Defensive Carry banner

21 - 40 of 70 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
23,193 Posts
From a moral perspective, how competent..............
That tells me enough right there. We will all make that decision ourselves, but there should never be a legal requirement.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
The qualification should be American Citizenship and a background clear of felonies and domestic violence.

That's it.
Lets take a look at that.

All the revolutionaries who signed the declaration of independence were considered criminals by the king [ gov they were ruled by at the time ]. Hmm,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
661 Posts
I like standards, drills, etc. When I'm up and performing them well, I gain confidence. I KNOW I have competence. I KNOW that I'm improving or what skills I need to improve on.

Having a demonstrable history of passing a test such as the FBI qual would look good in a court of law should it ever come to that IMHO.

I'd like to think everyone who carries strives to continually improve their abilities with a firearm. It's the responsible thing to do. Is it possible to be too good? Nope.

Should .gov mandate it? No, I'm against that. Too much room for abuse IMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,188 Posts
Shooting a gun isn't rocket surgery.
Nether is driving a vehicle, but you must acquire a learners permit, and be supervised while acquiring the skill to take a drivers test before your issuesd a license to drive ,

I'm all for people exercising there right to have a firearm but I've see as I'm sure others have to that some people shouldn't just because they can ...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
342 Posts
Lets take a look at that.

All the revolutionaries who signed the declaration of independence were considered criminals by the king [ gov they were ruled by at the time ]. Hmm,
You're completely taking my quote out of context which is intellectually dishonest.

Acts of revolution are not in the same boat as convicted criminals of various crimes.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
You're completely taking my quote out of context which is intellectually dishonest.

Acts of revolution are not in the same boat as convicted criminals of various crimes.
In the eyes of a gov, a criminal is a criminal, no matter the reason the law is broken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,212 Posts
On the one hand, I want to agree with the people like @Havok, who say anyone who wants to carry should be able to. On the other hand, the one I tend to lean more towards, I agree with those who say there should be some kind of qualification. It is the right to keep and bear arms; I get that. But some part of me wonders if the founders just weren't thinking of or didn't have any experience with people who simply cannot handle a firearm safely. I'm not saying at all that the 2A is due for a change. Not by any stretch. All I'm saying is there are people out there who can't shoot straight even on a range in ideal conditions.

I shot next to a guy a couple months ago who claimed to be preparing for his concealed carry class for OK, which does have a shooting portion, although there's no minimum score; you just have to prove you can handle it safely. This guy couldn't keep a pattern under a foot wide on a target 10 feet away - with a .22 target pistol that looked to have about a 6-7" barrel. There's no way I'd trust that guy anywhere near me or my loved ones in a stressful situation, trying to fend off an attacker or be a hero.

So on one hand it's the right to keep and bear arms, not the licensed privilege. But on the other hand I've known and seen some people who really, really can't shoot to save their life. I've known people who are in no mental condition to carry. And I've known and seen people who have little to no understanding of self-defense law even though they managed to get their license to carry, and think it's perfectly reasonable to shoot someone in the back as they run away after damaging someone's property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AzQkr

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,823 Posts
On the one hand, I want to agree with the people like @Havok, who say anyone who wants to carry should be able to. On the other hand, the one I tend to lean more towards, I agree with those who say there should be some kind of qualification. It is the right to keep and bear arms; I get that. But some part of me wonders if the founders just weren't thinking of or didn't have any experience with people who simply cannot handle a firearm safely. I'm not saying at all that the 2A is due for a change. Not by any stretch. All I'm saying is there are people out there who can't shoot straight even on a range in ideal conditions.

I shot next to a guy a couple months ago who claimed to be preparing for his concealed carry class for OK, which does have a shooting portion, although there's no minimum score; you just have to prove you can handle it safely. This guy couldn't keep a pattern under a foot wide on a target 10 feet away - with a .22 target pistol that looked to have about a 6-7" barrel. There's no way I'd trust that guy anywhere near me or my loved ones in a stressful situation, trying to fend off an attacker or be a hero.

So on one hand it's the right to keep and bear arms, not the licensed privilege. But on the other hand I've known and seen some people who really, really can't shoot to save their life. I've known people who are in no mental condition to carry. And I've known and seen people who have little to no understanding of self-defense law even though they managed to get their license to carry, and think it's perfectly reasonable to shoot someone in the back as they run away after damaging someone's property.
Our founding fathers created 2A to limit the government, not to establish parameters for the population. Concealed carry requirements exist for two reasons. 1- to generate revenue, and 2- to restrict/deny people the right to carry. We have states who tell people that protecting themselves is not a good reason to carry a gun, and the decision for that to not be a valid reason is enabled by....people who have armed security for protection.

To quote Rep. Charlie Rangel :
“Well law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun,” Rangel responded.
“You know that, so you’re not going to push me in that direction.”
“But you’re protected by guns all over the place here in the Capitol,” she pointed out."
Rangel laughed at that. “Well that’s a little different,” he chuckled. “I think we deserve–I think we need to be protected down here.”


Another reason I'm firmly against any requirements is because then there is no other right that requires permission to exercise, and before anyone says no other rights can be used to kill people, try to convince the family of John Crawford who was killed in the Ohio Walmart that 1A rights have never killed anyone.


You're completely taking my quote out of context which is intellectually dishonest.

Acts of revolution are not in the same boat as convicted criminals of various crimes.
Only because of who won the revolution.

If Antifa justified all of their crimes by saying they are leading the modern day revolution, does that change things?
 
  • Like
Reactions: OD* and msgt/ret

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,397 Posts
I take exception to this statement. Are you saying if a person has false teeth, or in a wheelchair, they should not be carrying? I'm in my mid 80's and haven't had my original teeth for 50 years, but still feel I am perfectly able to carry, and defend myself. And a friend who is in a wheelchair, never leaves home without a pistol in a pouch on his lap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
661 Posts
I don't believe the author of the article referenced by the OP is advocating a state mandated standard that must be passed to get a permit.

This is simply a standard that provides a reasonable test of proficiency for permit holders. It's a good benchmark. If a CCW'er can't pass this test, then perhaps they need to work on some stuff????
 

·
Registered
Various
Joined
·
15,464 Posts
No, it's not. But shooting one well, under stress, can be difficult.

Yet, we often hear of a juvenile or elderly person with absolutely zero training picking up a family gun and successfully defending themselves or others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
661 Posts
Yet, we often hear of a juvenile or elderly person with absolutely zero training picking up a family gun and successfully defending themselves or others.
Oh, absolutely! Happens all the time. Training isn't absolutely necessary. However, I believe it helps tip the odds in the defender's favor and frankly, is the responsible thing to do.

Again, it should be a voluntary activity, not state mandated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,002 Posts
Nether is driving a vehicle, but you must acquire a learners permit, and be supervised while acquiring the skill to take a drivers test before your issuesd a license to drive ,

I'm all for people exercising there right to have a firearm but I've see as I'm sure others have to that some people shouldn't just because they can ...
I've never bought into the driving comparison. If someone starts driving, they will send a multi-thousand pound projective down the roads and highways and if they are not proficient, they may run them into other people and hurt them.

A gun is more like a fire extinguisher (which can also kill people, BTW). You only use it if you need it to keep a disaster from happening. Unlike a car, you don't take it out of your garage and go shooting it down the road everyday. There is just not that much evidence that people who use guns for defense accidentally hurt other people when they attempt to defend themselves. I'm sure it happens, but it is rare.

Unlike driving a car, the hazard for not being trained only accrues to the user: The defender may not be able to defend themselves. Many people safely and successfully defend themselves every year with guns they have never fired - even once.

The biggest hazard to the public with guns is negligent discharges and that has more to do with judgement than training. A 16 hour course will not screen for, or teach, judgement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,212 Posts
@jmf552, I see your point about cars flying down the road every day and guns, well, not. That's very true. But while guns leave their "garage" (holster) much less often, the knowledge of when to do that is very important and I've met many people who think they understand when it's legal to employ deadly force, but are in fact very wrong. For instance, I've met multiple people who think that they can legally bring out a gun any time they get into a fight someone else starts, or to defend property (not inside your home or vehicle). Neither of those is legal in my state, but people still believe it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NETim

·
Registered
Joined
·
661 Posts
@jmf552, I see your point about cars flying down the road every day and guns, well, not. That's very true. But while guns leave their "garage" (holster) much less often, the knowledge of when to do that is very important and I've met many people who think they understand when it's legal to employ deadly force, but are in fact very wrong. For instance, I've met multiple people who think that they can legally bring out a gun any time they get into a fight someone else starts, or to defend property (not inside your home or vehicle). Neither of those is legal in my state, but people still believe it.
Which is why folks should consider taking a MAG40 class with Massad Ayoob. All kinds of self-defense law is part of the class as well as shooting. Here in my neck of the woods, we have some classes taught by local folks which deal with the use of lethal force. I believe classes like this are essential for any CCW'er.

Then too, I would recommend Dr. William Aprill's "Unthinkable" class which delves into the victim selection process criminals use. It's a very eye opening, and sobering, experience. The class will help students better understand the criminal mind as well as help them avoid conflict and being chosen as a victim.

And finally, trauma med training. Good stuff for EVERYONE to know.

You don't know what you don't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heymarv

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
This whole discussion hinges on the same thing this whole discussion ALWAYS hinges on:

Whether we should allow people's rights to be restricted on what they MIGHT do. The answer to that is, of course NO. NEVER.

I am completely in favor of every carrier VOLUNTARILY obtaining as much training as possible, but there should NEVER be a government mandated course of study to exercise a fundamental right of americans. Driving, by the way, is NOT a fundamental right of americans.

The necessary self-regulation of training will occur naturally in most cases, if you fully enforce applicable laws already on the books for people who ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING STUPID OR CRIMINAL WITH A GUN. Carrying one should never be burdened with restrictions like training requirements.

No matter how stupid you are, or how likely you are to make a mistake with your gun, if you are a law-abiding citizen you should never face punitive action regarding your rights for SOMETHING YOU HAVEN'T DONE. Even if it IS something you MIGHT do, or something you are more likely than the average citizen to do. You should never face this punitive action for one simple reason: YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING! YOU ARE NOT GUILTY OF ANY CRIME OR OFFENSE UNTIL YOU'VE ACTUALLY COMMITTED ONE!

I don't know why this is still so hard for many americans to understand. Public education, maybe? Who knows...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,257 Posts
While the right to carry a firearm for protection is not tied to any sort of proficiency or competency test, I am going to assume from the OP's post that the thrust of this thread is more in line with personal proficiency or competency rather than some such thing forced upon people by some issuing agency. So with that said...

There are a number of "tests" to which one can submit themselves in their training, i.e. range time, that can be considered to be fairly valid when talking about how well one can use that firearm in their defense. Of course, this does not and cannot address one's mental conditioning but rather only how well one can manage to employ their sidearm effectively should the need arise.

The triple 5 test. Place a target at five yards out and fire five shots within five seconds. You should be able to place all five shots within less than a five inch circle.

The single tap from draw to fire in two seconds. You should be able to draw from concealment and get off one shot into a target placed at no less than twelve feet. The goal is to be able to do this with two or better, three shots in that amount of time and at that distance.

These little "tests" are not cast in stone nor used as criteria for a minimum level of proficiency any where of which I am aware. And frankly, I only picked them up when viewing some videos over the years (one of which was a training video). But they do make some measure of sense and at least give someone new to all of this something to work on.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
Yet, we often hear of a juvenile or elderly person with absolutely zero training picking up a family gun and successfully defending themselves or others.
Yet we hear of many others who didn't as well. Luck favors the prepared. Luck also plays a major role in staying above ground no matter the level or lack thereof. Luck may be as much as 95% of winning, but I prefer to have that 5% covered as thoroughly as possible.

Regular army isn't sent on missions like SF, Delta for a reason. The highly trained are more successful at coming out on top than the average grunt. If it were not so, Delta, Seals, SF, Marine Recon and so on wouldn't need to spend all that time training. The more trained one is, the better the odds, even as luck still plays a major role.

I know a member here who rarely loses in Fof [ 7677 ]. I myself am not accustomed to losing the majority of fof I've attended. We students who are excellent shooters fail miserably in scenario based training due to poor understanding of tactics. Is that member or myself just luckier more often than great shooters who fail more often than not percentage wise? Or is it the training that brings the higher rate of successes with people like this other member or myself?

One can decide for themselves, but fof scenario based training humbles a lot of great shooters in scenario after scenario. Is it just the luck of the draw, or is it the extensive repetitive training like our elite fighting forces? Hmm, something to seriously ponder.

Luck favors the prepared. There's NO denying it, as much as people would like to rely on luck alone.
 
21 - 40 of 70 Posts
Top