Should firearm and defensive training be controlled by government?

[yossarian22]

I did mention that, the government could provide training, could it not?

Why should it though?

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

I would consider anyone that would deny anyone the access to any type of information as an enemy of the mind and thus the people unless they have proven themselves unworthy of that freedom through their individual acts in the first place, but be wary of the judge.

 

[BUDDY]

The less the government interferes with my liberty and the liberty of others, the better.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Many private individuals can obtain better training than the police or the military now. These defense schools teach the art of using rifles and handguns to their optimum advantages.

They also teach an individual how to turn every day items into deadly force weapons.

Should civilians be able to purchase such training?

Depends on the outcome you want. Will training lead to more or less deaths?

 

[rojse]

Why should it though?

Because it is providing the contractors with employment.

 

[rojse]

Depends on the outcome you want. Will training lead to more or less deaths?

What is your opinion, though, on what you think will occur and what you see as desirable?

 

[rojse]

The less the government interferes with my liberty and the liberty of others, the better.

You cannot live under a government system and complain that you are being interfered with, because a government takes on that very role. It takes money from you in taxation, and it imposes laws that restrict what you can do. However, the money taken from you is spent on areas that are of interest to many community members, such as roads and schools, and the laws that restrict are usually for your safety or your general well-being, and laws are usually posed with the community's best interests in mind.

I would state that the government usually interferes with the liberty of others so they will not interfere with yours, and interfere with your liberty so that you will not interfere with theirs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

and those in the military have a complete psychological examination?

Not really. They are more concerned about physical ability than psychological. While they do indeed look into the psychological health of would-be recruits, it takes a back seat to the physical health. The brother of one of my friends is in the Air Force, and he has a life long history of severe anger management problems. It is so bad I saw him punch his sister in the face, which broke her nose, because they got into an argument and she tried to take his cell phone, because he was going to call CPS on her.

 

[yossarian22]

Because it is providing the contractors with employment.

And that justifies being the sole provider of training how?
The government is not the only source for employment.

 

[kai]

all guns should banned , you cant carry a sword , or a mace around its discrimination , you should be able to have your own lethal weapon of choice or no one gets one .

 

[McBell]

all guns should banned , you cant carry a sword , or a mace around its discrimination , you should be able to have your own lethal weapon of choice or no one gets one .

they must have some really weird laws where you live.
Here in NE Indiana I can carry just about any weapon I want.
However, if I do not have a concealed weapons permit, said said I carry cannot be concealed.

 

[Somkid]

I don't believe most people are responsible enough to own a gun but its too late they already have them and there isn't much you can do to take them away.

 

[rojse]

And that justifies being the sole provider of training how?
The government is not the only source for employment.

I am saying if the government wants contractors for the military, it should provide the training.

The best reason that I could give is uniformity - any groups of contractors could be paired together and they know the same procedures, for example, it can be sure that all contractors know all of the procedures that they are required to know, and know the protocols to be followed. Is that a reasonable answer?

 

[yossarian22]

I am saying if the government wants contractors for the military, it should provide the training.

It often does. Many private contractors (a euphemism for mercenary) are ex military.

The best reason that I could give is uniformity - any groups of contractors could be paired together and they know the same procedures, for example, it can be sure that all contractors know all of the procedures that they are required to know, and know the protocols to be followed. Is that a reasonable answer?

Yes, and it makes sense if the government is hiring them. A client has to right to demand that certain specifications be met, but this is not the issue the OP wanted to address.
"Should firearm training be regulated by the government [as firearms are]?" is the issue

 

[kai]

they must have some really weird laws where you live.
Here in NE Indiana I can carry just about any weapon I want.
However, if I do not have a concealed weapons permit, said said I carry cannot be concealed.

actually i am from the uk where all weapons are banned

 

[rojse]

It often does. Many private contractors (a euphemism for mercenary) are ex military.

Yes, and it makes sense if the government is hiring them. A client has to right to demand that certain specifications be met, but this is not the issue the OP wanted to address.
"Should firearm training be regulated by the government [as firearms are]?" is the issue

My apologies, but before, we were discussing contractors that were working for the government. In that regard, I thought it was a reasonable reply.

If the government is not hiring them, though, if it trains them, at a reasonable cost, it can ensure that all recruits are familiar with the laws they are required to know before they either work for others, or work in their own personal capacity. Consider it like getting a gun licence, only more sophisticated.

 

[yossarian22]

My apologies, but before, we were discussing contractors that were working for the government. In that regard, I thought it was a reasonable reply.

It is.

If the government is not hiring them, though, if it trains them, at a reasonable cost, it can ensure that all recruits are familiar with the laws they are required to know before they either work for others, or work in their own personal capacity. Consider it like getting a gun licence, only more sophisticated.

The government does not need to train them per say, but regulate the industry. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[methylatedghosts]

What is your opinion, though, on what you think will occur and what you see as desirable?

What I would like to see is a society where we don't need any weapons of any sort, except maybe to hunt food. Although, damn near anything can be made into weapons. Just watch kids in metal workshop class at school mucking around! I would prefer to see violence wiped off the face of the earth. I don't think that training people how to use guns is going to achieve that. Only the complete removal and destruction of all guns and gun manufacturers.

But there you go, far too many people would disagree with that. People don't want to be the ones to lay aside their weapons and open their arms to peace first, for fear of the other guys taking advantage. That's why there are armies. For "defence". Thing is though, that if everyone only had armies for defence, then there wouldn't be a need for them anyway. Same thing with guns. Don't make sense to me, but there you go

 

[rojse]

The government does not need to train them per say, but regulate the industry. Nothing wrong with that.

Agreed that regulation would be the most desirable thing, but for that to occur, you need to hire teams of inspectors to make sure that the laws are being complied with, and to review every single weapons trainer a certain amount of times per year. Achievable, yes, but by far easier to maintain, and less costly for the government and the people who wish to take the course would be for the government to perform the training itself.

 

[rojse]

What I would like to see is a society where we don't need any weapons of any sort, except maybe to hunt food. Although, damn near anything can be made into weapons. Just watch kids in metal workshop class at school mucking around! I would prefer to see violence wiped off the face of the earth. I don't think that training people how to use guns is going to achieve that. Only the complete removal and destruction of all guns and gun manufacturers.

You have many people's best interests at heart I am sure, but you should consider the impracticality of what you propose.

Guns are used for more than killing people. For example, I have friends that go and hunt animals that eat the feed of livestock. Should they not do this, the animals that the food was brought for starve. They don't need to hunt for food, but it is a necessity for their livelihood.

Guns are also used for sport. Should sport shooters hand their weapons in? What about enthusiasts, that own guns from WWI, or the civil war, as part of a collection of memorabilia? Should they be removed of their enjoyment?

There are other necessities for guns, too, that do not merely involve shooting people.

But there you go, far too many people would disagree with that. People don't want to be the ones to lay aside their weapons and open their arms to peace first, for fear of the other guys taking advantage.

It's not just fear that other's will take advantage, they know they will. For example, if Israel was to disarm now, think of all the countries that surround it that have tried previously, and have the resources to try again, to take Israel. Why should they disarm when there are others that will take advantage of their better nature?

That's why there are armies. For "defence". Thing is though, that if everyone only had armies for defence, then there wouldn't be a need for them anyway. Same thing with guns. Don't make sense to me, but there you go

People want armies to defend themselves from other armies.