Your thoughts on ccl before ability to operate firearm

[sideways]

Hey Dave I'll work on my grammer thanks for helping me with.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

As far as competence with a gun prior to CCW, I think the prudent man would seek to acheive a certain standard, but I have a problem with mandating one.

Exactly.

 

[NG VI]

Who likes the sound of that?

Paul Helmke, as long as it's only the beginning of the prohibition process.

 

[shockwave]

Currently, many non-US citizens are able to possess firearms depending on the state they reside in. That's the way it is now, and you oppose that arrangement.

From my reading of the Founding Dudes, and their commentaries written outside of the principle documents, and my understanding of the ideas that inspired them, there were certain privileges and rights to be accorded to citizens. An armed populace, the concept of citizens bearing arms, is a fundamental part of our system of government. Whether some states allow aliens to carry weapons isn't a concern of mine. But if I had my druthers, ownership would be reserved for citizens only. Aliens wishing to bear arms and enjoy the Second Amendment are encouraged to become US citizens. If their state currently allows them to buy guns, then they're golden.

 

[Fiv3r]

I don't believe that one has to be a "master" of his firearm before he carries it for defense. My wife is not a particularly good shot. However, I don't think she would fire wildly and willy nilly into a crowd of folks should she be forced to defend herself with even the most basic of training she has had.

Heck, I try to put 50-100 rounds of ammo through my carry piece weekly if I can. Time and Money. I dry fire and handle my weapons often (not the kind of guy that buys a gun but is too scared to touch it so it sits in a safe "just in case"). Could I put one between a bad guy's eyes at 25 yards off hand? No, but hopefully he'd wet his pants as 200gr ball whizzed somewhat close to him. Do I feel comfortable enough drawing, taking aim, checking my target and firing so that my shots hit center mass at an average combat distance, I can clear a jam or misfire, and reload my weapon on the fly should I need to? Sure, but I'm not a super hero and I would NEVER consider taking the sheep dog human shield head shot in a hostage situation thing that tends to be thrown around as some sort of mastery measure at times. I don't carry for that.

My CCW is to protect my neck and that of my family. I feel comfortably prepared to do that. If it saves others, that's a happy bi product.

In order to legally carry a pistol, one must pass at least a fairly thorough screening. Generally speaking, people who are irresponsible and dangerous with a firearm tend to be irresponsible and dangerous with other aspects of their lives. Do I get the warm fuzzies knowing that SOME of them carry a gun? No, but it doesn't scare the hell out of me as much as knowing that for every one of them that does there are THOUSANDS that get behind the wheel of 2000 lb cars and share the road with my loved ones.

 

[mesinge2]

The key here is judgment. You can't test judgment. Like there's no way a drivers test is going to stop the few bad people who will end up driving drunk/recklessly/road-raging/road-racing as soon as no one is watching.

I agree with everything GLOOB said.

got money, political clout or a vocal and feared minority group to advocate on you side.... you get plenty of due process.

the rest of us get treated as a "potential conviction statistic" to bolster some politician or DAs resume

Unfortunately, I also agree this this.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...What evidence do we have that the public with loaded guns can't use them safely and competently?...

It's an inference.

[1] We know that in many States there is no training requirement for a CCW.

[2] Even in States with a training requirement it's minimal. When I took a Nevada CCW last July (which I needed to do since Nevada stopped recognizing my Florida and Utah CCWs), the majority of students barely squeaked through the minimal qualification.

[3] And haven't you been to public ranges and seen a fair amount of pretty poor shooting and gun handling?

[4] So it is reasonable to believe that there are honest citizens who are lawfully carrying guns in public who aren't particularly competent with them (just as there are plenty of lousy drivers).

Is this good or desirable, even though completely legal? I don't think so. Do you really think so? Wouldn't you really rather that people with guns knew how to use them better and more safely? (Don't you wish that more people were better drivers?)

Are there things we can do as responsible members of the shooting community to help? I think so, and I think it would be good to do so.

Of course I'd rather not see government meddling in this, as well as a lot of other things. But whether, or to what extent, governments involve themselves will be a political matter decided in various legislatures (and ultimately the polling place). And whether government meddling can be made to stick will be a legal issue to be decided in the courts.

But I still think it would be a fine thing for the shooting community to at least generally accept the notion that if someone is going to have a gun, and especially if someone is going to be carrying it loaded in public, it would be a good thing for him to know how to use it safely and effectively and to generally know the law. It would be a fine thing if this were accepted as a cultural norm and that we, without government involvement, did what we could to foster this.

We can't expect perfection, but there are things we, as private individuals, can do:

[1] Do you encourage new shooters to seek out training and to practice regularly (or do you minimize the desirability of training)?

[2] Do you set an example by getting doing what you can to improve your skills?

[3] If you've had training, do you actively help teach others?

 

[CoRoMo]

But if I had my druthers, ownership would be reserved for citizens only.

Yes, I realize that. That's basically what you posted earlier. What I'm asking you is, why. What is it about a non-citizen who's working here, that you think we should deny them that right? They, like all men, do have that right, wouldn't you agree? Don't you think that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights? Or are non-US citizens less equal until they get the proper paperwork? Why is lack of citizenship a legitimate defense to deny a right? Replace the 2A with the 1A. If you had your druthers, should 1st Amendment rights be reserved for citizens only?

I wouldn't use the phrase, "rights ... accorded to citizens", because 'accord' is synonymous with 'grant' and 'bestow', and that's not what the founders nor the founding documents did. They simply listed the rights, furnished upon creation, that man possesses. But that's a whole 'nother discussion, the use of that word is only marginally acceptable, and I think you are on the same page there, so whatever.

 

[jonmerritt]

My wife and I took it upon ourselves to "master" our chosen carry pieces befor we applied for our permits. I don't think it shoud be required by any law. I have a pretty good background in firearms and using them from my military experiance. I have seen walking morons pick up a gun for the first time and perform amazingly with it, and be very safe with it. And educated elites about kill themselves the first time they pick one up. From my standpoint, I see highly educated people screaming about more and more laws, when all they need to do is do more for themselves, and wipe the brown off there nose.

 

[mslatter]

Hello all, I have recently been accused of being harsh in a reply I made to a post now looking back maybe I was I would like to here from you on what you think is best, should people start carrying firearms that have not yet mastered the use of, I am well aware that there is a introduction to firearm carry in CCL class but we all know that these instructors do not have time nor resource to make each student little more than acquainted with there carry arms so my question is do you start carrying and then spend the range time to become proficient with your firearm ,I got a bud that got his CCL he literally could not hit a full size silhouette target regularly first time we went to range since he has improved greatly but I am sure that in a high stress situation he might have done more harm to himself or someone else and surely not have defended himself or someone else had the occasion arose when he first got CCL so lets hear your input.

I don't know. Imagine if someone said you had to master punctuation before being allowed to post on the internet. I guess it comes down to the definition of "should" in the "should people start carrying..." part of your question. If you mean, "would it be advisable?" then I'd agree that it would be advisable that people learn a weapon to near automaticity before carrying it. If you mean "should it be legislated?" then you're teasing the fringes of constitutionality. States regularly create impediments to firearm ownership and usage, sometimes upheld in courts and sometimes not. It's a complex and interesting area of our system.

Outside of basic weapon operation, I believe it's part of the responsibility of carrying to have an understanding of the legal, moral and emotional implications of having a pocketful of violence with you in public. But I'd be careful with my use of the word "should" in this aspect of the issue as well. Recommended? Sure. Required? I don't support it.

 

[hso]

Should you carry without being at least competent with the weapon? No.

Should the government deny you the right to carry until you demonstrate some level of competence in defensive carry of a firearm. No!

The first is a question of personal responsibility.

The second is about infringing upon the rights of an individual.

The "greater good" argument has to be extended beyond "what harm the individual might do" to the harm of giving the government the right to infringe upon our rights as citizens.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I have seen walking morons pick up a gun for the first time and perform amazingly with it, and be very safe with it.....

Having taught a lot of beginners, I've never seen that.

...And educated elites about kill themselves the first time they pick one up....

Educated in what? If they haven't been educated about guns or shooting, there's no reason to expect them to be any different from anyone else.

It's been my experience from teaching many beginner classes that people new to guns tend to be clumsy, awkward and unsafe with them at the beginning; and they need close supervision and continual reinforcement of safe handling procedures. But people also respond very well to that sort of close supervision and continual reinforcement of safe handling procedures. They can, with some instruction, overcome their initial awkwardness fairly readily.

 

[RDak]

FWIW, I think a person should definitely practice with the gun they plan to carry.

I don't have a problem if they get a CPL before they do that though.

But they should definitely practice before actually carrying IMHO.

It will make them more proficient and confident.

It doesn't take much to get used to the gun you plan to carry. Shoot about 500 rounds at the range and, in most instances, I would imagine people would be fine if they take the time to think about those rounds they shot. (Now I'm talking about a newbie here. Guys and gals who have gun shooting experience need less than 500 rounds IMHO.)

Learn how to (1) disassemble the gun and clean it without needing the manual along with (2) how their certain gun "works" mechanically are very good things to know also IMHO.

 

[outofpractice]

This is tantamount to sheer speculation but I ssume that since a greater number of folk stroll around unarmed (myself included) I don't think it's unreasonable to demand a certain a degree of proficiency if, as someone said, you're intent on packing a pocket-ful of violence... If you can't keep it in the black, you've no business carrying. Sorry.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

...I don't think it's unreasonable to demand a certain a degree of proficiency ...

Who gets to "demand" it?

 

[jonmerritt]

Well fiddletown, maybe your trainees need more class room time befor you hand then a firearm.

 

[AKElroy]

should people start carrying firearms that have not yet mastered the use of

Define mastered. When you read of the many crimes thwarted by an armed citizen, they are very typically elderly & infirmed. It is why they were singled out by the criminal in the first place, and yet they seem to freaquently get the job done.

I doubt many if not most members of this forum would ever be out-shot by some of these individuals, but they did fine. It is why I am glad the RKBA is not modified to include qualifiers.

For all the tactics we strain at, argue over, strategize about, etc.., guns are still fairly simple tools. Point the bang end at BG, pull the switch. Not down-playing tactics or training, I am stating that neither is or should be required by the RKBA.

 

[AKElroy]

This is tantamount to sheer speculation but I ssume that since a greater number of folk stroll around unarmed (myself included) I don't think it's unreasonable to demand a certain a degree of proficiency if, as someone said, you're intent on packing a pocket-ful of violence... If you can't keep it in the black, you've no business carrying. Sorry.

Based on where you live, I would say you have plenty of politicians demanding exactly what you state. How's that working out for your state crime wise? Do you have evidence of intentional or accidental shootings by CHL's to support your concern?

Before you start that bit of research, you should know that in EVERY shall-issue state, the incidence of both crime and accidental death by firearm is FAR less for CHL holders than the general population. John Lott has done extensive research on this. Google it. I challenge you to find an exception in order to support your concern.

 

[Stevepwns]

In my opinion if its worth anything,

Its not crazy to think that anyone wanting to buy a firearm of anykind should be required to have some sort of training. Who determins the standard in wich there level of knowledge and ability is always in question. That being said, we didnt all grow up hunting and shooting weapons from a young age so to think everyone will have the same level of ability is rediculous. With the freedom to own or carry a firearm comes the possibility that untrained or inexperianced individuals will also have these rights, thats something that those of us that do have years of practice will have to deal with. One thing to remember, personal responsibility is more important than most people realize, and tolerance of those less skilled should be shown. Everyone has to start somewhere. Just because you can doesnt mean you should. Having the right to doesnt mean you should either, you dont jump into a car at 16 and go plowing around so you shouldnt buy a gun and start carring it around untill you atleast have a moderate ability to show safety and skill with it.

I am an avid supporter of the right to own firearms, but yes everyone should atleast be able to be safe and show responsibilty before being able to freely carry one.

my 2cents

 

[DannyZRC]

In my opinion if its worth anything,

Its not crazy to think that anyone wanting to buy a firearm of anykind should be required to have some sort of training. Who determins the standard in wich there level of knowledge and ability is always in question. That being said, we didnt all grow up hunting and shooting weapons from a young age so to think everyone will have the same level of ability is rediculous. With the freedom to own or carry a firearm comes the possibility that untrained or inexperianced individuals will also have these rights, thats something that those of us that do have years of practice will have to deal with. One thing to remember, personal responsibility is more important than most people realize, and tolerance of those less skilled should be shown. Everyone has to start somewhere. Just because you can doesnt mean you should. Having the right to doesnt mean you should either, you dont jump into a car at 16 and go plowing around so you shouldnt buy a gun and start carring it around untill you atleast have a moderate ability to show safety and skill with it.

I am an avid supporter of the right to own firearms, but yes everyone should atleast be able to be safe and show responsibilty before being able to freely carry one.

my 2cents

"Should" meaning that it is suggested they acquire certain training?

or "Should" meaning they should be legally mandated to do so?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well fiddletown, maybe your trainees need more class room time befor you hand then a firearm.

Well Jon, maybe you need some actual experience teaching beginners to handled firearms.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I don't think it's unreasonable to demand a certain a degree of proficiency ...

Who gets to "demand" it?

If it comes to that, how about me and anyone else who may be out in public with them and who may become their backstops when they feel the need to start shooting?

...When you read of the many crimes thwarted by an armed citizen, they are very typically elderly & infirmed. It is why they were singled out by the criminal in the first place, and yet they seem to freaquently get the job done....

They make good press.

 

[Guillermo]

Who gets to "demand" it?

how about me and anyone else who may be out in public with them and who may become their backstops when they feel the need to start shooting?

so in order for someone to carry a concealed handgun you want there to be a unanimous vote among the population?

That is scary

 

[searcher451]

I've long been of the belief that some sort of proficiency should be demonstrated before a person is allowed to legally carry, just as an airline pilot must demonstrate some proficiency before he gets behind the stick of a jumbo jet. The trouble for me is twofold: determining what proficiency truly is, exactly, and then who decides it. I don't want the feds mucking around in the issue, nor do I want the states doing it; both have demonstrated an incredible capacity for idiocy in the past, and no doubt would again. But if not them, who? Local gun clubs? The NRA? A neutral third party -- and can you agree to being neutral on a politically charged topic like this one?

It's a question for which I have found no answer, despite a lot of thinking on the matter.

 

[outofpractice]

Nice to meet you, AKElroy.

How's that working out for your state crime wise?

According to the Census Bureau (2007) & FBI (2009), it's about the same as your state per capita.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0297.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_04.html

I'll have to take a look at the articles by Lott, thank you for pointing them out. The Texas Department of Public Safety publishes a report of convictions by licensees (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf) that supports your claim that people with CHLs are, in general, more responsible than those without. It also supports my claim that a CHL doesn't confer good judgment. As far as demanding proficiency is concerned, I'm still of the opinion that if someone wants to carry around a loaded gun, they have at the very least an ethical responsibility to be proficient with that weapon in addition to the legal responsibility to exercise good judgment.

Cheers.