Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your possession and use of a firearm that endangers my life is the point. If you can't shoot straight, don't carry. I don't want to be a victim of your inability.

Maintaining a semblance of order does prevent evil. Katrina like chaos is the result of no effective governance. You and I aren't the problem, it's the people we carry against. They perpetrate evil by denying us our rights and possessions.

Government creates and enforces law to prevent and punish evil. If murder, theft, larceny, and lethal irresponsibility isn't evil, what do you call it?

The sig line for sniperx has a point - we don't license children, even though they aren't criminals. We know they don't make responsible decisions.

It's about demonstrating responsibility.
 
When I first heard "shooting test" I cringed at what might be required skill level. Then when I saw HUGE target a few steps away I almost started laughing and thought to myself "Its in the bag!"
Click to expand...
And can be changed at any time, for any reason, by any state or even local testing place. Like when they start getting so many applicants they wish to reduce the number of people recieving licenses.
Or when they want to "reduce the number of weapons on our streets."
The size of that target, the type of target, whether it moves, the number of rounds required to be fired, etc can change as often as your local politicians.
In fact why not make it a lateral moving target?
Why not require a really high round count if for no other reason than to exclude those unable or unwilling to purchase that much ammunition?
You could even do one of the less honest gun range techniques and require they purchase only ammunition sold by the testing facility, at inflated prices.
That should eliminate those low income "criminaly inclined" individuals, the same ones "saturday night special" laws are aimed at.

Additionaly the license of many places is in fact registration of firearms. Information that can and will be used against gun owners, and has been in various ways anyplace it is done.
 
Interestingly I agree somewhat, but do think a verbal class needs to be attended as well as some rage time to train one to safely, and lawfully knowledgeable carry a firearm. I actually think most of the CCW tests and range time are pretty well thought out and proper.
 
You know, I find interesting that there is such a categorical distinction between a driver’s license and CCW throughout the thread. But we do not recognize a distinction of any sort between voting, free speech and CCW. For the sake of getting clarity for myself I need to mention a few things.

1) People get drivers licenses because cars, while morally neutral, are deadly. Am I the only person who sees a gun as morally neutral but deadly? If it weren't dangerous I wouldn't carry it!:) Have I not mentioned something that cars and guns have in common? Does not the commonality give some credence to the comparison? Essentially, I am asking whether we should have to handle our morally neutral/dangerous gun before we get a license.

2) I have done a lot of public speaking and I have not killed anyone yet. I have voted several times and no one has died. But I have been in a room as a bullet sailed by because my neighbor was incompetent. Does this reflect a difference between the first and second amendments? Don’t trip, it’s just a questions. (BTW - If you yell fire in a crowded theater and someone is injured, you will go to jail - 1st amendment and all).

3) As I mentioned earlier, we are being inconsistent in our application of the second amendment. "Inalienable" is an all encompassing term. It means that no one can remove the right from you. No one includes you. This means that committing a felony does not remove the right to bear arms (not to mention minors and the mentally challenged). So I must ask, why do we deny them the right to bear arms (or even vote for that matter). You guys are on the verge of convincing me that the second amendment allows for universal gun carry. But if I join you we will ride down that slippery slope together. Should I suit up?:D

Heavy
 
Last edited:
Sure, it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater- and it is also illegal to fire a gun in a crowded theater. the problem with a test to exercise a right, is that once conditions are placed on a right, it is no longer a right, but a privilege.

Suppose this test required you to pass the BAR? Suppose it required you to shoot a 5 shot, 1" group at 25 yards, off hand with a handgun in less than 15 seconds?

Years ago, it used to be a law that a person had to pass a literacy exam in order to be able to vote. In a class on the COTUS, I read a story about how literacy exams in the south went. A black man walked into a Georgia courthouse to register for the vote. For his literacy exam, he was handed a newspaper and told to read the headline.

The newspaper was written in Chinese.

The black man said: "The headline of this here paper says that ain't no ni**as gonna vote in Georgia."

Think the same thing won't happen with respect to guns? Check out the CCW issue procedures in NY or NJ and see.
 
Make that government fear -- of democracy.
Click to expand...
Government fear of inalienable rights under the Constitution of our Republic.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not simply a Democracy.
There is many democracies in the world, and a lot of them are bad places to live.
We practice representative democracy, but we are a Constiutional Republic not a Democracy.

A Constitutional Republic can be a very bad thing or a very good thing, it just depends what values the Republic is based on. Ours was based on the Constitution of the United States.
Some are based on some very bad things, or principles that are worded to mean next to nothing (takes Mexico's RKBA under article 10 of thier constituion.)

In a pure democracy 51% of the population can remove any rights from the other 49%.
In our Constitutional Republic there is rights that are inalienable whether a majority or a minority like them or not. There is not many of them listed, but those that are cannot be infringed on.

Powerful politicians may try and even succeed at various times in convincing people to favor infringement, and then proceed with such infringement, but that is contrary to the Republic's values.
It may not always be contrary to democracy though (if favored by more people than it is opposed by.)
 
Here is a possible solution so nobody's rights are trampled and the streets aren't filled with incompetent gun-toting idiots:

Every instructor is required to offer a voluntary firearms handling/shooting session. If you know how to safely handle your weapon, great, on your way you go. If you do not, stay after with the instructor and have a free learning opportunity.

This way every new shooter is handed a chance to learn how to handle/shoot their gun, and no experienced shooter is required by law to do anything they don't want to do.

Of course there would always be those too proud to ask for help or those who truly think they don't need it, but you can't win 'em all.

Of course, someone will respond to this by saying we shouldn't have to take a class at all. To which I will respond: We got into the hole we are in now one shovel-full at a time, it will be the same way getting out.
 
Your possession and use of a firearm that endangers my life is the point. If you can't shoot straight, don't carry. I don't want to be a victim of your inability.
Click to expand...

You have now stated a possilble problem. Your next step is to prove it is a real problem.

That ought to be easy to do -- if unskilled Concealed Weapons carriers were killing other people in any numbers at all, the media would be full of it. They would be trumpeting it to the heavens.

Okay. Everybody be real quiet and see if we can hear that trumpet.;)
 
Ditto Vern,

I think this is a solution in search of a problem. Is there a rash of shooting deaths caused by people who can't shoot straight?

If there is, I haven't heard a peep.
 
I've asked this question over and over on internet forums, "When you demand more training, what problem are you trying to solve?"

I have to say, the best answer was, "Well, they at least ought to be able to strip and clean their guns."

Obviously the guy was a neatness freak who thinks there are too many dirty guns out there.:D
 
That is very basic K3. In fact, no one carries a cocked loaded deadly book. And a book sitting on a desk is not going to shoot an innocent bystander because of the lack or training.
Click to expand...


Nor is a pistol in a holster.

Like Vern said,
You have now stated a possilble problem. Your next step is to prove it is a real problem.
Click to expand...

You wanna legislate against every possible problem? Create a test and a license?

Freedom is risky. Man up and stop worrying about things that might happen. Live your life and move on. Statistically, I'm more likely to get hit by a drunk driver than be hit by a stray bullet from a CCW holder acting in SD. But, I don't live my life in fear of possibly getting into said accident. It's a possibility. OK. There's things to do and life to live. I can't control everything and what others do, and I'm not going to try. I'm not going to worry about it.

That's a helluva sad way to go through life.
 
There sure are a lot of people on this forum that I'd hate to have in charge of my rights.

OK, heavyshooter:

1) People get drivers licenses because cars, while morally neutral, are deadly. Am I the only person who sees a gun as morally neutral but deadly? If it weren't dangerous I wouldn't carry it! Have I not mentioned something that cars and guns have in common? Does not the commonality give some credence to the comparison? Essentially, I am asking whether we should have to handle our morally neutral/dangerous gun before we get a license.
Click to expand...

A car is deadly??? A gun is deadly??? I'm going to assume you meant something to the effect of "either a car or gun can be deadly when misused". Because either one, left alone, are certainly not dangerous, much less deadly.

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that motor vehicle accidents account for about 37% of accidental deaths in this country and firearms account for 0.7% of accidental deaths in this country?

Stop with the ridiculous driver license/CCW analogy already. It doesn't work.

And what about the fact where I pointed out police officers, who go through fairly rigorous and ongoing training, shoot the wrong person at a rate almost 6 times higher than average citizens with guns?

I didn't make up either of those statistics. They're either from the government or noted scientific studies.

Show me something, other than your emotions, to substantiate your arguments? Please?

And regarding the guy that sent a bullet flying through your room, what happened? Was he punished? Did he have a CCW or was he just a gun owner or just some yahoo fondling a gun? If he didn't negligently fire the shot as a CCW permit holder, then that example has no bearing on this debate. That would bring us to a whole new discussion of "should people be required to pass a competency test before buying or possessing a gun"?

Not only has the "more training" side of the argument not presented any evidence it would make anyone safer, the "more training" side of the argument has thus far not said exactly how far they'd be willing to go in fulfilling the "more training" requirement and how much training and ongoing training and certifications and proficiency tests would be enough to make them feel safer.

That's why it's impossible to have a logical debate with those that argue from an emotional standpoint. It can't be done.
 
Ya know, I can think of few people who's profession requires more skill, training, recurrent training, testing, licensing and certifications than airline pilots.

Sometimes, airline pilots f*** up and drive their planes into the ground and kill lots of people.
 
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what problem more training will solve, and demonstrate that problem actually exists.
Click to expand...

That's easy, Vern. It'll make some people "feel" better. But if you want a real answer, you better brew a pot of coffee, bring a lunch and get comfortable. You're gonna be waiting for a long time, I suspect.
 
Nope, but it should be a requirement to graduate high school.
Click to expand...

Why, you mean ol' conservative, you.

Next you'll be saying that being able to read and write should be a requirement to graduate high school.

And we know that ain't gonna happen!
 
Nope, but it should be a requirement to graduate high school.
Click to expand...

Bah, if folks don't want to shoot they shouldn't have to. Personal choice and all. That being said I should have not been forced to take art class... dang that teacher hated me.
 
This question always breaks down into absolutists vs. realists and there's never a satisfactory answer.
Absolutist will never allow the camel's nose into the tent and realists are viewed as sell-out slippery slopers. Pick a side and lose
Click to expand...

This is a pretty good point.
 
The purpose of Government is to prevent evil. Obviously, Constitutionally guaranteed or not, to get a driver's license, you need to show basic safe operation and proficiency. Anything less creates loss of life. Unintentionally killing someone with a car is just as dumb as doing the same with a firearm. If you can't drive, don't be on the street. If you can't shoot safely, don't bring a gun around me.

RKBA? Yes, absolutely, until it infringes on my basic right to breathe air. YOUR rights do not supercede mine. WE have to have some compromise in which to coexist peacefully. I have to demonstrate safe gun handling so that you won't get killed accidentally.

MO requires a shooting test. Locally, the only ones to fail were an older woman who didn't have enough hand strength to pull the trigger, and a older man who constantly adjusted his hearing protection with gun in hand and finger on the trigger. As my son would say - Epic Failure.

I agree any certification can be misused to exclude certain groups - but to disempower a group takes their willing participation. We saw the end of Apartheid in America in the '60's, and CCW has gone from "The Few, The Proud" to 48 state acceptance. It was done by hiring legislators who understood what the citizen wanted, not selling our birthright for pottage.

If anything, I fear some Americans will do exactly that, again, as they did in the '30's. I'm not worried about the shooting test, I passed it not having been on a range in five years, on 4 hours sleep. Some people there had been practicing for weeks and barely kept it in the black. A shooting test really means your state government is considerate enough of you to hold your neighbor to a standard for your protection, and theirs, too.
Click to expand...

Tirod,

Honestly, I always appreciate your posts.

Heavy
 
Vern
"When you demand more training, what problem are you trying to solve?"
Click to expand...

Maybe we are looking at this all wrong. There aren't piles of bodies from untrained CCWers but maybe there are piles of bodies of untrained CCWers. I have no numbers for this, just a "theory".:rolleyes:

You do realize what this means if my "theory" is correct, don't you? It means that the powers that be aren't against us... they are looking out for us!:what::rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Should There Be More Proficiency Test Requirements for CCW?
2 3 4 5
Replies
104
Views
4K
Occam's Razor
O
L
  • Locked
  • Poll
Passing CCW tests - too easy or too hard?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
CB900F
C
W
  • Locked
  • Poll
Concealed Permit Requirements
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
5K
FiREhAwk
F
S
  • Locked
So the Boston Globe's Editorial Staff has this to say about carrying guns...
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
4K
Dudedog
Dudedog
fireman 9731
  • Locked
News Article-local lady oldest female in Ky. with concealed carry license
Replies
6
Views
546
Officers'Wife
Officers'Wife
Back
Top