Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?

[Cannonball888]

No, but a fashion test should be mandatory

 

[ultradoc]

I would say yes. You need to know which end of the tube the round goes out. A quote from G. Gorden Liddy

 

[Bailey Guns]

This thread needs to die a respectable way.. not by being beaten.

Well, if you "should require a test" people would just admit you're wrong, we could move on!

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Well, if you "should require a test" people would just admit you're wrong, we could move on!

In addition to admitting being wrong, it would be nice if they would also read the Constitution.

 

[Bailey Guns]

Originally posted by zammyman:
A gun is a tool, and like any tool, proper training is needed to prevent the injury of someone the tool was not intended for.

When was the last time you (or anyone else for that matter) had to demonstrate proficiency with a hammer before Home Depot would let you purchase and carry it?

There are many different types of "tools".

 

[LWGN]

When was the last time you (or anyone else for that matter) had to demonstrate proficiency with a hammer before Home Depot would let you purchase and carry it?

+1

A hammer, after all, is a deadly weapon!

I don't think there should be a licensing requirement at all. That's what having a right means.

If we, as responsible gun owners, want to help improve the gun-handling skills of the general population, we should make sure that we help provide freely available (but not mandatory) gun safety and proficiency instruction in our communities.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?

When Texas first passed the concealed carry I was TOTALLY and VERY VOCALLY AGAINST having a class and shooting requirement to get the concealed license.
After all, I thought, I can shoot better than probably 80-90 percent of the LEO carrying guns and I know the law.

Well, the class showed me I did not know the law as well as I thought I did, but I still was against the class and shooting requirements to allow me to do what I have a "right" to do in the first place.

After a few years of seeing (on the Internet and on my shooting range) how ill informed many people are, especially in other states, about the law concerning carrying and legally using a gun,
and seeing just how poorly some people shoot,
and the almost total lack of practice of some people that have a carry license,
I am now VERY VOCALLY FOR people having to attend and pass class room and shooting requirements.

As a matter of fact I would increase the requirements by having a requirement that a person up for renewal of their CHL show proof that they have done some shooting practice at least once or twice a year.

Yes, I know we have a "right" but with "rights" comes responsibility.

 

[Mello]

M2 Carbine
After a few years of seeing (on the Internet and on my shooting range) how ill informed many people are, especially in other states, about the law concerning carrying and legally using a gun,
and seeing just how poorly some people shoot,
and the almost total lack of practice of some people that have a carry license,
I am now VERY VOCALLY FOR people having to attend and pass class room and shooting requirements.

As a matter of fact I would increase the requirements by having a requirement that a person up for renewal of their CHL show proof that they have done some shooting practice at least once or twice a year.

Yes, I know we have a "right" but with "rights" comes responsibility.
M2 Carbine is online now Report Post

You are failing to distinguish between what is legally allowed on the part of the government versus what a responsible individual should do.

You are also failing to acknowledge that only in the event that some person's act harms you do you have a complaint; or in the circumstance that two individuals' rights come into conflict does the government have cause to intervene. Prior restraint is not permitted. You mention rights and responsibilities, I agree to the extent that someone who's exercise of their right causes harm is liable/responsible for that harm. Until there is a harm I have no say in the matter.

The original question is what the government can do legally/constitutionally; not what is the best choice for an individual to make.

Since we are specifically addressing a Constitutionally protected individual right of the people, which is different from privileges like getting a driver's license; the standard that the government must meet to justify infringement on that right must be of the highest possible.

You should be in support of people getting training. You should not be in favor of the government mandating it however.

Tirod

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.

The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property; only to the extent provided in the U.S. Constitution. If the power is not there the government can not do it. The most frequent violator of the people's right to life, liberty, and property is often their own government.
There is a world of difference between a government issuing a driver's license (not a constitutional issue) and infringing upon the Second Amendment. You make a totally illogical leap from the need to show safe operation and proficiency to equating the lack thereof to a loss of life.

You are advocating prior restraint. You have no harm by someone choosing to carry a weapon who also chooses to remain ignorant. Only in the event that you are harmed by damage to your life, liberty or property do you have an interest. You fears and concerns do not mandate government infringement upon a constitutionally protected right.

 

[M2 Carbine]

You should be in support of people getting training. You should not be in favor of the government mandating it however.

Absolutely I am,
BUT the the real life facts are, people are just LAZY and somewhat stupid. A very large percentage will not become competent with the gun or learn the laws unless forced to.
And no matter how you cut it you wouldn't want these people firing a gun around your wife and kids in some Wal Mart parking lot.

Even in Texas, at least half the people I know with a CHL never fire a shot in the 4 years before their next CHL renewal.


Sorry, but due to experience I have changed my mind from,

"NO, I have my rights and there should be NO government requirements",

To

"YES, As much as I hate to say it, due to people not being responsible, there should be (state, shall issue) requirements to carry a gun."


Being VERY outspoken against government interference with my "Rights" I do not take this "government interference" lightly and it took years of observing incompetents having carry licenses, to change my mind.


Much like not being allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater can't be allowed, even thought you have 1st Amendment rights,

Having minimum requirements that you be competent to carry a gun doesn't interfear with your 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[zammyman]

When was the last time you (or anyone else for that matter) had to demonstrate proficiency with a hammer before Home Depot would let you purchase and carry it?

I don't remember the last time somebody who used a hammer wrong hurt someone other than themselves.

 

[M2 Carbine]

The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property; only to the extent provided in the U.S. Constitution. If the power is not there the government can not do it. The most frequent violator of the people's right to life, liberty, and property is often their own government.

This is true.

Why are we even talking about requirements for a concealed carry license.
The requirement to have a gun license is against our rights.
We have rights.
Show some guts.
You don't have to have a license OR training.
Just stand up for you rights.
Be a man and carry without a license.


Let us know who that goes.

 

[heavyshooter]

I honestly did not anticipate this thread being as polarizing as it is.

 

[JR47]

The fact that "some people" are "stupid" should alert us to the problem here. A license won't make anyone smart.

Even in Texas, at least half the people I know with a CHL never fire a shot in the 4 years before their next CHL renewal.

Then, you're advocating mandatory classes and qualifications for renewal? Along with the initial class?

Face it, there are an amazing number of people who only shoot their rifles twice a year. Once to sight-in, and once to kill a deer, year after year. According to the wisdom here, that certainly wouldn't be enough. After all rifle bullets can go for miles.

Again, not to put too fine a point on it, but PROVE your OPINION is correct. Scenario after scenario has been talked about, yet NONE of them evidently occur, or they wouldn't be scenarios, they'd be newspaper articles.

Put up, or shut up, is the phrase. :banghead:

 

[CoRoMo]

I honestly did not anticipate this thread being as polarizing as it is.

Me neither, but it makes sense.
When nonnegotiable rights, are all of the sudden argued and believed to actually be only privileges, acquired through some sort of achievement level, people tend to feel strongly about whether or not the switch should be made.

 

[Timradcliffe345]

Yes, there sohuld be mandatory training and a shooting test. An individual must possess a certain proficieny with a firearm before he or she can carry it in public.

Similarly, people should be required to pass a test at the polling station before being allowed to vote. There are too many ignorant people out there.

 

[LWGN]

I don't remember the last time somebody who used a hammer wrong hurt someone other than themselves.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15105599/detail.html

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/181768

http://www.wpbf.com/news/13445858/detail.html?subid=22100411&qs=1;bp=t

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Baby-Killed-in-Hammer-Attack.html

http://www.topix.com/city/blue-diamond-nv/2008/11/woman-killed-in-hammer-attack


I could go on and on ...

If I were a gun dealer, I'd include a booklet and cd detailing safe handling practices with every firearm purchased.

But the responsibility for complying with those practices would still lie with the individual.

Requiring a class, requiring a license, requiring renewal classes, etc., ad nauseum, doesn't mean that people who have cleared all these hurdles won't still behave in a stupid, irresponsible fashion, and not having cleared them doesn't mean that people will behave in a stupid, irresponsible fashion.

Depriving people of the right to effective self-defense is a serious harm. I don't believe that it should be done without cause.

 

[zammyman]

Quote:
I don't remember the last time somebody who used a hammer wrong hurt someone other than themselves.


http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15105599/detail.html

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/181768

http://www.wpbf.com/news/13445858/de...0411&qs=1;bp=t

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Bab...er-Attack.html

http://www.topix.com/city/blue-diamo...-hammer-attack

I just love how everybody throws everything out of context here. Feels like I have to write a legal document to cover and loopholes and prevent my view or statements from being twisted around back against me.

A hammer is a tool with a primary used of driving or removing nails. During operations by people as it was primarly designed for, I've yet to see a case where someone else received life threatining injuries.

A gun is also a tool, but in the case of a handgun it's a tool designed for self defense. Those using it to defend themselves need to learn how to use it properly and accurately to lower risks of injuring or killing individuals they're not aiming for.

Spending a lot of time at the range I see people there who couldn't consistently fire a well placed shot at say, 8 yards, without missing a target the size of a human silhoutte. There are plenty of people who get their CCWs then carry a gun they've never fired or practiced with. Furthermore, I've seen plenty of people who carry and aren't an accurate shot with any pistol, especially in a timed quick shot. They obviously lack the skill, range time, and knowledge needed to shoot properly. Such people create an additional risk of not hitting the desired target in a SD situation.

 

[zammyman]

If I were a gun dealer, I'd include a booklet and cd detailing safe handling practices with every firearm purchased.

But the responsibility for complying with those practices would still lie with the individual.

Requiring a class, requiring a license, requiring renewal classes, etc., ad nauseum, doesn't mean that people who have cleared all these hurdles won't still behave in a stupid, irresponsible fashion, and not having cleared them doesn't mean that people will behave in a stupid, irresponsible fashion.

You can't force anyone to follow general rules or safety guidelines. If a class is given and certain shooting skills are needed to pass the class and receive the permit, you'll weed out those who cannot shoot accurately to begin with. Obviously this won't ensure every shot they ever take after that will be good, or ensure they'll continue to practice. At least they'll leave with the knowledge of how to take a good shot and what they need to practice on (I.E., flinching and pushing down).

Guns include a booklet of safe practices, it's called the owners manual. Few people read it because it's not required for their concealed carry (or much else except for taking down the gun in some cases), and it's not going to teach them a thing about proper shooting. Range time is needed for that!!!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

A gun is also a tool, but in the case of a handgun it's a tool designed for self defense. Those using it to defend themselves need to learn how to use it properly and accurately to lower risks of injuring or killing individuals they're not aiming for.

Once again, you've outlined a possible problem. Now show that it's a real problem by giving us data on how often CCW holders "injur or kill individuals they're not aiming for."

 

[cpttango30]

To me this point of mandating firing line training is moot.

Unless you are going to use LIVE bad guys for target practice (Not a bad idea really I think). You are not going to even remotely be in the same state of mind. You are on a range in a controlled setting with hearing protection, glasses, RSO and nonthreatening paper targets. If you are defending yourself your going to be amped up in poorly lit condition with a phone in one hand gun in the other or flash light. You in regular street cloths where if you are at home in the middle of the night you may be in your pj or even worse your birthday suite. No shoes, no eyes or ears no RSO just you and someone trying to KILL you. So really standing still shooting at a life size target is not even close to preparing you for an encounter.

It is up to the CCW holder to stay proficient with their chosen firearm. If you miss 7 our of 8 shots in your 1911 mag and you kill 2 bystanders and one bad guy you are the one that is going to have to pay the price and live knowing you killed two people that were doing nothing wrong. Not me or anyone else on this message board or any other.

 

[cpttango30]

Man I think my computer is freekin out on me. Double tap

 

[cpttango30]

To me this point of mandating firing line training is moot.

Unless you are going to use LIVE bad guys for target practice (Not a bad idea really I think). You are not going to even remotely be in the same state of mind. You are on a range in a controlled setting with hearing protection, glasses, RSO and nonthreatening paper targets. If you are defending yourself your going to be amped up in poorly lit condition with a phone in one hand gun in the other or flash light. You in regular street cloths where if you are at home in the middle of the night you may be in your pj or even worse your birthday suite. No shoes, no eyes or ears no RSO just you and someone trying to KILL you. So really standing still shooting at a life size target is not even close to preparing you for an encounter.

It is up to the CCW holder to stay proficient with their chosen firearm. If you miss 7 our of 8 shots in your 1911 mag and you kill 2 bystanders and one bad guy you are the one that is going to have to pay the price and live knowing you killed two people that were doing nothing wrong. Not me or anyone else on this message board or any other.

 

[zammyman]

The Brady Campaign website states:

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 also think having each person who receives a CCW being required to pass a certain shooting test would lower the ways in which anti gun nuts like Brady could heap on these types of defenses and have so many people going for it.

 

[TAB]

no one has any data on that... I'd love for some one to compile it, but at this time the info is just not out there.

 

[zammyman]

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.