William Lee
Inactive
^^ too true.
a person should know how to load, unload, and shoot a target 7 yards or so in a safe manner.
I feel this is enough for most CCW people.
Know the permit laws (classroom) be able to load aim and shoot 7 to 10 yards...I belive it is all a person needs to do to be able to get a permit to carry concealed.
That's how I came to post thisSo to put this in perspective, the items I outlines should be enough
What markj is asking is that we lower our standards to his.
I belive it is all a person needs to do to be able to get a permit to carry concealed.
Glenn E. Meyer said:I don't think it is immoral to flee. That's a good choice. Go for it. But if you act - you should be competent.
Posted by MarkJ:I will stick with what the state of Iowa requires to achieve a permit...In Iowa you need to be able and show it on a range...a person should know how to load, unload, and shoot a target 7 yards or so in a safe manner. This is the qualifier here in Iowa...
Posted by smince: What markj is asking is that we lower our standards to his.
Well, not really:Actually, no, he is stating what he thinks is adequate for him,
I feel this is enough for most CCW people.
I belive it is all a person needs to do to be able to get a permit to carry concealed.
So no, not just what he believes is adequate for himself.the items I outline should be enough
Two strawmen in two sentences.I believe that where I live that they got it right: no need for permit, period. How about them standards?
If you read the post immediately preceding my post, you can see that what I said was in context to that post.Two strawmen in two sentences.
This thread is not about whether or not you should be required to have a permit to carry/own a firearm.
This thread is also not about whether or not you should be required to meet mandated standards to carry/own a gun.
these topics have surfaced in the course of discussion and are germane to the topic.In states where training is required
I will say it again, NO ONE on this thread has argued against training being a positive asset.Empirically, those with training do better in critical incidents. Deny that evidence if you want to.
Glenn E. Meyer states:Isn't separating the "legal" from the "moral" one of the whole points of this thread?
Given my understanding of the founding documents and history of this country, my personal understanding of "Morality" and its role in history, I respectfully choose to "leave it" when framed as it has been here; and by that I specifically mean that I still value additional training for myself over time, yet disagree strongly with your stated "moral obligation" to do so.And I will say it - if you are going to use an instrument of lethal force in a manner that may harm innocents, if you don't try to achieve some competency, you are less moral than those who do. Take it or leave it.
We will have to disagree on this.There are lots of examples of government training people in complex skills, including the use of firearms.
I'm having trouble finding the Constitutional mandate for this. It's not the .gov's responsibility to teach my kids to swim with my tax money.My granddaughter took eight weeks of swim lessons for $55. The taxes of the folk in my county took up the rest
I don't know if it makes sense to assume that an individual will be useless without training
We will have to disagree on this.
My position is (and always has been) that moral, responsible people will step up & get the training they need, whether or not the state requires it.
When something is a public good, whether it's roads or firearms ownership, it is a role of government to maximize that good.
And while one indeed has free will and may choose to act in a less than responsible manner, he shouldn't expect to be congratulated for making that choice.pax said:My position is (and always has been) that moral, responsible people will step up & get the training they need, whether or not the state requires it....