New gun owners and the range......watch your arse

[Joe357]

When we talk about indoor ranges or for that matter outdoor ranges why don't the owners control them most charge fees so they are making money. They need to hire range masters to enforce rules, help new people, etc

[TrickyNicky]

2 out if the last three times I've gone shooting I've been flagged. I usually just leave as I don't want to start anything with any of the "pros" who bring their family's out with them with no training on basic safety. Fu$& that! I pay my dues like anybody else there and I'm going to start speaking up. I shoot overat CHMR and honestly if they don't like it, let em go tell Charlie on me. "Hey Charlie my wife just swept the whole firing line while swinging my BA revolver over her shoulder and spinning around to yell at the kids. With her finger on the trigger. Any way this asshole Nick came up and started talking like I'm not being safe or something, I mean who the hell is this jerk? It's my gun and I know what in doing, therefore he should get bent. Will you ask him to leave?"

I'd love to see that!

As much as I am a staunch believer in the 2nd, some people have no business operating firearms.

[chances R]

At a public range this week sitting behind line. Fella turned to me, slide closed, finger on trigger, and muzzled me.... TWICE. I rather sternly said don't do that again. He didn't and I hope it sticks with him for a while. You have to always watch at all ranges as safety is everyone's responsibility.

[Jonnin]

OK, I get your point and don't necessarily disagree, but exactly what class do they teach kids to have sex and take drugs?  

 

Most public schools have some sort of "life stuff" class where they cover:

basic sex ed (his & her parts, how they work, and the classic babymaker movie?)

how to put a condom on a carrot

what VDs you can catch

The joys of teenage parenthood

Homosexuality and other alternative choices

and more

 

what drugs have what effects when taken and how they are commonly taken (snorted, injected, smoked, etc)

booze and the effects of it & how many beerz = 1 glass of vodka etc

 

Its been a long time so I am not sure what has been changed, added, etc.  But the general class is all about stuff you should not do and the consequences of doing them.  The level of detail however could be used as an instruction manual for the more curious kids.  

[battleop]

Ours is private -- record number of new members though -- 87 last month alone which is more than joined all of last year.  Next topic at our meeting is stricter requirements to join,,,what those might be who knows right now. My suggestion is pass a proficency test.  We will see.

 

The range I am a member to has a maximum of 650 members at a time.  The only way in is for someone to not renew their membership plus you have to have 3 sponsors.  

[Guest Lester Weevils]

And herein lies the conundrum. We complain about all of the unsafe morons we encounter and say how they shouldn't own a firearm, but we fight against any efforts to require gun owners possess some level of knowledge and skill before owning a firearm. Until we can effectively address this issue as gun owners, we will not see an end to the push to regulate access to firearms though bans and mag capacity limits. I'm almost to a point where one must demonstrate the ability to properly handle, maintain, store, and use a firearm. When the Second Amendment was written, the majority of the population had some reasonable level of experience handling firearms. Also, a single shot musket or a revolver was a bit less of a safety issue than a Glock since it took a bit more effort to load and fire. I know this approach is unlikely to be popular with many here on TGO, but we require people to demonstrate safe driving skill and knowledge of traffic laws before being allowed to legally operate a vehicle. Many, including me, are suggesting that people should be required to demonstrate some basic understanding of American government before being allowed to vote. People now have to take a hunter safety class before getting their hunting license.

In discussing this with my wife the other night, she reminded me of the negligent discharge I had with my first firearm that I obtained when I was 18. Although it seems common sense to me now, I didn't check the chamber when I picked it up and fired a shot off through my TV, my bedroom wall, the sofa in the next room, and the bookshelf on the other side of the room. Fortunately nobody was injured. I had never really handled a gun before, had not been taught gun safety, and yet was able to buy a rifle and take it home. I don't pretend to suggest that such an approach would eliminate all negligent uses of a firearm, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

 

When I got the first gun as an adult, me & wife took the carry license class before buying a gun. Maybe more training than that would be good, depending on the, not really intelligence, perhaps seriousness or attention to detail of the student. Did not want to buy a gun only to shoot myself with it. It seems the "natural" thing to do, to find out about whatever you are gonna be doing. However, I read the manual of any gadget or software I get, front to back. It is said that many people intentionally don't read manuals and believe figuring out a device without RTFM is a "fun puzzle". Learning shooting thataway involves some hazards. Had exposure to guns as a kid and got yelled at for pointing even unloaded slingshots in the general direction of a person, so did have a little (long ago) training on safety.

 

The problem of government mandated training and testing-- Who designs the training and who writes the test? Some red states most likely have well-designed programs. However if the feds mandate training and testing, betcha dollars to donuts that the training and test will be written by the Brady Center and then further edited by Feinstein and Schumer. IOW, useless BS training and requirements, with licensing designed to become another federal revenue stream. Maybe they would grant the training contract to Acorn or SPLC, or maybe GE or Soros would get the contract.

 

-- Q -- How should a gun be stored?

-- a -- Loaded, cocked and locked.

-- b -- Loaded with empty chamber.

-- c -- Unloaded.

-- d -- Completely disassembled with different parts locked up in different places in the house.

-- e -- Completely disassembled and locked up at a federally-approved shooting range. 

 

Of course "It Depends" would not be an available answer, and [e] would be the correct answer, though perhaps [d] would be given partial credit. :)

Edited February 21, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[East_TN_Patriot]

When I got the first gun as an adult, me & wife took the carry license class before buying a gun. Maybe more training than that would be good, depending on the, not really intelligence, perhaps seriousness or attention to detail of the student. Did not want to buy a gun only to shoot myself with it. It seems the "natural" thing to do, to find out about whatever you are gonna be doing. However, I read the manual of any gadget or software I get, front to back. It is said that many people intentionally don't read manuals and believe figuring out a device without RTFM is a "fun puzzle". Learning shooting thataway involves some hazards. Had exposure to guns as a kid and got yelled at for pointing even unloaded slingshots in the general direction of a person, so did have a little (long ago) training on safety.
 
The problem of government mandated training and testing-- Who designs the training and who writes the test? Some red states most likely have well-designed programs. However if the feds mandate training and testing, betcha dollars to donuts that the training and test will be written by the Brady Center and then further edited by Feinstein and Schumer. IOW, useless BS training and requirements, with licensing designed to become another federal revenue stream. Maybe they would grant the training contract to Acorn or SPLC, or maybe GE or Soros would get the contract.
 
-- Q -- How should a gun be stored?
-- a -- Loaded, cocked and locked.
-- b -- Loaded with empty chamber.
-- c -- Unloaded.
-- d -- Completely disassembled with different parts locked up in different places in the house.
-- e -- Completely disassembled and locked up at a federally-approved shooting range. 
 
Of course "It Depends" would not be an available answer, and [e] would be the correct answer, though perhaps [d] would be given partial credit. :)

I totally understand, and generally agree with your point, but I never suggested the Feds should require training. I would expect that to be a state by state decision. I really wouldn't have a problem with mandating some mechanism to assure that people demonstrate minimal competency for possessing a firearm, which would include proof of training through any number of sources, such as training in the military, law enforcement, CCW classes, hunter safety classes, Boy Scouts, Appleseed, or similar recognized shooter training. It's getting to a point where we have to create some sort of solution or we will be subjected to federal restrictions that are much more harsh.

[JohnC]

I never needed a state or federal gun education course to properly and safely handle firearms.

So..

I'm not for mandatory gun education to own firearms because that could turn in to licensing and other restrictions. I would be for donating to private organizations like the NRA for free voluntary gun safety or training courses, so anyone who didn't have a parent teach them could then get some knowledge.

But I do not want the government involved in it at all because the next thing you know you'll have to get licensed and insured like you do with cars and then they would make a RIGHT nothing more than a restricted privilege. Trust me, it would happen.

[Jesse]

I wish ranges had private bullet proof closed in sections for each shooter. 1 reason is for protection, the other reason is for privacy. I dont like people ease dropping or asking me tons of questions.

[Parrothead]

Krull, let me know if you want to go to a private range 10 miles outside of the tri-cities. It is capped at 300 members and i don' think we have had a new member in a few years. Waiting list is getting deep but i can take guests. Typically, i don't see another shooter unless its a saturday or a match.

[Krull]

Parrothead I'll take you up on that for sure.

[LawVol]

Before I became an ORSA member, I shot at CCA and John Sevier.  CCA is a frightening place on the weekend, especially when you see all the bullet holes in the wall behind the firing line.  I was always surprised that there was never an RO monitoring the firing line.  I know a lot of people get irritated by the RO's at John Sevier, but, given the people that show up out there, I usually appreciated their presence.

 

I've never had an issue with anyone being unsafe at ORSA.  There'd be no tolerance for that kind of stuff, anyway.

 

When I was a kid, my dad always took me to shoot at the Cheatham range.  I remember quite a few negligent discharges while we were checking targets on a cold range.  The holes in roof were pretty good evidence that those weren't isolated incidences.  I haven't been there in probably 20 years, but I can imagine it has gotten much worse.  

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I totally understand, and generally agree with your point, but I never suggested the Feds should require training. I would expect that to be a state by state decision. I really wouldn't have a problem with mandating some mechanism to assure that people demonstrate minimal competency for possessing a firearm, which would include proof of training through any number of sources, such as training in the military, law enforcement, CCW classes, hunter safety classes, Boy Scouts, Appleseed, or similar recognized shooter training. It's getting to a point where we have to create some sort of solution or we will be subjected to federal restrictions that are much more harsh.

 

Thanks East_TN_Patriot, those are good points.

 

Not debating or refuting, merely continuing the conversation-- There would be two issues, right?

1-- Competency certification method...

2-- The scope of whatever agency takes it upon itself to restrict an individual's behavior based on such certification? Federal, state, local, private...

 

On the certification topic-- Nothing is foolproof. Any of the training sources you mention can be expected to graduate a certain percentage of irresponsible idiots. However, at least a training certificate would prove that trained idiots who screw up and act stupid, had already been told how to behave and in theory ought to have known better? :)

 

Am not arguing that training is useless. A very bright and responsible untrained fella could engage in stupid behavior simply because he had never devoted sufficient thought to the problem and he had never been instructed about non-obvious hazards. OTOH some folks get careless. Some folks training goes in one ear and out the other. Some folks just don't care.

 

Those occasional people ex-military, police, trained CCW, graduates of hunter safety classes, who still act like idiots. Negligent or extremely poor judgement. I don't hunt and dunno personally, but some people on TGO have expressed the preference not to hunt in public places where novice hunters who passed the safety course just fine, might shoot at cows or fellow hunters?

 

Dunno if there is a way to test for good sense, but perhaps proof of training is better than no training at all?

 

On the Scope of Power topic-- Private scope might make some situations safer? We currently have this thread and another thread, both complaining about unsafe folks at shooting ranges. A range could require certification for admittance, without infringing the 2nd amendment or whatever. If you don't have adequate proof of training you can't shoot at our range. That alone might help improve safety at ranges, which is the beef of the current two threads? It would merely improve the odds of safety, because there is no way to train idiots, and even the brightest careful trained folks can make occasional mistakes?

 

Just thinking-- Training requirements for private range access, or maybe if even the state TWRA ranges would require proof of training-- That would not infringe the 2nd amendment. It would only "improve the odds" of a fella being able to visit a shooting range without getting shot for his trouble? It would somewhat ameliorate the complaints that ranges are too dangerous because of idiots, but the idiots of the world would still have the god-given constitutional right to accidentally shoot themselves at home? :)