Sunray writes
First, the quote button is the square "balloon" with little lines in it, like cartoon characters use.
Second, couldn't you use this "got to pick an arbitrary number, even if it is daft" argument to have a test for any/all rights? This is why we threw out tests to quailfy to vote. We could have had some test and picked an arbitrary score. Except rights are rights, you don't need a test.
LoneViking writes
What you want has got nothing to do with it.
Second, the purpose of a person to have a gun on their person as they are out and about is to protect themselves, not you. If a gunfight breaks out and a person is in danger of loosing their life, any person hit by stray gunfire I would lay the blame squarely on the attacker.
In the same manner, if a maniac behind you on the road is shooting at me, trying to run you off the road and kill you, and in the course of your attempting to escape and save your life, you were speeding and ran a red light and got involved in an accident, I would lay the blame of that accident on the maniac who was attempting to kill you.
It seems silly to me that oyu would be all right with a woman getting raped and strangled with her own panties because she didn't score high enough on the test, or because there is some minute chance that if she had a gun her stray bullets might hit you.
Are you going to add other restrictions to CCWs as well that involve bad marksmanship? if an attacker grabs you from behind and starts attacking, you cannot see him exactly, but you free your gun, are you allowed to just point it generally behind you and to where his torso is, even though you cannot see the front site of the gun and fire? Are you disallowed from using your carry weapon if the alley you are attacked in is too dark? If the attackers smash/disable the lights in the empty parking lot just as you reach the middle?
"...That is why I am against "tests"..." Score numbers are arbitrary. However, there has to be some number. Even if it's daft.
First, the quote button is the square "balloon" with little lines in it, like cartoon characters use.
Second, couldn't you use this "got to pick an arbitrary number, even if it is daft" argument to have a test for any/all rights? This is why we threw out tests to quailfy to vote. We could have had some test and picked an arbitrary score. Except rights are rights, you don't need a test.
LoneViking writes
I don't want CCW's getting involved in a shooting where their aim is so poor that they are a danger to others.
What you want has got nothing to do with it.
Second, the purpose of a person to have a gun on their person as they are out and about is to protect themselves, not you. If a gunfight breaks out and a person is in danger of loosing their life, any person hit by stray gunfire I would lay the blame squarely on the attacker.
In the same manner, if a maniac behind you on the road is shooting at me, trying to run you off the road and kill you, and in the course of your attempting to escape and save your life, you were speeding and ran a red light and got involved in an accident, I would lay the blame of that accident on the maniac who was attempting to kill you.
It seems silly to me that oyu would be all right with a woman getting raped and strangled with her own panties because she didn't score high enough on the test, or because there is some minute chance that if she had a gun her stray bullets might hit you.
Are you going to add other restrictions to CCWs as well that involve bad marksmanship? if an attacker grabs you from behind and starts attacking, you cannot see him exactly, but you free your gun, are you allowed to just point it generally behind you and to where his torso is, even though you cannot see the front site of the gun and fire? Are you disallowed from using your carry weapon if the alley you are attacked in is too dark? If the attackers smash/disable the lights in the empty parking lot just as you reach the middle?