Posted on Jan 9, 2016
SSG Gerhard S.
17.6K
111
54
13
13
0
I recently heard an interview with a congressman regarding "common sense" gun-violence laws. They suggested we should require training and proficiency certification, and more extensive background checks prior to allowing people to possess firearms. After all, they argued, we require training, and a test to drive a car? Here's my question: If we're going down this road, why do we entrust any idiot to bear and raise a child with no training, proficiency testing, or background checks?
Avatar feed
Responses: 26
SPC David Willis
0
0
0
Edited 8 y ago
For simple ownership and home defense? No. If you want to turn the place your spouse and children call home into a shoot house with no training that's your right and your decision. I do believe that to conceal carry or open carry outside of your home or car, some level of training or at least familiarity with firearms should be demonstrated. The 2A states "a well regulated militia". There are lots of guesses as to what that means but I think it means well trained and well maintained, not a registered nation though. We're talking about a document that wasn't just thrown together after all.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Diane R.
0
0
0
Training is a personal responsibility and is best not legislated. However if one uses their firearm for self-defense and mishandles it, they are liable for the damage.
(0)
Comment
(0)
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
8 y
Excellent thought Diane.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT David Taylor
0
0
0
Nope.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Frank Hartley
0
0
0
Uhmm, definitely not. Driving a car is a PRIVILEGE not a right, which is what owning a firearm is.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Delanda Hunt
0
0
0
yes, that's not a big deal we have too many people that have no glue about firearm safety or how to use a gun properly.
(0)
Comment
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG Gerhard S.
10 y
I think it would be great if we would bring gun clubs back into our schools to give our youth's the opportunity to learn the discipline of the gun, and of shooting. https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/school-gun-clubs-were-common-in-our-schools-in-the-1950-s-should-we-bring-them-back-and-familiarize-youths-with-the-discipline-of-shooting
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Michael Hasbun
0
0
0
Of course? Why wouldn't want we want to ensure competency?
(0)
Comment
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
SFC Michael Hasbun
10 y
Certainly. But let's say, for the sake of argument that it was ten a year. Obviously it's more than that. How many of those ten wouldn't have happened if that individual had basic safety knowledge and training? Even if the answer is only one, that still one husband, wife, mother, father, son or daughter that's still alive. I'm okay with that.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG Gerhard S.
10 y
I would also add that those gun statistics rarely IF EVER contain any data on how many crimes have been averted, or innocent lives have been saved as a result of our armed citizenry. A great many of these incidents go unreported, as typically shots are not even fired. There DOES appear to be a pretty direct correlation to the proliferation of Right-to-carry States, and a reduction in violent crime. (There are some anomalies though, namely in places like Chicago (although Illinois is not a right to carry State), Detroit, LA, New Orleans, and a few others.) I enjoy reading the numerous examples every month (taken form the police reports) of people defending their lives, families, and properties from criminals with their guns in my "American Rifleman" magazine.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
LTC Yinon Weiss
10 y
SFC Michael Hasbun - If that's the case, you should also require government certification for being allowed to drink alcohol, use a knife (and probably scissors), ride a bicycle (I'm sure they hit and hurt some people too), and just about every other aspect of our lives. Personally, I don't want the government's permission for any of it... but we live in a democracy. If you want the government to regulate and give you permission to do just about anything (since likely any kind of act somebody does at some point hurts somebody somewhere sometime), you should write your representatives and let them know.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG Gerhard S.
10 y
Great Point LTC Yinon Weiss, a bicycle CAN cause a lot of damage. There's a local Attorney from a successful family law firm in the Detroit Area, He's blind, but he was training for a marathon in Central park (New York) when he was struck by a bicyclist. Fractured his femur, pelvis, and a few other bones..... I think you, and I agree that we can't micromanage everything.
Our society is built on the idea of personal responsibility, and the more government meddles in our every day lives, the less free we become. The government doesn't require people to be trained and licensed to start a fire in our own fireplace, or to perform maintenance on our own vehicles, or to get on a ladder to paint our homes, all of which hold potential dangers.
Is it a good idea that people know the law, with regard to carrying a firearm, of course, just as it is a good idea to know the rules of the road before Driving. That doesn't mean the government should necessarily mandate, or license either. It is a personal responsibility to gain the knowledge, and training one needs to competently perform any number of tasks, and not the government's job to mandate it so.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close