maybe im not getting this, but unlicensed concealed carry sort of scares me. at least with most concealed carry permits you are required to background check, psychological assessment and, in some states, ballistics training to make sure you can actually hit what your shooting at...but some joe shmo being able to stuff a revolver in his pocket and go on his merry way doesnt seem right to me. talk me through this if you can....
I've yet to see anyone advance factual proof that training/proficiency standards/licensing has actually made a difference to public safety regarding carrying a firearm.
For both of you, here you go. Not mine, but taken off a thread over on another TFL.com thread (emphasis mine):
"Are you, personally and individually, safer and better able to protect yourself if you've had some decent training? Absolutely. The better trained you are, the better able you are to protect yourself and thus the safer you'll be. If you want to carry a pistol and don't get training, you're a fool.
But are you a threat to people around you without that training? Statistically speaking, the almost certain answer is, "No."
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have two states very similar demographically -- Washington and Oregon. Right next door to each other on the edge of the continent, the states feature similar crime rates, similar population sizes, similar geographies, and similar political climates.
Washington is one of the few states which had shall-issue laws long before the wave of concealed carry reforms swept the country in the late 1980s. Washington's shall-issue law passed in 1961, and the state has never had a training requirement. In Washington, to get a concealed pistol license, you go to the local cop shop, let them take your fingerprints, and give them some money. A few weeks later you get your license in the mail. No class, no test, no demonstration of proficiency or safety.
Oregon's law is more recent, going back to 1989. Because it's a modern law instead of an old one, Oregon's statute does require that applicants take a class before they may receive a permit to carry. The statute does not specify the length or content of the class, but does require that the instructor be certified by the NRA or a law enforcement agency and that the class must include firearms safety as a component.
With no training requirement at all in Washington, one would expect that all the untrained concealed carry people surely must cause problems here: more unintentional shootings, more accidents with firearms, more misbehavior. Something, right?
Not so. There's no statistical difference at all between Oregon's accidental shooting rate and Washington's. None. There's no blood running in the street here.
There is one measurable difference between the two states, however: measured as a percentage of the adult population who have carry permits, Washington has roughly twice as many permit holders as Oregon does.
In other words, the only measurable result of Oregon's training requirement seems to be a chilling effect on the number of people exercising their right to carry a concealed handgun.
pax"
Original TFL thread:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=443538
Read the above and then let's discuss.
Regards,
