Vet, Navy, when on active duty I was qualified on the M1911,
M-14, M-60 and M-2. I shoot competitively (well I try, and not as much as I
would like to) and I am an avid hunter. But I still try to learn as much as I
can about firearms, their safety and proper use.

Learning is a journey not a destination. (damn now I sound like a leftie...LOL)

See less See more

Rick1967

· #7 · Jan 6, 2013

I think that dealers should be required to show basic handling when selling a gun. Things like how to insert and remove a mag, how to rack the slide to show an empty chamber. They should also be required to hand the buyer a copy of the 4 rules of gun safety. (Every gun is loaded. Point only at something you are willing to destroy. Be sure of your target and what is behind it. Finger off the trigger until your sights are on target.) And they should always offer information about a local club that teaches the basics.

I think once the background check is complete that is all that should be required. Lets face it...a lot of people have defended themselves with a gun they have never shot before. Not very smart. But it happens all the time.

winds-of-change

· #8 · Jan 6, 2013

I agree with the above posters. We are supposed to be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun. But that has it's own set of problems........

Shade

· #9 · Jan 6, 2013

I have been thinking about this for a while. And it is alot more involved than
what I am going to state here.

But what I would like to see is a General Photo ID with a magnetic ID strip,
not RFID'd. That ID would have a picture of the person, with basic info
printed on the front. Then a gun shop, liquor store, polling place etc.
Could scan the card, and would be able to check a gov't DB that would clear
that individual to purchase guns or ammo (not a felon), alcohol or is listed as
a registered voter. The card itself would not have the info, it would be too
easy to copy, but would have an encripted code, possible protected with a
PIN number.

So in the example of a gun purchase, the buyer would hand the shop their
ID it would get swiped and the gun store would get a approved to purchase
or a denial. If approved (buyer is not a felon or adjudicated mentally ill) to
purchase then the bill of sale will be completed with Make, Model and SN,
and off goes the buy with their weapon. The bill of sale is not entered in to
the gov't DB only kept on site by the FFL holder just like the current 4473.
This would eliminate the 4473, waiting periods etc.

This would be a universal ID, replacing FOID (gotta love IL), CCW, DL's,
Voter registration cards. Etc. Etc. Etc...

See less See more

Bladerunnerfury

· #10 · Jan 6, 2013

Well, in Michigan I was told in hunters safety that a hunting license or hunters safety card would be required for a firearms purchase? But when I got my Mosin all my mom had to fill out was a 4473. I think that would be somewhat reasonable because I learned a lot about weapon handling in hunters safety

chuckusaret

· #11 · Jan 6, 2013 (Edited)

Florida requires nothing to purchase a firearm but to fill out the 4473, the NICS call and a three to five day wait if you don't have a license(CWFL). To obtain a license you need a DD214, hunters certificate or have taken a basic gun course, finger prints, picture and pass the requirements as outlined under Florida Statute 790.06 and pay $117.00 in fees for a seven year CWFL.

IMO, the basic gun courses, especially those conducted at gun shows, do little to increase the gun safety of the new gun owner.

I don't believe we need any additional qualifiers (laws) to purchase or to own a gun(s). The government has continued over the years to strip away our rights in their quest to ban all guns. I have read that there are presently over 20,000 gun laws on the books with very few, if any, decreasing the crimes committed with a firearm.

HOSSFLY

· #12 · Jan 6, 2013

Shade said:
I have been thinking about this for a while. And it is alot more involved than
what I am going to state here.

But what I would like to see is a General Photo ID with a magnetic ID strip,
not RFID'd. That ID would have a picture of the person, with basic info
printed on the front. Then a gun shop, liquor store, polling place etc.
Could scan the card, and would be able to check a gov't DB that would clear
that individual to purchase guns or ammo (not a felon), alcohol or is listed as
a registered voter. The card itself would not have the info, it would be too
easy to copy, but would have an encripted code, possible protected with a
PIN number.

So in the example of a gun purchase, the buyer would hand the shop their
ID it would get swiped and the gun store would get a approved to purchase
or a denial. If approved (buyer is not a felon or adjudicated mentally ill) to
purchase then the bill of sale will be completed with Make, Model and SN,
and off goes the buy with their weapon. The bill of sale is not entered in to
the gov't DB only kept on site by the FFL holder just like the current 4473.
This would eliminate the 4473, waiting periods etc.

This would be a universal ID, replacing FOID (gotta love IL), CCW, DL's,
Voter registration cards. Etc. Etc. Etc...

Oh goodie-- A "universal" ID card--
Does that come with a tattoo or armband

Rarity

· #13 · Jan 6, 2013

Here in Maryland for your very first handgun purchase, you are required to watch a 30 minute video in your local FFL shop, or you can do it on Maryland's website.

All you have to do is watch the handgun safety video, there is no passing or failing grades. There is also no fee. When the video is done, you're given a certificate on the spot and that's it.

I think it's pretty cool. There are actually a lot of things that you learn. If the majority of gun owners and would be gun owners support this, I'm absolutely fine with it. It doesn't interfere with your transfer/purchase at all.

TaurusUserPT92

· #14 · Jan 6, 2013

I think it's the responsibility of the FFL holder to make sure that the purchaser of the firearm knows how to handle it. When I purchased my first firearm from the local gun store the seller showed me how to load it, make sure the chamber is empty, and even how to field strip my firearm. It is also the purchasers responsibility to ask questions if they are unfamiliar with how to handle their new purchase.

c3shooter

· #15 · Jan 6, 2013

Shade- that process ALREADY takes place through the NICS system.

Would I be comfortable with a training requirement in order to be able to acquire a gun? SURE!

Right after they enact a training requirement for being able to vote- look at the crap that stupid people have voted in!

Right after they enact a training requirement before you can speak at a public meeting, or write a letter to your Congressman, or post on a blog or website.

Right after they enact a training requirement before you can attend a church service.

Right after they enact a training requirement for being able to buy a house.

Is it a damned good idea to GET training? Yep. You want the government to establish training standards? Think about that for a minute. In 5 minutes I can devise a shooting performance test that will fail 99.9% of the people that attempt it.

See less See more

primer1

· #16 · Jan 6, 2013

I can see Chicago's training requirement now: you need the training, it has to be in Chicago, there are no classes...

You would think gun dealers would hand out a sheet of safety rules just to cover their azz.

c3shooter

· #17 · Jan 6, 2013

Well, gunmakers do that. It is called the owner's manual. How the hell any of us survived centuries of NO instuctions, or a manual that consisted of a cardboard tag hanging from the tigger guard, I'l never know.....

locutus

· #18 · Jan 6, 2013

No more restriction. We have far too many already.

HOSSFLY

· #19 · Jan 6, 2013

c3shooter said:
Well, gunmakers do that. It is called the owner's manual. How the hell any of us survived centuries of NO instuctions, or a manual that consisted of a cardboard tag hanging from the tigger guard, I'l never know.....

I'd like if I were on my PC--

HockaLouis

· #20 · Jan 6, 2013 (Edited)

So why, after 238 years of independence, would these requirements be appropriate now?

Know what scares me these days!? So many enlisted veterans formerly living regimented lives transitioning, and transposing their narrow training, to civilian life. Perhaps we should test them regularly in half-way camps until we are certain they stop thinking of, and referring to, firearms as "weapons"...

1 - 20 of 63 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.