Civilian Accuracy?

[rDigital]

You dont need a license to buy a car but, you need to get a permit pass a driving test by instructor, also take a written test, and also have acceptable vision. People like myself are required to wear glasses and/or contact lenses. I think thats a bit more tough than your standard firearm purchase. Dont forget a gun is a Weapon , and is designated as such. A car, lawnmower, your TV are not.Im not saying put everyone through one of those tactical schools that you see in the last few pages in combat handguns. It would be nice knowing that others are reasonably accurate. Would you like it if everyone could just by a car and drive with no form of test to see if they are adequate?Would you like blind people on the road?

I don't recall the use of an automobile being guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

 

[BeerSleeper]

but I don't think a Right comes with proficiency requirements - otherwise, imagine how empty the polling places would be on election day!

I cannot decide if that is funny, or sad. Considering the average intelligence of the general public, if there was an intelligence requirement to the right to vote, I don't think we'd be able to field enough voters to fill a roster, and the democracy would have to forfeit.

 

[BHP FAN]

I voted ''yes'', but only because I LIKE to practice,the way the question on the poll is framed,there's no reference to a ''requirement''...nor SHOULD there be.

 

[CCWB]

I answered yes because I've witnessed some awful targets at the range. That's part of the reason I practice at home. When you hit my 15 yard target and your 2 lanes over shooting at your 7 yard target, I'm very ready to leave. I know some CCW instructors require you to get a percentage of accurate shots and feel that this is only right to require. In my class, the lady was shooting her husbands gun and was missing the target because she was scared. SHE DIDN'T PASS!

So now I'm torn, yes there should be a min. level of accuracy required to get it, but no it should be regulated by the Feds.

 

[Gungnir]

So now I'm torn, yes there should be a min. level of accuracy required to get it, but no it should be regulated by the Feds.

Then who regulates it...? The instructor? Hmm would that give him the ability to refuse first time so the person would need to retake the test a second time to exercise a constitutional right and of course pay the testing fee a second time, not that it would be open to that kind of abuse everyone's completely honest.

Or local government, say city, I can see Greg Nickles setting that level of accuracy to a point where a qualified sniper with 20 years of handgun experience would fail, (what do you mean you can't get 6 rounds through the same hole at 50 yards in 2 seconds from a S&W model 36 without moon clips or a speed loader? Pft no guns for you!) same applies to state government would Illinois have a lower standard than Vermont I think not. Then there's federal government too would you want Eric Holder to decide an accuracy requirement... Hell no.

Fact is ANY minimum requirement can and will be used by whoever to restrict your right to keep and bear arms, without openly admitting it, just make minimum standard so stringent that only a handful would pass. Hey you still have the right to keep and bear arms, but only if you meet the criteria set, and that would never be politicized (I'm being sarcastic by the way).

As Vern said (post #41) above, accidental injuries have been declining steadily, there are no statistics for collateral damage from self defense shootings and gun ownership has been climbing steadily. So what problem are we trying to fix?

 

[ccsniper]

I think shooting and gun safety should be part of school. To many accidental shootings happen all over the place. When my dad went to school the ROTC program brought .22 single shots and everyone in his class was taught the basics and then were allowed to fire 50 rounds at the SCHOOL'S shooting range. This was however by volunteer and not forced (though he said only 2 people didn't do it because they didn't want to waste the gentleman's ammo).

 

[Ronsch]

The problem (and I apologize if this was covered) is not lack of training, but costs associated with it.

generally speaking, military and law enforcement courses can (not always) usually be paid for from budgets, whereas civilians, in most instances, have to pay for their own. Look at the cost of any well-known course (such as Gunsite or Thunder Ranch) and, unless you are fortunate enough to live nearby, the associated costs, over and above ammunition, firearms. There is travel, meals, accommodations, fuel, car rental (possibly) and so forth.

In addition, I have seen (my family members included as well as myself) that only qualify quarterly (if that in some PDs) or yearly or every six months in some military units. On top of that there are some MOS' and PD-related occupations (such as dispatchers or Community Service Officers) who do not carry or qualify with firearms.

Long and short, training, by necessity and desire, rests with the individual.

Again, I apologize if I duplicated efforts.

 

[Manco]

While I think it would be a good idea for most people to get some instruction and strive to meet a reasonable standard, it should not be mandatory--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is as direct and clear-cut as anything in government or law can possibly be.

 

[warnerwh]

I put no. However people who carry concealed should have to show some proficiency with their gun in accuracy and safety. Handguns are difficult to shoot well. I'm amazed at the mount of people who start with a centerfire handgun. If it weren't for a .22 I'd have never been able to practice as much as I did. Even now reloading my own ammo is much more expensive than .22 ammo. I know some people disagree but I feel pretty strongly that unless you have quite a bit of dispensible money then a .22 is a necessity to gain proficiency. A .22 also has the benefit of not having much recoil or blast so the beginner can concentrate on form and technique.
It takes thousands of rounds just to get some consistency in accuracy with a handgun.
What most people consider good enough for defense is scary. I suspect a high percentage of beginners who buy centerfires for their first gun have a much lower proficiency with it than people who started with .22s due to the fact the person with the .22 probably practiced more. I have no stats or other studied info other than my own experience so take it for what it is.

 

[bigfatdave]

However people who carry concealed should have to show some proficiency with their gun in accuracy and safety.

They all showed me yesterday, but you didn't show up, so please put your guns back in the safe until I can set you up with an appointment.
I'm open for skill demonstrations next February 30th

I'm amazed at the mount of people who start with a centerfire handgun. If it weren't for a .22 I'd have never been able to practice as much as I did. Even now reloading my own ammo is much more expensive than .22 ammo. I know some people disagree but I feel pretty strongly that unless you have quite a bit of dispensible money then a .22 is a necessity to gain proficiency. A .22 also has the benefit of not having much recoil or blast so the beginner can concentrate on form and technique.
It takes thousands of rounds just to get some consistency in accuracy with a handgun.
What most people consider good enough for defense is scary. I suspect a high percentage of beginners who buy centerfires for their first gun have a much lower proficiency with it than people who started with .22s

I'm with you there, but you need to be careful with concepts like "should" and "have to".
I'd be delighted if we limited gun ownership, breeding rights, voting franchise, and driving privileges to a list of people I personally have drawn up, but I bet one or two people would disagree with my standards.

 

[JoeSlomo]

Most public ranges don't have the civilian segment of our society that excels with firearms, however, it has been my experience that the majority of folks I have seen at public ranges has shown a responsible level of proficiency.

ANY argument against civilian use of firearms being a "hazard" would be RUTHLESSLY crushed by paying a few visits to PRIVATE ranges and clubs that sponsor USPSA, IDPA, Steel challenge, bullseye, or any other actively competitive firearms organization. The civilian competition segment is both large, and FAR, FAR, more efficient and effective with firearms than pretty much every police and military force we have. Civilian competitors shoot more frequently, and are generally much more passionate about acquiring and maintain their skills in order to remain competitive.

The civilian sector LEADS the way for both military and police when it comes to training and product development. PERIOD. It is the civilian, like Rob Leatham or Todd Jarret, who is sought after to teach both police AND military. It is the civilian market that develops products to enhance competition that are later adopted by police and military.

Eliminating the civilian firearms sector would slow the rate of development in both equipment, and technique, and would do nothing but embolden criminals and endanger civilians.

Civilians do fine with firearms, and there are far more civilians who EXCEL in their use than there are police or military.

 

[Cosmoline]

I wouldn't have a problem with the state or even federal government offering training and setting up ranges. Our state does some, but only in the context of hunting. Mandates get real messy. They are not the equivalent of the DMV regulating driver licenses--they are the equivalent of the EPA deciding whether you really "need" a car.

 

[meytind]

I voted yes because I believe everyone should be trained with their weapon. Cops, Soldiers, Average Joe Smith too. The people who run shooting schools still get training every once in a while so if they think it's important, then we sure as hell should too.

Should training be mandatory before one can exercise their rights? Hell no, but it sure is recommended. No one is ever "too trained."

 

[orionengnr]

I voted "NO" because I took the question as "should civilians be forced to take training"
I am not God's gift to anything, but I have a fairly normal reading comprehension score, and I have read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To be precise, the Second Ammendment.
Nothing in there says that the .gov has any right to mandate a certain level of proficiency (although my state does require a level of proficiency...fortunately, it is not a difficult standard to acheive).

I practice almost weekly (some would say weakly) and am acutely aware that there are far more accomplished shooters all over the place.

However, I keep on showing up and shooting, and getting a bit better each month. Fortunately, that is by my choice...so far.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

I go to the range at least twice a month, 50 rounds out of my Mini-14, 30 or so out of my Remmy 700 .308 and 50 rounds out of my XD-40. With the XD, I can print 4" at 20 yards all day long. With the Mini, my best groups at 100 yards are 2", the worst, about 3.5". The Remmy 700, I'm MOA out to 300 yards, which I'm happy with. I'm not training to be a 600 yard sniper, lol.

I'd consider myself to be an accurate shooter, I get regular practice.

I hope the point was made that the police only have to qualify with 50 rounds/year. The average civilian does far more, I'm willing to bet.

 

[W.E.G.]

 

[Warhawk83]

Everyone should train to be more accurate.
No one should be required by law to train to be more accurate in order to own a firearm.

Not in keeping with the Constitution or the Second Amendment.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ( except where prohibited by law due to lack of training). Doesn't quite roll off the tongue.