Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?

[zammyman]

Would you be as good as to provide some examples of this? I don't own a single gun on paper & all but 2 of mine were purchased as private sales am I a criminal

hmmm lets think. How about a criminal wants to buy a gun and gets it privately since he cannot pass a background check?

I never said purchasing one privately made you a criminal. once again you are making outlandish claims and saying dumb things just to fan flames. what a waste of time.

 

[Treo]

hmmm lets think. How about a criminal wants to buy a gun and gets it privately since he cannot pass a background check?

Or he just steals it or buys it from a crackhead

never said purchasing one privately made you a criminal.

I never said you did , I asked a question


All your common sense gunlaws & reasonable restrictions do is make it harder for a law abidding citizen to get a gun they don't slow down a criminal a lick

 

[manfromyard]

"When the Texas CCW bill was being debated, the antis tried to slip in a poisoned pill -- they tried to set the shooting standard higher than for the State Police."

This is the obvious catch. The government can either make the shooting requirements as high as they want to, or they can make the test at whatever cost that they need to, to "weed the undesirables out". No thanks....

 

[Bailey Guns]

zammyman...

I gotta tell ya, you completely lost all credibility with me when you quoted the Brady website a few pages ago. I can only respect someone's opinion to a certain point. You've crossed the line, at least on this subject.

How can you possibly say you wouldn't regulate open carry? So, in your estimation, a person with only minimal classroom training is a danger if he's carrying concealed and you'd prefer he met certain live-fire requirements. But that same person that's carrying openly isn't a danger and shouldn't be held to the same live-fire proficiency standards?

On what planet does that make sense?

Originally posted by zammyman:
Do You Feel Safer Sitting Next to Someone Carrying a Gun?

Many people say no to that question, and for good reason. Most people who have permits to carry concealed weapons - people who are not law enforcement officers - have limited training and undergo less testing than even a novice police recruit. Yet they are led to believe that, given a dangerous situation, they will use deadly force with the same care and consideration that police officers will. Once a bullet leaves a gun, who is to say that it will stop only a criminal? Yet the National Rifle Association (NRA) at every opportunity uses the fear of crime to promote the need for ordinary citizens to secretly pack a gun. Ironically, the NRA forbids its own members from carrying guns into the NRA's national convention, but they want to force the rest of us to let those people carry guns into our schools, restaurants, parks, sports stadiums, streets, and anywhere else they want.

I've already cited scientific studies that prove police officers shoot the wrong person at a rate almost 6 times higher than civilians who use guns in defense situations. You apparently don't care about that and cite this garbage from the Brady idiots claiming citizens with guns are more dangerous than highly trained cops. Do you not care about facts? Furthermore, NRA national conventions are held all over the country, in many locations where concealed carry is illegal due to local law or ordinance...not because the NRA won't allow it.

I'm really, really surprised you had the nerve to quote that. Actually, no, I'm not.

Sorry, dude. After reading this I can come to only one conclusion. You are a troll and you're really not interested in anything other than causing trouble in this thread. You can't produce a single fact to support your assertions and you use ridiculous analogies in attempts to support your fictitious arguments. When the ridiculousness of your arguments is pointed out to you all you can muster in your defense is to claim others are twisting your words and taking your statements out of context.

I see no need to respond to your foolishness any longer.

 

[BlackHand1917]

I think the LACK of much in the way of incidents where CCW holders have killed or wounded bystanders is very telling. If all sorts of bystanders were being killed by CCW holders the anti-gun media would be shouting it from the housetops. We CCW holders probably kill less people by mistake than policemen! I don't mean to disparge cops (as I carry a handgun for a corrections agency myself) but I would not be surprised if this were true.

 

[Bailey Guns]

It is true...to the tune of 6 times as often. See the study I cited by Gary Kleck.

 

[zammyman]

I agree there hasn't been a trend of such accidents. If people were better shots it would lower the chances even more, and increase their chances if they did have to take a shot of actually taking down the perp.

 

[Mello]

What about the benefit to the safety of society of having as many law abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons?

I do not know what percentage of the population has concealed weapons permits. It is proven that the more there are the more it deters crimes, which saves lives and property.

Therefore, the risk of injury from what might be called untrained citizens to the general populace versus the deterrent effect on criminals and the resultant saving of lives clearly out weighs any expressed concerns so far posted in this thread.

 

[JWarren]

zammyman wrote:

I agree there hasn't been a trend of such accidents. If people were better shots it would lower the chances even more, and increase their chances if they did have to take a shot of actually taking down the perp.

Just so we are clear...

This has gone on 12 pages in order to try to solve a problem that even you admit doesn't exist.


Classic.

-- John

 

[General Geoff]

Requiring a shooting test would discourage some people from bothering to apply for a permit/license. This is unconscionable, when an otherwise innocent person who would have the means to protect herself, but doesn't because of governmental red tape.

 

[Bailey Guns]

I think that's the whole point. Let the government take care of us. After all, the gov't knows what's best.

 

[Flyboy]

Should a spelling test be a requirement to own a printing press?

 

[SuperNaut]

Should a spelling test be a requirement to own a printing press?

Or more timely: Should a spelling test be a requirement to access the internet?

 

[heavyshooter]

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.

You are not opposed to the 2nd Ammendment. You value it as much as any member of this site. You are just unwilling to read the 2nd Ammendment in a vacuum. You recognize that the govt. has three responsibilities: preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And you believe that an ill-informed doof with a Glock should be informed for the sake of Life preservation. We are so focussed on my right to protect myself that we are missing the point. The right to self-preservation (which I whole heartedly affirm) cannot not preclude the obligation to preserve the lives of bystanders. Dead Horse, I know.

 

[egon]

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.

Agreed. Long as it's not a test of such difficulty people will struggle to pass constantly. Since most shots taken are within a few feet, it's not too hard to make the shot!

 

[heavyshooter]

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.

That's all I'm trying to say. Thanks Mike.

 

[egon]

heavyshooter agreed 100%. I cannot imagine why a person would want to carry and not be good at shooting! ...just asking for trouble.

 

[Bailey Guns]

Well, the old saying, "I can explain it to you but I can't make you understand it," applies here.

I'm tired of trying to make some of you understand.

zammyman is opposed to the true meaning of the 2nd Amend. That's as obvious as the futility of this thread.

 

[egon]

zammyman is opposed to the true meaning of the 2nd Amend.

It would appear he's not opposed to hours of responses, though! wow. Does anybody actually know this user?

 

[heavyshooter]

They're completely related and relevant, because both the first amendment and second amendment are rights. Tests are not required to exercise rights, period.

Wait, the horse is flinching, let me get my stick.

Unwise voting is self-destructive. Unskilled shooting is other-destructive (is that a word). You get my point.

 

[egon]

Guiness book called... something about the longest thread they've seen? *bangshead*

 

[heavyshooter]

Do you really think misspelled words are not life threatening?

Errors in medication orders at hospitals are often the result of misspelled words. These have resulted in many deaths over the years.

Oh Come On! Was that a subject change. Mispelled words on medication vs. literacy required voting. I make a connection between driving and shooting and everyone calls foul. But this analogy can stand?

What do you think guys; 1911 or Glock?

 

[Treo]

Ya know heavy you could put this train wreck to bed all you gotta do is ask for a lock
( or we could see just how long it goes)

 

[heavyshooter]

Zammyman,

While it is the case that the majority (not all)of the posts have been opposed to a proficiency requirement, your point is no less valid (maybe because I agree with you). For some reason you have been singled out. The Red Herrings have been all over the place and many of them have been at your expense. I apologize for that. I take some responsibility for it because I should have anticipated that this topic would become heated. You are not anti-2nd amendment. You are valuaing lives that are not your own.

 

[GregGry]

I think legal training on the use of force should go along with being able to handle a firearm. A firearm might keep you alive, but knowledge of the laws and the use of force will keep you out of prison.