Frank Ettin
Administrator
Welcome to the wonderful world of politics. This is why Bismark said, "Anyone who likes law or sausage should watch neither being made."peetzakilla said:
Thoughts on Training Requirements for concealed carry
- Thread starter MJAtl
- Start date
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
It does matter because facts are one thing that can be used to change public perception. If people had a more realistic view of the actual dangers they would realize that buckling their seatbelt every day does more to make them safer than either CCW or requiring training for it.
I think everybody here agrees that training is desirable. It is the government mandated training that makes people nervous; because the state governments have a long history of setting CCW requirements so that only a select few are given that right. Objective shall-issue laws have eliminated that problem in many states; but the fact remains that mandatory training laws do nothing to increase safety but still provide an obvious place to restrict the fundamental rights of self-defense to a smaller and smaller crowd.
Realistically, the chance you will be accidentally (or intentionally) shot by a CCW holder is almost zero. What is the chance that a state government will use mandatory training requirements to deny someone their right to self-defense? Common sense says you evaluate the risks and take the one with the best cost/benefit.
I'm torn on this one but, in the end, I don't have a problem with some training. I learned alot about the legal part of concealed carry and got some real world advice.
I didn't need it much for shooting, loading, safe handling, etc., but for legal stuff I was pretty deficient.
So, I guess I fall into the "yes" camp. But I remain torn on this one.
ETA: FWIW, I had "one-on-one" training and after the instructor saw how I handled guns, etc., he devoted the VAST majority of his instruction towards legal facts and issues. I'm glad we had that discussion and training. I personally needed it IMHO.
Also, he was a very good shot, so I got some good pointers on how to practice, etc. Overall it was a pleasant experience for me. I'm glad I took his class with only him and I attending.
(He said something at the very end of the class when I brought him home after going to the range: "I want you to be confident in the fact that you are a competent shot and will hit what you are aiming at". Man, that made me feel good and gave me confidence for the future of my concealed carry. I needed an instructor to judge whether I was a good enough shot to protect myself, family, etc. My head got about as big as a basketball when he said that. But, of course, he said, in so many words, "now don't get a big head over what I just told you about your shooting ability".
I ain't a great shot but you guys get what I mean about the "confidence builder" from a pro.)
So, even though I have a problem with "forced" training, the experience was a good one IMHO. I learned legal stuff and the instructor gave me confidence in my ability to shoot after all these years. (I'm sounding kind of wishy washy aren't I.
)
I didn't need it much for shooting, loading, safe handling, etc., but for legal stuff I was pretty deficient.
So, I guess I fall into the "yes" camp. But I remain torn on this one.
ETA: FWIW, I had "one-on-one" training and after the instructor saw how I handled guns, etc., he devoted the VAST majority of his instruction towards legal facts and issues. I'm glad we had that discussion and training. I personally needed it IMHO.
Also, he was a very good shot, so I got some good pointers on how to practice, etc. Overall it was a pleasant experience for me. I'm glad I took his class with only him and I attending.
(He said something at the very end of the class when I brought him home after going to the range: "I want you to be confident in the fact that you are a competent shot and will hit what you are aiming at". Man, that made me feel good and gave me confidence for the future of my concealed carry. I needed an instructor to judge whether I was a good enough shot to protect myself, family, etc. My head got about as big as a basketball when he said that. But, of course, he said, in so many words, "now don't get a big head over what I just told you about your shooting ability".
I ain't a great shot but you guys get what I mean about the "confidence builder" from a pro.) So, even though I have a problem with "forced" training, the experience was a good one IMHO. I learned legal stuff and the instructor gave me confidence in my ability to shoot after all these years. (I'm sounding kind of wishy washy aren't I.
)
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Ignoring the fact that the argument is not necessarily about the concept of being "less safe," you need to realize that in any analysis involving a paucity of actual data (there are relatively few guns carried concealed, and far fewer are ever drawn), one must use analytical and decision analysis methods other than data regression.
Case in point: there was never any empirical data indicating that the absence of the application of thermal properties specifications to the interface seals on the STS SRB (Space Transportation System Solid Rocket Booster) might well result in a catastrophic mission loss and an extremely damaging program hiatus. However, an adequate failure mode and effect analysis (one starts with assessing "what if" the seal should become brittle at low temperatures) that would have cost thousands might well have saved many billions. One cannot rely on actual data unless there is enough of it to analyze, but that does not alter the severity of the risk.
Apply the same thing to gun ownership. "What if" a gun owner is (unlike Peetzakilla and many others) innocently unaware that shooting at a fleeing burglar (or worse, at a thief) is far from a lawful heroic act, and does just that, committing a felony and perhaps severely injuring innocent people? The consequences can be horrendous, to say the least.
What is the probability that that, or any of the myriad of other possible tragic acts, might happen? For any one gun owner, somewhere between remote and less than remote, I'll agree. What is the significance of the potential consequences? On the very high end of "extremely severe", I think.
One needs to take into account likelihood, potential consequences, and the feasibility of mitigation. Kinda like deciding whether it's a good idea to have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen.
So the question becomes whether to accept the risk or to try to mitigate it. What would the cost of a reasonable mitigation plan be? Well, in Missouri, state audits showed the cost of putting someone through an eight hour training course to be about $100.
Compare that to the potential consequences. At the low end, legal costs on the high end of five figures. At the high end, loss employment, loss of personal freedom, and the loss of all assets in expenses and in a civil judgment.
What kind of probability would one need to show before concluding that the investment would be a very, very good one? One need not be a professional underwriter to realize that for those not already very knowledgeable, not making the investment would be foolhardy, even with a success rate of, say, less than two thirds.
Should it be mandatory? Well, most states do mandate the carrying of auto liability insurance for drivers. Is that an abridgment of personal freedom?
And when one applies the analysis to the aggregate of the gun owning population and understands that an extremely low incidence of tragic events would be required to change public sentiment materially, that brings up the already much discussed risk to the continued right of gun ownership.
I do not believe that a $100, one day investment in something that might undo the harmful effects of one's having watched too much television constitutes a "cumbersome rule", nor do I think it has anything to do with appeasing the gun haters. It's just good sense--and intelligent risk management.
You nailed it. Let's try to give them less ammo, OK?
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Well, lawful gun ownership is in fact for the "select". Too select, in my view.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Let's ask that same question in CCW terms - should CCW holders be required to carry liability insurance for accidental shootings? After all, it is an objective requirement. Is that an abridgement of your personal freedom?
Frank Ettin
Administrator
What facts? In any case, go an change public perception, and have fun. Look at how many people are still complaining about seat belts.Bartholomew Roberts said:
Actually, I don't think so. We've seen many threads, here and on other gun boards, with lengthy diatribes by the "We don't need no stinkin' training" crowd. Hoards of gun owners seem not to know what they don't know.Bartholomew Roberts said:
The chance that you will need your gun for self defense are almost zero as well. But unlikely events occur. And while the risk is small, the possible cost is substantial (there's part of your risk benefit analysis).Bartholomew Roberts said:
No, training is available to all. For some, it may mean some inconvenience or financial sacrifice, But if it's important enough to someone, he will find a way. Being willing to do so is part of taking the responsibility of walking around in public with a loaded weapon seriously.rzach said:
In some "may issue" states it can in fact be required.Bartholomew Roberts said:
Living in an organized society amongst other humans is one abridgment of personal freedom after another.Bartholomew Roberts said:
green-grizzly
New member
I'll leave aside the argument that politics is irrational, as it therefore becomes idiotic to argue about it. It is an awfully convenient way to avoid having to support your argument with any empirical data. It seems to me that if you are going to argue for restricting a basic constitutional right, you need to have some pretty hard data to support that. Clearly the data does not exist. When you can't support your argument with facts, I guess we are left with battling with perceptions. And of course perceptions differ, and they are immune to being disproved with facts.
Here is my perception, FWIW. I got a permit. When people find out I have a permit, they don't think it is as weird to have a permit because I am only a little weird. My wife has a permit. She would not have gotten the permit if there was a bunch of training required. She rarely carries. I worked hard to get her a gun that is simple to use, because clearly she was not going to spend a lot of time training. Now my wife is not weird at all. It totally changes people's attitude towards concealed carry when they find out she has a permit. They think it is for normal people, not freaks like you guys.
And, most importantly, when my wife travels alone she can carry a gun. I don't know for sure how effective she would be fighting off an attacker, but I'm sure she would not be any less effective. That is pretty important to me, more important than the public's perception or politics.
I really don't get the 'people are too stupid to make the right decisions' school of political thought, where perception is more important than facts. It seems to have a pretty strong following in conservative circles. I suppose doom, gloom, skepticism and futility comes naturally to the conservative mind, as well as the belief that the people can't be fully trusted. That is not all bad. But as gun owners, I think we generally want to trust people to do the right things with guns. The evidence shows that they can be trusted, even with pro forma training like Utah requires. I'm tempted to make the same arguments again on this, but I'll wait for some hard data which shows that more training leads to a statistically significant decrease in firearms misuse. I expect I'll be waiting for a while.
And I am again tempted to go over the argument again that appeasing gun haters does not do any good, but I will wait for examples of when this has ever worked.
I think it is very telling that when I say that my state keeps liberalizing our gun laws, fiddletown says:
Gun ownership was headed for extinction before liberal shall issue concealed carry came along. Polls show that there have been major shifts in public opinion in favor of the right to bear arms, and that shift happened as liberal shall issue concealed carry spread. Support for gun rights has increased most rapidly in those areas with liberal permit process. Check out Pew's polling data. It used to be that twice as many people who thought controlling guns was more important than gun rights; now the numbers are about the even. And we of course have more power because we have more dedicated fanatics than they do. We have had a real turnaround on the public's attitude towards guns in the last 20-30 years, and I think there is a pretty clear relationship with the timing of that and liberal concealed carry.
To the extent there is a perception about liberal CCW in states that have it, the perception seems to be it works great.
Even fiddletown agrees about the efficacy of liberal CCW laws in protecting gun rights when he says that:
Here is my perception, FWIW. I got a permit. When people find out I have a permit, they don't think it is as weird to have a permit because I am only a little weird. My wife has a permit. She would not have gotten the permit if there was a bunch of training required. She rarely carries. I worked hard to get her a gun that is simple to use, because clearly she was not going to spend a lot of time training. Now my wife is not weird at all. It totally changes people's attitude towards concealed carry when they find out she has a permit. They think it is for normal people, not freaks like you guys.
And, most importantly, when my wife travels alone she can carry a gun. I don't know for sure how effective she would be fighting off an attacker, but I'm sure she would not be any less effective. That is pretty important to me, more important than the public's perception or politics.
I really don't get the 'people are too stupid to make the right decisions' school of political thought, where perception is more important than facts. It seems to have a pretty strong following in conservative circles. I suppose doom, gloom, skepticism and futility comes naturally to the conservative mind, as well as the belief that the people can't be fully trusted. That is not all bad. But as gun owners, I think we generally want to trust people to do the right things with guns. The evidence shows that they can be trusted, even with pro forma training like Utah requires. I'm tempted to make the same arguments again on this, but I'll wait for some hard data which shows that more training leads to a statistically significant decrease in firearms misuse. I expect I'll be waiting for a while.
And I am again tempted to go over the argument again that appeasing gun haters does not do any good, but I will wait for examples of when this has ever worked.
I think it is very telling that when I say that my state keeps liberalizing our gun laws, fiddletown says:
Perhaps fiddletown has never seen the map showing the astounding expansion of shall issue CCW. Perhaps he has not read about the great gun rights victories we have made in those states. Two-thirds of the state's attorney generals support the incorporation of the second amendment. That is the first time a majority of states have supported a restriction of their own power. Just look at the legislative actions from states where there is shall issue CCW; the direction is almost always in favor of gun rights. We have even had major victories at the federal level: the gun industry was protected from frivolous lawsuits and we will be able to carry in National Parks for the first time since the Roosevelt administration.
Gun ownership was headed for extinction before liberal shall issue concealed carry came along. Polls show that there have been major shifts in public opinion in favor of the right to bear arms, and that shift happened as liberal shall issue concealed carry spread. Support for gun rights has increased most rapidly in those areas with liberal permit process. Check out Pew's polling data. It used to be that twice as many people who thought controlling guns was more important than gun rights; now the numbers are about the even. And we of course have more power because we have more dedicated fanatics than they do. We have had a real turnaround on the public's attitude towards guns in the last 20-30 years, and I think there is a pretty clear relationship with the timing of that and liberal concealed carry.
To the extent there is a perception about liberal CCW in states that have it, the perception seems to be it works great.
Even fiddletown agrees about the efficacy of liberal CCW laws in protecting gun rights when he says that:
Of course they have not been liberalized in those states fiddletown. What do those states have in common? Concealed permits are hard (or impossible) to get. Those states that issue permits all require lots of training. How is support for gun rights going in those states? You prove my case. The harder we make it to carry, the less support there will be for gun rights. Your "perception"/appeasement argument is not supported by the facts.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Texas has a fairly substantial training requirement with an all day course and shooting test of 50 rounds. That's not a true tactical experience but it is more than most and we are pretty good on gun rights.
Except for parking lot and work laws - where the property rights (oh, liability) hounds howl in the night. Flame on -
As far as I can see there is no evidence that training states have a better safety record. However, that is totally confounded by the demographics of the CCW/CHL population - usually responsible and older.
Extreme training and fees - which we don't have, is proposed as a way to keep down the permit numbers. As is the use of extensive property and location bans.
We do have some cases of CCW holders doing tactically stupid things but these are small numbers. Should they drive the conversation?
Gun laws are on an upturn of liberalization (how about dat for a word?) but some horror show can turn that around. Conservative politicians aren't necessarily friends of the SD and AR crowd - or of civil liberties (here comes the Army to arrest you - Yoo, Yoo! - clever pun here).
Thus, we can't really tell if the requirements help. I know from research that most TX CHLs and heavily trained folks are not blood in the street vigilantes.
My bottom line - is that - a course on laws and common sense are OK. The shooting test - iffy on that. I've researched a bit and found that the failure rate on the shooting test and written test in TX is pretty low - about 1% - and reshoots with a little help from the teacher get most through.
If reasonable measures, like TX, get a CCW law passed in the remaining 10 states - go for it. The GOA absolutist position on such is real world counterproductive.
I also reiterate my position that getting training is a good thing and you should if you talk the talk. While it may be the case that most incidents are resolved by waving the gun and the BG fleeing - I postulate that one might worry about the Black Swan case - rare but intense. It is clear from the training lit that emergency actions don't come automatically to all and training does help.
Except for parking lot and work laws - where the property rights (oh, liability) hounds howl in the night. Flame on -
As far as I can see there is no evidence that training states have a better safety record. However, that is totally confounded by the demographics of the CCW/CHL population - usually responsible and older.
Extreme training and fees - which we don't have, is proposed as a way to keep down the permit numbers. As is the use of extensive property and location bans.
We do have some cases of CCW holders doing tactically stupid things but these are small numbers. Should they drive the conversation?
Gun laws are on an upturn of liberalization (how about dat for a word?) but some horror show can turn that around. Conservative politicians aren't necessarily friends of the SD and AR crowd - or of civil liberties (here comes the Army to arrest you - Yoo, Yoo! - clever pun here).
Thus, we can't really tell if the requirements help. I know from research that most TX CHLs and heavily trained folks are not blood in the street vigilantes.
My bottom line - is that - a course on laws and common sense are OK. The shooting test - iffy on that. I've researched a bit and found that the failure rate on the shooting test and written test in TX is pretty low - about 1% - and reshoots with a little help from the teacher get most through.
If reasonable measures, like TX, get a CCW law passed in the remaining 10 states - go for it. The GOA absolutist position on such is real world counterproductive.
I also reiterate my position that getting training is a good thing and you should if you talk the talk. While it may be the case that most incidents are resolved by waving the gun and the BG fleeing - I postulate that one might worry about the Black Swan case - rare but intense. It is clear from the training lit that emergency actions don't come automatically to all and training does help.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And I disagree. Time will tell.rzach said:
In any case we still have training requirements in a number of states, and the lack of comparable training requirements in some other states prevents CCWs from those other states from being honored in certain states with training requirements. The states with training requirements aren't going to abandon them, nor is it likely that the political and demographic circumstances in those states would support recognition of CCWs from states without training requirements. Also, while national reciprocity legislation has been kicking around Congress for a bunch of years, it still hasn't gotten anywhere.
A good point. We need to remember the limited predictive value of the so called "empirical evidence" of the past. As they say in the sale of investments, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." And much economic, political and social history has been shaped by random events inconsistent with things that have happened previously.Glenn E. Meyer said:
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Excellent question, worthy of reasoned discussion.
First, let's consider the advisability of having umbrella coverage from the standpoint of the gun owner (many people do have it).
Same thing as before--the likelihood of ever needing it is remote, but the consequence of needing it and not having it would be extremely severe. You stand to lose everything. This is probably not unlike a situation involving just about anything else you are insured for. In my view, not having it in today's litigious society would be foolhardy. Kinda like driving without insurance. By the way, it ain't costly.
So--should it be mandatory? Well, should the unlikely happen and you and/or your loved one be struck by a bullet, lawn dart, arrow, child from a trampoline, or golf ball, the consequences could be extremely severe. Suppose that you are not killed or permanently impaired--you could still require extensive cosmetic reconstructive surgery that would not be covered by your medical plan, and the covered expenses could consume most or all of your lifetime benefit limit. That's assuming you have health coverage to start with. And then there's loss of income.
But not to worry. The shooter (golfer, etc.) is liable.
But that won't do you a whit of good unless he is insured or has very deep pockets.
So--would it be a good idea from your point of view for him to have insurance? You betcha!
Again, good question, worth pondering.
By the way, a quick review of state laws will show that states that do require some classroom instruction, some proficiency training, and/or some evidence of safety instruction or proficiency instruction for granting CCW permits outnumber those that do not--handily.
I suggest that reasonable steps toward greater uniformity could lead to greater reciprocity.
srt 10 jimbo
New member
I'm glad they do have a training class here in Florida. Since Obama has been elected , every yahoo and their sister has applied for a ccw permit. I cant Imagine turning all these people loose on the streets with out at least the basic fundamentals of firearms training. Think I would stay inside and lock the doors.
I do have to say that I'm against a legal requirement but I think its only responsible for those that are new to firearms to take a course or get some instruction from a willing and knowledgeable friend. I had safety and the legalities built into me by a former Marine who was a lawyer and consider myself lucky to have gotten such instruction at an early age. I think its up to all of us to "pay it forward" and educate others about safety (and the fun of shooting).
I must say that I didn't expect as much of a response to this question. Its an intriguing question since there are bills in the GA legislature to require training and the only reason I'd think about supporting them would be to have SC recognize a Georgia permit.
The real problem is How Much is Enough?
And, who decides that? I am decidedly against state mandated training. I am strongly in favor of training, but I do not feel that it needs to be formal.
Here he come to one of the cruxes of the issue. Your (the public's) desire to feel safe, versus the individual's burden of proving such to (supposedly) impartial authority.
You want me to prove my competence to you? Fine. Test me. I'll pass any test within sane standards. I don't have formal" training for ccw, but I have had gun safety, and have been handling firearms for over 40 years, and I know the applicable laws. Plus I did serve in the Army. Now, tell me that I have to attend X number of hours of mandatory training, before you will approve me, and we will have words on that!
The problem is also one of the slippery slope. About 35 years ago, NYS decided that some "formal" training was needed to obtain a pistol license (not ccw). The state (bureaucrats) decided that 8 hrs (classroom type) was needed. They did not fund it. NO state employees gave it, or were involved. The training was given by NRA certified volunteers. But with out it, no permits would be approved. A few years later, the state decided that 24 hrs was needed. And, predictably, as more requirements were added, the number of volunteers giving the courses declined. That was over 30 years ago, I don't know what is needed today.
Other states (at least one in the midwest) passed regs requiring "safety classes", and over time did all that they could to make the classes difficult/impossible for people to get into, thus denying them the opportunity to even apply for permits, without "denying them their rights".
Take a look at the issue of arming airline pilots after 9/11/01! Already licensed, medical examined, psychiatrically evaluated, and trusted with hundreds of passenger's lives every time they take off, the pilots were then required to jump through an extensive (and rediculous) set of hoops in order to be "approved" to be armed! So much so, that many simply didn't bother.
It matters not what the state sets for its training requirements, in the beginning they might be quite reasonable. But they are not fixed, not set in stone. They can, and have been, changed at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, state mandated training is a hugely BAD IDEA! A slippery slope, greased with the "good intentions" of the anti gunners.
So what you wind up with, as the "training requirements" get more and more restrictive, or the opportunities to take the training become reduced, are people who fall into the following classes.
1) People who are serious enough to make what ever sacrifices are necessary, and pay the cost (in time and money) to follow the letter of the laws.
2) People who find compliance too difficult, and do not carry
3) People who find compiance too difficult, and do carry anyway, risking punishment under the law.
And because those who find compliance too difficult are often those in the bottom levels of lawful society, I find the whole concept biased and predjudicial against them. I dislike the situation being applied to them, and especially dislike it being applied to me!
Knowing what you ar doing is good. It is essential to safety. But formal training, while good and useful, is not essential. People can, and do learn important things without being "schooled". I do not object to the idea of a compentency test, but again, beware the slippery slope!
And, who decides that? I am decidedly against state mandated training. I am strongly in favor of training, but I do not feel that it needs to be formal.
Here he come to one of the cruxes of the issue. Your (the public's) desire to feel safe, versus the individual's burden of proving such to (supposedly) impartial authority.
You want me to prove my competence to you? Fine. Test me. I'll pass any test within sane standards. I don't have formal" training for ccw, but I have had gun safety, and have been handling firearms for over 40 years, and I know the applicable laws. Plus I did serve in the Army. Now, tell me that I have to attend X number of hours of mandatory training, before you will approve me, and we will have words on that!
The problem is also one of the slippery slope. About 35 years ago, NYS decided that some "formal" training was needed to obtain a pistol license (not ccw). The state (bureaucrats) decided that 8 hrs (classroom type) was needed. They did not fund it. NO state employees gave it, or were involved. The training was given by NRA certified volunteers. But with out it, no permits would be approved. A few years later, the state decided that 24 hrs was needed. And, predictably, as more requirements were added, the number of volunteers giving the courses declined. That was over 30 years ago, I don't know what is needed today.
Other states (at least one in the midwest) passed regs requiring "safety classes", and over time did all that they could to make the classes difficult/impossible for people to get into, thus denying them the opportunity to even apply for permits, without "denying them their rights".
Take a look at the issue of arming airline pilots after 9/11/01! Already licensed, medical examined, psychiatrically evaluated, and trusted with hundreds of passenger's lives every time they take off, the pilots were then required to jump through an extensive (and rediculous) set of hoops in order to be "approved" to be armed! So much so, that many simply didn't bother.
It matters not what the state sets for its training requirements, in the beginning they might be quite reasonable. But they are not fixed, not set in stone. They can, and have been, changed at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, state mandated training is a hugely BAD IDEA! A slippery slope, greased with the "good intentions" of the anti gunners.
So what you wind up with, as the "training requirements" get more and more restrictive, or the opportunities to take the training become reduced, are people who fall into the following classes.
1) People who are serious enough to make what ever sacrifices are necessary, and pay the cost (in time and money) to follow the letter of the laws.
2) People who find compliance too difficult, and do not carry
3) People who find compiance too difficult, and do carry anyway, risking punishment under the law.
And because those who find compliance too difficult are often those in the bottom levels of lawful society, I find the whole concept biased and predjudicial against them. I dislike the situation being applied to them, and especially dislike it being applied to me!
Knowing what you ar doing is good. It is essential to safety. But formal training, while good and useful, is not essential. People can, and do learn important things without being "schooled". I do not object to the idea of a compentency test, but again, beware the slippery slope!
Although i can see the point of States like Indiana that require no training, VA is not too bad. Former military just have to show a discharge paper, free hunter safety courses, required for a hunting license qualify. I took a three hour course tonight that did include a little live fire, it qualifies, if you can convince the Clerk of the Court you are safe with a gun, by history of hunting or whatever, no formal training is required. As our instructor said, he tries his best but had a student come back the day after a course and shoot a hole in his shop's wall. I took my wife for just safety issues since we now have a gun and I wanted her to have a little formal training, but she can take the certificate down to the Court and file for the CPP if she wants. She liked shooting a Glock 19 (compact 9mm), I had a Glock 22 (0.40 S&W). Her first shot was right in the bulls-eye, inner ring. First time with a handgun, the rest were also better than mine.
srt 10 jimbo
New member
Same in Florida, former Military just has to show discharge papers too
I've seen this issue raised before and am a bit torn.
One one hand, owning and using a firearm should be none of the government's business ...
On the other hand, when I originally got my CHL, there was a woman in my class who brought a brand-new snubbie to class, it had NEVER even been fired and she had never shot a gun ... on the first shooting portion of the class, she flunked badly ... but rather than tell her to head for the range and practice, then come back, the instructor basically walked her through a retest of that portion and she passed, barely ... my point is that I hate the idea of that woman wandering around the street with a loaded gun in her purse ... I'm sure she's never fired another shot and still has no idea what she's doing ...
I don't object to testing and I don't object to requiring training for concealed carry for that reason. A gun is like a car; you need training and practice to operate it properly ... of course, JMHO..
One one hand, owning and using a firearm should be none of the government's business ...
On the other hand, when I originally got my CHL, there was a woman in my class who brought a brand-new snubbie to class, it had NEVER even been fired and she had never shot a gun ... on the first shooting portion of the class, she flunked badly ... but rather than tell her to head for the range and practice, then come back, the instructor basically walked her through a retest of that portion and she passed, barely ... my point is that I hate the idea of that woman wandering around the street with a loaded gun in her purse ... I'm sure she's never fired another shot and still has no idea what she's doing ...
I don't object to testing and I don't object to requiring training for concealed carry for that reason. A gun is like a car; you need training and practice to operate it properly ... of course, JMHO..