SniperStraz
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 871
I agree that its not a bad idea. But if thats the only way to practice than whats the point of going to the range at all?
Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?
- Thread starter heavyshooter
- Start date
- Status
I hear people saying "It's the responsibility of the person carrying the gun to train themselves to shoot properly. So is getting a drivers license a right, too? Should we be able to do that and not have to take a road test? CCW permits are about the only thing that doesn't require a "hands on" test..... and why doesn't it? A person should need to show proficency in tests such as loading, unloading, holster draws, and firing with their own guns. As the economy goes down, crime will continue to go up, and the number of people applying for their CCWs has also gone up. There's nothing unreasonable about wanting to be sure people carrying having skills beyond bookworms. A pilot may never have his plane in a tailspin and need to recover, but if he doesn't and hasn't the knowledge of how to recover, he'll have some real issues when he crashes. A person carrying might never need to take a shot that requires any skills beyond pulling their gun from 3' away- if they do have to take a more precise shot, it helps to have something beyond "this end is the barrel" skills.
People want the right of being able to protect themselves without the responsibility of having to being competent with their handguns. It shows again we're a society that's so caught up in what our "constitutional rights" are we think any real training that's required will interfere.
It would seem life isn't too precious in the eyes of some people, or at least not precious enough to lower the risk of bystanders being killed.
That's all this comes down to.... people think their "right" for self protection is somehow greater than any need to actually lower the risk of others being killed. The poor shooting abilities of some LEO's scares me, let alone some people who carry.
People want the right of being able to protect themselves without the responsibility of having to being competent with their handguns. It shows again we're a society that's so caught up in what our "constitutional rights" are we think any real training that's required will interfere.
It would seem life isn't too precious in the eyes of some people, or at least not precious enough to lower the risk of bystanders being killed.
That's all this comes down to.... people think their "right" for self protection is somehow greater than any need to actually lower the risk of others being killed. The poor shooting abilities of some LEO's scares me, let alone some people who carry.
Treo
member
Just Curious
As this train wreck of a thread enters it's ninth page, I am curious wether or no anyone's opinion on the subject has changed at all.
I am still firmly in the "The requirement for a permit at all is ridiculous" camp
And as long as we are we'll stay free
As this train wreck of a thread enters it's ninth page, I am curious wether or no anyone's opinion on the subject has changed at all.
I am still firmly in the "The requirement for a permit at all is ridiculous" camp
And as long as we are we'll stay free
Last edited:
Treo
member
Mere possesion of a firearm by anyone shouldn't be a crime period.
Felons are prohibited from possesing a fire arm now open or concealed it's a crime for them to carry now. So how's one more law going to change that? It's like saying posesion of weed is a crime & having it rolled in a joint is another crime what's the point?
There are plenty of people out there who can legally own a firearm but have no idea what they're doing otherwise. I've seen people take the basic class who haven't a clue what they're doing, and not requiring a class or permit will make that even worse!!!
Let us try it this way, should there be a test of any kind before someone votes in an election?
Should we test knowledge of government structure and powers?
Should we test historical knowledge like: which party is in the majority in the House or the Senate?
Should we test critical thinking, like: to raise income taxes on individuals will a) create jobs, b) eliminate jobs, c) who cares I not working anyway or d) none of the above.
Should does not mean constitutional.
By the way, where is the harm to you if someone in not competent in the use of a firearm?
Should we test knowledge of government structure and powers?
Should we test historical knowledge like: which party is in the majority in the House or the Senate?
Should we test critical thinking, like: to raise income taxes on individuals will a) create jobs, b) eliminate jobs, c) who cares I not working anyway or d) none of the above.
Should does not mean constitutional.
By the way, where is the harm to you if someone in not competent in the use of a firearm?
Vern Humphrey
Member
While it would be great for every citizen to know the Constitution and other matters, voter testing has always been about keeping "the wrong sort of people" from voting.
Voter testing is like communism -- sounds great in theory, but in practice, it's something else.
The same is true with testing people who carry guns. It's purpose is not to promote safety (I've challenged training and testing supporters over and over to show an actual safety problem), it's about making it difficult for citizens to exercise their constitutional rights.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Nice theory. Now prove it. Show that Alaska and Vermont (which do not require permits to carry) have a worse safety record than other states. Show us statistics that show there is a real safety problem with CCW holders.
cpttango30
Member
Triple tap. I am looking good tonight.
It is clear that many truly do not know what a right is and what it stands for each of us. We are people endowed with rights that can’t and should never be infringed. What we are witnessing with anyone thinking we must have some test or permit for any right is proof that this country will fail from within. Was it Stalin that said that communism will take the U.S. without firing a shot? Before long this will be the norm and the citizens of this country will allow it to happen.
Treo
member
Am I The Only One?
That Zammyman ( who has a pretty impressive post count for only having been here two months BTW) asked me a direct question about criminals carrying concealed then ignored my response to go back and talk about incompatent people carrying guns?
I smell Brady Troll
That Zammyman ( who has a pretty impressive post count for only having been here two months BTW) asked me a direct question about criminals carrying concealed then ignored my response to go back and talk about incompatent people carrying guns?
I smell Brady Troll
heavyshooter
Member
This is exactly what I have observed. It is hilarious!
In this thread I have thought about things that I had never considered before. Here is what I have "learned." 1. The right to carry a firearm is universal. (BTW – please note the distinction between possession and carry). This means that the class itself, let alone the shooting proficiency is unconstitutional and therefore inappropriate.
2. Civil liberties are dangerous. If you are inadvertently shot while I am defending myself, it is an acceptable byproduct of the 2nd amendment.
3. There is absolutely no parallel between a driver’s license and a CCW so the proficiency argument applies to one and not the other. In fact, the analogy between the two breaks down completely so it is a stretch to even use it. And you can’t say that the lack of proficiency with both cars and guns could result in harm to someone else. This parallel breaks down completely because…because um…uhhh…mmm... I have no idea why this analogy breaks down.
4. I have also learned that very few people are ever injured due to untrained or ignorant gun use. After all, the anti-gun media would be screaming that from the roof tops as a means of undermining the 2nd amendment. Here is my struggle with this lesson. If the second amendment precludes a class (let alone a test), then everyone has a right to carry. This means that every shooting that resulted in accidental harm to someone else would apply. Are such shooting rare? Not in my experience. But that’s okay; I have resolved to move to a gun savvy community.
5. In spite of the analogy breakdown between driver’s licenses and CCW’s, there is a strong analogy between hammers and guns. zammyman’s point was slapped in the face with a red herring. His point was accidental harm due to untrained use of a hammer, not intentional assault with intent to kill. Usually, untrained use of a hammer results in a bruised thumb. The harm is within 1 millimeter of the hammer. Untrained use of a firearm can, and has, harmed someone more than 1 mile away. I was on my roof the other day and I discovered two bullet holes that were probably the result of the New Year’s celebration. BULLET HOLES!!! That annoyed me a little.
I found the spent rounds in my attic. Not only was my family endagered, but the idioit does not even know that he endagered them. Wait, is that just a Denver thing. No one fires live rounds into the sky on New Year's Eve in your neighborhood. Or maybe when they do, the bullets never come back to the Earth. That's why I am moving. At any rate, I am pondering a whole new controversy. 1911’s are better than Glocks.
Heavy
Let me address this for you, Treo, so the personal attacks may continue. And yes, the felon analogy didn't get through because the context I used was wrong.
I don't want the people carry concealed around me to be able to do so without knowing which end is the barrel. They have a right to personal protection, I have a right not to be surrounded by people who have guns with "who-knows-what" kind of ammo, carry style, safety, maintence, or shooting abilities. Having them take the class and the shooting test won't solve that, but it will certainly help them start on the right path. If you cannot shoot a gun properly who bother to carry one? If you cannot actually shoot straight it's more likely the gun will be taken away and fired back at you. Here in MN I see way too many people carrying handguns who've never fired them. If the people aren't going to be responsible for themselves it's time to set a few ground rules. If you want to carry, yes, it's your right, and yes, it's the right of others to know you've been trained properly.
And yes, the felon analogy didn't get through because the context I used was wrong. I don't want the people carry concealed around me to be able to do so without knowing which end is the barrel. They have a right to personal protection, I have a right not to be surrounded by people who have guns with "who-knows-what" kind of ammo, carry style, safety, maintence, or shooting abilities. Having them take the class and the shooting test won't solve that, but it will certainly help them start on the right path. If you cannot shoot a gun properly who bother to carry one? If you cannot actually shoot straight it's more likely the gun will be taken away and fired back at you. Here in MN I see way too many people carrying handguns who've never fired them. If the people aren't going to be responsible for themselves it's time to set a few ground rules. If you want to carry, yes, it's your right, and yes, it's the right of others to know you've been trained properly.
If people want to see it this way, I guess I am anti second ammendment. If a person wants to carry a gun they need to meet certain criteria and show they're competent. If they want to keep one at home loaded, that's fine. Want to travel around in public with it, then there needs to be a standard of skill. If you cannot consistently get a center of mass shot from 12 yards away on a silhoutte perhaps carrying a gun in public isn't for you.
WardenWolf
member
Honestly, I agree with having a shooting test, although I don't agree with having to retest since shooting is a skill you don't exactly forget.
Here's why: CCW situations are invariably public. You're out where there's other people around. If you miss, there can be deadly consequences for innocent bystanders. If you're going to carry, you at least need to know how to shoot decently.
It would be nice if there was some way to make sure everyone received basic firearms training, but you know what? We can't do that. There's a lot of people out there who can't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside. A gun is a responsibility, and requiring a shooting test for CCW is better than nothing.
Here's why: CCW situations are invariably public. You're out where there's other people around. If you miss, there can be deadly consequences for innocent bystanders. If you're going to carry, you at least need to know how to shoot decently.
It would be nice if there was some way to make sure everyone received basic firearms training, but you know what? We can't do that. There's a lot of people out there who can't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside. A gun is a responsibility, and requiring a shooting test for CCW is better than nothing.
zammyman said:
That's okay, the truth will set you free.
By my count there have only been very few people ITT that have been arguing for a testing requirement, the majority are against. I hope that you feel that your efforts have been rewarded.
p.s. amendment only has one M, there oughta be a test.
Treo
member
You run the risk of being around untrained and un regulated shooters everyday you just aren't aware that they're there.
In Colorado, as stated before, I can legally open carry W/out a permit, class , background check or training. To take it a step further I can buy the gun in a private sale ( away from a gun show) W/out any paper work or background check at all.
Would you regulate all that as well?
More people die every year from medical malpractice than accidental GSWs every year, regulation has not been shown to effect that statistic. So, what is the purpose of adding government regulation except to make it harder for the law abiding citizen to obtain & carry a handgun?
Bottom line I'd much rather deal W/ the risks attending too much liberty than too little ( to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson)
In Colorado, as stated before, I can legally open carry W/out a permit, class , background check or training. To take it a step further I can buy the gun in a private sale ( away from a gun show) W/out any paper work or background check at all.
Would you regulate all that as well?
More people die every year from medical malpractice than accidental GSWs every year, regulation has not been shown to effect that statistic. So, what is the purpose of adding government regulation except to make it harder for the law abiding citizen to obtain & carry a handgun?
Bottom line I'd much rather deal W/ the risks attending too much liberty than too little ( to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
