Mandatory Safety Training?

[Liko81]

Liko, the problem with your argument is that a home and a car are not included in the bill of rights so those "rights" can be infringed, but unlike those the right to own arms cannot be infringed, so it can be argued that you can't infringe on it (mind-blowing right?) and the Heller decision also said you can't force someone to keep a gun lock and/or disassembled in their home. Now you probably can force someone to sell a gun lock with a gun (which in my opinion isn't a bad idea, I sometimes use a lock for my little 10/22 if I'm going to a range and if I'm moving it)

Wrong; the right to own property, the right to free travel and the right of personal liberty (free choice) are NATURAL rights; the Framers didn't bother to enumerate them because they didn't think they had to; people understood as a matter of course that those were rights. I have the right to own property, and because I have the right to choose what property to own, I have the right NOT to own property. That applies to any tangible good or anything else of value. I CAN be forced to assume a cost over and above the cost of the property, in part by requiring that additional items be bought (i.e. insurance on your car). When I buy a new gun, it comes with a trigger lock. It's not itemized on the receipt, but you better believe the gun manufacturers bumped up the price a few bucks to pay for them and that the cost is passed to you. However, there is nothing that can be owned that would logically require the purchase of a gun. I don't need to have a gun, or to buy one at the same time or immediately after, buying any other tangible good. I have the RIGHT to, but I also have the right NOT to.

[anygunanywhere]

Liko, the problem with your argument is that a home and a car are not included in the bill of rights so those "rights" can be infringed, but unlike those the right to own arms cannot be infringed, so it can be argued that you can't infringe on it (mind-blowing right?) and the Heller decision also said you can't force someone to keep a gun lock and/or disassembled in their home. Now you probably can force someone to sell a gun lock with a gun (which in my opinion isn't a bad idea, I sometimes use a lock for my little 10/22 if I'm going to a range and if I'm moving it)

Wrong; the right to own property, the right to free travel and the right of personal liberty (free choice) are NATURAL rights; the Framers didn't bother to enumerate them because they didn't think they had to; people understood as a matter of course that those were rights. I have the right to own property, and because I have the right to choose what property to own, I have the right NOT to own property. That applies to any tangible good or anything else of value. I CAN be forced to assume a cost over and above the cost of the property, in part by requiring that additional items be bought (i.e. insurance on your car). When I buy a new gun, it comes with a trigger lock. It's not itemized on the receipt, but you better believe the gun manufacturers bumped up the price a few bucks to pay for them and that the cost is passed to you. However, there is nothing that can be owned that would logically require the purchase of a gun. I don't need to have a gun, or to buy one at the same time or immediately after, buying any other tangible good. I have the RIGHT to, but I also have the right NOT to.

The only right to travel you have is to put your feet on the ground and walk.

Anygunanywhere

[bdickens]

You can teach and train all you want; the problem is complacency. As people become used to handling their firearms, they lose a bit of the healthy respect they have as new gun owners. After a year, or 5 or even 10, without a negligent discharge, people say "I'm safe with a handgun, I know what to do and I can relax on the four rules". This is when NDs happen. There is very little that can be done about it; it's human nature. All that can be done is to let the accidents happen and pray to your chosen deity that nobody gets hurt. Alternately, if two responsible gun owners live together, they have the opportunity to catch each other violating the rules and keep each other honest, but in the majority of cases there's one gun owner and either an S.O. who simply tolerates them, or nobody else around.

Well, let's just eliminate training then. Since it's apparently such a waste of time and all.

[kd5zex]

In our MCJROTC program I shot nearly every day for at least an hour in high school, and sometimes was excused from other classes to attend matches , and many (40-50% in my recollection) other students received first time firearm instruction and 4 position rifle technique training which they would have never otherwise received. A few discovered a new talent. We were firing pellet rifles but the fundamentals and safe handling rules are the same. I hope my children and their classmates get the same opportunity. I have no doubt that today, 10 years later, most of my classmates are capable of safely handling a firearm even if they have not seen one since. Now that I think of it, we were all required to take the Texas Hunters Education Course as well as part of the curriculum.

I think it would be a grand idea to insitute in our school system and would probably expose some children to something they may never have the experience to; well rounded individuals, right. Start with Eddie the Eagle type stuff in the early years with more in depth and serious matters, i.e. photos of NDs and such, in the 6th grade or so and voluntary shooting training in high school which will count as a physical education credit.

[Liko81]

You can teach and train all you want; the problem is complacency. As people become used to handling their firearms, they lose a bit of the healthy respect they have as new gun owners. After a year, or 5 or even 10, without a negligent discharge, people say "I'm safe with a handgun, I know what to do and I can relax on the four rules". This is when NDs happen. There is very little that can be done about it; it's human nature. All that can be done is to let the accidents happen and pray to your chosen deity that nobody gets hurt. Alternately, if two responsible gun owners live together, they have the opportunity to catch each other violating the rules and keep each other honest, but in the majority of cases there's one gun owner and either an S.O. who simply tolerates them, or nobody else around.

Well, let's just eliminate training then. Since it's apparently such a waste of time and all.

I didn't say that; there's a difference between complacency and ignorance. Not knowing what's safe and unsafe is very different from not caring either way. Ignorance is not bliss; people who are interested in firearms generally want to know if they're doing it right, from the 4 rules to shooting technique to safe storage. Education is the cure for ignorance; you can be taught "this is safe, this is unsafe" and why, without having to go through the school of hard knocks. However, once you graduate from the class, nobody can force you to use that knowledge except you, and sadly, many people end up violently reinforcing their education.

[Mark F]

You can teach and train all you want; the problem is complacency. As people become used to handling their firearms, they lose a bit of the healthy respect they have as new gun owners. After a year, or 5 or even 10, without a negligent discharge, people say "I'm safe with a handgun, I know what to do and I can relax on the four rules". This is when NDs happen. There is very little that can be done about it; it's human nature. All that can be done is to let the accidents happen and pray to your chosen deity that nobody gets hurt. Alternately, if two responsible gun owners live together, they have the opportunity to catch each other violating the rules and keep each other honest, but in the majority of cases there's one gun owner and either an S.O. who simply tolerates them, or nobody else around.

I AGREE with your perspective 100%. I'm a life-long firearm person (pistols & rifles) and I was taught at an early age that complacency kills. Training is good, but absolute respect for a firearm is manditory. Anything less is an accident waiting to happen.

[Mr.Scott]

Let's go for bringing back shooting teams as an intramural sport. That should help it seep into the rest of the school.
We are getting our butts kicked regularly in international, and Olympic competitions.

Want a selling point? "We are losing our global leadership standing, in "accuracy", no less. They also help students immensely in their ability to concentrate, focus, and improves other hand-eye sports skills."

I feel that this tact is not a half-measure.

Well the problem is the team could only show up once at school, then the stupid zero-tolerance policy kicks in and the whole team is expelled.

The people in the school for the most part do not like guns. Imagine the ruckus when a anti-teacher is made to teach firearms safety. I wouldn't put it past them to make sure some of the students where taught incorrectly so they could become a statistic for the Brady Campaign to use. See even teaching safety in schools doesn't stop firearms from killing innocent young children. Our only hope for the future. blah blah blah.
Don't ever fool yourself if you think the Brady people really care if a child or pregnant woman is killed, they want it to happen so they can push their agenda.