How to argue against gun control, "training req.."

ruger270man

How do you provide an argument against people when they say "cops are trained to use their guns its their job, you can have a gun without even being trained or tested.. they make you take a test to drive a car, imagine if they just gave the keys to anyone without making them taking a driving test first"

this ones a tough one for me.. I can usually provide a good argument... but this.. grrr. [}:)][:(!]

---

"I will no longer debate a liberal because I feel they are beneath contempt. Just communicating with one contaminates a person." - whiteclouder

gunnut505

Cops are trained by NRA-Certified Firearms Instructors. The cops hope to never have to use their guns, and are trained to keep from using a gun until they are receiving hostile fire, or are directly threatened by a subject.
NRA also provides civilian gun-oriented training for those persons whose state authorities do not trust them with firearms.
As an NRA member; I have been trained in the safe use, carry, and deployment of a wide variety of firearms in a variety of uses.
Just because someone has taken a drivers' test doesn't mean they are a safe driver, or a sober driver for that matter. In fact; in New Mexico, a person could have a drivers' license and not even speak English, or even be a Citizen!
Our CCW law states that there will be a certain amount of training and demonstration of proficiency required with the action type and caliber of the firearm you plan to carry.
We in NM have been subjected to Democrat control over both houses and the Governorship since 1914; only 2 years after we became a state!
THAT is the reason we have such a screwed up tax system and onerous CCW laws.

When faced with a decision to argue the merits of THEIR supposition; turn the thread to your own agenda and full speed ahead!

"Qui non est hodie cras minus aptus erit" --OVID

ZERODIN

Ask how many parents are trained and licensed to use plastic buckets, and point out that more children die by drowning in those buckets than they do from gunshot wounds each year in the US.

Ask whether burglars discriminate against "untrained" gun owners.

Point out that you, and the vast majority of American gun owners, are trained in gun safety, and ask if they'd like you to teach them the absolute basics so they can see that guns are not what they're afraid of.

As a last resort, ask whether there is a Constitutional amendment that supports the right to drive cars. If they bring up the "well-regulated militia," point out that, in 1787, "regulated" meant "regular" and, terms of militias, "regular" meant "equipped," and nearly every leader and founding father from the time has been quoted as saying things like "The militia includes every man in this land." The second amendment guarantees individual gun ownership to ensure that every man in the nation will be equipped to defend the nation when the time comes. If they say anything about cops or military doing that job better than you do, ask how many terrorist attacks have occurred against military targets in the US and whether they'd really want to be dialing 911 in the event someone came into the restaurant and started slashing people's throats.

Red223

Everyone who drives a car has been trained and it ain't helping the annual deaths on the highways.[;)]

Over here in South Dakota I think you can drive at 12 and ATV's are street legal with no helmets required. I ain't seen one ATV have an accident yet over here on the roads.

Look at State's without major cities, firearm incidents are nearly zero and we are the redneck un-edumacated folk.

All the firearm trouble is the edumacated city slickers and suburbs.

How would training help that? It clearly hasn't helped NYC or Washington DC, or even California whom all either banned guns or have super silly 'training' requirements.

What is a police officer's firearms training anyways? He shoots regularly. Some still manage to have 'accidental' fire-ings and many pervert citizen rights over their own tyrnanical subversion of the law. They ain't any more edumacated than us citizens. I know I fire more each year than any local LEO. I have a 03 FFL and a CCL so who's better trained? The LEO and his annual 40 rounds from his service weapon or Mr. citizen and his 2,000 rounds from his plethora of weapons?

ZERODIN

Another thing to point out is that DC has had the best gun ban the Democratic Party can come up with for decades, while it remains the murder capital of the world with a murder rate of over 50. Crossing the Potomac River into Virginia sees an immediate drop to a rate of around 5 in northern Virginia. It's the DC metro area, the only difference is crossing the river into a state with no crazy gun bans, and the murder rate is about 1/10 as much. Obviously, the criminals in DC must be "better trained."

idsman75

Operating a motor vehicle isn't a right. It's a priviledge and they can require training and all sorts of fees in order to exercise that priviledge.

Owning a firearm is a right whether or not they want to recognize that. All sorts of idiots go out and vote for Socialist Party and Communist Party candidates during general elections. People with no concept of our nation's history or basic economic principles are out there in the voting booths possibly DOOMING this nation. Hitler was voted into office. Imagine what ONE MAN did! If "training and education" are required to exercise a 2nd Ammendment Right then the government has prescedence to assess exhorbitant fees and implement training/education requirements in order to exercise the right to vote. Voting and the Bearing of Arms are both rights. If it's not legal/Constitutional to assess fees and require training for one then it shouldn't be for the other.