- Messages
- 5,372
- Reactions
- 7,754
The problem is some people will never get it. Lets not punish all for the ignorance of one.
Peoples right to self defense should not depend on their ability to pay for a class.
We're already being punished for his ignorance. We now all look like trigger happy morons.
It's one thing to express an aspiration (and who's going to disagree that people should be well-trained in firearms before they possess them?), but are you advocating greater government regulation of gun ownership and use? What does, "No one likes mandatory training but...." mean?
Today 12:55 PM
Honestly, I don't know how to approach this. The libertarian in me says that we have enough regulation already. We already have to pay a fee in Oregon to exercise our right to carry a gun for defense. But on the other hand, ignorance and lack of training affects us all. An untrained person with a firearm is a real threat. Besides the possibility of unjustly shooting someone, they also mis-represent the rest of us as trigger happy idiots.
I guess the only real answer I can think of is that we start setting examples. We get ourselves trained and we make it our mission to not only tell all the new shooter we introduce to get trained, but all the people we know who have neglected getting training. I'm not sure how I would react to mandated training until faced with the decision. I will say that when I lived in Colorado, the testing for a CHL was more intensive than it is in Oregon (including shooting competency) and was still a joke.