First time I’m hearing of this, but it makes perfect sense! Another angle would be to reduce the tax in exchange for harm reducing behavior like taking a voluntary safety class.
We could fix so many problems with mandatory training.
Yes you have the right to keep and bear arms. On your own property. You want to take them somewhere else? Mandatory training and licensing. Just like we do with cars. At a bare minimum.
And I say this as a veteran and gun owner. The absolute lack of even having to know the basics of gun safety is appalling to me.
Most states do have mandatory classes, shooting tests, and exams to get a license to carry.
And license-holders commit almost no crime, statistically-speaking. People who go out of their way and spend extra money to comply with the law tend to be law-abiding.
My hot take that I’m sure I’ll get buried for is that in the US, proper firearm safety and training should be a mandatory middle school class. There’s just too many guns. Even if you don’t keep them in your house, your kid’s friend might. Even if some kid joins a gang and has a shootout with another gang, at least they won’t just spray and pray and kill an innocent bystander. I see no downsides except that progressives get apopleptic whenever anyone mentions guns.
I hate making something like that mandatory, but another benefit would be to reduce the stigma of guns in general.
It always surprises me how frequently I hear from otherwise pretty open minded people some version of, “I don’t own guns and I’ve never needed a gun. Therefore nobody anywhere needs one or should have one for any reason and I’d fully support completely banning them, and if that violates the constitution, so what, it’s what I want.”
Further, gun education would reduce the ideas and legislation to restrict guns based on nonsense. There’s a lot of fear of “scary guns” based on little more than superficial appearance, and I even see a lot of ideas from people claiming to want compromise, but it usually comes down to one of a few things: some arbitrary delineation between guns they’re okay with because they don’t look scary, something that would do little more than make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people, or depriving law abiding citizens of constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process.
As a license holder I’m well aware of all that. You typically only need a license to carry concealed. At least in my state, open carry is legal almost everywhere and requires nothing. It’s those people that need the training.
The real way to do it is require a license, along with recurring training requirements, to BUY and own gun, not just carry one. But the NRA and the politicians they own have a shit fit over any reasonable barrier to gun ownership. They are perfectly ok with sacrificing school children over the issue.
I’m from Texas, where they removed most licensing requirements and it’s idiotic. You still need one to carry on a college campus and certain other state-owned facilities, but it’s mostly a free-for-all.
I still keep my License to Carry up to date because I think I should have to maintain a license. It also let’s me skip the security line in some state facilities (including the Capitol) where license holders can carry.
I used to also shoot weekly during lunch break at nearby range too to keep my skills up. Now I only go a few times a year because a buying a case of 9mm just about requires taking out a second mortgage. I also rarely carry, since in business casual it’s hard to conceal anything but a pocket 380, and I’m so bad with my LCP I’d have trouble shooting my car while sitting inside it.
We already have the legal mechanism necessary to enact mandatory training.
The militia is “the whole of the people”. Congress is empowered under Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16 to “prescribe discipline” (read: “training standards”) for the militia. They don’t have the power to mandate training only to those people who choose to keep and bear arms, but they do have the power to mandate training for everyone.
So, let’s have a high school, senior-year class on safe handling. More importantly, let’s have a class on the laws regulating the use of force, so everyone is aware of when we can use force against another, and when force may be used against us.
I’m all for this. I mean, gunpowder is not particularly difficult to manufacture. If the legal sources of ammunition charge $5000 per bullet, I could make a fortune with blackmarket black powder.
“All bullets should cost $5,000”
– Chris Rock
(updated with accurate quote)
I see you’ve worked in military procurement.
That wasn’t part of his standup act but it could be a funny addition… if it wasn’t so close to the truth.
First time I’m hearing of this, but it makes perfect sense! Another angle would be to reduce the tax in exchange for harm reducing behavior like taking a voluntary safety class.
We could fix so many problems with mandatory training.
Yes you have the right to keep and bear arms. On your own property. You want to take them somewhere else? Mandatory training and licensing. Just like we do with cars. At a bare minimum.
And I say this as a veteran and gun owner. The absolute lack of even having to know the basics of gun safety is appalling to me.
Most states do have mandatory classes, shooting tests, and exams to get a license to carry.
And license-holders commit almost no crime, statistically-speaking. People who go out of their way and spend extra money to comply with the law tend to be law-abiding.
My hot take that I’m sure I’ll get buried for is that in the US, proper firearm safety and training should be a mandatory middle school class. There’s just too many guns. Even if you don’t keep them in your house, your kid’s friend might. Even if some kid joins a gang and has a shootout with another gang, at least they won’t just spray and pray and kill an innocent bystander. I see no downsides except that progressives get apopleptic whenever anyone mentions guns.
Agreed. We learn CPR when though we don’t plan on heart attacks. People should be taught basic firearm safety.
Stop, drop, and roll caused me to seriously overestimate the number of times I would be on fire in my life.
I hate making something like that mandatory, but another benefit would be to reduce the stigma of guns in general.
It always surprises me how frequently I hear from otherwise pretty open minded people some version of, “I don’t own guns and I’ve never needed a gun. Therefore nobody anywhere needs one or should have one for any reason and I’d fully support completely banning them, and if that violates the constitution, so what, it’s what I want.”
Further, gun education would reduce the ideas and legislation to restrict guns based on nonsense. There’s a lot of fear of “scary guns” based on little more than superficial appearance, and I even see a lot of ideas from people claiming to want compromise, but it usually comes down to one of a few things: some arbitrary delineation between guns they’re okay with because they don’t look scary, something that would do little more than make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people, or depriving law abiding citizens of constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process.
As a license holder I’m well aware of all that. You typically only need a license to carry concealed. At least in my state, open carry is legal almost everywhere and requires nothing. It’s those people that need the training.
The real way to do it is require a license, along with recurring training requirements, to BUY and own gun, not just carry one. But the NRA and the politicians they own have a shit fit over any reasonable barrier to gun ownership. They are perfectly ok with sacrificing school children over the issue.
I’m from Texas, where they removed most licensing requirements and it’s idiotic. You still need one to carry on a college campus and certain other state-owned facilities, but it’s mostly a free-for-all.
I still keep my License to Carry up to date because I think I should have to maintain a license. It also let’s me skip the security line in some state facilities (including the Capitol) where license holders can carry.
I used to also shoot weekly during lunch break at nearby range too to keep my skills up. Now I only go a few times a year because a buying a case of 9mm just about requires taking out a second mortgage. I also rarely carry, since in business casual it’s hard to conceal anything but a pocket 380, and I’m so bad with my LCP I’d have trouble shooting my car while sitting inside it.
We already have the legal mechanism necessary to enact mandatory training.
The militia is “the whole of the people”. Congress is empowered under Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16 to “prescribe discipline” (read: “training standards”) for the militia. They don’t have the power to mandate training only to those people who choose to keep and bear arms, but they do have the power to mandate training for everyone.
So, let’s have a high school, senior-year class on safe handling. More importantly, let’s have a class on the laws regulating the use of force, so everyone is aware of when we can use force against another, and when force may be used against us.
Careful there buddy, you’re getting dangerously close to preventing uneducated morons from buying semi-auto rifles to keep in their pickup trucks.
Semi-automatic just means you don’t need to reload between every shot, it doesn’t mean burst fire (that’s still considered automatic)
But what about fully semi automatic, huh?
Thank you for explaining to this former infantryman how military rifles work. 😂
What’s wrong with semi-automatic then?
Nothing. I just have a problem with uneducated morons owning them.
I’m all for this. I mean, gunpowder is not particularly difficult to manufacture. If the legal sources of ammunition charge $5000 per bullet, I could make a fortune with blackmarket black powder.
(Ok, I’m not actually “all for this”…)