CCW shooting test mandatory (as a poll)

[zammyman]

Do you feel a reasonable (center of mass shots, silhoutte target, 10 yards) should be required to receive a CCW?

 

[Bubba613]

I think if you have a test at all then you need a shooting test. The test should cover the person's ability to operate a gun safely and no more than that. Believe it or not I have heard of people taking the range part of our test here and being asked to leave, money refunded, because they consistently ignored rules and warnings.
People like that really don't need to own guns.

 

[wyocarp]

People like that really don't need to own guns.

Well, that won't stop them from owning guns. When I went with my wife and son to go through their concealed carry class, I had to fight the feeling that most of the people in the class shouldn't have been allowed to even look at a gun and definately not touch them.

But then I have to check my bottom line feelings which are that I feel everyone should be allowed to have whatever gun(s) they want unless they are in jail or mentally ill.

 

[Treo]

Other

The second amendment to our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit, period.

Ted Nugent

 

[Bubba613]

Well, that won't stop them from owning guns.

That isn't relevant.
Should the state give a permit to someone who cannot operate a firearm safely? They don't give driver's licenses to people who can't drive. Why is this different?
If you want to say they shouldn't be in the business of giving permits at all, that's a different debate.

The second amendment to our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit, period.

We'll help with your bail money the next time you plead that one.

 

[Treo]

Should the state give a permit to someone who cannot operate a firearm safely?

Nope, the state shouldn't be giving permits to anybody

 

[Bailey Guns]

Here we go again with the driver's license thing.

Once again: Motor vehicle accidents account for almost 38% of accidental deaths in the US. Firearms accidents account for 0.7% of accidental deaths in the US.

That just proves my point. "Guns don't kill. Driver's licenses kill."

 

[Bubba613]

If you want to say they shouldn't be in the business of giving permits at all, that's a different debate.

See above.

 

[Mello]

Considering that concealed weapons permits have been available for decades and that millions of people have had them, I can't find a reference to any shooting by a concealed weapons holder that was characterized as being negligent.

Seems like a solution looking for a problem.

The more concealed weapons holders there are the better it is for society's safety. Concealed weapons holders save lives and property by their mere existence.

 

[Bailey Guns]

Or maybe it should be:

"Guns don't kill. Training kills."

 

[Bubba613]

Once again: Motor vehicle accidents account for almost 38% of accidental deaths in the US. Firearms accidents account for 0.7% of accidental deaths in the US.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.
How often do you operate a motor vehicle? Probably several times a day.
How often do you operate a firearm in public? Maybe once a lifetime.
How often does discharging a firearm in public result in death vs how often does operating a motor vehicle result in death?
None of that is relevant to the discussion.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Considering that concealed weapons permits have been available for decades and that millions of people have had them, I can't find a reference to any shooting by a concealed weapons holder that was characterized as being negligent.

I agree. If there isn't a problem, then we don't need a solution.

Do you feel a reasonable (center of mass shots, silhoutte target, 10 yards) should be required to receive a CCW?

Why 10 yards? That seems arbitrary. It also has no rationale in the real world since most self defense shootings occur at less than 7 feet. If your target is 10 yards away, you might be better off seeking cover or running away.

 

[Treo]

So, basically we've got two trolls goin on here' I'm gettin' some popcorn

 

[dbarile]

If (and I stress if) the CCW is being issued and not simply allowed as part of the 2A, then yes, I believe there should be a shooting test.

If you live where carrying concealed is allowed under the 2A, then no.

 

[Mello]

Bubba613,

It is relevant.

I carry/operate my handgun far more than I drive. Simply carrying it is operating it.

Whenever you discharge a gun it is just as public as driving down the road. Most of the time I shoot it is in public.

Most specifically the issue is carrying a concealed weapon. All the time that a person is carrying concealed they are operating that weapon. It might be 1 hour it might be 12 hours, when you only drove for 1 hour that day.

The fact remains that concealed weapons holders are safe, whether or not they are trained.

 

[shiftyer1]

I am normally against rules and regs. Thats just me, but in this case, yes I think a very basic gun training session and a quick target shoot should be mandatory. Like maybe a target that is 2' x 2'. Hit the target 6 times consistantly from 10 yards, done. No ccl until you can do this. Most folks can do this without ever firing a handgun, I would think. And I would think that anyone who cc's do so as a result of enjoying shooting. Meaning they will practice and become more accurate.
I do think ccl's are unneccesary laws, BUT thats a different thread.

As far as the 10 yard thing, it just seems like a good distance to me. Anybody can hit a target at 7 feet.......minus the stress and fear factor.

 

[Bubba613]

Simply carrying it is operating it.

I would have to disagree. By that standard, simply keeping it in the safe is operating it too.

Considering that concealed weapons permits have been available for decades and that millions of people have had them, I can't find a reference to any shooting by a concealed weapons holder that was characterized as being negligent.

There was never a permit holder who accidentally shot someone or something in the course of using his gun?
Then why do we stress over over-penetration and being responsible for every bullet out of the barrel? Maybe this is a non-issue too?

 

[Bailey Guns]

Not only is it relevant for the reasons Mello points out, it's relevant from the standpoint of training.

The argument is training vs no training makes people safer. The statistic I quoted proves training doesn't necessarily make drivers safer. Why should it make the average gun owner safer?

And at any rate, comparing a drivers license to a CCW license would be just as irrelevant then.

But how about this... Police officers shoot the wrong person at a rate 6 times higher than civilians. Police officers get lots of training when compared to civilians. Is that irrelevant, too?

Or, since you're talking about "operating" guns and cars, you could look at it this way.

Each time a person fires a round through their gun, they're operating it. Each time a person drives their car, that is they turn it on and go from point A to point B and then turn it off, they're operating it. I wonder what the rate of injury from the (probably) tens of millions of rounds fired per year when operating guns are as compared to the number of injuries caused by operating motor vehicles are?

 

[Bailey Guns]

I am normally against rules and regs. Thats just me, but in this case, yes I think a very basic gun training session and a quick target shoot should be mandatory. Like maybe a target that is 2' x 2'. Hit the target 6 times consistantly from 10 yards, done. No ccl until you can do this. Most folks can do this without ever firing a handgun, I would think.

Uummm...if they can hit a target that size from that distance with no shooting experience then why wouldn't they be able to hit the average bad guy in the torso (who's probably about that size) with no shooting experience? Especially when the bad guy is generally gonna be a lot closer than 10 yards?

 

[shiftyer1]

Because the target is not scaring the hell out of you or meaning to harm you. Maybe I missed the when paper targets attack video on youtube. Did your daddy let you use and carry a firearm on your own before you proved yourself? Assuming you started the firearm lifestyle from a young age you got your training as a kid. I don't feel this size target and distance is unreasonable

 

[stevelyn]

As Rep. Eric Croft (D-Anch.), the author and mover of Alaska's permitless right-to-carry law once said, "There should be no pre-conditions for the exercise of a Constitutional right."

 

[Prince Yamato]

I vote "yes" to this every time it comes up in a thread. I took my CCW test in Texas. I considered that test to be reasonable. I could have probably passed it with my eyes closed. But you know what? People still fail the shooting part of the test. There was a person missing at 3 yards...

Much like a driver's education test, I think the exams should be pretty easy. Go over the basic rules, make sure you understand what the laws are, make sure you can competently fire a weapon. Note, I said, competently not expertly. There are some people that never pass driver's ed because they cannot operate a vehicle. I know such a person. I don't care if she does circles with the Chevy in her driveway, but I don't want her incompetent self on the road.

Before I get slammed as a closet Anti, I'd like to point out that I'm for CCW permits being valid everywhere. I'm for carry in schools, carry in bars, and carry in other places that some people on this board seem to feel are too hallowed to be carrying in. I also support the carrying of any weapon you so choose. Believe me, I'd carry a Glock 18 if I could. That said, I want some VERY basic standard so that we don't have a do-gooder pulling a weapon to defend themselves in a bar or church and negligently shooting an innocent person.

 

[Bailey Guns]

Because the target is not scaring the hell out of you or meaning to harm you. Maybe I missed the when paper targets attack video on youtube. Did your daddy let you use and carry a firearm on your own before you proved yourself? Assuming you started the firearm lifestyle from a young age you got your training as a kid. I don't feel this size target and distance is unreasonable

Then what, exactly, is the point of shooting at paper? If it doesn't resemble a real attack, what's the value in the training received?

Why do you think the trend in real firearms training these days is to simulate, as closely as possible, the stresses of how a real-life lethal force encounter plays out?

That's been my whole point throughout these silly threads. Attending a mandatory "training" class where you have to fire 20 or 30 rounds (if that many) at a stationary target, under controlled environmental conditions, under well lighted conditions, against a target that is not firing back or otherwise threatening you is not "training" and bears absolutely no resemblance to a real-world lethal force encounter. And, in my opinion, it's not going to make anyone a "better shot" or safer.

That is not training. That's basically just function testing your gun.

 

[shiftyer1]

I agree with prince yamato totally. Thank you for saying it better then I.

 

[egon]

yes. Long as it's not a test of such difficulty people will struggle to pass constantly. Since most shots taken are within a few feet, it's not too hard to make the shot!