That "spray and pray" statement sounds a lot like the "the streets will run red with blood" if the Assault Weapons ban was allowed to sunset.

To answer your question, yes, it would be great if ever person who owned a firearm was proficient in it's use. I do not however, feel/believe that it should be mandatory.

More firearms are used for self defense in this country in the home than in a public place so why not make training and range time mandatory for any and all firearms purchases?

Why is it OK with you to accidentally kill or wound a family member in the home but not a stranger in public?

As far as "flames or smug remarks" go well, it is a public forum and I don't seem to be the only one who doesn't share you point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by J_B:
Is it not expected and required when LEO's and or armed Security Guards are turned loose with a firearm that they pass with at least an 80% score on a B27 silhouette target before they are allowed to carry a firearm?

No, it is neither expected nor required, The requirements for LEOs and Guards are different from state to state and agency to agency.

Well is it not required in your state when attending Hunters Ed to show proficiant use of a rifle before one passes Hunters Ed, or in Bowhunters Ed one must show proficiant use of a bow before obtaining a bowhunting certificate. Why is this a required condition of getting your hunting license in those states that require them, and why is this a requirement for all bowhunters in those states that require them.

Why then not for a CCW permit if a classroom instruction is required, then why not some range time?

Like you said, differant set of standards for differant states.

I simply voiced my concern and opinion here, not personally attacking anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by J_B:
Well is it not required in your state when attending Hunters Ed to show proficiant use of a rifle before one passes Hunters Ed, .

VA is a commonwealth, not a state but regardless the answer is NO, there is no range time. In fact, I may be wrong but I believe you can take the course online now like you can in West Virginia.

Also, I notice in your home sate of Montana the Hunters Safety Course is not a requirement for anyone born prior to January 1st, 1985. In other words if you're over 24 years of age you're grandfathered in regardless of the amount of training, or lack thereof.

http://fwp.mt.gov/education/huntereducation/huntered.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard Simmons,

quote:

I simply voiced my concern and opinion here, not personally attacking anyone.

We understood that, and I doubt anyone took it personally.

As anyone here can tell you, I tend to be grumpy and argumentative, particularly when someone begins to insist that 2A infringements are good or necessary. Take a look at the states that do not require training (PA, Vermont, etc.) and you will see that their safety record is equal to or better than states that do require training. Obviously I've not been to a state-required course, but it is my understanding from the description of others that they are pretty much useless anyway.

Shorty

As both a lifelong teacher and a lifelong student, I have felt both the frustration of not knowing how to do something, and the frustration of what appeared to be impossible students.

As a human, I guess I am doomed to be frustrated one way or the other.

Maybe the best approach is to see where learning is lacking, and to use that opportunity to take some time to pass on that which I have learned, (and seems easy to me) to one who, at present, lacks that specific knowledge.

We are all teachers at times and students at times. When we see a person that needs teaching, let us step up to the plate and, then and there, give freely of our knowledge and experience.

And maybe someday, someone will do that for us. Each little lesson my only be a drop in the bucket, but the bucket of wisdom is made up of little drops. Each drop that is missing lessens the bucket.

quote:

Originally posted by J_B:
Range time should be manditory as well as maintaining a certain score to pass for conceal carry and demonstrating that they can handle the firearm in a safe manor.

Indiana has had concealed carry for longer than any state in the west excapt maybe Washington. It requires zero training or testing and I wager that the rate of improper use of defensive handguns there is the same as those states that do have "training" and "certification".

Since YOU are the one stating that training and certification should be required before exercising a natural right as well as a constitutional one (BEAR arms...), it is incumbent upon YOU to explain away the discrepancy that exsits in your position. Namely that states with no training and certification requirements are no more unsafe than those with requirements.

Many of those states without training and/or certification requirements are FAR more densely populated than yours, I might add. So your justification that people should not be let loose armed among crowds just went out the window.

quote:

Originally posted by J_B

Richard Simmons

I see I touched on a very sore spot with you. Is it not expected and required when LEO's and or armed Security Guards are turned loose with a firearm that they pass with at least an 80% score on a B27 silhouette target before they are allowed to carry a firearm?

Let's get real, training is a necessity if one is allowed to recieve a CCW permit. This is not an encroachment of the Second Amendment, but a much needed requirment should the carrier of that firearm they are using for protection need to be used, that the bullets hit where they are intended to hit for self defense.

It is no differant than making you pass a written and driving test for getting your drivers license.

Pennsylvania has absolutely NO training required and NO range time for a PA License To Carry Firearms.

Statistically, ZERO problems!

From now on I will just keep my opionons to myself about such heated topics. Richard Simmons bowhunters are still required to certify and show proficiant handling of a bow, why is that?

Vehicle drivers are required to show proficiant handling of a vehicle, why is that.

Crane operators are required to show proficiant handling of a crane etc.... why is that as well.

My belief is still not wavered a bit as to what I feel about this. It has nothing to do with being against the 2nd Amendment.

I just felt it was common scense, as I stated about some range time. As in our state a security guard must do some range time to show his proficiant use of the firearm he is carrying to work with. As our Law Enforcement Officers are required to show that same proficiant ability to qualify to carry a firearm.

Differant states require less or more than others. I know some states are not reciprocated with Montana because of the lack of what they require to obtain conceal carry permits.

I'm sorry I caused such a stir on the board.

Just my thought -- I owned and shot (.22 rifle, old snubby .38) a little YEARS ago (like, 25 years ago). Recently decided I WANT to get my CCW permit, but haven't finished filling out my application. I went to gunrange and took instruction from an NRA Certified instructor. In the classroom side, we considered my hand size and what I wanted to shoot, discussed handling guns, loading guns, you know, all the stuff you pick up from your dad, or grampa, friend that you shoot with. Then he took me to pick which of the rental guns I would use (S&W 9mm MP), got a box of ammo and hit the range. I'm no John Wayne, but I hit the target every time but once. I was exposed to the feel of the gun, how to load it, how to use it, etc. Instructor told me that I would be able to qualify for CCW with my score if I shot that well. I did not have to take this instruction, I WANTED to.

It's my RIGHT to keep and bear, but I believe it's my RESPONSIBILTY to do so safely!

quote:

why is that?

Various reasons, some because of taxation, some because of liability, but the single biggest reason that drivers and crane operators and even bow hunters are required to pass proficiency test is that there is no constitutional amendment that protects them.

Driving licenses are required not for safety reasons (having one doesn't prevent accidents) but for taxing and tracking reasons. If passing a rigorous driving test prevented accidents then the test would be a lot more difficult than it is. You can tell how seriously society really regards a drivers license as a safety measure by how easy it is to get one and how hard it is to take one away from a poor driver.

Shorty

Because "driving is a privilege and not a right" so the state tries to make you feel you had to earn that privilege and as such it can be taken away at any time.

Do you want them doing that with your guns?

quote:

"Oh, I've never shot it", he replied. "NEVER" I asked incredulously. "No", he replied "I just haven't got around to it yet".

That isn't any different than the multitudes that carry the expensive PD ammo and never fired a shot with it. When asked about it, they reply: "What, do you know how much this stuff costs?" Real pistoleros.....

quote:

Originally posted by shortranger:

As anyone here can tell you, I tend to be grumpy and argumentative...

Somebody write that down on the calender and highlight it! It's finally happened...


Smitty

quote:

Originally posted by J_B:
From now on I will just keep my opionons to myself about such heated topics. Richard Simmons bowhunters are still required to certify and show proficiant handling of a bow, why is that?

Vehicle drivers are required to show proficiant handling of a vehicle, why is that.

......and understand, J_B no one hates you here. We just stand in polite disagreement.

Crane operators are required to show proficiant handling of a crane etc.... why is that as well.

My belief is still not wavered a bit as to what I feel about this. It has nothing to do with being against the 2nd Amendment.

You are taking a position that contradicts the Second Ammendment, so it stands to reason that you are, at least to some extent in opposition to the Second Ammendment. As Shorty and Barb have stated, the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected, God given right. Operating a crane, driving a car and hunting are not rights, and are not recognized as such by the Constitution.

I took the required course of instruction in the classroom and on the range, as well as passing the shooting qualification that the State of Michigan requires, and I'm glad I did, but I highly resent the abridgement of my civil rights that such licensing requirements amount to. I would advise those of you in less stringent states than mine to take the NRA's excellent Personal Defense in the Home course from a thorough and qualified instructor because the head knowledge could save you from serious legal repercussions, but no one should be required to do so. If people want to pass those kind of unconstitutional carry/licensing laws they should first ammend the Constitution rather than create legal bullshit.