Would you support Required Testing?

[sparkyfender]

I understand the rights perspective to this question, but I support mandatory training and testing to get a license for the same reason I do for driving -- both tools are dangerous in untrained hands, and a minimal level of proficiency and knowledge of the laws are necessary in order to responsibly use them. The rest of it pales in the face of common sense. Just my opinion; your mileage may vary.

Specialized

Interesting.

My hands are untrained and perfectly safe. Whether using a firearm or driving a motor vehicle. That's common sense to me. Also, just my opinion.

 

[jeremy]

I understand the rights perspective to this question, but I support mandatory training and testing to get a license for the same reason I do for driving -- both tools are dangerous in untrained hands, and a minimal level of proficiency and knowledge of the laws are necessary in order to responsibly use them. The rest of it pales in the face of common sense. Just my opinion; your mileage may vary.

Specialized

Huh...

I had been driving for almost 6 years before I took the driving test...
By the way last I knew Drivers training in Indiana was not Mandatory either...

 

[OWGEM]

Huh...

I had been driving for almost 6 years before I took the driving test...
By the way last I knew Drivers training in Indiana was not Mandatory either...

Your argument falls short. Last I knew drivers required a test before they got their license.

I have seen too many people handle firearms dangerously to not like the idea of training and testing.

Edit: I should add that I have been shot by a friend accidentally, and had a guy ask me to make a holster for his derringer but did not know how to open the chamber.

 

[jeremy]

Your argument falls short. Last I knew drivers required a test before they got their license.

I have seen too many people handle firearms dangerously to not like the idea of training and testing.

Actually, I think your argument falls short.

I have had to take the Mandatory Training and Testing in Several States and Countries.

I have seen far more Dangerous Practices by People who have Passed these Mandatory Training and Testing classes...

You can not support your statements in your points quoted above just like the sentence prior is not possible to quantify...

Do not take my side of this discussion to mean I do not support Training. I am a staunch supporter of Firearms Education. I just feel it does not need to be Government Regulated...

 

[OWGEM]

I have seen far more Dangerous Practices by People who have Passed these Mandatory Training and Testing classes...

Than people who have had no training?

 

[jeremy]

Than people who have had no training?

Roll your eyes all you want.

I consider the same acts done by someone who is trained and tested far more Dangerous than the person who has not been blessed off on by the King...

Have you ever had to set though the Mandated Training/Testing by any Government Authority?! At best they are a joke...

 

[OWGEM]

Any traning is better than none. Obviously good training is best.

 

[jeremy]

Any traning is better than none.

No, no it is not...
Bad training is worse than Cancer. Undoing bad habits and knowledge is a very difficult task for both Students and Trainers. It is bad enough when someone pays to have this done to them, and there are a ton of poor Trainers and Training Institutions out there. It is far worse when it is poor training being delivered from poor instructors by mandate....

As I said I am a fan of training. I am not a fan of mandated training from the King. Every version of Government Required Training I have had to do for Firearms Licensure has been poorly designed and even more poorly executed. But then again I am also in the camp where I feel there should be NO LTCH either...

 

[Robert Richardson]

NO

 

[tobi]

If nothing else, training may help people realize that there may be significant ramifications to their actions. I hear a lot of tough talk from some people about what they would in hypothetical situations. The class in Michigan explained the laws and consequences associated with using a weapon in various circumstances.

 

[DFM914]

NO!

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free speech.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free religion.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to a free press.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to vote.

Why should I need a test to exercise my right to keep and bear arms?

I agree with this answer!

 

[jeremy]

If nothing else, training may help people realize that there may be significant ramifications to their actions. I hear a lot of tough talk from some people about what they would in hypothetical situations. The class in Michigan explained the laws and consequences associated with using a weapon in various circumstances.

So teach the Laws to everyone in High School Government Classes...
That is what that class is for, Right?!

 

[tobi]

The high school government class I had taught how the government works - not detailed laws.

 

[tobi]

I did not read this whole thread, but +1 to "jeremy".

Not only should "testing" NOT be required, I believe Indiana's current requirement to obtain a license to carry a handgun is unconstitutional.

"...to keep and bear Arms". Sure, you can keep one ... just make sure and clear it with the state if you want to "bear" one. Ridiculous.

Does the constitution define "arms"? I think we all assume it means rifles, shotguns, & pistols. Does it say we have the right to carry pistols concealed???? Do we have the right to have fully automatic weapons? How about bazookas? Nuclear weapons? I don't like the idea of the government telling me what I can do but we have to draw the line somewhere & I don't think a mandatory education is out of line.

 

[jeremy]

Does the constitution define "arms"? I think we all assume it means rifles, shotguns, & pistols. Does it say we have the right to carry pistols concealed???? Do we have the right to have fully automatic weapons? How about bazookas? Nuclear weapons? I don't like the idea of the government telling me what I can do but we have to draw the line somewhere & I don't think a mandatory education is out of line.

Why does the Constitution need go into a definition of Arms?!

I think it would be fairly easy for any High School Graduate to understand what Arms is....

 

[tobi]

Why does the Constitution need go into a definition of Arms?!

I think it would be fairly easy for any High School Graduate to understand what Arms is....

You must have done better in high school than I me - This is how Wikipedia defines small arms:

Small arms is a term of art used by armed forces to denote infantryweapons an individual soldier may carry. The description is usually limited to revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, and sometimes hand grenades. Shotguns, general purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, and grenade launchers may be considered small arms or as support weapons, depending on the particular armed forces.

I couldn't find a definition of large arms. Again, I don't like the government telling me what I can do, but I really don't want to go into a Colts game with people that carry medium machine guns and gernade launchers. I don't believe this is what the authors of the constitution had in mind when they wrote we have the right to "bear arms". Maybe I am wrong and that is what they meant, but we live in a different world now. I am not sure where to draw the line but in todays world it has to be drawn someplace & again, I don't think requiring training is too unreasonable.

 

[Takashi]

To answer the original question: if it allows me to carry on campus, i'd do it.

 

[cosermann]

. . . Maybe I am wrong and that is what they meant, but we live in a different world now. . . .

Back then free speech meant getting up on a stump in the public square, using a quill pen, or maybe having a printer do a run.

Today, we have typewriters, computers, the Internet (email, web sites, forums, facebook, twitter, etc.), printers of various kinds (laser, ink, thermal, etc.), wireless communications, and all sorts of "assault speetch" technology. No need for a middleman. Your speech can go directly to a worldwide audience.

And yet, in spite of all this technology with the potential to give our free speech more power and influence than ever before, we still have fairly unrestricted freedoms of speech.

Rights are not technology relative.

Your logic doesn't work.

(Oh, and btw, the framers intention did include all sorts of things the definition you cited didn't even list, like artillery pieces and explosives - both of which used to be easy to obtain - during which times things were safer. Caliber limitations and other such restrictions are a relatively recent phenomenon.)

 

[Gabriel]

NO!

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free speech.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free religion.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to a free press.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to vote.

Why should I need a test to exercise my right to keep and bear arms?

Because your rights to free speech, religion, free press, and to vote aren't going to accidently go off and kill someone because you don't know what the hell you're doing with you firearm other than you have the right to carry it.

 

[sparkyfender]

Because your rights to free speech, religion, free press, and to vote aren't going to accidently go off and kill someone because you don't know what the hell you're doing with you firearm other than you have the right to carry it.

Is this really a problem in Indiana?

Cite where all these people are being killed because there is no mandated training, please.