PDA

View Full Version : concealed carry permits


Daves-got-guns
December 18, 2006, 02:37 AM
alrite, this to me is a topic i havent looked much upon so lets debate it here amongst the gun nuts. So i was talking to a family member who doesnt shoot much, and i was trying to explain that guns dont just go off by themselves, and %90 of guns are drop proof nowadays, even revolvers. Well then she said something that actually had some merrit to it, what if 1 guy starts shooting up the place, and somebody with a concealed carry permit, who gets rattled starts firing and hits a inoccent. Now my question, do you think that people SHOULD be required to takea course and be able to pass it within such a amount of proficiency? my state doesnt, and i dont have a conceal carry permit, but i do have handguns, and im pretty good with them for the most part, but if and when i get my permit practice practice practice... what else can be talked about on this subject?

TheGrouch
December 18, 2006, 03:33 AM
No state required course is going to prepare you for combat. Practicing with your carry gun and using your brain is the best you can do.

Daves-got-guns
December 18, 2006, 04:06 AM
yeah but im just saying there should be some kind of check and balance that helps keep some joe smoe from buyin a pistol, shooting one clip thru it and think their ready for hell, cause if the bad stuff hits the fan and they panic and start shooting in the general direction, thats 2 sets of stray bullets in 2 different directions!

marlboroman84
December 18, 2006, 05:19 AM
The range I work at and got my permit at has several classes you can choose to take beyond the state required class, but it's slightly expensive for the average joe. With ammo and cost of class it works out to be about $200 depending on what kind of gun you have. We shoot around 500 rounds in 8 hours. It's a great series of classes though.

Personally, I think you should have to take a class to get a permit and the class should include more than mine did and be state funded. Here's how I see it. The class should be two parts both 8 hours at least. The first would be 6 hours classroom for the legal stuff, questions, and basic gun handling, safety rules, etc. The next 2 hours would be a basic beginners range time and qualification. The next 8 hours should be a basic, but still semi-challenging training course. Not enough to make it really hard to get a permit, but at least enough to where everyone has a basic competency level.

I think classes should be state funded, and I think permits should cost no more than driver's licenses if at all. It should also all be done at the range. I don't think they should make you go to the DMV. After you take the class, you get fingerprinted, fill out your forms, and then in a week or so, get your permit in the mail.

Sadly, it doesn't work like this. I'm all for "shall not be infringed", but some people don't use common sense and I don't wanna miss getting shot by the BG shooting up the place only to catch a stray in the spine from Dr. Rambo who has a permit, but only goes to the range every few months and isn't a very good shot anyway.

gvf
December 18, 2006, 06:29 AM
That would be impossible in NY State since you can't touch a handgun until you have a permit. We do have a "firearms" safety class, and an intro to basics of handguns but it is a lecture class of 3 hrs with a written test following. We are shown examples of different handguns, actions etc., with all demonstartion handguns disbaled permanently; but we can't touch them.

In NY, in order to get the permit, you have to have some sort of plan to get training once you have the permit - CCW, though I don't believe they check up on you to see if you do it once they issue the permit/ccw.. However, NY really individualizes CCW requirements at the county level. And I have heard of some counties where the Judge (yes, you go up before a judge) will not actually give you the CCW until you complete some hours of training. In my own county, I have not heard of that, just that you must have plans in the training-area.

As far as substituting a state-wide training requirement for this present hodge-podge, I think you could make the class already mandated have a Part II, a practical one. If you're going to have one mandated, seems silly not to work in a practical way.

However, in reality, I never heard of anyone who dosen't get training once they have a CCW, if they didn't already thru the service or some other prior experience. I plan to. And just reading the forums, you can see how responsible all are. I also have never heard of a shooting going awry by a CCW who didn't know anything about shooting. So, the actual need may not be there.

The basic reason for so much complaining about NY State permit process lies in the "extra layer" of decision making about issuing CCWs, on top of what the state initially does, which - aside from the wait - is not really that illogcal. They do a good job at ferreting out those who were already criminals in their past, or who are mentally incapable by nature of mental-illness from having the stability to carry a weapon. BUT, instead of stopping there once this process is completed, they let the counties, and ultimatley a judge, then write routine restrictions on all the state-issued permits for that area. So, all those who passed the rigourus state process, and who were found to be sane and upstanding citizens, must almost all be denied the CCW becasue some county - or worse some judge - is politically against it - and this is quite true in some counties. And the unrestricted State permits, are all given a restriction ("Target practice only" e.g.). Other counties are the opposite, and routinely rubber-stamp the state's unrestricted permit.

Ironically, the same tension between local autonomy, (including the ultimate locale autonomy which is the individual) and the Federal Government, which the gun-enthusiast would resolve in favor of local power, works against him on the state level, at least in NY, because it is the locale which denies the CCW that already has been granted by the power of the state.

("Careful what you wish for".)

marlboroman84
December 18, 2006, 08:44 AM
I never heard of anyone who dosen't get training once they have a CCW,

I just recently did a little training with my mom's best friend who has had a permit for about 3 or 4 years and she had only fired her .38 twice. Once when she qualified with it and once at at a friend's house in the country. Her boyfriend bought her a kel-tec .380 (the p3at i think, the little plastic thing) and she didn't have the first clue about how to load it, fire it, check it, nothing. I did about 2 hours with her on the range and gave her some basic knowledge and she is at least more interested in training now.

I think it is a common mindset for alot of people when getting their permit to shoot the gun a few times, then carry it and forget about further training. I think it tends to be more common with women, as I know several women who carry, but don't pursue further training. I know a few guys like this as well, but the majority of them do pursue training to some degree.

Chances are a gun in the purse or on a hip that hasn't been trained with alot will help quite a bit in alot of situations, but in a situation where you need to present it fast, hit a moving target, or any other number of scenarios that could easily happen, I wanna be ready.

dave421
December 18, 2006, 02:09 PM
I definitely think there should be a mandatory class for ccw. IMHO, they should raise the permit prices and make it state run. Here in NC (Wake county at least), it's $80 for the permit and an additional $10 for fingerprinting. You are required to take a class which ranges from $60 to $200 depending on where you take it. I am signed up for my class on Jan. 6th. When I spoke to the guy where I'm getting it done (you have to have state approval btw), he asked me if I could shoot. I asked what he meant and he said do I have any problems hitting a target from 20 ft. or so. I told him that I wouldn't have a problem as long as we weren't judged on accuracy from 50 yards or so. He laughed and said that he was just wondering if I was going to be one of the people that he had to work with since he has a lot of people come in that he has to start out at 3 yards! He then moves them back to the required(?) 7 yards. That blew my mind. IMO, you have no business carrying a gun if you're unable to hit a target somewhat accurately at 7 yards. I'll be happy to pay $200-300 for my permit if it means that I will be out there with people who KNOW what they're doing. Make it a mandatory of 200-300 rounds. As it is, there's definitely not enough being done to ensure that people are safe. As someone who takes carrying a gun and being proficient with it very seriously, it offends me that there are so many people out there carrying who haven't put lead on paper in the past month, let alone the past year.

RoscoeC
December 18, 2006, 02:32 PM
yeah but im just saying there should be some kind of check and balance that helps keep some joe smoe from buyin a pistol, shooting one clip thru it and think their ready for hell...

You just eliminated about 90% of the CCW holders. Here in Texas, and as I am lead to believe, in many other states the state required training covers legal issues, when to shoot, when not to, what it will cost you in legal fees if you have to use your weapon, etc. They also require you to place ~30 of 50 rounds into a target that is equivalent to a 350 pound man. They DO NOT teach you how to shoot or handle a weapon. My qualifier round garnered me a -1 score, because the lady standing next to me put a round on my target with her Glock 26. She obviously only touched it when she had to re-qualify every 5 years. Her target looked like she was making a concious attempt to distribute her rounds all over it. When we were done, the instructor had to come over and drop her magazine, and clear the chamber. She couldn't seem to remember where the magazine release was.

I would be good with having the qualification course of fire actually demonstrate some competence in both weapon handling and in shooting proficiency. Unfortunately, at least here, if you have the money to buy a pistol, pay $140.00 to the state, and ~125.00 for the "course", and you can hit the side of a barn most of the time, you are in!!!

Samurai
December 18, 2006, 05:17 PM
I remember hearing someone say, "If the right to bear arms is 'for the benefit of a well-regulated militia,' then why not require anyone who wants to bear arms to complete Basic Training for the military?" In other words, the right to bear arms is only "for" those who are PART of a well-regulated militia. I admit that this is an interesting notion, but I'm not really sure how I feel about it.

Frankly, I think it would do the majority of America some good to have to go through Basic. As a population, we're fat, lazy, and incredibly jaded; and a little time in Boot would do wonders for us all! But, I'm not sure about basing the right to carry or bear on one's ability to complete a regimen of military training.

I'm not sure how I feel about this...

wayneinFL
December 18, 2006, 06:39 PM
I only see three types of gun control as constitutional. One is prohibiting minors from carrying. The second is requiring people to own firearms. The third is training requirements. I see training requirements (as long as they are not misused to discourage gun ownership) as constitutional.

But, how do you define those training requirements? For example, my state requires ccw applicants to "demonstrate proficiency " with a firearm. How proficient do you have to be to hit a bad guy 20 feet away? How about the guy with a knife robbing you at the ATM? How about a contact shot for someone who has you on the ground?

If someone carries for their own self defense and not to be a hero and shoot the guy across the bank lobby, then you really don't have to be a marksman to carry. All you have to do is learn to handle guns safely and not accidently shoot yourself or a bystander while holstering or unholstering, loading or unloading your gun.

Of course training may be a moot point. All the training in the world without any practice is going to fall apart under stress.

KSFreeman
December 18, 2006, 08:04 PM
Dave, my state does not require training either. Has this family member that raised this concern cited any actual cases where this has happened in Washington state?

The solution is not in the coercive power of the government. The solution is to change the culture. Change the culture, change the world.

We as gun culture must accept that ownership mere more than just going to the public range every now and then and being "pretty good" means jack, but requires professional training, sweat, effort, time and money. We must make training the "in" or "cool thing" to do.

If we wish to institute public policy, then I suggest tax credits for those that attend training or perhaps free ammunition from the CMP, bunch of options other than raising the barrier to entry of a Constitutional right.

orionengnr
December 18, 2006, 08:29 PM
The Second Amendment does not state that "a Well Licensed, Trained To Arbitrary, Differing Standards Dreamed Up By Various Legislators Across Any Number Of States..."

How many things that Federal or State Governments get involved with function well (other than to generate revenue and to expand their payroll and power)? Do you understand the relationship between rights and responsibilities in our (former) Republic?

We have laws that (theoretically) hold people accountable for their actions. You screw up, you pay or go to jail (or both).

Your (and my) Rights..Shall Not Be Infringed. Period. Says so...somewhere. Public schools used to teach that...:rolleyes:

John28226
December 18, 2006, 08:49 PM
Orion, you said it all and said it well. The idea of "someone shooting up the place" and a person who has a concealed carry permit shooting back and hitting some innocent person is just another version of the "we can't have gunfights on airplanes" (used by those who oppose arming the pilots) and "we can't have guns in schools" - all of which are used by people who don't want you to have guns, period!

If some nut starts to shoot "up the place" and is hitting innocent people what would you like to happen? Nothing and people are killed? A person with a CCW permit is about as much protection as you might have - suppose instead of hitting some innocent person why not suppose they hit the bad guy? After all, you are just "supposing" anyway.

Training is optional; going to the aid of some stranger is optional; getting sued for your actions is probable.

Guns are used to prevent crimes every day by people who have had little or no training. I think they do pretty well in the real world.

John
Charlotte, NC

Dwight55
December 18, 2006, 08:59 PM
Dave, . . . let me be polite about it, . . . but I also want to get the point across: the scenario you propose has a possibility of occurring, . . . but so does the possibility of an orchid colored, 17 1/2 pound asteroid landing in my font yard between my two Colorado blue spruce trees.

If you are on to do-gooder causes, . . . go after the drunken drivers that nationally kill 50 thousand or so annually, . . . go after the doctors/surgeons and other medical "professionals" who in "practicing" medicine, . . . manage to kill 9000 (yes that is, . . . nine thousand) individuals for every one (yes that is, . . . one) person killed annually with firearms, . . . go after the bleeding heart lizard lawyers who scoop up bodacious fees getting crooks off the hook, . . .

I could name a few more, . . . but I'll just leave it at that, . . . there are a lot of other causes out there well beyond legislating proficiency standards (than can be changed by the whim of any knot headed legislature or beaurocrat).

May God bless,
Dwight

tony pasley
December 18, 2006, 09:59 PM
The Right To Bear Arms doesn't mean you have to but you can,
Everyone is born with a brain but it doesn't mean the person will use it.
People should learn to use any tool they have properly, but the gov't should be kept out of it so it can be done right.

Daves-got-guns
December 19, 2006, 07:49 AM
its a couson of mine who i got into a pretty good debate about it with. Atfirst she wouldnt give good reasons about why she doesnt think that concealed carry guns shouldnt be used in public, and i figured it a anti-gun statement. And i made some similar arguements that people here have said and made arguements about times in her life when she could have or should have needed a gun and she tried to say no i never needed a gun blah blah when she had a situation not much more then 3 weeks ago with 2 homeless men and a friend that worked there that ended up with the cops being called when the men went outside. I understand that all sorts of things happen in a gun fight, and a guy with a 15 round clip loading pistol, firing at a guy even with misses arent very likely to kill a person, compared to psycho doped out guy with a ak and a 90 round clip witch is meant to go thru cover, people what ever might get in the way is more likely to injure others just by aiming at the gooder dooer and shooting at him, and making misses of his own. Theres also the possibility of getting yourself killed, like a man a few years back who had a commander 1911, pulled on a guy with a mak 90 and put 4 slugs in his direction, but the body armour on the bad guy did its job, so he ended up dead for trying to stop rampaging lunatic, and shows that even though he was trained and competent the cards didnt work out in his favor neither.

yomama
December 19, 2006, 08:43 AM
The whole CCW process is messed up to me. Guns are for those who need them, and in my opinion, creating a system like courses, classes, permits, makes it so that the woman trying to leave an abusive relationship can't carry a gun since she has no money.
This is simplified, but sometimes I feel that guns are now only for the rich. I mean come on, ammo costs are so high, a good gun costs dough, and time on the range as well. That's just for the gun. Now the permits, and classes, and renewals.

tydephan
December 19, 2006, 10:50 AM
Here's another ironic anecdote:

In my state, no class or qualification is needed. You pay money and fill out a form and typically you are approved for a pistol license, which allows you to carry concealed anywhere but a court house, basically. It is legal to carry in lots of public places with lots of people around.

However...to get a hunting license, you must pass a "hunters education course." I'm almost 30 years old. I have had no interest in hunting until recently. I wouldn't even mind taking the courses if they were readily available, but alas they fill up very quickly and are not very frequent.

So...for hunting, you must be be educated. But to carry concealed, you only need a little cash and a trusty ink pen.

Ironic?

chris in va
December 19, 2006, 11:58 AM
I wasn't impressed with the class here in VA. A couple hours of gun handling/safety lessons, an hour at the range. Half the class had never handled a firearm before.

Even if you wanted more training, it's very touch and go with quality here. I attended a 'home defense' class for 2 hours and it was a waste of my time. There doesn't seem to be any standardized training programs, it just depends on whatever the instructor has in his/her mind to be the 'thing to do'.

I had to do all my own research about legality issues and even then I'm still a little shaky on the subject.

BillCA
December 19, 2006, 12:24 PM
Well then she said something that actually had some merrit to it, what if 1 guy starts shooting up the place, and somebody with a concealed carry permit, who gets rattled starts firing and hits a inoccent. Now my question, do you think that people SHOULD be required to takea course and be able to pass it within such a amount of proficiency? my state doesnt, and i dont have a conceal carry permit, but i do have handguns, and im pretty good with them for the most part, but if and when i get my permit practice practice practice... what else can be talked about on this subject?

First of all, I think we can learn a lesson from police shootings. Police officers are, to the lay person's way of thinking, "trained" in the use of firearms. Yet, in many police shootings officers can fire 6, 8, 12 or more rounds and only hit the suspect once. What does this tell us?

In a lot of shooting situations, the sudden change from your everyday events to a life & death shootout causes an adrenaline surge throughout the body. Your fine motor skills disappear and become gross "fight or flight" actions. Your heart races, blood pressure rises, breathing increases, eyes dialate etc. In short your finely honed shooting skills go to hell in a handbasket.

There are only two ways that I know of to reduce the negative side-effects of adrenaline on the body. One is by repetitive training that provides enough confidence that you don't have to think about a response and your "muscle memory" allows you to respond without thinking about the physical act of shooting. The second method is realistic training in which you are presented with subjects actually shooting at you or others (on film, video or with simulated munitions). Repeated exposure to the adrenaline dump and critiques afterwards get you used to the adrenaline "rush" so that you are more in control. Both these training paradigms require considerable effort and expense to develop a high degree of proficiency. Probably much more effort than 90% of people want to expend (or have time to expend) on the process.

When I first read your "problem statement" my mind's eye conjured up a Barney Fife type, :eek: nervously fumbling his gun out of its holster, shaking like a naked man in a freezer, popping off rounds and jumping around at each loud noise. :D

But to analyze the scenario a little better -- you have some whack-job entering a public area (mall, bank, office, etc.) who starts blazing away. The shooter may be the world's worst shot, however by his actions he is a clear & present danger to those around him with the potential for mass murder.

What is the worst-case scenario if no one engages the shooter? My rule of thumb is to presume that anyone within 30 feet of the shooter will die. Those between 30 ft and 50ft will die if the shooter has time to move around and select his targets, such as those hiding behind counters or furniture.

If you are armed and decide to engage the shooter, almost any actions you take can reduce the potential carnage. If there are 35 people in the location when shooting starts and he methodically kills three and during your engagement, three more are killed, two by your shots, one by his, did you make the situation worse? Or did you just save 29 lives? If he was never challenged, what are the odds that everyone in the location would have been slaughtered?

Note too that I'm not talking about the guy who enters a 7-11 or liquor store, fires a round into the ceiling and demands money or similar scenarios.

garryc
December 19, 2006, 12:34 PM
If you hit an inocent you are going to court at some level. I would rather face court over a freindly fire incident than live with my self after cowering like a child. The odds of you killing an unintended target are far less than him killing someone.

slabsides
December 19, 2006, 04:49 PM
Every State and entity seems to have different rules for the issuance of CC licenses. If one wants to carry legally, he must first follow the rules of his jurisdiction...BUT...in my personal view, he must also accept what might be called the universal rules:
He must accept the full responsibility for his choice, and learn what is necessary to act properly within the laws of society. He must be honest with himself about his ability with firearms. He must be willing to undergo training and discipline if he knows it's needed, and he must be willing to answer for any use he makes of the weapon that his jurisdiction has entrusted him to carry concealed.
Whether the knowledge and capability needed is acquired via 'school' or personal training, rigorous self-training, or has been gained by prior military experience or a combination of these, the gun-bearer MUST be responsible: both to society, and to himself.
As a CCW licensee I follow strict self-imposed rules: the first and most imperative is that my weapon is for defense of MYSELF and those for whom I am responsible, whether it be family, companions or colleagues. I am not responsible for the general public, nor will I draw my weapon in support of others. They have chosen to be helpless potential victims, I have no obligation to second-guess that choice. As an important corollary to the above, I do not let anyone know that I carry, and my family has strict instructions never to reveal that I have a CCW, under ANY circumstances. (For anyone who would point out that I am violating that rule here, I would ask: do you know me? Where I live, what I look like, what my habits and occasions are? Would a potential enemy have the means and foresight to mark and remember my comments here? Very doubtful.)
When you choose to be armed, you make only the first of many hard choices. If you cannot see what those choices are, and are unwilling to make them, you should not pursue CCW licensure.

mvpel
December 19, 2006, 05:50 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

Literacy requirements for voting are almost as old as the concept of voting is itself. The theoretical basis for them was that illiterate persons were not sufficiently informed about the candidates and issues involved to be able to make a truly informed decision. In practice, however, the literacy requirement was often used to prevent those determined by the ruling class to be undesirable, such as the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, and other groups that it wished to see disenfranchised, from voting.

stiffnecked
December 19, 2006, 06:56 PM
I guess since I have been in this situation before, where deadly force had to be used, in a non-combat incident, I can comment. It's better to do something, rather than nothing. While no sane person would want to purposefully find themselves in a deadly force situation it is going to happen to someone somewere. Decide before hand what your going to do, then don't hesitate once you commit to your course of action. Realize though, the fluidity of what is evloving. Because that course you've committed to can change in a millisecond. Lastly, practice and train.

Tinman357
December 19, 2006, 07:26 PM
So much so that I have to comment. (I rarely speak out in here) Dave, What you propose here, and many seem to agree with you, is nothing more than "reasonable" gun control. In short, regardless of how great an idea it may be it's still gun control. Therefore I oppose it. Let me state here that I hold training in high regard and have spent quite a bit getting it. But requiring it by law is an infringement on a constitutional right.



As a side note. I personally find the term "gun nut" to be an insulting, slanderous term. :mad: Much like any racist slur you can think of. I'll refrain from responding in kind. I value my membership here.

AKhunter
December 19, 2006, 07:57 PM
Samurai said: I remember hearing someone say, "If the right to bear arms is 'for the benefit of a well-regulated militia,' then why not require anyone who wants to bear arms to complete Basic Training for the military?" In other words, the right to bear arms is only "for" those who are PART of a well-regulated militia. I admit that this is an interesting notion, but I'm not really sure how I feel about it.

Frankly, I think it would do the majority of America some good to have to go through Basic. As a population, we're fat, lazy, and incredibly jaded; and a little time in Boot would do wonders for us all! But, I'm not sure about basing the right to carry or bear on one's ability to complete a regimen of military training.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I can tell you how *I* feel about it. While I'm sure that it'd do our health a world of good, it would change the RKBA from a right to a priviledge. I'm against that for *any* of my rights. The "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment doesn't mean what it's commonly assumed to mean anyway. Here is an informative article that explains a bit more about that: http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html

AK

tanksoldier
December 20, 2006, 04:56 AM
"Well regulated" in the english of 1791 meant well armed and well trained.

So, from that perspective you have a point. However, I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment amounts to the right to join the Army. That doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, while a training requirement may be a good idea, how do you prevent that requirement from becoming a roadblock to exercising your right to bear arms similar to the way the literacy requirement for voting or the Jim Crow laws restricted other rights?


"If the right to bear arms is 'for the benefit of a well-regulated militia,' then why not require anyone who wants to bear arms to complete Basic Training for the military?"

CDH
December 20, 2006, 01:12 PM
Well, Davesgotguns, I ignored this thread for a while because of your using the term "gun nuts" in the very first sentence of your first post. That pretty much told me where you might be coming from.

But you asked a question so here's an answer: The "scenario" you describe, or your relative describes, in your first post, is EXACTLY a whacko anti-gun nut's fantasy scenario that they use to justify gun control. As is so typical of those people and their political counterparts, they make up things that do not happen and suggest that they "can" which gives them the supposed high-ground from which to take away people's rights.
As long as you accept their premise, you are encouraging them. What you need to do is to deny their premise from the get-go and make THEM prove that whatever they fantasize about is actually something of merit.

But I'll play the game just for grins...
I could start by inviting you to come up with solid evidence of that scenario unfolding more than once or twice in the last decade, but let me just ALLOW that that scenario happens 10 times a year in America and an innocent person dies each time it happens (we'll just call this MY whacko fantasy).
Even so, the ten innocent people who died are a miniscule number of "innocents" who would have died at the hands of armed predators if all guns were to be taken out of the hands of citizens.
So the only way you can agree with your relative is if you truly believe that it's OK to allow thousands upon thousands of innocent people to die in order to save the lives of 10 people.
Is that the call you want to make?

But I want to get back to the original scenario your relative described...
Challenge that relative to find how many innocent bystanders have died at the hands of legal CCW carriers during a "wild and crazy" shooting spree", and then you can tell her the untold number of stories of lives that have been saved by legal CCW carriers using their weapons (or even not) to save themselves and others.
The REALITY is that CCW carriers across the nation are not only responsible, but are very aware of the seriousness of that responsibility and if anything, under react more than anything else in order to avoid the silly scenario put forth.

Then tell your relative that she might want to see about changing her medications if she continues to have fantasies about things that do not happen.
Then give your relative this link to put in her "Favorites" so she can check it often because it's updated daily: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
If she keeps up with it on a daily basis, after a while, she might end up deciding to get her own CCW permit and maybe even a mighty fine Colt Commander to carry her own-self.

Carter

firemedic1975
December 20, 2006, 03:04 PM
I live in Flordia and it requires some type of safty course, whether it be at the gun show or at a gun shop. The instructor has to be a certified gun instructor. The only down fall to this is that the state only requires if I am not mistaken the person to shoot one shoot. The class that I took with my wife the instructor had each of us shoot multiple rounds in differant scenerios. It is sad you would think that the people getting the permits that would not want to practice and be proficient with their weapon.

yomama
December 20, 2006, 05:21 PM
Again, while it would be great for everyone to have training, it still creates a barrier for those who truly need a firearm for protection. The more we create these restraints, we create control. I honestly have a hard time with this guys, (and gals sorry). Most people on this forum are pro-gun rights. This means no control, what so ever, nothing, nada. I don't want anyone telling me what i need to or should do to carry out my civil liberties.

What if you were denied the permit. For any reason or no reason, since they don't have to tell you why. Boy, I guess your out of luck there.

Permits, classes, exams all cost money. There are many who need the firearm as a tool for defense. Every time you create another system, you exclude law abiding citizens financially, and honestly I find it economic discrimination.

Trip20
December 20, 2006, 06:23 PM
I definitely think there should be a mandatory class for ccw. IMHO, they should raise the permit prices and make it state run. Here in NC (Wake county at least), it's $80 for the permit and an additional $10 for fingerprinting. You are required to take a class which ranges from $60 to $200 depending on where you take it.

That's pretty disturbing to read. Those prices seem awful high as it is - yet you agree with raising the prices - effectively putting the possibility of "lawful" carry out of reach (monetarily speaking) for some fellow citizens.

I hope that’s not the reason behind your opinion.

But, maybe you could shed some light on this for me.

Given there are states with either relaxed or non-existent requirements (a la Vermont & Alaska), and considering that in states of this type there is no spate of untrained civilians making Swiss cheese out of one another, I question the motives behind your opinion. I question your rational because most likely, whatever it is you think will be prevented by higher prices and state-run mandatory classes, isn’t happening now in any state.

So, please, lay out an argument for your opinion. I’m interested.

TonyM1
December 20, 2006, 06:49 PM
I have to agree with the anti-licensing group. If you think about it, the only difference (at least in Fl) between a person carrying a concealed weapon legally and illegally is that the former paid the state $100 plus costs for fingerprinting, picture and 'class'. It has nothing to do with making sure I'm a safe gun owner, it's all about money. The class portion that dealt with demonstrating use of a firearm consisted of picking up a .357 revolver pointing it down range, pulling the trigger and putting the gun back down (so easy a caveman could do it) Obviously the state does not care about proficiency, just give them their money and you can carry it concealed. This may sound like I'm making a case for more stringent licensing procedures, which is not my intent for if we allow that to happen then we will once again only be allowing access to what is a right, to those in a financial position to do so. There should be no licensing whatsoever, it is not like driving a car...that is a privilege that is not covered by any amendment, unlike the right to bear arms. Must we pass speech class in high school and pay a licensing fee to be able to exercise our 1A rights?

The cwp to me is like the tax stamp for nfa items, yeah the same gun is only illegal if you don't give Uncle Sam his cut...bull$hit. Why is it that 2A is constantly open to interpretation by every damn state in the union? Do the states all have a different interpretation of free speech?

spacemanspiff
December 20, 2006, 07:19 PM
there were shooters in my CHL class that could hit nothing but dirt in front of the target at 5 yards.

they were sold hammerless 38 specials, because thats typically a 'chick-gun', cause chicks can't figure out magazines, slides, blah blah blah, righ? :rolleyes:

once they were handed a 1911, they hit paper.

firemedic1975
December 20, 2006, 07:37 PM
In Florida it is about $120 for the first time fee to get your CCW permit plus the cost of your safety class that you have to take. Every 5 years you have to renew the permit at a cost of $75.

Greguw
December 20, 2006, 08:51 PM
My state is very similar to others , You pay your money and 3 referance's and you get a permit ... Some people should not have a permit ...alot of people can't rationalize there actions ....They would shoot and ask questions later !

I was heading home one day and there was a guy cutting people off all over the road ...A real jerk ...So I was just minding my own business and this guy says what are you look at ... I was just minding my own business ...Little guy in his 50 dollar car ...
I just blew him off ...I'm 6'3 200+ ... So me minding my own business ignored him ...the guy gets out of his at the light ...while he's getting out of the car I notice a black object in his hand ...A large double D flash light ... He just gose crazy ...He starts to run at me in my truck ... saying he's going to beat my head in ...LOL
So I guess he was not that crazy ...When I pulled out Smith and wesson he stoped and paid Attension ...I told him he has two options I can blow his brians out or he can get back in his **** go on with his business .
He choose to leave breathing ...So he follows me and calls the cops ... my friend was on duty who lived in my Township ... he came out and said he's doing a follow up on a report of a guywith a gun ...Me ! ... Who was pulling a gun out and stoping traffic , the guy said I got out of my truck and stuck the gun to his head ...LOL
So I had to go to the township that the altercation accured ...But I first talked to the cop and he asked me what happend and I told him the guy got out of his car with a pipe ...I had a splt second to react !
Cop had me come in ... mean while the cop called the dirtbag back and told him he had whitness that said he was the one out of the car with the pipe ...the dirtbag paused ... then said it was not a pipe ...it was a flash light ...
The cop had him then ... I had to go to court a I pressed charges and so did the district attorney and the dirtbag got over 7 grand in fines and 500 hr community service .
The whole time until the end I said nothing to the guy ...until after everything was done ...I said you dumbass you called the cops on your self ... His wife looked at him and said what ...He must not have told her ...LOL
Anyway Even if I shot him ...it would have been ruled as a clean shooting ...I had no means of excape ...The district attornrey when into detail making that clear he's lucky to be breathing ...in so many words .
Then his family would have tried to sue me civilly !
So the things that go thru your head in a split second ...Common sence rules !

Good luck in your choice !

Greg

wayneinFL
December 20, 2006, 08:57 PM
"So...for hunting, you must be be educated. But to carry concealed, you only need a little cash and a trusty ink pen.

Ironic?"

Not really. Not ironic at all. Concealed carry is a need, something your life may likely depend on. It's also a right. Hunting is a privilege and can be restricted as such.

Interestingly enough, my state has a training requirement, but a free hunter education course meets the requirement.

kwkoch
December 21, 2006, 08:17 AM
thank god i live in indiana!! mail in my $25 the state does a background check and my CCW comes in the mail good for 4 years!! they are actually talking about a lifetime carry permit that would run $125.

Daves-got-guns
December 21, 2006, 08:30 AM
it is tough to make clear decisions with people comin at you, and you never know who has a gun and if its legal or not for them to own. Honestly people with objects in their hand is a big scare, cause it might seem like a gun, and they could really have a flash light, and then you pull under heat, fire and kill and now you have that burdon hanging over you for the rest of your life. But for as far as my earlier incident where "the stray round" is considered, thats a big deal and cheney managed to get one stray round off with very little consequences to anybody but his "buddy". I guess you personaly just have to practice, and trust what your weapon can do. Still thinking mandatory classes would be good and some ammo in the fight against anti-gunners.

John28226
December 21, 2006, 01:01 PM
Requiring "mandatory" training is not ammo against the anti-gunners, it is part of the AGENDA of the anti-gunners. If you worry a lot about people having guns you might want to spend some time at the library reading some history books.

Your argument for training sounds a lot like the argument against capital punishment. "Some innocent people might be executed so no one should be executed". Give us some cites on actual cases; otherwise your argument is specious.

John
Charlotte, NC

Daves-got-guns
December 21, 2006, 01:18 PM
well even if it was mandatory, training isnt a punishment and even guys who are well regulated can use some extra range time. If they make some kind of perk out of it, then that would be fair also. I'm sure of one case of a man with a .357 who shot thru his dry wall and the first bullet hit somewhere in the kitchen, of a neighbor's house of course and the second hit a innocent. You don't have to get offended at me, im just trying to help and im tired of this "if you promote any sort of gun control at all, then your a liberal" attitude that i get when i suggest something. I aint no liberal, and i am pro gun all the way, and the way i figured mandatory training would help. is if a liberal asks against safeguards of untrained people firing off rounds blindly and hitting a innocent, you can say oh well we make sure that if somebody carries concealed, that they know what they're doing and they are atleast familiar with their weapon. I think that it would be nice if people would get training on their own, but some people buy a gun, shoot 1 mag, load a fresh one into the gun and think they're ready for hell. I guess thats why shooting is a right, so no training required, and drivers license is a privilege so you have to pass a test. Generally speaking, i don't worry about people carrying, but once in awhile something bad may happen, and it could be a yahoo pulling off the trigger as fast as he can in the general direction, also how many cop cams have you scene on t.v where something happens and the cop emptys his bottomless 9 at the bg and he escapes without injury? I saw atleast 5 the other month on a caught on cam show.

tydephan
December 21, 2006, 04:01 PM
Not really. Not ironic at all. Concealed carry is a need, something your life may likely depend on. It's also a right. Hunting is a privilege and can be restricted as such.

Interestingly enough, my state has a training requirement, but a free hunter education course meets the requirement.

Wayne,

My point regarding irony revolves around location and proximity to people. You can carry a gun in everyday life, where you are more likely to endanger people, and there is no need for training. However you can't carry a weapon in the wilderness, where only animals could be endangered, without special education.

For clarification, I'm not saying that CCW owners should have to pass a qualification test. I am saying that hunters should not.

I would also humbly disagree that hunting is a privilege. To some, it is still a means of sustaining life. Not for me though. I buy my meat at Winn Dixie! :D

John28226
December 21, 2006, 06:48 PM
Dave's GG, I don't care if you say you are a space alien or how many guns you say you have or how many rights you say you support. You pose the same old (and proven false) concept that was used in every state that considered authorizing concealed carry - that of road rage shootouts, of blood running in the streets, of "unskilled and untrained" citizens shooting up innocent people. None of which proved true. And then you want to cop an attitude when the replies you receive don't suit you.

You refer to those of us who do carry as "gun nuts" (insulting on its face) and infer that the world would be safer if government placed more limits on our having guns; and then you want to cop an attitude!

Why don't you tell us how making it illegal for citizens to carry guns on school grounds has saved our children? Why don't you cite some cases (there actually have been a few) that support your position?

How much training do you consider enough? Maybe as much as police officers are given? We all know that they never hit an innocent bystander, don't we?

The plain and simple truth is that a private citizen (often completely untrained) with a gun prevents a criminal act several times each day. Many times without ever firing a shot.

If passing laws would make us safe, we would be the safest country in the world. Your safety is YOUR responsibility just as mine is mine. I take that seriously. That's why I carry a gun.

John
Charlotte, NC

sanson
December 21, 2006, 07:15 PM
I foolishly let my conceal permit expire and now to renew FL wants me to go through the WHOLE process all over again. the class, fingerprinting, $$, etc

Kreyzhorse
December 21, 2006, 07:40 PM
I try to stay out of these type discussions, but I wonder if anyone at Luby's Cafe in Texas would have minded someone being there with a CDW?

Trip20
December 21, 2006, 08:36 PM
Daves-got-guns,

First, I must ask you to - please (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/606/01/) - hit the enter key a few times during your posts as you change topics so that you create a new paragraph. Otherwise it's difficult to read, and difficult to follow you thoughts.

Now, on to the real topic.

I'm sure of one case of a man with a .357 who shot thru his dry wall and the first bullet hit somewhere in the kitchen, of a neighbor's house of course and the second hit a innocent.
This is a negligent discharge that has nothing to do with concealed carry licensing. This is a moron not following the 4 Basic Firearm Rules.

You were asked to provide examples and cite cases of the situation you describe. That innocents will be wounded or killed at the hand of the untrained Joe Blow concealed carry permit holder while he's responding to a threat upon his life.

You have yet to do so. I know why this is the case, but I want you to stumble upon this conclusion as you search for these specific examples, come up with none, and realize there is no epidemic.

You don't have to get offended at me, im just trying to help and im tired of this "if you promote any sort of gun control at all, then your a liberal" attitude that i get when i suggest something.

Oh, stop, please. Just because people are challenging your opinion, does not mean your being attacked or that anyone is "offended at you."

What we're trying to do, through challenging your opinion, is to understand the rational you use to justify the belief that mandatory training will prevent permit holders from spraying bullets into innocent people. You've mostly ignored these challenges; instead either repeating yourself from prior posts, deflecting the subject by moving on to some other barely related story, or speaking about how everyone is attacking you or calling you a liberal.

You wanted to discuss this topic. So pull up a chair, crack your knuckles, and better explain yourself by addressing the points made by those trying to understand your position.

...the way i figured mandatory training would help. is if a liberal asks against safeguards of untrained people firing off rounds blindly and hitting a innocent, you can say oh well we make sure that if somebody carries concealed, that they know what they're doing and they are atleast familiar with their weapon.

I’m going to guess you've not had the pleasure of arguing with many "liberals" (I'll assume you mean anti-gunners as they are not always one in the same), but the argument you put forth doesn't amount to much at all.

Mandatory training doesn't equal: "they know what they're doing and are at least familiar with their weapon."

What if they want to carry a different pistol that day? Will you require them to get a permit to carry each pistol they'd like to carry? See, now we're bleeding into further restrictions and hassles - all of which are unnecessary and will prevent absolutely nothing.

Then we get to the fact that permit holders firing off rounds blindly and hitting innocents is not happening around the nation. It's not happening. Has it happened? Probably. But to no substantial ratio that would warrant further restriction.

Essentially, what you'd like to see is a revamping of state requirements to prevent something that's not happening?

Does that make much sense to you when you really analyze it? Probably not. But it sure does make one feel good to know they're "prevented something". That’s (one of) the problem(s) with law-makers today.

Generally speaking, i don't worry about people carrying, but once in awhile something bad may happen, and it could be a yahoo pulling off the trigger as fast as he can in the general direction...

And here you prove my last point. It isn't happening anywhere around the nation as a result of lack of mandatory training so you create a “what if” scenario in an attempt to bolster your opinion. You've based your entire argument thus far on what MAY happen or what COULD happen instead of what IS happening. You'd restrict a right way too easily in my opinion. That's why I rolled my eyes when I read this comment of yours:

...and i am pro gun all the way...

You’re not pro gun "all the way", sorry to say. You're pro gun as long as you're comfortable with certain boundaries you feel are acceptable.

There's a huge difference.

Haterade
December 21, 2006, 10:06 PM
I'm against mandatory training.

Then again, I'm also against licensing, registration and generally asking permission for something I think is my right as guaranteed by the Constitution.

That being said, I think training is useful. In our incredibly litigious society, knowing the law and knowing what you can and can't do by law as well as where you can carry your firearm can be beneficial. However, I do think most firearms used by people with CCW permits are purely for self-preservation and the law goes out the window at that point... you just want to stay alive!

So, should it be mandatory... no. That just plays further into the argument that it's a privilege. Will you get occasional wackos with guns... yes. Can you expect perfection and that everyone who gets a CCW will be an angel.. no. Should you prosecute and put in prison those who use their firearms irresponsibly and endanger innocents, regardless of whether they have a CCW in prison...yes.

What else is there? Not everyone has the time, energy or desire to research the perfect load for their self defense weapon. Everyone isn't going to research penetration and expansion data on bullets and figure out how many walls their round may go through if they miss. Training is fine... what ifs and what nots make it complicated . Make training available and make it FREE... and if people act stupid put them in jail.

dave421
December 21, 2006, 10:16 PM
That's pretty disturbing to read. Those prices seem awful high as it is - yet you agree with raising the prices - effectively putting the possibility of "lawful" carry out of reach (monetarily speaking) for some fellow citizens.

I hope that’s not the reason behind your opinion........

.........
Given there are states with either relaxed or non-existent requirements (a la Vermont & Alaska), and considering that in states of this type there is no spate of untrained civilians making Swiss cheese out of one another, I question the motives behind your opinion. .........
So, please, lay out an argument for your opinion. I’m interested.

My opinion is based on the number of people out there that will get a ccw and have NO experience with firearms. It's the people that live in a bad neighborhood and feel the need to protect themselves. I'm all for that. But a gun owner with no training and no experience isn't a threat to a criminal. They're a threat to themselves and other innocents. If you don't know how to aim properly, handle your firearm properly, or practice with it, I don't think you should be carrying it. You know those statistics about how many people are attacked with their own gun? How many of those people do you think would fit into the profile I outlined above? I would think it's quite a lot. I've got a friend that loves guns. He often buys a new one every couple of months. I can't even think of the last time that he took one of his to the range and fired a SINGLE shot downrange. Guess who the person with the worst firearms safety is that I know. You got it, him. I even had to explain the difference between a Desert Eagle and his Baby Eagle to him.

As for cost, it wouldn't go up much at all where I live. The only difference is that the training would be the same everywhere rather than getting good instruction here but not from the other guy. I'm taking advantage of this with the guy I'm going to. I know the local gun laws, am more familiar with my carry gun than any of the "local" instructors, and I practice regularly so I'm just going to the guy, shooting my target, getting signed off and saving a hundred bucks. The difference in what I propose is that people like me would have to take a quality, thorough class (and quite possibly end up learning something as it's possible even I would) and they would be paying ONE fee rather than THREE. They wouldn't be spending much more (if any). So, lawful carry wouldn't be any more out of the reach of the poor-er of us than it is now (and I easily qualify as one and could even get on welfare if I wished yet I could & would pay $300 if needed for me to get my ccw). It might take an extra month but it's more than legal for someone here to carry openly anywhere that you can carry concealed.

Gun control? You're damn right. It's a dangerous object in the wrong hands. I don't see anyone stating that people should be able to drive whenever they want without getting instruction. Oh, and owning guns is a right, NOT concealing them. If it is, I must have missed that part of the 2nd.

Haterade
December 21, 2006, 11:00 PM
Oh, and owning guns is a right, NOT concealing them. If it is, I must have missed that part of the 2nd.

That depends on what you consider the "bearing" to be in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

It certainly says nothing specific to "owning" guns either. Its says Keep and Bear. That means own and carry. Method of carry I'm not sure was addressed. What was the definition of "bear" in the 1700's... I think it most likely meant to carry. I doubt it was broken down to carry openly or concealed. No matter what it meant, it wasn't important enough to specify then, so why should it matter now? I choose to bear my arms in a manner not visible to the general public. If that violates the Constitution in any way, please let me know!

dave421
December 21, 2006, 11:18 PM
That depends on what you consider the "bearing" to be in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I guess you have a point. In my opinion, open carry is assumed but I suppose it is something open to interpretation.

TonyM1
December 21, 2006, 11:27 PM
I don't see anyone stating that people should be able to drive whenever they want without getting instruction.

I don't see an ammendment that makes driving a right.

Alerion
December 21, 2006, 11:28 PM
thank god i live in indiana!! mail in my $25 the state does a background check and my CCW comes in the mail good for 4 years!! they are actually talking about a lifetime carry permit that would run $125.

Actually the lifetime permit became law earlier this year. I'm thinking it was on July First. BTW if you already have a valid (4 year) permit when you apply for your lifetime permit the lifetime permit is cheaper, I think it's $100 total.

I'm not a fan of requiring permits in the first place but if I have to live somewhere that requires them I'm glad that it's the first state in the country to offer a lifetime permit!

Tom

Trip20
December 21, 2006, 11:49 PM
My opinion is based on the number of people out there that will get a ccw and have NO experience with firearms... ...They're a threat to themselves and other innocents.

Ok. Now, provide proof of this being an issue whereby these untrained gun-toting masses are a danger to innocents.

I mean, there's gotta be proof of this happening, right? And don't just toss me one article from 1988 -- I mean it’s definitely happening at a frequency that should alarm us all, right? Otherwise this would be much ado about nothing; kind of an irrational fear about a non-existent peril and based on the same you'd like to see us further regulated. Nice.

I repeatedly ask for proof of this happening and no one is able to produce. Not that one article would change a damn thing, but I at least want to see the effort.

The rest (i.e., anecdotal malarkey about buddies who buy guns every month but never shoot them) is irrelevant.

gvf
December 22, 2006, 12:21 AM
One about "bear arms": there are various opinions about the historical use in the 2nd - because there are a lot of instances where it had a military meaning; but others where the current meaning (a civilian owning and using weapons) was also meant.

Two - I can't help but think if there were that many CCWs who had no training or minimal knowledge of guns, we would see that played out in real situations, innocents shot, guns taken away by BG and shooting the CCW etc. I never do.

dave421
December 22, 2006, 12:34 AM
Ok. Now, provide proof of this being an issue whereby these untrained gun-toting masses are a danger to innocents.

I mean, there's gotta be proof of this happening, right? And don't just toss me one article from 1988 -- I mean it’s definitely happening at a frequency that should alarm us all, right? Otherwise this would be much ado about nothing; kind of an irrational fear about a non-existent peril and based on the same you'd like to see us further regulated. Nice.

I repeatedly ask for proof of this happening and no one is able to produce. Not that one article would change a damn thing, but I at least want to see the effort.

The rest (i.e., anecdotal malarkey about buddies who buy guns every month but never shoot them) is irrelevant.

Are you serious? You HONESTLY think that there aren't single mothers, college students, elderly, and even normal people out there that have a ccw & a gun because of where they live, past experiences, or just so that they'll feel safer? I don't recall saying anywhere that there were masses or majority or any specific number. The fact is that you KNOW it happens. If you want news articles about this, then you find them. I don't need to. My own experiences show me that it happens. As for being a danger to innocents, why does everyone on this forum and pretty much anyone that is a responsible gun owner talk about gun safety? Danger to yourself and others. If I've had no training, then how am I going to know the 4 rules of gun safety? I've definitly never had anyone tell me whenever I bought a gun. I've seen them on gun forums and in ranges yet can't recall a single gun store that had them posted prominently.

People need to understand that "danger" is a situation, not an event. An inexperienced driver with no training is dangerous. Joe Shmoe that saw someone juggling fire in Hawaii and decides to try it without any experience or training is dangerous. A gunowner that has no experience or training, is dangerous. Do you honestly feel that someone doesn't need to train with a gun, test a gun, or be familiar with it in anyway in order to be safe? If I leave my gun out in the open and my 22 year old female roommate who has no gun experience (by her choice, not mine) is going to know how to handle it properly, fire it properly, and be safe with it? If so, I'd like some of whatever you're smoking.

As for your proof of people being harmed with their own guns, read a paper occasionally. It's not unknown for a homeowner to be shot or held hostage with their own gun(s) either because they were easily accessible or didn't know proper handling.

Trip20
December 22, 2006, 12:40 AM
The fact is that you KNOW it happens.

Is that really all you've got?

Checkmate. ;)

dave421
December 22, 2006, 01:06 AM
Checkmate what? Are you that ignorant that you think all gun owners are responsible? Maybe I should move to your world.

Tell you what though, you guys are all right though and I'm wrong. All gun owners are responsible. Everyone is born with the knowledge of firearm safety. Guns should be given to every child when they leave the hospital after birth. The 2nd amendment says we all have the right to arms so I'm going to make sure that everyone has them. I think I'll start at the prison down the road. I'll give one to everyone being set free at gift (after all, it does say the right won't be infringed, right?). The guy I work with that has brain damage will get one too. Then I'll work on children next, a gun for every infant. I'll be glad to know that they all know how to use a gun and I won't need to remind them to practice because of course they would all do that anyway. Oops, can't forget the people on welfare, they need a gun too. I guess the ranges give them free ammo and range time, right?

Trip20
December 22, 2006, 05:22 PM
dave421 - I've not purported "all gun owners are responsible," nor have I disagreed with the point that we have fellow citizens carrying who have little training beyond what's currently mandated if any training is mandated at all.

So lets set that all aside. We agree on those items, which is why I've not discussed them up until this point.

What you've put forth is the following among other similar statements. Statements that makes a claim of those folks who fall in the above category. I'll bold the claim below:
My opinion is based on the number of people out there that will get a ccw and have NO experience with firearms... ...They're a threat to themselves and other innocents.

I've asked for proof of these untrained folks being a threat to themselves and other innocents (i.e., permit holders shooting innocent people) to a degree or frequency that should alarm us all. I’m not looking for one obscure case. I’m looking for definitive proof that there is truly a problem akin to what you fear.

Instead of producing any evidence, you have both told me that I "KNOW" it happens (mmmkay), and you've also stated you “don’t need to” find evidence. That’s where you’re wrong.

The real issue is this: I want proof because what you want to do is further restrict a Right based what amounts to nothing so far (other than what it appears you feel is happening). Before you or any lawmaker should be allowed to restrict any Right of ours, there better be a damned heaping pile of evidence to support your position. Scratch that. There’d better be an irrefutable heaping pile of evidence. Capice?

Capt Charlie
December 22, 2006, 07:45 PM
There's good subject matter here. Let's not ruin it by making it too personal, OK? ;)

dave421
December 22, 2006, 08:12 PM
The proof is in the statements that can be found throughout this forum. Why does everyone here talk about the safety rules? Is it to keep people from throwing their gun in a river and expecting it to be perfectly normal? I would assume, it's for safety. If someone has no firearms knowledge or training, how do they know safe firearms handling? If they don't know safe firearms handling, how can they be a safe firearm owner? If they aren't a safe firearm owner, how can they not present a dangerous situation to themselves and others around them? Capice?

Further, as I explained above, there would be no additional restrictions on firearms owners. There would really not be any additional restrictions on ccw holders. The costs would pretty much be the same. The only difference, as I stated earlier, is that they would make one payment rather than 3+ for their license and the license training would be more uniform throughout the state. I've made no claims about other states whatsoever. I *HAVE* made claims about where I live. As to other states, would you prefer that everyone KNOWS safe firearm handling, the laws pertaining to ccw and self defense, and how their firearm handles or would you prefer that the people out there without those things continue in an ignorant state of being? What I'm talking about would change that. I'm not for a $1000 fee throughout the U.S. (or even a $30 fee). However, if training is mandatory and uniform then it's one more thing that will reinforce the image of gunowners as responsible people (something that is severely lacking in the U.S.) and inspire more confidence in the sheeple out there (you know, the ones that freak out when I walk in a store carrying openly) that gunowners are responsible and knowledgeable rather than "gun freaks" and "dangerous".

And no, I don't "need" to find evidence. I'm not your congressman. I'm not a member of a committee looking at gun rights. I'm a fellow citizen that is stating his opinion based upon his experiences and facts that are well known. You may take a different view on those facts and that's completely acceptable. But DON'T tell me that I'm not entitled to my opinions without proving something to you. I don't know ANYONE on this forum. Therefore, I don't care whether people here agree with me or not. Last time I checked, I lived in the U.S. and am entitled to my beliefs regardless of what they are.

It seems to me that you're one of the people that fit into the extremes. I see the "sheeple" out there that think all guns are evil and they should all be banned and anyone that carries a gun or disagrees with them is an extremist, criminal, or needs to be committed. And then I see the gun owners that tout the 2nd, interpret it however they want, and think they should be allowed to own anything they want to since it's every American's right to own a rocket launcher for "protection" and anyone that says anything contrary is trying to take away their rights. This isn't an insult, it's simply an observation and as I stated earlier, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Personally, I'm in the middle. I feel I deserve the right to own guns for my protection, hunting, or enjoyment but I don't think people need a selectable fire MP5 for "protection" and they should be able to go to a bar and throw a few back with their 1911 on their hip.

If you disagree with me, that's fine. However, it doesn't seem like you do. You're willing to accept the very basis of my argument, just not my conclusion. So I'll make you a deal. You provide me with "definitive proof" that ignorant gunowners are perfectly safe and I'll be happy to show you some news stories of victims harmed with their own firearms or harming an innocent.


*edit* actually here's a situation where everything went right except She then ran to the living room and found a masked Carson fighting with Jenkins on the floor. She fired several times, apparently grazing her boyfriend in the back and hitting Carson once in the back. This girl did everything right but the question remains whether additional training would have resulted in several shots in the perp and no grazing of the boyfriend. And no, I didn't search for the story (it's on XDTalk for a while now) and I am NOT questioning her actions. Article can be found here: http://dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/12/14/20061214-A1-02.html

Daves-got-guns
December 23, 2006, 02:20 AM
im sorry again, but i was using the term gun nut loosely, as i am not always talking in a serious manner, and i want to keep things friendly. I have nothing against anybody carrying concealed carry, really i would like to see more of it! more armed populas, less crime is the typical rule of thumb. But their are people who go with the bare minimum of what they need to do to get a hold of a gun, and i think that is wrong. I think everybody who has a gun for concealed carry should be able to be able to do basic stuff with it, like hit paper at certain ranges, prove they're competence in safety and maybe more requirements. I know alot of people stop attacks, or incidents without firing a single shot, but when the time comes its nice to know its not some guy who barely knows witch end to point, and they just pull the trigger. Im not trying to be on the liberal side of well what if people get into shootouts, and what if this or that. Im not concerned with the general amount of people who carry, and are serious about it but some idiots DO get by with little to no training, and its just stupid. I can cop as much of a attitude as i want, cause John, i must have said something that irratated you and i dont care, you are very high strung about this and i try to keep it loose. If you want to cut up every little word i say then go for it, its not going to change my opinions. If you want to, idk lower the age of people who can carry then go for that too, or if you think that we should be able to carry in a school zone then more power to you. The only real reason i can see the government not wanting guns in there is they try to make it some sort of "utopia" and you dont need iron, knife or your fists. Truth was in my school, witch i havent been to in oh idk 3-4 years that it was awhole hell ofa lot more dangerous in there then it was almost anywhere i would usually travel, and our "security guards" that i wouldn't trust my dogs life with didn't even pack pepper spray and they were NEVER around when things got bad, so after awhile they had a sheriff there part time.

Daves-got-guns
December 23, 2006, 02:30 AM
oh and the case i spoke of concerning the man with the .357 was not a nd, but he was in a self defense, fired and missed went thru walls. My fault on that one because i forgot to throw it in there.

Sorry for not breaking things up when i talk, i just have ALOT on my mind, not just about this but life in general and when i start speaking/typing i just goto town with whats on my mind.

Also its cool that people can debate, or pick about what ever i say but please don't be rude, i'd love to hear everybodys side, but im tired of everybody being hostile towards me, its b/s. Were here to learn, discuss and post our thoughts, and opinions! sorry to tell anybody this or that, but its how i feel things should be, and there is sooo much b/s against our gun rights in most of the states as it is, but thats how things turn out sometimes.

I know not all liberals are anti-gun owning flower picking "ijetts" but the majority of them are. John kerry is the biggest one i can think of who acts like hes here for guns in front of the camera, but when its conveinent to him hell support the same general idea as almost all dems and that is to get rid of guns. I know my states pretty good on gun laws, and we're a dem state, but i guess its a exception to the rule.

stiffnecked
December 23, 2006, 09:04 AM
http://www.dps.state.ak.us/PermitsLicensing/achp/index.asp

Not one single incident of an untrained concealed carry person gunning down innocent bystanders. Maybe Alaskans are just more sane than the rest of you guys.

sanson
December 23, 2006, 09:11 AM
I had a conceal permit when down in south fl, now at the top of the state where people are nicer I let the permit expire. may be sorry someday when permits are unavailable:rolleyes:

dave421
December 23, 2006, 10:29 AM
Not one single incident of an untrained concealed carry person gunning down innocent bystanders. Maybe Alaskans are just more sane than the rest of you guys.

And? I guess I missed where I said that "untrained concealed carry person gunning down innocent bystanders" was an issue. And I would be somewhat surprised if any state's webpage for ccw mentioned such a thing.

Danzig
December 23, 2006, 11:30 AM
You are asking the wrong question. The question should not be "Should training be mandatory before receiving a ccw?" Rather the question should be "Do we give in to the idea that the state has any right to "permit" or not our carrying of concealed firearms?" I say no and therefore I will never go on my knees before the government begging their "permission" to carry my weapons concealed. I either will do so, or I won't. A permit is not needed in a free country.

stiffnecked
December 23, 2006, 01:49 PM
All I can add to this is that is some States in this country, freedom lives.

Shamus
December 23, 2006, 10:05 PM
First I'll apologize for not reading more than the first two pages in this thread so If I'm missing something already said then chalk me up as impatient.

In Ohio I was happy to see the law change so I could complete the training (mandatory) and receive a permit a couple years ago.
Training focused on firearm safety and legal consequences should you produce and discharge your firearm. Damn scary stuff for sure.

The first rule as taught was to run away if possible. Second is to be a good witness for the prosecution and third is to hit what you are aiming at. In other words, as a last resort, shoot, and then only to protect your loved ones and/or yourself.

We are not Police nor should we feel it is our responsibility to act like them. We may be better shots and have the element of surprise as an average citizen with a concealed firearm, possibly, but we all need to understand what will happen after the fact. That's the scary part.

I believe most of those that read gun Forms have read scenario about some situation, real or imagined, where shooting someone is the end result. Few have taken the time to understand what will happen when one round leaves your barrel. If you choose to shoot the bad guy you may well be a hero, you will most likely be sued even if the Grand Jury does not indict you. Lastly, if you wing an innocent bystander I hope you have a stash of cash someplace cause your gonna need it.

Concealed carry is a huge responsibility and can be a life altering experience if you do the wrong thing. Anyone that believes otherwise isn’t seeing the whole picture.

Just my ol 2¢

dave421
December 24, 2006, 12:58 AM
I say no and therefore I will never go on my knees before the government begging their "permission" to carry my weapons concealed. I either will do so, or I won't. A permit is not needed in a free country.

I'm sorry that that is your attitude. Unfortunately (imho), that type of attitude is a more of a problem than a solution. Every person that carries concealed without a permit (i.e. ILLEGALLY) is just one more person to be used as an example of the antis. If such a person were to get caught, they would be kissing their "right" to buy any firearms in the future goodbye. That's not something the gun owners of this country can afford to lose (another gun owner). I truly hope that is taken into consideration by anyone that decides to carry illegally. There's already enough people out there that believe gunowner = criminal / bad person and we don't need to help them out by giving them another example.

Danzig
December 24, 2006, 10:50 AM
Unfortunately Dave, attitudes like yours only serve to legitimize "their" laws, rules, and regulations. As for me....I choose freedom.

Capt Charlie
December 24, 2006, 12:51 PM
I say no and therefore I will never go on my knees before the government begging their "permission" to carry my weapons concealed. I either will do so, or I won't. A permit is not needed in a free country.

I can relate to your feelings, Danzig, and I thank you for your efforts to keep this Country free, but simply ignoring laws you disagree with is not the way to do so. Don't like the laws? Work to get them changed. It takes time and effort, but it does work.

Taking your route leads only to anarchy, chaos, and the eventual downfall of a great Country and the loss of all you've fought for.

As for us here at TFL, we don't advocate illegal activity, and we'll continue working toward preserving the Bill of Rights the right way..... through legal channels.

Closed.