I am sorry but a Background check or a face to face is not going to tell you if someone plans on going on a shooting spree or for the matter if they are mental unstable. So a required class should not be Requirement or a Thought for a firearm purchase.

I feel it is solely up to the Purchaser to educate themselves on how to use a Firearm in the first place. Just like my wife and kids I taught them how to shoot, and properly handle a firearm for their mine and anyone we are shooting around's safety.

I can and do leave my Pistol in the house unlocked I Work so it is up to my kids to defend themselves when someone enters our residence without being welcomed vis kicked in door window what ever, I tell my kids shoot first ask questions later. and double tap!

Ok, thank you for clarifying. I think as long as college were to require firearms training, I would probably not care one way or the other. Most problems that I would expect were to exist on college campuses WRT guns would be during parties where people would drink and do stupid things, not during the actual school hours.



I have a CPL but I do not carry. I don't feel unsafe without a gun in human society. I did take a shotgun with me on my Dalton highway trip, but that was for wolves :-).

Okay so here is a million dollar question do you provide training for people who purchase a firearm from you? If not that to me is the " the pot calling the kettle Black"! I would doubt you do for free. But what I am getting at is if you feel so strongly about Firearm safety prior to purchasing a firearm I would think you would want to atleast practice what your preaching if you in-fact do not teach firearm safety. I know it is not a requirement but you obvouisly feel strongly towards adding more restrictions to our rights.

I still feel it is up to the owner to learn and research the information on how to be safe with a firearm, properly store the firearm, and know how to use it.

Actually, when I see that a person does not understand how to use the firearms, I quite often take them to the range. Since I mostly sell guns to my neighbors and colleagues, this actually works :-).

But your argument is a red herring. Regardless of what I do or do not, it does not move the needle for vast majority of the gun transactions. It's like saying that if I want, I can pay more taxes to IRS. I don't actually want to pay taxes. I want services (decent healthcare and education, for example), and I AGREE to pay taxes IF I can get these services in return. I cannot get these services if I am only one who is doing it, but I can if everyone in my tax bracket does.

Similarly, I don't like gun training requirements for the fun of it. I do like the idea that no one gets shot through the wall by a yahoo who is showing his friends a new toy; or that a kid does not bring a loaded gun to school to show off, etc. For that, I am willing to tolerate a few reasonable requirements that ensure that people who own firearms know basic rules.


This works well when one's actions only affect oneself. Unfortunately, a gun owner's actions affect others. In a similar case the society has imposed licensing/training requirements on drivers, for example. Does it eliminate all driving incidents? Absolutely not! Criminals most definitely do not need a license to drive. Does it reduce a number of road accidents significantly? You bet!

My issue with any mandated training is based on the lack of a uniform curriculum among the independent trainers and the bureaucracy associated with any Government run program.

All too many "trainers" among the independents are prone to go far afield and in many cases don't even know the law as it applies to firearm carry.

A Government run program can also be used as an "infringement". Restricted availability of training can be used to make it difficult to consummate a purchase or obtaining a CPL. Everything from only making the training available at inconvenient times (middle of a workday for most would be an example), to limiting class sizes and number of classes offered.

I think more can be done and it starts with the majority of Firearm Dealers. Rather than just going through the motions, a 10 minute "Orientation" to basic safety would be a good start. Most Dealers I know just get forms filled out, make the phone call, take the money and then go off to the next customer, regardless of whether that purchaser even knows which end the bullets come out of the firearm they just bought.

As for the guns in schools, etc, it's time for parents to reappear on the scene. For the last couple of generations they have handed the responsibilities of raising children to the schools.

That actually helps understand your point of view Solyanik. For me, and a lot of others I know, a pistol is on or nearby us all day. It's part of our daily routine. As I walk out the door every morning I do the pat down, wallet, keys, phone, gun, mag, knife, light... check.

So, for someone who doesn't exercise his right on a daily basis I can see why you may not feel so offended about somebody trying to put stipulations on that right.

That's interesting and I agree... with Dan. It does give more of an insight to why one would think the way they do.

It also reminds me of a discussion I had with a very educated man about firearms. He doesn't own nor see the need for them. He asked me about banning fully automatic firearms.

When I told him that in Washington... a resident could not own a Full Auto now... he had to take a different stance and went on saying something like firearms should be banned... Now when I told him that making laws for law abiding citizens... won't deter criminals...

He took a differing line and said that if you reduce the supply... less criminals would have them too. But when I pointed out that the war on drugs hasn't reduced the "supply" of illegal drugs. Criminals will get their hands on what they want.

Then of course he threw in the "can someone get a stinger?" I said the federal government already has laws. Doesn't mean a criminal can't get one... but there is already a law out there for a law abiding citizen not to have one.


I know fear is big tool used by both sides (for good or bad). I have to say. The suppressor laws in Washington has passed and it's almost a full year. I have not heard of one headline story where one was obtained from a law abiding citizen or one that was used by a law abiding citizen for illegal activity...

I guess the point is... just because you don't feel the need... don't restrict other law abiding citizens that exercise their law abiding legal rights in a legal manner.

There is an old saying - "Too many cooks spoil the soup." Same goes for rules and regulations. Democracy is the ability of individuals to speak their minds - not to impose their will over the rights of others.

Elected REPRESENTATIVES have forgotten their place in society - to represent their constituents - not to tell the people what is best for them according to the lobby group bending their ears and wallets. Rules are like stupid pet tricks - what works for you and yours doesn't necessarily work for the other 99.999999999% of the population.

Hence, the Second Amendment. The check, and balance provided in the Constitution of the United States to ensure that leadership did not get totally carried away with rules and regulations.

Every state or country with restrictive gun ownership laws on the books as a rule enjoys a dramatically higher rate of criminal activity as a rule. A gun class is not going to eliminate criminal intent - but a citizen exercising their right to bear arms just might make a difference.

Ask the guy in North Bend which scenario he preferred - having his family injured or killed by that intruder, or having the ability to defend his family as he did. Gee, gotta think about that one...........

Better be careful of that argument. I am fairly sure that more strict gun laws are not made solely due to the lobbying of the NRA. I don't have any evidence, but would not be at all surprised if a majority of the people in this country -- right or wrong -- were for stricter gun laws. I think a bit of that is evidenced in the media.

I am not really sure where I stand on most of this, though I am pretty sure i don't want guns as easily available as say... soda. Then again, I don't really know where to draw the line... is it age? Probably some of that; like 18, when you are legally able to enter into a contract. Beyond age I just don't know how to try to keep weapons out of the hands of those with ill intent.

I'm going to have to evaluate regulations on a case-by case basis I suppose.

Flame away!

A right unused is a right lost. You have a CPL and choose not to carry. That is your prerogative and you are welcome to it. I disagree with such a prerogative, but it's your life. You are responsible for your actions and the consequences there of. Personally, I don't leave the house with less than a .380 on my person. Bad things happen without rhyme or reason. I cannot predict when I will be attacked or need to defend my own life or the life of those I love. That's is why I always have the means to defend myself at hand. For me that means carrying a handgun on my person as often as I possibly can. Any attempt by government to restrict that via training requirements or (what I feel is) unreasonable regulation is unacceptable to me. It will continue to be until I am cold and in the ground.

+1 bhpdrew!

Nice post!

+2 bhpdrew

I have nothing to do with the NRA, Republicans, Democrats, or any other high minded do gooder organization, period. What I wrote is my personal opinion, period. Anything evidenced in the media is poisoned by the bias of the money behind it nine times out of ten. Common sense trumps popular opinion, every single time, thank God.

Guns are not easily available - try to buy one, and see the hoops you have to jump through. Not to mention getting a CPL, so you can LEGALLY carry a firearm. Age is already a legal requirement for gun purchase and ownership.

Please do evaluate regulations on a case by case basis - but please apply common sense to what you think is relevant to society in general.

And some of us have been doing that since it became legal for us to do so (by turning 21). That makes over 48 years for me. Just as natural as putting on a watch or putting my wallet in my pocket. Only "time off" was when I went in the Army and "Uncle Sam" gave me one of my very own to carry then.

A couple of old addages, "It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it" works well along with "You can't go home and get your gun when you need it most, right now".

I don't generally feel unsafe when "out in the world" either but every once in a while there's the uncomfortable "tingle".

This is simple. California is the land of gangs, and is full of gang members. You have to be a gang member or a cop to carry a gun there. Thats the way they do business down there. Does it make sense? No. But such is life in California.

As far as Japan goes Asian people are just not gang member types. How many times have you seen an Asian person on the news, or on COPS, or anywhere else for that matter about a crime they committed. Very, very, very rare. Only place I have ever seen Asian criminals is in the movies. That is just a fact.

And to bhpdrew, deadshot2, and RENCORP. Amen!!