You refuse to accurately explain exactly how mandatory training for legal gun owners equates to less gun violence by criminals.
Most violent criminals came from the population of lawful gun owners. Until we know how to tell the difference (and thus restrict those who will commit gun violence) your point is really not worth much. Also, I would point out that there is great resistance to restricting even those we do believe are so dangerous that we must actively watch them!
Aside from the fact that everyone is a law abiding citizen until they commit their first crime, what is this supposed to mean? And, how will training in any way make a difference? If that's your objective, you might as well give up now. If they're so dangerous they should not have a gun, why don't we simply incarcerate them?
So you are advocating for well trained criminals... You are advocating to restrict all lawful gun owners because you can't tell the difference between the law abiding and criminals. We have a constitutional amendment that basically says you are innocent until proven guilty. But want to treat all as guilty.
I don't agree that we can differentiate between criminals and non criminals before a crime is committed. Plus, our legal system and the general view of Americans is that any kind of prior restraint is problematic.
How many ways are you going to deflect and not support your assertion that training = reduction of gun violence?
As I've stated several times before, I'm not advocating any specific measure. I'm sure any training measure could be designed to fail. I would like to see us work to reduce gun violence to the same extent that we work to reduce other kinds of risks to human life. We have people figuring out what the next most important advances are in transportation safety, workplace safety, health, food, etc. But, when it comes to gun violence there is a lot of push back suggesting that we should ignore this source of risk. I see that as ridiculous and not acceptable.
You keep dodging the question. How will firearms training stop or reduce crime? Stop the trolling and answer the question. - - - Updated - - - Please prove or provide evidence for that contention. I don't buy it. Most violent criminals come from the population of juvenile delinquents. - - - Updated - - - Again, please explain the rationale behind your view that increased firearms training will reduce gun violence.
The words of an actor off screen are almost as important to me as the words of a song in a foreign language, yep, meaningless...
That makes no more sense than saying, "Fixing the problem of automobile death has nothing to do with cars themselves." Besides, there is at least as much resistance from the NRA concerning issues that could possibly impact those who "use" guns as there is for guns themselves. So, we're left with the notion that addressing gun violence is fine as long as it doesn't involve guns or those who have them!!
The argument being made is that mandatory training will ultimately produce no meaningful benefit to the current trends. Training does not make anyone less likely to commit a crime, nor does it stop someone from acting in a reckless manner.
Look at Oregon. They don't have any training requirements. Do you see a spike in accidents? Also you're missing the point. It's hypocritical to demand us to disarm while hiding behind armed guards. It's even worst if you have a CCW.
We do not force Drivers of Motor Vehicles to learn, Where ever did you get such a silly notion ? State Motor Vehicle Departments have a written exam and a Driving Skills Road Test, You are not forced to go to classes or forced to study for the exams, if you want to pass however, it is highly recommended that you do indeed study for the written exam and practice for the Road test.
Washington does not have training requirements or a shooting proficiency test, Neighboring Oregon requires firearms safety training, you need to take a State of Oregon approved safety class Oregon will also accept Military and Police firearms training, or Firearms Instructor certifications, Oregon does not require a shooting proficiency test.
Again, stop dodging. Please answer the question: How will increased gun training decrease gun violence?
No worries, as an Instructor it is important for Me to try and keep up with certain facts, any State with Constitutional affirmation or commonly called Constitutional Carry, by virtue of minimal infringement of the RTKBA, as Vermont does, the number is rising, it is around 11 now. As of April 15, 2016, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas[disputed], Idaho (residents only), Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Puerto Rico[disputed], Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming (residents only) do not require a permit to carry a concealed firearm for any person of age (usually 21 and older) who is not prohibited from owning a firearm. Permitless carry in Idaho and Wyoming is applicable to residents only; non-residents must have a permit to carry a concealed handgun in these states. All aforementioned jurisdictions do not require a permit to openly carry either. On July 27, 2015, Washington D.C. became a constitutional carry jurisdiction for a brief moment when its ban on carrying a handgun was ruled unconstitutional and the ruling was not stayed. The ruling said that any resident who had a legally registered handgun could carry it without a permit and non-residents without felony convictions could carry as well. The ruling was then stayed on July 29, 2015.
Training can reduce the perception that gun violence is needed by making other alternatives more clean and understood. Training can also lead to general gun safety. Did I really need to say that again?
