Go see over at Michael Bane’s. It doesn’t help make me feel any better. Especially this:
We are supporters of the Second Amendment and are not against people exercising that right. We also believe that every Right has a corresponding Duty. We believe training may very well be a key factor in retaining or losing the very right our Second Amendment provides. We applaud those who have willingly sought out training on their own to become educated on gun ownership.
That being said, as firearms instructors we see many students come into our courses for training who have no clue or idea what the laws (both State Statutes and case law) are in regards to owning or using a firearm in self defense or any other purpose, let alone how to safely and properly handle or store their firearms. We feel that it is the informed and knowledge gun owners who will play an important role in allowing us to protect our Second Amendment Rights, not those who choose to remain ignorant of the responsibilities that come with that right. It¹s sad to say, but there are many in our society who will not seek appropriate training on their own. It¹s those who choose not to get training, act negligently and make stupid careless mistakes, who are the greatest threat to protecting our Second Amendment Rights. Mandated training is not the enemy, yet, it could play a very important role in saving our rights in the long run. Therefore in order to protect our rights we will support mandated training whenever it is available.
This is like a love letter to the Brady Campaign. They support making exercising of your right conditional on training. How much training is enough? Do I have to take four hours? If four hours is great, twelve would surely be fantastic. If twelve is fantastic why not forty? Why not limit the right to anyone who hasn’t gone thorough police academy? Why not require it for every gun you buy, just to make sure you stay fresh, and all.
Insight wants to make sure no one bothers to become a gun owner. They do not want the option of gradual introduction into the culture. What they propose will destroy our numbers and our political power right along with it. Once you make gun ownership a priestly class, it will cease to exist as a right issue, and as a political issue. There will not be enough gun owners left to prevent tightening the ratchet. In effect, Insight are slitting their own throat, and ours along with it, by signing on to this. If you live in Arizona, and need training, I would take your business elsewhere.
I am not against training. I think it’s valuable. But if it had been a requirement prior, I would not be a gun owner today, and you would not be reading any of this. I was not unfamiliar with firearms when I bought a gun. I was introduced, or reintroduced into shooting in my mid-20s by a friend who took me out shooting, and I used his firearms before I bought my own. After some initial guidance to break a few bad habits I had, I decided to buy my own guns. I enjoyed my time on the range, but I was not committed to getting back into shooting at this point. If there had been hoops to jump through, I doubt I would have.
Once I got my own guns and started practicing, I started to really enjoy it, and got more committed to the sport. But I did not seek out formal training until I started carrying. Though it is not required in Pennsylvania, training is a good idea. But it’s not the end all be all, and the reason is because of the kind of skill shooting is. I’ll explain that later.
Consider that the biggest hurdle for your involvement in hunting right now is finding the time to take hunter ed. You can’t go out with an experienced hunter to try it out first.
I will let the owners know I do not agree with their position. This is quite embarrassing to our cause!
“We are supporters of the Second Amendment and are not against people exercising that right.” ….. is that the one that says “shall not be infringed” or that the Health Care one? I get so confused.
Training is a tax on a constitutional right and is discrimatory against the poor (which was the authors intent)
If you compare firearm safety and firearm crime stats between states that have training requirements and those who don’t, there is no correlation either way. The linear regression line is horizonital and the R2 is barely 0.10, ie training has no statistical benefit to public safety.
Bitter Said,
March 18th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
“Consider that the biggest hurdle for your involvement in hunting right now is finding the time to take hunter ed. You can’t go out with an experienced hunter to try it out first.”
Thats a great point but…
Here in the great state of ND a person curious about hunting can go deer hunting one season without a license and try it, if they go with someone who already has hunter safety.
JD, that’s a state-by-state issue. I know about them because I’ve pushed them in various states before. States with various versions of apprentice programs have seen success with them. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania’s is only for kids. Very few states have been willing to open the opportunity to adults.
Just what is the “corresponding Duty” to freedom of religon?
I’m sure “Insight firearms training development” would love to see “training” become a requirement to own guns, all these losers see is $$$ signs.
As far as “training” goes, I was trained by family members and friends at a very young age about guns, I didn’t/don’t need some know it all “professional” to teach me sh!t about proper gun handling.
I have many friends who are ” trained professionals” by Uncle Sam and they aren’t any better or worse than I or anybody else I know at handling/shooting guns safely. I have nothing against firearms training courses but it shouldn’t be a requirement to exercise your 2ndA right.
IFTD should get a big FU from firearms owners.
I would be less opposed to mandatory training if it was required in junior high school.
We should ask them to provide training free of charge, if it’s that important.
What the…???
“… as firearms instructors we see many students come into our courses for training who have no clue or idea what the laws (both State Statutes and case law) are in regards to owning or using a firearm in self defense or any other purpose, let alone how to safely and properly handle or store their firearms.”
Uh, were I to decide to own a gun, these points are what I would want and expect to be part of firearms training. Apparently these guys are shooting instructors.
OK, roll out the auto analogy again. If I am about to buy my first car, I may well – and certainly should – take a training course. And I would expect it to cover basic law instruction, how to park, etc. That is not the same thing as enrolling in one of those specialised courses meant for chauffer/bodyguard training about how to get past a bad-guy roadblock, or racing-car instruction on how to run the Le Mans course.
If people are coming into the class not knowledgeable or confused about the laws — isn’t that a sure sign we need to simplify and eliminate many of the laws?
Firearms Training is very important. How it is accomplished is an individual choice/responsibility/etc. The individual is responsible for the training that meets their need(s). When the individual’s authority to choose how/when/what type of training is needed there is corresponding loss of responsibility to ensure the quality/completeness/etc. of said training is adequate. Nothing good comes from that. Training is devalued and more importantly Liberty is lost.
Thank you for making us aware of this company. I will avoid it and ensure those I know who are seeking training know this.
The owners of this company should be ashamed.
I get the distinct feeling he doesn’t understand what a “right” actually is, and then conflating it with “Duty” – how Bismark.
*cough* *Zumbo* *cough*
I wonder how long they’re going to put off training requirements to vote…I propose a standardized test to ensure that we, the people have some understanding of what these people can do vs what they claim they will do.